Hansard — Wednesday, February 21, 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		5427

Tributes		5427
	Burt Campbell
	K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5428
	Harry Pierre
	C. James
	Childhood fitness initiative in Mission
	R. Hawes
	Flaunt your Frenchness week in Maillardville
	D. Thorne
	Preparations for 2010 Olympic Games
	J. McIntyre
	Lampson Street School
	M. Karagianis
	Harry Pierre
	J. Rustad

Oral Questions		5429
	Budget provisions for health care funding
	B. Ralston
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Government action on surgery cancellations
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Health Minister office budget
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Availability of acute care beds at Royal Columbian Hospital
	M. Sather
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Puchmayr
	Internet gaming
	G. Gentner
	Hon. J. Les
	Innovative clean energy fund
	J. Horgan
	Hon. C. Taylor

Tabling Documents		5434
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 10, Follow-up of 2004/2005 Report 2: In Sickness and in Health: Healthy Work-places for British Columbia's Health Care Workers

Petitions		5434
	C. Wyse

Tabling Documents		5434
	Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2005

Petitions		5434
	N. Macdonald
	N. Simons

Budget Debate (continued)		5434
	B. Ralston
	Hon. I. Chong
	S. Fraser
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Austin

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted today, on behalf of the Premier, to welcome to the precinct 12 visitors from Westside Christian School in the Premier's riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. These are students from grades 7 to 9. They are travelling with some parents and their teacher Ms. Johnson.

The group is here today because they want to experience the history of the building, learn more about the business of government and parliamentary tradition, and take pictures and notes, which they will share with their family and friends when they return home. I know that you will want to join me in making this terrific group of students and the accompanying adults very welcome to the precinct today.

H. Bains: Visiting us in the gallery today is Mr. Gobind Thukral, a renowned journalist who has written for all the national newspapers in India, such as the Indian Express, India Today, the Hindustan Times and the Tribune. Joining with him is my good friend Beant Singh from Delta. Will the House please join me and give them a warm welcome.

Hon. J. Les: I have the pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House Master Cpl. Steve Vukic, who has recently returned to Canada from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Master Corporal Vukic is with the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment. He's based in Petawawa, Ontario.

He and I had an opportunity earlier this morning to talk about his experiences in Afghanistan and the contribution that the Canadian troops are making in re-establishing order and stability to the people of Afghanistan. I would ask the members of the House to please make Steve very welcome.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to introduce my good friend Barb Stegemann, who is sitting in the gallery. Barb is the tourism manager of the city of Coquitlam. She's here for the tourism conference that's in Victoria this week.

Barb has been an outstanding manager of tourism for Coquitlam. She has almost single-handedly put Coquitlam and Maillardville on the map. She is the creator of the Flaunt your Frenchness campaign. She's won two national awards for the city. It's unfortunate that the week after next she's moving back to her home in Nova Scotia, and our loss is Nova Scotia's gain. I'd ask us all to say hello and goodbye to Barb.

B. Lekstrom: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House to introduce a friend and a guest of mine from the Peace country. Joining us today from the district of Chetwynd is the chief administrative officer, Mr. Mike Redfearn. Will the House please join me in making him very welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today to be able to introduce Kim Manton. Kim is here from CUPE, and she's coordinating their public sewage treatment campaign in the capital regional district. Kim and CUPE will be handing out free cookies promoting the public sewage treatment at a forum at Victoria city hall tonight. Please make her welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's a privilege for me to introduce three people to the House today. The executive director of our Kamloops Chamber of Commerce, Deb McClelland, is here at the tourism conference and is in the gallery today.

Also, I know that every one of us in this House prizes our constituency assistant tremendously. My constituency assistant is no stranger to you, Mr. Speaker, because she trained you before she trained me. She's here with her husband today — June and Ern Phillips. Would the House please give them all a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to welcome Lonie Belsey to this place today. She is here for the tourism conference as well. She is the wife of our former MLA for Prince Rupert, the hon. Bill Belsey.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'd like to welcome to the House two ladies who are no strangers to all of us as MLAs. They are the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and a councillor from the city of Castlegar, Brenda Binnie, who we all met last year at UBCM, as well as the assistant executive director of UBCM, Marie Crawford. I would ask the House to make them both very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the House today is a representative — in fact, the director of public affairs — for Canadian Pacific Railway. I would like to welcome and have my colleagues welcome Brian Humphreys, who's joining us here today.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's indeed a pleasure for me to welcome a longtime friend and supporter and an excellent day care operator from the city of Kamloops, down to meet with me and the minister, Deborah Frolek. Would the House please make her welcome.

K. Conroy: I wanted to take this opportunity to let the House know that last week a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Burton Peter Campbell, passed

away. Burt, as he was known by everyone, was a Social Credit MLA for the then constituency of Revelstoke-Slocan from 1969 to 1972.

Burt spent most of his life in Castlegar as the son of the first publisher of the Castlegar News and then as the publisher himself. He and his wife Judy raised three children: Graham, Jennifer and Lorene.

He was incredibly active in many ways, including being a board member for Selkirk College, a director of the community chest and a longtime Kiwanis member. Burt will be remembered for his quick wit and his strong commitment to the community. He will be missed.

C. James: I rise today to mark the sudden passing of a courageous British Columbian and a respected Dakelh elder statesman, Chief Harry Pierre. Chief Pierre died yesterday in Prince George. Over a long career of service to his community, Chief Pierre made an enormous contribution to British Columbia and played a significant role at key junctures in the history of first nations.

As a prominent tribal chief and a founding member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, Harry Pierre was a tireless advocate for justice and progress for first nations people.

I had the privilege and opportunity to work with Chief Pierre when I lived in Prince George and worked for Carrier-Sekani Family Services. I benefited enormously from his wisdom and his insight. I saw up close the impact he had on his community, particularly on the lives of young people to whom he passed on vital cultural and linguistic knowledge that will last for generations.

Chief Harry Pierre leaves a large family behind — his wife Genevieve, their seven children, nine grandchildren and one great-grandchild — but he leaves even a larger legacy to our entire province.

R. Hawes: I'm taking it off for the kids. That, of course, refers to weight. We all know that childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportion, and generally in North America we're getting fatter. This will have profound consequences on our health system. In fact, unless we act now, the next generation may be the first to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

The Mission Cedar Valley Lions Club, led by Mr. Ken Selvaraja of Lanka Jewels, are doing something about that. They've spearheaded a campaign called Taking It Off for the Kids, and they're taking pledges whereby the local MP, MLA — myself — and the Mission mayor are out taking pledges for each pound we lose in a weight-loss challenge.

The money raised goes to sponsor kids from financially challenged homes to join programs like minor hockey or dance lessons or karate classes or what have you. Jim Pearce, the principal of Mission Senior Secondary, notes that this sponsorship has fundamentally changed the attitude and academic program of several kids who have benefited from the program. Many people are taking out pledge cards now, they're taking it off for the kids themselves, and they're out getting pledges to raise money for this project.

This is a wonderful community program that's making a difference. I encourage the Mission Cedar Valley Lions and Mr. Selvaraja to challenge Lions clubs throughout B.C. to act now in establishing Take It Off for the Kids programs in their own communities.

Incidentally, I do intend on meeting my own target of a 35-pound weight loss and would welcome a pledge from any member of the House who would like to pledge, including my friends opposite, at any time. Just call my office.

D. Thorne: It's that time of year to again flaunt your Frenchness. This cheeky, national award-winning campaign is kicking off Francophone Month in March with panache. It's a fun way to celebrate your own French connection, whether you can speak French fluently or just a little. Maybe you just have a love for French food and culture. We have something for everyone, and you are all invited.

Maillardville is the oldest and largest francophone community in B.C., and we in Coquitlam recognize this unique neighbourhood as one of our greatest assets. So we are calling on everyone to find 50 ways to flaunt your Frenchness. Whatever your Frenchness is — whether it's the French language, French ancestors, French music or fashions — we can help you find many ways to celebrate your own personal joie de vivre.

Flaunt your Frenchness week kicks off this Saturday, February 24, and runs to March 4. Saturday's event is especially for families and children, but there are also lots of things to do for adults. An intimate concert series held in the salons of Maillardville's heritage homes will present 18 different performance groups flaunting their francophone talents in a wide range of repertoire, from classical to world fusion, from the courts of Louis XIV to modern French Canada. Mackin House Museum will hold a special exhibit of surprising French and French Canadian exhibits dating back to 1777.

This is Coquitlam's promise to anybody who comes to Maillardville in the next two weeks: drop by; listen to our great music; eat our wonderful French food. You will find many, many ways to flaunt your Frenchness.

J. McIntyre: Last week over 2,000 people gathered in Vancouver for the unveiling of the official 2010 countdown clock. Today that clock indicates that there are only 1,087 days until the games begin.

With less than three years until we welcome the world, Olympic fever is spreading right across the country. The Royal Canadian Mint's Vancouver 2010 coin collection goes into circulation this week. Olympic fever has even reached legendary Canadian rockers the Barenaked Ladies, who are donating a portion of the proceeds from ticket sales on their Canadian tour to the Own the Podium 2010.

Behind all this excitement, VANOC has had a busy year ensuring that the preparations for the games are on track. Their last quarterly report in December shows that venue construction is on time and on budget. Not only that; the first Olympic venue was finished in 2006.

VANOC is committed to making this Canada's games. Last year the committee visited every province and participated in more than 200 public speaking events. National awareness levels for the 2010 Winter Games are now over 80 percent, and vancouver2010.com is receiving over 800,000 hits per month.

Last fall I attended the unveiling of the official emblem for the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games and the groundbreaking ceremony for the Whistler athletes village, as well as opening the first completed venue at Cypress Mountain, where Cypress will host ten Olympic events, including men's and women's aerials and moguls as well as the snowboard half-pipe and cross.

We're also fortunate to be able to partner with the Lil'wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh — the four host first nations — in hosting the Winter Games. Earlier this month they launched their official logo, which will be prominently displayed in 2010.

As we look ahead, VANOC anticipates the completion of seven more venues in 2007, including several in Whistler and at Cypress. So, congratulations. This year will also mark the much anticipated unveiling of the 2010 mascot. So stay tuned.

M. Karagianis: In the heart of old Esquimalt stands Lampson Street School, a beautiful brick heritage building, a handsome example of Romanesque architecture, according to the Esquimalt archivist.

The building has graced the site since 1903. It sits on high ground, and the original bell tower that sat on the site was used as a landmark by pilots during the Second World War. The original architect was Maxwell Muir. At the beginning of the 1900s, 257 students attended the school. It was the largest school in the city and the first free school in the colony.

The beautifully landscaped gardens in the front played host to everything from wedding receptions for teachers to children playing hopscotch. The school was the centre of community learning for 70 years.

Then in 1976, due to declining enrolment and the high cost of renovating and upgrading the school, it was closed. The following years were not kind to the old building. It had a leaky roof, there was no heat, and vandals destroyed the grand and ornate staircase.

But early in the 1990s the community rallied to restore it. Heritage designation was granted, and the government of the day — a New Democrat government, I might add — restored the lovely old school to its full glory and even went beyond that, making it earthquake-proof. It remains today the only school in the area and one of the only buildings in Esquimalt that is completely earthquake-proof.

Unfortunately, once again due to declining enrolments, Lampson Street School is being threatened with closure. But I know my community, and with their passion for this wonderful, old beauty, I know the community has enormous pride and a great sense of ownership of this great edifice, and so we will stand strong and fight once more, if we must, to keep it open.

J. Rustad: I rise today, also, to recognize and celebrate the life of Harry Pierre. Harry was a very well-respected elder, whose political career spanned more than 40 years. He often served as the chief of the Tl'azt'en Nation, and he also served a term as the tribal chief for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council following his election in 2003.

Harry was one of the founding chiefs of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in the late '60s, the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council in the '70s, and he was also supportive of the creation of the First Nations Summit in the 1990s.

I had the great pleasure to have many chats with Harry over time, and whether it was about education or national issues, he always had an ability to be able to look to the future and to be able to think about great things for his people. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who is president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has said that the union will greatly miss Elder Pierre's strong, visionary leadership as he relentlessly held up and defended the rights of his people.

Harry passed away yesterday morning in Prince George after 65 years of service and working towards a better tomorrow. On behalf of the House, I offer our condolences to his family. He will be greatly missed. I ask that the House observe a moment of silence.

B. Ralston: In an extraordinary preface to the budget and fiscal plan tabled in the House yesterday, the Deputy Minister of Finance writes that health authorities and therefore the Minister of Finance haven't agreed on the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 funding targets for the Coastal and Fraser health authorities, the two largest health authorities by budget in the province. The budget document is substantially incomplete.

Given that the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requires a fiscal forecast for the fiscal year covered by the budget and the following two fiscal years as well, will the Minister of Finance confirm here

today that the incomplete nature of this budget breaks the law as set out in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: The way we have presented the health budget this year came out of consultations with the health authority chairs, and it was very important for them to have three things in this budget. First was certainty for this year's budget, which we have increased by $885 million. The $885 million includes a $100 million innovation fund as well.

So they asked for certainty this year, but they did ask the government for time — time for the changes that will come about because of the Conversation on Health. They specifically said it was difficult for them to do a budget for two years and three years out because of the uncertainty of what changes they will be able to make through the Conversation on Health.

Government agreed with the fact that they wished to do it this way, so we put in for year two and year three their current budget plus the lift for wages and policy changes, which we have already decided. In fact, to show that we are making room in the fiscal plan for the increases that will come once the Conversation on Health is completed, we put an increased forecast allowance in the budget and indicated that.

Well, that response isn't quite, "The puppy dog ate my homework," but it's close. Under the act, the minister is required to budget out three years to provide stability and assurances to health authorities and the patients they serve that beds will be there when patients need them, that surgeries won't be cancelled, that patients will not be turned away from emergency rooms.

Why won't the Minister of Finance simply agree with the words of her own deputy minister and accept the conclusion that this budget and this minister have contravened the laws set out in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: The third thing that the health authority chairs actually asked for was some additional dollars that would be available for innovation. They feel that they have ideas right now for new technology, new pilots — new ideas that they could put into place right away, if they had dollars up front, that would immediately impact patient care positively. So we followed through on that request as well.

It's surprising that sometimes we're accused of not working with the health authority chairs, but in this case, we're working closely. We have indicated very transparently in the budget, starting with the deputy minister's attestation and continuing through the text in the budget, exactly how we're approaching this, how the fiscal plan is protected and where those dollars are sitting.

C. James: While I continue to hear the Minister of Finance use a lot of fancy words to describe not following their own rules and the law around the budget, patients continue to suffer. ERs are overcrowded, hallway medicine is standard, and patients are routinely told to expect that their surgeries will be cancelled. Last month spine surgeons at Vancouver General Hospital began sending patients a letter. The letter warns patients to expect cancellations even at the last minute.

With a deficit at Vancouver Coastal Health and a deficit projected next year, when is the Minister of Health going to step in and do something to stop these devastating cancellations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. We never welcome cancellations of surgeries. That's the last thing we want for any patient in this province, and it is not a matter of resourcing. The budget for health and health service delivery has gone from $8.4 billion when we took office to, in the coming fiscal year, $13.1 billion. Plus every year we add something like $700 million in new capital projects to further strengthen a very, very good health care system that we enjoy in British Columbia.

There are occasions when, regrettably, more urgent cases get in the way of cases that had been previously scheduled. That can happen. We regret it when it does, but everybody is doing their very best to ensure timely service for patients in this province.

