Hansard — Thursday, February 15, 2007 p.m.

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		5317

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5317
	Random Acts of Kindness Club at Central Elementary School
	I. Black
	Chinese New Year
	J. Kwan
	Multiculturalism
	D. Hayer
	Contributions of Williams Lake citizens group
	C. Wyse
	Heritage Week
	J. Yap
	Jannit Rabinovitch
	C. James

Oral Questions		5320
	Implementation of Hughes report recommendations on child protection
	C. James
	Hon. T. Christensen
	M. Karagianis
	Availability of beds at Kelowna General Hospital
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Emergency surgical services in lower mainland
	H. Bains
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Ambulatory care facility at Surrey Memorial Hospital
	J. Brar
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Deni House
	B. Simpson
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Wyse
	Funding for child care resource and referral centres
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. L. Reid

Petitions		5324
	B. Simpson
	S. Simpson
	C. Evans
	K. Conroy
	C. Wyse

Motions without Notice		5325
	Membership and powers of Sustainable Aquaculture Committee
	Hon. M. de Jong

Notice of Motion		5325
	Legislative sitting hours
	Hon. M. de Jong

Reports from Committees		5325
	Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services Report on the Budget 2007 Consultations
	B. Lekstrom
	B. Ralston
	Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services Annual Review of the Budgets of the Independent Offices of the Legislative Assembly
	B. Lekstrom
	B. Ralston

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		5327
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	H. Lali
	H. Bloy

C. James: All of us in this Legislative Assembly know the challenges for those people who support us in our lives. I am very pleased today to introduce the person who supports me in my life. My husband is here — Albert Gerow, the love of my life. Welcome.

D. Hayer: It is my honour to introduce some very special guests from Surrey, Wayne and Doreen Morrison, who live in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're visiting Victoria and our Legislature today. They have lived in Surrey since 1968, and they'd like to see the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 widening as soon as possible.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce the Gosal family, visiting from Revelstoke. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like the House to recognize and welcome Trevor Cory. Trevor is visiting us from Korea, where he is teaching English at Kyungwon University in Seoul. He is a very good friend of my executive assistant and her fiancé Ryan, and studied political science and history at Wilfrid Laurier University. I know that Trevor loves Victoria, and Devon and Ryan showed him a very exciting evening last night in true Victoria style by watching reruns of question period.

M. Farnworth: I know some of my colleagues have said I'm going through puberty right now. In the gallery today are a group of really terrific students from Central Elementary. They had an idea, and they made it a reality. That was to push for Random Acts of Kindness Week, which the government and the Attorney General signed into proclamation today. They are here with their teacher Harriette Chang and their principal Dave Sands up in the gallery. Their idea has caught on across the province. So would the House please give them a terrific welcome.

I. Black: Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed individuals to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead spoke those words years before the parents of our special guests here today.

Last year students of Central Elementary School in Port Coquitlam established the Random Acts of Kindness or RAK Club. Simply put, this is a group of selfless students who take delight in doing nice things for people that are completely unexpected and where nothing is expected in return. While not surprising fellow students, the club has been known to bake cookies and then share them with seniors at a local care facility and hand out free coffee on the streets in the business district.

Somewhere along the line these kids started to think that if being this nice to others made them feel good, then others should know about it, and thus started a journey of raising the profile of their club. It has led them to three city halls in the Tri-Cities and three civic proclamations, visits to the morning news of both local and national television, and has earned them the encouragement and praise of community and service groups throughout B.C. and across Canada.

In November I received a very simple letter from the students asking if the province could do anything to help spread their message throughout B.C. I was moved by the sincerity and purity of these students and their request. I became an instant advocate and was thrilled when I learned that February 12 to 19, 2007, has been proclaimed Random Acts of Kindness Week here in British Columbia.

At a ceremony in the Legislature today, the students each received from the Attorney General an official copy of the proclamation and a new B.C. flag for their school from our Premier. I would like to thank Ms. Chang and each member of the Central Elementary club for setting an example for all of us and for their commitments to making their school, their community and now their province a kinder place.

J. Kwan: On Sunday I, along with other colleagues and community leaders, will be participating in the parade held in Vancouver to celebrate the start of the Chinese New Year and their spring festival. The lunar new year is a time of celebration for many people from Asian countries in British Columbia. It has become a time for all of us to mark and enjoy this multicultural splendour.

Chinese New Year starts with the new moon on the first day of the new year. Legend has it that Buddha convened an animal kingdom to restore order to the world, and just 12 animals showed up. Those animals became the zodiac signs in the Chinese lunar calendar.

Now, it is said that your zodiac sign is the animal that hides in your heart. So members will be very interested to know that the sign of the pig represents hard work, honesty, sincerity, tolerance and persistence in working out problems. Those are valuable qualities that I know all politicians claim they possess.

February 18 is the beginning of the Year of the Pig in the year 4705 since the zodiac was introduced. For the Chinese community it is the holiday of the year. In

fact, I think we should make the lunar new year a statutory holiday, something that I personally advocate for.

To greet the new year, it is the tradition that families dine together on new year's eve. The celebration is traditionally highlighted with a religious ceremony given in honour of the gods of the household and the family ancestors. This gathering symbolizes family unity. It honours the past and present generations.

People long to see the fortune god, and this Sunday if you head down to Chinatown, you may be lucky enough to see the fortune god at the parade. Of course, there will be lots of firecrackers, for it is the Chinese way of sending out the old year and welcoming the new year.

Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone good luck, good health and prosperity in the new year. Gung hay fat choy. Sun nin fy lok.

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, on the third week in February each year in this province we celebrate Multiculturalism Week. In fact, next week in the riding of my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission, there is a huge celebration featuring the diversity that makes up our society. Mission residents will have the opportunity to enjoy traditions ranging from the Abbotsford bhangra dancers to Kauhane Polynesian dancers from Maple Ridge, but in reality the celebration of multiculturalism happens every day in British Columbia.

I would like to take some time to highlight some of the things our government is doing to help support multiculturalism. B.C. currently provides $500,000 provincewide annually to support activities and to prevent and eliminate racism through increased public awareness and cross-cultural understanding. In 2006 our government also negotiated $7.5 million in new federal funding for settlement programs over the next two years.

The funding will also help newcomers to better adapt to British Columbia through new, enhanced and expanded settlement and immigration services. Since 2001 over 2,500 skilled and business immigrants and their dependents have made this province their home through the B.C. provincial nominee program.

Multiculturalism is supported in British Columbia, and I urge everyone in this House to join me in honouring multiculturalism in this province. Also, I ask everyone to attend as many cultural festivals as possible throughout the year, including the many activities that are happening in the Chinese community and other communities for the Chinese New Year and especially the Chinese New Year parade on February 18.

C. Wyse: From February 9 to 17 across our province, communities are celebrating Spirit of B.C. Week as citizens in every city, town and village rise to the challenge to be active. Today I ask the House to recognize a group of active Williams Lake residents, some of whom are here today in the gallery. I understand some of them have just arrived from Williams Lake.

These men and women, many of them senior citizens, know about being active. For many years these people were actively raising their families. They were active in the workplace. They were active volunteering their few free hours to benefit their community, and our community did benefit.

Almost 40 years ago these active folks raised money for Cariboo Lodge. This fundraising was necessary to ensure that the government of the day would build much-needed seniors housing in the community. Similarly, they worked hard to raise more money to supply another care facility, Heritage House, with drapes and many extras not covered in the government budget.

This committed group of activists spearheaded by Audrey MacLise rallied again to raise money for Deni House, the seniors facility nestled beside Cariboo Memorial Hospital. Those dollars bought electrical beds, new lighting, a fireplace, furniture and a big-screen TV.

With the support of the people in the Cariboo, this hard-working group raised over $100,000 alone to build a covered patio where Deni House residents and their families could enjoy a Cariboo summer day.

I ask the House to welcome these very active senior citizens who have set a fine example for our youth. To quote anthropologist Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." These committed citizens of the Cariboo have shown their children and their grandchildren the importance of being active. They are the true spirits of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: It's my pleasure to welcome to the chamber today a group of very dedicated, very active students from the University of British Columbia. It was my pleasure to host them last year. They've come again this year. They've had many meetings with my colleagues, and I think it's vitally important that we continue to make that overture to students in the province because they indeed have some glorious ideas. I thank them very much for joining us today.

Mr. Speaker: Seems like we're going back into introductions. Certainly, go ahead.

C. Wyse: I would like to introduce to the House Audrey MacLise, Win Gooding, Bill Reid, Al Peterson, Pat Peterson, Susan McNeil, Nancy Labourais, Irma Cooper, Robert Proulx, Nora Sam, Lilly Bourgeois,

Nora Nichol, Herb Nakada, Hugh Mahon, Kulwinder Saini and Rudy Lawrence. Many of these individuals had also gone to Kamloops in order to deal with their issues. I am pleased to welcome them to the House to see their business here being done. I ask the House to make them feel welcome.

As we all heard, next week is not only the first week of the new Chinese New Year but also Heritage Week, which falls between February 19 and February 25. This year Heritage Week will emphasize vernacular heritage. That's architecture without architects.

B.C. Heritage Week celebrates the historic features of British Columbia — the buildings, structures and historic sites that surround us. This year the emphasis will be placed with the ordinary, everyday heritage sites that make up our neighbourhoods and add to the character of British Columbia's communities.

It only takes a glimpse to recognize the importance and beauty that these sites lend to their communities. I find myself lucky to represent a diverse area this week celebrating its own colourful heritage. In Richmond alone there are six main heritage site attractions — the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Park, the London Heritage Farm, Minoru Chapel, Steveston Museum, Steveston Interurban Tram and the Gulf of Georgia Cannery, all landmarks of Richmond that deserve attention this week.

All of these sites are great examples of what heritage means to British Columbians. It has been the hard work and dedication of Richmond citizens to maintain these sites and preserve them for future generations. Through the lead of local museums and heritage groups, this is an opportunity for all British Columbians to get out and explore a side of their community they may not know exists.

In a time of rapid change, technology and urban living, it's easy to get caught up in the here and now. It's easy to forget British Columbia's rich history and pass by sites which speak of another era. I challenge everyone to discover their community's past, as that is what has made British Columbia so strong today.

C. James: Today I rise to celebrate the life and achievements of Jannit Rabinovitch, one of Victoria's finest. When Jannit lost her courageous battle with cancer earlier this year, our province and our country lost a great citizen. But her drive, her compassion and her tireless work will leave a bright legacy in our city and our province. That legacy will be with us for years to come.

Jannit was much more than an activist. She was a powerful and compassionate voice for those people in our community who needed a voice the most. She spoke for those among us who otherwise are never heard. She gave hope to those who rarely have any. Jannit worked with PEERS and other community groups to help sex workers, homeless women and women escaping violence across our city. She was instrumental in building transition houses for women, including the Sandy Merriman House, an emergency shelter for homeless women. She also worked tirelessly to see the Margaret Laurence House for battered women completed.

Jannit also sat on the Victoria police board for six years and was named an honorary citizen of Victoria in 2004. In 1997 she was awarded a YMCA Women of Distinction Award. Jannit was a leader in our community, and Victoria will deeply miss her leadership and her passion. I personally will miss her fighting spirit and her compassionate heart.

This summer when I was at home recovering from my own cancer, Jannit, although she was going through her own struggles, came by and paid me a visit. Despite the fact that she was in the midst of chemotherapy, she wanted to debate how we could make sure that we got things done in British Columbia for those people she'd worked her entire life for.

I know the House joins with me to send our thoughts to Jannit's family in this challenging time. We've lost a great British Columbian, but we must also take this time to celebrate her life and the gifts that she gave our community. We must collectively commit to carrying on her legacy and to speak out on behalf of all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: My apologies to the House for not being able to do this sooner. I would like to join with the member for Cariboo South in recognizing a delegation from the community of Williams Lake. In the House today are Ronnie Atking, Nelva Burris, Clara Halber, Max Halber, Jean Gray, Imgar Grew, Sonya Ignatieff, Bob O'Neil, Sheila Richardson, Ingrid Campbell, Pat Zenecali. These folks are with the others that the member for Cariboo South had mentioned are here to meet with the minister around the closure of Deni House in the Williams Lake community.

R. Fleming: I would like to join the member for Richmond East in welcoming members from the Alma Mater Society from UBC as well — in particular, two outgoing members of the executive, Ian Pattillo and Kevin Keystone, who are working their last day on behalf of the society and still working very hard on behalf of all their members.

I'd also like to welcome, because I'm sure this won't be the first time we see them in this House, Matthew Naylor and Jeff Friedrich, who is the incoming president of the Alma Mater Society. Please join me in welcoming them.

C. James: Can the new Minister of Children and Family Development tell this House if he stands 100 percent behind all 62 recommendations made by Ted Hughes last spring?

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I think government was very clear at the time that Mr. Hughes made his recommendations that we welcomed those recommendations. We look forward to implementing those recommendations. We look forward to working with the new Representative for Children and Youth, and that's my commitment. That remains the government's commitment.

C. James: Last April the minister's predecessor stated that the government will "be acting on all 62 recommendations." Despite that assurance and the assurance that the minister just provided, a recent freedom-of-information request paints a very different picture. That freedom-of-information request shows that there are absolutely no records to show that the deputy minister has followed through personally on any of the 62 recommendations.

Could the Minister of Children and Family Development please explain how he is personally implementing the Hughes recommendations when an FOI shows that his deputy has no records — absolutely no records — to show any progress?

Hon. T. Christensen: I find the Leader of the Opposition's comments quite interesting. Perhaps she should do her homework a little more thoroughly. We'd be happy to provide information on how those recommendations are being implemented. We're in the course of doing it.

The Deputy Attorney General is heading a committee to ensure that we're following through on those recommendations. The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, was here when we followed through on one of the most significant recommendations. That was the appointment of the new representative. We were pleased to do that in the fall, notwithstanding that the opposition chose to drag that out for a number of days.

We've hired additional front-line staff through the course of this last fiscal year — in fact, 101 new front-line staff, many of those child protection workers — again following through on Mr. Hughes's recommendations. Mr. Justice Hughes also recommended additional tools to address quality assurance and accountability. We're working on those things.

We are fully committed to the recommendations that Mr. Hughes made, because we — just as, apparently, does the opposition — believe that those were strong recommendations to improve child protection and child welfare services here in British Columbia. That's our commitment.

C. James: I want to remind the minister and his government that it took six years of voices to get them to actually act on an independent children's officer. This opposition wants to make sure it doesn't take another number of years before the implementation of all the recommendations of Mr. Hughes's report.

If this minister is really committed to the Hughes report and its recommendations, perhaps he should be asking what his own ministry is doing to implement those recommendations. It should be, in fact, one of the most important pieces of his responsibility.

