Hansard — Monday, February 26, 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		5527

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5527
	Canada line construction on Cambie Street
	G. Robertson
	Mining industry in B.C
	D. MacKay
	J. Horgan
	Project Agriculture
	J. Rustad
	Carey Price
	C. Wyse
	North Shore Festival of Volunteers
	K. Whittred

Oral Questions		5529
	Frank Paul public inquiry
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth
	Federal funding for mountain pine beetle infestation
	C. Wyse
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	Budget for housing strategy
	D. Thorne
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Funding for Vancouver social housing
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Kwan
	Contracts for expansion of Vancouver Convention Centre
	H. Bains
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Hon. S. Hagen
	B. Ralston

Petitions		5534
	G. Coons

Motions on Notice		5534
	Legislative sitting hours (Motion 40) (continued)
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		5537
	J. McIntyre
	H. Bains
	R. Sultan
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. Thorne
	I. Black

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to the House a former student of mine from secondary school, a longtime friend of mine on city council. I would ask the House to make Mayor Scott Nelson welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am thrilled today that my brother Rick de Jong and his wife Tracy are visiting from Westbank, where they live with their two children. They're here attending, amongst other things, a conference in town at the Victoria convention centre. I hope the House will make Rick de Jong and Tracy de Jong very welcome here in the chamber.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure to introduce four people visiting the House today. The first two are Rhoda Quock and Eileen Doody. They are members of the Iskut First Nation band. They are accompanied today by Amy Crook from the Center for Science in Public Participation and by Carrie Slanina, a volunteer with the Klabona Keepers Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: Today, as I'm sure everyone knows, is Mining Day at the Legislature, and we're delighted to host dozens of people involved with the mining industry in British Columbia.

I'd like to introduce all of them, but some for sure we should introduce to you: Michael McPhee, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.; Chief Richard LeBourdais of the Whispering Pines–Clinton Indian Band in my constituency.

Scott Nelson, the mayor of Williams Lake, has been mentioned. Jack Talstra, the mayor of Terrace; Jackie Tegart of the village of Ashcroft; James Baker, the mayor of the district of Lake Country; Russ Hallbauer of Taseko Mines; Wendy McDonald and her daughter Penny Omnès of B.C. Bearing Engineers, a 60-year-old company in British Columbia that has operations in 60 countries, all of which started from here; David Caulfield, the past chair of AME B.C. and the chair of Rimfire Minerals; Donald McInnes of Western Keltic Mines; Dave Parker, Teck Cominco; 'Lyn Anglin of Geoscience B.C. ; Mayor Ella Brown and Don Brown of the district of Logan Lake; Paul Krivokuca, chair of mine managers; Richard Prokopanko of Alcan; Allen Wright of the Coal Association of Canada; Barb Walker and Leanne Brunt of First Dollar Alliance.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some students that we have visiting us from Vancouver-Burrard. There are 120 students that have joined us today from my high school, King George high school, which is just great. It's one of the best high schools in all of British Columbia. They are joined here today by their teachers Mr. Bachar, Mr. Wilmann, Mr. Zloman, Mr. Coomes, Mr. Howe, Ms. Whyte and Ms. Pagden. Would the House please give them a real welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Joining us today are a number of distinguished representatives of the British Columbia professional accounting profession. From the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Richard Rees, Doug Murphy, Kerri Brkich; from the Certified Management Accountants of British Columbia, Colin Bennett and Fred Zdan; and from the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, Gordon Clissold and Edward Downing.

These three professional organizations have been instrumental in the evolution of the taxpayer fairness and service code, and I am pleased to have them join me here today to launch the third edition of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code. Would the House please thank them and make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two visiting delegations. The delegation from Belgium includes the Hon. Marc Verwilghen, Minister of Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade and Science Policy; His Excellency Jean Lint, the Ambassador of Belgium; and about 20 businesspeople.

From Finland we have His Excellency Pasi Patokallio, the Ambassador of Finland to Canada, accompanied by his wife Raija Patokallio. I'd like the House to make them all very welcome.

G. Robertson: I rise to recognize my Vancouver-Fairview constituents who are currently enduring many challenges because of the construction of the Canada line. Reduced traffic lanes, limited access to bus stops, car commuters on residential streets, the inability to cross streets for blocks on end to visit shops or access services, and major noise disturbances are only some of the problems for those who live and work in the Cambie area.

Vancouver-Fairview residents are forgoing their enjoyment of a modicum of peace and quiet in their homes. Whether travelling by foot, car, bike or bus, they are met with delays and detours. It is a tribute to the strength of this community to be able to withstand these impacts, sacrificing extra hours to get to their jobs, to get their kids to school and to go to the laundromat or the grocery store.

Small businesses along Cambie Street are bearing the brunt financially, despite efforts to promote shopping along the line. Accessing local businesses is even

difficult for neighbours. Real questions must be asked about what's fair for these businesses, as their ability to succeed has been compromised by cut-and-cover construction.

