Hansard — Thursday, February 22, 2007 a.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		5459

Budget Debate (continued)		5459
	D. MacKay
	M. Sather
	R. Hawes
	C. Trevena

Hon. M. Coell: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Fred Peet, who is here today to speak to me about cancer care. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. MacKay: I'm certainly pleased to be able to stand in the chamber today, in my second term, after being elected by the people of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. They put their trust in me in 2001, and again in 2005, to represent the many and diverse constituents who reside in that large riding in the northwestern part of our province.

Just to give you some idea how big Bulkley Valley–Stikine is, Mr. Speaker, it's approximately 220,000 square kilometres. It represents almost one-quarter of British Columbia. It's a large geographic part of our province with a very small population but a very great population.

The people are very entrepreneurial. They earn livings in a variety of ways — from mining, forestry, agriculture, fishing, hunting. You name it; they do it. It's just a great bunch of people up there.

When I travel around the province to visit my constituents, it takes me approximately two weeks just to visit the northern part of the riding. I travel with my truck and camper, because there are not a lot of motels or restaurants in that part of the province.

What's even missing up there on occasion is power lines. There is no power up there, so they have to generate power in those little communities through diesel generation.

Highway 37 is 750 kilometres of highway that borders and meets up with the Yukon. It's a great part of this province. I never get an opportunity to introduce people from that part of the province because it's so far from here. I should also mention that it is such a beautiful part of this province that people don't want to leave and come down to Victoria.

I'm certainly here and pleased to be able to represent Bulkley Valley–Stikine in my second term and to stand up today and speak about the budget speech that was introduced a short two days ago. I am pleased to be following the member for Skeena, who spoke in the last sitting, which was yesterday. I am pleased to follow him, because my riding — where I live, in Smithers — happens to border the Skeena riding, where the member for Skeena resides, in Terrace. The two communities that he represents are Terrace and Kitimat.

I'm going to speak about the throne and budget speech, and I think you'll understand why I am pleased to be following that member as I get into my comments. As I said, the throne speech was delivered on Tuesday, the 13th of February, and is filled with great news. With that great news comes many challenges.

I heard from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, from the opposite side of this House, that he was disappointed that the emission standards highlighted in the throne speech do not come into effect until 2009. In a province as progressive as this province is today — and has been since 2001, when we were first elected — under the leadership of our Premier and under the guidance of the rest of the members from the B.C. Liberal caucus…. I guess the NDP don't understand that you can't turn down gas emissions overnight with the flick of a switch, so 2009 is when we're going to start seeing some of the results of the vision that this government has.

The NDP have dared us to have a vision. I should remind everybody in this chamber that the very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision, and that vision is very evident in this government and under the leadership of our Premier. The fact that we have set target dates for emission standards should tell the people of our province that we are serious about global warming, and we are going to act to achieve the results that we have established.

I have to ask myself: what did the NDP do in the 1990s? In fairness, a lot of the members that are on the opposite side of this chamber today were not here in the '90s, but some of them were. So some of them have to bear some of this responsibility. But what did they do in the 1990s to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? That's a really good question. I'm going to spend a few minutes and talk about what they did.

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by 24 percent from 1991 to 2001. That's under the guidance and leadership of the NDP, or lack of leadership under the NDP. They tried to pave Burns Bog, which is the largest carbon sink in the lower mainland. They wanted to pave it. They weren't concerned about greenhouse gas emissions at the time.

They failed to oppose the SE2 project, which would have had a large negative impact on the airshed in the lower mainland. They failed to produce a single megawatt of power from the wind. They attempted to build the Kemano 2 project, but that had to be cancelled because it was going to destroy fish habitat.

As a result of the 1990s British Columbia became a net importer of energy from the United States and Alberta, and that energy is primarily produced from coal-fired generation. Between 1996 and 2001 the NDP more than tripled B.C. Hydro's greenhouse gas emissions from electricity.

Hydroelectric power is clean, and it's non-polluting green energy. The NDP voted against the living rivers trust fund, not once but twice. They opposed it when the fund was increased to $21 million. They voted

against exempting hybrid vehicles from PST. They voted against PST relief on alternate-fuel vehicles.

Do the NDP have any idea how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Well, if you listen to the member for Nelson-Creston…. This is a quote from a letter that he sent to a constituent on August 29, 2006: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications for socialist principles." I guess that answers the question.

Another quote from an NDP MLA in Hansard dated April 5, 2006: "I will say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late 1990s, was not good on climate change."

It's interesting when you go back to the 1990s. I don't think the NDP realized it at the time, but they actually were concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, and I'll tell you why I believe that. It was an unintended consequence of what the NDP did to the economy of the province in the 1990s. They took us from first place….

British Columbia was looked to by all the other provinces in Canada, as an example of what is happening in our province, and they took that province in the 1990s from first place to dead last. They shut down business. They chased business out of our province. People left.

When that happened, business shut down. There were fewer people travelling on our highways. Greenhouse gas emissions reduced because there was nobody…. Very few people continued to see any employment opportunities in this province.

An unintended consequence of what happened in the 1990s was that the NDP actually, no credit to them, started on…. They weren't concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, but they did actually do something for the climate.

Now they stand here a year later and badmouth a government with an action plan to reduce greenhouse gases, which has received praise from such people as the University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, stating: "It is the most progressive plan that I've ever seen anywhere in North America for a start, and one of the best in the world."

He also went on to say that none of the goals set by our government are out of reach. Even David Suzuki applauded the Premier for his approach to climate change.

I have read numerous comments from other people, and with one exception, they have all been very positive. The one exception, of course, is the NDP. I can't understand why they can't see the bold steps taken by our government to improve climate change as a positive step for all of us who live in this great province and others around this country and the world. Then again, I don't think I've ever heard them say anything positive about our government to date.

I encourage the NDP opposition members to join us when the vote is called on the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech, and vote in support of the brave and bold steps that this province is taking to make this a better place to live.

One of the issues that I have in Bulkley Valley–Stikine has been coalbed methane exploration. There was an announcement that followed the throne speech, and water that will be or might be produced from coalbed methane extraction must be reinjected back in the ground. There is no option. You can no longer discharge water onto the surface or into the atmosphere.

We have a large number of people in the area that I represent who were opposed to CBM. Beehive burners will be eliminated in the province. We have seen the beehive burners close in Houston at Canfor and the Smithers West Fraser mill and have seen an improvement in the air quality.

Coalbed methane gas is a clean alternative fuel source, and we as a government have a responsibility to ensure that future generations are looked after through clean energy. Our government has listened to the concerns from people around the province and has announced the most environmentally responsible guidelines in North America for CBM.

In addition, the steps required to fully engage local communities and aboriginal communities in all stages of development and to use the most advanced technology and practices that are commercially viable to minimize the aesthetic disturbances….

They will now be required to reinject produced water well below the domestic water aquifers. Surface discharge of water will not be permitted. Actually, 44 wells for CBM were drilled under the previous government. Some produced water.

Since 2001, under our leadership, there have been other wells drilled, but not one of those wells has produced any water. Presently there are 134 well holes in the province of B.C., and there are no commercial producing coalbed methane gas wells in our province.