C. James: Well, the government is breaking its own budget law. They think firing board chairs is the only answer. And something missing in this entire equation, over and over again by this government, is patients and their families. That's who is suffering today.

Dianne Williams sent a letter to the Health Minister and the Premier last week. She lives in Powell River. She needs surgery to fuse her spine. Her surgery at Vancouver General has been cancelled three times. The surgeons at Vancouver General blame a severe funding deficit.

To the Health Minister: how many cancelled surgeries does Dianne Williams have to endure before you will finally step in and do something for this woman?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am familiar with the case of Ms. Williams. We are following up to see if there are additional things that could be done. Again, it is unusual but not out of the realm of the ordinary for people, on occasion, to have the misfortune to have their surgery bumped because a more urgent case presents itself. I hope that all members of the House appreciate that members of the medical profession do their very best to understand the urgency of cases that present themselves and to make appropriate decisions.

That having been said, we have increased the budget for the Ministry of Health by over 50 percent since we took office. We are adding improvements to hospitals across this province, much of which was long overdue after a decade of neglect in the 1990s. We're adding important facilities in Surrey that were long promised but never delivered; the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre — long promised, never delivered. We are building a better health care system every day in this province.

C. James: The Minister of Health says that surgeons work very hard. They do work very hard. They're the ones speaking out, and they're trying to get this government to listen to them. Six years — six years — in power and all this government can do is blame someone else.

Well, that's not good enough for patients like Dianne Williams. In her letter, she wrote: "I'm in a lot of pain. I need surgery, or this situation will worsen." She spent time and money and energy going to Vancouver three times for this surgery. She deserves a government that's actually willing to take her suffering seriously. But Dianne Williams didn't get that in the budget yesterday. Yesterday's budget told her to expect more deficits and more cancellations.

The government's own appointees are telling them that the budget isn't good enough. Several have resigned in protest. Again, to the Minister of Health: when will his government finally put patients like Dianne first?

Hon. G. Abbott: We always put patients first. That's why we are making unprecedented investments in health human resources in this province. One of the things that is noted in Ms. Williams's letter is the shortage of nurses in this province. I have to point this out. Between 1993, when 839 nurses graduated, and 2001 — 574 nurses graduating in this province…. Since that sorry time we have increased the number of nursing spaces in this province by 75 percent — over 3,000 new nursing spaces in this province.

We are also doubling the number of doctors that we're educating in this province. We're going to be moving to well over 200 doctors in this province. That's going to help to address the situations that face patients across this province as a consequence of a decade of neglect by that government.

A. Dix: If only the government did put patients first. In fact, it's this government — this Minister of Finance, this Minister of Health — that chose to blame its fiasco in Vancouver Coastal Health on the part-time chair of the board. It's this government that chose to break its own accountability laws with respect to the two most important health regions in the province. And it's this government that chose to give an 18-percent increase to the minister's political office budget — the largest increase in the health care system.

Who is the minister putting first now, hon. Speaker? Why, in a time of real need for patients everywhere in B.C., is the minister giving more for spin doctors than medical doctors?

Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of complete and utter nonsense, as is so typical from that member.

Hon. G. Abbott: The difference between the two figures that are contained in the budget, and while provided for in the budget, is, first of all, salary and benefits to staff, as reflected in the 2006 agreements. Again, members of the NDP staff are part of that agreement. As well, there is additional travel expenditure for the Conversation on Health for myself and the Parliamentary Secretary for the Conversation on Health.

Let me note that a year ago there were four political staffers in my office. There are four today. There are three, for a total of seven, dealing with correspondence and the business of the office. I think it compares favourably with our $13.1 billion budget to have seven staff members, when the Opposition House Leader, when he was Minister of Health, had eight staff members, including two ministerial assistants, one executive assistant, one special assistant, one administrative coordinator, one financial assistant, one assistant to the ministerial assistant and one assistant to the special assistant.

A. Dix: Inadvertently, I'm sure, the minister has misled the House. The minister's budget in 2000-2001 was $456,000 — the minister's office budget. His minister's office budget is $732,000.

A. Dix: I'll do the math for the minister. I know he thinks that $732,000 is less than $456,000, but in fact it's the opposite.

A. Dix: This is about priorities. It's about putting patients first. So I ask the minister the question again: why an 18-percent increase in the size of his political staff and very little for patients like Dianne Williams?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have to admire the Perry Mason work that's being done across the House.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can understand why they want to undertake these absurd diversionary routes when there's an absolutely fabulous budget to be debating in this House.

I'd love to know, for example, why the opposition Health critic and the NDP oppose the $100 million health innovation fund. Why do they oppose that? Why do they oppose the Surrey out-patient hospital, Mr. Speaker? Why do they oppose the Abbotsford cancer centre and regional hospital? Why do they oppose the new perinatal wing at Nanaimo Regional Hospital? Why do they oppose the new Lytton Health Centre? Perhaps the member for Yale-Lillooet can tell us that. Why do they oppose the pediatric intensive care unit at Children's Hospital?

There's so much good news to debate. I can understand why they need to go on this diversionary witch-hunt against staff that are trying to do their very best work for the people in this building and the people in this province.

M. Sather: Well, I'm hoping that the minister won't cavalierly dismiss the issue that I want to bring before him. One of my constituents, Carole Auvinen, is awaiting surgery for a brain aneurysm. She was to receive surgery at Royal Columbian Hospital at the end of January, but it was cancelled due to the crisis — the bed situation there. Today her surgery was cancelled again. Same reason — no beds.

My question to the minister is: how many times does Ms. Auvinen's surgery have to be cancelled before this government and this minister will do something about the crisis and the chaos at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: It always amazes me how people who purport to be such great defenders of the public health care system constantly disparage that system, constantly claim there is chaos in that system, constantly undertake to undermine public confidence in that system.

We always regret, as I noted earlier, any occasion when a surgery is cancelled or postponed. We regret that. The system works constantly, tirelessly to provide timely services to people. There are occasions when the urgency of some cases will have to give precedence over other cases. Those are regrettable, but those are the ways that medical practitioners have to work to ensure that those who need the surgery the most get it as soon as they possibly can.

M. Sather: Well, I do. That was a really sorry response from the minister, I have to say. This is not about disparaging health care workers, and he knows it. This is about dealing with a serious situation. Out of desperation, the Auvinen family wrote to the minister. That was over two weeks ago. Nothing has been done, and now her surgery has been cancelled again.

Again to the minister: when will he stop all the diversionary tactics, the blaming of others, and deal with the crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: Royal Columbian is a very good hospital. The people who work each and every day at Royal Columbian Hospital work tirelessly to provide the best of care to all of the many people who work there.

Government has certainly taken some steps to make Royal Columbian an even stronger institution as well. We have, for example, added 45 more sub-acute beds at Queen's Park Care Centre, adjacent to Royal Columbian. We've added ten overflow beds. We've added ten rapid-discharge beds. We've added a new trauma nurse practitioner. We've got a full-time geriatric nurse now on staff there. I know that the doctors, nurses, paramedics and others have worked on an early admission and discharge program for Royal Columbian.

Many, many positive steps have been taken, and we will be using, for example, the health innovation fund to identify ways that we can improve service even more at Royal Columbian and other hospitals in this province.

C. Puchmayr: We have incredible staff that work at Royal Columbian Hospital. I have met with many of the professionals there, and they are working in adverse conditions because of this government. Fraser Health Authority has 1.6 beds per thousand, one of the lowest ratios in Canada. The budget shows that the projection will fall to about 1.3 per thousand.

Can the minister stop dreaming of the past and address this crisis in this millennium and tell the doctors at Royal Columbian and the Fraser Health Authority what he will do to reverse this crisis now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure where the member gets his 1.6 equation from. The most recent information we have in respect of acute bed comparison comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

That tends to be the strongest organization in terms of compiling and distributing those facts.

In 2004-2005, according to the institute, B.C. had 2.8 acute care beds for every 1,000 residents. This is above the Canadian average, at 2.6 acute care beds per 1,000 people. If you…

Hon. G. Abbott: …also include psychiatric, rehab and extended care beds, B.C. again does better than the Canadian average. In B.C. we have 3.5 beds for every 1,000 people, compared to the national average of 3.2 per 1,000.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I sure would like to get an answer for my community and the doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital. As the doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital cry out for help, this minister says that they are overplaying the situation — that "they are alarmist" were words he used last year.

Will the minister come with me to the Royal Columbian Hospital to meet with these doctors, as I have, to see firsthand that this crisis does exist and needs to be addressed now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the greatest of respect for the doctors and nurses and care aides and paramedics that work in Royal Columbian Hospital, and I'd be delighted to meet with them.

Over the past year I have visited, I think, some 17 emergency rooms around the province — at Prince George Regional Hospital, Kelowna General Hospital, Vancouver General Hospital, St. Paul's, Nanaimo, Shuswap Lake, Richmond, Delta, Peace Arch, East Kootenay Regional Hospital, Lions Gate, Royal Jubilee and Vic General.

Right across the province I've benefited from visiting emergency rooms. I'd look forward to working with the doctors, the nurses and others at Royal Columbian, as well, to ensure that if there are things we can do to improve the services to people, we will undertake them.

G. Gentner: The 2006 annual report of the lottery corporation shows gambling revenue jumped from $2 billion to $2.26 billion, beating the corporation's own target by nearly $11 million. In light of the Premier's quote and a promise to stop the expansion of gaming and gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families, we have a new phenomenon called Internet gaming. The addiction rate is way, way up. It's coming to a crisis proportion.

In this service plan the government states that Internet gaming revenues are about $12 billion worldwide and are estimated to grow to $28 billion by 2012. The government's response to this is that the B.C. Lottery Corp.'s product and distribution strategies are designated to compete with competitive gaming options.

My question is simply this. To the Solicitor General: how far are you taking us into the field of Internet gaming?

Hon. J. Les: I want to be very clear with the member who asked the question and indeed all members of this House. There will be no Internet gaming conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corp. — period.

I want to underline, as well, that we are committed to responsible gaming in British Columbia. Our gaming policy and enforcement branch, I think, has an excellent record in that regard. For those individuals who do have difficulties with problem gaming, we are putting the programs in place on a proactive basis to make sure that we can intervene in those situations.

G. Gentner: It's clear that the government is moving towards Internet-based gaming. We're looking at the Play Now site. In fact, when you look at the budget and where the government is going, this government really is becoming gaming crackheads. I mean, this is where this government is going.

In the service plan, the importance of Internet and mobile gaming devices is made clear under "External Risk and Opportunities." It says that the B.C. Lottery Corp. will continue "to identify and evaluate the most promising developments in technology and apply these to the business," and these "include significant gains in network bandwidth and storage capacity that will facilitate a shift in entertainment to mobile devices."

So to the minister. Maybe he should put down his hand-held and describe to us what he has in mind when he talks about those mobile devices.

Hon. J. Les: As I said already in my previous answer, we are absolutely committed to responsible gaming in British Columbia. We are not going to entertain Internet gaming. We do have a Play Now website that the member refers to, where people can actually access lottery products…

Hon. J. Les: …on line. That is correct. This is a convenience that's made to the public so they can access 6/49 tickets, for example. Not too long ago I actually got a letter from the office of the Leader of the Opposition where she asked me to help one of her constituents to access lottery products on the Play Now website.

J. Horgan: In the throne speech the government announced a new $25 million innovation clean energy fund and said it would be established to encourage the commercialization of alternative energy solutions. At the lockup for the budget yesterday, I looked at the estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and under "Electricity and alternate energy," there's a 35-percent budget cut.

In a discussion with the media, the Minister of Finance said that the funds may well end up being a surcharge levied on public utilities. My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it's quite simple. Is this a fund, or is it a $25 million tax?

Hon. C. Taylor: In the throne speech it was announced that there will be a clean energy fund, and it is called the innovative clean energy fund. When asked whether it would be funded this year, we have, as government, been saying yes, it will be.

It does come under the Minister of Energy. It will be in his energy plan, which will be released soon. What I did say, as well, is that the minister is contemplating a small surcharge on all public utilities.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report 10, follow-up to the 2004-2005 report 2, In Sickness and in Health: Healthy Workplaces for British Columbia's Health Care Workers.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined by Councillor Brian Skakun from the city of Prince George — one of the many hard-working councillors from our part of the province. Would the House please help make him very welcome.

C. Wyse: I introduce a petition from the village of Clinton, 102 signatures, requesting that the Minister of Health immediately undertake an independent review into the state of health care in the Interior Health Authority with full powers to examine Interior Health Authority records and examine how cuts to health care and acute care have impacted seniors, patients and their families.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for 2005.

N. Macdonald: I present a petition. I join other MLAs in presenting a petition that talks about the need to immediately cease funding cuts to the child care operating funding program, immediately cease the dismantling of existing child care resource and referral programs, and to restore both the child care operating funding program and child care resource and referral program.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that when they're presenting petitions, it should be short.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents on the Sunshine Coast in a similar vein — decrying the cuts to child care.

B. Ralston: It's my honour to continue debate on the budget. I want to deal first with a reference to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This is a statute of the Legislature that is to guide the preparation of budgets and the public reporting of the process by which budgets are made. Its name suggests its objectives. It is for citizens to be able to better understand the budgets of the province that are passed in their name.

Section 12(c) sets out the obligation of what is referred to as the government strategic plan. On or before the date when the main estimates are presented to the Legislative Assembly, a minister must make public strategic plan documents that — and I'm going to refer to 12(c) — provide a fiscal forecast for the government reporting entity for the fiscal year for which the estimates are presented and the following two fiscal years including a statement of all material assumptions and policy decisions underlying that forecast.

The operative term in there is "government reporting entity," which is legal jargon and probably government jargon. What that refers to is set out in the definitions section, and that includes education and health sector organizations. When you look at the definition in section 1 of an education and health sector organization, that includes a board as defined in section 1 of the Health Authorities Act.

The conclusion of this brief explanation is that health authorities are bound by the provisions of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It's clear that the health authorities must provide that fiscal plan that is set out in section 12(c), and that's for a good reason.

There's an opportunity — we hear this from the government from time to time — to forecast out in a spirit of honesty and openness, using best estimates in order to provide some certainty to the budgeting process in order that a public authority — in this case the health authorities, which are very substantial budgets — be able to plan for the future and make sure they're in a position where they can deliver the services they're called upon to deliver.

The idea of a three-year rolling forecast, budget numbers that are as firm as they can be three years out, is something that is repeated in budget documents. The government isn't shy about forecasting out various accruals of benefits to citizens as they look out three years. They roll those up. It's a standard policy, and it's accepted by the government in all kinds of its budgeting endeavours.

It's really an extraordinary preface to the budget which appears in the Budget and Fiscal Plan, the document that was just tabled yesterday. It refers to a letter of Tamara Vrooman, who is the deputy minister and secretary to the Treasury Board. It sets out her concern about and her attempt to set out the government's position with respect to this Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

It's really an extraordinary event — given the law that has been set out, passed by the assembly and that the government likes to trumpet from time to time — that this budget is not in compliance with that act. What the Deputy Minister of Finance says at the very front of this budget document is:

They're currently reviewing these plans and are expected "to submit revised financial plans in early 2007-08." That means after March 31 of this year.

What you have is the legal requirement to make best efforts to provide those estimates — not in a summary way, not to dummy up some figures and simply place them into the budget, but to make best efforts to put those figures into the budget. That's the requirement.