Of the 62 recommendations designed to protect children, no public progress has been made on at least two-thirds of those recommendations. Within days of the Hughes report we will all remember the Premier saying he was firm in his resolve to implement the recommendations.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development please explain why he is on a totally different page than his ministry and his staff?

Hon. T. Christensen: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition and I want to assure this House that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is committed to implementing the recommendations, this minister is committed to implementing the recommendations, and most importantly, this government is committed to implementing those recommendations.

I've already indicated significant progress is made in terms of a number of the recommendations relating to the Representative for Children and Youth. That is certainly significant progress. A number of steps have been taken in terms of quality assurance and accountability, hiring additional practice analysts to ensure that internally we can be undertaking the necessary reviews. We will continue down that path of implementing the recommendations, and we're fully committed to doing that.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to bring a little reality check to the conversation. The minister should be leading this critical file, and he should be driving it each and every day to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. But in fact, that's not happening.

Perhaps the minister has got a bit of disconnect with his own staff. The assistant deputy minister, Doug Hayman, said to a regional meeting in Kelowna back in June that the Hughes report is seen as recommendations from the ministry rather than binding rules. So I would have to ask the minister: what in fact is being implemented, if it's not the Hughes report, in his recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the question. I think I have answered it a number of times already. June is close to eight or nine months ago by my count — six, at least.

I've reiterated consistently today that government is committed to implementing those recommendations. Government will be driving the implementation of those recommendations. We've made significant progress with respect to the establishment of the representative, with respect to the establishment of the committee in terms of children and youth, and we'll continue on the path of implementing the recommendations.

M. Karagianis: I do, Mr. Speaker. I would have to say again to the minister: where is the disconnect between the minister and his staff? We know for a fact that the deputy minister has had no record of any kind of communications to do with the Hughes recommendations and the Hughes report — none. We actually have heard now from the assistant deputy minister that they don't consider these binding in any way.

You know, the new children's representative was hired based on the Hughes report, as we all know. In fact, if it's no longer relevant to the staff, then I would have to say that the minister should admit this to the new representative, to all those families who contributed through their tragedy to the creation of the Hughes report and, in fact, to all the front-line workers that were candid about their experiences within the ministry.

If the minister does not know what his staff is doing, then I would have to say: can the minister promise us that he will get on top of this and not let his staff disregard those recommendations any longer?

Hon. T. Christensen: It'd be nice if, for once, the opposition actually looked at the facts and looked at the record here. Within days of Mr. Hughes's recommendations, government accepted those recommendations and moved forward with the legislation of the representative. Government has consistently confirmed that we were committed to those recommendations and that we appreciated the work that Mr. Hughes did and all of those who contributed to that work.

We recognize there is significant value in that. It's significant that we can move forward with it. We have a team in place chaired by the Deputy Attorney General that is leading that transition in the implementation of those recommendations, and we will continue on that path.

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health. For more than a year we've been hearing desperate stories from Kelowna General Hospital of patients being treated in hallways, in closets. Just two days ago Dr. Michael Ertel, chief of emergency at Kelowna General, said that the situation was well past code purple, calling the overcrowding on Tuesday possibly our worst ever, and: "It's a highly unsafe situation."

Why, after over a year of desperate pleas from Kelowna and elsewhere in British Columbia, has the minister done nothing to deal with the ER crisis facing patients, doctors and nurses in our province?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can agree with neither the premises nor the conclusions that the member has drawn with respect to these matters. In fact, there has been lots of exceptional work done with respect to emergency rooms over the past years. What we have had working very strenuously are teams of doctors, nurses, administrators, care aides and paramedics getting together in every hospital facility in this province, looking at how the pressures that are sometimes inherent to emergency rooms can be best managed. We have seen some remarkable stories of people getting together, working on solutions and, in fact, putting in place measures in their emergency rooms that have helped the situation tremendously. I think for the member to disparage those efforts is most unfortunate.

A. Dix: Well, like Keith Purchase and Dana Devine and thousands of other British Columbians, the only efforts that we are concerned about are the efforts of the Minister of Health. While patients are being treated in hallways and closets and even in the nurses lounge at Kelowna General, there's an entire ward, 3 North, filled with office equipment and offices that could be treating patients today.

Can the Minister of Health explain why patients are in closets while desks and filing cabinets are in patient care wards? Can the minister tell this House when he will reverse this harmful decision that is keeping desperately needed beds off limits?

Hon. G. Abbott: If anyone is desperate, it's this opposition looking for an issue that they get some traction on.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's most unfortunate that the opposition Health critic didn't take the opportunity to discuss with Interior Health his idea for a renovation of a section of Kelowna General Hospital before he

The fact of the matter is that the area that the member is talking about is an area that is not wheelchair accessible to any washrooms in that former ward. The elevators in that former ward are not capable of access for beds. The entire area is inappropriate for the purpose which the member suggests it should be undertaken. What clearly is needed….

Hon. G. Abbott: What's needed at Kelowna General Hospital is a major investment in the redevelopment of Kelowna General Hospital. Kelowna is an area that has grown dramatically over the last two decades.

We will be making that investment. It is one of our highest priorities in this province. Should it have been done ten or 15 years ago? Perhaps. But the government of the day didn't make that choice.

H. Bains: While this minister continues to blame others and he sits doing nothing to fix the health care crisis that we have in this province, Gurpreet Singh Sidhu is another victim of this minister and this government's uncaring arrogance towards patients in Surrey Memorial Hospital. He was made to wait 22 hours in three different emergency wards of lower mainland hospitals before a surgery could be performed on his fingers. What possible explanation has this minister for Mr. Sidhu and his family for this terribly unacceptable delay?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may want to get the facts before he forms the conclusions, and I'm glad to provide those to him. This is unquestionably an unfortunate case that involves unfortunate circumstances. What it does involve, though, and what's clear…. We're still gathering information in response to questions which the patient and his family have. We are still looking for answers to some questions.

What is entirely clear is that the medical professionals at Surrey Memorial, at Royal Columbian and at Vancouver General Hospital worked as hard as they possibly could to provide a timely surgery for this young man.

The surgery that was required…. And this is critical, if the member would just take a moment to listen. The surgery that was involved in the reattachment of the ring finger of the patient involved complex microsurgery.

There are relatively few surgeons in the province who can perform that kind of surgery and relatively few facilities. It was not a possibility at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Hence, there was a transfer to Royal Columbian. At Royal Columbian, unexpectedly, a more urgent case preoccupied the plastic surgeon who was capable of reattaching the vascular and nerve tissue that's a part of microsurgery.

Similarly, the transfer came to Vancouver General Hospital in anticipation that the young man's surgery could come more quickly. It was not possible to do it immediately because, unexpectedly, a life-saving surgery had to be done by that same surgeon.

J. Brar: I'm very surprised to see the response from the minister. A few days ago the minister, responding to the same question, said on a radio program that it was beyond his understanding that this case has happened and that this is the first case he has seen during his tenure as the Minister of Health. Today we hear a totally different story.

In order to deal with the growing crisis at Surrey Memorial Hospital, the Fraser Health Authority made a recommendation to build a new ambulatory care facility and to start the construction in 2007. It's very surprising for me that the Premier flew from here to Surrey to postpone the construction for one year.

This morning I spoke to Mr. Gordon Barefoot, the new chair of the Fraser Health Authority, and asked him if he has any plan to fast-track the construction of the ambulatory care facility. His answer to me was: "Well, we will encourage the government to do things sooner as opposed to later. Ultimately, they are the ones that release the funds, and they will make the final decisions."

I would like to ask the Minister of Health, keeping in mind the crisis at the Surrey Memorial Hospital, keeping in mind what the chair is saying to this government: will the minister promise today to fast-track the construction of the ambulatory care facility and start the construction in 2007, as recommended by the Fraser Health Authority and as promised by this minister in October 2005?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue at Surrey Memorial Hospital is an important one, as we've often said in this House. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. A facility that was built for a population of about 50,000 back in 1959 now serves several times that number, and a reinvestment in Surrey Memorial Hospital is long overdue.

Should it have been done ten or 15 years ago? Perhaps. But again, the members opposite, the NDP government, didn't make that choice. We have made that choice. We're going to invest $200 million in the redevelopment of Surrey Memorial Hospital. We are going to be building the largest out-patient hospital in British Columbia. We are going to be tripling the size of the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital. We're going to be adding acute care capacity. We're going to be adding residential care capacity. This is a huge win for the province. These guys should quit complaining. Get positive. Get with the program.

B. Simpson: I wish that the delegation from Williams Lake shared the minister's positivity to get positive and get with the program, because the program in the community of Williams Lake is to close a seniors care facility that the community wants to keep open. The minister met — and I thank the minister for that meeting on short notice — with members of that delegation, and he heard clearly that the community has lost faith and confidence in Interior Health to make good decisions with respect to seniors care and the future of seniors care in the Williams Lake region.

So I would ask the minister today: given what he heard, will he intervene with Interior Health to make sure that Deni House, a seniors care facility, remains open until such time as the community can make a case directly to the minister to intervene and prevent its closure?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. It was a pleasure for me to meet earlier with the delegation from Williams Lake. I thank them for the meeting, and I look forward to hearing their submission. As I said at the meeting, I'll certainly take a respectful and full look at their submission and form appropriate conclusions.

But let me say this. Our government has made unprecedented investments in residential care and assisted living, historic levels of investment that we have never seen in this province. Five thousand….

Hon. G. Abbott: Some 5,000 units of residential care and assisted living have been remediated in this province. Additionally, now close to 3,000 incremental assisted living and residential care units were added in this province, and Williams Lake has been among the beneficiaries of that unprecedented investment.

When Williams Lake retirement village completes its final phase this spring, the community of Williams Lake will benefit from 23 more residential care units than they ever did in 2001.

B. Simpson: I do, thank you. I'm glad the minister came back to the topic at hand. The people are in the room — the people who have lost patience with Interior Health, the people who have said time and time again since this government took power that they are not being well-served for seniors care in Williams Lake. They have lost patience.

Community meeting after community meeting. A 6,400-signature petition that will be tabled today. A delegation to Kamloops that the community paid for to come down here. Interior Health closed all three publicly funded facilities to open up one P3. The community told them there were not enough beds in that P3, so they had to open Deni House again and renovate it in order to meet a need that the community told them would be there. We don't have time in this case. It will close before the community can make a representation to the minister.

Again I ask the minister: will you intervene, at least, and keep Deni House open until such time as the community can make direct representation to you, because they don't trust Interior Health?

Hon. G. Abbott: With the 44 additional units that are underway, by the spring there will be 128 new units of residential care and assisted living in Williams Lake. That represents not only a quantitative improvement of 23 units over 2001; it represents an enormous qualitative improvement.

We are moving from multibed wards to private rooms. We are moving from facilities that don't have enough recreational and social amenities to ones that do. We are moving to full-wheelchair accessibility for washrooms and the rest of the facility. It's enormously a great step forward qualitatively.

I know the members say there should be a publicly owned facility as well as a privately owned facility. I'll just refer the member to the requirements for continuing care renewal. January 12, 2001, Ministry of Health and Treasury Board's direction. This is January 12, tail end of what I dispassionately refer to as the dark decade but still in the dark decade: "One of the conditions of Treasury Board's approval of the 2,000 new beds program was an emphasis on the use of alternative procurement for capital financing. Accordingly, health authorities are encouraged to form partnerships with non-profit and private sectors regarding the construction of new residential beds once new projects have been approved."

C. Wyse: I will leave it up to the delegation that has chased the minister and the Premier all over the province in order to have their case put in front of them. I will leave it up to them to determine how well they receive the response they have heard today here in this House.

The point still remains. IHA has removed all options for seniors, leaving a private model as the only choice for seniors. The only choice for seniors that is left in the Williams Lake area is to take the care that is there or leave town. That is part of the point that is here in front. The ministry's own policy is to offer choice for seniors care.

The broader question is: will the minister intervene with the closure of Deni House so the rest of rural B.C. can be assured this is not the model of seniors care that they can expect to receive?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure what the member meant by chased. I was asked earlier today for the first time to have a meeting with the delegation, and I re-

spectfully complied to that. I don't know why, when I obliged a short, quick request for a meeting, he's now saying that I was chased around the province. I think that was perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase on the part of the member, because it's entirely inaccurate.

Further, in terms of if communities should have a choice between publicly funded but privately owned or publicly funded and publicly owned facilities…. Now, I don't know how many residents of the Williams Lake retirement village get up in the morning and say: "I'm very concerned about whether this lovely room that I'm in, the lovely dining facilities I have, the beautiful recreational facilities I have…. I wonder whether they are publicly funded and privately owned or publicly funded and publicly owned."

N. Macdonald: The minister responsible for child care is closing down child care resource and referral programs across the province. The minister cannot be ignorant of the massive, across-the-board opposition to those closures. The minister has heard from parents, from school boards, from local government, and I'll read this from the Kicking Horse Country Chamber of Commerce: "Working families with children require and need reliable child care. The inability to find quality child care threatens these employees' capacity to work."

Bottom line: your decision, this government's, this minister's decision to single out child care services for funding cuts makes no sense. It makes no sense. Given that, why is she closing child care resource and referral centres?

Hon. L. Reid: Even the New Democrats have to acknowledge that the loss of $455 million is a significant sum of money. The federal government has withdrawn their dollar. This government has absolutely placed priority on the most vulnerable families in British Columbia. Those earning under $38,000 will be maintained and enhanced under the subsidy program in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: Children with special needs in the province of British Columbia — priority squarely placed upon them by this administration. Those are youngsters with cerebral palsy, autism, Down syndrome. I would challenge the member opposite to get to his feet and tell me he does not support the most vulnerable families or children in British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: I will absolutely get to my feet, and I will say this on camera. People watch at home, and they hear what you say. They heard your answers from yesterday, and they do not accept it. It is those people that are calling for your resignation, because what they know is that this minister is responsible for child care in this province.

This minister and her ministry are the people that are phoning and telling CCRRs that they are being closed, and they did that beginning with a conference call January 5, 2007. It is her ministry that is collecting information on the leases and contracts. She is responsible. The question is: why are you closing child care resource and referral centres when every single person in some communities is saying it is the wrong way to go?

Hon. L. Reid: To continue, the third funding stream for child care in British Columbia is child care operating. The provincial portion of that continues. We have not withdrawn that dollar. We have absolutely not withdrawn that dollar. We are putting our priority on how we support those children in British Columbia.