There's also mention in the throne speech about legislation being developed to phase in new requirements for methane gas capture at our landfills, which is the source of 9 percent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions. That methane gas can and should be used for clean energy. That's a remarkable volume of gas that is being released into the atmosphere from our old landfill sites.

Also from the throne speech, we talked about new electricity energy, and any new electricity generation produced in our province as of February 14, 2007, must have zero net greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me speak about the budget that was introduced into this chamber just a couple of short days ago. The member for Skeena spoke about the families who have had to move to other parts of the province for employment. He then spoke about the booming economy that has not been included in his part of the province. He then spoke about the fact that moneys to address — eliminate — change will be in next year's budget. He was disappointed about that. I've already addressed that. You have to have a vision. You have to have leadership.

He spoke about the CCRRs being closed, not just his, but all of the CCRRs around the province, and that there will be none there to assist families to fill out the forms needed. That's hogwash. All the CCRRs are not being closed. Some of the funding to CCRRs is being

reduced because of the pullback from the federal government's revenue stream. But child care spaces are being protected and funded by our government. They are being protected.

He also made the comment that he thinks efforts should be made to bring the community into our underutilized schools. In that comment he says that he'd like to see the community using the underutilized schools. Well, there's a comment in the 2007 throne speech that says that quite clearly. It says: "Your government pledged to use underutilized school spaces as public spaces to deliver on public priorities." Obviously, he hasn't read or he didn't listen to the throne speech when it was introduced in the House.

A strong economy is the enemy of the socialist way of thinking. I should remind the member for Skeena that without a strong economy this province would not be able to look after those less fortunate and the people that he claims to represent.

If you recall, he spoke of families having to move to other parts of the province for employment. He said the booming economy was not included in his riding. I have to ask: where has this member been? I do know that he has not been in his riding, as I've been invited there several times to meet with people involved in the business of creating jobs and — get ready for it — the dirty word "profits."

Kitimat has been decided upon as a port community for several pipelines, the Kitimat break-bulk port facility and, of course, the now on-hold $2 billion expansion of the Alcan smelter — $2 billion to rebuild the smelter, reduce emissions and create stable employment for a workforce of 1,000 people. That's in Kitimat. That's in his riding. That's the riding he represents, and he says it's not up in his part of the province yet.

Of course, just a little bit west of him is the Port of Prince Rupert with the containerization facilities that are being built there now. The cranes are on order. The port is actually taking shape.

Of course, I used that word "profit," and that is disturbing to socialism. I'd like to quote from the newspaper article from the Terrace Northwest Weekly, and I want you to listen to this very carefully. Maybe this will explain one of the reasons why the business community is somewhat frightened of going into the riding of Skeena. "I don't think for one second that I'm here to start business making profits, because I hate profits" — coming from the member for Skeena. What a statement to make. What a comment.

Does he not realize that even a one- or two-man logging operation requires a profit to be made at the end of the day, or you're not going to be in business? That's exactly what made Terrace what it is today — the small logging industry, the small one- and two-man operations, the small sawmills. If they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't have been there. Terrace is a vibrant community today, thanks to all those small sawmillers who did actually make a profit, or they wouldn't have been there.

Another quote from the Terrace Standard dated August 3, 2005, suggests…. This is coming from the member for Skeena. He says that if the constituents of his neighbourhood riding find that the MLA isn't listening to their business, then they should give him a try. I'm assuming he was talking about the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, because the riding west of him is the riding of North Coast, which is also an NDP riding. But the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine is held by me, a B.C. Liberal. He said that if the people weren't listening to him, maybe they could try him, and he would look after them.

I already have the largest riding in British Columbia. Let me tell you what happened as a result of those comments that he made. The people who were involved in business in the riding of Skeena started phoning my office. They've added to my workload, and I'm proud to be able to represent the people from Skeena that are involved in the business of creating jobs, creating employment opportunities and creating profit to spend on the socialist ideas of the NDP government.

I'd like to spend a couple of minutes now and talk about my favourite industry, and that, of course, is mining. Mining is big in the province; $265 million was spent on exploration in the year 2006 throughout the province. That's an 800-percent increase from 2001. Almost one-half of that money, the $265 million, was spent in the northwest part of our province, in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Our province is blessed with great geological information, and we're rich in minerals and oil and gas.

Included in the speech is mention of amendments to be introduced this session to enhance mineral exploration and also to afford private property owners new rights of notice before any person can enter their land for mineral exploration. The result of all that exploration is not unique to the northwest part of our province. It's unique to the rest of the province. We have jobs looking for people. We are lacking in human resources. We're lacking in people who are qualified to work with the people who are out there doing exploration and looking for new mines.

What did we do in the northwest part of our province? We've got aboriginal communities that are in the areas where these mining properties are located or where exploration has taken place. So Northwest Community College, in concert with the Smithers Exploration Group, started to look at ways we can achieve the goal of finding qualified people to work in the exploration area. Now it's a rather unique situation because Northwest Community College has a campus in Smithers and there's one in Hazelton. The one at Dease Lake, which is an area that I represent, is a Northern Lights College.

Northwest Community College and the Smithers Exploration Group looked at what was missing in the area of human resources that could help the mining exploration people. So they came up with a program through the college, funded by the province, to actually train people in those skill shortage areas that were out there.

Now that in itself was a big chore, and it had to be done very quickly. But it is a rather unique situation where the people who have to attend these courses don't have to come to Smithers to take the training. This is a mobile training facility with trucks that actually take the training camps to the communities where the people are that need the training and want the training.

I can tell you that in every case the programs have been oversubscribed. It's been a great success. The people actually live in camps that are set up, which are part of the training program — the camp setups. The cooks are taught there, and the actual classroom session takes place out in the bush in these mobile camps. It's been a great success.

It was such a big success that during the Cordilleran Roundup in Vancouver in the latter part of January, the Smithers Exploration Group and the Northwest Community College had a booth set up, explaining what they had done to train people that were needed because of the skill shortages. I happened to work in the booth one afternoon, and I was absolutely amazed at the interest in what has taken place through the Northwest College school of exploration and mining. People from around Canada and from around the world were at that booth seeking information so they could copy or ask for some guidance on how to set up similar programs in other parts of our country.

That was a great success. That program is funded by the provincial government, and the federal government has now got on board, as well, and is helping support that training program.

To be able to do what our province has done and has achieved since becoming government required vision, commitment and a lot of hard work. The vision required our government to look to the future and dream of what the future could look like with the right government.

Remember the tax cuts that were one of the first things that we did back in 2001 and all the naysayers out there that said: "This will never work. You're taking money from us. They won't do anything to spur the economy"? Well, I think that within a very short period of time we saw what happened when you reduce taxes for working people and make the province a great place to want to invest dollars.

We got rid of red tape, and that brought in more business than we had envisioned. Today there's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 billion worth of projects announced or underway in our province — $100 billion worth of projects. That's a staggering number of projects.

Of course, there's the problem of finding skilled workers. We're seeing a migration of people back to British Columbia that left years ago, in the '90s. They're coming back because there are employment opportunities here.