These are not insubstantial authorities. These are major agencies within the province — the two biggest health authorities, major drivers in the delivery of health services in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley. The budgetary process here is broken, and the budgetary law that is there to assist the government and to provide, as the name suggests, transparency and accountability is not being followed.

For such a substantive item in the budget, in my view and the view of members opposite, that presents a really substantial problem. It really reduces the confidence that one can have in many areas of the budget when this major proposed expenditure hasn't been done in compliance with the act.

The Health Ministry service plan overall suggests some increases over 2008-2009 — this is for the whole of the ministry, not for the individual health authorities — of 2.1 percent in 2008-2009 and 2.8 percent in 2009-2010, notwithstanding that there's a bigger increase in the proposed current year.

What reputable health economists say about projecting health care costs — because this has been the subject of much debate and many public statements by the Minister of Finance leading up to this particular budget, beginning with the quarterly report in September — is that in order to properly provide health services for a diverse population such as British Columbia, one would ordinarily expect increases to be required to accommodate certain attributes of the population.

Typically, 1 percent would be for population growth — British Columbia's population is growing — 1 percent only for the changing demographic of the population and 2 percent for inflation. Then an additional typical estimate is 1 percent for technological change, purchasing new equipment, and things like that. So in order to keep health care expenditures at roughly even, and that doesn't include anything for catch-up in areas where there have been surges in population or that have been underserviced in the past, you need approximately a 5-percent increase per year.

The Fraser health region is one where population growth is above the provincial average, and that makes the ability to provide those services with something less than that increase particularly difficult. It's small wonder that the former board chair of the Fraser Health Authority, Keith Purchase, called the planned budget completely inadequate and unconscionable.

The failure to follow the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is the consequence of, I would say, the unrealistic negotiations between the Minister of Health, supervised by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and those representing the boards of both Fraser Health and Coastal Health. These are not necessarily partisan appointments, but certainly many of the principals involved on both boards are known for their previous public support of the government. Indeed, the new chair of Fraser Health is someone who wrote a financial report examining government finances after the government came to power in 2001.

It's particularly disturbing, this aspect of the budget, that financial mismanagement of that portfolio seems to have been sanctioned by the Ministry of

It's one of the reasons why we on this side of the House will have real difficulty supporting the budget and will not be supporting the budget, particularly because of this kind of mismanagement and the provision of services — particularly in Fraser Health and Coastal Health, but it also applies to services provided by Interior Health and the other health authorities throughout the province. The government has not successfully tackled the problems of properly planning the budgets of these two health authorities in particular, and it has led them into a conflict with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

This act also is significant in another area where the government appears to be mismanaging a major capital project, and that is the extension to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Under the same act, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, under section 8, the minister must present to the Legislative Assembly, at the same time that the main estimates are presented, a statement of the current and anticipated total cost to the entity in relation to the capital cost of the project. So the capital cost that we're talking about in this particular case is the provincial contribution to the Trade and Convention Centre.

I'm going to turn to the budget and fiscal plan for last year. I'm on page 44 of that, under the table which lists capital projects greater than $50 million. Under that, we're looking at the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project. The total projected cost budgeted was $273 million. The forecast was $273 million. The note says that this amount represents the provincial portion, the cost-shared portion, with the federal government and the tourism industry.

What we see in this year's similar note — the comparable one on page 52 of the three-year fiscal plan, table 123, "Capital projects greater than $50 million" — is that the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project is now budgeted, the provincial contribution, to cost $281 million and forecast to complete at $281 million.

What the note says is: "An additional $8 million is reflected in 2008-2009 to meet the escalated costs…to meet the project's current schedule. Further work is underway to review the impact of the higher-than-expected construction costs on the project. Preliminary estimates of an updated project cost are in the range of $800 million, depending upon the contract model selected."

What the act requires is that…. The tabling of the estimates is only an annual event. It requires the Minister of Finance to advise and present to the Legislative Assembly a statement of the current and anticipated total cost to the entity in relation to capital costs to the project — not a guess, not a finger in the wind. The spirit of this act is accountability and transparency. What you have from last year to this year is the budgeting for an $8 million increase only of the provincial contribution.

It's clear that this particular section of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act has not been followed by the Minister of Finance in preparing this budget. It's well recognized, and indeed, Mr. Dobell, who has provided a report on Crown agencies as a supplement to the budget in the service plan, has included…. I take it that this is where this figure comes from. Preliminary estimates are in the range of $800 million, depending on the contract model selected.

The Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance have an obligation to do better than simply float out an estimate as part of the budgetary process. This is a major public project. This is a government that has…. The Premier has vaunted his professed expertise on an ability to manage these projects, yet the cost of this project is spiralling out of control, and the minister is not engaging in the basic accountability that's required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act at all.

Simply to float out a figure with nothing to back it, nothing to justify it, and leak it to the media a day or two before the budget in hopes that the furore dies down before the budget is tabled just isn't good enough and suggests to me that this isn't a government that's interested in being honest and transparent about the cost — the real cost — of the Trade and Convention Centre extension at all.

This is a basic issue of financial accountability. That's what the act is about. That's why this provision is in there, and that's why this guesstimate that's floated out here in this report in a very cursory way is simply not acceptable.

I predict that the costs of this particular endeavour are going to come close to $1 billion, before all the bills are in, to build this particular convention centre. The initial estimate of the total cost — and that includes the provincial contribution — was $495 million. It's now, the minister said yesterday in the House, expected to come in, in the range of $800 million. When you talk about "in the range of $800 million," that, for most people, could mean anywhere from $800 million to $900 million.

Obviously, the time to complete the project is a very tight one. It's very circumscribed. It's necessary as a part of the Olympics. It's the broadcasting centre. No doubt it will be a fine facility. But the issue here is project management and accountability for public dollars in building a public facility, and this government just isn't coming clean on that issue at all.

Frankly, taxpayers and citizens have reason to expect better, and they have reason to expect that when the government sets out laws to guide these kinds of deliberations, these laws will be followed. Unfortunately, my conclusion — and I say this respectfully — is that in this case the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, with respect to major capital projects, is just not being followed by this government at all, and it's a shame.

There is a bit of a pattern here that I've detected over recent months in the government and particularly

B. Ralston: I'm being very careful. I know what I want to say, but I'm bound by parliamentary procedure. There are significant areas of the budget where the minister has shown a willingness to present financial facts in ways that further a political agenda rather than speak to the real question of the budget.

I begin with the minister's statements presented with the first quarterly report back in September, where there was a now infamous slide projecting health care costs as a percentage of the budget. The assumptions were very carefully crafted to result in a conclusion that perhaps surprised some people but certainly was designed, I would say, to force people to reach a political conclusion about the growth of health care costs rather than a reasoned and considered and practical approach to the growth of health care costs. This seemed to be a pattern throughout the fall.

The slide that was presented projected revenue growth of 3 percent, education growth of 3 percent and health care growth — the growth of health care as a percentage of the budget — at 8 percent annually. When you project those costs in that way and hold everything else constant, as the economists say, you come very quickly to a conclusion, when you project that forward, that health care costs are going to soar out of control, which is the political conclusion that the minister and the Premier had hoped and wished to present to the public and hoped that they would accept.

The Ministry of Finance prepared the slides, and they even say…. At the bottom of the slide there's a note. It says, "NB," which is Latin for nota bene, I believe. Note well: it's "not a budget forecast or a budget plan." That's right on the slide, but that didn't stop the minister from taking this figure and this projection out, and it was repeated by a number of the government supporters and perhaps by some less-than-inquisitive members of the media.

The reality of health care spending is that B.C.'s annual health care expenditures — and the more accurate measure — are the health care expenditures as a proportion of the provincial economy. They have been remarkably consistent for the past quarter-century over a number of governments.

Health care expenditures are expected to represent 7.3 percent of the provincial economy in the current fiscal year and 7.1 and 6.9 percent in the two subsequent years. B.C.'s health spending has averaged 6.6 percent of GDP since the early '80s and is estimated to reach only 6.9 percent in the fiscal year of 2008-2009.

There's some explanation missing from the Minister of Finance's use of this chart that's required in order to make sense of it and, I would say, come to a more sensible conclusion about what is taking place here. Health care is increasing as a percentage or proportion of the economy, in part because the budget itself is growing smaller in relation to the B.C. economy. Budgets have declined in relation to the provincial economy for a number of reasons, including cuts to spending on social assistance, removing certain items off-book and the impacts of GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles — which excludes nearly all capital expenditures from the fiscal budget. They're capitalized out over the length of the usable life of the asset.

Given those changes in the structure, transportation expenditures over recent years have fallen, and as I've said, social assistance has fallen. So the elements that shape the provincial budget have changed. As a result, health care spending has increased as a proportion of the budget, but as a percentage of the gross domestic product — that is, the operation of the provincial economy and the ability of the economy to support health care spending — it's remained very, very constant.

The Minister of Finance and, typically, rating agencies will look at the ratio of debt to GDP as an important ratio as to the ability of the economy to bear a certain level of government debt. The ratio is considered an important one, just as the ratio of health care spending to GDP is an important one as well.

The Minister of Finance, throughout the fall and in the September quarterly and the December quarterly, I would say, sought to alarm people about a likely explosion in health care costs, when the ability of the economy to bear those costs and sustain the kind of increases that have been talked about by reputable health economists is there, and there is not the reason to be alarmed that the minister has suggested.

That's perhaps an unfortunate approach by the minister, but that's the approach she took throughout the fall. In the quarterly report in September she spoke of $1 billion in cost pressures from the health authorities. By December, without any charts or justification or any materials to support it, she spoke of $4 billion in cost pressures.

The cost pressures that she claimed the ministry was experiencing accelerated 400 percent over three months, which I suggest is simply not credible and is more worthy of the kind of conclusion that I invite people to draw — that this was a politically motivated statement to provide some intellectual and political ammunition for the Premier's Conversation on Health and whatever agenda may be rolling around in the cabinet room at the present time.

Now, the Premier himself attempted to address this argument that health spending as a percentage of provincial GDP is a good measure. He did that at the provincial congress on October 10, 2006.

He said this, and I'm quoting from him on page 4: "Some have said that really, health care spending hasn't changed as much as we would have liked because it has grown about the same rate as GDP. The percentage of GDP hasn't changed much in the last 20 years." He goes on to say: "Unfortunately, that argument really doesn't hold water. GDP is not revenue, and governments can't invest GDP. Not all…sources of revenue rise and fall with GDP."

Although the Minister of Finance and, I'm sure, the Premier accept that the ratio of debt to GDP is an important measure, he's not prepared to accept it as health care spending. Certainly, not everything rises and falls with GDP, but revenue in relation to GDP is relatively constant over time. What reputable economists say is that unless there are major changes in tax policy, government revenues tend to grow in line with the overall economy.

To suggest, in this halfhearted and weak attempt at refuting this argument, that this measure isn't a good one is simply false. The Premier obviously knows this argument is a strong one, because he's trying to refute it. He completely failed to refute that argument. If that's the best his advisers can provide, it suggests to me that the argument is a good one and that we won't be hearing an attempted refutation from the Premier again on that argument.

The government revenues tend to grow in relation to the economy as a percentage of the economy. Indeed, some people who seek to predict what government revenue will be have found it to be a more accurate measure than many of the projections done by the Ministry of Finance, either in Ottawa or in Victoria, since the ratio of revenue to GDP is a remarkably accurate predictor of what the government revenue will be, looking forward.

The other way to express that formula is the share of own-source revenue relative to the provincial economy or GDP. Certainly, the government uses ratios in relation to GDP in other contexts, but in this particular case I would submit that unfortunately, this is a theme from this government and this minister on health care costs. Firstly, it is a theme of mismanagement, and secondly, it is an attempt to distort the fiscal reality of health care in relation to the budget for political ends.

The Premier is engaged in his Conversation on Health, and we will see, doubtlessly, where that will lead. But obviously, there's a vigorous debate, and many people don't support the projections that the Minister of Finance floated out in the fall.

The Premier himself, at a recent meeting in Vancouver, appears to be drifting away from the projection of 71 percent in 2017 and said it may be lower. He seems less committed to that projection. Perhaps he's realized that it's simply not….

Anything in the way of assistance is not a real number. It's not likely. In fact, it's very unlikely, and the ratio of health care spending to GDP is a much more accurate measure. Not that health care and health care spending are without their challenges, but it doesn't assist the debate and positively sends the debate in the wrong direction when what I would say is misinformation is foisted on the public — certainly in the volume and with the kind of budget that the public affairs bureau has at its disposal to deal with that.

In the budget the issue of debt is dealt with, of course. The debt-to-GDP ratio is going to rise slightly in the three-year projection, and overall taxpayer-supported debt will rise slightly as well. The minister has explained that and defended that.

What the minister really doesn't discuss and what really has not been part of the public debate is what are called contractual obligations. In the notes to the summary financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 — these are compiled at the end of the year; this is note 26 — there was an attempt by the Ministry of Finance to provide some disclosure.

Now, perhaps this disclosure was too transparent. I'm not sure. For the same consolidated summary financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006…. That is one year later; that's last year. So the first note was 2005. The second note was 2006. Most of those figures have been consolidated and aggregated up, and it's very difficult to discern just exactly what is being stated.

These are not included in the calculation of debt, but these contractual obligations are long-term, irrevocable obligations of the Crown in contract. The Crown and the government can't break those obligations. There's simply no legal way of doing that. They're bound to pay over a lengthy period of time.

In the notes in 2005, which are little bit more detailed…. I'll have more to say about it, because the Auditor General expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of disclosure and the lack of transparency and, ultimately, the lack of accountability of this government for many of these contractual obligations they've entered into.

One commentator has provided the figure publicly, which is the note at the end of March 2006. The total amount of these obligations is $27.586 billion. So it's $27.5 billion in long-term obligations. Beyond 2012 there's an obligation of that number — $10.432 billion. So these are substantial numbers. They're not included in the calculation of debt, and the government would, I think, prefer that people not know about these, not scrutinize these. They're certainly not included in the debt calculation that's provided publicly.

When people express concern about debt, one of the concerns they have is that it reduces the manoeuvrability and the flexibility of government, in the event of changing financial circumstances, to borrow. If your debt ratio is too high and there's a downturn in the economy, your ability to borrow at certain market rates goes up, and your ability to sustain the repayment of that debt is compromised. Generally, the view is that while a certain level of debt is manageable, if it goes up too high, you're going to have some financial problems, potentially, for the overall government in the long term.

These obligations, at least with the long-term debt obligations — at some point you have an obligation to pay them off. You can pay them off with a slight penalty, somewhat like your own home mortgage, in advance of them coming due. But these long-term contractual obligations that the government has entered into don't give the government that option. The government is bound to pay.

These are not insubstantial contracts. Under what the note calls "alternate service delivery agreements," the delivery of the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare services plan has a ten-year agreement. The province

has a five-year renewal option. The ten-year contractual obligation under this agreement is approximately $324 million.

The delivery of corporate and human resource and payroll services has a ten-year agreement. That ten-year obligation is approximately $170 million. Delivery of revenue collection services is a ten-year agreement. The ten-year base obligation out of this is $301 million. Delivery of corporate information services is a ten-year agreement. It's worth approximately $300 million.

Those obligations…. The government controls access. They're providing what are government services, delivered through these mechanisms — alternate service delivery agreements. So if a future government were to decide to want to cancel those agreements, they would have to pay out the full agreement, and they would have to budget to provide the same service in the budget. More so than debt, it makes it very difficult for a government to change course in the future. These really constitute long-term binding obligations upon the government very, very similar to debt.