Investment in rapid transit is important. The climate crisis we are facing means we must get people out of cars. But the sacrifices and challenges to make this happen along Cambie Street are being disproportionately borne by the dozens of small businesses and thousands of residents in the area.

I believe this warrants recognition and further debate in this House. Meanwhile I encourage everyone to support the great shops and restaurants along Cambie Street whenever possible.

D. MacKay: This is Mining Week, and it's my pleasure to tell the B.C. mining story.

The B.C. mining story in 2007 is a story of success and rejuvenation. After a near-death experience in the 1990s, mining is once again a cornerstone of the B.C. economy. Exploration investment is at a record high. Claims registrations are up by 500 percent. Our geological database is the best in the world. Our Mineral Titles Online is the best in the world.

Our tax and regulatory regime just got even better with the 2007 budget. B.C. now has 25 of the 52 major mining projects in all of Canada. Perhaps most noticeable of all, B.C. is out-competing the rest of Canada for exploration investment, going from 6 percent of Canadian exploration investment in 2001 to 16 percent last year.

But the real B.C. mining story is not about statistics. It's about people, like the two native bands on Vancouver Island near Port McNeill who are joint-venturing with Polaris Minerals to build and operate a large aggregate mine and ship the aggregate to San Francisco. There is more hope for the future of those aboriginal communities.

The B.C. mining story is about the Tahltan people from Iskut, Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek who are working with NovaGold to develop one of North America's most promising copper mines in northwestern B.C.

The real B.C. mining story is about a young woman from Chetwynd who was down on her luck and needed a better job to support her family. She found out about opportunities in mining from our Mining Rocks road show and took some training. You can go to the office of the member for East Kootenay in the east annex — you can't miss it; it's shaped like a doghouse — and you will see a framed photo of this young woman driving one of those big 240-tonne coal trucks. She has a smile on her face as wide as the truck itself.

It is these real people who benefit from mining, who have pride in their work and hope for their futures, that compose the real B.C. mining story.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to be in this House today and speak on behalf of mining and the mining sector here in British Columbia. The members of the opposition party had an interesting question-and-answer session today with many representatives from the sector. It was a pleasure to do that, as it was a pleasure to participate today in a debate with respect to the importance of mining not just now but into the future.

As we look to an economy with our timber industry on the coast in question and with the beetle-kill having a significant impact in the interior, never before has mining been so important to the economy of British Columbia. I'm very proud to be the critic for that sector standing here today speaking on behalf of the industry.

As you know, British Columbia is one of the richest mineral areas in the world, whether it be up Highway 37 into the Galore Creek project or whether it be in the southeast with respect to coal — and my friend from Tumbler Ridge as well.

It's a great industry. It's been the backbone of our province in the past. It will be the backbone of our province in the future, and I ask all members of this House to support the mining sector today, tomorrow and into the future.

J. Rustad: Each year school district 91, Nechako Lake, hosts an exciting event designed to provide students with an important experience in a sector of our economy which is truly the lifeblood of all of us.

Project Agriculture started at least 14 years ago and is designed to introduce students to a wide variety of employment opportunities within the industry. It's been so successful that other areas around the province are looking at it and following similar program models.

Students spend a week participating in a variety of hands-on sessions to explore the many facets of the agriculture industry — everything from high-tech analysis to milking cows. The students have a full week both in the classroom and in the field. The students also learn about the history and changes to the agriculture industry and get a chance to try many hands-on components, from plowing fields behind a team of horses to using the most modern equipment.

This project happened because the farmers and ranchers in the Vanderhoof area understand that there's sometimes a disconnect between consumers and where the food comes from. They also understand that in order for the industry to thrive, they need young, energetic individuals to enter into the business. In the classic style of northerners, they recognized these issues and brought forward a homegrown solution.

Please join me in thanking the Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen's Association — and in particular Alan and Richard Martens for opening up their ranch for the many activities — and also school district 91 staff for making the project such a success year after year.

I'd also like to thank the many volunteers from the community that make it such a great project. As the member for Delta South says: "We all have to eat to live."

C. Wyse: I rise today to recognize one of my constituents whose name will undoubtedly be familiar to most fans of Canada's favourite winter sport, hockey. This young man from Anahim Lake, on the western edge of Cariboo South, has earned recognition for himself and brought honour to his community.

Carey Price grew up playing hockey on the outdoor community rink with the other children in Anahim Lake. When he was old enough to join a minor hockey league, Carey and his father travelled to Williams Lake, a round-trip distance of almost eight hours on winter roads. As you can imagine, these weekly trips were quite tiring, so Carey's father Jerry took flying lessons and bought a small plane for the trips to Williams Lake and back. Eventually, the entire family rented an apartment in Williams Lake, returning to the family home in Anahim Lake whenever time permitted.