The budget for child care resource and referral last year was $9 million. I said yesterday, and I'm happy to say it again to the members opposite, that…

Hon. L. Reid: …indeed that $14 million budget…. And I explained very clearly to the critic yesterday — perhaps she can share this with her colleagues as well — that that $5 million is no longer coming from the federal government. They, in fact, have put that out, and they put it out a year ago. This is not new information in the province of British Columbia. I am happy to repeat it for members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister. Are we ready to listen to the answer? Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: Child care resource and referral in the province today are in dialogue with the ministry in terms of what that service looks like across British Columbia. My challenge is to continue to deliver that service. Have we said very clearly that we will reframe that service delivery? Absolutely, we will. Our focus is on vulnerable children, vulnerable families, and providing that information to families in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I table a petition of over 6,400 signatures protesting the closure of Deni House in Williams Lake.

S. Simpson: I'd like to table a petition calling on the House to reinstate the scheduled cuts for 45 child care resource and referral programs and for the west coast resource and referral program.

C. Evans: I rise to present a petition intituled "A petition to respectfully request that the hon. House reinstate the scheduled cuts to the 45 child care resource and referral programs, five regional child care resource and referral programs, the west coast resource and referral program, and the B.C. aboriginal child care service."

K. Conroy: I present a petition with the same title that the member just read, with over a thousand signatures about the child care cuts.

C. Wyse: I, too, rise to present a further petition from 100 Mile with 360 signatures, urging immediate action to ensure the continuation of valuable services provided by child care resource and referral programs in B.C.

Hon. M. de Jong: Members will know that last session, the work of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture was underway. By leave, I will move the appropriate motion for that special committee to be reconstituted. I believe they have some meetings scheduled, so there is some urgency to deal with that matter today.

I will summarize the motion. I will, with leave, move to reconstitute the committee, empower it in precisely the same way it was empowered last session, provide it with the same terms of reference and mandate, ask that it report out not later than May 31, 2007, and appoint to that committee Mr. Austin, Convener; Messrs. Cantelon, Coons, Fraser, Horning, Jarvis, Robertson, S. Simpson, Yap; and Ms. Trevena.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am tabling a motion. The Opposition House Leader and I have talked about this, but not the fact that the motion is coming today. I want to alert members to it so that they can review it and consider it over the weekend.

Members will know that on March 5, the House is scheduled under our existing rules to commence evening sittings. Those sittings would account for about 40½ hours of sitting time. I think members are aware that the government, for reasons relating to healthier lifestyle and families, is of the view — and reasons that we can elaborate on during the debate — that there is a better way to schedule that debate time than to have members sitting at night.

Accordingly, the government, in the motion I've tabled, is proposing an amendment to the schedule that would see the House sit in the afternoons from 1:30 until 6:30. In that way, that would accumulate about 45 hours of sitting time. That is slightly more than the 40 hours. The motion that is being tabled today is a proposed amendment on a sessional basis only that members would be in a position to review at the conclusion of the session.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was about to say that I know there is a variety of views on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I have actually endeavoured to alert members to the motion, because I know they will want to consider it over the course of the weekend. I will speak with the Opposition House Leader about hopefully scheduling some time next year for the debate around the….

Hon. M. de Jong: To schedule some time next week for the debate that it appears will take place with vigour in this chamber around the motion that I've tabled today.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the 38th parliament, respecting the Budget 2007 consultation process.

B. Lekstrom: I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

B. Lekstrom: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services listened to more than 8,300 British Columbians during its annual budget consultation process. This level of participation again established an all-time record for public input into any parliamentary committee in the history of our Legislative Assembly. The committee held public hearings in 15 locations throughout the province, received almost 400 written submissions and reviewed more than 7,700 responses to the budget consultation questionnaire prepared by the Ministry of Finance.

This year the committee's report focused on three key themes: (1) building upon British Columbia's economic success story, (2) enhancing opportunities for those in need of assistance and (3) supporting B.C.'s natural environments and communities.

The 36 recommendations contained in the report on the Budget 2007 consultations accurately reflect the diversity of opinions the entire committee heard during the budget consultation process. As Chair, I believe that these recommendations reflect an inclusive and comprehensive view of the fiscal and budgetary priorities of British Columbians leading up to Budget 2007.

The budget consultation process is not about partisan politics. Rather, it is about annual consultations and provides an opportunity for every British Columbian to have their voice heard on the province's fiscal and budget priorities.

In closing, I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee report, and I would like to thank all of those British Columbians who took the time to provide us with their thoughts. Of course, I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to members of the committee, as well as the staff from Hansard and the staff from the Clerk's office who did such an outstanding job in helping our committee do the job that we were tasked to do by this Legislative Assembly.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to the report of the Budget 2007 consultations of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I, too, perhaps would like to begin by thanking staff of the Office of the Clerk of Committees who performed the many tasks vital to the committee as it travelled throughout the province. The people at Hansard Services perhaps deserve special recognition for a working schedule that required the setting up and disassembling of the required recording equipment several times in a single day in different towns throughout the province as we travelled on our schedule.

The hearings, the written submissions, and the on-line responses helped provide the committee with a sense of the concerns and expectations of British Columbians as the budget is prepared.

I say at this point, although the work of the committee was cordial, that the report does not come forward as a unanimous report to the Legislature. It constitutes advice to the Minister of Finance and reaction to the prebudget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance.

Many of the views of those who presented in those many manners are reflected in the report. I would commend to members of the House, and with the indulgence of Mr. Speaker, I'd draw to the attention of members on page 50 the section on housing options which recommends to the government a very full, comprehensive housing strategy, including but not limited to capital grants for new affordable housing and co-op housing, rehabilitation of abandoned and substandard buildings, support services for those in need and assistance for community-based housing providers.

In the section on page 51, the recommendation on child care, perhaps in a prescient move by the committee, recommends the development of a provincewide strategy on affordable, accessible and quality child care options for British Columbians, and asks the Minister to consider providing additional funds for child care.

In addition, there are other recommendations. There's one related directly to Community Living B.C. which calls for additional funding for the developmentally disabled and their families, including support for youth as they transition into adulthood and residential support services. Those are among the many recommendations from the committee.

We on this side of the House depart from the committee in several respects. We are of the view that there's too little acknowledgment and recognition of the importance of arts and culture in developing the strength and vibrancy of British Columbia communities as a key and, also, as a key driver in regional economies.

The submissions of faculty associations throughout the province and of student unions, particularly, requested the minister to consider allocating funding in the 2007 budget to reduce tuition fees at public universities and colleges by 10 percent, to eliminate tuition fees for adult basic education and to allocate funding in the 2007 budget to create an upfront, needs-based B.C. grant program which would also include graduate students. Those suggestions were not included in the final recommendations.

Certainly, I appreciate the work of the committee and the collegial atmosphere in which it was conducted. This report, I think, presents a basis for an opportunity in the present fiscal environment to present a budget that is focused on the needs and aspirations of average families who strive every day to balance work and home life, to educate their children, to care for their parents and to save for the future. I'm sure most if not all of those who presented to the committee would support those goals. I expect we shall know shortly whether that challenge is met in this year's budget.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Peace River South closes debate.

B. Lekstrom: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and with all due respect to my colleague, again, he did point out, and it is unfortunate, that this is not a unanimously presented report to this Legisla-

tive Assembly. I do offer my thanks, again, to the members of the committee because, as many of them know and all of you that sit in this House know, committee work is not easy with the travel schedules, the times that you spend away from your homes.

But there are things, and I just want to clarify a couple for the record. The report did address the elimination of fees on education, not a reduction in the sense that we would see a 10-percent reduction. The recommendation reads: "Ensure that tuition fees at B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions remain competitive vis-à-vis other Canadian jurisdictions." Again, I think that reflects — although it isn't worded in a 10-percent reduction — much of what we did hear. I recognize that.

Adult basic education. We did recommend in this document that funding be provided to eliminate the fees for that. It was noted by the Deputy Chair of the committee — again, a person that did a great deal of work along with the other committee members — that this is but one tool in the development of the upcoming budget.

In closing, I am proud of this document. I am proud of the work that the committee did on it. I'm prouder of the British Columbians that took the time to come out and put their thoughts forward. It really, I think, brings faith back to the people of British Columbia, for all of us, that if you come out and speak and bring your issues forward that the opportunity to be heard and have those thoughts brought forward is there.

We're seeing that across the province, and that's a result — and I'll go back to this — of a non-partisan effort on behalf of both sides of the House and the members that went out there and did the job on behalf of all British Columbians.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the 38th parliament, entitled Annual Review of the Budgets of the Independent Offices of the Legislative Assembly.

B. Lekstrom: I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

B. Lekstrom: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is charged by this House to conduct reviews of the service plans, annual reports and the budgets for each of the independent offices. The committee deposited its report with the Office of the Clerk on December 20, 2006.

For the first time the committee reviewed the budget requests of the Offices of the Merit Commissioner and the new Representative for Children and Youth. I am pleased to report that the committee unanimously supported their budget requests.

Our recommendations also provide significant funding lifts to the Offices of the Auditor General, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman. As well, the Police Complaint Commissioner and the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner received their requested funding allotments.

I'd like to thank the statutory officers and their staff for their presentations to the committee and their ongoing commitment to this process as well as the people of British Columbia. I would also like to thank the members of the Finance Committee again as well as members of Hansard and the Clerk's office. They do an amazing job on behalf of all of us, not just committee members but all British Columbians.

B. Ralston: I would concur with everything that's been said by the preceding member. The only additional comment I would make is that the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth is obviously in its formative stages, and the budget is an approximation. Members of the committee understood that, and I think there will be liberty to return to the committee should additional funding be required for what is a very ambitious program set forward by the new commissioner before the committee.

Hon. M. de Jong: On orders of the day I call continued debate on the throne speech.

J. Horgan: It's just like the Government House Leader has to get in a word any way he can, and good on him.

It's a good opportunity for me to rise and continue my remarks on the throne speech following on the presentation by the Chair of the Finance Committee. I am a member of the Finance Committee, and I traveled the province with my colleagues on both sides of the House.

One of the things that struck me, and I know some other members, the member for Port Moody–

Westwood in particular…. He and I had some vigorous debates and discussions when we met with citizens who would come to the committee.

I remember particularly a group in Kamloops who came in and said they were unhappy about funding levels. They were unhappy about government commitments to their programs. The member from Westwood said that's not true. The line budget says that lots of money has been approved. There can be no problem here.

It reminded me of the challenge and the trap that government members of any political stripe, not particularly talking about the B.C. Liberal government members, but any government members… When you're in this place — the pointy buildings, as my friend from Nelson-Creston calls them — you assume that everything that goes on here is being transmitted into communities across the province. You assume that when Treasury Board approves an amount of money and the budget is approved by this Legislature, that it's all wine and roses out in the communities.

Well, it doesn't work that way. I think the advantage of having the committee travel the province, as it did this year and in previous years, is that we get to hear from people in their communities on the street saying: "I don't care what you're doing in Victoria. It's not working here. It's not working back home."

I know members on both sides of the House have constituents that come to them on a regular basis and say: "I saw your press release. It has no correlation to the reality that I'm living in." I think it's important that we remind ourselves of that periodically. So I was pleased to be a member of that committee, and I was very pleased to go to other people's constituencies and hear directly from people on the street that it's not always as great as the press release says.

It reminds me of the new slogan "the best place on earth" — as if the B.C. Liberals created British Columbia. I don't know what your religion might be, but I'm absolutely convinced that the Premier did not make the mountains, the rivers and the splendour of this province. I'm absolutely convinced of that regardless of who you pray to at night, if you pray at all.

Those who pray to the Premier on that side of the House to get into cabinet should let it go for a while and recognize we are blessed people. We are very fortunate to live where we live. More people are coming here every day, not because of B.C. Liberal policies, but because this is a really nice place to be. It has nothing to do with you guys. It has nothing to do with us.

J. Horgan: They didn't leave in the '90s. You guys should read stats B.C., Canada stats. It just never ends with the member from Cloverdale.

I want to talk, while I see him, about transportation issues. The throne speech makes scant reference to the capital region, and I know that the members know where that is because we're in it right now. If they ever decided to get in their new hybrids and drive out to Langford where I live, they'd find congestion, gridlock and an absence of transportation alternatives.

J. Horgan: My friend the Minister of Energy reminds us all that the growth in the Western Communities was a direct result of NDP investment in the last decade — that dismal decade when growth was allowed to thrive in the Western Communities, and we're living with that now. But the investment stopped when the B.C. Liberals came in because they couldn't elect anybody outside of their selected communities. Here in the Greater Victoria area, we need transportation alternatives. We need transportation solutions.

I've had the good fortune of being able to deal with senior public servants in the Ministry of Transportation. I am grateful for that. We have fulsome discussions. I am kept abreast as best as I can be on the issues that are breaking in our community, but it's not moving fast enough.

There's one in particular that I'd like to mention — and I know that the Minister of Transportation will be interested in this — and that's the prospect of light rail or some other form of rail transit in and around Greater Victoria. It's of particular concern to me, who has constituents above the Malahat — the thin ribbon of highway that connects the Cowichan Valley regional district with the capital regional district.

There has been a two-and-a-half-year study ongoing by the Ministry of Transportation. Stakeholders in very, very large numbers have attended public meetings. They've sent briefs, they've answered e-mails, and they've responded in every way they can to send the message to the B.C. Liberals that if you're going to spend billions and billions of dollars in the lower mainland, how about some of the rounding error for the Greater Victoria area?

How about focusing on the Island Corridor Foundation, for example, which was a group of volunteers, regional district representatives, first nations and activists in the community who worked aggressively for a decade to get control of the E&N corridor — the Esquimalt-Nanaimo railway corridor — that stretches from Comox right into the city of Victoria, with a spur line out to Port Alberni.

This was a tremendous opportunity and continues to be a tremendous opportunity for people on Vancouver Island. It's a chance for us to take a disused rail bed, upgrade it, put new cars on it, get people out of their internal-combustion-engine-driven machines onto a train, providing some form of commuter service from the north to the south on Vancouver Island.

I know the minister is paying close attention to that when he has deliberations with his senior officials, and I'm very confident that he'll listen to the local mayors

and others in the Greater Victoria area who are calling out for a provincial investment and a provincial commitment to transportation infrastructure in my community.

One such group that I want to touch on is what's called the ad hoc committee on commuter rail. It consists of representatives from the Victoria city council; Esquimalt city council; View Royal city council; district of Langford city council; as well as representatives from the Island Corridor Foundation; myself; district of Highlands, which isn't touched by the train line, but it would be a great opportunity for some commuter and transit service in the lower Island.

This committee is meeting on its own. The province isn't supporting it in any way. B.C. Transit does sit at the table. There are no representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, although I know they're kept abreast of what's going on because I tell them, and I'm sure other people tell them as well. It's an important issue in this area. If we want to address the growth, the greatest place on earth that we are blessed by birth or by immigration to have settled in, we need to make sure that Vancouver Island doesn't sink under the weight of the cars and the single-occupancy vehicles that it's currently being clogged with.

