Hansard -- Wednesday, September 21, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 12 (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		223

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		224
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)
	North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 7)
	Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8)
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		225
	Langley Family Services
	M. Polak
	First nations and mountain pine beetle strategy
	B. Simpson
	Mining industry in B.C.
	D. MacKay
	Events in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows area
	M. Sather
	Union of B.C. Municipalities
	R. Hawes
	International Day of Peace
	G. Gentner

Oral Questions		227
	Funding of aboriginal planning committees for child and family services
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Funding for aboriginal child protection on Vancouver Island
	S. Fraser
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Review of death of Sherry Charlie
	J. Horgan
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Karagianis
	R. Fleming
	L. Krog
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Independence of child and youth officer
	D. Thorne
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Farnworth
	Aquaculture on north coast
	G. Coons
	Hon. P. Bell

Tabling Documents		232
	Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2004

Second Reading of Bills		232
	Supply Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 5)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Kwan
	J. Horgan

Budget Debate (continued)		236
	J. Brar
	G. Robertson
	H. Bloy
	S. Fraser
	Hon. S. Bond

C. James: It is my joy — no pun intended — to introduce our guest here in the Legislature today — a guest that, in fact, needs no introduction: a former leader of our party, a former MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, and someone whose presence will always be felt in this House. I just want to reassure the members on the other side — to let you know that I did talk to her about the new kind of tone in the Legislature before she came in today. So I would like all of us to please give a warm welcome to Joy MacPhail.

Hon. G. Campbell: Actually, that's exactly what I was going to say to the Leader of the Opposition.

I recognize also that former Premier Dan Miller joins us today. It is important for both Mr. Miller and Ms. MacPhail, who when they were sitting on this side of the House were very aggressive, to know those are the quiet seats for today.

I should say on behalf of this side of the House that in spite of the fact that we often had disagreements, we recognize the contributions that both of them have made, and we hope that they'll come back regularly.

B. Simpson: On behalf of my colleague the member for Cariboo South, I would like to welcome Rob Taylor today. Rob is a grades four and five teacher from Nesika Elementary in Williams Lake, and he's also a member of the BCTF Professional Issues Advisory Committee. I would like the members of the House to make Rob feel welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: In the House today there are approximately 95 representatives from B.C.'s mining industry. I won't introduce all of them. From the Mining Association of B.C.: the chairman, Mr. Terry Lyons; the president and CEO, Mr. Michael McPhie. We have some representatives from the mining supply companies. There's Dave Sharples from Transwest Mining, Gerry West of Molycop Canada and Penny Alms from B.C. Bearing.

We have also with us from mining communities Councillor Roy Grant from Campbell River, Mayor Jack Peake from Lake Cowichan and some first nations representatives: Chief Gerry Asp; Chief Robert Pollard; Jodie Dick, who's from the Campbell River band; and Chief Stan Dixon from the Sechelt Indian band. Please help me make all these folks welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the gallery today is Rick Ferguson from Merritt. Rick Ferguson is a good friend of mine. He's also been past president of the Nicola Valley Teachers Union there. Presently he is teaching at the directed studies school in Merritt. Would the House please give a warm Victoria welcome to my friend Rick Ferguson.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Dr. Don Nixdorf, who is the executive director of the B.C. Chiropractic Association. I understand that Mr. Nixdorf has held that position for some 20 years, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.

D. Cubberley: With us today in the gallery is Ann-Louise McFarland, who is a resident of my constituency, Saanich South. She is a French immersion teacher and department head at Stelly's Secondary, which members know was recently named as one of the top ten schools in Canada on the Maclean's list. She is also a member of the BCTF Professional Issues Advisory Committee and co-chair of the provincial specialist association. Would the House join me in making her welcome today.

R. Lee: Today I would like to introduce the International Presidents and Directors of ISE Cards. They have travelled from the U.S.A., Spain, Korea and Australia to be here with us today.

ISE Cards is an international student exchange identity card which maintains membership with a variety of organizations dedicated to assisting students and full-time faculty members in a variety of ways, including travel and emergency medical support. Memberships include the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, and it's a supporter of UNICEF.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Franz Jost, Cammi Hawker, Niles Hawker, Shawnna Wishman, Sarah Horton, Ignazio Imaz, Richard Weibelzahl, Allyson Weibelzahl, Joon Sung Han, Sunhee Kang and Andrew Piercey.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce to you a fellow resident of Columbia River–Revelstoke and a fellow educator. Bob Wilson is here to speak with members on education issues as a representative of the BCTF. I know him as a long-time-serving member of the Golden Teachers Association Professional Development Committee. Would the House join me in making him feel welcome, please.

B. Lekstrom: It is certainly a day full of introductions. It's my pleasure today to welcome a guest from the wonderful riding of Peace River South and my hometown of Dawson Creek. Charlene Hodgson is down all the way from the beautiful Peace country. Will the House please make her welcome.

D. Routley: Visiting us in the House today are members from the Cowichan Valley Red Hat Belles Society. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.

G. Hogg: We have two special guests in the House today. One is special not just because he's from Surrey, but he's celebrating his birthday today. What better way to celebrate your birthday than to come to the

House and to bring your mother? Would the House please welcome Kevin Wilson and his mother Sherrill Wilson from Calgary.

D. Chudnovsky: I've noticed a number of other teachers in the House today — three people who have given great service to the children of B.C. and are also very good friends of mine. Would the House please welcome Michael Schratter, Marion Runcie and Geoff Peters.

Hon. P. Bell: It's such a joy to see all of our friends from the mining industry here today. It brings back many fond memories. But of particular note, from Prince George, I'd like to welcome David Livingston to the House. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

C. Evans: On behalf of our leader and the opposition caucus, I'd like to express our welcome to the members of the Mining Association. Thanks for the visit we had earlier today. As a representative from towns like Kaslo, Silverton, New Denver and Nelson, which would not exist without the mining industry, I'd like to say thanks for helping me get a job.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Alice Ethier. Some 40 years ago she had the good fortune to give birth to a son David and the misfortune to have to put up with his friends for the next 20 or 30 years. She's here with the Red Hatters group. I hope members will make her and her group feel very welcome.

Also, I notice in the House today — he was here a couple of days ago, and we neglected to draw that to members' attention — a certain legislative officer, Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner. He is one individual that none of us wants to offend. I would like to welcome him here and thank him for his years of service and continued service to all members of the House.

J. Horgan: I realize the Premier has already made this introduction, but I didn't want to miss the opportunity to say that the first time I was in this House, I was passing notes to the former member for North Coast to make him look good. Now I see him here today, and I'm hopeful it's not for him to pass me notes for the same reason. Good to see you.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 6 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005. With this bill the northern development initiative trust legislation is being amended to improve the initiative's public accountability and governance. Provision is made to include agriculture within the sectors eligible to receive development funding through the initiative's cross-regional account. The bill also enables $50 million in additional northern development initiative funding, which includes $30 million for recovery projects to help northern communities mitigate the effects of the mountain pine beetle infestation and $20 million divided equally amongst the four northern development initiative regional accounts located in the Peace, Prince George, northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions for development projects.

The government has made it a priority to help diversify the economy of northern British Columbia through the northern development initiative. The investments that northern British Columbians make with the moneys will help to generate economic growth in northern B.C. for many generations to come.

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

Bill 6, Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce Bill 7, the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act. The bill establishes a new $50 million trust independent of government for communities located north of the Malahat on Vancouver Island and on the Sunshine Coast.

Its purpose is to support strategic investments in regional priorities to increase economic growth and create more jobs for families. Under the act the trust will function as a corporation with regional advisory committees and a trust board to manage and administer the regional account to support investment in the following areas: forestry, transportation, tourism, mining, Olympic opportunities, small business, economic development, energy and agriculture.

The government funding provision to the north island–coast development initiative is a one-time allocation of $50 million. The new trust is about giving communities the resources and tools they want to pursue their priorities. The residents of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast will have control of the initiative. They will identify the opportunities and make decisions, and they will reap the economic benefits with more jobs and a stronger sustainable economy.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 8, which is the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act.

With this bill we are delivering on our commitment to establish a $50 million development initiative trust independent of government for communities located in the southern interior. This government funding provision is also a one-time allocation of $50 million to help the southern interior create regional economic growth and jobs based on local priorities. It is the southern interior communities who will invest in, manage and leverage the funds to the benefit of their region.

Under the act, the trust will function free of political interference as a corporation with regional advisory committees and a trust board, as was the case in the other fund, and again, to provide support in investments in the same areas: forestry, transportation, tourism, mining, Olympic opportunities, small business, economic development, energy and agriculture.

The southern interior development initiative is part of a series of new measures to re-invest $300 million into opportunities across British Columbia. The economic investments made by the southern interior communities through the initiative trust will generate significant economic growth throughout this region for many generations to come.

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

Bill 8, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm introducing Bill 9, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005. Amendments contained in this act help TransLink implement its strategic transportation plan. TransLink was created in 1998 and is responsible for the provision of public transportation infrastructure and services in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, which is TransLink's enabling legislation, also introduced in 1998, provides for a variety of revenue sources for TransLink, including a parking-area tax, all of which support public transit operations and system improvements.

In 2003 TransLink approached the province and asked that the parking-area tax provisions of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act be amended to correct deficiencies in authority, structure and process contained in the original act when enacted in 1998. To do this, certain amendments were enacted last fall creating a parking site role for B.C. Assessment. The remaining amendments contained in Bill 9 complete the legal framework necessary for TransLink to proceed with the implementation of the parking-area tax at their discretion.

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

Bill 9, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Polak: Today I want to tell the members of the House about a wonderful organization in the riding of Langley, which I serve, that has had the opportunity to take a terrible tragedy in the summer, and by now, in the fall, turn it into a real triumph.

On June 23 my cell phone went off about seven in the morning and a very frazzled president of Langley Family Services advised me that the main building in their complex was, at that moment, burning to the ground. I hopped in my car, looking a little bit dishevelled, and made it out to find a group of us standing around looking at the destruction and realizing that that morning there would be a large number of families and other people in need who would be looking for the continued services that Langley Family Services provides.

In fact, for the past 24 years Langley Family Services has been providing counselling and support to families in the Langley area with a wide range of services, such as ESL and multicultural programs, drug addiction counselling and a very popular family place drop-in centre.

I'm pleased to report to the House that within a few short hours the president, the board of directors and the executive director of Langley Family Services had acted quickly enough that by the end of that day they had a location where they could operate, and they were beginning to raise funds within the community. Working together with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, this government was able to step in with an emergency grant of $37,928 to help with that recovery.

They have now launched a major fundraising drive for $500,000 by selling bricks that they hope to resemble the rebuilding that will take place on their site. I hope they have the best success possible with their fundraising efforts. I'm confident the community of Langley is behind them and that they will succeed. I hope the House would congratulate them on taking a tragedy and indeed turning it into a triumph.

B. Simpson: This past Monday the hon. member for Alberni-Qualicum and I were privileged to attend the first nations conference on the mountain pine beetle epidemic in Prince George. The major impetus for the Carrier Sekani tribal council to convene this emergency forum was the provincial government's failure to consult with them on the government's plan for the spending of the $100 million in federal funds. Rather than consulting with them on what the money might be used for, the provincial government came to the tribal council with a draft plan which had little to offer first nations communities in direct assistance.

Therefore, one of the major objectives of the first nations emergency forum was to: "provide immediate recommendations on the provincial government's draft plan for the $100 million in federal aid."

Unfortunately for the 69 nations and eight first nations organizations' representatives who gathered in good faith to develop these recommendations, the government announced its plan for the federal $100 million on Monday morning, a mere two hours into the forum.

B.C.'s first nations are deeply concerned about the spiritual, economic and community impacts of the current mountain pine beetle infestation. They have a unique perspective with which to frame an appropriate response, a perspective steeped in history which takes a longer view of our relationship with the ecosystems upon which we all depend, a perspective which must be heard and must be incorporated into any actions we take to address the impacts of this forest health challenge.

The emergency forum wrapped up yesterday with commitments from members of this government that first nations will now be listened to and supported in their endeavours to address the mountain pine beetles' impacts on their communities. I was happy to attend this conference with my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum and to be able to give those gathered our assurance that the entire opposition caucus will be hearing their voices and echoing them back to this government.

D. MacKay: One of the five great goals of this B.C. Liberal government is to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. We have done that. More jobs means a stronger B.C. economy to support our communities and families. Under the NDP government during the '90s the mining industry was decimated. During that time the number of mining jobs in the province was cut in half, and for every mine that was opened in B.C., two closed.

This government will not allow the mining industry to fall back to such a deplorable state. To help the mining industry move forward, this Liberal government unveiled the B.C. mining plan. The mining plan is based on four cornerstones: a focus on aboriginals and communities, protection of workers and the environment, and increasing both global competitiveness and access to land.

Mining is a $4.5 billion industry that employs 25,500 British Columbians. For some small and rural towns the mining industry is a dominant part of the local economies. Furthermore, mining is among the safest heavy industries, having the best safety record in B.C. for eight of the past ten years.

Today, Wednesday, September 21, is Mining Day. We will be meeting with industry representatives later. I urge everyone to take advantage of this opportunity to move the mining industry forward in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that we want to be as non-partisan as possible in these two-minute statements.

M. Sather: In a non-partisan vein, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are just wrapping up their 101 days of summer celebration. This celebration, which is organized by Tourism Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, features 101 events and ideas to do during June 17 to September 25. On September 17 the Meadow Ridge Rotary

Club held their tenth annual wine festival, featuring over 60 fine wines, paired with cuisine from top local chefs. Included were wines from our very own Blue Heron Winery.

Also on September 17 the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre, which is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year, held the first annual spin relay for athletes in kind. This fundraiser goes to support families battling cancer.

Like many communities around the nation, we, too, held our annual Terry Fox Run on September 18. According to organizers, this year's run was the most successful to date in terms of runners registered and money raised.

B.C. Rivers Day is a big celebration in our community. There are celebrations taking place on September 25 at Elko and Kanaka Creek regional parks. That day will also mark the official start of the Whonnock Fall Fair.

Cranberry Day will be celebrated on October 8 at the Meadows Maze. This celebration marks the gathering of the last berries of the season. The Meadows Maze is a corn maze out in Pitt Meadows. It's a big tourist attraction. Please do come out and see it.