Carey's mother, Lynda Price, is the Chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation Band in Anahim Lake. As is often the case, this entire community has supported Carey and is proud of his accomplishments, and Carey has accomplished much to make his family and his community proud.

This past January Carey played in goal for Team Canada in the World Junior Hockey Championships in Sweden. When Canada won the gold medal, Carey gave full credit to the entire team, but spectators who watched the exciting series also recognized Carey's contribution to that win. Indeed, Carey was named the tournament's most valuable player, and he was also named as goalie for the all-star team.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join with me in recognizing Carey, his family and his entire community. Later this spring CTV's W-Five will feature Carey and his journey from a small and proud community on the edge of the Cariboo Plateau to the world stage of hockey.

K. Whittred: Finding time to give back to your community is part of what makes a strong community even stronger. That's why I was so pleased to be part of the organizing committee for the North Shore Festival of Volunteers this past weekend. It took place at Park Royal shopping centre. It was the first-ever North Shore–wide volunteer festival and was a resounding success.

Over 50 North Shore organizations participated — the maximum Park Royal could hold. These ranged from the North Shore Volunteers for Seniors to Youth Friendly North Shore to CASARA, Civil Air Search and Rescue, to the North Shore Chorus. There was truly something for everyone.

The youth participation was tremendous. One group of youth spearheaded by a young man from West Van, Johannes Rebane, created a youth volunteer website with a comprehensive database for youth volunteering. Check it out at www.yvl.ca. Youth Hydrogen had an explosive presentation at which they actually blew up hydrogen to create energy. My personal favourite was the North Shore Black Bear Society with their interactive puppet show on being bear smart.

I would like to give a special thanks to Barb MacLellan and Lee Faurot of Volunteer North Shore for their hard work in making this happen. I look forward to doing it again next year and encourage all members of this House to get involved with the volunteer sector in your community.

C. James: Last week, after years of saying no to a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, the Solicitor General had a change of heart. This is a very serious issue, and British Columbians want assurances that all aspects will be investigated.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple. Will he ensure that the role of his predecessor the member from Langley-Aldergrove, in delaying this inquiry, is included in the terms of reference?

Hon. J. Les: As all members of the House will be aware, this tragedy occurred in December of 1998. It has been an issue of concern for quite some time. It has been reviewed by numerous people in those intervening years. More recently, concerns have been expressed that not all of the issues have been addressed appropriately. We are committed to making sure that this issue is completely and thoroughly investigated and examined. We want to get at the facts to the satisfaction of all concerned.

C. James: I do. In 2001 the member from Langley-Aldergrove as Solicitor General rejected a request to hold a coroner's inquest. In 2004 the same member rejected the Police Complaint Commissioner's request to hold a public inquiry. He argued that such investigations would not serve the public interest, only fuel racial tensions.

So my question again: if the Solicitor General, as he says, wants the public to know everything that has gone on, will he ensure that the inaction of this cabinet is investigated as part of this inquiry?

Hon. J. Les: As I've said, this case has been outstanding for quite a number of years. In that period of time there have been police investigations. There have been coroner's investigations. There has been a review by the Police Complaint Commissioner. There have been two reviews, I believe, by Crown counsel. Indeed, it was reviewed as recently as three years ago by my predecessor. In all of those cases, I think those decisions were made based on the evidence and the information available at that time.

More recently, people have suggested that there is perhaps other information out there, which ought to be more thoroughly considered. That will be done. Our objective is, as I've said before, to simply get at the facts and get at all of the facts so that it can be properly addressed.

C. James: That's why I'm asking this question of the Solicitor General. It's so the public can get all of the facts.

In 2004 the Police Complaint Commissioner said that a public inquiry could lead to province and countrywide benefits — 2004. The then Solicitor General refused to acknowledge such benefits and actually refused to listen to the family, who wanted an inquiry.

Again to the Solicitor General: after years of pressure, Frank Paul's family may finally get answers about the night he died. But will they also get the answers they need about why it took so long for this government to act?

Hon. J. Les: Our objective here is to make sure that at the end of the day, when this process is complete, we have all of the facts addressed appropriately. I think it's surprising that the member opposite would suggest that others who have made decisions with respect to this issue would not have done so in good faith. As I enumerated just a few minutes ago, numerous people have reviewed this file in many different ways and from many different perspectives, and have all essentially come to the same conclusion.

But because there appeared to be issues that remain outstanding in the opinion of some, we are making available an independent process, under the guidance of an independent inquiry, to make sure beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that those issues have all been addressed.

The previous Solicitor General agrees that an inquiry should be held, and I have made that announcement last week, as the member opposite is aware. That process will unfold and I'm sure will be successful.

M. Farnworth: In 2004 an unnamed source went to the Police Complaint Commissioner with crucial information. The commissioner recommended an inquiry that this government rejected.

Recent comments in the media make it clear that the unnamed source was Greg Firlotte, a jail guard who was never interviewed about Frank Paul's death. How long has the Solicitor General's office, past or present, known that key witnesses were never interviewed?