Our province, since 2001, has gone from being the poorest-performing economy to the best — within a period of five years. Since we became government, 350,000 new jobs have been created in this province.

D. MacKay: Some 350,000 new jobs have been created in this province since we became government. That is a remarkable feat. There are roughly two million people working in our province today, and we have created 350,000 of those new jobs since we became government six years ago.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, profits. Profits are there. We've reduced taxes. We got rid of a number of taxes and got rid of a lot of red tape to attract business back here and create some of those employment opportunities — the 350,000. That's what happens when you have a vision and can look to the future and dream of what a province can be — what it can be for ourselves and what it can be for the next generation that follows.

I look at my own family in Smithers. I look at my grandchildren growing up, and I think: my goodness, as long as this province stays under the guidance of the B.C. Liberals, this is going to be a wonderful place for my family to grow up and to raise their families.

One of the other highlights in the budget speech for me was an unprepared-for, I'm sure, 10-percent reduction in income tax. That's another 10 percent, on top of the 25 percent that we gave the hard-working people of this province in 2001. That's a 35-percent reduction in personal income tax.

Actually, British Columbia now has the lowest income tax anywhere in Canada for those earning up to $108,000. Is it any wonder that people are flocking back to British Columbia seeking employment opportunities? And the employment opportunities are certainly here.

I'm just going to give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. For those that may be watching, I'd like to bring to their attention what happened with tax reductions. For those of you making under $15,000 — in 2001 you were paying provincial income tax. After we were elected, you were eliminated. No longer did you have to pay provincial income tax. If in 2001 you were making $80,000, before we introduced our 25-percent tax reduction, you were paying $7,800 a year in provincial income tax. After the last 10-percent reduction that was just announced by the Finance Minister during the budget speech a couple of days ago, you are now paying 34 percent less dollars in provincial income tax. You're actually saving $5,210.

That 10-percent reduction has had a remarkable impact and will have a remarkable impact on people's decisions on how to spend their money. We're leaving that money in their pocket, and I think that's great news for them.

Mr. Speaker, also in the budget was another $885 million to be directed to health care. I shouldn't remind you — but I'm going to — of the fact that since 2001 and the last budget, we have increased health care funding by 50 percent. We now spend approximately 43 cents out of every dollar that the province collects on health care.

Is it enough? Will it ever be enough? I don't know, but we do have to look at better ways to make sure that we look after our people with good health care, qualified health care and trained people. The province is

training more doctors and nurses today just to be able to meet the demands of our aging population.

I notice that my time is coming to a close here. So I would encourage the members opposite to vote with us on the throne speech and the budget speech. There's a lot of good news in there. How can they not vote for tax reduction? How can they not vote for greenhouse gas reduction? How can they not vote for those things? But knowing the socialist philosophy, they probably will. Or some of them may actually have the courage to stand up and vote their conscience and on behalf of their constituents.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to get up and respond today to the budget speech. The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has been talking a bit about the climate change issue. Unfortunately, the Finance Minister made it pretty clear that there isn't going to be any money anytime soon for that plan.

But, nonetheless, apparently, to quote Vaughn Palmer: "The Premier has found religion on climate change." You've got to realize this is the same man that just a few short years ago was shoulder to shoulder with Ralph Klein in Alberta in turning his back on the Kyoto agreement. Shameful, Mr. Speaker — turning his back on it, saying: "We can't afford to fight greenhouse gases. We can't afford to deal with climate change. It's going to ruin the economy." "It's going to ruin the economy," he said. So over these last number of years since this government has been elected, they did virtually nothing about climate change.

Now, the idea that fighting global warming is going to ruin the economy is not supported by everyone. For example, Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, doesn't agree. He's encouraging governments to take aggressive action to fight global warming.

I'm hoping that this government is actually sincere in their words, but I have to say, I have my doubts. Certainly, it's been a recent conversion for the Premier and for this government. Until very recently he and the Minister of Environment were defending two coal-fired thermal electricity plants — one in Princeton and the other one up in the north, in Tumbler Ridge.

Those plants would have been the equivalent of putting 300 to 400 additional cars on the road every year for the next 30 years. That was a good plan, and that's very recently. That's not long ago, not long ago at all.

Can we actually have faith in the Premier's recent conversion that he's going to fight climate change, that he's going to fight global warming? Well, if we look at the promises of this Premier over the last few years and the promises in the budget, it's hard to have much faith in it.

Remember a couple of years ago it was the seniors' budget. This government was going to do all these wonderful things for seniors. They were going to build 5,000 long-term care beds for seniors. Didn't do it, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what they have been doing is putting seniors homes out of business so they could have assisted-living, private facilities. We're seeing the chaos in our health care system as a result of the decisions of this government around seniors.

Then last year it was going to be a children's budget. They were going to do a lot of stuff for children. Well, two years in a row now this province is running dead last, worst in childhood poverty. That's no kind of record. That's nothing to give us any kind of faith that the promises of this government are going to bear any fruit — no faith at all.

Less than a month ago the Minister of Environment said that he really had no plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so I have to guess that he, too, is a pretty recent convert to the idea of reducing greenhouse gases.

It's pretty clear that the Premier has cobbled this together very recently. It shows in many ways. I mean, right after the throne speech he was on The Bill Good Show, and he started talking away. Mr. Good asked him: "What about coalbed methane? He said: "Oh yes, coalbed methane. We're going to deal with that. We'll make sure that there are no emissions. We'll make sure that we take care of the water problems." The only problem is that his staff knew nothing about it.

You have to be a little bit sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the Liberal communications team. They didn't know anything about it. "Oh my God, what's he saying now?" So they had to quickly cobble together a press release to say: "Oh no, he really meant it to be in the throne speech. It was just an oversight." Just an oversight, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Environment is having some severe memory lapses. I listened to his speech last week. It's a common problem with him and his colleagues. He talked about the Premier and the balancing of budgets. This visionary thing that he talked about is certainly not the facts, and I think he knows it.

Revisionary is a better term than visionary. The fact of the matter is, when this government came into power, they inherited two balanced budgets. The fact of the matter is that this government proceeded to produce the two largest deficits ever in this province. That's not visionary. Then they finally got around to balancing the budget.

The Minister of Environment also talked about what a strong leader the Premier was. He still thinks so. The Premier, when he came to my town of Maple Ridge during the election, held an event. It was a Liberal-only invitee…. Nobody knew about it except invited Liberals.

In fact, in the run-up to the election, whenever he came to Maple Ridge, nobody knew about it until he'd left. I mean, even when he came to my municipality recently to make an announcement over the Pitt River Bridge, it was a Liberal-only invitee event. That's not strong leadership; that's cowardice.

The Minister of Environment has got a problem on his hands. He's the one that's going to be responsible for trying to implement the Premier's plans on global warming. It's a cultural problem that he has got, because he's inheriting the culture of this government around the environment.

Let's have a look at that culture. Let's have a look at the B.C. energy plan. The B.C. energy plan says that it will hold energy producers accountable for their actions. That's what it says. Then it goes on to talk about how in fact it would do that. This language runs through all kinds of Liberal talk about the environment.