Finally, fall would not be the same in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows without our traditional pumpkin patch. The Laity pumpkin patch will be open from October 1 to 31, and Heather and Don Laity do a great job. It's a wonderful rural event that you can take advantage of, even if you live in the city of Vancouver. We welcome you to all come out and get your pumpkin.

R. Hawes: This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There are many members on both sides of the House who have served at the municipal level as mayors, councillors, regional district chairs and regional district directors. Every single one of us knows the value of UBCM to the people of this province. Our Premier served as the president of UBCM in 1992-1993 and, along with all former presidents, has been honoured with a lifetime membership.

Each year UBCM holds its annual convention, bringing together elected officials from across the province to debate resolutions and share ideas. Local issues are discussed in meetings between members of cabinet and municipal officials, and there is a much broader exchange and discussion of ideas and policy between provincial and municipal governments.

This year's convention will be held in Vancouver next week, during which the 100th anniversary will be celebrated. For me personally, this is my 14th convention, and after attending from both the municipal and provincial perspective, I understand firsthand the value of UBCM to both levels of government.

Just a few of the achievements of UBCM are recognition of local government as an order of government, a first in Canada; the Community Charter; a variable tax rate system; MIA, or the Municipal Insurance Association of B.C., which was founded under UBCM; three-year election cycles; the Premier's directive that Crown corporations will respect local zoning and land use bylaws; and a 20-year RCMP contract renewal. Those are just a few of the many accomplishments of UBCM.

I want to congratulate UBCM on its 100th anniversary, and I look forward to meeting next week with many of my former municipal colleagues and friends, just as many members in this House are. I know that this year, like other years, will yield great progress in building a better British Columbia for all the citizens of this province.

G. Gentner: Today has been identified by the United Nations as International Day of Peace. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is calling for the worldwide observance of a 24-hour ceasefire and a day of non-violence.

The International Day of Peace was first established in 1981 by the UN to coincide with its opening session every September. Today observances are being conducted by United Nations offices, general government and non-governmental agencies worldwide, civil societies and religious groups to promote the ideals of peace and non-violence.

In British Columbia we are somewhat detached from the horrors of global violence. Yes, TV has brought home hostilities from abroad to our living rooms, but we observe only a tiny broadcast of what really is happening. For example, Africa, the forgotten continent, is undergoing atrocities of nightmarish proportions. The Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Northern Uganda, Mozambique, Malawi and Congo — one of the richest resource nations on earth, I may add — all witness daily the carnage of villages, rapes, terrorized children forced into camps and into battle, torture, unspeakable human rights violations and yes, even western-supported assassinations.

I ask the members to indulge for just one moment in acknowledging today as the International Day of Peace.

C. James: Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell us what impact a 66-percent reduction for the aboriginal planning committees has had on their ability to oversee and plan for child welfare in their communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm very thankful that I have an excellent aboriginal planning committee that offers me advice on all issues that we deal with involving aboriginal children and their families. I can tell you that we

are working very closely with the regional authorities to make sure that they have the resources they need. My deputy is in contact, as we speak, with the authority that I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, to see if we can work out the differences that we have.

But having said that, I met just within the last two weeks with a very senior level of advisory folks from the aboriginal community. I would like to tell the House and the province of British Columbia that the relationship has never been better.

C. James: I'd just like to provide more information to the minister in case he's not aware of this. In March of last year your government wrote to the aboriginal planning committee chairs and informed them that their transition budget in 2004 would be "significantly reduced." How does that build a good relationship? The effect was a 66-percent reduction for those planning committees.

So again, I would like to ask the minister: was he aware that the aboriginal planning committees had had their budgets cut by 66 percent?

Hon. S. Hagen: The budget increase for the family accord is $105,000 for the year '05-06.

C. James: That doesn't make up for the cuts that that minister, from his ministry, included in a letter to the aboriginal chairs. So I'd like to try a different approach then.

In 2002 in September the Premier signed a memorandum of understanding with aboriginal communities on child welfare. I certainly remember that meeting, having been there. I'm sure the Premier remembers that meeting as well. I'd like to quote from that agreement: "Aboriginal communities require support, including the necessary capacity and resources to enable them to develop and deliver a full range of child and family services."

As we heard in the letter to aboriginal planning committees, the Premier has reneged on that commitment. So I'd like to ask the Premier: how can he have confidence that the children won't be put at risk because of his government's budget cuts?

Hon. S. Hagen: The accord that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about is one that we're now looking at renewing. But you know what? We have a new relationship with first nations now and the aboriginal community around the province, and that's what's driving us. We're totally committed to working with the aboriginal community with regard to children and families and all other issues — education, health care. We are working more closely with that community than ever before.

We just announced a huge amount of money in the new budget for working with first nations to help them build capacity. So that work is ongoing. It's a work in progress; it's not a light switch you turn on and off. We're working together with the aboriginal community to get to the goals that we've set.

S. Fraser: Again to the minister. The budget for the aboriginal transition committee on Vancouver Island has been cut by two-thirds. What evidence can the minister provide that shows the cuts won't hurt aboriginal child welfare on Vancouver Island?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said previously, we're working together with all of the regions to make sure that we have a plan and to make sure that we have the resources to carry out that plan.

To the minister: there is no evidence shown, because quality child welfare is not a priority. On Vancouver Island the ministry's own budget, including child protection, was hit very hard. Overall, a $90 million budget was cut over the three years. We've just found out that on Vancouver Island we're going to suffer another million-dollar loss in the next few months. That's creating chaos. There are too few front-line workers, and there are too many files.

Will the minister get his priorities straight and allow an investigation into the impact that these cuts are having on the people in my communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to assure the people of British Columbia that the item that's the top of mind for me and at the top of my agenda is child protection for the children who I'm responsible for. This ministry's budget over the next three years is being increased by $138 million. I would draw the member's attention to our three-year moving service plan. We have a plan in place. We have the resources to carry out that plan.

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Attorney General said in question period: "I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and recommendations." The Attorney General made that comment despite the fact that the key question that was removed from the review investigation is not contained in these terms of reference.

My question is to the Attorney General. Would he agree that this review is more about political expediency than getting to the bottom of why this system failed Sherry Charlie?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have, in addition to the letter — the remarks, the directions that were given to the child

and youth officer — added another paragraph, and I did that after listening to the debate here. I want to assure the hon. member that I'm interested here in a full disclosure.

This is a terrible tragedy that's taken place. I think all members of this House have to be interested in ensuring that something like this doesn't happen again. I could assure the hon. member that as the chief law officer of the province I want to make sure there is a full and comprehensive study, and a review and recommendations by the officer.

What I've done, in addition to the remarks that you heard yesterday, is included the following in the letter to the child and youth office. That is: "If, in the course of conducting your investigation, you determine that the time lines and the change in the terms of reference materially affected the outcome of the director's case review, I would ask you to review how the outcome was materially affected and make recommendations to address any such impacts." The import of that is to give full and comprehensive authority to the officer to give us a full report as to what took place so that an incident of this proportion does not take place again.

J. Horgan: Again to the Attorney General. I'm pleased that he, after listening ad nauseam to the minister repeat his three-line message box, has added some substance to the letter. We'd like to see that. I look forward to reading the document.

My question is to the Attorney General. Was it after question period yesterday that you resolved to get involved in this file? Did you take the initiative on establishing this review, or were you taking direction from somewhere else?

Hon. W. Oppal: I listened to all of the advice that I received here in the House. I don't think, with the greatest of respect, that this is a partisan issue. I think this is an issue that all of us ought to be concerned with. Based on that, I took it upon myself, in full consultation with the minister and with other members of my caucus, to include this in my directions to the officer.

M. Karagianis: I think the previous member's question was quite simple. It is the Attorney General's responsibility to take the initiative under section 6 of the act. My question is: who wrote the terms of reference? Was it the Minister of Children and Family Development? Was it the Attorney General? Or was it the Premier's office?

Hon. W. Oppal: Section 6 of the act empowers me to write the letter and to give directions and ask for further clarifications. Pursuant that statute, I have done that.

M. Karagianis: If this review is about more than politics, the child and family youth officer could be tasked with asking the question that was removed from the investigation in the first place: the role of the ministry and the budget cuts. Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development told the media that he wrote the terms of reference for the new review. If the Attorney General is the one with the legislative authority over the children and youth officer, why did he, then, not set the terms of reference for this review?

Hon. W. Oppal: The statute empowers me to set the terms of reference. The hon. member's point is well taken about political issues involved, and that's why we've taken the unprecedented step here of inviting a member of the opposition to take part in the review.

R. Fleming: Let's go back to yesterday. I have a question for the Attorney General, who was a guest on the Rafe Mair Show. Mr. Mair asked the Attorney General about the Sherry Charlie case, and the Attorney General said: "I'm sorry. You'll have to refresh my memory on that again." That was his answer. The Attorney then apologized for avoiding questions about the case because they were not in his area of responsibility. That was his answer.

That was yesterday at 9:30 in the morning, but by 2 p.m. the Attorney General had ordered a review. My question is: what time of day did the Attorney General get briefed on the proposed review? And who told him what the questions would be?

Hon. W. Oppal: Nobody told me what the questions would be. As a matter of fact, to be quite frank, I didn't hear Mr. Mair's question when he first asked me that, and then I asked for a clarification. I didn't know the full ambit of what was going on. Then I briefed myself, and no one told me what to say. I'm fully capable of deciding these issues on my own.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Children and Family Development told this House yesterday several times that he wrote the guidelines for the review. It's clear that the Attorney General did not create the guidelines for the review — as is his responsibility. Did the Attorney General meet with the Premier's issues management team, and what was their direction?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would suggest to the hon. member that he read the act. If you read the act, it's the Attorney General who makes these directions.

L. Krog: The Attorney General in British Columbia should function with complete detachment and independence in matters of this nature. What I've heard today is that there has been a great deal of consultation around this issue. I would commend to the Attorney General a lecture given by a predecessor, Brian Smith, QC, the former Attorney General and member from Oak Bay. In this case it is evident that this review was created for political purposes only. Where was the At-

torney General's detachment and independence when he took instructions from a minister under political heat and the Premier's issues management team?

Hon. W. Oppal: I reviewed the file. I was asked, and as a law enforcement officer I took the necessary steps. That was done in an independent manner. I'll reiterate: this is not a partisan political issue. The opposition may want to turn it into that to make points, but this is about a child who died tragically. I want to get some of the answers, and I'm sure the opposition does as well.

L. Krog: Everyone on this side of the House agrees with the Attorney General. This is a non-partisan issue when it comes to the death of a child. However, it is a serious issue as to how this government handled it and what those budget cuts had to do with that issue.

It is even more important that the child and youth officer should have complete independence from the Attorney General, without any interference from any ministry. How can we have confidence in the words of the Attorney General when the Attorney General himself wasn't free from political interference in this matter? Why was this review created by an issues management team and a minister under political heat and not by the detached and independent Attorney General?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would recommend to the hon. member that he read the act. If he read the terms and the workings of the child and youth officer, the hon. member would know that that office is completely independent. There is no suggestion at all of any type of interference. In fact, she has a full and unfettered right to subpoena witnesses, to make recommendations and to conduct any investigations that she so wishes.

Ms. Morley is a highly respected person in this field, well known for her integrity and her independence. There is nothing anywhere in the evidence to suggest that she is not independent or that her independence was compromised in any way during this investigation or in any other investigation.

J. Kwan: It is not the case that the opposition is questioning the integrity of Ms. Morley. The opposition is, however, questioning the integrity of this government. If the Attorney General believes that we need to get to the bottom of this issue and that it is a non-partisan issue, then expand the scope of the review. We have just learned that the civil servant who wrote the original terms of reference, and had altered the terms of reference, had spoken to the media outlet.

He and the current assistant deputy minister may disagree on whether the original terms of reference were broad enough to encompass ministry cuts and their impact. But one thing is clear: he says a review of cuts is critical for the protection of children in this province. Does the Minister of Children and Family Development disagree with David Young, or will he now, in light of this revelation, agree to expand the scope of the review? It was the Minister of Children and Family Development yesterday who said he drew up the terms of reference for this new review.

Hon. W. Oppal: The act is clear as to what the authority of the Attorney General is. I have expanded the terms of reference so much that we have included a member of the opposition. The opposition critic is involved, as well as a member of the aboriginal community. If you look carefully at the additional paragraph, one can easily see that the child and youth officer has extremely wide parameters and a very wide discretion to do what she thinks ought to be done for a full, proper and fair investigation.

J. Kwan: Yes, the act is clear. But you know what? The action taken by this government to date is as clear as mud. Let us be clear, and let me quote David Young: "Should one do a review of the impact of all the changes going on in the ministry and the budget reductions we were facing and the impact that had on practice in general? I think that would be an excellent idea." Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will he just stop this charade, accept responsibility for the chaos in his ministry and expand the terms of reference like he should have done the first time around?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I need to correct the Finance critic from the other side of the House. In the year in question the budget for child protection actually went up. We actually spent $57.4 million more than we did the year before.

Hon. S. Hagen: …that are going to be asked. The role of the child and youth officer has been expanded, as the Attorney General has pointed out. It has been fully expanded to look at all aspects of this. We're looking for the answers to the question. We're not afraid of asking the tough questions, because we're not afraid of the answers. That's what the Attorney General has asked the child and youth officer to do.

Let's not forget what we're talking about here. We're talking about the tragic death of a child. I would

echo the Attorney General: please don't make this into a partisan issue just to score political points.

Hon. S. Hagen: This is a serious issue. We don't want to have these things happening in British Columbia. Even though this happened three years ago, we're still now engaged in it. We're still improving the practices of the ministry. I might add that even though the terms of reference were changed by a staff member in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, of the 12 recommendations brought forward in the director's review, nine of them pertained to improvements that needed to be made in the ministry.

D. Thorne: Everything the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Attorney General have said so far today highlights the need for the restoration of an independent children's commissioner with a mandate to act independently.

The child and youth officer of British Columbia is bound by the instructions of the Attorney General. We know that she does not have the mandate to answer any questions except those that the minister writes for her. This review is not independent. If it was, it would let this child and youth officer define the scope of the review herself and address any issues in this case, including budget cuts to the ministry. Why does this government refuse to reinstate the fully independent Children's Commission of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can assure the hon. member that the officer is independent. She operates completely independently. She has her own powers of investigation. She can subpoena records; she can subpoena witnesses. She has an unfettered right to do that. No one interferes in what she says, what her recommendations are. She has that right.