Hon. J. Les: Whether or not certain key witnesses were interviewed is something upon which I am not prepared to pass judgment at this point in time. Certain assertions have been made. These are the kinds of things that will be determined at public inquiry.

M. Farnworth: These are not assertions. In fact, if the Solicitor General were to review the 2004 complaint commissioner's report by Mr. Dirk Ryneveld, he would read: "I've also requested them to identify all guards and officers depicted in the video who have not previously been identified or interviewed."

There has been no new information since then. That is the information that was brought forward — the fact that guards had not been interviewed. This government knew that, and they did nothing.

So my question, again to the Solicitor General, is…. For three years nothing happened, and in the space of 24 hours the government changed its mind. Will this commission of inquiry look into why that delay took place and what role the former Solicitor General played in that inquiry not going ahead?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I would simply say that the inquiry will be broad and far-ranging, and it will include all of the relevant issues that need to be addressed. It will be independent from government, and I suspect that a lot of people will draw a lot of comfort from the fact that we're actually making available this opportunity to air these issues in that kind of forum.

This is not that forum. This is not the public inquiry. I would suggest to the member opposite that we allow that process to proceed and that we all draw our conclusions after the inquiry is concluded.

C. Wyse: To the Minister of Forests and Range: where is the billion dollars that Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised the province would receive for the mountain pine beetle epidemic?

Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the money has arrived to us. It is $23 million being spent along the Rocky Mountain Trench that is under an MOU with the federal government. The rest of it…. I've spoken with the minister responsible, and I'm assured that it's coming, but that's the best I can tell the member now.

They have in front of them all of our proposals, and the mountain pine beetle information is in front of them. We're waiting for them to release the dollars to British Columbia.

C. Wyse: Again to the Minister of Forests and Range: did we get an additional $100 million of the federal funds this year for the pine beetle epidemic, and do we have a signed commitment from the federal government for the $100 million each year for the next ten years?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have an understanding, as you know, that all the parties in the last federal election committed $100 million for over ten years to the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We have been working with the

new federal government as they've worked through their processes to get the money flowing according to the plans that we had laid out to the previous government, and we've been updating those plans with the present minister. I spoke to Minister Lunn as early as last week, who assured me that they thought they were through most of their processes and that things would start to flow.

B. Simpson: When Prime Minister Harper committed to the $1 billion — that's what he went into the election for — he committed to $100 million over ten years.

The minister and I had a discussion about $400 million that was allocated in the federal budget this spring. The minister indicated that it was his expectation that he would be in contact with the minister responsible in the next few days. He's done the official thing already, but usually it takes a few days after the budget comes out to sort of suss it out.

That was on May 3 of last year. Our communities need that money. The federal government has committed that money. It's in the budget. What is it that the province is not delivering to the federal government to secure those funds now?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is nothing the province of British Columbia hasn't done to meet its obligations to the federal government to let them move the pine beetle money.

B. Simpson: I do. The Premier in the estimates, when the Leader of the Opposition questioned him on this, said that we would have the money in June or July. The minister said that we would have the money a few days after the budget. We're almost at the end of the federal government's fiscal cycle, and we know that last time the federal government rolled back the mountain pine beetle money that they had because it wasn't out the door.

In point of fact, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition had to forewarn this government that the federal government was going directly to local governments to see if they could get the money out the door. I quote directly from that letter: "It is discouraging to discover that the Ministry of Forests emergency response team and, apparently, the provincial government itself only discovered the request from the federal government when CCBAC, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, forwarded them a copy."

My question, again, to the minister is: what is it that this minister is not doing to secure that money? How did he drop the ball on a billion-dollar promise that was made by the Prime Minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nothing has been not done that shouldn't be done. We saw some money flow last year. We saw $100 million last year. I don't know where the member is getting his numbers from. I also know that we saw money flow over the last year with regards to a number of issues that we had with Alberta and stuff on mountain pine beetle.

I actually find it incredible that this member stands up and even wants to discuss pine beetle when for ten years, they knew the problem existed. They did nothing about it. Never built a beetle action plan. Never built a financial relationship with the federal government. Never built a Cariboo-Chilcotin beetle action committee or any other beetle action committee. All this member ever does is criticize those local community committees that are trying to build a future for forestry and economies in the interior of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: It's almost a year since the Minister for Housing told us he would soon release a full housing strategy. It's four months since the so-called housing strategy was released in October. After widespread criticism throughout the province, the minister then told us to wait for the next budget, and we would see a better and fuller strategy.

The budget has come and gone, and it is apparent that it is anything but a housing budget. In fact, the budget for non-profit and co-op housing has actually been slashed by $760,000. Now we're being told to wait another 60 days before we'll see a full housing strategy.

I wonder how the people of B.C. can possibly believe anything this government has to say. I ask the minister: if there is a real housing strategy somewhere out there to tackle this housing crisis in British Columbia, then why wasn't it announced last week in the budget?