Let's look at some of the language that it uses. On environmental protection, the plan says that we must ensure that regulations are not overly prescriptive. That's the code that this government uses for taking away real, enforceable rules. That's what they've done.

Another favourite of this Premier and this government is to say that their rules are science-based. More code. What science-based really means is that you go to a developer or an energy company and say: "You get a consultant. You tell us what the rules are, and then that's what we'll go with." Real science, that is. I mean, it's an antithesis of science. It should be an embarrassment to this government that they talk about science.

When they talk about "science-based" in terms of their government, it should be absolutely embarrassing for them. But that's the way that this government does it. When they're doing one thing — i.e., putting the boots to the environment — they use words just the opposite to praise themselves. They've the best environmental record in this universe and so on and so forth. They're all about platitudes and nothing about substance, when it comes to the environment. So how can we have any faith that this government is going to do anything about climate change?

Another favourite of the Minister of Environment and this government is that their regulations should be results-based. That's more code. What they really mean is: take away the watchdogs, weaken the rules, then tell the industry to self-report on how they're doing. That's the proverbial fox in the henhouse. What kind of faith can anyone have in that? I certainly have none. We have none.

This is the background that the Minister of Environment is going to have to deal with in trying to address global warming — if, in fact, we're assuming that the government is actually sincere about it. I suspect that the Minister of Environment is having a lot of sleepless nights over this. He made a very aggressive speech last week, but I guess that's what you have to do when you're up against the wall. You're feeling desperate. You've got to fight back. You've got to attack.

That's what the Minister of Environment tried to do last week, but he is surely going to be up against it to try to pull the rabbit out of the hat on the climate change file. I expect that the Minister of Environment is internally wincing. We'll be watching to see those crow's feet gather around his eyes. It's going to be that difficult for him.

Another thing the Minister of Environment said last week that was very interesting to me — rather astounding, actually — was: "What is it about that opposition that they aren't all over supporting the independent power producers, the run-of-the-river programs?" He mentioned in particular the Ashlu river project by Ledcor.

Now, that is a very interesting choice for the minister to make, because that, of course, is the project where this government came in heavy-handedly and said to the Squamish-Lillooet regional district: "You have no more say over the run-of-the-river projects in your area." In fact, no local government in this province has any say anymore because of this government's heavy-handed approach.

Now, it's not surprising, I suppose, that the minister would jump to the defence of Ledcor, given that they contributed $58,000 to the B.C. Liberals. I suppose they had a few debts to pay off there. But local governments across this province are outraged. The UBCM voted virtually unanimously opposed to the government legislation that disallows them from having any say over the run-of-the-river projects.

You know, the other thing, of course, that's scandalous about this is that the government does not allow B.C. Hydro, the Crown agency for the public, to have any capacity to develop new energy projects. They said: "You're out, and private sector only is in."

M. Sather: Well, it's a very peculiar thing that this government is so keen on the private sector, but hey, if you look at the profits they're getting there, it's understandable, I suppose. They have long-term, secured index deals — 87 bucks a megawatt hour. The going rate at the border is going to be about 50 bucks. So hey, it's a good deal for them. It's an excellent deal for them.

These are the capitalist giveaway ripoff principles of the Minister of Environment and this government. That's what they are — capitalist giveaway ripoff principles.

There are a number of areas where the plans of this Premier and this government are way out of sync with the goal of tackling global warming — completely out of sync. Let's look, for example, at the Gateway program. That's a real favourite of the Minister of Transportation and the Premier. The Premier says that the Gateway program will reduce greenhouse gases. That is absolutely absurd.

Notwithstanding that the Ministry of Transportation did a report…. Yes, they talk about idling cars and how we're not going to have any more idling cars, so that's going to reduce greenhouse gases. The fact is, though, that the report forgot some important factors. They forgot to factor in urban sprawl that's brought on by this program. Urban sprawl is completely going to

Absolutely preposterous. So the minister has got a real problem. This government has got a real problem. How do they rationalize the Gateway program with the goal of reducing greenhouse gases? Like I said, it's going to be a challenge for the minister to pull that rabbit out of the hat.

Transit virtually is bottom of the list when it comes to this government's transportation planning. The Gateway program is not about transit at all, and as a result, we're finding that transit in my area, the line from Coquitlam Centre to Lougheed Mall, is in jeopardy. It's in jeopardy because of the lack of emphasis that this government has put on transit.

How about offshore oil and gas? Is this government still in favour of offshore oil and gas? I don't hear anything.

M. Sather: One member is. Maybe the minister of mines might be. That's a problem. That's a definite problem, because this government has been advocating and pushing offshore oil and gas. How does that tie in with controlling greenhouse gases? How does it? It doesn't.

This government, and this minister, has got a real problem, so if he's sleeping well so far, I don't think he's going to be for very much longer, because what he's going on is a wish and a prayer, a hope and a prayer that this thing is going to work.

Another one that's completely out of sync with this government's so-called plan around climate change is the agricultural land reserve. The agricultural land reserve is the single best tool we have to control urban sprawl.

Where is this government's commitment to the ALR? When TransLink mowed down a farm in my community, the Minister of Transportation had nothing to say about it — zero. Now they're planning another road through Formosa Nursery, and I wonder if the Minister of Transportation is going to stand up and say anything about that. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is going to stand up and speak for agriculture in my community.

What are the messages that this government is sending out about the ALR? Industrial expansion, residential sprawl. This is at complete odds with dealing with climate change.

I want to talk about another area of complete and abysmal failure by this government, and that's the issue of child care. If we look at this government's history with child care, it's not a pretty picture.

In 2002 this government slashed the child care budget by $42 million, and this money has never been replaced. This government axed Child Care B.C. as one of its first acts in 2001, eliminating the before- and after-school care program that was already up and running.

This government cut subsidies and lowered thresholds, resulting in thousands of B.C. children being pulled from licensed care and the closure of many day care centres. The government eliminated the requirement that operating funds be used to keep fees affordable and wages adequate, resulting in increased day care fees and stagnant or lower wages to providers.

Last year, as I mentioned, this government said they were putting a renewed emphasis on children. However, in the fall of 2005 the Premier signed the early learning and child care program with then Prime Minister Paul Martin. This program would have brought $633 million to British Columbia. The Premier said at that time that this program was a "critical step in achieving our goal of providing the best systems of support for British Columbians in need."

But when this program was cancelled by the Harper government, this Premier said nothing. He came nowhere to the defence of children and their parents in this province.

In March of last year the Ministry of Children and Family Development asked the local child care resource and referral centre in my community to move to a more visible and larger space and to get big signage, which they did. They're out on the Lougheed Highway.

Upon the advice of the ministry, they increased their staff from two to five. The centre increased their lending materials and toys. They developed a catalogue of services free to providers. They created curriculum training materials, and this has been a particular boon to smaller providers who cannot afford all the equipment they need.

Our CCRR was given all the subsidy referrals formerly handled by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. Federal and provincial funding has been cut from child care, and by October of this year our CCRR will be gone unless this government changes its disastrous decision.

My CCRR has lease and staff financial obligations that they will have to honour, which the government is going to pay for. This is shocking mismanagement of funds by this government. Shocking.