Her objective is to find the truth. How can we make the system better? That's what her objective is. I can assure the hon. member that nobody from this side of the House has interfered in her investigation. Because of the questions that were raised, we will order this expanded review.

D. Thorne: Here's the reality. The former children's commissioner would have done a truly independent investigation into Sherry Charlie's death. The terms of reference would never have been changed. This second review would never have been needed. If the child and youth officer of British Columbia has an independent mandate, as the minister claims, why did he set this narrow scope for this new review?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again I reiterate: the scope is not narrow. If the hon. member would take the time to read the additional paragraph that I read to the House today, one could easily see that it's not narrow. It has a very wide scope. It gives the officer complete discretion to do practically what she wants. You speak of a lack of independence. There's no interference.

I also want to assure the member that there's going to be a coroner's review in this as well. A coroner will have an independent outlook and an independent recommendation after conducting whatever review he or she will do.

We are interested in finding out what happened. I can tell you that I am passionately concerned about what happened in this particular case.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General has said some interesting things. He says: "Practically anything that she wants." Earlier, he said: "I want to get some of the answers." Well, the people of British Columbia want all of the answers.

We have seen how yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development could not answer the questions directed at him. We have seen how the Attorney General has said that there is independence but it deals with practically anything. We have heard how he has said that they want some of the answers. We have seen how the Premier's damage control unit stepped in to try and get some control of the situation.

So our question is to the Premier. There is one way to resolve this, and that is to restore a fully independent children's commissioner. Will the Premier commit to that to this House today?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thought when I'd left the legal profession that I'd left all the nitpickers behind. When I meant the word "practically," I mean that within the ambit of the statute. Nobody can do whatever they want. This is not a full royal commission. What I mean by "practically" is those things that are feasible within the statute and within the meaning of our law.

When I said "some of the answers," what I meant by that — and I would have thought any person would have logically construed it that way — is that we have a lot of the answers. But there are certain issues that are obviously unresolved and certain issues that need to be dealt with, and that's the purpose of the review.

To the Attorney General: I'm no lawyer, but I know law is about language. It's about the specifics of lan-

guage, and words have specific meanings. "Practically" has a specific meaning, and "some of the answers" has a specific meaning, and that is not "all of the answers."

So my question again is: will the Premier restore a fully independent children's commissioner that does not need to operate only under the authority that is granted under the AG's direction?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think my words are clear, and a reasonable interpretation of my words is clear. We do want all the answers. We want a full review of it. That's why we put this extra paragraph in, so that the child and youth officer can look at those words and decide what she wants in the fairness of the investigation. I think that's quite clear in any logical interpretation of the words that I've sent to her.

G. Coons: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell this House if there is a decision pending approval of a finfish aquaculture site at the Strouts Point on the Ogden Channel on the North Coast in the approaches of the Skeena River?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know that there is a decision pending. It is currently with the statutory decision-maker. It is a fairly lengthy process that we go through. I can tell you that this government is very proud of the role that we're taking in trying to be more innovative with finfish aquaculture.

We've previously committed to the $5 million Pacific Salmon Forum — a real innovation — with the hon. John Fraser. We've actually asked the opposition to chair a special legislative committee to ensure that this aquaculture file has a real thorough look and to bring forward innovative approaches. This is unprecedented.

This is with a statutory decision-maker. We should be very clear with that. It is a very lengthy process that we have to go through, and we think we'll get the right decision at the end of it.

G. Coons: The vast majority of the residents of the North Coast are strongly opposed to open-net farms because of the threats they pose to our wild stocks. I'd like to ask the minister: why would he approve fish-farm sites when so many people have valid concerns about the wild stocks?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know that there are many varied opinions on aquaculture in this province. In fact, his house leader, the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, said just a few days ago on CKNW that he thinks the committee should do its work and report out before any final decisions are made. I would suggest the member talk to his house leader.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, I'm pleased to table the 2004 annual report for the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Mr. Speaker: If the minister would just wait a second while some other members attend to other business.

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section of the bill requests 2/12 of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The sum requested is in addition to the amount authorized under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2005, as we anticipate that the authority under the existing interim supply will be exhausted before the estimates debate has been completed.

Section 2 of the supply bill requests two-thirds of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates. The first interim supply also sought supply for two-thirds of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and investments. However, this bill seeks two-thirds of the requirements based on the estimates tabled on September 14, 2005. This request also includes the amount authorized under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2005.

The third section repeals section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2005, which authorized 100 percent of the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities and replaces it with 100 percent of the year's disbursements, which will appear in schedule F of the September 14, 2005, estimates. Because we're repealing the authorization under Supply Act (No. 1), 2005, this request includes any amounts paid under that section.

J. Kwan: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Supply Act. As the Minister of Finance noted yesterday, this act will allow the government to continue spending on government programs while the budget estimates are debated and voted upon by this House. What the Minister of Finance neglected to mention, however, is that

this is a significant departure from the way this House normally conducts its business.

Now, I'll have to say this, and I will recognize that this process was initiated by the former Minister of Finance, who is now the Minister of Economic Development. It was the government prior to the election, many of whom are sitting here today, who had every opportunity to debate the budget line by line before the election. But that didn't happen. They simply chose not to do that. We would not be debating this bill today. This bill would be completely unnecessary, and we would not have interim supply for an unprecedented eight months into the fiscal year had the government allowed for a full debate on the budget before the provincial election.

As members are no doubt aware, interim supply is traditionally introduced prior to the end of the fiscal year so that government can carry out its operations for the first two or three months of the coming fiscal year. We're doing this backwards.

Members can then get on with their constitutional responsibility of scrutinizing the spending plans of government; that is, they get on with the very basis of our democratic system. Not a dime is to be collected through taxation or spent through appropriation without the approval of the Legislature.

But this is not the first time some of the members sitting opposite have avoided scrutiny of their budget by bringing in months — months, I would say — of interim supply before an election. A couple of members opposite will recall the end of the Social Credit government in 1991. No debate on the budget, and months of an interim supply bill. In fact, they have the record on it, and that's clear.

Some of them have returned to this Legislature with a different name, wearing a different hat. They were there last spring as well. Sure enough, no debate, and six months of an interim supply bill. Here we are now. If you add up all of those months together, that's eight months. Eight months of interim supply bill with no scrutiny from British Columbians of the spending priorities of this government.

The first time an interim supply bill was introduced this year, as members of this House well know, was before the provincial election and well before the end of the previous fiscal year. It allowed for government spending of public moneys for six months from April 1, 2005, until September 30, 2005, a total amount of $13 billion. Not a small sum — and not just change in people's pockets, I might add. This happened despite there being ample time, between the budget being introduced on February 15 and the dissolution of parliament on April 18, to fully scrutinize the budget estimates.

Indeed, the opposition members offered not once but twice to ensure that the estimates pass before the election. We even offered to debate the estimates and pass the budget by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, completely eliminating the need to even have interim supply. The offer was made time and again by this side of the House. That would have allowed British Columbians to have full and complete scrutiny of the 2005-2006 budget before the election.

Now we're in the situation of being six months into the fiscal year with no scrutiny of government spending and no debate on what British Columbians' priorities are. But I must say that's exactly what this government wanted. They wanted to go into an election campaign with no scrutiny around their spending.

Perhaps close scrutiny of the budget prior to the election would have revealed that their election promise to build 5,000 new long-term care beds was not fully funded in the budget. Perhaps a debate on the budget would have forced this government to admit that they're not doing well enough, that they're not doing enough to combat homelessness in our province, and that there's no housing being built to help communities cope with staggering increases — a doubling of homelessness in the Greater Vancouver area since 2002 alone.

Perhaps during the estimates process, where members of this House get an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers about spending in the previous fiscal year, it would have been revealed that the government had overspent its advertising budget by some $7 million in the lead-up to a provincial election. A pre-election campaign paid for by the taxpayers, and goodness forbid that that information should be reviewed by British Columbians prior to the election. This government would have none of that. That's why they shut down debate. That's why there was an interim supply bill that was introduced. That's why we're here again with another interim supply bill.

Instead, British Columbians were told about massive government overspending on pre-election advertising a full two months after the election, in the middle of summer — exactly, I would say, what the government had hoped for, what the government had planned for. They wanted to cover that up. They don't want to shine the light on that. They don't want British Columbians to know that their spending priority is their pre-election campaign paid for by taxpayers.

By not allowing the members of this House to examine the budget line by line, item by item, the government also got to keep goodies in the amount of a $237 million pre-election slush fund, a secret until the dozen or so press conferences that they held two weeks before the election writ was dropped. How timely was that? Do you think there was planning in there? You bet. You bet, hon. Speaker. I bet the crisis management people, the issue management people, the spin doctors from the Premier's office where the budget was overspent, some $7 million of advertising funds…. They hovered in a corner and talked about it and actually came up with that scheme. Make no mistake about that.

What about debate on government spending priorities? If British Columbians were given an opportunity to get the full details of the budget before the election, they would have had a greater understanding of what

this Liberal government was really up to before the election. Of course, they still wouldn't have known that a big tax cut for corporations was on the way. But then again, nobody knew about the big election secret. The business community didn't know that they were going to get a big bonus in the middle of the year.

Here we are today being asked to extend interim supply until the end of November, a full eight months into the fiscal year. That's two-thirds of the fiscal year on interim supply. In plain language, that's two-thirds of the government's budget, those dollars having been spent before taxpayers had the opportunity to actually look, see, and ask questions on where those dollars were spent, so that this government could avoid scrutiny on its budget during an election campaign.

We're here today to debate a bill that would be completely unnecessary had the government allowed the budget to be debated before the election, had the Premier and the government decided that they wanted to honour their commitment on openness and accountability. Every time any government tries to hide from British Columbians, it always raises questions.

I have to say that it is an issue that does get me all riled up. I was here in the last four years. I was here when the House shut down and disallowed debate. There were three of us: my former colleague Joy MacPhail, my colleague sitting next to me right now, the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge…. There were three of us working hard to hold the government to account.

This government ignored the opposition and shut down debate. The previous Minister of Finance also told us before the election — and that was his rationale — that they would change the budget after the election campaign once they heard from British Columbians. That was his rationale for why debate could not be completed on the budget, why we could not debate the budget prior to the election.

Now, notwithstanding, there's nothing that would prevent the government from bringing in a new budget. But set that aside for one moment. Indeed, the budget has been updated. We have an updated budget, the first budget since the election. Unfortunately, there's little evidence in this budget update that the Minister of Finance, the Premier or any of the other members of the Liberal caucus have actually heard the message from British Columbians.

British Columbians did not tell us that a corporate tax cut was their first priority. For that matter, the government did not campaign on the notion that a corporate tax cut was their number-one priority. Nonetheless, in this minibudget they took the lion's share of what was newly introduced in this budget.

British Columbians told us what they want the government to do. They told us they want ordinary British Columbians to have an opportunity to share in the benefits of our growing economy. Citizens living in regions of British Columbia told us very clearly that they, too, want to be part of our province's success and that they want to share in the great wealth of our natural resource sector that contributes to the economy. They told us that they want government to be more caring and compassionate, that too many vulnerable people are being left behind — seniors, children at risk, the homeless and the poor.

As we saw in question period as the issues have been raised by our critic on the Children and Family Development file, the children who need protection are not getting the services they need. The Minister of Children and Family Development seems to be oblivious to the notion that an aboriginal authority actually got a 66-percent cut in their budget. He seems to think that's okay. He seems to think that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing just fine and that the ministry has done nothing wrong.

So far to date, all the evidence that we see before us tells a different story — and a compelling different story. The Minister of Finance had an opportunity, with the budget update, to show that they actually heard British Columbians. But unfortunately, that did not happen. Seniors are still waiting for long-term care beds. The Liberals made this promise in 2001. Today, more than four years and five budgets and one budget update later, they are still waiting.

The minister says that this budget is doing more to help low-income seniors and has admitted that life has been very hard for them over the last four years, that the seniors supplement they included in their budget was cut in 2002, when it could have helped those same seniors — the same seniors that the Minister of Finance has referred to — to have the resources they need.

The minister herself said that seniors had to choose between buying chicken or paying rent. Let me say this, hon. Speaker. The small amount of seniors supplement being put back by the government, which the government took away in 2002, will not even cover the rising costs of heating bills come this winter. The government should have, in this budget and in this interim supply bill, made sure that there was some relief for British Columbians — average British Columbians who desperately need the government to respond.

Despite Surrey residents asking over and over again for the government to deal with the growing concerns about health care delivery at Surrey Memorial Hospital, there is nothing in this budget to improve health care in Surrey and in many other communities across British Columbia.

The minister's budget update also doesn't respond to the concerns of communities throughout the northern and interior regions of this province who are coping with the pine beetle epidemic and want to prepare for the future, once the cut decreases and jobs are lost. It's great that the federal government finally came through with some dollars, but the province's commitment is lacking. B.C.'s funding for the pine beetle next year is budgeted today at a very small $7 million, keeping in mind that the Premier has asked for federal

help to the tune of $1 billion. You got to talk the talk; then you better walk the walk. You better be there working with our partners to address the issue and not just point a finger to someone else to say it's their responsibility.

The government champions its commitment to preparing young people for the future, but there is no commitment to making education more affordable. Too many British Columbians have lost access to higher education because they cannot afford the tuition fees. The Minister of Finance tells us her government is listening to B.C.'s industries when they tell us they are in the midst of a worsening skills shortage. Even the government-appointed independent economic advisory council has told them that the skills shortage is one of the greatest risks facing our economy today and in the future. Yet there is no commitment to skills training in this budget, no action to deal with the skills shortage, and nothing for young people who want opportunities to benefit from our growing economy — young people who are on wait-lists for training and apprenticeship programs.

Today we have received the final count for the Greater Vancouver homeless survey, a report that was first released during the provincial election. The government was told five months before the election and before the budget update that homelessness in the GVRD has doubled, yet there is no commitment to bringing housing for these people and no commitment to helping communities deal with this growing social problem.