Hon. R. Coleman: I find the member's comments rather laughable in the fact that this government has actually tripled the housing budget over the last five years.

It's incredible to me that this member doesn't know what a housing strategy is. Maybe she should read Housing Matters, and we can debate in estimates because by George, she sure doesn't get what's in there today.

Hon. R. Coleman: Last fall we said we would partner up with organizations for supportive housing so we can get a proposal call for 450 units. We announced 768 units on Friday because we partnered up and got more for our money.

In private members' statements this morning is the first time I've heard a member of the opposition agree with the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that they think rental assistance programs actually work for people in B.C.

D. Thorne: I can assure the minister that I'm really looking forward to estimates to debate this issue. He needn't worry — yeah, really looking forward.

D. Thorne: …can stand there with a straight face and say that they have tripled the housing budget when we all know that three-quarters of the so-called housing budget is an income tax cut that may be spent God knows how…. Across this province, people are saying that this budget — this so-called housing budget, this so-called housing strategy — is at best a joke and that the spin doctors of the Liberals should be sued for malpractice. Those are the kinds of comments I'm reading.

D. Thorne: …only $139 million is dedicated to new construction. Why, today in the Vancouver Sun there's a quote from the housing director of the city of Vancouver saying that a long-term commitment of stable funding and programs that address a full continuum of need is lacking.

He joins a growing chorus, asking the same question. I'm wondering if the Minister for Housing is still sticking to his government's message box. Or has he actually done a reality check across the province? Maybe that's why he's asking us to wait 60 more days.

Hon. R. Coleman: I hear the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith railing at me across the floor at the moment, although he didn't complain on Friday when we announced a new housing project in your riding.

I read the memo from Mr. Gray at the city of Vancouver. I met with the mayor of the city of Vancouver on the weekend and explained the housing strategy to him. He's comfortable with it. He knows where we're going. They know it's a complex problem. They know there are things in the wind that are commercially sensitive today that we can't discuss outside, in the public, until we complete them.

They know all that, but I want to hear from you. Who on that side of the House is finally going to admit to the 16,000 seniors in British Columbia that get SAFER and the up to 20,000 families that get a rental assistance program that if you ever became government, you would take it away from them?

G. Robertson: I'll just remind the minister that housing is all about wood, steel, concrete. It's not about hot air.

G. Robertson: The well-guarded 2010 countdown clock in downtown Vancouver now reads about 1,081 days until the games begin, but the games this government is playing with the 2010 commitments to housing and homelessness are well underway.

Time is now very short to ensure — and I quote from the commitments — that "no residents are displaced, evicted, made homeless or face unreasonable increases in rent as a result of the games."

I will remind the minister of additional 2010 commitments: protect rental housing and provide an affordable housing legacy. Blaming municipalities for the delays was absurd. Vancouver has 12 sites ready to go. His innuendo about future funding doesn't cut it either.

Will this minister commit now to fund 1,000 units of social housing in the city of Vancouver?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I guess the member should phone the city of Vancouver, because when I met with them…. They may have 12 sites, but they don't have 12 sites ready to go, hon. Member. Maybe that's a little flash of news for you, but you maybe better go check it out.

There's something that this member doesn't understand and the members of the opposition don't understand. Housing is about people. If immediately, today….

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, if a single mother with one child can have $200, $300 or $400 a month where they live today to offset their rental, I think the outcomes for that child and that family are that much better. Now, I know you don't support that idea. You just want to build social housing. You don't believe in actually assisting people with their rent.

That's too bad. This government has made the choice for thousands of people to have a better life in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The minister can huff and puff all he wants, but it does not change the fact that in the lower

mainland, homelessness is more than double under this government's watch. It doesn't change the fact that here in the capital city, the latest homeless count shows that there are 700 people living on the streets in the city of Victoria. In fact, homelessness has escalated under this government since they took office.

So yes, it is about people, and it is about ensuring that the people actually have a roof over their heads. The minister won't listen to the city of Vancouver, won't listen to the opposition, won't listen to the people of British Columbia. Let me ask the Premier a question.

Will the Premier listen to his own adviser, Mr. Ken Dobell, who has recently sent a report to the city of Vancouver asking for a billion dollars to support housing for the city of Vancouver? They need $250 million to build up the sites and $750 million to actually fund the operation of those sites. Will the Premier commit to the city of Vancouver and listen to Mr. Ken Dobell's suggestion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don't like a rental assistance program. You don't like the fact that we're partnering up with non-profits and municipalities to get more supportive housing in the marketplace to help people with multiple barriers, addictions and mental illness. I know you don't like that this Premier put together a Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. It's something you never thought of for ten years, something you never cared about.