In public-private partnerships there's a similar long-term obligation that is required. The Auditor General has something to say in a recent report about the lack of transparency of these agreements, and I'll refer to that shortly.

For example, the Abbotsford hospital — that agreement terminates in 2038. It's not only a construction agreement. It's for capital facilities management. Maintenance payments under the concession agreement will commence once substantial completion has been received, which is expected to be in 2008. The payments are $40 million a year, and it goes out till 2038.

Similarly, with the Vancouver General Hospital, initial capital costs are $95 million, and there's an agreement that terminates in 2036. There's $5.2 million a year.

Design of a water treatment plant at Britannia minesite. This agreement terminates in 2026. I think there are a number of payments that are set out, subject to performance penalties and adjustments for inflation.

Those notes set out and constitute, really, the entire disclosure. When members come to ask questions, particularly about public-private partnerships — is there value for money, and are the taxpayers getting a good deal out of this? — the ability to scrutinize the agreements is met with an objection by the government that due to commercial, proprietary reasons, the agreement in its totality can't be disclosed.

Some of the alternate service delivery agreements have been disclosed, but they're usually disclosed after the agreement is signed and the obligation is complete. There's no way of avoiding it, so whether it's a good deal or a bad deal, the government is obliged to pay.

Perhaps thinking that these contractual obligations, that disclosure, were too acute, the government reduced this discussion of contractual obligations — over $50 million in 2006 — to a table, which chronicles obligations of $27 billion, to about a ten-line note on page 65 of the consolidated financial statements. That's not very much like full disclosure. That's not the kind of transparency or financial accountability that British Columbians expect and deserve in order to decide whether or not we are getting value for their money in the obligations that we have contracted for in this process.

The Auditor General has provided a report. It has not yet been discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, but it's a public report, dated January 2007: Seeking Best Practices in Financial Reporting.

What the Auditor General says about the government's failure to disclose these obligations is quite revealing. I'm looking at page 12. "We feel that although disclosing the function to which contractual obligations relate is meeting the new requirements under GAAP, it is only providing minimal information about the nature of the obligations. In our view, the disclosure would be more informative and a leading practice if it also included more detail as to what types of contracts…."

Recommendation 1 is that the government provide fuller disclosure on the nature of its contractual obligations. In other words, what the government has been doing up till now in terms of disclosing these billions and billions of dollars of contracts just isn't good enough, particularly when they have the fiscal effect that I've described of binding the government, limiting its flexibility, its manoeuvrability and its ability to make future policy choices, and also a call on the fiscal resources of the province for many years out. Greater scrutiny is required rather than less.

Now, what the acting Auditor General also said in this same report about the public-private partnerships was particularly revealing. They describe the process by which these obligations are created, and I'm quoting:

What they want to undertake on behalf of the citizens of the province is an ability to say: "Is this a good deal or not? Is the construction of this asset priced properly? Are we getting value for money here or not — or what?" They ask that.

"Once it has been decided to record an asset and liability for a P3 project, the next step is to determine the amount at which it should be recorded." That means that once the agreement is signed, the obligation is complete. That's what they say. The event that gives rise to the asset and liability, the signing of the P3 contract, has already happened. So at the moment before anything in terms of construction takes place or anything on this 30-year agreement has been fulfilled, the obligation exists.

Most of these P3 agreements require the contractor to build and maintain the asset. So what the Auditor General is interested in finding out on behalf of the taxpayers — and ultimately, it's the Minister of Finance who is to scrutinize and to provide the requisite

accountability and oversight on the value of these assets — is simply the following: to determine whether the taxpayers are getting fair value.

What the acting Auditor General says is revealing: "Determining the cost of the asset would be relatively simple if the agreements to construct them actually broke down the cost between the asset and the maintenance cost. However, few agreements do this. This means that determining the cost of the asset is the first challenge." So by the very opaque — that is, unclear, disguised, perhaps, and certainly something less than transparent — way in which these contracts are constructed, determining the cost of the asset that the public is buying, that the taxpayers' dollars are being used to purchase, is what the Auditor describes as a challenge.

This is public money that's being expended, and to determine the cost of what's being purchased is a challenge. It's not like going to the store and buying an item. The Auditor General is describing it as a challenge to simply figure out what the cost of what's being purchased here is.

The second challenge, the report goes on to say, is how to define "fair value." "If the province were constructing the asset itself, determining fair value would not be a problem. The value would be the cost of the material and the labour paid to construct the assets. Separate agreements for the construction of the asset and the maintenance of the asset would also make finding fair value relatively straightforward."

That's what they say, that relatively few agreements do this. The agreements are constructed in a way as to make public scrutiny and an ability to determine the fair market value of those assets very, very difficult to achieve, if not impossible. What the Auditor General suggests is that there are ways that the fair value of the constructed asset could be obtained. One is engaging an independent appraiser to value the asset, comparing the asset with similarly constructed assets recast in today's dollars or using the financial model submitted by the winning contractor during the bidding process for the job.

Those are suggestions that the Auditor makes, and I'll be interested to see whether or not the Minister of Finance is interested in fulfilling her obligation to steward the financial resources of the province, to provide accountability and transparency of these substantial sums that are being spent on behalf of the public. Certainly, the Auditor General has recognized that there are substantial challenges to that kind of disclosure.

Given the track record of this government and, particularly, some of the recent history that I've described in relation to health care costs and in relation to disclosure about the real costs of the Trade and Convention Centre extension, I fear that I may be disappointed by the minister's response in that the public will not get the kind of disclosure that they have a right to expect and, indeed, I would say is an obligation of the job of the Minister of Finance. Whether the economy is good or whether the economy is bad, the Minister of Finance has an obligation to be straight with the public and to allow people to make their own choices based on a full and transparent disclosure of financial information.

What I want to turn to is another area where in the run-up to the budget, the government has been less than financially candid. I would submit that the issue of the throne speech and the commitment we heard from the throne speech about an obligation or a willingness to tackle the important problem of climate change was set out with some force and some sense — at least rhetorically — of urgency.

I don't disagree with that note of urgency, and indeed, members on this side share much of that sense of urgency. That's why our leader has put forward a plan to begin to address the issue of climate change.

But many were disappointed to hear the minister say just last Friday, several days before the budget was to be tabled in the House, that there would be nothing in the budget to deal with the issues raised in the Speech from the Throne. Typically, the Speech from the Throne provides the rhetorical leadership, but the budget is where the dollars are placed to match the commitments, rhetorical or real, that are made in the Speech from the Throne. The minister was very categorical on Friday. There was going to be nothing in the budget to meet any of those obligations. I think it came as a shock to many observers and to those who were somewhat heartened by some of the words in the Speech from the Throne.

Now, even the Speech from the Throne spoke of a clean energy innovation fund, $25 million. There wasn't any hedging or qualification of that commitment. It was a straight commitment in the Speech from the Throne: $25 million will be set aside to do this.

It didn't appear in the budget documents on Tuesday. Nothing is in the budget documents about that fund. As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca advised the House, some members were told in the budget lockup that a tax would be imposed upon certain economic activity under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy and Mines in order to fund this particular $25 million fund.

One really despairs at the lack of frankness and disclosure when those kinds of profound commitments are made in the Speech from the Throne and the Minister of Finance says on Friday that there's nothing in the budget. By Monday there's a commitment that it may be funded, although it's not formally in the budget documents. Then there's some announcement cobbled together on the day of the budget to suggest that it will be constructed, possibly as a tax on some economic activity that falls in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy and Mines.

This is a recurring theme with this particular ministry, this minister and this government: the gap between rhetoric and reality. Certainly, when it comes to financial matters, despite the rhetoric about being open and accountable, there are a number of areas that I've set out here where the government has been less than

candid, less than frank, and has used the position of authority that's conferred upon the Minister of Finance to provide political direction rather than a frank discussion of the province's finances, which I would say is the first obligation of a Minister of Finance.

Like many, I am not particularly impressed or moved by the budget. The budget follows the theme very consistently — the housing budget. The tax measure that's included in the budget is described as a housing development plan, which is rhetorical overreach if I ever saw it, but it's consistent with that lack of candour, disclosure, transparency and, ultimately, that lack of accountability in financial matters.

As I conclude, I would just like to say that there was an opportunity — given the fiscal circumstances of the province, lifted by one of the longest booms in commodity prices in the post-war era — to use that opportunity to provide for support for average families, and really this government has failed in that obligation. The government hasn't addressed the crisis in health care, and indeed, they've broken the basic budgetary laws that require disclosure and candour in preparing that budget.

There's nothing in the budget — not withstanding the best twisting and turning of the Minister of State for Childcare — to address child care. Indeed, the commitments that were made and signed in agreements with the federal government — that money has not been passed on, and there's nothing in the budget that reflects that whatsoever. There's no relief for families who have children or adult learners who are going to public colleges and universities. There's no relief for tuition fees. The budget really does nothing to increase the long-term supply of social housing.

I would say that one of the more cynical parts of the budget is to take 750 units of social housing and convert that housing into assisted-living units, but not to make a provision to provide more units. Even in the city of New York, the heart of the market society, Mayor Bloomberg recognized that there's an obligation and that the market, of which Mr. Bloomberg is very knowledgable, cannot provide housing for everyone in society, and there is a place for government-supported, government-built housing.

This government refuses to accept that and has cut back over the time that they've been in power. The federal government has left the field as well. There's an obligation to build units of social housing over the years, a steady program that fills a part of the market for those who would otherwise be without good-quality, affordable housing and all that that means for raising a family in healthy circumstances.

So despite the riches of the province and the bounty that's reflected in the financial coffers of the province, many of these problems, many of these challenges have not been addressed in this budget. This budget is a colossal missed opportunity and, I would say, a complete failure on behalf of the people of British Columbia. With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, let me begin by saying I am very pleased to be able to rise today to respond to Balanced Budget 2007. I begin by saying that this is not the first budget I have heard. In fact, this is about the 11th budget that I have heard.

I understand the role that the opposition feels they have to play. They feel they have to oppose everything. But honestly, the rhetoric that I have heard on the other side to date has been pathetic — absolutely pathetic. The desperation they must feel to oppose is pretty clear, because by all accounts, it's a pretty exciting, bold, assertive, aggressive, comprehensive budget. They are finding it very difficult to find things to oppose, but they have to because they are in opposition.

You know, it is really amazing. Over the course of the next number of days, as member after member rises, I think we're going to be hearing a bit of conflict over there. I guess they're going to have to decide which one of them supports certain things, which one of them supports other things and then which one of them wants to support the entire budget or part of the budget. It's going to be really interesting over there when you're up to take the vote.

I'll say this right now, right here: I do challenge each and every one of you to stand up. Have the courage. Support the budget because it's good for your communities.

Budgets are a reflection of our province's strength, and there is no question we are an economic powerhouse. Everyone across Canada recognizes it, and everyone around the world recognizes it. Still, on the opposition benches they've got their ears closed, their eyes closed and they don't want to speak about how well we're doing. I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's because they feel they have to stand up to the reputation of being in opposition and oppose for the purpose of opposing — being negative, destructive and pessimistic.

It's a shame, because this year there is a real opportunity. The critic speaks about opportunity. Well, the opportunity today is for those members to change those negative, destructive, pessimistic attitudes.

Budget 2007 tells us one thing: we are stronger now than ever before. This is not our first balanced budget; this is our fourth balanced budget. Having a fourth consecutive balanced budget means we can continue to build on a vision as outlined in the throne speech and a vision that sees British Columbia as a leader.

It is a wonderful time to live, work and invest in British Columbia. It's a wonderful time because British Columbia is absolutely the best place on earth. It's pretty amazing to stop and take a look at the vibrancy of our province, to take a look at what we can now enjoy, as opposed to what we didn't look forward to in the dismal decade of the 1990s.

I know they don't want to hear that, but it's pretty obvious that in the 1990s they had their heads buried in the sand. They blamed the economy on everything they could possibly blame it on. I remember the one they had to blame it on was the tax meltdown, the one thing

Well, in our first mandate, when we were first elected in 2001, we had more than one issue to deal with. We had 9/11. We had SARS. We had BSE. We had a number of things.

Hon. I. Chong: Yet in spite of all of that, to the member for Yale-Lillooet, we still turned our economy around — still did that.

It's pretty hard to take when they want to blame it on one thing, when we had so many things that we could have pointed our fingers at. Yet we still turned this economy around, we are still a leader in British Columbia, and we still have much to be proud of.

Take a look at where we began in 2001 when we first inherited the opportunity to lead this province. We were in last place in economic growth here in Canada. We inherited a province where that NDP government had put us to have-not status.

I recall being in opposition in my first term in this wonderful precinct. There were credit downgrades. You know what a credit downgrade does, Mr. Speaker? It means that debt servicing goes up. Dollars are spent on interest. It means that programs are restricted. It means we can't do more.

But what did we do, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you what we did. Our government turned the economy around. We went from last place to first place. What's more amazing is that we have been granted a triple-A credit rating. Now, I know it's pretty hard for opposition members to understand the importance of a triple-A credit rating, because as I say, they took our credit rating down.

It is significant because it's been since the 1980s — the last time that this province had a triple-A credit rating. Right now there are only three jurisdictions that have it here in Canada: the federal government itself, Alberta and British Columbia — only three jurisdictions. That is something to be proud of.

British Columbians trusted us in 2001. They trusted our government to turn things around, and that trust has paid off in spades. It has paid off incredibly over the last six years. We have worked hard to restore the economy in British Columbia, and we have positioned ourselves as a national leader — first in job growth, first in housing starts, first in consumer and investor confidence.

I was listening to the radio this morning, and I heard that 2006 has been posted and reported as the best year in almost a decade for growth in the retail sector. That's a strong endorsement of our government and our economy.

British Columbians in the '90s were desperately leaving in droves to find work elsewhere. I can attest to that personally. Friends of mine, young families — the husbands were leaving to find work in Alberta, leaving their wives and children here, essentially making them single parents. That has now all changed.

People are now coming back to British Columbia, and we are in a position where we have jobs looking for people. I know that's, again, very difficult for the opposition to accept, but it's the truth. Everywhere you go: help-wanted signs. Everywhere you go: "Apply within." Everywhere you go: "Part-time, full-time, anytime — just come and apply." It's because people are needed in those jobs.

This government has turned this economy around, because we said at the very beginning that a strong economy is what can provide the social programs that everybody will always demand and need. Until we turn our economy around, we cannot be spending in areas that we know are unsustainable.

We have seen that economy turn around, and with that we have seen the lowest unemployment in over 30 years. Essentially, it's full employment. That's a remarkable change and one that speaks a great deal to all British Columbians who have helped get us to that point. I do want to thank all those hard-working British Columbians who helped get us to where we are today.

The Premier said right from the beginning that all British Columbians will benefit from our healthy economy, and with each balanced budget we have strived to do that through our mandate. We have been able to deliver on a promise of ensuring that we will focus spending to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent and accountable. During this second mandate, we have introduced, thus far, three budgets.

In the first one we enhanced supports for seniors. Then we invested in our children. In this budget our government continues to focus on an area, where Balanced Budget 2007 is dedicated to housing.

Now, I know that members opposite are concerned about housing. They must be; we all are. It's important that we work together to find ways of improving housing in our communities. That's why I think it's essential for those members to support this budget. If they don't support this budget, it means they don't support helping communities to put more housing in their areas for more affordability and more options. That would be a shame.