We're heading off to the UBCM next week. I wonder if the government will hear the messages from local leaders — councillors and mayors who are seeing the people who are homeless on their streets, who are seeing the rise in people heading towards food banks because they can't make ends meet. The government did not take the time between the budget being introduced in February and the budget update that was introduced last week to really reflect on British Columbians' priorities for spending and bringing in a budget that responds to their concerns.

The government's reasons for not debating the budget before the election, quite frankly, are wearing thin. The rationale that the former Minister of Finance used simply reflects that this government chose not to listen again. With the full cooperation of the opposition, we could have had a full and complete debate. Their claim that they wanted to hear from British Columbians before passing a final budget rings very hollow in light of this budget update released last week.

To conclude, the bill we're debating today to extend interim supply for an unprecedented eight months into the fiscal year could have been avoided. It is not the way this House should be conducting its business. Delaying the budget debate until now has not produced any different results for British Columbians.

This government should know that British Columbians deserve better. They deserve scrutiny on the budget. They deserve a response from the government. They deserve, after this election, some indication from the government that they really actually heard the message and that they want to make sure economic successes are being shared with everyone. Because as we said during the campaign, everyone matters.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand and participate in the debate on Bill 5. I'm a bit of a history buff. I enjoy historic moments. I'm sure that the spin doctors over at the public affairs bureau will be checking this for me, but I don't believe there has been a time in this Legislature where we've debated two interim supply bills in the course of eight months. It's staggering that a government that had a majority of 70-plus members could not get their affairs together, with a fixed election date and a fixed parliamentary calendar, well enough to pass a budget with three opposition members.

Those members, of course, were the current member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge; the irrepressible and unstoppable member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — who, even with a touch of a cold, was able to continue debate; and lastly, our friend who joined us today on the floor, the former hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings. Three members frightened a government of 70-plus.

They tabled the budget in February. They said: "Look what we've done. What good boys and girls are we." Then they ran to their constituencies and said: "Look what we're going to give you, voters. We're going to give you a slush fund of $238 million. We're not going to tell you what's in it until closer to the election date, because we don't want to give any indication to the opposition members what exactly our plan is."

Seventy-plus members against three, and they ran away. So where we are today, hon. Speaker and hon. friends around me, is we're having a debate on a second interim supply bill. I remember well…. It's a shame I can't see the Government House Leader at the moment; I know he's monitoring the debates. He was the most vociferous opponent of our government during the 1990s. He attacked, and he attacked, and he attacked. "How dare you spend money without debate?" he would say. He would stand in his place, and he was quite eloquent, quite enjoyable, quite entertaining.

Three members — the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the former member for Vancouver-Hastings — frightened a government of 70-plus — absolutely staggering. What did that government do? They went to the polls. They ignored the parliamentary calendar. They focused on the fixed election date.

They had a desire to have a legacy of parliamentary reform, but what they ended up doing is using the fixed election date to circumvent a parliamentary calendar that they put in place on the argument that this sort of thing will never happen again — the dark decade of the '90s. I've heard the members talk about the dark decade of the '90s. "Never again will we have a debate…." "Not a dime will be spent without debate." That's what they said. That's what they planned to do.

They said a fixed election date and a fixed parliamentary calendar would solve that. Yet here we find ourselves at the end of September with a second interim supply bill.

I know that the Finance Minister was put in this situation by her colleagues. I certainly don't expect her to answer for that. She's doing a capable job. She said, as others did during the campaign, that she was going to listen to British Columbians. I don't recall — certainly in Malahat–Juan de Fuca — one soul saying to me: "You know what we need in this province? We need another 500 million bucks for corporations. That's what's going to turn things around for me. That's what's going to help with transportation in my community. That's what's going to help with health care in my community. That's what's going to help with education in my community. Another 500 million bucks to the richest people in this province — that's going to make the big difference for me."

The Finance Minister stood in her place, and she said that the centrepiece of her budget was going to be seniors — $248 million. We've heard that message box several times since the budget was tabled — $248 million for seniors. That's good news. I applaud her in particular on amendments to the SAFER program, particularly for rental fees for pads in mobile home parks. That's very good news in my community, up and down the Island and across British Columbia.

However, it's very difficult to have any credibility when you stand and say: "The centre of my budget is seniors — $248 million. Oh, by the way, 500 million bucks for my buddies — 500 million bucks for the people who financed our election campaign, 500 million bucks for the people who financed the campaign in 1996 and 1991 and back all the way through history and the Social Credit parties before them."

I wanted to participate in this debate because it's historic, as I said — two interim supply bills in one year. It speaks to incompetence, if you ask me. If 70-plus members could not pass a budget against three opposition members, what are you going to do now? That's the question people in British Columbia are asking: "What are they going to do now?" Thirty-three on this side, and we're all armed, loaded and ready to go. We've demonstrated last week and demonstrated again this week. Over the coming weeks the members on the opposite side are going to hear a lot of noise — 33, not three. Good luck to you.

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

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 2), 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. B. Penner: That debate went quicker than I anticipated. I now call continued debate on the budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge continues where he left off.

J. Brar: My response to the budget speech is a bit unique. Half of my speech was yesterday, and the remaining part of the speech is today, because, as you know, I had to stop because of the adjournment of the House last evening.

Yesterday I talked about the important issues related to the budget in my community. Just briefly, to touch upon what I said on the issue of Surrey Memorial — there was no funding for it in this budget. I also spoke about the gateway plan, about transportation, about the promise made by this government that was not delivered on in this budget.

The third important factor or issue in my community is education. As you know, Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the country. We receive almost a thousand people every month. The majority of the people we have in the city are average families. A significant number of people in the city are new immigrants. They want affordable, accessible education for their children, and this government made a promise to the people of British Columbia during the last election that they would provide the best education system so that no child is left behind. But, in fact, they did the opposite.

They cut grant programs, and the tuition fee has gone up 300 percent in some cases. Subsequently, in the last election this government made another promise on education, and that was to cap the tuition fee, whereas we were saying that we should freeze the tuition fee right away because it's too high for average families. This budget does not offer any money for those students and parents of Surrey and British Columbia.

The other issue which is very important is gas prices. As we know, the gas price has been going up very fast during the last few years. It has gone up to the extent that it has impacted the budget of each and every family, and particularly average families, in every city of this province as well as in my city. Not only that, it has also impacted, big time, the small business industry, particularly the taxi industry and the trucking industry.

We have seen during the last few months a couple of strikes related to business. This government is very big when teachers talk about strikes. But we have seen strikes of small business people here in this province just a few months ago — that was the container truckers, and then it was dump truckers — because of oil and gas prices. This budget does not offer anything to

those small business people. It only offered support to corporations, when 60 percent of job creation is actually created by small business people.

There are a few things I want to mention from my portfolio, and one of them is gambling. In 2001 during the election this government made a promise to the people of British Columbia that they were going to stop expansion of gambling as soon as they came into power. But in fact they did the opposite.

The number of slot machines has gone up. There used to be a cap on the number of slot machines in the past in every casino, and that was 300 machines per casino to the maximum. But in one casino in Richmond the number of slot machines is now 1,000. When the former Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General was asked whether this was an expansion or not, his answer was: "It is not expansion. It is just adjustment." That's the language this government has been using about the expansion of gambling. Now, the new minister came in, and he decided to install 500 new machines, electronic horse racetracks, in pubs and bars, and when the minister was asked the question whether this was an expansion or not, he said: "No, it's not expansion. It is modernization of gambling."

British Columbians want accurate and right answers. As a Time reporter stated just recently: British Columbians are getting tired of the government's verbal gymnastics on gambling. What will it take to get someone in the government party to admit that they love the money from gambling? For them it is the profit, not the people of British Columbia, which is the priority. They don't care about average families, average people in this province.

The revenue from gambling has gone up $260 million since the Liberal government took over in 2001. It is shocking to know that the B.C. Lottery Corporation spent $14 million on advertisements, but they spent only $4 million on treating people who have addictions in gambling. This budget does not provide any financial support and hope to the families of those people who are troubled gamblers.

The other very important issue in my community is youth gang violence. The South Asian community has lost over 70 young men during the last six or seven years who became targets of youth gang violence. This government, after constant pressure from the community, finally came and established a B.C. Integrated Youth Gang Task Force, which, in my opinion, is probably a step in a positive direction. But the task force is mainly responsible for investigations, arrests and prosecution. It doesn't do much for educating the community and for prevention. This budget does not offer any additional money or hope to my community. I'm talking about 70 murders during the last six, seven years.

The other issue is crystal meth. During the last few days I've seen statements from members on the other side as to how dangerous crystal meth is, how it has taken over all the other serious drugs, whether it's cocaine or other things. I have also heard that they are very serious about it. I also heard from the other side that something needs to be done, but the answer which I hear from the other side is that it is the community which should look after this very serious issue that the community is facing.

I agree, to the extent that we have to involve the community to deal with crystal meth because the community is part of the solution. At the same time, we cannot leave this very challenging, very fast-growing drug — which is making our youth vulnerable — just to the people. We need to provide leadership. We need to provide resources to the people who are coming forward to deal with this issue.

I just met yesterday with people who are part of the task force in Victoria, and they're looking for support. They want a place where they can do their volunteer work. They want telephone lines. They need help. But this government is saying that the community should take a lead. You have to take your responsibility, providing leadership and resources to the people to deal with this very serious, fast-growing disease in the community.

Mr. Speaker, every day I hear…. Although, I appreciate that you indicated today that statements should be non-political, non-partisan. I hope it will be that way. Every day until today I have heard statement after statement talking about the five great goals of this government. I appreciate a positive vision, and I wish this government well for those very ambitious five goals.

Well, let me tell you about the five great holes that the budget of this government has created in my community. I hope the members sitting on the other side of the House are going to listen to it and pay attention to it. Let's compare the five great goals versus five great holes which I'm talking about in this budget and the four other budgets presented by this government.

The first hole. There's no funding for the expansion of Surrey Memorial emergency room or for a new hospital. That's a huge, huge hole in that community, in the heart of the community.

Number two, there's no funding for the improvement of transportation. Particularly, we're talking about the south perimeter road, where we and the government agree that this needs to be done. But there's no money in this budget for that commitment. That creates a serious traffic challenge to us. That's the second hole we have in the community.

Third, there's no funding to stop or reduce post-secondary tuition fees, and that is the third big hole we have in the hearts of young people in my community, whose future probably is under question because of that.

Number four, there's no funding for assisting troubled gamblers, and there's no stop to the expansion of gambling.

Number five, and the fifth hole, is that there's no funding for detox beds, particularly for youth who are addicted by crystal meth. We see a lot of talk.

I would like to conclude by saying: yes, we appreciate the five great goals, but please, look into the five great holes that my community tells us about every day. Listen to them. Talk to them. Go to Surrey.

G. Robertson: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Fairview, and I salute you and all of our colleagues here for serving the citizens of B.C.

I recognize and honour, first and foremost, the Songhees Nation, whose traditional territory we stand on, and just across the Salish Sea, the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Stó:lô and Hul'qumi'num nations who have lived along the south shore of False Creek and up the slopes rising to Little Mountain, in what is now the riding I represent, Vancouver-Fairview.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to my wife Amy and my kids Hanna, Satchel and Terra for all their love and their support, and the rest of my family and my many close friends who really made it possible for me to stand here today. I want to thank the people of Vancouver-Fairview for their incredible support, for wanting to see balance in this Legislature, for wanting meaningful representation. I thank my many volunteers in the community and beyond, whose dedication and moxie made the difference in a hard-fought election campaign.

I am here to represent the people of my community. I am here to work for the people of B.C. I am here for my children and, I hope, my grandchildren and the future generations that our decisions in this House must respect.

I didn't have great expectations that this government would have the vision and backbone to dramatically change course and make the people of B.C. and the abundance of this province that sustains us their number one priority. This has very clearly not been their priority over the past four and a half years.

I felt a glimmer of hope from some of the new members across the floor who bring valuable experience and new perspective to their party, and I suggest that they are the reason the government was re-elected by a narrow margin. I had sincere hopes that the election campaign and close result would mean that the Liberal government would wake up to the resounding voice of B.C. citizens. The status quo was not acceptable. A strong majority of British Columbians voted against this government, voted against the four years of broken promises, of severe cuts to our schools, health care and social services. We voted against four years of selling off public assets, deregulating environmental standards and catering first and foremost to the corporations that funded their election campaigns.

I am terribly disappointed in this budget and its primary focus on a corporate income tax break. I'm not surprised, with almost $8 million in corporate donations to the B.C. Liberals in this last election, but this piece of corporate welfare is beyond belief — $8 million in donations, somewhere between $400 million and $500 million in tax breaks over the next three years. That is an 1,810 percent return on investment for those big corporate funders — this, from a Premier who relentlessly called for an end to corporate subsidies when he was in opposition.

This corporate welfare smacks of deceit and absolute disregard for the people of B.C. who sent a message for more balance; more action on health care, the environment and education; and more support for the people of this province who need it most. Another surprise tax break for big corporations didn't even make the Liberals' own campaign platform, which should have been titled: "Five great tax breaks for those who don't need them."

I stand here on behalf of democracy and for the people of this province and our common wealth and firmly against the special interests that play this government like a puppet show, liquidating public assets and mismanaging the public service. This is why I now move the motion standing in my name and seconded by the hon. member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

G. Robertson: Mr. Speaker, I now want to speak to this motion. I want to talk about the big picture, something we human beings don't spend enough time doing. We all know what happens when you stickhandle up the ice in the big leagues with your head down.

Do we live in a just and sustainable province? Do the priorities of this government focus on what's really most important? I stand here because I believe the answer to both of those questions is no. We can and must do far better than this.

In this budget, we didn't hear a peep about homelessness or the care and education of our kids. Nothing about sustainable new forest and agricultural practices, waiting list reductions, emergency rooms, clean air and clean water — nada. What we heard first and foremost was more rhetoric about competitiveness and putting business first.

Where's the financial security in a world grappling with climate change? Where in the throne speech and budget was a mention or one word about the problem that has rapidly emerged as the most perilous issue that we face on this planet? If this government doesn't yet understand the direct connection between climate

change and the mountain pine beetle epidemic or with the increasing frequency of natural disasters, those members opposite should have gone back to school this fall, not come here to manage our province.