There are opportunities out there. I know that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is very interested in what goes on in communities outside of her own constituency. She's active. I see her frequently at events in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I see her frequently out on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is the next place I want to go.

You'll recall, hon. Speaker, there was a series of horrific weather events, storms through November and December, and very hard hit by that was my community — in particular, those areas on the west coast of the Island: Sooke, Otter Point, East Sooke and Shirley. In addition to that the community of Port Renfrew, right at the end of the road, the last stop on the way to the West Coast Trail…. I know the member from Chilliwack has probably been there a couple of times, walked the trail. It's a federal park, the West Coast Trail, and it is littered now with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of blow-down trees. The same can be said for provincial parks — French Beach and China Beach. Certainly, if we could have as much enthusiasm for those areas, those provincial responsibilities, as we did for Stanley Park, which is not a provincial responsibility, we might be well on our way to solving some of the issues on the west coast.

It's going to have a significant impact on tourism this summer. It may well have a significant impact on tourism for the next two years. An awful lot of trees are down. These are big trees. Finding the people and finding the resources to address that is going to be a challenge. I'm hopeful that government is thinking about that and that when the budget is tabled, there will be a significant increase in funding in the Ministry of Environment so that the parks group can get out and solve some of these problems in my constituency.

I do have the opportunity and the pleasure to be the Energy critic. As a result of that, I have a bit more insight into the workings of B.C. Hydro, and I have contacts and connections there. I had the opportunity to question the CEO, Bob Elton, at the Crown Corporations Committee last fall, and I raised with him the concern that many people in my community had about the delays in hooking up, with the numerous power outages we had on the south Island. It's easy to look back on it now and say, "Boy, that was okay; it went pretty well," and I certainly want to tip my hat, and I know all members in the south Island would want to tip their hat, to the workers, the Hydro crews that were out in just abysmal weather trying to get the lights back on, trying to keep people's homes warm. It was fantastic work, but it went on, in many cases, for ten, 11, 12 days.

I've spoken with Mr. Elton about that. I'm working with Hydro officials to hold some public meetings in and around Sooke and Shawnigan Lake, two areas that were particularly hard hit by power outages, so that people in my community can speak directly with B.C. Hydro about their concerns, so that they can go through some procedures and protocols. So that the emergency preparedness work that needs to be done in the event of these weather events, if they're going to continue in frequency as a result of climate change…. We want to be prepared in our communities.

I know the Solicitor General and the emergency preparedness program are working hard on upgrading their procedures and practices so that….

J. Horgan: No, go ahead. Never mind; I'm sorry. I don't want to put you on the spot. I stopped talking, and everybody looked up. I should try that more often. It's not so much of a drone if I stop every now and again.

I know the members on the other side will be disappointed. I haven't been partisan for almost ten minutes now, and I'm trying really hard, and I do this all the time. My friend from Prince George….

I do this all the time. I speak with the people on the other side, hon. Speaker. I try and move things along in my constituency. I try and help them with advice every now and again, a little bit of friendly advice. Certainly, the new Minister of Mines and I are very tight. We're going to be working closely to address issues around aggregate and mineral extraction and development right across the province. I'm looking forward to that.

What I'm trying to do in my response to the throne speech is to talk about the things that are important to people on the street. I started talking about the Finance Committee report, going into people's communities, talking to them: "Is what happens here translating to communities across the province?" I have to say that,

In the throne speech there's a brief reference to housing and the challenges we have in British Columbia with respect to social housing and affordable housing. In my constituency we have a large number of manufactured home — mobile home — parks that are at risk. In fact, there are two. One at Pedder Bay, just outside of my constituency, in the riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin. My colleague there is working very hard, is in contact with the Minister of Housing trying to find some way to protect those homes. I have a manufactured home park in Shawnigan Lake that's threatened with closure, and eviction notices have been given. This is a big, big problem.

I've held a couple of town hall meetings in Langford, in Sooke and in Cobble Hill, and the numbers of people that are turning out at these meetings is going up every time. At the last one there were 130 people on a sunny Sunday afternoon. People had other things to do, but they're living in fear, and I didn't want to add to their stress.

I didn't want to put them in a position where they were concerned about their homes. But when you read in the newspaper that developers have moved in, purchased land, and are applying for rezoning to take those homes away and replace them with more expensive housing stock, that's got to be a concern for not just me as the elected representative, but it should be a concern for all members in this place.

Real estate on Vancouver Island is an interesting thing. As the old adage goes, they're not making any more dirt on Vancouver Island, and as climate change becomes a reality and water levels rise, we'll have less real estate on Vancouver Island, not more. The opportunity to protect and preserve this affordable housing stock in and around Greater Victoria, up Vancouver Island, is an important public policy initiative, and I don't see any mention of it in the throne speech.

There's talk about directing regional districts and municipal entities to put in place particular types of zoning, to put in place particular initiatives and incentives — no development cost charges for small-lot housing and so on. But that's looking to new housing stock, and there's no mention at all about old housing stock. In my riding that translates into manufactured and mobile homes — hundreds and hundreds of homes that are all at risk as a result of an absence of leadership by the government on this question.

The other issue, of course, in the throne speech — beyond the prattle about climate change, which I talked about before the lunch break — is a massive transformation in how our school districts are operated and funded. We're going to see legislation, we're told, amending various provisions of the School Act with respect to fees. We're going to see boards of school districts transformed to boards of education.

Certainly, my inbox was screaming after the speech. "What does this mean? Is this more downloading? When will the downloading stop? We can't pay for the commitments that the government is making for us now. What commitments can we expect in the future?"

I think government needs to be mindful of that. You know, it used to be the old saying that if the school districts are happy, then government must be doing a good job. Some days school districts are happy; some days they're not. They're certainly unhappy when they get new programs foisted upon them, new collective agreements and new costs foisted upon them with no capacity to pay. The funding formula changes that came with this government in 2002 clearly aren't working.

In rural districts…. I have the good fortune of representing school district 62, which is called the Sooke district — one of the only growing districts in the province — as well as district 79, which is a really fantastic mix of agricultural, rural and partly urban communities up and down the Cowichan Valley. Currently, district 79 is going through a very, very challenging school closure process. This has been duplicated in other communities right across the province.

I know members on the other side…. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head had schools closed in her constituency. Other members have had schools closed in their constituencies. But in the Cowichan Valley, trying to get ahead of the curve on reduced enrolment, the Cowichan Station School — which was just a basic, garden-variety public school — introduced a traditional school program, a school-of-choice program, at the behest of the Minister of Education. She was there cutting ribbons. The deputy minister was there, proud as punch, beaming at the creation of this traditional school. Three years later it's going to be closed.

Now, the program was growing. It hasn't reached critical mass. The capacity issue in the school infrastructure was not at 100 percent, but student enrolment was going up. It was, in fact, one of the only schools in the Cowichan school district that had an increasing enrolment, but it wasn't increasing fast enough. Decisions were made — some good, some bad, many without adequate information — and now the Cowichan Station School is threatened with closure.

Also threatened with closure is the Koksilah Elementary School, which is 95 percent aboriginal. It's in the heart of the Cowichan Tribes' traditional territory, and the school district is faced with a challenge. Do we close this school? Do we force those programs to go somewhere else? What do we do with the 115-odd kids that are there now? They can walk to school now, but when the school closes, that's going to be an increase in transportation costs.

They're all about trade-offs. I understand that, and I know the members on the other side understand that. But when it comes to trade-offs, I think what government needs to do is to say: "Well, if we have a significant surplus, why don't we put some of that into new programs for preserving rural schools?"

I know my friends from Kamloops and Prince George on the other side, my friends from Nanaimo-Parksville…. There's a rural constituency up there.

Why wouldn't they want to see some new programs to preserve these rural schools and the communities that they come from? It strikes me that rather than dive into new programs and new schools that are outlined or vaguely articulated in the throne speech, it might have been better for the….

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me to be able to stand and speak to the throne speech — what is actually a great throne speech. In fact, it's lauded by many people as one of the most visionary throne speeches that has ever been delivered in this House. Although it provides some challenges for each and every one of us, I think that's exceptional. What we need all the time is to be challenged constantly about how we can do things differently and better in this great province of ours.

I listened intently to the critic from the opposition and didn't hear anything about energy. I hardly heard anything about the environmental positions that government has taken and is going to move forward with. I would hope that means that that member fully endorses everything in the throne speech from one end to the other and that he will actually stand in this House when it comes time to vote and vote in favour of this great, visionary throne speech.

The throne speech sends us down a number of paths in different areas, and I want to touch briefly on a number of them. Education is, obviously, something that's forefront in the government's mind and has been since we came to office. We have an excellent education system that we want to continue to build on. It's an education system that is enjoying the highest per-pupil funding ever in the history of education in British Columbia, and students are getting to learn a lot more about different things in schools.

In fact, as I understand, some of the curriculum will be changed a bit to more represent what happens in our world today so youngsters that go to school can actually learn a little bit more about British Columbia and the great things that British Columbia represents and the great natural resources that we have — the best place on earth. In fact, the last speaker talked about it. I agree. British Columbia is the best place on earth. It's a great place to be.

Who would want to be any place else other than this wonderful province with its natural resources that provide us with one of the best standards of living in North America, one of the best systems of education in North America — as the council of Canada said — the best health care system in Canada? All of those things are provided to us through this great province and through the resources and the great people that actually live here.

Some of the changes for the education system will include a Premier's award for teaching excellence. I think that's excellent. I think that when we start talking about rewarding excellence…. And I think it's long overdue. I know that there are lots of teachers in the constituency that I represent — two school districts. There are excellent teachers in those school districts that look after our kids — in some cases, for members here, their grandkids — and teach them the things that they have to teach them. They spend an awful lot of time with those children, and I'm glad the minister is looking seriously at that.

Changing the name from "school boards" to "boards of education" I think will repurpose what people get elected to school boards to do, and that's to start thinking a little bit more about the education part of it rather than trying to figure out how schools should architecturally be designed or those kinds of things. I commend those people who put their names forward to run for school districts. It's not an easy job. I know most of the representatives from both school boards in the communities that I represent, and I know they spend a lot of their time actually out there making sure that our children are well looked after.

They're going to develop district literacy plans. Up to 80 StrongStart centres will be opened in underutilized school spaces. I think that's wonderful. We're going to look at a pledge to use underutilized school spaces as public spaces to deliver on public priorities in those communities. These are things that are thinking out of the box — to start doing things a little differently than what we've done before.

Also, when you look at the throne speech, and from the throne speech a couple of years ago, the new relationship with first nations and further…. This throne speech builds on working with first nations so that we can continue to have a great relationship with our first nations across the province. Many of them live in the constituency that I represent, and there could be three treaties completed here this year. I think that's commendable. I think it's a move in the right direction and one that we have wanted to work to for a long time.

Housing is also a big part of the throne speech — in how we move forward with housing, in working with local governments across the province to make sure that we have housing and small-unit and supportive housing projects in different cities across the whole province. I think that it is the responsibility of the senior government to work closely with municipal governments to see how we can actually break the problem of not being able to get some of that supportive housing into some communities. I hope that with this direction — and the minister responsible, I know, very able — the Minister of Forests will be working very hard on that program of working with communities to make sure that supportive housing is in place across the province.

The last member talked a little bit about people living here and moving here, and I agree. There are a lot of people moving back to British Columbia. There are a lot of people choosing British Columbia as a place to live because it is the best place on earth, and because we are blessed with so many things.

The economy in the province of British Columbia is humming right along. Absolutely unbelievable. In the

region I come from, the last statistics that came out for unemployment say it's only at 1.3 percent. That's actually unbelievable when you look at the average across the province.

I know the member over there may not like employment. I hear from some of those members over there once in a while that they don't think jobs are created in the province, but I don't know. When you use the statistics that come forward, and you see that we're at 4.3 percent across the province, we should be proud of that.

Why aren't we proud of that? Why aren't the members of the opposition proud that people can actually have jobs in the province of British Columbia, can go out and actually make money and be able to raise their families and live in a great province like we have — this beautiful place, the best place on earth?

All we hear from the opposition is negativism — negative, negative, negative. In fact, negative Nellies, I would say. When you start talking about how well the province does, it doesn't matter. You'll have someone on that side of the House saying: "That's terrible. We shouldn't have that."

Hon. R. Neufeld: What they want to do is go back to the '90s. They're all heckling me. It's okay, Mr. Speaker. Don't worry. They're a little sensitive on the issue. We'll go back to the '90s and go back into double-digit unemployment. That's what, I guess, they like. Keep people on unemployment insurance or something, and not let them have jobs.

When we came to office we said we were going to change things, and we have changed things. British Columbia has dramatically changed. When I start talking about unemployment rates below 5 percent — at 4.3 for an average, some regions at 1.3 — that's something to be proud of. I know that in the constituency I come from, the people who live there and work there are pretty happy souls that they have a B.C. Liberal government.

Let's look a little bit at what happens in rural B.C. and across rural B.C. There was some mention about mining. Well, mining has been part of the history of British Columbia for as long as British Columbia has been a province — in fact, even earlier than that. When we came to the 1990s, it wasn't long till they destroyed that economy. In fact, the investment in exploration in British Columbia during the '90s went to as low as $25 million a year — a paltry $25 million a year.

We put focus on mining, and we said we want mining jobs. We want to encourage mining jobs. They're well-paying jobs. They're good, family-supporting jobs. They're across the whole province of British Columbia. They support Vancouver and Victoria — all the places. They support housing and health care and education — everything.

This last year the amount of money spent on exploration is up to $263 million from a paltry $25 million just six years ago. That's really moving forward. That's moving forward in the right direction. That's actually providing jobs and economic activity and benefits for people to be able to provide education and health care across the province.

We have gone from only having about 6 percent of the total revenues spent in Canada on exploration to just under 20 percent in those short years. That means that they're coming to British Columbia because they know this is the place to invest in mining. Twenty-five of 52 projects that are in the federal environmental assessment process are happening right here in British Columbia. Why? Because we have great mineralization, we have a government that actually invites the investment, and we have a great province and a great place to live.

The same stands true for the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry actually now provides about 10 percent of the total government revenue. When we came into office, it was just over a billion dollars spent in exploration in northeastern British Columbia. Today it's just under $5 billion a year. Every year, exploration and drilling, just under $5 billion a year.

Think about what that does for British Columbia. Over $2 billion in royalty revenues in a year. That's exceptional. Now, it's not as large as Alberta, obviously. Alberta is blessed with an awful lot of the western sedimentary basin. We just have a portion of it, but I think it does also demonstrate there what we have done in the province to encourage investment for those companies to come to British Columbia and invest their money, with a government in place that accepts the fact that you have to have a profit to make money and to stay and to provide the excellent jobs that they do.