It would be a real shame, because from all accounts that I've heard from people, they're excited about the prospects of working with this government. Non-profit organizations are excited about their prospect of improving and enhancing social housing. If the members opposite want to truly represent their communities, I challenge them to go back to those communities, find those projects and have those projects come forward. Let us work to help build affordable housing around this province.

There is no question that as a result of a strong economy, we have been met with some challenges. As I've indicated, housing and housing affordability have been a challenge as a result of that. Housing prices have gone up in communities around British Columbia. With Balanced Budget 2007, it means that we're able to help all British Columbians better afford to call our province home.

As the Minister of Community Services, which allows me to work with local governments as the minister responsible for local government, I can tell you that the focus of this year's budget, building a housing legacy, is a particularly exciting one for B.C. communities. I have already spoken to a number of mayors, and they are excited about the prospects of being able to work with us. They're excited about the prospect of finding ways to meet the challenges head-on.

Our budget builds housing in a very comprehensive way. It is about working in partnership with municipalities, which is certainly important, and it builds on the work that was done through the task force, the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions. I think we can all agree that last year at the UBCM convention here in Victoria, the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention, delegates raised concerns about affordable housing and homelessness many times.

Even in sessions that were scheduled for other discussions — and I attended many of them — talk of the challenge of housing and homelessness found its way onto the platform, regardless of what session it was. Someone in the audience, a delegate, would raise the issue of housing and homelessness. So I know it's important. We know it's important. I would expect that members on that side of the House who know that it's important will also rise to the challenge of ensuring that they will support the housing initiatives that we have.

It means that with $2 billion over four years we will help people address their housing needs. We will make a real difference in the lives of British Columbians in communities all across British Columbia — for those with homes and for those without.

Our government is making a tremendous difference by providing our most vulnerable citizens with more year-round emergency shelter beds and supportive housing, by providing income assistance clients with more money for rent, by providing more low-income families with social housing and rent subsidies and by providing homeowners with tax exemptions and deferrals.

I've already recently heard from a young couple looking to buy a home, saying that it was about time we took a look at the exemption levels for first-time homebuyers. We are providing these programs and services for a variety of British Columbians so that they can continue to be supported in their homes.

Let's also not forget about those who continue to work, who continue to pay their mortgages, who go about in their day-to-day lives — about their needs. What they're saying is that it would still be nice to have a little bit of cash left in their pockets. I know that they were happy with the 25-percent tax cut that we offered in 2001 and that some were beginning to say: "Are we ever going to see another one?"

Well, they sure did see another tax cut in Balanced Budget 2007 — a 10-percent personal income tax cut. That means more cash in people's pockets, and it means easing some of the cost pressures they may feel in today's housing market or in any other services or programs or needs they may have.

Here's a question for the opposition: are they opposed to the tax cut? I think British Columbians would like to know. I think their constituents would like to know, because the Finance critic, the member for Surrey-Whalley, was quoted, I believe, in the Vancouver Sun. He said: "It's significant that they are cutting taxes. I am sure that will be welcomed by many people."

Well, if he's sure that it's going to be welcomed by many people, I expect that these many people will be people in his constituency, in his riding. And if it's welcomed by them, does he rise up in the House and say: "No, I'm against it, and I don't welcome that"? Is that what he's going to say? Is that what each and every one of them is going to say? I guess we'll see when the vote's taken. I guess we'll see.

Also included in the budget were additional dollars for an area that I am particularly concerned about, and that is, sadly, for some people where home is not a safe place or a safe haven — where, in fact, they need to find a safe place elsewhere. These are for women and children fleeing abusive relationships who need to find refuge, a safe place in a transition house. They're looking for a place they can count on to be safe and secure — that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We know that women leaving abusive relationships are at the very greatest risk. These are vulnerable women and children. You will see in Balanced Budget 2007 an additional $6 million over the next three years to be invested to strengthen our support for transition houses. As my colleague said, surely they'll vote for that. I certainly hope so, because by providing an additional $6 million, we will ensure that those provincial transition houses that require it can provide 24-7 service, with staff who are available at all times to provide women and their children with the crisis assistance and support they need.

I have travelled around the province, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you're aware — back in 2004, some in 2005 as well and definitely last year in 2006 — and have visited many of these transition houses. Some were not ready for 24-7 because they did not have the capacity, but I can tell you they're all ready now. These additional dollars are going to be provided for those supports.

I wanted to put this in perspective, because these additional dollars, $2 million additional per year, combined with the additional $12.5 million that was received only two short years ago, means that for direct essential services for women and children — that budget area — we have seen an increase of over 40 percent, the largest increase in a decade. That in itself is reason to support this budget. Again, I guess we'll wait and see. We'll see what the NDP does.

In addition, I was pleased to see that Budget 2007 spoke of the needs of seniors, because we know that there are unique needs of seniors. We know that seniors have made investments in their homes. They want to live safe and secure in their communities. With the recent report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues, Aging Well in British Columbia, we have

seen that one of the recommendations, amongst many, indicates that seniors want to continue to stay in their homes and in their communities.

We will work on a number of those recommendations. Some will be dealt with more quickly than others, because some will still require some consultation on how we achieve that. At the same time, seniors said: "We want to stay in our homes, and we need to be able to stay in our homes." Some cannot stay in their homes, perhaps because of physical reasons — things such as hallways that are narrow or need railings. They just need a little bit of extra help. By investing an additional $45 million over four years, we are going to be able to upgrade 750 social-housing units, helping older British Columbians to continue to live comfortably at home.

As well, we're going to encourage new ideas and innovative pilots in housing by establishing a $250 million housing endowment fund. Again, I have to ask the opposition: are you going to support that initiative, a $250 million endowment fund, which will allow us to receive and generate approximately $10 million a year to support innovative housing solutions?

What do they have against innovation, Mr. Speaker? I hope they don't, because it means individuals and families with diverse housing needs who are not currently served through existing programs and services will be able to come forward and look to the interest generated by this fund to provide those options they need, to allow them to stay in their communities and to be supported by friends and family in their communities.

While I know that it may not immediately be a fund that is looked upon by seniors, I can tell you that it probably will be more relevant soon, because within a number of short years there will be a demographic change. Where currently one in seven is aged 65 and older, we will soon see that to be one in four over the age of 65. Perhaps we will need to look at innovative housing solutions ourselves. Those of us here now may need to look at this housing endowment fund.

This is a fund that has been established and will exist in perpetuity. That's a good thing, because it means, as I say, for those of us here now, some maybe sooner rather than later…. We may have to take a look at this fund to look at innovative solutions. This fund will exist because we have established it to be that way.

We've made improvements to our homeowner grant program, which means that low-income seniors whose homes have appreciated significantly in our economic upswing will still be eligible for the homeowner grant, regardless of the home's assessed value. I can tell you that we have heard from seniors who are well into their 80s and even in their 90s who are absolutely on fixed incomes. The pensions that were established for them years ago in the '50s and '60s — some of them were defined in terms of life span. The expectation of payout on these pensions sometimes stopped at age 75 or even at age 80.

I recall, being an accountant in practice prior to entering public office, that I used to have to do some financial planning with seniors, usually women, who had shared with me all their financial information and said: "Well, I think I'll be okay." I saw the pensions they had, some as little as $50 and some greater at $125 at that time, and they said: "But it only goes to 75. I think I can make it to 75." Some actually went to 80.

But seniors are more active, they're living longer, and they're going well beyond these pensions. They were defined for a time period, and that has become an issue. That is why they're on fixed incomes. While they have the old age supplement and the Canada Pension Plan and the additional supplements we provide through our credit program as well, it is fixed.

What has also transpired is that they live in their homes, homes they have perhaps been in for 50 or 60 years and raised their entire families. It just so happens they live in a neighbourhood that has been developed all around them, and that neighbourhood has appreciated by great amounts. So we have seniors who are asset-rich but cash-poor.

The Minister of Finance, having heard from many of us on this side of the House — and even, as I understand it, from opposition members — said that that didn't make a lot of sense. We did need to make some changes. So the homeowner grant would be provided regardless of the home's assessed value, and that is good news. That is good news for our seniors in this province.

We've also noted that the property tax deferment program is one that has become more popular. It has increased from the year 2001, I understand, fivefold.

What does that do? It means that it again allows people to have choices about their retirement. It means that if they chose to defer their property taxes and instead allowed that to accumulate towards the home so that when they eventually did sell it and those dollars would be paid back, they would have more money in their pockets today and now. It's a program that actually wasn't well used for a while in the '90s, but of late it has become more popular.

Also, in our changing world we see people taking early retirement, so it only made sense to allow this deferment program to start at an earlier age, that being the age of 55. It means that, while I've heard people are taking out reverse mortgages, perhaps now they can just deal with the property tax deferment program.

Some people are only looking for perhaps $200 extra a month. If their property taxes are $2,400 a year, this will provide that. As that escalates in terms of property taxes, it's more money they can have, and they can therefore budget accordingly.

Balanced Budget 2007 also spoke about health being a priority of our government, and you know, it's really, really amazing — in fact, appalling — to hear from members opposite who continually mislead the public in saying that we've had that tax cut.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the minister has actually just used an unparliamentary term, and I ask her to withdraw it unconditionally.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I can say that many of the opposition have consistently indicated that there has been a tax cut, so let's revisit what a tax cut is.

In 2001, I believe, the operating dollars in the Health budget were about $8.5 billion. Today it's $13.1 billion. So do the math. How does $13.1 billion from $8.5 billion become a tax cut? I don't understand their mathematics, but I think that the rest of British Columbians know that that has represented an approximately 55-percent increase — not a cut, an increase. I am truly hopeful that British Columbians will see through that kind of rhetoric, because it really is time for that to stop.

Every year the health budget has gone up incrementally, and this Balanced Budget 2007 sees yet another $885 million, close to a billion dollars, being added. That is not a tax cut in my eyes, so I don't know what kind of rose-coloured glasses they're looking through.

In addition, we know that not only are we currently having a Conversation on Health — looking to British Columbians to give us ideas about the sustainability of our health care system — but at the same time, we are also acknowledging there are new technologies.

There are new ways to deliver patient care, and the health authorities are saying: "Wouldn't it be nice to be able to access a fund?" So $100 million have been set aside for a health innovation fund to support our health authorities to implement new ideas to improve patient care.

As hospital after hospital and health authority after health authority come forward and access this $100 million health innovation fund for health facilities in those members' communities, I wonder whether they'll say that's a good thing. I wonder whether then they will acknowledge that they should have supported and should be supporting this budget, which provides for that $100 million. I wonder how many of them will be writing letters of support asking the Health Minister to provide for those things.

I'm concerned that my time is nearly up. I have so much more to say. I wanted to talk about our new, greener British Columbia; the new programs that our ministry is providing funding for; the Spirit Squares program; the LocalMotion fund; our Towns for Tomorrow. I know I'll have an opportunity to speak to those again, perhaps through the throne speech, which I am certainly looking forward to.

A last challenge to the NDP: are they going to support this budget, or are they not going to support this budget? What are they saying? Are they saying no to helping the homeless and providing housing? Are they saying no to seniors who will be getting continued support? Are they saying no to a health innovation fund? Are they saying no to greener communities? Are they saying no to one or all of these? Are they saying no to health, to tax cuts? What are they saying? Well, I guess the evidence will show.

I say that British Columbia today is in better shape than ever before. We are a forward-thinking, economic powerhouse. This province has become a testament to the population interested in seeing, and willing to accept, change for the better. We are a government that is interested in careful, thoughtful and necessary fiscal management. B.C. is a leader in so many ways. Our government is committed to building the best system of supports for seniors and for those with special needs, and I thank you for this opportunity to respond.

S. Fraser: I don't know what to say to begin with after the last speech. I appreciate the minister….

S. Fraser: "Let them eat cake" is what rings true. I think it was Marie Antoinette.

The minister, previously in her speech, said: "Stand up and support the budget." No, no. We'll stand up and support the people of British Columbia, thank you very much.

I am proud to stand up and represent the people of Alberni-Qualicum, and I thank them for putting their faith in me. We come to this place, this place of decision-making, to try to make a better place for the people of British Columbia. It's a parliamentary system that I happen to agree with. More and more I'm seeing that our role of opposition is so much more fundamental to protecting the people of British Columbia. This Speech from the Throne, followed by the speech from the budget, has reinforced that for me in so many ways.

I've never been so confused by a Speech from the Throne that is totally disconnected with the speech from the budget. The Speech from the Throne spent a lot of time — many, many pages — dealing with the environment, dealing with climate change realities. The speech from the budget provided no substance. The Speech from the Throne suggested: "The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real."

The budget is about procrastination, so there's a contradiction here. I don't know if it was done intentionally, but this is very confusing to all groups and individuals in the province that put some hope in what was said in the throne speech.

We all remember the children's budget and throne speech. There was a link there. The throne speech that prioritized protecting children — last year, I believe — was followed through with some of the same statements in the budget speech. It's taken a year for that to fall off the table — second year in a row, B.C. is the highest in

child poverty — and following that with a draconian cut to child care funding.

That lasted a year at least before we could see it totally unravel. The climate change issue took a week. I don't know if that's considered progress in expedience, timesaving. Maybe just cut to the chase. The words are not reflected in the budget.

I have to touch on something that the previous speaker said. It's true that in 2001 when this government came in, they did turn things around. They turned a record surplus into a record deficit in a blink. [Laughter.]

The laugh is coming from the good minister across the way. I guess she's laughing at this government's own Finance Ministry.

The minister used the word that she was forced to apologize for, so I won't use the same word. Unless you're refuting…. Well, I know you refute the Auditor General's report. The government side does that whenever it doesn't fit into their plans. But the Auditor General and the ministry have affirmed what I said, so I won't say any more about it.

The true colours of this government have never shown clearer than with this budget speech. The Liberals seem to govern by slogan in lieu of substance, and that's not what the people of British Columbia deserve. Slogans like "the five great goals" and "the golden decade." I call it the chalcopyrite decade. For those that are not familiar with the geological term — I was a rockhound as a kid — chalcopyrite is fool's gold. The fool's gold decade. We as the opposition must make sure that we can avert the remainder of that fool's gold decade on behalf of the people of B.C.

The year of the child, the children's budget that we saw before, is followed by this budget, which is silent on child care. It is cruelly ironic to see the values of children, stated so eloquently in that previous budget and throne speech, turn to dust in the shadow of meaningless rhetoric by this government.

This Liberal government is knowingly putting children at risk by omitting child care — no mention of it — especially after recent events. Petitions are coming in presented by government members, MLAs, their constituents that they turn a deaf ear to.

This government is cutting existing child care programs, and to add insult to injury, the minister for child care cuts was also clear that any increase in child care spaces won't get any additional funding. This shortsighted and skewed vision is indicative of the priorities of this government. Silence in the budget speech — after the people of British Columbia, families of British Columbia have appealed for help.

We now know — and I'm quoting from unquestionable studies — that early childhood development is a determinant of health throughout childhood, adolescence and beyond into adulthood. The conditions in which children grow and develop are among the most important determinants of health throughout the entire course of their life.

Studies have shown that high-quality child care could also help disadvantaged children get a better and more effective start at school, and it's been shown to improve children's cognitive, language and social skills. Early development programs such as those provided by our quality child care operators, being put at risk by this government's omission in the budget, help to make education the truly equal opportunity it was meant to be. It's a huge disappointment for all people in B.C. from all sectors that rely on child care, and for those children, especially disadvantaged children, who would be getting a leg up, a level playing field, as they hit kindergarten.