Let's talk big picture. We human beings have veered out of balance with our natural world since developing the means to harvest resources and concentrate wealth. It's been a while. The migration of people across this planet with our commerce and our consumptive ways has meant, unfortunately, that almost all intact ecosystems have been significantly impacted or destroyed. Like a two-legged tsunami, we have levelled the most productive forests, prairies, estuaries, savannahs and vast marine habitats.

This past century has been literally explosive. Our population has grown exponentially. There are 4.8 billion more people on earth than there were 100 years ago. Every day the global economy burns an amount of energy on our planet that required 10,000 days to create. We burn it into the air we breathe. Every natural system on the planet today is in decline. In just the past 20 years, another 120 million hectares of the world's forests have been cleared. According to the UN environment program, we've been losing 108 million acres of productive agricultural land a year to degradation and development, and 25 billion tonnes of topsoil.

A few problems are racking up here. We're losing upwards of 30,000 species a year, which is one every 20 minutes. We're likely to lose 20 percent of the species on the planet within this next generation.

Inequities on our planet are staggering. The 20 percent of the population that we have the privilege of being part of consumes almost 90 percent of the resources. Billions go hungry each day. Tens of thousands die every week because they don't have access to clean drinking water.

All this is to say that we have a staggering set of challenges on this planet, and there are very real limits to growth. We are the first generation to have a very clear understanding of all this, thanks to our own ingenuity. The real test is doing something about it. If we aren't prioritizing this, we are in a whole heap of trouble.

As optimistic and hopeful as I am, deep in my bones, we face challenges that boggle our collective brains and call into question the future that our children and their children will face. But wait; all is not lost. As the rising tide of humanity's exponential growth and insatiable consumption floods in and threatens to wipe out all of our sources of life and prosperity, there is a glimmer of hope, a patch of high ground that stands tall and resilient right here in B.C.

We are blessed to live on this ground, blessed to have a wealth of resources that haven't quite collapsed under extractive pressure. We are blessed to have a society that is peaceful, that had the foresight to invest in taking care of each other, in education, in creating good jobs and labour standards.

We live in a place that the rest of the world looks at and thinks: "If they can't figure out how to live in balance, then it must not be possible." This may be the last place on earth where human ingenuity, combined with the wisdom to focus it on social and environmental challenges, can turn the tide.

My vision of B.C. It's the place where people figure out how to live in balance with each other and the planet and cause a ripple effect outward, back across the continents to the lands of our earliest civilizations, restoring the natural systems that provide for us, developing evermore innovative and efficient ways of stewarding precious resources, figuring out how to take care of all people in our societies, and reversing the crash course of our civilization. If anyone wants to discuss that later, feel free.

Do we have the courage and wisdom to turn the tide here? Do we have our priorities straight? Do we recognize that this is also the biggest economic opportunity going?

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, I want to talk about business and economic opportunity — something I've spent a good chunk of my life immersed in and something that the government has again made its first priority in this budget. Beyond the words of both my colleagues and the business community, who have all been surprised by the government's largesse, I want to question the unswerving ideology that the taxpayers of B.C. should not only willingly give up some of our most valuable public assets but also subsidize large corporations. Yes to business. No to corporate welfare.

Small business around this province has fought tooth and nail to compete, without any help from this government. Big business and industry must adapt to meet the people of B.C.'s needs, not the other way around. Yes, we are open to business, but not at any cost. Big business believes that if it doesn't continue to grow robustly, it will be destroyed. Ecologists, on the other hand, believe that if big business continues on its robust growth curve, the planet will be destroyed.

But there are many of us sitting on this side of the room who now believe in a third way, one that restores natural communities while using the most efficient and pragmatic management and market techniques of free enterprise. I'm talking about a restorative economy. The economics of restoration stand in stark contrast to those of industrialization. It's about a prosperous commercial culture that is intelligently designed, which integrates communities, businesses and resources in ways that are mutually beneficial for the long term.

Nowhere on the planet is there a more compelling opportunity to do that than here in B.C. We have a huge advantage, a wealth of resources, a well-educated and hard-working multicultural population, and a global brand that is associated with the natural environment and social responsibility. But it means that the priorities of our government must change, which is why I move this motion.

A critical piece for leading the world and building a restorative economy here in B.C. is with post-

secondary education. I'm honoured to be the critic for advanced education. For our new economy, education is like the railroad of the 21st century. This government's record of ignoring apprenticeship and training programs, of freezing core funding to institutions, of doubling tuition, of eliminating grant programs and now cutting student financial assistance is reprehensible and shortsighted.

Post-secondary education is critical to cranking up the skills and brain power to keep our economy leading on innovation and entrepreneurial success. Access is paramount. Nobody should face barriers to pursue education and training. That means affordability is crucial. Tuition must be affordable and capped. Grants programs must be reinstated to ensure that advanced education is available to all. We've got to invest in programs that match up with our community's needs, addressing the skills shortage that threatens to cripple our economy and supporting cutting-edge programs at our amazingly diverse array of colleges, institutes, university colleges and universities.

I look forward to working with the minister and staff on all of these fronts, which must be an economic priority for this government. I want to come back to priorities. The hurricane in the southern states taught us a few things about priorities, as have other tragic world events — the crisis in Darfur, the Indian Ocean tsunami. Priorities must start with the essentials.

Where does all our food come from? This government has largely ignored food security and failed to support the vitality of B.C.'s agriculture and fisheries. We are truly blessed with an incredibly diverse and productive food system, and it needs diligent care and attention, not the scandalous removal of land from the ALR and the atrocious mismanagement of fish farms.

How about drinking water? This government has eroded standards and failed to protect watersheds and aquifers. This must change. Remember Walkerton.

The air we breathe. Subsidizing the oil and gas industry and relaxing pollution standards completely contradict your fifth golden goal, bar none.

This budget does not prioritize these essentials. It prioritizes big business. Here I am back to talking about business. With so many of the colossal problems pressing on the world, corporations and business are part of the problem and must be part of the solution. Let's focus on businesses being part of the solution in B.C. and developing our restorative economy.

Corporate tax breaks with no targeted incentive to create good-paying jobs, minimize environmental impact, eliminate waste or improve efficiency are a waste of taxpayers' money. Creating incentives for small- and medium-sized businesses must be a priority, especially those businesses that are focused on building the social and resource capital of B.C., not liquidating it.

Carefully targeted tax cuts do make sense, and the targeted cut on intellectual property is a good example, a tiny example in a sea of regressive taxation and huge subsidies to corporations. We need to incentivize the leading lights and the entrepreneurs of the new economy. This includes sustainable forestry and agriculture, zero waste manufacturing, clean biotech, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, green technologies, green design and building supplies, carbon-neutral business practices, renewable energy and demand-side efficiencies and fossil fuel–free transportation. This also includes the social economy: arts, culture and tourism. These are the emerging non-polluting engines of a restorative economy and a brighter future for B.C. and the planet.

I want to go from the provincial to the local. I want to take it back home now, to Vancouver-Fairview. Fairview is one of the smallest and therefore densest ridings of B.C. It includes the western side of Mount Pleasant, the south side of False Creek, Granville Island, Fairview slopes, south Granville, some healthy parts of Shaughnessy and Kitsilano. Diverse by every definition, eclectic, bustling with small business and the arts — Fairview is the beating heart of Vancouver, one of the world's great cosmopolitan cities. Despite our relative affluence, we face great challenges.

Health care is front and centre in Fairview with our extensive hospital and research centre complex around VGH and the children's and women's hospital. Many of my constituents who work hard in health care have endured the mismanagement of our public health care under this government, with privatization and brutal cuts to hospital workers and enormous pressure on nurses and emergency room staff in particular. We should be going the opposite direction in places like Fairview where we have a world-class cluster of health care delivery and research. With this concentration of talent and facilities, we have a unique opportunity to create an economic powerhouse, integrating the diverse expertise and collaborating on innovation and excellence in patient care and medical research.

Homelessness in Vancouver has doubled under this government, driven by their savage cuts to social services and health care, for those suffering from mental illnesses and addictions. This has led to a troubling rise in crime and real concerns about public safety in Vancouver. Services must be restored to support these people with treatment, housing and education. My community calls out for action on serious crime. Affordable housing is scarce as rents have skyrocketed in Vancouver, and support for housing from both the provincial and federal government has dwindled. It's time for all levels of government to work together on a comprehensive action plan on housing in B.C., revitalizing communities in the process.

Tuition again has almost doubled due to the policies of this Liberal government, putting huge stress on the thousands of post-secondary students in Fairview. Many have been forced to reduce their course load or even drop out of school, which will have profound consequences on our economy over time. I will call for this government to immediately use B.C.'s share of the $1.5 billion that the NDP secured in the federal budget for improving access to higher education.

The arts community has had very little support from this government, despite playing a vital role in the city and the province both culturally and economically. Support for the arts needs to reach deep into the community, from studios and film businesses to the entrepreneurs and self-employed artists. I do hope that the new minister, urged on by her worthy critic, will champion the importance of investing in the arts and culture in this province.

Liveability is declining due to intensifying traffic and the failure of this government to strengthen air and water standards. Fairview is smack dab in the middle of Vancouver. That means residents are subjected to an enormous flow of commuter traffic passing through. More investment in public transit is badly needed to prevent further declines in liveability, and these investments warrant good public consultation. An example of how not to do that is the infamous RAV line, which neglected due community process. Only a government as insensitive to communities as this one could turn something as positive as an investment in rapid transit into a source of anger, frustration and division.

The conditional funding and push for a P3 with the lowest-cost contractor has meant that Cambie Street will be disembowelled with cut-and-cover construction for several years to come, ravaging Cambie village and the many small businesses there. It will put huge traffic pressures on Main and Granville streets as well, so residents in my constituency will endure noise, pollution and extra travel time for the next four years. The many small businesses along Cambie Street must be consulted in a forthright manner, which, to this day, is not happening, and mitigating the devastating impact of cut-and-cover on local businesses is necessary.

We've been fortunate, very fortunate, to have a city government that's been committed to an aggressive agenda on sustainability and improving our urban environment. I applaud the work of Mayor Larry Campbell, council, staff, the park board and school board for so capably serving the citizens of Vancouver in their years of service. In particular, their vision and direct action on sustainability is inspiring — from the 2010 games' commitments to the development of southeast False Creek to the green building standards and sustainable energy precinct, which brings me back to sustainability and a vision of a restorative economy.

Many people live and work in the city, but our hearts are in the wilds of British Columbia. We get our bodies there for recreation and renewal at every opportunity. We place huge importance on our parks and wilderness and understand that the health of our forests, rivers, grasslands and ocean is directly connected to the health of our cities, our neighbourhoods and our own bodies. We are also people that use transit, bicycles or walk where we need to go. We seek out the locally grown and organic foods at the Riley Park farmers' market and Granville Island Market.

We are very lucky in Fairview to have all these options, and the provincial government should be championing healthier lifestyles like these with more than words. They have made some baby steps, but giant leaps of action are needed around the province to support local farmers, sustainable agricultural practices, healthy food choices, recreational options, and to massively reduce our dependence on cars. From the wilderness to the dense urban jungle, we need a systematic approach to good health. And of course, we need an economy that's based on good health, not one that strips it away.

I am pleased to see that the importance of social innovators is beginning to be noted by my colleagues across the floor with their support of the centre for social innovation. Fairview is home to many of the province's headquarters for the not-for-profit sector, which is a hugely important part of our economy and our society.

Initiating the process of electoral reform was commendable. Continuing to support that prior to the 2009 election is equally so. Let's hope that with the expanded scope and options and educating citizens on these options, we will end up with a significant improvement in our democratic process. Even more important — as our federal government realized and acted on, and many other democratic governments on this planet have — is campaign finance reform. Fundamental to democracy is the equal voice of all people. It is a travesty that our system is undermined by funding from special interests. This needs to change. I call on the government to take the big money out of politics.

There are enormous opportunities stemming from tackling the real challenges here and dealing with the real priorities. How this government steps up to the plate and addresses the monumental crisis in B.C.'s forests of overharvesting and mountain pine beetle will speak volumes. From the budget, it looks grim.

How this government protects our energy resources and deals with the sale of Terasen to an American corporation with a horrific environmental record will clarify whether they're in cahoots with George W. Bush and his energy policy or are being responsible to the people of this province, who need natural gas to survive the winter. How this government follows through on their voluminous promises to the first nations will tell all. Writing cheques is different from recognizing aboriginal rights and title and addressing self-governance in a meaningful way.

The government has spent a good deal of energy on marketing this province, rebranding B.C. Nice job on the logo; it's a good improvement. But what really counts in branding — and I know a little about this — is the reality behind the brand. B.C. will be on centre stage in 2010. We have an incredible opportunity to show the world what the future can look like: an engaged, prosperous, multicultural province that is living in balance with each other and with our environment. We've got a lot of work to do to get there, and actions speak louder than words.

H. Bloy: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand up here today. I guess I'm speaking to the amendment.

First, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. Having worked with you and known you for a number of years now, I know that you'll be fair and allow debate to take place in this House, because debate is very important.

I would like to thank the constituents of Burquitlam, who re-elected me. It's an honour to serve them. I want to say that I will continue to be open and accessible to everybody in my constituency. It's a diverse constituency, and we represent many people.

I also would like to thank my family: my wife Anita and my children Jeremy, Katie and Candice; and my dad, who's 91 years old and who encourages me to come out. We don't always agree on things, but he encourages me every day to go out and do what I'm doing.

I would also like to thank my staff, who have worked with me over the past years and helped: Leslie Techy, Jennifer Duke and Annesse Kim. I'd like to thank three staff members who have now left. Two of them have gone back to school and one on to better things: Julie Park, Kevin Lee and Dan Baxter. I have had a lot of great support staff over the last four years, which has made my job enjoyable.

I don't always get to talk to the residents of the community as often as I would like when we're in Victoria, and they're in talking to my staff. I know they get many compliments. I see flowers sent to the office for the staff for the work they've done, so I know that they're doing a good job representing me and assisting me in this important job.

Looking at the election results, I think my riding is a microcosm of all of British Columbia. While I was elected with a close margin, I do not look at this as a negative but rather as a message to deliver our message better, to get our message out, to be able to communicate better. That's how I look at the message from the constituents of my riding of Burquitlam.