I would like to read a letter from one of the parents and providers in my community. This is to the minister responsible for child care. She wrote:

There is truly hardship that is happening as a result of this government's decisions around child care, and it's sad that they won't admit that. I was quite shocked that the government has done this. It seems to me incredibly bad politics, besides everything else. One has to really wonder why they would do that.

My conclusion is that they do not support day care. The Premier does not support day care, as has been shown by the placement of early learning resources into the Education Ministry and away from Childcare. How are we supposed to meet our labour shortages if we don't give parents, women in particular, the tools they need to be active in the workforce? The Coalition of Child Care Advocates B.C. has called for the resignation of the Minister of State for Childcare, and one can understand why they've done so.

This government wants to throw away a system that provides screening for licence-not-required child care providers, such as criminal-record checks and character references. What does the government propose to replace this program with? Go to the government agent's office or the motor vehicles office or look it up on the Internet? That's just not good enough.

This has been an incredibly shortsighted decision by this government and this minister, and I can only hope that they will come to their senses and restore the resources of our vital child care program.

R. Hawes: Well, that was quite a diatribe we've just heard from the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Interesting. Usually, when we have speakers up here in the House, we have some banter and some friendly heckling. In this particular case, there was very little heckling, because I know my colleagues found what was just said to be not really worth heckling, and I think the members on the opposite side probably felt as embarrassed as we did for that member and the outrageous statements he was making.

Let me just straighten a few things out for that member before I talk about the good things that are happening in this province, the good things that are happening in our budget and our throne speech, and the good things that have been happening for the last six years to straighten out the mess that previous government made.

The member said that the Premier exhibited cowardice because he didn't invite that member to an announcement and a sod-turning at the Pitt River Bridge in Maple Ridge. His colleague, his House Leader, the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, was there at the sod-turning. Perhaps there's a message when his own House Leader didn't inform him that there was an event happening in his own riding.

To say cowardice…. Perhaps he should go and look in the mirror and wonder why it is that his own party wouldn't inform him of an announcement when his House Leader was there supporting this tremendous transportation initiative that's taking place in the Fraser Valley.

That member spoke a lot about climate change, about global warming and about how the Gateway project really was going to promote urban sprawl. He talked about code words and all kinds of airy-fairy things that are pretty frightening. But he didn't come out and say clearly: "I do not support the Pitt River Bridge reconstruction." He didn't say that because he doesn't have the jam to stand up and say where he really stands.

I can tell you that I stand, and this government stands, foursquare behind building a transportation system that works for people and for goods. That includes the Pitt River Bridge that is so, so needed in Maple Ridge and in Pitt Meadows and by the people that he purports to represent and doesn't seem to be wanting to represent here in this House.

On behalf of the people from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I have to say that I am embarrassed for what he just said, and he should be ashamed of himself. He talked about how, in the climate change and in our green energy plan, there was code. For example, he said that we have purchased and signed IPP agreements with a number of independent power producers that are going to produce a number of green energy projects because that fits within our plan for climate change control.

He talked about how we were paying, in his view, too much for this power, when the going rate at the border is $50. The power that you would buy at the border is produced by coal, and so what he seems to be saying is: "My concern about the environment goes as far as the border." But what goes on outside of the border and how we act in this province doesn't seem to matter to him if it's something done by a party other than his own. In other words, politics really drives his agenda for climate change.

The agenda that we have put forward is driven by the real need, internationally and globally, to take a look at what's happening in our world, and that transcends politics. That has everything to do with making sure we have a world that our children can enjoy just as we have and with trying to undo some of the damage that we and previous generations have done to the environment.

That member seems to think that by buying green energy and paying more…. Green energy actually is more expensive than coal-fired power bought from Alberta. That member seems to think that what we

should be doing is buying dirty power from offshore or from some other jurisdiction, and I think that is shameful. That is the height of hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker, you talk about a sudden conversion. There is no conversion here.

That member has talked for a long time about these things. In fact, recently I did speak in Maple Ridge at a forum put on by many of his friends who wanted to try to lambaste the government for its policy on independent production of power and green run-of-river projects. He spoke about how these projects really weren't green because when you do a run-of-the-river power production facility, you have to run a power line to join into the grid. Well, surprise of surprises — right? He thinks that putting a power line in place to move power from a run-of-the-river project into the transmission grid somehow is not green power.

Well, I've got news. It is green power. It's hydro power that does not add to global warming. That's the problem we're trying to face, and we've outlined it very clearly and articulated it in a way that the rest of North America is saying is the boldest plan yet.

This is a plan that we have received plaudits on from all over North America — except, of course, from the members opposite, because it's their job to oppose. We've heard that in the House many times, ranging from the Leader of the Opposition through all of the speakers that the opposition have put up here — but none so outrageous as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

I think that when we talk about a sudden conversion, etc., we should be looking at what the NDP's history of concern about the environment and global warming and air quality is. In the year 2000 they made an application to the Utilities Commission to decommission the Keogh generating facility on Vancouver Island. That's a diesel generating facility. Man, that's dirty power. They rightly made an application to decommission that plant.

By 2001, when he talks about balanced budgets…. Here's how you get to balance a budget. You find a phony number that Hydro is going to pay in, and you're going to rob them of every penny you can get so that they can't reinvest in themselves — which, incidentally, they did.

In 2001 they reapplied to the B.C. Utilities Commission and said: "We want to rebuild Keogh. We're going to put over $4 million into rebuilding that diesel generating facility, and it's going to produce $41 million, which is going to go into Hydro and then slide into our budget to help us balance." That's dirty power. That's totally, totally anti-environment, and that's what that member's party was pushing in 2001.

Burrard Thermal was rebuilt — a major gas-fired generating facility in the lower mainland. The Fraser Valley regional district and GVRD had a number of air quality studies done to try to identify sources of air pollution. At one stage the Burrard Thermal generating facility was noted as the biggest point source of pollution in the lower mainland.

That's because the previous government fired it up to the maximum that they could burn it so that they could sell power offshore to try to balance their budget, as they said. They rebuilt part of the plant and specifically excluded that rebuild from the environmental review pro-cess that every single power-generating facility should go through. They specifically avoided that, although every community in the Fraser Valley begged them to put it through the environmental review process.

Gee, and this is the party that wanted to turn Burns Bog into an amusement park. Yet they sit here, and they point fingers at the boldest climate change policy that North America has seen — perhaps even internationally. They point fingers at this government. It is absolutely the height of hypocrisy.

Madam Speaker, I don't think there's much point in going on much further about what that…. I think it's time to talk about the good things that are happening with this budget.

An Hon. Member: And the road's going through Burns Bog. Let's talk about that road you're building.

R. Hawes: This is the member who talks about Formosa Nursery and what's called the Abernethy connector, which is going to go through Maple Ridge to connect into the new Golden Ears bridge.

Somehow he has attacked that, and he attacks this government for not stopping it. That particular road was chosen by the Maple Ridge city council, has been voted on more than once by the Maple Ridge city council in the face of the opposition that member put up to a legitimately made decision by a local council. That member is still saying to the government: "Override the local…. Because I know better than the Maple Ridge council." That's what he's saying.