It's telling to have hundreds of citizens, parents, children, workers and first nations from across the province marching on the Legislature just last week, and this government, government members and ministers, turning a blind eye — blissfully unaware, I guess — in this House. I could hear it from my office, hon. Speaker. As we come to throne speech and budget, the deaf ears were clear.

For more than a year this government has been leading parents on with spending announcements and with promises of new facilities for B.C.'s beleaguered child care system. The people of B.C., the families of B.C., trusted those words and that encouragement. Now, pulling the rug out from under B.C. families with funding cuts, rate increases and cuts to child care spaces and infrastructure….

Every dollar invested in quality child care is a huge investment in our future, and government members know that. They have access to the same studies that I do. They have access to the University of Manitoba studies that have shown that it is probably the best investment we can make.

Another great investment we could make would be listening to the students in post-secondary education. Again, nothing in the budget was mentioned. We just had a day of action all across this province, all across this great nation, with students coming forward with a real problem in universality: access to post-secondary education.

I think B.C. is again a leader here in increasing costs for post-secondary education. They've doubled. They've stickhandled the doubling of tuition fees — more than the doubling of tuition fees — in their tenure. They've gutted grant programs.

Students have come forward, as one, protesting this. They came to this building last week, and I know they met with government members and opposition members. So I know that government members knew this and are aware of the problems and, I hope, aware of the investment that post-secondary education represents for British Columbia and the future of British Columbia. What an opportunity in the budget to address those needs. Deaf ears. Don't care. Don't listen.

Back to the children's budget, a distant memory now. As I mentioned, first nations attended the protest to

child care cuts here at the Legislature. It was the members of the Esketemc First Nation, and they came here all the way from Alkali Lake, 100 miles southwest of Williams Lake. It was a long trip. It does not appear that they were consulted on child care cuts, and they are also disappointed in the omission in this budget.

It does not appear that they are seeing this government's new relationship. We on this side have supported the principle of that new relationship. Of course, I, as critic, know members of the leadership council and am friends with many first nations leaders who are expecting much from the new relationship, as are we from the opposition.

This budget is a great disappointment regarding aboriginal relations and reconciliation. Indeed, the throne speech lauds the existing treaties process, but this does not tell the whole story. A great many treaty tables are being ignored. A few breakout tables only are receiving the bulk of the cut resources from this government in treaty. This is causing great discontent and frustration among many nations and may ultimately scuttle many negotiations. It's disproportionate.

The public is kept from information from the ministry. The ministry does not report out fully on the status of many negotiations. What, if anything, is it doing to overcome the challenges and barriers to success? I know that first nations leadership and the aboriginal people in B.C. were surprised and disappointed in the budget speech the other day.

What about this government addressing the realities of off-reserve aboriginal needs, urban aboriginal needs? The majority of aboriginal people in B.C. live off reserve — many with desperate needs, many being ignored by this government's fool's gold decade.

There are 24 friendship centres in B.C. They provide programs for over 50 percent of the total B.C. aboriginal population who now live in urban centres off reserve. In the many cities and towns where friendship centres are located great work is done, often with youth. Limited funding determines how many days the youth centres associated with friendship centres can be open and what activities can be provided. A huge investment, a wise investment, but serious underfunding limits the success of these programs and the ability of friendship centres to meet the needs of the urban aboriginal youth and other youth.

There was no mention in the budget of any help here. I know that the minister, the ministry and this government know of the issues, yet they were silent. I suppose that as we enter the estimates that follow this budget process, I will be probing that. Will the B.C. government provide support for these programs at friendship centres so that there's continuity in their funding, so that they don't lose their staff, so that youth programs can continue and so that some of the issues — the urban aboriginal issues — can be dealt with and effectively make a brighter future for many people in B.C.?

It doesn't look promising after the budget speech. Will this government provide funding for off-reserve aboriginal people, and will they match the federal funding contributions to friendship centres in B.C.? I don't see that in this budget. That's tragic.

Last year the Métis Nation B.C. signed an accord with this government. I think it was in May, just over a year ago. There were six key objectives identified, but the Métis Nation B.C. has yet to see any significant investment from this government. The signing happened to much accolade and much hope, but there's no commitment that I can find in this budget — again, questions to be raised in estimates. But it doesn't look promising, and it doesn't look hopeful.

For the Métis Nation members that were present at that ceremony, there was great hope — and no mention in the budget. The Métis Nation has yet to hear of any investment relating to Métis housing — and of course there were issues with housing brought up in the budget, which I will get to — education, health, renewal of tripartite processes with the Métis, and data collection associated with the Métis. The budget was silent. This was signed in May 2006. Where is the commitment? Where is the substance? It's gone.

Back to the new relationship. It simply doesn't exist at the ground level for many aboriginal people, first nations in B.C. This government has done nothing to build capacity within its own ministries to fix that problem. Any of the resource uses, whether it's forestry, whether it's aquaculture, whether it's mining…. Any resource issue on traditional territory, and this government often exemplifies the worst of the old relationship.

Forestry side agreements, the FRAs and FROs — often lauded by this government — are often perceived by first nations and first nation leaderships as a gun-to-the-head type of negotiation. They're designed and they're skewed based on a head count, and that mentality has been certainly opposed by groups like the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. That kind of formula is from an era that should be long past. These side deals are actually hindering treaty. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the Auditor General, who also suggested that there was not full disclosure from this government and the ministry on treaty issues.

We see a disconnect in the new relationship that is not addressed in this budget at all. We see it in Duncan Lake in the interior, where a lake called Amazay, which means mother caribou in the traditional language, is being considered to be used as a tailings pond for mine tailings. It will kill the lake. It's the confluence of four different first nations caribou migration routes.

First nations have been trying to get attention from this government for a year. The budget was the place to do it — put some resources into addressing that issue. But we haven't even seen meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation is not a luxury. It's a basic premise of the new relationship, and it's affirmed by court case. In that case, new relationship? I guess not.

On the coast we're seeing aquaculture tenures approved. This is often without meaningful consultation

with first nations. Where in the budget was there mention of raising the capacity of this government's own ministers to understand the new relationship and understand that meaningful consultation is necessary? The courts have said that. This government letting these tenures out in traditional territories that are in dispute by first nations over the use, and lack of consultation — especially while a parliamentary special committee is supposedly doing a job in recommendations on this issue — is not in keeping with any new relationship either.

The many first nations that came to our public hearings and non-native representatives from communities that came to those meetings are expecting to be listened to. We listened to them, but they're not being heard here, so there's a disconnect in this government. The new relationship requires funding; it requires capacity-building within government. The ministry people aren't getting the resources. I heard nothing in this budget speech that said they were looking at addressing that.

Just last week yet another protest here at the Legislature, this time the Kwakiutl First Nation planning legal action. This is something from the past. The new relationship says we're supposed to be getting out of litigation. Again, it sounds like the worst of the old relationship. It's related to a forestry issue. That's interesting, because I didn't hear anything about forestry in the budget speech.

The throne speech spoke of forests: "In the new world, trees will have new value as carbon sinks and oxygen creators which help clean our air and offset greenhouse gases. On average, each new tree planted offsets up to one tonne of carbon dioxide over its lifetime."

Indeed, trees are very important to deal with global warming. That's in the throne speech. There's nothing in the budget, and we have a government that's releasing another 28,000 hectares to private land to be decimated. What about the one tonne per tree? These are just words. These are slogans.

So when the Kwakiutl take a position that they're opposing this legally because they weren't consulted…. Well, none of the people of B.C. were consulted. The budget doesn't say a word about these issues. Forestry wasn't even mentioned.

How can you have a climate change program in a throne speech — that's lauded in the throne speech — that is absent in the budget; that exemplifies procrastination; that the throne speech says can't happen; and that also throws into question the new relationship and consultation, through the release of lands that by my count is about 100,000 hectares just on Vancouver Island since 2004? Released for destruction.

No mention in the budget. A complete disconnect. A disconnect from the budget speech to the throne speech. A disconnect in this budget speech in a more fundamental way. We had a travelling, cross-party committee, as we all know — Finance Committee we call it — at considerable expense, I expect. They do a good job. They consult with the people of British Columbia about how to deal with a budget.

What are the priorities of the people of B.C.? We know there are many that have been brought to our attention recently. There's certainly quality child care and having a government that will fight for and fund it. But that fell on deaf ears.

What we didn't hear in that Finance Committee tour was a request for tax cuts. Nobody likes to say no to tax cuts, because I guess it helps everybody. What the Finance Committee heard was that they wanted the chaos in our medical system dealt with. That was their priority. They wanted homelessness, and the disparity between those who have everything and those who have nothing, addressed.

So when you say that you've got a budget, which now is about housing, and that you're allotting $2 billion towards housing, and then you suggest…. I mean, who's going to argue with housing? Under this government we've got not just the highest child poverty rate in Canada for two years running — which obviously is related, in a lot of cases, to housing — but we're seeing a premise of housing put forward in the budget speech that wasn't reflected in the throne speech. It is being touted as a $2 billion investment when in fact over three-quarters of that investment is related to tax cuts.

Again, you could assume that tax cuts are called a housing budget, but tax cuts, if it's $20 or $30 a month, aren't helping the homeless. It could just as easily be called a bicycle budget, because you could buy a bicycle after several months of saving. It could be for anything.

You're stretching the truth beyond believability. If you think you can address homelessness by giving a 10-percent tax break, then you're dreaming. You're also taking away the funding for quality day care, child care, which is preventing single mothers from working.

What you've addressed is an increase in the disparity between those that need it most and those that need it least.

S. Fraser: Well, exactly. The homeless aren't paying provincial taxes to start with.

Now, if you're making a hundred grand a year, it is significant, but you may not be homeless if you're making $100,000 a year. So suggesting that this is a benevolent move…. Well, I don't see it. I don't see anything in this budget — in this housing budget, if that's how it's being termed — that's increasing the long-term supply of affordable housing. I see some shuffling — existing social housing to be converted. Okay. But we don't have enough existing social housing.

This government is lurching from idea to idea, and in the last week they've done it in the space of a week. The main idea was climate change and addressing it a

week ago, and that's gone now. It's been procrastinated when the throne speech said that there's no time for procrastination. We see a housing budget that is being lauded as such based on….

Hon. M. Coell: It's an honour today as Minister of Advanced Education to rise and respond to the budget speech. I'm very excited about this budget, as it touches hundreds of thousands of British Columbians in a very positive way.

The measures announced in the budget speech yesterday go a long way towards determining the future of this province. These advances will build on our government's accomplishments in leading our province to achieving its rich potential. This is a time for us to think long term. This is a time for us to chase great goals and to challenge us to bring out our very best.

We didn't win the Olympic bid against strong international competition because we sold ourselves short. We won it because we worked together and remembered that when British Columbians commit to something and work together, there is nothing that we can't achieve.

The will to excel and the confidence to reach the best in education, in environmental management and sustainability, in health care and social supports, and especially in job creation — that's the spirit of British Columbia in the Pacific century. We've set five great goals for ourselves, and these goals will stretch all of us. They oblige us to try and outperform the competition in key areas that make us the leaders in social innovation. Together they point to a whole new vision for British Columbia, a new blueprint for social development.

A huge component of that blueprint is higher education. Making sure all British Columbians have access to advanced education is one of the most important things that our government can do in this era of transformative change. As our economy grows and develops, we need more skilled people to fill a record number of the new jobs we are creating. Since 2001 B.C.'s economy has generated 324,400 new jobs and has led the country in growth.

The skilled people in these new jobs earn more and thus contribute more tax revenues that provide services like health care. Better-educated people are also healthier, making fewer demands on our health care and other services. Better-educated people have a stronger sense of social responsibility, which they channel into making a difference in our province, in their own lives, in the communities they live in and in the broader world.

These are some of the reasons we have focused on opening the doors to advanced education to more British Columbians. We promised to create 25,000 student spaces by 2010, and we're right on track. We have already funded 12,000 of them, and we're also funding an additional 2,500 new graduate spaces over the next four years. We have committed $82 million in new funding to these additional student spaces, and we've committed more than a billion dollars to improve and expand our campuses across the province.

Budget 2007 continues to build on government's ongoing commitment to increase access to post-secondary education. Over the next three years new funding of $343 million will be added to the system. This is in addition to the $306 million allocated in previous budgets, for a total funding increase of $649 million over the next three years.

To ensure we make the most of our investments, we have launched Campus 2020: Thinking Ahead, a collaborative planning process to help shape the vision, mission, goals and objectives of B.C.'s post-secondary education system for the next ten to 20 years. A final report will be delivered later this spring.

Government's Pacific leadership agenda will open up every part of our province to new opportunities. B.C. has enormous potential as the world's critical crossroad to the Asia-Pacific commerce. Partly due to our geography, we are the Pacific gateway. We are the nation's future on the Pacific.

We must reach out and take advantage of that, and British Columbians will benefit when we do. We will capitalize on our geography by understanding the cultures, speaking the languages, meeting the needs of the Pacific Rim. New Pacific studies programs will be developed and offered at key post-secondary education institutions across the province.

We have put hundreds of millions of dollars into research and technology to help build a world-class research community in this province. The budget speech showed that we intend to do more. The new global economy is ultimately driven by mastering what we have learned and pursuing new knowledge.

Our government has always been committed to investing in research and development and to supporting the wealth of research talent, ability and creativity of our province. We led the world in the fight against SARS, and we continue to lead in genome research. Both are critical tools in an effort to prepare for the next global influenza pandemic.

Genome B.C. is producing groundbreaking discoveries in areas as diverse as agriculture, resource industries, health and the environment. Far from the brain drain Canada had suffered in the past, we are enjoying a brain gain as more and more scientists are attracted by the renewed vitality of British Columbia's research climate.

We are building on the momentum by making new research investments in everything from spinal cord research to wireless technology — more than $12 million to fund spinal cord research at the Rick Hansen

Man in Motion Foundation, $3 million in new funding to the British Columbia Innovation Council to support new programs that will advance research and commercialization, almost $1 million in funding to the British Columbia Regional Science and Technology Network to support regional technology businesses in the province.

An additional funding commitment to the Centre for Drug Research and Development, as well, to turn research into new drugs and commercial technologies into the economic and health gains for British Columbians. Financial support for the Wireless Innovation Network society of British Columbia, through a formal partnership with Bell, will establish a world-class wireless technology centre in British Columbia to enhance the economic benefits of the 2010 Olympic Games.

To assist the British Columbia Nanotechnology Alliance with its plans to advance globally recognized research, development and commercial activities related to nanotechnologies in British Columbia. To work with the B.C. Technology Industry Association and other key stakeholders to develop a strategy that will enable the province to become one of the top ten destinations for technology in the world. The end result will be a faster rate of commercialization and more globally competitive industries.

Our goal is to keep our resource sector competitive and sustainable. At the same time we want to strengthen our high-tech industries, encourage new sectors, fuel economy and create the jobs that British Columbians want. We'll be working with industry and other levels of government and the people in various regions of this province to ensure the success of this foundation that we have created.

These new investments will complement our other research commitments like the Leading Edge Endowment Fund, the British Columbia knowledge development fund. LEEF is helping our post-secondary institutions attract and retain world-class researchers. Twenty B.C. leadership chairs and nine regional innovative chairs support research in health care, environmental stewardship, technology and other services.