There is no question the policies of the B.C. Liberal government were instrumental in restoring dignity to our province. But again, in the middle of the election a lot of my constituents said: "But we didn't know that. That's not what we heard on the radio advertising by the BCTF, or by CUPE or by any of the other unions." They said: "You have to communicate the good things." If I could talk to every person one-on-one in my riding, I know that they would understand the great things we have done as a government in restoring dignity to all people of this great province.

I know I and my colleagues will take this on as a challenge, to be out there communicating the work of the government that we're doing over the next four years and to let them know of the work that we've done over the past four years.

Just before I go on, I wanted to mention something. The last speaker from Vancouver-Fairview…. I know that he wants…. He's really looking forward to working to make this a better province to live in, but what really gets me is when he talks about some of the negatives. That's the old style of politics. When he talks about post-secondary education, one of the finest institutions in the province of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, in the riding of Burquitlam….

I want to tell you some of the things we did with the former Minister of Advanced Education for all of British Columbia. It's a bonus. You know, students aren't spending seven years waiting to get the courses they wanted. Advanced education was decaying in this province because there was no money, because of an ineffective government that froze expenses and didn't even keep up with inflation for universities. They were deteriorating in this province.

We have the new UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College, the new Simon Fraser University campus in Surrey, the new medical schools at UNBC and UVic, the new Life Sciences Centre at UBC and 25,000 new post-secondary spaces in addition to the nearly 6,000 spaces we have added since 2001.

And $800 million for capital improvements in post-secondary institutions and new student spaces — it's just amazing. Right across the province is where we're doing this. I just wanted to mention that in regards to the last speaker.

Before I go on, there was also the speaker earlier who was from Malahat–Juan de Fuca. He stated today that this is the only time in history with two interim supply bills in one year. He stated that earlier today. Well, he was wrong. In 1996 the Glen Clark government introduced a budget and went into the election. In 1996 the NDP Glen Clark government operated under special warrants for April, May and June and then introduced interim supply covering those months plus up to the end of August. Two interim supply bills were introduced by the NDP in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and the year 2000. In every case, the NDP invoked Standing Order 81 to rush interim supply bills through the House in one day.

As we know, this election was the proverbial fork in the road. Voters had a clear choice. The first choice was to keep the province moving forward under a B.C. Liberal government, building on the strengthening economy; increased investment towards priority areas such as health care, public education; maintaining a sound and fiscally responsible economic plan.

The second choice was to return to the era of scandals, fudge-it budgets, a mass exodus from the province, skyrocketing deficits, poor fiscal management, punishing and punitive taxation rates, mass labour disruptions in this province, fast ferry fiascos, high unemployment rates, broken-down education and health systems. The unchecked power of special interest groups was a big factor in the last government of the '90s. Low investor confidence and a have-not status were the hallmarks and legacies of the NDP party.

They were narrow-minded and ideologically driven during their ten years in power.

In Burquitlam the past four years were good. You can see the positive changes, travelling throughout the riding. We've brought light rapid transit, which is in the midst of coming into the northeast sector. Construction is at an all-time high.

Simon Fraser University is undergoing a great deal of expansion. Our government is contributing $34.5 million toward the construction of SFU's new $41 million Health Sciences building, dedicated to the study of public health. The new facility will accommodate 800 new student spaces at the university's Burnaby campus. This is important. We announced 25,000 new seats between two years ago and 2010, but we're also providing the capital to build the buildings so the students actually have a seat in the house. This isn't just one of those promises of $125 million for mental health that was never even in their budget but was announced so many times. We announced 25,000 new seats, and we're providing the capital and the buildings so the students have the space to sit and get the education in British Columbia.

We gave Simon Fraser University $23 million towards the construction of a technology and science complex capital expansion project. Two years ago we built new student residences at the university with a new cafeteria. We delivered $20 million for a new sports complex and stadium at Simon Fraser University, and on top of all of that, they're developing their own endowment fund with UniverCity. It's a great retail and housing development. There's going to be about 4,500 units completed within the next five years — 4,500 units housing 10,000 people. It's going to be a whole city up there on its own. It's just a great place. I hope that everybody will get a chance to travel up there and see that.

We have invested over $2 million towards a knowledge development fund to advance research in the fields of high technology and health.

On a personal level, I've been able to help a number of my constituents' businesses, societies and associations over the last four years. One of the ones that I was extremely pleased to help was the Red Cross in securing a $500,000 grant for their Burnaby-based emergency response centre. This $500,000 was matched by the national Red Cross, so it equalled a million. Telus came in and produced $1.5 million and, when our government put in the $500,000, they were able to get the rest of the money for their building. That was for emergency upgrades, making sure it's earthquake-proof.

It's really exciting to know that this is the national response centre for all of Canada. When we had those terrific storms last Christmas in southeast Asia, they were the ones that were collecting money. When we had the fires two years ago, they were the ones that were coordinating and putting people together. The Katrina catastrophe in the United States — they're the ones that are coordinating for Canada. They are just such a great group of people up there, and they're volunteers — they're incredible, how hard they work.

Another accomplishment of mine over the last four years. Children are number one. I always say that the best part of my job is dealing with children and seniors. The other stuff you have to do because that's your job, but they tell you the truth. I'm a strong proponent for after-school programs, and at Mountain View Elementary school I was able to get a $50,000 grant to help them restart their after-school drop-in program. But by the work you do…. I don't do any of this work alone. You do it with such great people. I was able to leverage that into another grant for $58,000, a grant for $20,000 from United Way and a grant from the federal government for $43,000 so that these children in this low-income area had a place to go after school. The school board has been tremendously supportive — and the principal at the school, Mrs. Bawa. For many of these children it's their second language, and this is a true benefit to them.

All of us know that we wouldn't have communities here if it wasn't for the volunteers that make our communities. One of the biggest groups of supporters and volunteers is firefighters all over British Columbia. They're an integral source of pride in all communities throughout British Columbia. That is why our government announced changes last spring to the Workers Compensation Act to recognize increased cancers, presumption of cancer in firefighters. This was a team effort. I can tell you I worked really closely with the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association; with the Burnaby Fire Fighters Association; with Michael Hurley; and with the Coquitlam Fire Fighters Association to get this legislation. I know that it'll be introduced soon.

Firemen do the burn camp. You see them shaking cans, collecting money for muscular dystrophy. But there are two special firemen from the city of Burnaby: Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie. These are two guys that used their own credit cards to put the deposit down three years ago to get the World Police and Fire Games. Because of their start and their drive and determination to bring it to British Columbia, British Columbia is now awarded the British Columbia World Police and Fire Games, 2009. I think that's an excellent achievement.

You know, the Police and Fire Games are the second-largest sporting event in the world, second only to the Summer Olympics. They will bring millions upon millions of dollars into the economy of the whole lower mainland.

Another part of my riding I would like to talk about…. Burquitlam, as in most parts of the province, is becoming home for recent immigrants to Canada. One such community is British Columbia's Korean community. They represent a large portion of my riding, and they employ countless people in ours. The community has opened up and brought more things to British Columbia. The people…. The Korean culture is extremely polite. It's a pleasure to deal with them. They've organized events and seminars trying to bring their people into the Canadian culture without losing their identity. There's a number of great workers. There's Michael Hwang, Yonah Martin, Charles Kim,

Ken Becklee. They are so fortunate. They run an education fund every year, where they give out scholarships to many, many different people.

Myself personally, I was fortunate, with Mr. Yoon of South Korea's KOTRA trade organization, to visit Korea last October, and it really opened my eyes about Korea and the wealth that they have there, and yet they still want to come to Canada. We have to be so proud that we can say that people want to come here. I was born here, but I am so appreciative of the people that say: "I want to move Canada. I want that to be my home." And I want us to have an atmosphere where we're going to welcome these people here, welcome them into our home so that we can be diverse and not so narrow-minded — that we can open up.

I've met with many groups from Korea over the past year — a small business group delegation. And I've met with students. They were amazing: six students who had won a writing contest — two in grade ten, two in 11 and two in grade 12. They had a scheduled meeting for half an hour. We talked for two and a half hours, and it was just a great time. I treated them to a Dairy Queen afterwards. They had never had one before.

As we talk about the budget and the great goals…. I hear some things about what people say about our great goals for a golden decade. There has to be a focus here. There has to be a vision. It can't be done afterwards. It's got to be done early and I believe that the policies of the B.C. Liberal government have the most vision that's ever been in the history of British Columbia. We are working. We have a caucus that is united and working hard to develop this vision and to make it work.

We are so proud, and I am proud, and it frustrates me after a while when I hear all the things that didn't happen. I know lots of things that didn't happen, but I know lots of good things happened. Was our government perfect? No. Does everybody agree with everything? You know the member from New Westminster doesn't agree, but I'm sure that he must agree with something. But you know we are….

There are so many things I could read about what we have done, but something we just did last weekend, on Sunday, was one of the things that makes it rewarding to be a member of the Legislature, to be a member of the government: to help people and especially to help children. Last Sunday we announced funding for special needs children in independent schools would be increased to 100 percent.

To me, this was one of the turning points of being a member. For myself to go to a school, mediated learning centre, learning academy or variety learning centre and be able to sit down with the principal and executive director and the parents and tell them about this funding…. There were tears of joy. I was getting hugs. I even had a principal hug me. This was one of my proudest moments: being a member of the Legislature and to be able to bring this news to the people.

This is where we're going as a government, as a caring government. I can go back and I can tell you how much we've done, and guess what. I'm going tell you some of the things that we've done over the last five years. We've increased income assistance by $70 per month for people with disabilities. It is the largest increase ever in B.C.'s history. We've doubled the dental coverage and limit for approximately 13,000 people with persistent multiple barriers from $500 to $1,000.

Fifteen percent fewer children are in care and nearly double the number of annual adoptions are taking place since 2001.

The highest funding for child care subsidies and capital improvements in B.C.'s history, nearly triple the funding for combined early childhood development and autism intervention programs since 2001, and 32,000 child care spaces now eligible for funding and 10,000 more children eligible for child care spaces.

We're doing more wet-cold beds in the winter. We have the highest budget ever for transition housing, providing new programs and 24-hour access. Our plan to help children and families increase the monthly amount persons can earn while on disability — this is going up to $500. It's currently at $400, as compared to the NDP at $200.

Increase the amount that persons with persistent multiple barriers to employment can earn without penalty while on income assistance to $500. Implement the new regional service delivery models for community living and child protection, starting this year. Increase respite support for families who are taking care of individuals with special needs by $91 million in new funding over three years. This goes part and parcel with the special needs educational funding.

Continue to implement a comprehensive strategy developed by the Premier's task force on homelessness to tackle homelessness, mental illness and addiction. Convert underutilized school space into centres to address community needs such as early childhood development, daycare, libraries, music centres and meeting rooms.

You have to think out of the box. We have a declining enrolment in British Columbia. Students…. The population is going down. We have these buildings. How are we going to use them? Let's look at an effective way to make a community centre out of them, a health community centre where all the needs are in one place.

These are the things that a caring government is working towards, mindful all the time that we can only spend what we have. It's because of the strength of our economy and the work of the Premier of this province and the direction of our Finance Minister that we do have the finances to help those most in need.

For seniors, we've had SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. The budget will be doubled. I support our goal of building the best support systems in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk.

We're going to do the 5,000 beds. They're going to be done by 2008. To me it was a real disappointment that the 5,000 beds weren't made. The disappointment was true, but the reason we couldn't do it is because the NDP government of the '90s left the province and those seniors in such a bad state. We had four and five people in rooms built for two or one, with access to a washroom that wouldn't take a wheelchair. It was a pathetic mess. I don't believe one member of this House would have wanted their parents in a place like that. I know I wouldn't have wanted my dad there.

You know, we put in $465 million over three years for Pharmacare; $77 million over three years for the recruitment and training of nurses. One of the most astonishing things I found after I was elected was that in the last three years of the NDP the number of nurses graduating actually declined every year. Can you imagine that? You had a government that was talking about nurses, and it declined every year.

We've added…. I can't remember all the numbers. There are too many numbers. We've added 200 doctors and a couple of thousand nurses since 2001. We've added 2,200 new nursing spaces, but we've added them all around the province. Hopefully, when they graduate, they will stay in that area, and that's where they'll practise their profession, live, raise a family and earn a wage. You know, we have some of the highest-paid nurses in Canada right here in British Columbia. The nurses are good.

We have the general corporate tax reduction from 13½ percent to 12 percent. I don't know what you think about that, but I think it's great. When I listen to the opposition, I don't know what they're thinking. But I think it's great for small business. They save money; they hire more people; they grow. More people work, more people pay taxes, and we flourish. The best social safety network that we have in this province is a job.

Education. We've talked about advanced education and the new seats that we said we would do, and that is good. But what we've done…. We have a negotiated strike going on right now by the BCTF. We have the union leadership. But I can tell you that the union leadership says one thing, but in my riding when I talk to teachers — and I had many teachers help me on my campaign — they don't believe in their union membership. They say: "If that's what they have to do to get me the money…. But I don't vote NDP. I don't follow them. I just want to be in the classroom teaching."

I strongly believe that teaching is an essential service, and adults should never use children as pawns in their game to get money. That is wrong, under any circumstances. I would encourage…. I know the strike vote will come out, and it will probably be strong. I think, if they had common sense…. You know, the union management have never agreed with anybody since the early '90s — the teachers' union management, not the classroom teacher. The union management mentality of the BCTF has not agreed with the government since the early '90s. Maybe somebody can give them some common sense not to use our children as pawns in the strike and to move on.

I just want to say a word about the economy, on mining. We have a Minister of State for Mining, and we're looking at opening mines. We as a caucus want to see the development in British Columbia, because mining has some of the highest-paid jobs in all of British Columbia. They average over $90,000 a year. They're in northern, remote areas.

Should we eliminate the luxury tax? When they buy a four-wheel truck up north, they buy it because they have to drive on those roads through hard conditions to get to work. Should that be a luxury tax? Well, I don't believe it should be. But where do we set it at?

They buy those. They buy snowmobiles. They go hunting. They have it up there. It's a lifestyle that they choose. They work really hard, but they make great jobs. But we need more mines in British Columbia, and we have to keep working on that as a government.