I am actually quite comfortable with the fact that the relationship we have with the city of Vancouver and the work we're doing right now is going to bring them very significant results over the next number of months as we get there. And on top of that, in the very city you just mentioned, we have a very good working relationship with Mayor Lowe and his council, as well, in the city of Victoria.

H. Bains: Two and a half years after the Premier reassured British Columbians, "That's it — kaputski. It's done," the cost for a convention centre has soared over 60 percent over budget, and B.C. taxpayers are now on the hook for $800 million and counting.

Can the Premier tell this House how many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being forked over simply because this government had chosen to build the convention centre as cost-plus, for-fee type of contracts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think everyone understands there have been significant cost escalations for the convention centre. I also think the members opposite will understand that the economy is driving a number of those costs. The complexity of the project is driving a number of those costs, but here's what is important. There will be billions of dollars of economic activity, and thousands of new jobs will be created by that convention centre.

H. Bains: Eight years ago in this House, someone said: "There must be bad leadership coming from the Premier's office, because the Premier is not demanding performance. There's no one in the private sector who would possibly maintain their job when one of their projects had doubled in price."

Now that person sits in the Premier's office in this House. His pet project has more than doubled in cost, and the public has no reason to believe that this bill will stop at $800 million. I ask the question of the Premier again. Will he do the right thing and take responsibility for the convention centre debacle and table all of the contracts in full in this House today?

Hon. S. Hagen: The great news in the Premier's office is that we have a great Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts continues.

Hon. S. Hagen: Only the NDP, which stands for negative, destructive and pessimistic, would have something against a project as great as this one is. You know, the NDP always wants to take shots at the people who are working on these projects, people who have given years of public service, who have done a fantastic job for this province — which is more than I can say for any members of the opposition.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're talking about a project here that's going to serve British Columbians and build the economy in British Columbia for years to come. It's an environmentally friendly project. That was the party, when they were in power, who wasted $73 million and didn't put a shovel in the ground or a pile in the sand.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier, again on the same topic. Mr. Dobell is quoted as saying: "We started on this at a time when inflation in the construction industry was 2 percent a year. In fact, inflation has been 10 to 12 percent a year."

On November 3, 2005, the minister responsible at the time said that $615 million would be the final cost

of the building. Now, after just a year later, both the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible agree the cost is in the range of $800 million. This is over a 30-percent increase. The figures don't add up.

Once again, will the minister tell the House why he won't admit that signing cost-plus open contracts is the reason for this convention centre fiasco?

Hon. S. Hagen: Negative, pessimistic, destructive — that's what that party stands for. We're going to have a project here that's 1.1 million square feet of exhibition space.

If they're asking the question: are we happy with the escalations…? Of course we're not. But you know what? We have a booming economy in British Columbia. That's what's driving construction. That's what's driving the prices.

I'll tell you what we are happy with, though. We are happy with the fact that we have 50 conventions signed up starting in '09, 27 of which we would not be able to handle without the new facility. Those 50 conventions will generate $874 million worth of economic activity — just those 50 conventions.

I just want to make one additional point. At the same time, they're negotiating with 167 other conventions which want to come to B.C.

G. Coons: I have a petition signed by 354 residents of Prince Rupert and area, asking that the government restore funding for quality licensed child care services.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on Motion 40 standing on the order paper in my name.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion. I do so not because I'm against change, but because I'm against the way this government implements change and the consequences that often result.

As many previous speakers have pointed out in this debate, by convention and tradition, changes of this type are carried out by consensus between the government and its loyal opposition. There are good reasons for that. It leads to better decisions. It protects the independence of this chamber. It forces compromise between competing interests and viewpoints, and that dialogue helps to protect the public interest.

The B.C. Liberals have never cared too much about those principles. After all, it was this government that relied on an obscure precedent to deny British Columbians an official opposition altogether for four years. It was this government that brought in a legislative calendar and then used it to force closure.

It was this government that cancelled last fall's legislative session and called the Legislature "busywork." It was this government that promised open cabinet meetings and then turned them into staged media events where ministers got to throw each other staged soft-ball questions.

It was this government that promised openness, transparency and accountability, and then cut the budget for FOI and took every opportunity to restrict access to information. It was this government that unilaterally appointed a candidate to be Auditor General over the objections of the opposition. I could go on, but the point is clear. From the start the B.C. Liberals have acted arrogantly and without concern for the public interest, and today's motion just adds to that record.

The government assures us that its motives are pure, that it's acting in everyone's best interest and striking the right balance. But the result of this unilateral decision raises serious questions about the government's true intent, its real agenda.

Had the B.C. Liberals sought input and support for these changes, we would have brought forward serious concerns about their proposal for discussion and amendment. Had they shown respect for this chamber and achieved consensus, their motives wouldn't be called into question on this motion.

For example, the net effect of this proposal is to reduce the number of hours for debate in this chamber, but perhaps that is the government's real intent. It certainly is the result of this motion.

It means fewer questions will be asked in budget estimates, where the government asks for authority to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. It means important legislation will receive less time and therefore less scrutiny. But again, maybe that's what this government wants.