Our B.C. knowledge development fund is available to public post-secondary institutions, teaching hospitals and affiliate non-profit agencies when they need research equipment or facilities. It could be $16.5 million to support the Beatty biodiversity centre, a centre that provides basic research into related life sciences and developments in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; or $2.5 million to support the University of British Columbia's EvaluTree lab, whose support is finding new uses for the trees that are being destroyed by the mountain pine beetle and further the economic potential of our forest industry. Or it could be the $30 million to help develop NEPTUNE, the world's largest cable link sea floor observatory off North America's west coast.

Since we assumed office, grants from the B.C. knowledge development fund, plus other funding leveraged from those grants, have added to a total investment in research and infrastructure of $750 million. We've also enhanced and expanded BCNET, British Columbia's advanced network of research and education.

Our government is also moving to capitalize on our province's emerging strengths, such as digital media. B.C. has the largest digital media cluster in Canada with over 800 companies and 50,000 employees.

Our province is the third-largest film and TV production centre in North America, and Vancouver is the largest game development centre in the world. That's why we've invested more than $40 million in creating a leading-edge digital media centre at the Great Northern Way campus in Vancouver. Government has provided more than $1 million for the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design for their innovative Intersections Digital Studio, which opened in January this year. Both of these facilities solidify our global reputation as a leader in digital media and will stimulate further opportunities for growth in the digital entertainment area.

Working together — governments, businesses, post-secondary institutions — we can create the environment that nurtures and supports our growing research community, and every British Columbian will benefit in the long run.

As we ramp up our support for research, we continue to work towards making British Columbia the most highly educated and literate place in North America. We want to take the important accomplishments of the past few years and drive the technical transformation in our provincial economy, to push the scientific advances occurring on campuses and our research institutions into the marketplace to benefit our economy, and ultimately to benefit all British Columbians.

Today we live in a brave new world with abundant opportunities. The budget recognizes the importance of a productive, innovative and strong economy. It recognizes that only an economy running on all cylinders can carry the freight of social programs and help define us as a province and as a nation.

Our knowledge-based economy requires highly educated and motivated people who understand that what you earn depends on what you learn. Creating the workforce requires more access to post-secondary education, which we are providing through the biggest strategic expansion of our public system in 40 years.

We are more than halfway into our plan to add the 25,000 new student spaces, and our public system is also going to have 2,500 new graduate spaces. We have dedicated some of these spaces for educating nurses and doctors, and in fact, we are leading the nation in creating new nurse and physician training.

When we took office in 2001 UBC's school of medicine was very well regarded, but it was also very small in comparison to our population. It offered 120 first-year training spaces for student doctors, unchanged — unchanged — over the previous 20 years. In the same 20 years B.C.'s population had increased by 50 percent.

As the population ages, the demand for health care grows exponentially. We looked at the numbers, and we took action. We committed to nearly doubling the number of student spaces for doctors at UBC's medical school and to providing part of their education at the University of Victoria on Vancouver Island and the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. Why? Because we know that many doctors set up their practices close to where they were trained, and we want our new doctors spread around the province, especially in underserved areas.

We did something brand-new in Canada, something being watched closely by other medical schools around the world. We built new facilities at all three universities, then we linked them with high-tech conferencing equipment so that students could all attend the same lectures, interacting with each other and their professors. The first two classes of students in the northern and Island medical programs are already studying in both Prince George and Victoria. By 2009 the graduating class will be nearly doubled for the number of doctors educated in B.C. since 2001, and we're not stopping there. Our intention is still to add more seats to those three medical programs so that we will have doubled the number of doctors graduating in British Columbia.

Once again the Conference Board of Canada ranked British Columbia's health care system at number one in the country. We have worked hard to earn that position over the past five years in order to get our health care system re-invigorated — to open new hospitals, to train more doctors, to add thousands of nurse-training positions. So we're in a pretty good place right now, but more needs to be done.

We know that meeting the needs of an aging population will challenge us all. Within a couple of decades, one-quarter of all British Columbians will be 65 years or older. As MLA for Saanich North and the Islands I've had the opportunity to talk to many of my constituents about the health care system. They tell me that they want — all British Columbians want — to have timely access to facilities and treatment, and they want to make sure that they've got enough doctors and enough nurses for the next generation of British Columbians. This government is committing to make sure that happens.

I'd also like to call your attention to other medical professionals we're educating who will help us in our goal of leading the way in North America in healthy living. We've created B.C.'s first programs to educate midwives and nurse practitioners, who are now playing important roles in our health care system. We are training hundreds more nurses every year.

To date, our government has increased the number of nursing seats by more than 75 percent — an increase, as I said, of 3,000 nursing spaces since 2001. That's just one example of how our seat expansion is unfolding. It's also targeted towards filling the skill shortages anticipated as baby-boomers leave the workplace.

Our plan was built on a balanced approach to train more people with the skill sets we need to keep our province firing on all cylinders. To help train skilled workers supporting our province's growing mining industry, the Ministry of Advanced Education is contributing $2 million over the next two years to a reclamation and prospecting program at Northwest Community College in Terrace.

But the demand for skilled workers in energy, construction and related trades of forestry, mining, agriculture, engineering and technology goes well beyond B.C.'s borders. We will work with the other provinces and the federal government on a national action plan for skills development.

At home our Industry Training Authority is expanding its programs, trades training and apprenticeships by adding 7,000 new training spaces by 2010. New programs will be launched to encourage employers to renew their efforts and invest in skills training.

We believe in providing choice and opportunity for B.C. students. What better way to do this than by continuing to improve access to public post-secondary education through BCcampus and our world-class transfer system? BCcampus is a web-based gateway to on-line learning that offers one-stop access to on-line courses, programs and services at every public post-secondary institution in our province. It brings higher education to towns and villages across this province. It's also tailor-made for people who need to fit education into their lives, their families and their jobs. It's clearly meeting those needs.

The number of enrolments through BCcampus is six times what it was four years ago, topping 15,000 students today. It's a collaborative venture that builds on our existing on-line offerings. Through BCcampus students apply for admission at just one institution, and then they're able to take on-line courses and have access to the library at any institution offering the program in the public system. As a result, students in areas with small populations have access to greater choices in programs offered in our larger centres. Students facing wait-lists for courses in urban areas are able to enrol in courses offered at institutions where seats are available anywhere.

One of the reasons for the success of BCcampus is our internationally recognized transfer system. It allows students to combine credits earned at different post-secondary institutions and to transfer from one to another to complete their credentials. A student living in an area served by a community college can take the first two years of a degree program close to home. He or she can transfer to a university, a university college, a provincial institute or sometimes even another college where the courses are available to complete the degree.

This year we intend to improve our transfer system even further by allowing new transferability of credits for students attending accredited private post-secondary education institutions. By leading the way with a highly evolved transfer system, we have put a

huge range of educational options at the grasp of every post-secondary student in British Columbia.

We continue to increase the number and type of scholarships and internships available to the British Columbia post-secondary system. For students who are taking advantage of the transfer system to finish their degrees, we have a $15 million scholarship program. Applications are being accepted for the Irving K. Barber B.C. scholarship, which provides $5,000 for up to 150 students each year who must move within the public post-secondary system to achieve their bachelor's degrees.

We also have the Premier's Excellence Awards, which go to the top high school graduates in each of our 15 college regions who are staying in B.C. for their post-secondary education. A brand-new, $20 million scholarship fund will provide scholarships and internships to support the new and existing graduate spaces, and $10 million will create a four-year scholarship program for graduate students from our province's four research-intensive universities: the University of B.C., Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria and the University of Northern British Columbia. And $10 million for an internship program for B.C. graduate students administered at Simon Fraser University.

Meanwhile, we're continuing to keep higher education affordable for students because affordability is a piece of accessibility. This year tuition at all B.C. universities increased by 1.9 percent, far lower than the Canadian average of 3.2 percent. B.C.'s graduate fees increased even less, by 1.3 percent — less than the national average of 5.6 percent.

The majority of students graduating from post-secondary programs in B.C. report finishing with no debt. For those who do need to borrow, we have a comprehensive, flexible student assistance program now called student aid B.C, so that every student can choose to invest in their education. We also have a loan reduction program to help students most in need keep their debts down. In the first year nearly 28,000 students benefited from this program, and it had more than $67 million in B.C. student loans forgiven.

We want all British Columbians to be able to participate in the growth and prosperity of our province, and that includes aboriginal students. We're encouraged that more aboriginal students are going on to higher education. In fact, the number of aboriginal students involved in post-secondary education is up 13 percent since 2002. We want this participation to increase, so we will provide more than $15 million over the next two years to plan and implement aboriginal post-secondary enhancement plans for all institutions in collaboration with aboriginal communities to develop culturally enhanced programs and services.

But we will still have to work at all education levels. For instance, most of our post-secondary institutions are in urban areas, while aboriginal people make up a large percentage of the population in rural areas. So we're bringing education to rural and remote communities through BCcampus, regional college campuses and courses delivered right at the door of aboriginal communities.

We are also working to increase the number of aboriginal faculty and staff at post-secondary institutions. That way we'll improve the understanding of cultural differences, learning styles and needs, and give aboriginal students more role models. We've increased funding for special projects that help our institutions promote culturally sensitive education programs and to support activities for aboriginal learners.

Choice for everyone is one of our government's most basic tenets as we expand our post-secondary education system. Private post-secondary institutions, which have offered excellent programs in this province for 100 years, are part of providing that choice. Because private institutions operate at no cost to government, they allow us to maintain funding levels for public post-secondary systems. We expect them to offer quality comparable to other public counterparts in degree-level education.

Our Degree Authorization Act extends degree-granting privileges to private and out-of-province private institutions, but only after they undergo a thorough, rigorous review from the Degree Quality Assessment Board.

Under this government, British Columbia became the first province in Canada to have an independent board review new degree programs for both public and private institutions. New degrees must meet established criteria for standards before they are given the green light. To date, more than 100 new degrees from B.C. public and private and out-of-province institutions have been approved, giving students more educational choices. We're proud to be Canada's leader in applying common, quality assessment standards for degree programs at public and private institutions that will give our students greater access to quality education.

We're proud to be working with private training institutions to ensure that students preparing for careers will have excellent consumer protection as well as the option of choosing accredited schools for quality assurance. Private institutions offering career-training programs must register with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which administers a student-training completion fund that now has over $5 million in it. That fund provides consumer protection by offering students 100-percent compensation for their unearned tuition fees if that school closes unexpectedly.

Registered training institutes also have an option of undergoing accreditation. This assures students choosing those schools that they have the facilities needed for the programs offered and instructors with the right blend of education and experience. Our goal as government is to enhance — and I say that again: our goal as a government is to enhance — both the public and the private secondary education and training systems. We will continue to do that this year.

One of the barriers we are very serious about eliminating is low literacy levels that prevent some British Columbians from doing essential tasks of daily living. Most of us take for granted that we can fill out a job

application, balance our chequebook, read the instructions on medicine labels and understand children's report cards. But for some, these tasks are difficult, if not impossible.

The Ministry of Advanced Education has increased funding for community adult literacy programs around the province, and we're building an adult literacy strategy to complement the many other literacy initiatives moving forward as part of ReadNow B.C. This is an excellent opportunity to acknowledge the work done by the Select Standing Committee on Education, focusing on the specific challenges of literacy.

We have a top-notch post-secondary education system in British Columbia and the foundation for success in the future. We have a strong, vibrant research community. Both are critical drivers of the transformative change needed to achieve our government's Pacific leadership agenda.

Innovation is what the knowledge economy is all about, and ultimately what our future is all about. We're investing in new seats, new facilities, new approaches to make our system better, and we're already seeing results. Our researchers are opening doors to discoveries that will improve the quality of our lives in many ways to come.

R. Austin: I rise today to respond to the government's budget from yesterday, hopefully from a northern perspective, to see what the government's direction will mean for those of us that live in northwest B.C. I would like to begin by saying how honoured I am to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of those who live in Skeena.

I was interested to hear the Finance Minister yesterday refer to a time when people left this province to go and find jobs elsewhere in Canada, and how this is no longer the case. My immediate response would be to let her know that this is still very much the case, at least in northwest B.C.

In my riding, many families have had to temporarily split up and move to other parts of the province for employment, and in many cases move to Alberta. In fact, when I return to my riding each Friday, I'm accompanied by numerous workers who commute every ten days or so in and out of northern Alberta, taking their skills that were once used in the forestry sector but that are now being used in the oil and gas sector.

This booming economy has not included my riding, where many believe that the reduction in stumpage to assist in getting all of the bugwood out of the forests has resulted in an abandonment of other parts of the province that have historically been linked to the forestry sector.

Just last week in the throne speech we heard a great deal about how this government had finally recognised climate change as the huge threat that it is. Yet yesterday we were told that the money to start addressing this problem will be in next year's budget. If, indeed, this is a time-critical problem which we have delayed in addressing at both the federal level as well as the provincial level, then it strikes me as very odd that the planning for the throne speech and setting the priorities did not go hand in hand with the budgetary process.

Just three weeks ago we had flooding in Terrace as a result of what is called a severe weather event. In this case, it was 150 millimetres of rain in less than eight hours. I don't have to tell members of this House that severe weather events are happening with extreme frequency. Just yesterday the member for Vancouver-Burrard described the horrendous damage done to one of our jewels — the destruction of nearly 20 percent of the trees in Stanley Park.

On Monday morning I, along with the members of the Aquaculture Committee, met with people who harvest geoducks, many of whom have been doing this for over 30 years. They informed us that they used plastic netting at the bottom of the ocean to protect the juvenile geoducks from predation. Until this year they never had a problem with this netting being destroyed by storm movement under the ocean. But this year we saw several acres of netting showing up on beaches and creating an environmental hazard.

Along with the beetle destruction, those of us who live in the north have seen firsthand the extraordinary shift that is happening as a result of climate change, and I do not believe that this government is serious when they state that the planning has to take another year before putting resources into fighting it.

I also find it amazing that the Finance Minister has been able to find $1.2 million for office budgets for each minister but could not find $5 million to keep child care resource and referral centres open.

In last week's throne speech this question was posed by the Premier: what can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren? In Skeena people believe, and rightly so, that the first measure needed is a proper child care system — a comprehensive system so families can join the working economy safe in the knowledge that their children are looked after by professionally trained people who understand what early childhood development and learning means. These families don't want to be forced to leave their kids with an unlicensed day care facility whose notion of child care may be no more than putting the kids in front of a TV for several hours a day. Child care cannot just be about how many spaces are available, which is an issue in itself, but also about quality and affordability.

The economy of Terrace in particular has taken a dramatic shift in recent years with the downturn of the forest economy, and many of the jobs that now exist are either part-time, minimum wage or both. This leaves people struggling to afford child care, and not only are subsidies needed, but there have to be spaces available to use these subsidies.

In spite of the Minister of State for Childcare yesterday repeating ad nauseam that we never had such a high threshold for child care subsidy, it does not really matter, because there are no spaces available. Furthermore, many parents have difficulty in filling

out all the forms necessary to qualify for subsidy. Now that our CCRRs are all closing, there'll be no one to assist them in this task.

This government's unwillingness to use some of the surplus announced in yesterday's budget to make up for the Harper government's reneging on the comprehensive child care accord agreed to in the fall of 2005 is already having devastating effects in the north. We already had a shortage of child care spaces, and now even those are at risk, as they will have to increase their fees in an economy where people are struggling to survive.

I've heard many members on the government side quote the work of Clyde Hertzman and others on the human early learning project that what people want is action, not just kind words. I have read some of the earlier speeches of the current Minister of State for Childcare and seen her commitments to early education and quality child care. So I have to wonder what has happened in the intervening years since going into public life. It is ironic that while Dr. Hertzman's work is used all around the world as being cutting edge, we in B.C. are going backwards by not supporting quality early learning opportunities.