Hon. Speaker, for the next four years I will continue to work hard and do my best for the people of Burquitlam.

To my new MLA colleagues: I wish you all the best of luck on both sides of the House. I look forward to getting to know you and working with you. To my colleagues who were re-elected: congratulations on this achievement. It was a well-earned effort.

Sometimes we do become partisan and often get carried away. I realize that despite our political and philosophical differences, we all want to make a difference. We all want a better place to live. We all want to improve the lives of British Columbians. We should act with the dignity that the Legislature deserves. It is important to remember this when we are addressing each other.

To those who know me: I will continue to work hard behind the scenes. I feel that's where I'm most effective, and I will ensure that the voices of my constituents are heard. That is the reason and the only reason I'm here — because of the constituents of Burquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment. You do the job great justice, and you wear the robes well. Everyone wants a hat like that too.

I'd like to recognize the Songhees first nation in whose traditional territory we now convene this meeting.

I am honoured to be elected the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum. The constituency is situated on central Vancouver Island, spanning both coasts from Long Beach to Qualicum Beach. For those of you who have not visited: you should. It's a magnificent constituency.

Those who have visited are usually planning a trip back sometime in the near future.

I'd like to begin by thanking all of those people that helped me throughout the election. There are too many to list in the 30 minutes allotted, so I won't try. I'd also like to thank all of those people that supported me at the polls, and I will thank you by representing you well.

I would like to thank Delores and Emma, my wife and daughter, for their support and their patience. I don't see you as much as I'd like to these days. I was going to book some time so that we could spend some time together out of the schedule, but last week I forgot to book the time to book the time. It's a work in progress here. I'm going to get that done; I promise you.

I'd like to thank my mother and father. Mom and dad, thank you for the long-distance calls and that support from far away. It was great.

S. Fraser: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition — thank you. She has been an inspiration and a role model for so many. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Gillian Trumper, the former MLA, and I wish her well.

I would like to thank those staff members who are working so hard to assist me. My constituency assistant, Brenda McLean — thank you. Patty Edwards, new to our team in Port Alberni — thank you very much. My LA — my legislative assistant, for those who don't like acronyms — Anne Paxton. Norah White and Paula Gunn, research — thank you very much. Jaime Matten from communications. I owe them all very much. Thank you very much.

The east side of Alberni-Qualicum begins just above Parksville near French Creek. Then it follows up the coast through Qualicum Beach to Bowser and Deep Bay. The region is beautiful, the climate is relatively mild, and it's relatively dry. It is situated within the UNESCO Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve. There is tourism, some agriculture in the Coombs-Errington area, and there's shellfish aquaculture. There's among the highest percentage population of seniors in Canada.

Government policy, I believe, must reflect the needs of our seniors and treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve. The throne speech refers to seniors only in the reference to the Premier's council on aging and seniors issues. The budget returns some much-needed resources to some seniors but is seriously lacking, considering the policies and the cuts of the last four years under this government and this government's priorities: an obsession with corporate tax breaks.

I will fight to protect seniors' rights and make Alberni-Qualicum a model for B.C. and Canada in providing for the realities of an aging population. Shortsighted government policies that download costs and fees onto those with fixed incomes have created much hardship and inequity in the last four years — especially amongst our seniors, who are often on fixed pensions and who are more and more frequently required to support their grown children who have faced torn-up contracts, job loss, downsizing and an inability to afford skyrocketing tuition fees for their own children.

There is a Nuu-chah-nulth phrase: hishuk-ish ts'awalk. It means "everything is connected" or "all things are one." Maybe with the new relationship with first nations this government is proposing, some of the Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom will rub off on some of the hon. members and help them to realize that policies and cuts that create hardship and misery can and do have a domino effect and go far beyond those who are immediately hurt.

We all know of seniors who can no longer afford to fill prescriptions, visit the optometrist, the physiotherapist or the podiatrist, or visit a park. We all know of seniors unable to access long-term care beds. And there are lifelong couples still facing the threat of future isolation and separation.

None of this is acceptable to my constituents, nor to myself. So be forewarned, you in this House. You will be hearing much more on this from me and from my constituents over the next four years — to effect policy changes that reflect a quality of life that our seniors have earned and, indeed, deserve.

The west coast of my constituency is magnificent. My family and I lived in Tofino for 12 years. I served as mayor there, and I've been involved in numerous committees and groups that deal with all ranges of issues. It never rains there.

Clayoquot Sound is the home of B.C.'s first world biosphere designation. That makes two biospheres within my constituency — the only two in British Columbia. I am taking bragging rights here, Mr. Speaker. I am proud that I was able to be involved in the creation of this first UNESCO biosphere reserve in British Columbia. We were able to negotiate $12 million that we invested towards research, education and training in perpetuity for our children, for their children. It is the only biosphere in Canada, I believe the only biosphere in the world, that has achieved such a legacy.

There has been much strife in Clayoquot Sound. There has been civil disobedience, there have been arrests, and there have been major job losses amongst resource workers. There is now some logging, there is aquaculture, and there is a strong tourism industry on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in my constituency. Tourism and ecotourism have eclipsed all other industries and drive an economy that benefits the entire province from the west coast. Support for these west coast communities needs to be there.

Access across Vancouver Island from Qualicum Beach to Port Alberni and on to Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound is challenging. It's limited at best. The single access to Port Alberni is a real bottleneck. Traffic accidents have shut down the only route to Port Alberni several times this summer. I was stuck in two for several hours. We need another access to Port Alberni and beyond.

Highway 4 west of Port Alberni to Tofino, Ucluelet and five Nuu-chah-nulth communities needs a major upgrade. It was never designed to be a highway, nor for anywhere near the intensity of use that it's seeing now. The province needs to partner with communities to assist in highway access and infrastructure programs. The costs of handling the stress of over a million visitors per year cannot, and I say should not, be carried by the communities alone. The province must recognize that a partnership in investment here is an investment in all of British Columbia. This House will be hearing more from me on that issue over the next four years.

Port Alberni, the Alberni Valley, is the heart of my constituency — geographically, certainly, and historically. Port Alberni has helped build this great province, contributing enormously to its economic foundation.

The payback by this government for that historic role has been nonexistent — actually, by all appearances, punitive. Policies of the last four years by this government have been devastating: cuts and closures; gutted forestry policies that fail to recognize the linking of the resource to the communities and the workers; slashed labour standards; slashed programs; layoffs; torn-up contracts; cut training programs; slashed environmental standards; reduced labour standards; reduced minimum wage — training wage; underfunding of the West Coast General Hospital, a brand new hospital; bed closures; school closures; liquor store closures. Virtually every policy of the last four years by this government has hurt this great community.

Now, I've lived in and visited many places in Canada, and I have never encountered a stronger or more resilient population than the people of Port Alberni, and they deserve better than this. Despite all of the last four years, Port Alberni residents have a greater sense of community than I think I've ever seen. In the last couple of months, I've attended the annual forest festival, the salmon festival, parades, the fall fair, bullhead-catching competitions, dunk tanks that I've been dunked in more than once, and tall ships. The spirit of this community is incredible.

The throne speech and the budget refer to the golden decade. We're hearing a lot of that. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, economic prosperity should never be engineered to benefit only a few or be at the expense of places like Port Alberni. This House will be hearing much more from me on these issues over the next four years.

Hishuk-ish ts'awalk. That's that term again, the Nuu-chah-nulth term meaning all things are connected; everything is one. It is, in essence, the mission statement of the UNESCO Clayoquot Sound International Biosphere Reserve. All things are connected; everything is one. There is much wisdom in these words. Our decisions in this room must maintain or strive towards a balance between a healthy environment and healthy communities, because both are inextricably connected.

Sustainability is a much-used term these days. We must gauge our activities, decisions and policies on their impacts on future generations. If activities are sustainable, they will not impact negatively on our future generations. If they do, they're hurting our children and their children.

Too many decisions have been made in this House without foresight and without an understanding of the true public good. That's our job here: the public good — not the private good, not a group. It's the public good. Too many decisions have been made without an understanding or with a misconception of what true public or true investment really is.

The throne speech and the budget both refer at length to first nations and aboriginal issues, and I am heartened by these statements. There are great expectations and hope around the so-called new relationship. I have met with the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation as critic, and we had productive discussions, I think.

I requested, as I did previously in writing, assistance for a first nations community in my constituency, a community in crisis. It appears the request was taken seriously, and for that I thank you, Mr. Minister.

I also assured the minister that I would not be obstructive or stand in the way of any true reconciliation. I hope there is a new relationship. I hope native elders don't keep getting arrested protecting their traditional territories in this new relationship. I hope that when resources are provided to first nations, there will be meaningful consultation and involvement with first nations as to how those resources are to be used.

So far what I've seen of the new relationship is many words and a promise of $100 million. There is some lack of clarity in the budget as to what the $100 million will be used for and how it will be administered. It is obviously designed to kick-start the government's new relationship with first nations.

Certainly, first nations in B.C. deserve the respect and the support of this government. This government oversaw and imposed policies that caused much hardship to first nations and aboriginal peoples in B.C. and caused much damage to aboriginal relations in the last four years. I don't want to harp on the past. There have been problems with all governments. But reconciliation is about atoning for the past. That's the definition of the word.

Look at the divisive and inflammatory referendum on minority rights that this government imposed on first nations and all of B.C. in 2002. Look at the number of aboriginal children in care, and look at how that number has grown under this government and under this government's policies. Look at the litigation that

first nations have been forced into by this government. The last time I looked, there were some 40 cases before the courts. With the government's refusal to negotiate treaties with first nations — forced to the courts to protect their constitutional rights — progress and settlement is unlikely or glacial at best.

There may be a few agreements-in-principle signed, but it's not looking very promising, not quite looking like a new relationship yet. Yes, the last four years under this government have been particularly difficult for aboriginal people in B.C. Cuts to transition homes to fund corporate tax breaks, cuts to native court workers to fund corporate tax breaks, cuts to social assistance to fund corporate tax breaks — these damaging policies and cuts were imposed in the wake of the 2001 UN report that ranked aboriginal communities in this great nation at 79th on the human development index. That's 79th while Canada ranks around number one.

These policies and cuts were implemented despite the fact that this government knew that many first nations in this province were already living in Third World conditions — no, Fourth World conditions. When I saw a new ministry created entitled Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I thought: wow. We need a lot, a whole lot, of reconciliation after what's been going on specifically for the last four years.

In terms of the announced $100 million, well, I'm crossing my fingers that's a signal that this government will make amends and stand behind those good words in the throne speech, in the budget, in the New Relationship document. I will work to ensure that they are more than just words.

In closing, I'd like to say that I am an optimist, not an optometrist. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I do believe the role we play here in this House, on both sides of the House, should be taken very, very seriously. There are so many people counting on us, all of us. I also believe that it is unwise to take ourselves too seriously.

I look forward to working cooperatively, with everyone in this House, I hope, to make my constituency, Alberni-Qualicum, and this province a better place today and for our children and for their children. Thank you very much. Mussi-cho.

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted to rise in the House today. As many others have stood before me, I want to, first of all, welcome back the returning members. It's always exciting to actually be able to stand in this House. It is an awesome place, and it brings with it an awesome responsibility. We want to welcome, also, those new members on both sides of the House who we know have the same views about serving the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also extend to you our congratulations. We know that you will look over this House and that you will watch it and manage it with wisdom and with fairness. We certainly congratulate you on your appointment.

I am delighted this afternoon to be able to rise and speak to the budget and, most significantly, to point out that I will not be supporting the amendment that's been brought to the floor, because it is time that British Columbia recognizes the turnaround in this province.

Let's remember that the update that was brought is simply part of the budget. So much of the information we continue to hear chooses a very small portion of the information. We do have to go back and look at the February budget. To suggest there's been no addition to funding for education, for example…. In fact, over $200 million will be added to public education over the next three years. That's part of this budget.

I am delighted to be able to represent Prince George–Mount Robson. I can honestly tell you — I tell everyone — that I have the most beautiful riding in the province. I know everyone argues about that, but it is a beautiful place. Mount Robson is the home of the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies — obviously, Mount Robson. It is also the home of Mount Terry Fox and Canoe Mountain, a place where, because of the new, strategic approach to attracting business to this province, we have the opportunity to develop a resort that will be second to none in the village of Valemount. That's exciting, and that's because when you take a progressive and forward-looking approach to investment, it actually allows people to get jobs, to bring dollars to this province.

Hon. S. Bond: The former Minister of Education reminds me: "Don't forget the new school." In fact, in Valemount we will be having a brand-new school designed in conjunction with community members who are passionate and excited about education.

With humble thanks I want to express my thanks to the people who placed their faith in me. I can tell you, I take that incredibly seriously. I want to say to them that I will continue to work hard on their behalf. There may be a lot of things we might not agree on, but there is one thing I know for sure: the residents of Prince George–Mount Robson want to be heard. Whether they live in Prince George or Dunster or McBride or Valemount or any of the villages I represent, they simply want someone to make sure that Victoria is listening to them. We've done that for four years, and I am honoured to be able to continue to do that on their behalf.

We wouldn't be here today if we didn't have families and friends that give up a great deal to make sure we have this honour. I am so thrilled to have a husband who, once I was elected…. I was in municipal politics prior to this role. I'm not sure he completely understood what was going to happen after I was elected and immediately made a cabinet minister. Certainly, without him and the support of two incredible children…. To my husband Bill and my two children, our twins, Chris and Melissa, I want to say thank you. They give up a great deal so that I can be part of an

We have very deep roots in our community. Both my husband and I were born in the north. We were born in Prince George, our children were born there, and in fact, my husband's grandfather came to the north in the very early 1900s. To suggest that this is a government that doesn't care about people in this province, particularly northern and rural communities, is simply not true. We live there. We love where we live, and we have a responsibility to make sure that all the people of British Columbia benefit. That's precisely what we're going to continue to do.

I want to suggest that when we look at budgets, it is about making choices. It's about making tough decisions. It's very easy to sit back and make suggestions about what could've been done, what should've been done, what was done and what wasn't done. In fact, it takes courage and leadership to recognize that if we want this province to be the prosperous place our children and grandchildren deserve, you can't continue to do that by accumulating debt that our children will be saddled with for the rest of our lives.