The city I live in, in Fort St. John, a community of 18,000 people. Last year building permits of $123 million — 18,000 people. That's unheard of. In fact, that's the highest per-capita percentage of any place in British Columbia. That tells you what people are seeing here in the province about being proud of where they live.

I listened intently to try and see if there was going to be something said about the wonderful climate change plans that we put into place, the issues around oil and gas, the issues around mining from the critic across the way, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I didn't hear anything. So as I say, I'm hopeful, then, he has fully endorsed — and I would assume he has fully endorsed — everything that's in the throne speech. I assume that the members across the way will all stand and vote for the throne speech, a great throne speech, when the time comes after everybody has had an opportunity to speak to it.

But I did notice one thing that he said. I'm going to read directly. He quoted a bunch of things out of the throne speech. I'm not going to re-read those, but he did say this: "Moving words…." All these words are about energy and mining and climate change, but again, quoting, "Moving words, and they were spoken in the year 2000 by the Premier of the day, a New Democrat Premier, by the Environment Minister of the day, a New Democrat Environment Minister, and by

Interesting, because when we look at…. That was in the year 2000. That's what he says. Well, they were there from 1990 to 2001. They woke up in the year 2000? Is that what happened? They woke up in the year 2000, or they were too embarrassed to talk about what they had done in the 1990s? I think the latter is probably true.

They destroyed the economy. They doubled the debt. They increased our greenhouse gas emissions larger than we've ever had them increase before. They weren't fixated on anything. They went from pillar to post.

He asks, the critic: would we actually include them in getting some ideas about how we move forward? Well, we would, but then we read some notes from different people. Let me see where they are. The member for Nelson-Creston said — this is about the NDP, when he's talking here: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications of socialist principles." That's the MLA for Nelson-Creston.

Further, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said: "I will say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late '90s, was not good on climate change." You know what? There are those members who are asking us to embrace them, to embrace their ideas. Why in the world would we embrace any ideas from a group that doesn't have any ideas about climate change or how to deal with it?

Let's look a little bit at their record about climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. increased by 24 percent from 1991 to 2001. The single biggest increase in greenhouse gases since 1990 was 8 percent in 1995. This is the group that wants to give us advice, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine what kind of advice you would get?

I'm not sure you would get any advice. All they do is complain. They voted against the living rivers trust fund not only once but twice. They voted against creating a $91 million fund to clean up contaminated sites on Crown land, and they talk about being environmentally sensitive, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine? And they're going to give us advice?

The NDP voted against exempting hybrid vehicles from PST, and some of them still drive SUVs. I guess I can understand why they would be against giving any exemption for hybrid vehicles.

The NDP voted against PST relief on alternative energy–fuelled vehicles. Mr. Speaker, you've got to be kidding. I can't believe this group would vote against all that and then try to give our government advice about the environment.

The NDP voted against exempting energy-efficient home-heating projects from PST. Wow, can you imagine? Try to encourage Fred and Martha to be able to afford to do windows and doors and insulation, energy-efficient furnaces — all those kinds of things which are good for the environment. They voted against that.

Today they stand in the House and say: "We would like to advise you." It's actually laughable. They opposed the Canada line. Can you imagine? They actively opposed clean energy projects such as the Cascade and Ashlu run-of-the-river projects.

They stand up and talk constantly about everything that they deem is wrong, but yet when there's clean, green energy going to be generated in British Columbia, they vote against that. And they want to give us advice — just a little bit hard to take.

Let's go back to the '90s a little bit, because I think they need to be reminded. Some of them weren't here in the 1990s, but they were in other places. They were around in the hallways advising ministers, as my critic is right now. He was an adviser. They talked about actually…. Let's see. What did they construct? ICP at Campbell River, 250-megawatt gas-fired plant — never dealt with greenhouse gases out of that plant. We are. We're saying they're going to have to be net zero from here on. That means they have to have offsets. You know what, Mr. Speaker? We're saying those plants that were built under that group, the NDP, that are actually gas-fired will have to have offsets by 2016. That's looking forward.

They talked in the 1990s about coal-fired generation but never, ever talked about sequestration. But today you'd think that's all they ever talked about. I never heard sequestration out of any one of their mouths other than when they wanted money. That was about the only time. Let me tell you: they could spend it. They could swallow it and spend it in a hurry.

When you look, the ICP was just one plant. They were going to have another one in Duncan — another 250-megawatt plant that they had planned. Then they had another 600-megawatt gas-fired plant planned for Port Alberni to supply some fictitious aluminum industry.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what that would have cost the public if that stupidity would have become real? Can you imagine what that would have cost the public, buying natural gas at a high rate to generate electricity and plants — a pipeline from the United States of America over to Vancouver Island to run plants to provide the aluminum industry with very cheap electricity? That's the kind of stupidity that got us in an awful lot of trouble during the 1990s.

It's interesting to listen to some of the comments from my critic when he's not in the House too. We have all kinds of quotes where the hon. Glen Clark — I think everybody here remembers Glen Clark — is talking about IPPs — independent power producers. The opposition of the day says they don't believe in IPPs, but there are quotes after quotes on each page — from Mr. Sihota to Glen Clark to Dan Miller to Anne Edwards to Corky Evans to the member for Yale-Lillooet — talking about IPPs and how they welcome them.

Then what did we hear the other day? The critic, my critic, said: "You know what? If we get re-elected government, we're going to nationalize all those." Isn't that interesting? I guess the socialist red underwear is

There you are. We have IPPs around the province prior to us being government and since us being government providing energy into the grid for all of us — 100 percent of it clean energy. What do we have? A group over there of opposition MLAs that actually wants to go out now and nationalize it. But that should not surprise me.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please respect the speaker by some order in this House.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a lot of people that are supporting this throne speech from the David Suzuki Foundation — I'm happy that he's happy — to the Sierra group; I'm happy that they're happy. We don't have yet full endorsement. But I think we're getting full endorsement from the NDP when it comes time to vote on the throne speech.

We've got people from the University of Victoria — climatologist Andrew Weaver — saying: "It's the most progressive plan that I've seen anywhere in North America for a start and one of the best in the world." He said: "This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It is really super." He goes on to say: "Everything I wanted was in here. It's amazing. They haven't said anything that's not doable…they don't make this up overnight."

We actually spent a lot of time — well over a year — developing an energy plan that takes us forward from our 2002 energy plan, a forward-looking document that actually required 50 percent of all new incremental power to come from clean sources. Actually, Hydro was able to contract 100 percent from clean sources. That's unheard of in North America and something that we should be proud of and that we should actually be applauding in British Columbia instead of picking it apart.

So I'm pleased with the throne speech. I'm pleased with the direction that it's telling us to go. I know there are going to be some challenges, but we're willing to sit down with the people of the province, with industry in the province, with people to talk with them about how we can meet these goals and what we have to do to meet these goals.

We have a great economy. It's a great time to do it. It's not just the economy or the environment. They both work together. You don't have a good economy without a good environment, and you don't have a good environment without a good economy. I'm proud to stand in support of such a visionary throne speech to take British Columbia well into the future for our grandchildren. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.

G. Robertson: I would like to start by recognizing and honouring first and foremost the Songhees First Nation, whose traditional territory we stand on, and just across the Salish Sea from us, the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Stó:lô and Hul'qumi'num first nations who have lived along the south shores of False Creek and up the slopes to Little Mountain since time immemorial in what is now the riding that I represent — Vancouver-Fairview.

It is my great honour and privilege to represent Vancouver-Fairview here today and to voice my concerns, primarily about the throne speech. I say "concerns" because the throne speech states the obvious. But it states the obvious long after the fact that this was the obvious.

It's accepting what has been obvious for many, many years — certainly since this government became government in 2001. It's ironic that in 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that there was at least a 66-percent probability that human activities were the dominant cause of global warming on this planet — 66 percent. In 2007, just a few short weeks ago, that probability was increased to at least 90 percent. Somehow when it was at least 66 percent, this Liberal government decided not to take any action on the issue.

The inaction of this government on climate change since 2001 is an abomination. The actions that were taken to accelerate emissions here in B.C. are even worse — government subsidies to the oil and gas sector, pushing hard for offshore oil and gas. Keep that in mind when it's at least a 66-percent chance.

Paltry investment in transit buses, practical alternatives to car travel — six years' worth of that. Deregulation and gutting of enforcement on environmental fronts — this is when knowing full well that there's at least a 66-percent chance that the planet is going up in smoke because of us.

If there was a 66-percent chance that your house was going to burn down, would you spend the next five years getting rid of the smoke alarms, taking out the fire extinguisher and sprinkler systems? Maybe we don't need those right now. How about open fires in the attic? Would we allow that for those five years? A 66-percent chance.

Flaring gas wells up in the north of B.C. continue to be unregulated. It's good to see that they're finally paying some attention to that, and the fire in the attic that goes unregulated may be dealt with now. I will give the government credit for finally coming to their senses

in somewhat of a meaningful way. I just cannot believe that it took this long to get here.

Given that it took this long to get here — six long years of abysmal performance on climate change — why should the people here in B.C. trust this government now? Is there a lot of trust that this government gets it and is going to do something about it?

Along with the 33-percent reduction in emissions that we're going to see in 2020, are we going to see 5,000 long-term care beds by 2020 as well?

A lot of promises have come forth over the last six years. Most of them have been completely and utterly revoked by the actions of the government.

Here we are again talking bold, talking big, talking like the bully in the playground. "We're going to do something about this. We mean business this time." Do you mean business this time? They are lofty words and big promises. That's not your forte on the promise side, to make them real.

There are a lot of good initiatives. You've cherry-picked well from the list that the Leader of the Opposition put forward a short time ago. Everything on that list is overdue as far as I'm concerned, and I hear that from my constituents every single day.

What is missing here? Despite the fact that there are these great initiatives, despite the fact that this government has looked carefully at what needs to be done and in a mad scramble over the last couple of months has thrown it all together for a throne speech and an energy plan update…. Most of the people paying attention on this issue know how quickly this came together. Many of them have not been consulted on that. That's another matter entirely. Consultation is, again, not a strength of this government.

Urgency is what's missing here. It's 2007. In the throne speech this government states that it will act now and will act deliberately. The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real. So is procrastination…? Does that fit — 2007 to 2020? Is 13 years procrastination? Maybe. Is 100 years procrastination?

The more timid our response is, the harsher the consequences will be. If we fail to act aggressively and shoulder our responsibility, things will happen that we dare not imagine.

I look at this language: "We must act to arrest and reverse that trend." That trend is that our emissions are increasing at a rate far faster than most of our neighbours. We must act to arrest and reverse that trend, but look at the dates in the speech. You go through the throne speech, and what do you hear? Well, you hear 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2040, 2050. Is that urgent? Is that aggressive? Is that deliberate?

Most of us probably won't be alive in 2050 by the time the long-term targets that the government alludes to in the throne speech…. That's 2050, 43 years from now. Is that an urgent and deliberate target? There's no doubt that setting targets is a critical need on climate change, but the most important aspect, if you ask any climate change scientist of note right now — and I'm talking about the IPCC panel — acting now is what's critical. That's not what this throne speech proposes to do.

The Leader of the Opposition will introduce legislation in this session to cap emissions this year. This year is about as close to now as I think we can be in this session. If this government is serious about acting now and deliberately, we will pass this legislation unanimously. I look forward to that. Let's see if this government is really committed to acting now on climate change.

Let's see if this government legislates the 2020 emissions target and fast-tracks many of the initiatives promised in the throne speech. These initiatives shouldn't wait five, nine, 13 years to happen. The government should be taking responsibility for its own actions and not giving marching orders to future governments a generation away, people who will sit in this House a dozen years from now. You're making promises for those members of this House?

Start with now. Make a promise to do something right now in this year, and follow it through. Forming a few committees, setting distant targets, tweaking a small fraction of B.C.'s regulations and policies is not taking immediate action.

The second key missing element here in terms of addressing climate change…. Clearly, that was the primary intent of this throne speech. There's a very curious line in the throne speech that was delivered: "Will we have the courage to tackle difficult problems that have no easy solutions?"

There are lots of easy solutions on climate change — lots of easy solutions. There's immediate investment in improving bus transit. The most busy transit corridor in the province is in my riding in Vancouver-Fairview and runs through the Premier's riding — the Broadway corridor. It's as busy as it gets. You could look at doing some Broadway rapid transit in the near term. It's something you can act on now. That's an easy solution to moving people: getting people out of cars.

More aggressive on tax incentives for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles. You're rolling over a program here for purchasing hybrid vehicles. Most hybrid vehicles are out of the price range of British Columbians who need alternative transportation modes. Fuel-efficient vehicles are available other than hybrids. You could do a lot to extend those incentives. That's an easy solution.

Here's another easy solution. The Minister of Energy and Mines gave us a little lesson in how much his ministry is doing — clean and green power. The minister could create a heritage fund from oil and gas royalties to invest in clean energy. The opposition has been calling for that one since we've been here. It would be critical to developing clean energy resources. It would be critical to diversifying the economy of the northeast

where the oil and gas is pumped out of and which will no longer exist in a generation from now. That's not a difficult one.

Here's another easy solution. How about making the climate action team a committee of the Legislature, as we've suggested over the past weeks? Make it directly accountable to the people of B.C. Give the people of B.C. access to the work of this team. What a concept — open consultation, an open process to set targets and create initiatives. We're all for it. You won't get resistance from this side of the House, and that's another easy solution to get on to climate change in a more aggressive and urgent manner.

I came to this House for the first time 20-odd months ago expecting that climate change would be an immediate issue that was addressed by the government of the day. I am pleased to see that it has come onto the agenda of the government. I'm very discouraged at the pace at which things are going to roll out from here.

I'm surprised at the reaction of people in B.C. who believe that this government is taking it seriously and is taking an aggressive approach. It's one thing to compare B.C.'s action on climate change to the Governor of California's plan. North America isn't particularly known for a model of climate change innovation, for doing the right thing.

There's a continent across the Atlantic that's a decade or two ahead of us on this. The plans that have been put forward in this throne speech pale in comparison to the targets that are set in Europe and the European Union, the initiatives that are being undertaken there, the progress that's being made. In the six years of this government's tenure, incredible progress has been made in the European Union that makes the targets set for 2020, well, 20 years too late.

I want to talk a little about what's not in the throne speech and what surprised me. As great as it is to see so much attention paid to climate change for a change and to see sustainability in general figure prominently in this throne speech for a change, there were some gaping voids in this throne speech.