In fact, in Maple Ridge council chambers he and his small gang of followers are now referred to by the mayor and some members of the council as the Satheristas.

R. Hawes: Say no more. These people are zealots. This member is a zealot who has actually, through his hypocrisy, shown that he doesn't actually believe the things he's saying. It's political expediency. For that, Madam Speaker, I am embarrassed for him.

In 2001 this government came to power, and I had the honour of being elected to represent my riding here in the Legislature. Shortly after we took office, when we had an independent review of the books of the province done, it was clear that we faced a $4.4 billion structural deficit. That's because the previous government had created programs over and over, tons of programs, with no consideration as to whether they were sustainable.

The money that was at hand then to support those programs into the future…. They didn't consider whether that was going to be at hand, so when we took

We laid out a very bold plan for rebuilding the economy and bringing the budget into balance. I sat here in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and listened to the then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail, repeatedly say that there is no way we can meet our targets. In fact, the media was very skeptical. But we stuck to what we said we were going to do.

We delivered, and we delivered in spades. We have surpluses now like this province has never seen. We've moved this province from last place in Canada, which it was through the '90s, to second place, behind Alberta, or close to Alberta. We are leading the country in many, many areas of our economy, and they don't like it. They don't like it.

R. Hawes: Because it's their job to oppose, and they couldn't deliver when they were government. We've delivered, and they don't like it.

Madam Speaker, we tackled the economy. We turned it around, and we won. Then we looked at: what are the impediments to building our economy even further? The Premier struck out boldly with the new relationship. It's very clear, and it's becoming clearer and clearer to all members, all citizens in this province that if we don't settle and bring our aboriginal communities in this province onto an equal footing with the rest of us, we are going nowhere. So the Premier laid out a bold new initiative, the new relationship.

It has been embraced. It has resulted in the initial signing of a number of treaties, something that government through the '90s, after spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, couldn't come close to accomplishing. The aboriginal community in this province recognizes the bold steps that have been taken and has applauded the works of this government.

Then we had a problem with labour peace. As everyone knows, last year we had civil service contracts right across the entire civil service falling due. That previous government, which through its reign and its assistance to its friends in the labour community, couldn't keep this province operating and moving ahead without great labour disruption.

That government failed in so many ways in dealing with the civil service and in dealing with labour throughout this province. This government has been able to do what no government before was able to do, and that's reach agreements with every single union that represents workers for this government in a bold step last year. And they don't like it. They don't like it because they weren't able to do that, and it's their duty to oppose.

Now we look at climate change. The member opposite says it's a sudden conversion. Some years ago governments weren't talking about climate change. It's difficult when you're on your knees financially — after they drove us into ruination, into the first time that British Columbia had to have handouts from Ottawa with equalization payments. For the first time we were sent with cap in hand to Ottawa to ask for money through the equalization process — so embarrassing to so many British Columbians. It's not possible to tackle some of the climate change requirements, to build a climate change plan, without having an economy and the finances to do the things that you have to do.

Luckily, we have a government that has listened, has learned and has adapted, and that's what good government does. Good government always listens, learns and then adapts. That's what we've done. If we look at what that government wants — and the critique on our budget — have they listened, learned and adapted? They want to take the surpluses that we have, build programs and go back to the same things that drove us to near bankruptcy in the '90s.

That's where they're trying to take us. They continually say: "Well, let's just tax those that are successful." Just completely take any chance of them surviving by attacking their profits, which is a bad word for them.

R. Hawes: That's what drove them out of the province in the '90s and would again if, for some unbelievable stroke, they were able to form government again. This government is tackling climate change.

I'm going to speak for a moment about child care. I just want to say one thing first about climate change. That member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said in Hansard in April of last year: "I will say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late '90s, was not good on climate change." Well, how can he possibly point fingers at the plan that we've laid out and then say things about his government? It's beyond the pale.

Child care. There was a plan laid out, as we all know, by the previous federal government that would have seen $455 million transferred into this province over three years for child care. In the federal election process the current minority government laid out its plan for child care, the federal Liberals laid out their plan for child care, and the federal NDP — who generally give the marching orders to the provincial NDP as the senior NDP body — laid out its plan. The public selected the Conservative plan, which was the hundred dollars a month.

A democratically elected government delivered the promise that they made to the people when they were elected. Some of us may not like that promise or the plan that was laid out, but it was what they said they were going to do. That wound up being a transfer of $455 million from our coffers so that we could redistribute it through child care to a hundred dollars a month for every child under six being directly deposited into the pockets of parents throughout British Columbia and, in fact, throughout Canada.

For those who require day care, that would be a blow because, obviously, that's way under the costs. So we were looking at: what do we do now to protect vulnerable families? The first thing that we should do…

R. Hawes: …to protect vulnerable families is to make sure that the enhanced subsidy level that we had put in to qualify for subsidy, which used to be $21,000 under that government, is now $38,000. We said: "We'll protect that enhanced subsidy."

Subsidy levels had also been enhanced, and so we said: "Okay, we should protect the subsidy level and the qualification for subsidy. That's the first thing that we should do." We did that.

The operating grants we give to child care centres. We took a look at that and said: "Okay, we don't want to cut those operating subsidies to the point that cost increases to families…. Certainly, we don't want them to exceed the $100 a month per child that they're getting." So subsidy levels have been reduced by $40, on average, per month per child, which is well under the $100 that each parent is receiving.

Some of us think it's really not unreasonable to think that now that money has been transferred directly to parents rather than through the provincial government, parents could spend $40 of the $100 they receive back into child care. That's the way we laid it out. When we did that, we could see….

Incidentally, they keep talking about cuts, but in fact the budget for child care in this province this year is rising over last year. It will cost more money for the government to operate the child care system at its enhanced level, but we're prepared to do that. That is being budgeted, and it will happen. But somewhere something has to be cut or reallocated. It is a reallocation of funding.

When we looked at the child care referral centres and the way that first referral is delivered, we know that about 25 percent of parents receiving child care are using the child care referral centres. Seventy-five percent are through word of mouth — hearing about it from friends, direct contact or whatever — but they're not using the child care referral centres. Twenty-five percent are, so we need to make sure that we've got something in place for them.

We also need to make sure that the proper criminal-record checks and all of those safeguards are maintained. That's why the minister, when she made the reallocation, said: "Okay, I'm going to announce this early in the year, and the final reallocation will take place at the end of September, the first of October."

We have a number of months. There are eight months left to make the changes that are necessary to ensure that the safeguards are in place, that there's a referral system, that there can be the workshops and that the working arrangements between day care centres can be worked out. We have to all get together and think outside of the box. I don't think it is that big a stretch to think that we could do that in this province, because we have resourceful people.

The opposite side, including that member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, wants people to believe that somehow the $6 million reallocation of funds from the child care referral centres is going to break the back of child care in this province and that child care centres are going to disappear and close. In fact, if our child care system were so fragile that $6 million was going to completely and totally destroy it, frankly, I would suggest that it would have been that way for years and that it would be on the back of that government.