It means that British Columbians who work during the day will lose their opportunity to see their Legislature work. Once again, maybe the government prefers it if fewer people have an opportunity to actually watch them work.

There are reasonable solutions to these concerns that could have been discussed. We could, for example, extend the Legislature by a week or two to make up for lost time. We could reduce the number of night sittings but not eliminate them altogether, still allowing people to watch the proceedings. As our Opposition House Leader said, our door is open.

It's clear that this government isn't interested in discussion or compromise. They're determined to impose their will, and they're intent on treating this House with disdain — a deliberate pattern of behaviour that

When I entered provincial politics, I said that I wanted to help bring a new tone to the debate in this Legislature and in politics in general in B.C. — tough, vigilant, aggressive but also respectful of British Columbians' intelligence. A new tone never means compromising on principles, and it never means letting up on government. We will always be tough on the B.C. Liberal record — whether it's the shameful way they've treated at-risk children, the way they've betrayed seniors or the harm they've caused our environment.

To get respect from the public, we must show it in return. To be relevant, all of us — government and opposition — must be heard. We can't be heard if we call each other names and engage in personal attacks. And we shouldn't be heard when we speak in spin — for example, when we call a tax cut a "housing plan" or when we talk big on global warming but do nothing to back up our words. That only adds to the public cynicism about politics. We won't be heard if we ignore this chamber.

The people of B.C. have moved way past the way we practise politics, and the institutions which govern our province have become more and more distant from the reality of their lives. It's time that we caught up to the people, but unilateral and heavy-handed decisions to change the way this House functions take us backwards in that work. It violates the traditions of this House, and it should be withdrawn.

I would encourage all members of this House, out of respect for the public, to vote against this motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am, as always, obliged to the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the chamber who have contributed to the debate that took place over Thursday afternoon and now the early part of the afternoon on Monday.

I won't take a lot of time, but I do think it is worth restating what I said at the outset in introducing the motion before the House. It has not been lost upon me that an attempt has been made to characterize this as something that it is not — these allegations of a unilateral attempt to subvert the practices of democracy within the halls of this chamber in British Columbia. I don't know what all that I have heard.

First of all, let me state the specific facts. We are talking about a sessional order here, one that applies for the spring session and the spring session only.

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, members who only a short time ago were characterizing this as some draconian…. I'll get to the essence of the thing in a moment. If they don't want to listen, that's fine. We'll have the vote. If they actually want to know whether or not I was listening….

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually did listen to the debate, and it may surprise members to know that in a couple of cases I actually heard some comments that I thought were thoughtful and responsible. The member for Cariboo South reminded members of some of the circumstances that members like him are confronted by in terms of travel back and forth to the chamber. You know what? I and the government and the government caucus actually care about those things. We actually care about trying to come up with a structure that works for members.

That's why this is a sessional order. That's why, when we first began discussing this, I made it clear that that would be one of the guiding principles — that we wanted to try this. And yes, it was about eliminating night sittings, but it was also about ensuring that the time — the 40½ hours that derive from night sittings in the scheduled spring session — was made up.

I know there has been an attempt — and we've just heard yet another attempt by the Leader of the Opposition — to characterize that differently, that somehow this was an attempt to minimize the hours of debate. I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to hear this, and I know members opposite, in their revisionist history of this thing even while it's taking place, don't want to hear this. Actually, if we had debated this motion when the government wanted to early last week, we would have increased the number of hours available for debate in the spring session.

Now members make a point about the specifics of when that debate would take place, and there is an element of truth to that. It is a four-hour issue, and that may be something that, in the course of conversation going forward, one might be able to address.

I have been around here long enough not to take too much of this stuff personally, but when the Leader of the Opposition says it would have been better if the Government House Leader had sought some input…. To leave the impression, as I think she has purposely done, that an attempt was not made to engage in some discussion I think is unfair. I just think it's unfair.

I know the Leader of the Opposition wanted to get up and make some kind of rallying point or debate here, but one of the things…. I must say, when I'm confronted by that kind of a statement in the context of this debate, that one of the challenges one has with this Leader of the Opposition is actually getting a decision from her — actually getting a decision from the Leader of the Opposition. And what can be even a little more challenging than that…

Hon. M. de Jong: …is to get her to stick to that decision once she's made it.

Hon. M. de Jong: On the verge, the eve, of the vote that will take place, let's remind ourselves what is in the standing order in the sessional amendment. It would see the night sittings that have taken place on Mondays and Wednesdays, which have over the last number of years started at quarter to seven and run to nine o'clock, replaced by the House convening at 1:30 in the afternoon and sitting until 6:30. Going forward, that would mean that the 40½ hours that would take place under the former schedule of night sittings will be replaced, assuming this motion passes today, by 40 hours of debate.