Vancouver is in an all-out housing crisis as we sit here today. The massive shortage of social housing, affordable housing, is crippling the city and has devastating impacts on people, on people's future, on the economy of this city over the years to come. For this government, with several years of budget surpluses, to continue ignoring the housing crisis is atrocious. To continue ignoring homelessness when it has reached levels that none of us could ever have imagined is reprehensible. Homelessness is at record levels and continues to grow, particularly for seniors.

What do we see in the throne speech? There's one phrase, I think, that had some indication that there was some interest in taking action on housing: "This government wishes to add to housing stock…." I don't interpret that as a significant commitment to homeless people, the people living on the margins, people barely able to pay their rents. There are tens of thousands of those people in the city of Vancouver right now, to say nothing of the other communities around the province facing equally challenging homelessness and affordable housing crises.

Where is the action? The short and feeble list of measures that are mentioned don't even begin to address the housing crisis in Vancouver. This crisis is literally killing people. It's adding pressure to our health care system, our food banks, our shelters, the thousands of volunteers who dedicate their time to take care of people in the community because the government has abandoned them. Where are those commitments to address housing and homelessness? Where are the commitments to address child poverty, which is family poverty?

I have three kids, and I can't imagine not being able to feed my kids. I can't imagine it. This government has turned its back on how many families and how many children? How about health care? A year-long conversation to consider options. People in Vancouver have to wait until July 7 to have a voice in the future of our health care system.

If any of the members opposite are interested in walking from my office on Broadway over to VGH emergency room, we could go up to children's and women's hospital — some of the greatest hospitals on this continent — and see how difficult it is for the people who work in that hospital, for the people who show up at that hospital in desperate need of care. I'd be happy to provide that opportunity to the members opposite. It's a sobering experience. As someone who's worked in the health care system, worked in emergency rooms, it's unbelievable what people are putting up with. I didn't see much about that in the throne speech.

I didn't see much about post-secondary education and training. The skills shortage is wreaking havoc on the small businesses around this province, particularly in rural communities. Student debt is out of control. Many people no longer have access to post-secondary education and training since adult basic education funding was cancelled, since tuition was doubled, since the B.C. grants program was canned.

Students are the future of our province. If this government recognizes the critical importance of dealing with climate change, they had better realize the critical importance of making sure every young person has access to education and training. Other than long overdue graduate spaces, apprenticeship spaces, numbers that should have been seen five years ago, there's not much in here for post-secondary education and training, and therefore, there's not much in here for small businesses that rely on that education and training in the workforce coming up.

We are in a time of great surplus, and it's driven in a bizarre way by a liquidation of our long-term assets. I'm talking about assets that are non-renewable, assets that are going to take 100-odd years to renew, in cases — oil and gas, mineral resources, raw logs. This one-time sell-off — one time; we get one shot to take down this bank account — might make sense if all those pro-

ceeds were targeted at solving our critical needs: at tackling climate change now, right now, this year, not in 2020; at ensuring that every person in B.C. has a place to live this year; at eradicating poverty, making sure that no children go hungry, sleep outside when it's not called for; at guaranteeing access to education and training, making our communities more livable for many generations to come.

If we were investing our one-time sell-off — this massive liquidation of non-renewable resources in B.C. — in efforts like that, in initiatives that made that big of a difference and that set us up for many generations to come, maybe there's a rationale there. Maybe there's a good reason to do it. But to liquidate all of our long-term assets and not tackle these issues…. What does that say about this government and its responsibility to the people of B.C. and to the future of this province? What does it say about their management of our assets, their fiscal responsibility? It says they're pathetic. It says they haven't a clue.

If they were running a business under these terms, that business would have gone bankrupt five and a half years ago. It might have had a couple of months' worth. If you sell down the assets to keep your profit-and-loss statement alive, you're not going to last very long.

G. Robertson: Unfortunately, as the Solicitor General says, not many of the members opposite have experience in business, and all of a sudden they're in charge of 30-odd billion dollars' worth of expenses to manage. Fiscal responsibility, when you have no background in fiscal responsibility, is puzzling.

I don't think that the people of B.C. quite understood who they were electing to take charge of the finances of this province. If they knew the billions of dollars that have literally gone south, gone east and west, gone up in smoke in the nearly six years that this government has been in office…. And they will know, and they will judge this government partly on those terms in the next election.

This throne speech is not about that. This throne speech is not about long term. It's not about sustainability. It's not about balancing the economy and the environment. This throne speech is all about political opportunism — jumping on an issue at literally the last second, making promises that run out in 13 to 43 years on what this government suddenly perceives to be a burning issue. But they won't take action to put out that fire before the next election.

Curiously, just about everything here in this throne speech will take place after the next election. We have a responsibility in this House, elected by the people of B.C. to lead, to take on these issues — to take on the issues that matter most, for the most number and for the most number of years. We in the opposition are committed to bringing those issues forward, to representing our communities and the best interests of this province. I only wish that the government would take those responsibilities to heart, take them seriously.

I'm very disappointed in the direction that we're headed again, despite small progress on acknowledging that climate change is real. Better late than never.

Madam Speaker, I'm thankful for my opportunity to be here today and represent the people in my community, the people who deserve to have a voice represented in government, and whose voice all too often is ignored by this government.

I challenge this government to listen to those voices and to take action in this year on climate change, on homelessness, on poverty, on ensuring that British Columbians have food to eat, a place to go and get taken care of when they're hurt. I challenge this government to do the right things this year while you're sitting here, because you may not be here long.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a privilege for me to rise in this House today to speak on a throne speech. As I said after it was read on Tuesday, in my opinion, being here since 1996 to today, it is the most visionary, ambitious, action-orientated throne speech that I have heard in this House through that government — when they were government over here — and since we've been government.

This throne speech challenges all of us. It challenges with respect to health care. It challenges with respect to education. It challenges with respect to the Pacific leadership agenda. It challenges on homelessness, on housing affordability and, of course, on the environment.

As I listened carefully to the Small Business critic from Vancouver-Fairview, I thought I was listening in an environmental dump, based on the rhetoric that came out of that individual. It is shameless for that individual to come in this House and talk about what hasn't happened in the environment. Perhaps, if I could take a moment or two, we could just have a little history lesson here, because he speaks as if he is the only authority on the environment and as if his party is the only party that cares. He talks as if this is some new-found conversion of our government.

Perhaps he wasn't here on September 12, 2005, when we put forward our five great goals for a decade ahead and our number 4 goal about sustainable environmental actions for a decade — not for a day, not for a week, not for a year, not for a term but for a decade. Now, I know some members on that side of the House have a hard time looking out and having a vision for ten years, but let me tell you, this government has a vision. We know where we're going, but some things are confusing from that side of the House.

I was sure that that member was going to say he cares so much that he wants to get rid of partisanship, that he wants to work in partnership because the government is listening to him. I thought he would have remembered what he said on November 23, 2006, with respect to coal-fired plants. That's why we need to be looking at carbon capture and sequestration. I thought

he would have heard that in the throne speech and he would have been excited and he would stand in this House.

I challenge him to stand in this House and to break from sticking together with his team and actually stand up for what he believes in and vote yes for a throne speech. They voted yes for our throne speech the last time. Perhaps they will see the errors of their way and untangle themselves from their political rhetoric and vote yes, because they know this is a government of action. They know that something's going to get done. Those people over there from the NDP certainly….

I must just stop for a second. It was really interesting to get a lesson on business from the NDP. I can remember that there used to be a member there who had served in the federal government. Then he came back, and he was on the NDP provincial side. I think he was actually the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture at one time.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think his name was Ian Waddell. He was the only one that had any business experience, and that was because he ran a law office. That was their business experience on that side of the House.

Now, let's just stop some of the rhetoric from that side of the House, and let us look at the facts. I know they don't like to hear the facts. But the NDP's record on the environment: greenhouse emissions in B.C. increased between 1991 and 2001 by 24 percent. The single biggest increase in gases was 8 percent in 1995. But now they care.

They actually were the government that wanted to pave Burns Bog. But they care about the environment. They also care so much about air quality that they failed to oppose SE2. They actually even missed the deadline for filing official intervener status in Washington State. They talk about alternative energy, but what did they actually do when they were in government?

Under the NDP there was not a single megawatt of wind power under development in this province — under the green NDP. Because of their neglect, their inability, their incompetence, B.C. became a net importer of energy. You know what? Most of that energy comes from Alberta and the United States from coal-burning generation.

If that's not enough about the hypocrisy on that side of the House, their leader and her environmental vision, they voted against the living rivers trust. They voted against $91 million to clean up contaminated sites on Crown land. They voted against a PST exemption on hybrid vehicles. They voted against tax relief on alternative fuel vehicles. They voted against….

They talk about housing and those that they care about, but yet they voted against energy efficiency for home heating projects. They talk about public transit. They voted against the Canada line, which would remove 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas by 2021. Of course they talk about our need for green energy, but they vote against all the green energy projects. It's actually quite troubling that they talk one way…. As a matter of fact, all they do is talk. There's no action.

But you know, I would be neglectful if I did not just mention that it is a privilege to represent Okanagan-Westside. I'd like to acknowledge my mayor, Mayor David Gregory, and council in Summerland; Mayor Graham Reid, and the council in Peachland; and the three regional directors on the west side: Aaron Dinwoodie, Len Novakowski and David Knowles, because in my riding we work in partnership. We work on behalf of our communities, and we work on behalf of our citizens because the citizens of Okanagan-Westside know there's only one taxpayer and it happens to be them. So they expect us to work together, and I'm pleased and proud that we do.

So much really depends on what actions really happen. As the MLA for Okanagan-Westside, I'm pleased that we've been able to work on regional wildlife cooperative management programs. We've been able to work with the regional district on ecosystems and species studies; been able to make contributions in the South Okanagan and the Nature Trust; work with the Okanagan water basins in developing long-range plans and helping fund those; infrastructure programs to clean up sanitary facilities at Bear Creek Provincial Park; work on forest fire administrative interface fuel reduction.

One of the things that I'm particularly proud of is how the communities of the Okanagan and, as a matter of fact, all citizens of British Columbia came together to rebuild the Myra Canyon trestles, and also to work with the west side on sewer projects in Casa Loma; sewer projects in Peachland for over $3 million; improving water connection systems in Peachland, just under $400,000; in Summerland a provincial grant to increase water treatment of just under $4 million; and just over a million dollars for upgrading of the Thirsk Dam.

Those are things that people see in our community — that people actually care. They actually listen to them, and we are working together, because unlike the NDP, this is not about turning a light switch on and something changes. This is about having sustainability, this is about having certainty, this is about having a plan, and this is about moving forward.

I am hopeful that the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who seems to perhaps want to be their environmental critic because of some of his positions…. I'm very hopeful, and I challenge him that he will vote for this budget, because he has talked about coal-fired generation. As the NDP do from time to time, they talk about Princeton and they talk about Tumbler Ridge.

Well, I was in Princeton last week, and I met with a couple of the regional district directors, and they said: "Rick, we really are hoping the government will do something with respect to this coal-fired production."

And I said: "Is it the coal that you're worried about, or is it the emissions you're worried about?" Without hesitation, they said: "The emissions."

Also, there's a gentleman over there by the name of Brad Hope. He's a spokesman for Save Our Similkameen. When he heard about the throne speech, Mr. Hope said: "…the Similkameen, which includes several organic farms, can now move forward in further billing itself as a 'green' valley. He added after hearing the throne speech, several members of the coalition started arriving at his home in Princeton to celebrate the announcement. 'This is just wonderful news,' Mr. Hope said. 'This is the best party I've ever had.'"

Not only am I challenging the member for Vancouver-Fairview to show his true colours and vote yes for this throne speech because of his concerns for the environment, but I'm also going to challenge my colleague from Merritt, who represents Princeton, who represents the individuals in Princeton. Let us see if he is going to support the 3,000 citizens who want to Save Our Similkameen and who are endorsing the actions of our government. That will be the real test.

As I heard the throne speech, and as I mentioned to the Premier that evening, I was particularly touched. Not only am I a father, but I'm a grandfather, and I was particularly touched at the reference to our grandchildren, because you know, folks, most of the members in this House are going to be fine. We are going to be fine. Yes, we care about the future of our children, for our children and for their children, that being our grandchildren. We actually in this House have the opportunity to do the right thing, and I challenge all the members on that side to drop their partisanship, to endorse not necessarily what the government has said about its plan, which is the most ambitious in all of North America, but….

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, that goes to show the inconsiderateness of the members on that side of the House when the only thing they can do is mock. They cannot take a serious plan seriously. They are all about partisanship, and this should be about partnership for British Columbians — all British Columbians. British Columbia is experiencing unprecedented growth and opportunity — lowest unemployment since records have been kept. That also means highest employment since records have been kept.

I have had the privilege over the last year to travel around the province, to visit some 18, 19, 20 communities to hear firsthand, and I can tell you that British Columbians in the small business sector have never had so much confidence. They have gone to the motto of "managing success," and yes, that has its challenges. There's no question it has its challenges, and yes, our government is listening about the need for skilled and skillable workers. This throne speech talks about that. Our commitment to apprenticeship, our commitment to advanced education, our commitment to 25,000 spaces, to 2,500 additional PhD spaces. It talks about moving forward. It talks about having the most promising education facilities that we can have here in British Columbia. People are moving to British Columbia because they know it is a province of opportunity.

You know, I too have heard about the challenges of homelessness and affordability. This plan, this throne speech actually addresses those issues. Yes, for some it's out-of-the-box thinking. It's actually visionary. We hear some members on that side of the House say: "Well, it's not fair to municipalities." Yet when they were the government, how did they treat local government? The largest single cut to municipalities in the history of this province came compliments of the NDP, compliments of the House Leader, compliments of the Chair over there. It's unbelievable.

It's about time that municipalities and the provincial government and citizens came together with our federal government to really address homelessness and affordability. This throne speech outlines how we're going to achieve this.

In my area of responsibility I've been charged with the development of a new assessment class. New tax exemptions for small-unit supportive housing will be developed over the next year for this Legislature's consideration. We're going to do that this year. It's going to get done in the coming year that that new class will be in place, and they are going to help affordability.

Now, I would hope there are members over there — because they talk about affordability; they talk about the need to address homelessness — that are actually going to have the courage to stand in this House and vote for this throne speech. Come on. Work for solutions. Don't just follow the party banner.

I've heard the members over there with their negative, depressing, pessimistic thoughts about health care. When they were the government, the funding was at $8.5 million, and I remember when they were government sitting on this side of the House, when they said: "Money is not the issue." They actually go out and purposely mislead British Columbians every day, using words that aren't true.

We have added $5 billion to health care. Funding has increased by over 51 percent. Now they're critical because we're consulting with British Columbians on how we can have a sustainable health care system. One can only conclude that they are against sustainable health care. How can that be? I don't know. But, Madam Speaker, perhaps you could find out for everyone in British Columbia.