Despite what we've heard, there is no dispute in this fact: when we formed government in 2001, the financial outlook for this province was dismal. Ten years of poor fiscal management and a lack of long-term planning simply drove business — and mining is a perfect example — and investment out of this province. Our young people were leaving British Columbia. You can't dispute this, Mr. Speaker: this province went from being a have province to a have-not province. That is no longer the case, and it is something we are incredibly proud of.

You need leadership, you need vision, and you need courage to make decisions that aren't always easy. We have a foundation in place on which to build. We also have a plan. The plan that we laid out in the throne speech earlier this year does talk about five great goals. I am proud of those goals. These goals are a blueprint to make British Columbia a leader in education, in health and fitness, social supports for those most in need, environmental sustainability and employment opportunities.

B.C. is already a leader in so many areas, from research to skilled trades to lifestyle. Let's look at the facts. We have the highest job growth rate in the country: 231,000 jobs created since December 2001. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. More people are moving to British Columbia than leaving. Retail sales are double the national average. And guess what. B.C. led the country in economic growth last year. How can that be bad news?

This budget and the budget update will support and advance our five great goals to better the lives of the citizens and the province. We've already seen improved services and growing optimism across the province and, in particular, in my home riding of Prince George–Mount Robson. The budget update, along with the throne speech and our February budget, clearly reflect an ongoing commitment to northern development. We intend to further invest in the northern development initiative, an opportunity for our leaders, our citizens, to actually make decisions about things that are important to them. We've given them significant resources to do that.

I don't know how complicated it is to recognize that when you lower the general corporate income tax rate from 13.5 percent to 12 percent, you actually help the people of British Columbia to make sure we have great health care and have education that's second to none in this province. It's about an economy. It's a simple principle. It's not about either/or. It's about how do you provide the resources necessary to ensure the things that are most important to British Columbians, that we can actually afford to do that….

Lots of discussion about pine beetle. It's absolutely essential that we do deal with pine beetle. I was born and raised in northern British Columbia, and I can assure you of this: this government, from the moment it was elected, stood up, took responsibility, created a plan, took this to the federal government and provided leadership. Prior to that, I stood in my community and watched the pine beetle march across this province with little or no action. We have provided leadership. We are going to make a difference, and we will continue to put the citizens of the north at the front of that decision-making.

There is nothing in my view — and I must admit I am the Minister of Education and have been the Minister of Advanced Education — that is as significant as making sure that British Columbia is the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on this continent. I am excited about the chance that we have to work together to make sure that happens. Let me remind you that the September budget update, despite the comments heard, actually commits $268 million in funding over three years to my ministry, the Ministry of Education. That tells me how much we care about public education.

This budget provides the largest investment in British Columbia's K-to-12 education system. The funding has never been higher in the province. For the first time, it's over $5 billion, at the same time that we are losing students — 30,000 fewer students and the highest education budget ever in the history of this province. This year alone we added $150 million to the public education budget. That in itself is the single largest increase in funding in more than a decade in this province.

Every one of our 60 school districts received substantial funding increases this year, despite the fact that we are projecting 6,700 fewer students in this province. Per-pupil funding for 2005-2006 is an estimated $7,097, an increase of $345 over last year and $881 more per student since 2000-2001. Remember: all of those investments have been made at a time when our enrolments are actually declining in the province.

We have also added to the…. We are very concerned about making sure we meet the needs of special needs student in this province. We are increasing funding. The minister's update points out that we are going to add an additional $37 million for special education.

What are we doing in terms of new buildings and capital? You know, it's not a surprise that we have a seismic issue in British Columbia. This province has never had a plan to deal with the concerns that parents have had about seismic challenges with buildings — never had a plan. We have a plan. In fact, we have a plan that over the next 15 years, we will spend, using the dollars that this government sets aside for public education, $1.5 billion to make sure that our school buildings are safe for our students. There's never been a plan. We have a plan.

In fact, we're fast-tracking projects in this province. We're already working in over 95 places to make sure that those buildings are safe. In addition to that, we've committed over $1.5 billion to our capital program. Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? We've added and approved 139 projects: 14 new schools, 26 additions, 54 renovations, 31 sites and 14 seismic upgrades.

We care about public education. This budget reflects it. This government will continue to make sure that our students get the best possible education they can.

One of the things I'm very excited about is the change and the expansion of the mandate that I have in my ministry. I've heard so many positive things in the community about the fact that we're finally understanding that education and literacy are critical from conception onward. I am lucky enough to be able to work with my colleague and to talk about how, as communities, we can address the needs, not simply of the K-to-12 sector…. In fact, we want to talk with communities about how we help our children be more ready for school.

It is a significant concern for me that 25 percent of our children arrive at school and are not school-ready. In particular, I'm concerned about our aboriginal communities. We've made a focused attempt to work with aboriginal leaders across this province. As a result, we've seen the completion rates for aboriginal students increase about 5 percent. Is it acceptable? Of course not. We have much more work to do. Right now the aboriginal completion rate in this province is 47 percent. Is there work to be done? Absolutely there is. We are committed to working with aboriginal leaders to ensure that the type of system that we create is suitable for their children. We need to fix the system. We need to make sure that those children's needs are being met, and we are going to do that.

The second great goal that we're interested in looking at is the whole area of health and wellness. I've heard many, many speakers talk about how we need to get on with making sure that we're addressing health care. You know, Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you, as a person who was lucky enough to be the Health Minister for a period of time, we added $1.5 billion more for health care over the next three years — $1.5 billion. We've said that we have to focus our efforts on making sure that British Columbia leads the way in healthy living and fitness.

Let's look at what we've done in health care. For the first time in the province of British Columbia, for the first time — we get to say that a lot because there are a lot of wonderful things that are for the first time — we're actually going to train physicians, imagine this, outside of the lower mainland. Why are we doing that? You know what? We had a problem. We couldn't recruit and retain physicians in northern British Columbia, so we actually looked at why that was happening.

It turns out that if you train people closer to home, they stay there. We created, for the first time in this province and in fact in North America, a model that will see a joint approach to medical education in this province. I am incredibly proud of that, and we are seeing the direct benefits of that when we look at how we're able to recruit and retain physicians in northern British Columbia.

There was a lot of sort of joshing when we had our throne speech, when we talked about the whole issue of healthy living and how important it is to eat fruits and vegetables. I know that there was a lot of teasing in the media about that, but I want to tell you something: It's no laughing matter. Approximately one-third of Canadian children are considered overweight, and 18 percent are considered obese. That's not simply a health issue. Those are issues that affect self-esteem. They're issues that impact children for the entire span of their lives.

Recent findings by the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute suggest that 58 percent of our youth aged 12 to 19 are not active enough for optimal growth and development. Let me say that again. They're not active enough for optimal growth and development. We know that. We need to do something about that.

About half of the teens that we know do not eat a minimum of five daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Those are the things that contribute to heart disease, to diabetes and to other health problems in adulthood and in fact go on to create enormous stress both fiscally and in terms of capacity in the health care system. So it is important that we address the issues of healthy living and lifestyle, and that's exactly what we're doing.

I am delighted and very proud of the fact that at the University of Northern British Columbia, which is in Prince George, we actually have a researcher who has just been awarded a research grant to deal with this very issue. He's going to focus on childhood obesity. We know that across the province together and working across ministries in this government, we are going to have an aggressive and progressive strategy to make sure we're addressing those issues.

At home, where I live, there have been tremendous investments in health care and increased opportunities in particular for medical training. The northern collaborative baccalaureate nursing program, which is a joint effort between a number of institutions, just received phase one approval from the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. That's great news. We've seen a $50 million expansion at Prince George Regional Hospital. We've spent $24 million making sure we have a medical school. We've ensured there's 24-hour ambulance service.

We opened a geriatric day hospital. I visited there one day, and I can tell you that it was fantastic. It means that seniors no longer have to wait in a long

lineup in terms of waiting in the emergency room. They actually get taken to a special place. They're dealt with one on one. It's very exciting.

We have telehealth capability now in my villages of both McBride and Valemount, which means that those simple diagnoses which would have required people to actually travel to Prince George can be done using technology. We have also seen an incredible recruitment of general practitioners and specialists because of our work with the northern medical program.

Our third goal is to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. The reason we worked so hard and made some very difficult decisions in this province was to make sure we could get our fiscal house in order so that we could actually support those priority areas, those areas such as health care, education and social supports. That's why we are delighted to see in the budget update a commitment of $242 million over three years to improve services for our seniors.

You know, it's easy to talk about what could have been done. There are lots of things that could have been done over the past decade, but the fact of the matter is that this budget update reflects the care and concern that we have for people who've made an enormous difference in all of our lives.

I was lucky enough the other day to be with my colleague from Prince George–Omineca, and we attended a sod-turning at something we fondly called ECRA. It's the elder citizens recreation centre. I guess it's a matter of demographics. Obviously, the number of people wanting to participate in the centre for seniors is actually rising. We were able to work very hard with our colleagues during our last mandate to provide $800,000 for the expansion of this seniors centre. My colleague from Prince George–Omineca and I….

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(a), it's my obligation to put the question on the amendment at this time.

	YEAS — 29

S. Simpson	Evans	Fleming
James	Kwan	Brar
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 39

L. Reid	Coell	Ilich
Christensen	Les	Richmond
Bell	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Hogg	Sultan	Hawkins
Krueger	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
MacKay	McIntyre	Rustad

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to now speak in support of the budget. We have, as you know, five great goals as we move forward in this province. I want to just take a moment or two to talk about the third goal, which is the best system of supports in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors.

When we look at the commitments made in our balanced budget of 2005, they include significant dollars to ensure we address income assistance caseloads and increase assistance for persons with disabilities by $70 per month — the largest one-time dollar increase in B.C. history and the first significant increase in more than ten years. We also see $91 million for adult community living services, $36 million for social housing, $24 million for supportive and transition housing projects, and the list goes on.

In terms of my riding, these supports are needed, just as they are in more urban centres. I am so pleased to see nearly $400,000 in additional funding for services in Prince George and the Mount Robson area to assist women and children who have experienced domestic violence. In my riding there's a place called the Phoenix transition home. I met there recently with a number of women who certainly had enormous challenges. They shared their stories. They reached out, looking for opportunities and ways that we could recognize some of the most marginalized people. These dollars will do exactly that. The work that the Phoenix transition home does is remarkable in Prince George. Those and many other providers in our community make a difference in the lives of people every single day.

As we move forward, we want to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar

none. We have set aside significant dollars to make sure that this is a goal we can realize over the next decade.

Let's talk about our relationship with first nations. It's easy to sit and be critical of those things that could have been done differently. But I'm proud of the work that's been done. I know about that first hand because, you see, in my riding we have a band called the Lheidli-T'enneh. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we have worked hard to ensure that the voices of the Lheidli-T'enneh are heard at the treaty table.

Let me tell you what Lheidli-T'enneh stands for. First of all, it's part of the Carrier nation. There's a brand-new chief, Chief Dominic Frederick. He was newly elected in March. He wants to see a treaty. I also have to commend the work of Chief Barry Seymour, who worked so tirelessly on behalf of his people. In fact, this process and the work that the Lheidli-T'enneh does on a daily basis — not simply working to find a treaty, but also working with the municipal government — is exemplary. I remember that the former Attorney General used to use this band as an example of how a system, when they're involved, really works if there are leaders prepared to stand up.

Lheidli-T'enneh is Carrier for "people of the confluence of two rivers." That refers to the joining of two rivers, the Fraser and the Nechako, in Prince George. Reconciliation and making sure that we care for the first nations of this country are important to all of us. Our first nations people make a significant contribution to our communities and to our culture. It is significant and important that we have set aside $100 million committed to a new relationship with first nations. That is just one part of what government is doing to support the efforts of first nations.

Too often in government, ministries have tried to address the solutions in isolation. Today we're looking at a collaborative approach, a cross-ministry approach, to furthering the long-term interests of first nations through the creation of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the general understanding that all issues are interrelated. We are supporting the efforts of our first nations.

In Prince George we're seeing continued investment in aboriginal communities. The $100 million committed to the First Nations New Relationship fund will assist local first nations in capacity building. What could be more important, Mr. Speaker? We want to work in terms of skills training development.

Recently $150,000 was sent to UNBC for first nations programming. Over $25,000 in provincial support for aboriginal education at the College of New Caledonia — another wonderful institution in Prince George–Mount Robson. Then, of course, we have the $15 million B.C. Rail first nations benefits trust.

Our five great goals serve as a guide. We need a plan for the province of British Columbia, a plan that is our incentive and motivation for serving the people of British Columbia. But our plan doesn't stop at five goals. They're important, and they're significant, and they're meaningful. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that every plan needs people who are prepared to provide leadership, and British Columbia is already leading by example.

We are leaders in this country when we talk about issues of literacy. For the first time, the first ministers of this country are addressing the issue of literacy. It's because British Columbia, through the Premier and through ministers previous, took this issue to the national table, and we are leading in that area.

We are also committed to looking at how we improve healthy living and lifestyles. Again, we are the leaders on a joint project with other provinces in this country to look at how we can create healthy schools and healthy lifestyles. British Columbia is the leader of that initiative.

We're also leading the country in job creation, education, research, technology development and, again, literacy. Getting our fiscal house in order allows us to continue to do the things the people of British Columbia want us to do.

In five years we will be hosting the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics in British Columbia. This is our opportunity to showcase our province to the world — its beauty, its citizens, our innovation and our leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that this weekend was inspiring. I want to remind you. I know that many members on both sides of the House participated in the Terry Fox Run. I want you to know that Terry Fox actually came to Prince George prior to doing his Marathon of Hope. He came and participated in what was then called the Boston to Prince George Marathon, now called the Labour Day Classic. He came and said: "I want to see if I have the endurance to run the race." He came, he completed, and I can tell you that to this day, it reminds all of us of his strength and determination.

This past weekend my colleagues from Prince George–Omineca and Prince George North and I were so proud to stand in the community square and unveil a statue of Terry Fox right at the place where he both started and finished the race. Terry Fox showed us that determination and courage and vision make a difference. Twenty-five years later we are holding Terry Fox Runs throughout Canada and across the world, raising millions of dollars. If one person…

Hon. S. Bond: …can make that difference, imagine the possibilities for the people of British Columbia.

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.