R. Hawes: The fact is that by thinking outside of the box, we are going to….

Deputy Speaker: Members, please show some respect for the speaker that has the floor.

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, I kind of like the heckling, because it does show they at least are listening. Frankly, unlike the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, there's at least some respect for what I'm saying. His diatribe was so little respected that it wasn't worth heckling.

As we move forward with child care, the thing I think we need to be talking about and remembering is that these members opposite like to say that we didn't fight hard enough with the federal government. I want to talk about what their idea of fighting is.

The previous NDP government made decisions that they wanted to fight for certain things and fight publicly with the federal government. We all remember the Nanoose Bay torpedo testing grounds. They fought, they publicly screamed, and they tried to link various things. There was, "We want things done in the fishery," and numbers of other things.

They tried to link things together and publicly scream and fight, and the federal government just finally said, "Well fine, we're just going to expropriate Nanoose Bay," at a cost of about $150 million to this province. It's utterly and totally ridiculous, and the last government was able to get nothing done with the federal government.

We, on the other hand, have been able to get huge transportation enhancements from the federal government. There are massive transfers to this province and partnerships between Ottawa and Victoria that have been built because of a cooperative working relationship that our Premier and our international government relations minister have built with Ottawa that

that government never dreamed of. All they can talk about is that we don't fight hard enough. That makes no sense at all, and it has been shown in history.

Here's what they forget, and shame on you for doing this. In the transfer, the $100 a month that the federal government is paying…. Do you know that there are many single moms that are at home on social assistance? They aren't out there getting day care, but they're getting their $100 a month, and these folks would take that money away from them. They would have us fight the federal government, change the program back to what it was, take the $100 a month for each child away from people who really need it.

I have to say that the people who really need it in this province — people who are trying to struggle on relatively low incomes and are getting that $100 a month but aren't availing themselves of day care — are using that $100 a month for child care. Because child care also happens in the home.

This government has said: "We are going to put money into all facets of early learning." They talk a lot about that, and I think about the programs that we have, like StrongStart and Success By 6 and on and on. There are all kinds of early learning programs, because our Premier actually is a huge supporter of early childhood learning, understands the problems of illiteracy and understands that a literate province is a province that can build a strong economy.

Madam Speaker, I see that the light is on, so I'm just going to finish with one thing, and that's around housing. They talk a lot about social housing. We've put money directly into the hands of 20,000 low-income families in this province so that they can buy housing at a subsidized rate of over $560 a month.

They can buy market housing, rent market housing that's integrated so they are not stuck in housing…. They're not ghettoized or stigmatized, and they can buy housing with dignity, because it's nobody's business but theirs that they are getting a housing subsidy. That's with 20,000 families. That's the equivalent of 20,000 low-income housing units.

Shame on them for not understanding and recognizing that, but the private sector is then involved. It's private sector housing. Oh, it must be bad. We are moving this province ahead. We are the best place on earth to live, and it's getting better and better.

We're the envy not just of other Canadians, but we are the envy of many places in the United States, which is why the Governor of California is coming up here this spring to find out what it is that we're doing here that's so right. It is the best place on earth to live. Since 2001 British Columbians out there not only know it's the best place on earth to live; they feel it. These guys are just negative.

C. Trevena: The budget and throne speech give a lot of opportunity for everybody to have a lot of rhetoric and to talk about everything that is wonderful and beautiful and terrific about what is going to be happening. Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of rhetoric and very little substance behind what we've seen in the throne speech, backed by the budget speech.

I'm surprised that the credibility gap hasn't really awakened in either the members opposite or other people — I think it is there for the members of the public — because we have a lot of promises in the throne speech and a huge disconnect when you get to the budget.

We have had debate for the last few days in both the throne and the budget speech about the Pauline or Sauline conversion on climate change — lots of words about climate change, most of the throne speech dedicated to climate change. But in the budget, I think, there's a hole the size of the hole in the ozone layer — for its lack of commitment in money to what is going to happen for climate change.

There have been so many promises in the last six years and so many promises unmet and so many promises in the start of the 21st century from the members opposite. I know there have been talks about which could be the Canadian century and which could be the B.C. century, and the 21st century had every opportunity to be both. It should be our time. We are a young province in a young country. I come from an old country. I recognize the opportunities that are here in B.C. But try telling that to people in my constituency, people who see what really lies behind the rhetoric and who are living daily with the empty promises.

We had talk a few years ago about forestry being the main driving force. It is still the driving force of our economy, and yet you scour both the throne speech and the budget for some words of confidence there for the people of my constituency who are concerned about what's happening in our forests. The loggers who are working there are almost in tears because they see the trees that they have been harvesting for years being squandered. They see basically almost the rape of the private lands in our watersheds.

It's not me as an environmentalist who speaks on this. It is the people who have been working in the bush for years and their dads who've been working in the bush for years, and their dads, who are putting out warning signals saying: "We've got to stop. We've got to slow down."

It's the people who work and live in the small communities on the west coast who see, with reorganization, suddenly one big forest company, Western Forest Products, getting control of all our Crown lands and therefore reorganizing their whole lives — closing down log sorts in Zeballos and Tahsis, keeping control of mill sites in Tahsis on prime land, getting deals — we're not quite sure where they come from — on having land released from the TFL on the north Island.

Try telling people that they have hope, when they see that their voice is really not heard. Try telling that to the first nations who had to come down from the north end of the Island to the Legislature to protest a deal that has gone through without consultation.

Just before the House sat, the Kwakiutl came to bring their message to this House. Land deals which

take their land, which is in their territory, out of the TFL without consultation….

Try saying that it's our time to other first nations, who had so much there with the rhetoric of the new relationship, first nations who actually put trust in that and now are seeing that they're not being consulted on prime issues of resources in their land — issues of fishing, fish farming and forestry.

The Klahoose, Cape Mudge, Homalco, Kwakiutl and others right through my constituency have no capacity to deal with the bureaucracy of government, are given no assistance to deal with the bureaucracies and are not able to have meaningful consultation. Meaningful negotiations are written in law, and this government is roughriding them and is moving far too quickly for the first nations. I'd say it's unacceptable, but it becomes trite.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission had a lot of flourishes in his speech about what happened in the '90s and really doesn't seem to, again, focus on the 21st century. I think this is a failing of much of the government benches. There's a lot of talk of what happened in the '90s and not much commitment to what is happening in the 21st century.

If they did have a commitment to what is happening in the 21st century, they would have a look around and see what was in their budget and try to explain that to working families — try to explain their budget to the people who are struggling to make ends meet, people who are holding down two or three minimum-wage jobs just to get by, people who send their children to school hungry. They don't want to, but there is no food in the house. People who can do nothing to break out of this spiral of poverty because they don't have the housing, they don't have access to housing, and they don't have access to well-paid work. They don't have access to the services they need to provide for them and their families.

To those families who live in tents during the summer in the Okanagan, to those families who are looking at what should be a housing budget and wondering: "Well, where's the housing for me?" People who see more fees and not any more services.

Try telling people who are struggling to pay the rent that there is an opportunity here in the budget for them. I think they would be fiercely disappointed. Try telling them that this is a good budget for those families who are looking for day care and for child care.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission acknowledged that there is something wrong, but he says it's all being put right by the federal government. But the federal government is taking money out of our system.