Education. All school districts are reporting class sizes, and there's a thousand more classes in British Columbia this year with 12,000 fewer students. Yet the NDP over there somehow are against that. I know it's mind-boggling. I know you can't figure these things out.

Student-teacher ratio is as low as it's ever been in British Columbia. We are going to give teachers new recognition, new financial incentives. My colleague will be taking the actions that are required in this legis-

lative session to ensure that we have the best education — public education, elementary education — system K-to-12 that any jurisdiction possibly can, right here in British Columbia. It is about leadership, and it's about caring about our students.

There are so many things in this throne speech, but somehow the folks over there don't want to talk about the future. They don't want to talk about the future of British Columbia. They don't want to talk about our government's goal of the Pacific gateway to new worlds of economic and knowledge opportunity. They don't want to talk about that. Why do the NDP always want to live in the past, when the past was so miserable in British Columbia, especially under their rule?

You know, it's time we looked, and it's time that we understood the need for the Pacific leadership agenda and about the gateway. This is not just about the lower mainland. This is about the entire province. The route that has the most economic activity of any route in the province needs to be upgraded, yet we hear our colleagues on the NDP locked in the ways of the past. Now they're against expanding that road and those bridges for public transportation. I don't understand it. When I hear the member for Vancouver-Fairview get up and say that we need more public transportation, I can only conclude that he is going to vote for this throne speech.

We have a great opportunity here in British Columbia with our Pacific gateway and for Canada. It wasn't that many years ago, 50 or so, that in eastern Canada they were looking to Europe. All Canadians pitched in together to build the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Now the right thing to do for Canada is look to the Asia-Pacific and invest the $6 billion that we invested in the '50s in the west, on behalf of Canada, because British Columbia is Canada's Pacific gateway. It offers tremendous opportunities for us today, for our children tomorrow and for our grandchildren in the future. We have tremendous opportunities, and that's why I am so pleased and so proud to support this throne speech.

I want to just go back to the environmental thrust, the responsible approach that our government has taken, and I want to talk a little bit about what people are saying. I did hear the member for Vancouver-Fairview say that we needed to hear from those who prepared the UN report.

Well, we actually have heard. We've heard from a University of Victoria climatologist, Andrew Weaver. Let me quote from a February 14 Times Colonist article that says: "It is the most progressive plan I have ever seen anywhere in North America for a start, and one of the best in the world. This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It really is super."

Further on when he talks about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said that any of the goals that we have set are not out of reach. "They haven't said anything that's not doable. I think they're all doable. I mean, they don't make this up overnight. They didn't ban coal burning. Nobody ever said ban coal burning. What they are saying is if you're going to do it, you've got to capture the carbon. So there are technologies being developed to sequester the carbon in geological reserves. That's fine. That's good policy. I'm totally supportive of this." And he closes.

One last quote from Andrew Weaver, and I mean this very sincerely. I know that in this House partisanship often prevails, but let us all listen to Andrew Weaver when he says: "Climate is not a political issue. I mean, it's not supposed to be a partisan issue." I totally agree with those words, and I ask all members of this House to listen carefully, to think about their children. Those who have grandchildren: think of your grandchildren. Think of the future.

We have an unbelievable opportunity here in this House. Shall we all choose to work together to achieve things that we have not even dreamt of today? But it means members on that side dropping their partisanship and committing to work in partnership.

I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that I think actually sum it all up for me. The first one is: "At the heart of the government's agenda lies this simple question: what can we do today to secure the future for our children and our grandchildren?" We should think of that.

In closing: "Let us test our limits and give our grandchildren the gift of a better province, a better country and a better world." That is the opportunity before us as we look at this throne speech, as we debate this throne speech and as we vote on this throne speech.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Westside, my children and my grandchildren, I will be voting yes for this throne speech. I will be voting yes for this throne speech because it's about sustainable health care. I will vote for this throne speech because it's about enhancing education. I will vote for this throne speech because we're going to work in partnership to address housing affordability and homelessness. I will vote for this throne speech because it leads — Pacific leadership agenda, a great vision for the province of British Columbia, a great vision for our country of Canada.

Finally, I will vote for this throne speech because it lays out, and is a continuation of, a goal we set on September 15, 2005, in this House of having the best sustainable environment, bar none, of any jurisdiction. That's our plan. That's what this throne speech lays out.

As the plans unfold, unlike the NDP…. They don't have a plan one day. The next day they have a two-page plan, but there are never any details. Who could ever think of someone going to a press conference to talk about climate change and not having a plan? Well, apparently the Leader of the Opposition did, twice.

Anyhow, I'm counting on the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who asked for carbon sequestration, to have the courage to stand up in this House and vote yes, to show some leadership. I'm asking the member that represents Princeton to stand up in support of the 3,000 folks that want to save the Similkameen and who have

said that this is the best they could ever have wished for. I hope he's going to represent those 3,000 constituents in his riding.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to say in this House that I will be voting yes for this throne speech, because it provides a blueprint, a map to move forward and to have the very, very best environmental management program that we could have in British Columbia and in Canada. Once again, it's great to be part of a government that shows vision and leadership.

H. Lali: I see that members opposite are waiting eagerly to hear from the member for Yale-Lillooet to say all sorts of good things about what's contained in the throne speech. Well, I've got another thing coming for those people, because there aren't many good things happening here in the throne speech.

Hon. Speaker, when I look at this throne speech, I think it should more appropriately be called…. Instead of the Speech from the Throne, it should actually be called fiction from the throne, because that's what this is. This document is a fictional document. When the Premier and the cabinet, the Liberal caucus on the other side can't support anything with any kind of fact, they create fictional facts. That's what they do.

We have the Premier who is now inviting Arnold Schwarzenegger — the terminator — to come up here to British Columbia. I can just see the headlines, and I can just see the front page of the Vancouver Sun, the TC and the Province, stating: "The terminator meets the fictionator." That's exactly what's going to happen, because this document is a document which is written as a book of fiction. When I look at this document, we have so much fiction in here and made-up facts that it would just make some child's dreams come true in terms of reading a document of fiction.

Finally, you have the government side stating here on page 5: "What can we do today to secure the future of our children and grandchildren?" Well, look at that. Six years into their mandate and they've finally discovered that there are children and grandchildren whose future should be secure. It took them six years of being in government to finally realize that, after they did everything in those six years to dismantle that very future — that social and economic fabric of our children and our grandchildren.

Here we have the Liberals opposite in their throne speech citing the Conference Board of Canada ranking the health care system in B.C. as the best in Canada. This is what they're saying. But they fail to tell the people of British Columbia that those documents — the facts and the stats that the Conference Board of Canada used — were from 1997 to the year 2002, which the NDP had left behind. That's what they're talking about when they're saying that it's number one. So I want to thank the Liberals opposite for giving a vote of confidence to the NDP record of making health care the best in North America.

They also state on page 6 here that there have been fewer strikes and lockouts due to labour disputes in B.C. over the past four years than at any other time on record. What a fictional statement. That is a fictional statement. The kind of labour code that this government's brought in is so one-sided, anti-worker, anti-union, anti-community, it would make Bill Vander Zalm's labour code look good. That's the reality.

The fact of the matter is between 1991 and the year 2001, when the New Democrats were in government, we had the lowest numbers of strikes and lockouts since the end of the Second World War, and these folks across the way are trying to take credit for that.

Here we again see they're saying that rural British Columbia has record levels of employment and economic growth. "Nowhere is that more apparent than in the new relationship we are forging with first nations." They're saying: "first nations leaders are leading Canada to close the gap in health, education, housing and economic opportunity." How much more fictional can a government get?

When you look across British Columbia, yes, the economy is doing well. Nobody doubts that. But when you look at the Liberal government's record of managing that prosperity, they have completely mismanaged that prosperity. Nowhere is that more evident than on the aboriginal reserves of this province and the aboriginal populations, even within the urban centres of this province. They have the highest unemployment rate. You have aboriginal communities situated all over this province that have up to 90-percent unemployment.

They have the worst record from this government in terms of social and economic justice for aboriginal people. It is absolutely shameful for the Premier and the Liberal government to try to bundle this up to say that somehow their new initiatives are helping the aboriginal people in all these fields when stat after stat…. These aren't statistics that are provided by New Democrats. These are stats that are provided by this government itself and the Canadian StatsCan department.

Every one of those indicators, every single one of those stats, shows that the lot of aboriginal people is not any better under this Liberal government than it was in 2001. They have completely ignored the plight of aboriginal people — aboriginal health, aboriginal economics and education in every field. I just don't know how they can support this document of fiction that we see here before us.

Now we have the Liberals saying individually and collectively in this throne speech that we have to act before the tipping point becomes the breaking point. Well, they finally realized what British Columbians, all British Columbians, realized a decade ago before this Liberal government ever got into office.

Here they point out that the government is going to act to lead Canada in partnership with the first nations. I already talked about the partnership of first nations, so I won't elaborate more on that. But when you look at constituencies like Yale-Lillooet, which has more aboriginal bands than any other constituency in this province…. We have 27 first nations in all, and I think there are seven tribal councils that represent those 27 bands.

When I talk to the chiefs and councils and the aboriginal people in my constituency, they're saying that there may be economic prosperity going on in British Columbia but that they are not getting they fair share of the economic pie. There is rampant poverty that exists on reserves in my constituency, whether you're up in the Lillooet area, Merritt, Lytton, Keremeos, Yale or Hope or any one of those areas where there are first nations in my constituency.

Then they say that the government is going to act to tackle the challenges of global warming and unplanned urban sprawl, after they took the chainsaw off to allow that to happen. This government basically opened the back door, the front door and the windows to any kind of developer to come in, without any kind of planned growth to take place or any kind of strategies.

Then they talk about global warming. This is the same government that wanted to put in dirty coal-fired plants in British Columbia, in Tumbler Ridge and in my constituency of Princeton, and now they're talking about global warming. I'll have more to say about that in a minute.

The government also says they're going to increase affordable housing, reduce homelessness and help those who cannot help themselves. Well, what have they done in the last six years? It's completely the opposite of what they're putting here in this document.

Then they say they want to improve the quality, the choice and the accountability of our two most important public services, education and health care, after they gutted health care and education, and after their billions of dollars of tax breaks to their rich friends and corporations. After they did that, they paid for it by taking money out of health and education and eliminating services in both of those areas and in the field of social services all across British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia.

Finally, they're going to open up Canada's Pacific gateway and strengthen our economic competitiveness. Just ask rural British Columbia what kind of a competitive advantage they've got under this Liberal government — after this Liberal government has completely abandoned them, abandoned wholesale communities all throughout this province each and every year that they have been in office.

I've talked about the aboriginal situation where they want to begin a new journey, a new long journey with aboriginal communities. Yet when you talk to aboriginal people, they're saying that the government, this Liberal government, is not doing anything positive for them.

They want to establish a reputation for environmental leadership. That's what it says in here, in this fiction from the throne here. I remember years ago, just before the 1996 election or the run-up to the 2000…. I think it was the 2001 election. One of the bright lights in the support staff for the Liberals had a great idea in the leader's office — at that time the Premier was Leader of the Opposition — that the way to change his image was to put him in a TV commercial with a plaid shirt on. Everything that they try to do reminds me of that plaid shirt.

Their idea of softening up the Premier's image vis-à-vis the environment is for him to go out and say: "Well, I have exchanged my SUV for a hybrid car." That message is nothing less than the plaid shirt of the Premier from a decade ago. Sometimes I wonder if they have still got the same communications guy hired on to be giving the Premier some advice.

Again, here they're trying to take credit and say that 14 percent of British Columbia's land is protected, more than any other province, with 43 new class-A parks and 33 existing parks expanded. Hon. Speaker, if I remember correctly, it was Premier Mike Harcourt who was vilified by this opposition when he was the Premier for actually going on an environmental program to protect 12 percent of the land base of this province and put it into parks and wilderness areas.

It was this Liberal opposition that vilified the man, and now that he is not the Premier of this province anymore, they're trying to take credit for his positive contributions to the environment of this province. It's a darned shame for the Liberals to try to take credit for things that a past NDP Premier and NDP government have done.

M. Karagianis: They complain about the dismal decade, and then they steal our stuff.

H. Lali: That's right. They don't mind. They complain about the so-called dismal decade, but they want to steal our accomplishments, is what the member from the Victoria area has just said. It's just that they have no end to shame, those Liberals.

Then all of a sudden the Liberals are saying that they want to reverse global warming. They want to do more because of the difficulty that they face today, and they're citing the 1992 Rio summit and the 1997 Kyoto accord. Ten to 15 years after the fact the Liberals have finally woken up, because right here they say that the science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real. Well, hallelujah.

I would like to say to that Liberal Premier and that Liberal government on the other side: welcome to the 21st century. You have finally, ten to 15 years after the fact, realized that there is such a thing as global warming after spending the last six years doing exactly the opposite of what is required to arrest global warming in this province.

We had our leader, our Environment critic, the Energy critic and the New Democrat caucus launching a plan about ten days ago of how we were going to tackle the whole issue of climate change, greenhouse gases and all of these pollutants that are being emitted onto our land, our water and the air that we breathe. We've been working on this for a while, even before the scientists got together about two weeks ago to make that announcement about global warming.

We put out this plan. So what you've got is this Liberal government, realizing how popular our leader's plan and the New Democrat plan was with the people of British Columbia, and how the NDP caucus and the New Democratic Party are totally in sync with the peo-

ple of British Columbia when it comes to this whole issue of the environment and our health that is at stake…. The Liberals finally woke up to follow suit.

I'm glad that the Liberals were able to borrow from the New Democrat plan to put forward whatever they did in this, the throne speech. If you need more information, hon. Speaker, and if they need more information, we'd be more than happy to actually supply them with the information, because when you look at their throne speech, there are no targets. When they do have some datelines put in there, it's either 2016, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 — ten, 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road.

They've put in no targets. They've given no specifics on how they are going to tackle it. Our plan gives specifics in terms of recommendations that we would do. At least if the Liberals were going to copy our plan, they could have put into this document the kind of targets that we put in and some of the details that we put into our plan.

I also want to point out…. We've had the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, who talked before me, who wanted me to talk about Princeton. Well, I'd like to talk about Princeton and Keremeos and the Similkameen Valley and how the Liberals wanted to railroad through a project against the wishes of the people of the Similkameen Valley, who have raised a hue and cry over the last year and a half that they didn't want this dirty coal-fired plant in their backyard.

Then you had the Minister of Environment, who was totally muted by this Liberal cabinet and this Liberal Premier from having any guts to go out there and talk to the people of the area in the Similkameen Valley, where it would affect them the most — actually go and talk to them first before he was going to put such a plan into action.