Yesterday, hon. Speaker, the minister was also very proud of raising the shelter portion of the welfare rate. In Skeena those on welfare do not want to be on welfare, as it's largely no more than a poverty trap. It is the cuts to programs in getting people off welfare that have been more devastating than the low rate of support that they get. People want job opportunities and the ability to overcome barriers to employment, not just to get a raise in welfare rates that keep people and their children in poverty.

It is no wonder that we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada at a time when we are in a so-called boom. This government has left many people behind, and yesterday's budget does little to assist them in being able to experience the economic success that they see in other parts of the province. The cost of housing is so expensive in this province that if one compared the new shelter rate with that of, say, Regina or St. John's, I'm sure that we are still far behind in assisting people to put a roof over their heads.

When tourists come from around the world in 2010 for the Olympics in this province, we will carry the shame of displaying two worlds: one where people live in relative comfort, and another where our citizens sit on the street and beg for alms. The building of more shelter beds is a band-aid solution to the problem rather than a solution to this problem, which the Finance Minister conceded yesterday is complex. The answer is also more complex and requires far more support for ordinary families so that they do not end up on the street or can deal with their addiction or mental illness in a way that does not reduce them to begging from passers-by.

I will now move on to some of the areas that the government highlighted in last week's throne speech, some of which were not mentioned in the budget directly. I noted this line in the throne speech: that school boards will be given the opportunity to open early learning spaces in underutilized schoolrooms.

As a former community schools coordinator, I welcome the notion that schools will be opened up for non-traditional uses, but I want to caution the government that having ECE programs in a school setting may be a great challenge. Every time that I have visited an early learning centre, I am always amazed at the noise level as the young kids explore their world, learning many things through a largely unstructured form of play. Schools, of course, have traditionally been places that do not condone a noisy atmosphere. The teaching methods used for K-to-3, the primary years, are very different from what we now know are required for early childhood development.

I'm interested to know more details on this program. For example, will StrongStart centres have ECE workers or teachers? Are the rules on conduct and the expectations placed on kids going to change for the preschoolers so that they can play and learn in an age-appropriate manner, or are they going to be lined up and asked to be quiet in the same manner that primary kids are treated as they begin to be socialized within the school system?

I think that efforts should be made to bring the community into our underutilized schools, using the community school model that has been proven very successful in other jurisdictions in Canada and indeed has proven successful in B.C. where it has been tried. For this, there needs to be support from school boards to realize that public schools are indeed publicly owned buildings. It is a great pity that they are not used outside of school hours, and all too often never on the weekends.

All kinds of programs could be run outside of school hours, which would connect kids and families to their neighbourhood school and which would make the school the centre of the community. This would greatly help families who are challenged with putting their kids into healthy activities outside of school. For kids who struggle academically, it would help them to see their school in a more positive light.

I want to return for a moment to the government's notion that our economy is booming. This was the theme of yesterday's budget and was reiterated in the throne speech as almost an assumption. I think that my favourite part of the throne speech provided by our Premier was: "Rural B.C. has record levels of employment and economic growth." Obviously, our Premier is not including northwest B.C. as part of his rural B.C. mindset. I would have to believe that being in Point Grey so long, he feels that rural B.C. maybe is, I don't know, Surrey.

With the undoing of the forestry act, the Liberals have undone the economy of Skeena. Every day that I'm in my hometown of Terrace, I get to drive by the lumber mill that was once a large part of the force of the town's economy and watch as it is torn down and sold for scrap piece by piece.

To make matters worse, when Skeena tries to diversify its economy, this government seeks to block our best

efforts — for example, pricing fish beyond many locals' ability and costs to go and use that resource, or privatizing our parks for those who have the money, rather than allowing little towns such as ours to support them.

The point is that Skeena has waited for six years for this government to stop promising that good times are ahead and start to do something about it. It is obvious from the complete audacity of such a false statement as I referenced earlier that indeed, good times are not ahead.

As this government spends hundreds of millions to improve the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, the entire road system in northern B.C. is begging for substantial upgrades so that Skeena can indeed become part of the gateway to the Pacific. Without substantial improvement and proactive engineering to deal with significant upgrades and usage and potential environmental impacts of global warming, the infrastructure here in northwest B.C. will not be able to capitalize on the Premier's good intentions.

This comes not only in the form of cost improvements, but also in making sure that stakeholders such as CN and B.C. Ferries are held accountable for the safety and reliability of their transportation as part of their link in the Pacific gateway that Skeena is part of. It has been shown over the last number of years that sweetheart deals between this government and CN Rail are not beneficial unless corporations are held accountable to the promises between them and the governments for improvements.

The lax regulation or poor training in regard to B.C. Ferries has resulted in a tragic accident last year that had not only human consequences but long-term economic consequences for the north. There were not only cutbacks on sailings in the more southern part of the service area when the Queen of the North sank, but everyone who used Highway 15 sure felt it. Is there a way to measure how many tourist opportunities were lost last year because of that accident?

These are some of the economic facts about Skeena, a large part of rural B.C., since 2001 when this government was elected. It's a disgrace to the communities of rural B.C. for the Premier to suggest that it is indeed booming.

It's a disgrace to the families of those who have for generations logged and fished and mined to see what has happened to their communities in the last six years — communities such as I represent in Terrace, Kitimat and Kitwanga. Each of these communities has had their population fall since this government was elected. This province was built on those resources so that B.C. could have the highest level of education and health in the country.

To see these rural communities struggle now and watch their best and brightest leave to other provinces is incongruous with statements such as our Premier has made. Since 2001 over 1,500 students have left the school system as a result of families having to leave the region to look for work. Those who have chosen to stay have seen schools closed and support for their children decreased across the board by this government's cutbacks. It is well known that the school system cannot produce the brightest and best without support, despite the best intentions of parents and teachers.

Another reason that families are leaving is lack of access to health care. Adequate health care services are part of the economic attraction of any region. As the average age of B.C. gets older, many families are relocating in order to take care of parents. Without senior care facilities, families that would choose to stay in communities are forced to leave. There was not a word in yesterday's budget for seniors or seniors housing.

Families are also looking for sufficient day care facilities to support them while they work. As part of that infrastructure, our referral and support services, known as The Family Place, was shut down this year. And of course, our school district is still on a four-day school week, a decision made under duress by our school board. It's not based on best outcomes for our kids but on how else to balance the budget when so many kids have left our district.

All of this has a huge economic impact, for it is hard to attract new investments when any new workers who would come with that investment don't want their children to have only four days of school. Where the best and brightest go, so does business.

Speaking of business, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the energy sector. The throne speech talks of pursuing B.C.'s "potential as a net exporter of clean, renewable energy." That is interesting, as the government currently uses B.C. Hydro advertisements to suggest that we are in a crisis and are desperately short of energy. In reality of course, as the recent BCUC decision so clearly pointed out, this province is not short of energy and uses our system of dams and reservoirs to import energy at night when it is cheap, and they export it during peak times at great profit for B.C. taxpayers.

I'm pleased to see that the Premier has effectively put an end to the proposed coal-burning electricity plants, as the technology that could sequester that level of carbon emissions has not been perfected as yet. It makes no sense, now that everyone has come on board, with the threat that climate change poses for us all.

This government says that it wants 90 percent of all new energy to come from clean energy sources. It already does. But that is a change from the current 2003 energy plan that called for only 50 percent of new energy to come from clean energy sources. This is indeed a welcome reversal of government policy. I have difficulty understanding just how emasculating B.C. Hydro's ability to generate new energy and replacing it with energy from IPPs serves the public interest.

In the case of the recent Hydro-Alcan deal, the BCUC also found that it was not in the public interest. I will speak more about that in a minute, but let's examine how a microhydro project works as an IPP.

In the '90s, B.C. Hydro did all the work to identify suitable rivers for microhydro projects, and after this

government came in, they asked for independent proposals to take advantage of those sites. An individual investor can apply and get the tenure for the use of a piece of a river and the water that flows by. It then signs an agreement with B.C. Hydro, again an arm of government, to purchase that power on a long-term energy agreement.

That company, with those two contracts in hand — one giving them a portion of a public resource and the other giving them the peace of mind that a publicly owned power company will buy that power — can now approach a bank and get the financing to build their project. Once the bank has paid back its cost of capital, along with the standard interest paid at commercial rates, the owners then profit from that cheap power forever.

I fail to see why this is in the public interest. If, after all, Hydro was to build the microhydro projects, it could borrow the money cheaper than any private company, and once that debt was paid off, the ensuing profits of years of cheap power would benefit all British Columbians. In other words, there's no possible way for the citizens of B.C. to recoup the monopoly rent that this public water represents.

In short, we are giving away our rivers — essentially, privatizing them — and at this point no one seems to be noticing or caring. I certainly am going to make it my business to shed a light on this, particularly after what I have learned fighting the recent sweetheart deal that was cooked up in the Premier's office between Alcan and B.C. Hydro.

This deal was the most egregious example of privatizing a public resource or trying to subsidize by stealth, expecting all ratepayers of B.C. to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to Alcan for the privilege of allowing them to make a healthy return for not building smelting capacity.

In Quebec we have seen a very different approach to subsidizing the aluminum industry. Firstly, there is the subsidy of cheap power created by cheap water rentals on Quebec rivers. Then there is a block of up to 180 megawatts of power available in case Alcan is short of power, at $40 a megawatt hour, not unlike the RESA in the '97 agreement. Then, there was a straight-up fat cheque of over $500 million from the citizens of Quebec to ensure that Alcan would use all of its water resources to smelt aluminum and create jobs in la belle province.

What a contrast that is to this government's approach, which actually rewards Alcan for not building smelting capacity and gives an opportunity for Alcan to make far more money when it switches off aluminum production in favour of power sales. This stinky deal was deconstructed by the B.C. Utilities Commission and turned down flat for not being in the public interest.

If this government is setting up a deal that is not in the public interest, then that begs the question: just whose interest was this in? Either this was sheer incompetence on the part of the government or something worse.

Now there is talk of renegotiating the LTEPA Plus contract. But this is not necessary, as there is already an agreement in place from 1997 that was passed by both sides of this House. I ask the government to simply enforce that agreement and make Alcan live up to its obligations and build the large smelter that is part of that contract.

The mistake that this government made was giving the option for Alcan to be an IPP rather than remain only as an aluminum manufacturer. I don't know many companies that, given the option of making a 1,000-percent profit or more, would choose to make aluminum at perhaps 30-percent to 35-percent profit, depending on market conditions.

The fight that is going on in northwest B.C. is not just a Kitimat fight, but rather a provincial fight, as it relates to the privatization of a public resource. If Alcan can sell our river back to us at over 1,000 percent, then so will Teck Cominco in Trail, because why make the paltry profit margin smelting zinc when one can become an IPP and make windfall profits?

My last point that I want to make about the privatization of our rivers is this: how much revenue will be lost to British Columbians by not capturing the monopoly rents on our rivers? How many hospital beds and operations will never be funded? How many kids will not get to go to college or university? And how long will it take for government to fund a provincial child care program? These millions of dollars that have been given away to IPP investors are the very future of our ability to fund our social welfare programs.

The only solution to this economic giveaway is to take all public rivers and put these contracts under the auspices of the B.C. Utilities Commission so that once the IPPs have received a fair rate of return on their borrowed money, then the water rental is jacked up to reflect market rates so that all citizens benefit from this gift that we have been given — our incredible rivers and the water that flows through them.

Finally, I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing health care and the government's dire warning that we cannot afford to maintain it. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that through better education, both at the school level and through public awareness programs, we can encourage our citizens to take more responsibility for ensuring our own long-term health outcomes.

One only needs to look at the impact that becoming the Minister for State for ActNow B.C. has had on the member for Surrey–White Rock. It was only a few months ago that he and I were pushing a bus that got stuck in New Hazelton while taking the Aquaculture Committee to Kitwanga, and now he looks like he's preparing for the Vancouver Sun Run.

We need to encourage all citizens to make lifestyle choices to improve their overall health. But public health care policy cannot only rely on this, for many illnesses come about for a variety of factors, not least of which is our own genetic makeup, something upon which we have no control. It is for this reason that public medicare was created: essentially as a gigantic insurance scheme that ensures peace of mind for all families so that if illness occurs, they are not alone in dealing with it and will not face financial ruin.

There is a public benefit to having this system, one which even the business community acknowledges helps them in keeping their costs down. We only need to look across the border to the south and see how business struggles to pay private medical insurance to know that we have a good thing going. Even if B.C.'s economic growth rate averaged 4 percent a year — well below historical norms — the additional cost of maintaining current services would be small.

For those of us who live in rural B.C., the challenge is to get access at prices that are indeed affordable. This means using telemedicine more so that physicians can use expertise from afar without having to make patients pay for many out-of-pocket expenses to fly south.

It also means having sufficient services located throughout B.C. so that we do not have worse health care outcomes than those who live in the lower mainland. All of us pay the same taxes, so we must deliver comparable services as much as possible. When it is not economical, we must not place the burden on individual citizens to get themselves to a hospital that has specialist care.

Last week I along with many members of the House, including the Minister of Health, attended a breakfast meeting put on by the Heart and Stroke Foundation. We all heard the remarkable story from a 29-year-old woman who was an athlete in the prime of her life being hit by a devastating stroke. I left that meeting thinking: what would have happened to her had she been struck while running on Highway 16 in Terrace? Her analysis would suggest that she would not be alive today to tell us the tale.

We have lots of work ahead to ensure that we maintain a viable, publicly funded health care system, but telling people that it is not affordable just leads to the undermining of that system and, in my view, is preparation for it to be privatized. If one adds the margin of profit needed for any company to enter the health care field, then that simply adds an extra cost to the system. In any case, as the Minister of Health constantly tells us, there are only so many health care professionals to do the work, irrespective of who they work for.

I look forward to hearing what my constituents have to say about health care in an upcoming forum that I am facilitating in Terrace this Saturday, and I will report back to the government all of their ideas so that they can be a part of the Conversation on Health.

Lastly, I would like to make a few comments regarding the vast infrastructure projects that are currently being completed or are planned for the future. Yesterday's budget was not popular with many in the business community who worry about increasing our provincial debt even while we are running a current account surplus.

I note that almost every day there's an article speaking to the overheated construction sector in the lower mainland. If it is not that, then there are complaints about the high cost of housing and the lack of land available for affordable housing, or pollution issues and people spending hours in their cars to get to work. And yet the Liberal government's response is to build more capacity in the lower mainland for ports, for roads and for bridges.

As I see it, the solution is to tarmac more land with roads that would soon fill up with cars. Never mind what this will do to the Premier's plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent by 2020. We can expand the Deltaport on that land that is used for growing food, in large part, and hope that all this economic activity will improve the quality of life for those living in the lower mainland.

Meanwhile, we have a port in the northwest — Prince Rupert — that is supposedly poised for expansion. This port is one day closer to China than a lower mainland port and one day closer to Chicago by rail than the lower mainland. And it is in an area which needs economic investment. Surely, changing priorities and expanding northwest B.C.'s economy would not only help us up north but would simultaneously solve many of the lower mainland's problems.

I hope that as the debate evolves around these quality-of-life issues, other parts of the province can play a more prominent role. I have to say that there appears to be little or no strategy, certainly for my rural area of this province.

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.