I think there is again a disconnect from what is being said and what is actually happening on the ground. There is no child care. I'm not talking about the cuts to the child care resource and referral centres. Those are bad enough. But there is really no child care system.

There's been a mismanagement of taxpayers' money. Services that were encouraged to expand a year ago, services that moved into storefront operations, services that hired extra staff, got leases, got photocopiers and vehicles are now being told they are going to have to close down.

It's not a matter of reframing the debate or reframing the service, as the minister of state says or as the member previously was speaking about. It's a matter of taking money out. It's a matter of making promises and then cutting those promises. It's a mismanagement of taxpayers' money, which really needs to be investigated.

Also, the disconnect is that it's not just that. It's not just that mismanagement of money. It is the fact that operating grants are being stopped for child care. There is talk about new child care spaces. There is talk about everything that is wonderful in child care, but there's no operating grant for the providers — those providers who can struggle to continue providing.

Those providers have to put the fees back on the parents, who are already struggling and trying to get their kids to school, trying to keep a roof over their heads, trying to get to work. They don't have the benefit, as the member for Maple Ridge–Mission said previously, to sit at home and take a hundred dollars a month, because they are told to go into the workforce. They are not allowed to just sit and take the money from the government.

There are rules about how long you can stay accepting welfare. After a child is three, the mother has to go into the workforce. So I think the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has, again, a problem of disconnect.

We don't have a child care system. We don't have operating funds available for child care. We don't have any money going for new spaces. So all this talk about having new spaces is just a sham. There are going to be no new spaces.

What also seems to be missing is the reality of the diligence of the child care workers — those workers who work for a pittance, who are very highly trained and in whose trust we place our children, who are working for $8 an hour. Supervisors who have been working for 15 years getting maybe $14 or $15 an hour — poverty wages. These people themselves have trouble surviving and at times may have to rely on food banks and are wondering about the housing promises in the budget, because they too are struggling with housing.

The families. I think we have to bring it back. Everybody talks about family values, but what are the family values when you are struggling to get by and when you are looking for child care? Whatever level of income you are, there is no child care. In the constituency of the Minister of Children and Family Development, I was shown a book with pages and pages of names of people who were looking for child care.

There is a four-year wait for one section of child care. Kids outgrow the child care. They're in school before they even get child care. Some had to leave Vernon and go south half an hour just to find child

care. I met women who are not having second children because they can't find child care. People are making life decisions, decisions about whether to have children, because they can't find child care because there isn't a system in place. This is an obscenity.

Women are dropping out of the workforce. We say that we've got skill shortages. We need nurses. We need trained workers. I have letters from nurses, from university graduates, from many, many people who say: "I can't afford to go to work, because I can't find child care."

It was cited the other day in this House: Sherry Mackenzie, a woman in Victoria, a clerical worker who got so desperate for child care that when her maternity leave was over, she sent her 12-month-old to the United States for her sister to look after because she couldn't find child care in Victoria. So you have a child, and you have to farm that child out of the country because we haven't got the resources to provide child care.

What do you mean — that we don't have the resources to provide child care? We are a rich province. Again, it's trite. It's an obscenity. Everything's well, we hear, but we have the problem with child care.

We have a problem with education as well. The Education Minister says that all is well, everything is fine, the legislation it brought in last year is working very well, and the new legislation is really going to help. But I would like the Education Minister to come with me and meet some of the teachers in my constituency — the science teacher in the north end of the Island who has seven special needs children in her high school science class.

I keep beating on a drum about rural education. I'll continue to do so because it's not a matter of increasing the money per pupil as is mentioned in the budget. It's a matter of looking at the whole funding structure so that pupils in rural education get the quality of education they need and that they have a right to. This is a right.

We are a rich province in a rich country at the 21st century. These students don't need education hookups. They don't need Internet links. They need teachers. They need opportunities. Per-pupil funding isn't the answer. We need to look at the structure of funding. We need to look at the staffing. We need to look at the resource. But what do we get? Instead, we get cuts in personal taxes and fees for public education.

This is a very basic issue as far as I'm concerned. Public education is public. It should be free. We haven't had the legislation, but the indications are there. You start introducing fees for some areas, and I believe it's the thin edge of the wedge — sports academies, band, trades. What's next — drama, language? This isn't choice. This is keeping children out of public education.

Choice is providing high-quality, free public education for every child in this province. Choice shouldn't exclude people. It should include people. Education should not become an elitist activity. Once you start bringing in fees, there really is no stop.

Education isn't simply reading, writing and arithmetic. It shouldn't be. It should be enriching. It should include arts, sciences, drama, sports, music, field trips, philosophy and mathematics. It should be a broad opportunity so our children can reach their full potential, and we can reach a full society.

It's interesting. One school district out of the three school districts in my constituency, school district 72, is dropping fees for band instruments. They've brought this in very recently and are very enthusiastic about this and are very hopeful that more students will take up band because there are no fees.

It's something that I will report back to the House on, whether this has been a success or whether it hasn't, because I think it is very useful to see it. But I am very deeply troubled that we can go to the knee-jerk issue that the choice is: let's cut income tax, and let's bring in fees.

Let's cut income tax, and let's say we have a housing budget. The housing solutions in this budget, I think, will very swiftly be seen to be a sham. There is a huge increase in shelter beds, we're told — 300 shelter beds for the whole province. I've been working very hard with a committee in my constituency on looking at homelessness. That's just in Campbell River.

We get forced into needing more homeless shelters. The Salvation Army does a very good job, but we need more. We also need assistance for women's shelters, for second-stage housing and for assistance when people come out of jail — particularly when women come out of jail. I don't think that 300 shelter beds, which is effectively a band-aid solution, is really going to be much of an answer. We need to make sure that we are creating social housing.

I'll be quite honest. I like social housing. Social housing helps. I think that the private sector can play a part in housing. It has to play a part in housing. But we have to be realistic. We do need to have social housing because, going back to what I was saying at the beginning of my speech, there are many people who are struggling to get by and who are without housing — families who are living in cars, who are couch-surfing, who are living with other relatives.

I would like, actually, the minister of housing to come with me. He can combine a trip and look at some of what's happening to the waste wood left in the forests and the bush around where there are mills in need. He can come and do that for his Ministry of Forests role, and he can come and look at some of the housing conditions that people in my constituency are living in, where we have families living with families, where we have Third World conditions in communities across the constituency and across, I think, the whole of this province.

There are Third World conditions as people struggle to find housing. Unfortunately, rent subsidies to the middle classes are not going to solve it. Assistance in property tax is always welcomed by many people. We need more than band-aids. We need to be looking at our housing stock for everyone.

This government creates a dream B.C. It's a dream ringed with the Olympic circles. But I think what is sad is that so many of B.C.'s people can't afford to dream.

People do want a vision, but they want a vision that is going to make sure that they have food at their table, a roof over their head and high-quality, free public education.

These are human rights, and these are rights that should be met here in B.C. at the start of the 21st century. This could be our time. I wish the government would make it so.

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.