Yet this Minister of Environment, when he was an opposition member in the 1990s, was very upfront and vocal in terms of speaking up against what was taking place with Sumas 2 across the boarder. He was coming after the NDP to say that no way, it should not go through any sort of a process at all. That's what he said at that time. He was going to stand up and fight. He didn't want it in his backyard.

Now that he's the Minister of Environment, he said absolutely nothing in defence of my constituents and the people of the Similkameen Valley and the South Okanagan — or to listen to them. But he had no problem listening to the people in his backyard, in his constituency. He wanted to shove that through.

Originally they wanted to plan a 49-megawatt project, which would be under the radar of the environmental assessment office. It wasn't until community leaders, municipal and aboriginal leaders, both the Upper and Lower Similkameen Indian bands, the mayor and council of Keremeos, mayor and council of Princeton and regional district reps wrote to me and said that the Liberals were trying to sneak this through by having it exempt from the environmental assessment office.

It wasn't until I wrote a letter asking the minister that it had to go through that process. It was only then, when the community raised a hue and cry, that the Liberal government actually decided to put it through the environmental assessment process.

Yet once it was in the process, you couldn't get a single piece of information from the environmental assessment office. They said: "Go talk to the company. Go talk to Compliance Coal." Now, I've got nothing against Compliance Coal. They're a company out to try to make a profit. You can't blame a company for that; that's good business practice. But when you ask them for information, they say: "Go back to the environmental assessment office or the Minister of Environment if you need some information."

Well, that didn't sit too well with my constituents. So they raised a hue and cry. They wrote letters to the editors, had demonstrations. They had petitions. They wrote columns. They talked and tried to lobby ministers, MLAs, the opposition.

We went out there, and we listened to them. I went out there first — they're my own constituents — and supported them. I took the Energy critic from this side and also the critic for Environment. We went in there and listened to the people. We sided with them. I know that our party came out stating unequivocally in December, through an emergency resolution at the provincial council of the NDP, that we're against coal-fired plants in British Columbia — that they should not be built. That sat really well with my constituents.

Following that, after Christmas we had a chance a couple of weeks ago…. Our leader and I went into the Keremeos. We talked to both of the bands. We talked to the town council there as well as the regional district reps and the mayor and councillors from Princeton. We had a public meeting.

There has been public meeting after public meeting after public meeting. You know, in that crowd there were Conservatives, federal Liberals, provincial Liberals, New Democrats and others — Green Party members as well — who fought against this. You know what? That cabinet, which was really, really bent on pushing this through, finally capitulated — and it was the right thing to do — and decided they're going to ban coal-fired generation plants in British Columbia. That's a great victory for the people of the Similkameen Valley.

Just bear with me as I thumb through this document. Now the Liberals say that housing is the cornerstone of strong social policy. They're saying: "Homelessness is a plague that weakens our cities, siphons our strength and erodes our social fabric." Well, it was this very Liberal government, this Liberal Premier and their massive cuts to social programs and to all of those programs that used to help the homeless and feed the hungry.… It was their massive cuts that have put these people out on the street.

It was their cuts to the social housing. We had an affordable housing policy in place; we had a social housing policy, Homes B.C., in place. It was the envy of North America, and we had this government that came in and gutted it and are now putting in rent sub-

sidies. They had eliminated a whole number of long-term care facilities as well. They eliminated a whole number of long-term care beds, and still we're waiting for the 5,000 that have been promised, I think ten times over — twice every year for the five years they've been in office.

They've arbitrarily cut people off social assistance. The federal government arbitrarily cut people off EI. These are the very people that are put out onto the streets. I would request any one of these Liberal MLAs to actually take a walk downtown, especially the east side in Vancouver and in many other communities. We never had homelessness in Merritt and Princeton and in all of these small communities throughout the interior, in Hope. There are homeless people there because of the direct result of the policies, the mean-spirited policies, of this Liberal government and this Liberal Premier.

Now, all of a sudden, they want to do something about it because they say it's a plague. Well, if it's a plague according to the Premier and that cabinet, then it is a plague that has been brought about by this Liberal government and its shortsighted, mean-spirited policies.

Then they want to improve and protect public health care. This is after they actually made massive cuts to health care. During the 1990s, wait-lists for surgeries and other procedures were going down until this Liberal party took office. Since then we have seen wait-lists increase anywhere from 100 percent to 200 percent to 300 percent, depending on what surgery or what procedure people are waiting for, and it's a shame. Finally, they're waking up and saying they're going to look after health care after gutting health care over the last six years.

I won't talk about education. I know some other folks on my side have already talked about that, and I concur with the folks here. Certainly, when they say that in every single district across B.C. average class sizes have dropped this past year — well, that's fiction. That is fiction. The truth is that we have seen school closures. I think we're up to about 150 now and increasing. We've seen fired teachers by the thousands. There were 2,500 teachers that were laid off just a few years ago.

ESL. They still haven't returned the funding for ESL classes. That's hurting immigrant families, the multicultural community, special ed. Obviously, there's special ed, special needs students all across British Columbia who are not getting the proper care and the attention and the education they need in our educational system. It is no fault of the school boards or the teachers or the parents in communities; it's the fault of this government.

Aboriginal education. They dropped funding for aboriginal education, and here they want to talk about reconciliation with aboriginal people. Well, start by putting back the money into aboriginal education. That might be a start to reconciliation.

Now they want to pick a fight with teachers and also with school districts. You hear these buzz words that they're talking about in the throne speech — provincial schools, choice in learning, demonstration schools, virtual schools — and it just goes on and on. As I recall, they lost the last fight they picked with teachers and school boards when the school boards and the teachers all united to be on one side.

Remember the fall of 2005, September? As I recall, this Liberal government lost that fight, and now they're cruising for another bruising. They're trying to pick another fight with the school system, with school boards and also with teachers and parents and people out in the communities.

Finally, they talk about the Pacific gateway. I know my time is going to be running out pretty quick; I've been passed a note.

H. Lali: The hon. members all across here say: "More." They want to hear more. Absolutely.

They say they're going to open Canada's Pacific gateway to the new worlds of knowledge and economic opportunity. You know, there's nothing wrong with that. The only thing wrong is the fact that what are they doing for the residents of rural British Columbia? What are they doing for my constituents? What are they doing in every field, whether it's economics or education or even in the field of transportation?

We see billions of billions of dollars that are going to be poured into the lower mainland over the next ten years. I think it amounts close to $10 billion. But what they have really done for rural British Columbia? Well, they've cut the heart out of the heartlands. The last time rural British Columbia saw those kinds of projects for road and bridge construction was in the late 1990s under an NDP government.

What we have seen is roads falling apart. We can't get the money, in the way of tens of thousands of dollars, for fixing side roads or for gravelling or for brush clearance. We've got roads all throughout, up in the Lillooet area especially. The last time that any moneys were spent in the Lillooet area was when I was the Minister of Transportation and Highways, between 1998 and 2001. It has been abandoned by this Liberal government.

We have the Texas Creek slide there. When I was the minister, we put a million bucks in there to at least arrest the problem of the rocks falling. We had a plan to actually look at either a tunnel or a way around it. Well, the Liberals kiboshed that.

Aside from Olympics-related work they want to do with the Birkenhead bridges, there's nothing that has been done, especially for the people who live on the end of Road 40 in Gold Bridge and Bralorne on the Lillooet-Pioneer Road 40. There's been no work done by this government, none.

Highway 12 between Lytton and Lillooet, where people are dying in accidents…. We just had this big massive slide there. This government has done nothing, and it's prepared still to do nothing to alleviate that situation.

It is only when this opposition raises the issues that they're actually willing to put some money in there. The situation is repeated all over rural British Columbia, because we can't get any action from this government, whether it's the Summers Creek Road, also known as the Missezula Lake road, near Princeton, or Highway 12 between Lytton and Lillooet. Merritt to Princeton — finally, after two years of me harping against the Liberal government, they're finally putting some moneys into there to try to fix it. We've seen a disaster in terms of the highway's maintenance under this Liberal government.

The Coquihalla Highway system, which was the pride of British Columbia, is falling apart because of the neglect of this Liberal government. It's high time they started to look after the interests of not just all British Columbians but also specifically of the people of rural British Columbia, the very people that this government has abandoned over the last six years because of their policies of social and economic injustice.

When we look at it, they have no problem helping out their corporate buddies, those people who finance their campaigns and those people making over $125,000 a year, but in my constituency there aren't too many people making $125,000 a year. It's lower- and middle-income earners, and they're still looking for their tax break from this government. We saw nothing of this.

When you look at this document, the throne speech, it is an act of fiction. It's a fictional document. It's made-up facts, one after the other, fiction after fiction after fiction in this document, where this government is trying to take credit for all of those positive things in the environment and in health care of a past NDP government.

I mean, there are no lengths that this government is not willing to go to. They'll say anything, they'll do anything on the eve of an election — whether to put on plaid shirts or to trade in the SUV for a hybrid car, just so the people might think: "Look how this Premier of the Liberal party has really changed."

The people of British Columbia, especially my constituents, are a lot smarter than the Liberals are trying to give them credit for. They see right through it, and they've asked me to stand up in this Legislature time and time again, as they have after this throne speech, and they've told me: "Go after those Liberals and reveal them for the fiction that they've put into this document."

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for the time that you have given me. I see that the red light is about to go on, so I will vacate my chair for somebody else to say a few words.

H. Bloy: I've had to wait all day, contain my excitement, so I could stand up and say how proud I am to support this throne speech. This is visionary. The vision taken by this government and by our Premier is leading the province out of what happened in the '90s, and we're not looking back. We're only looking forward to continue to lead this province, British Columbia, ahead of all of Canada into the Pacific new world.

I'm so excited to be here today. I'm going to try to contain myself, and I've had to make some notes so that I wouldn't miss anything. First, I would like to say how proud I am to serve the riding of Burquitlam, the riding that has sent me to the Legislature for six years now. It's a real honour to be able to serve every single person in my riding, but I couldn't do it alone. I have help in Victoria here from my support staff, Barinder Bhullar, and I have help in my riding constituency office. My CA is Dave Teixeira, and my assistant CA is Amy Ng. She's in fact a co-op student from SFU and has been very helpful.

Before I get into this, you might notice my tie. I have a flag tie on today because today is officially Flag Day in Canada. It was a proud day here in Victoria, because earlier today we had the Premier here, who introduced and flew the two Olympic flags out in front of our Parliament Buildings. We have the Olympic flag and the Paralympic flag. That will be taking place in 2010, as I'm sure most people know.

Before I get into the basis of my speech, having had to listen all day to what was going on, there was a lot of misinformation and a lot of mistruths from the other side of the House. You know, Madam Speaker, the NDP is trying to take credit for climate change in ten days, but they did nothing in ten years in power, and they haven't been talking about it. There are a lot of quotes that have already been read here today by experts and professionals in the field that spoke. One expert, I believe it was Andrew Weaver, said: "If I had a dream, then everything that was in the throne speech about climate change would be what I have dreamed, without changing one iota." This is coming from the experts in the field.

There's an opposition here that's had a hard time making decisions, especially their leader, who follows the old NDP union theory. The last time she had to make a major decision one of her union bosses phoned her, and she changed her mind over the weekend. I found that really disturbing.

Before we can move ahead and really discuss this throne speech, we have to look at where we've come from. We have to look at the accomplishments that have taken place in British Columbia, because we can only get here and we can only have the vision for this throne speech today because of the accomplishments over the last year and the last six years. That's one of the reasons I know that I'll be able to stand up here one year from now and talk about the accomplishments of this government, and it's accomplishments that move us forward.

We have labour peace in British Columbia for the first time in years in health care. We have labour peace for post-secondary education. We have labour peace for B.C. public utilities. We have labour peace for government services. We have labour peace for Crown corporations. It's unheard of, because we've been out there working with labour. One of the things I'm proud to say that happened in the last year in labour was the presumption of cancer that was approved by this government for all firefighters in British Columbia. We have been out there working.

Our unemployment numbers around the province are the lowest ever in recorded history. Our employment, at the same time, is the highest, which only makes sense.

We're caring for B.C. children. I've heard so many things talking about an uncaring government. I believe, with my colleagues on the government side, that we have been the most caring government ever, because what we say is what we do, and we've been doing it for the last year.

There's $72 million more for social workers, $100 million for child protection system, $36 million to reduce wait-lists for services for children and youth with special needs, an additional $34 million to support approximately 140,000 children in this province who suffer from a mental disorder, 100 new mental health clinicians, created a new independent Representative for Children and Youth to advocate on behalf of children — up to $20,000 per year for children under six and $6,000 for children over the age of six for FASD.

What we're doing for children. One thousand additional children's surgeries will be done in B.C.'s Children's Hospital. Over 3,000 additional children will benefit from the infant development program, and 5,200 children and youth will benefit from therapy programs. Over 1,100 children with special needs will be included in regular child care.

Over 1,000 children receive special fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other development-behavioral interventions. Over 600 additional children with complex needs will receive special attention.

We have literacy and early learning programs. Our province has been a leader in that, with the minister from Richmond leading this charge. I try and do my own little bit every year by giving a book to every kindergarten child in my riding. In these classes I tell them about my children. Anita and I would read to them when they were younger, but when they got to be their age, about five, they would start reading to us. This is a book for the children to take home and read with a sibling or a parent at home.

We're able to deliver this throne speech because we've been investing in education for the future. You've heard the numbers. It's the highest per-student funding ever. The class-size reductions have been unbelievable, and we're up…. I just can't remember the exact number, but I believe it's over 90 percent.

We are putting students first and not anyone else. It's the student that counts. We've been listening, and we've been talking.

We've been meeting skill demands. We've targeted seat increases in universities and post-secondary institutions so that we can create the people to fill the jobs who are required in British Columbia.

There is $90 million for a new tax credit program to expand training opportunities for additional construction trades and emerging industries and $39 million to increase support to the Industry Training Authority, giving it an annual budget of $90 million — the highest ever. There's $3 million to extend the award-winning BladeRunners for on-the-job construction trades, which has been greatly received. It's an apprenticeship program for disadvantaged youth. We hope to expand that into many more communities.

Our government is aggressively recruiting foreign-trained skilled workers through the provincial nominee program. In 2005 the program nominated 721 skilled workers. I can tell you that personally, over the last three years, I've been working with the foreign-trained doctors in this province to get more of them into the system so that they can work with patients and within their own communities.

Our government expanded the number of residential training programs from six to 18. I look forward to the day that we'll be able to bring that number even higher. There are many options. The Minister of Health and I have been meeting with the foreign-trained doctors on a regular basis, and we hope to expand their role.

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