There's the acknowledgment. There is the acknowledgment. There is the grand assault on democracy: 30 minutes of debate.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we don't need to debate with other people on the floor. The Government House Leader has the floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: The notion that has been advanced by some members that there was no attempt made to engage in a discussion I will leave for the opposition caucus to take up internally. They can do so, and I won't make any further comments on that.

My hope is this. My hope is that we can try this, assuming it passes — that members will feel, notwithstanding the opinions that some have expressed during the course of this discussion and debate, that members will have an opportunity to try it, to provide their views as we move through it. At the conclusion of the spring session we can sit down, perhaps the Opposition House Leader and myself, to determine whether or not it worked for members, like the member for Cariboo South or the member for Peace River South — whether there was a difference in terms of some of the logistics and travel logistics and whether it worked well.

The Opposition House Leader made some comments about the possibilities of other meetings superseding the time that heretofore has been spent with the House in session, and we'll look at that. But to have this characterized as some sort of full-fledged frontal assault on the democratic principles and pillars of this institution, I think — something the Leader of the Opposition and others with nothing better to do than manufacture issues to detract from some other difficulties they may or may not be having — does a disservice….

It's probably no more complicated…. What the Leader of the Opposition has tried to do here has probably revealed as much in a very straightforward comment she made when she said that British Columbians will lose the opportunity to watch these proceedings.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is incorrect, because not only are these proceedings broadcast, and will be till 6:30; they are rebroadcast.

I understand the political desire that the Leader of the Opposition had to stand up here and try to rally the troops around some cause that some people apparently have strong views…. But you know, it would be nice to be accurate. It would be novel, in fact. It would be novel to be accurate.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Can you apologize for that? Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret very much that members have chosen to take a matter that I hope and still hope can be constructive and positive going forward and try somehow to turn it into a political issue or a cause. However, be that as it may.…

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it says a lot about an opposition. I actually sat in here for the bulk of the debate and listened because I was interested in what members had to say. That apparently is not the case….

Hon. M. de Jong: It is further, I think, a reflection on this opposition that believes, any time their view does not prevail, that those opposite are somehow running roughshod over their democratic privilege as members of this chamber.

We're going to have the vote. Again, I urge members, if this motion passes, to feel free to channel via the House Leader as we move through this — or directly, if they wish, via the Opposition House Leader — their views on its operational efficacy. I urge members of the chamber to give the new schedule a chance to operate. We'll see how it works and assess it at the end of the spring session.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier in the debate with the Government House Leader and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I misinterpreted what she said. I thought she said the word "lie." She said "phone in live." That should be noted for the record.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, here's a live update. I think all members probably noticed a bit of activity involving the Small Business and Revenue Minister. I can advise the House that he was taken to the hospital earlier today. We're not sure what his condition is at the moment, but we have assured him that all of our best wishes in the chamber are with him, and we wish him a speedy recovery.

J. McIntyre: It's a great privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of my communities in West Vancouver–Garibaldi and respond to the February 2007 balanced budget.

What is being termed by many as a substantive, visionary throne speech last week laid out our government's plan for the next phase in achieving our goals for a prosperous decade. We are now actively pursuing opportunities and initiatives under the aegis of the Pacific leadership agenda, which outlines five key elements that I wish to reiterate due to their importance.

They're integral to our platform: (1) to lead Canada in partnership with first nations; (2) to tackle the challenges of global warming and unplanned urban sprawl; (3) to increase affordable housing, reduce homelessness and, most importantly from my perspective, help those who cannot help themselves; (4) to improve quality, choice and accountability in our two most important public services, health and education; and (5) to open up Canada's Pacific gateway and strengthen our economic competitiveness — all in an attempt to keep on pushing each and every one of us to realize the true promise of our province.

I'm very proud to be part of a team with a real leader who is not afraid to lay out an ambitious plan to achieve specific goals as well as to continue to ask the hard questions. Our leader, unlike others, has the courage of his convictions to press forward with significant change and to actually implement the plan.

I understand that change is uncomfortable for most people. There are many vested interests in society — groups who would much prefer the status quo. But status quo is not good enough for British Columbians now — not ever — and certainly not good enough for our children and our grandchildren. We were elected to lead.

One of the main themes of government during this term has been that of individual responsibility. We need to be much more aware of our actions as well as the need to start to take steps, even if they're small, to alter our path — whether we're taking steps to eat healthier, to be more active, to step up to the plate in assisting with the more vulnerable in society and now to be much more conscious of our personal environmental footprint and what we can do to mitigate or alter our habits. All these steps will have a cumulative impact. Collectively, they will assist us in managing resources more efficiently and more effectively.

As you know by now, the ambitious environmental goals set out in the throne speech have received accolades from many corners, including various letters to the editor from the general public and the press, such as this from David Suzuki on CBC radio. "It's very heartening to me to know that in British Columbia there seems to be a real shift in terms of the government's approach to climate change, and I applaud the Premier for making that shift."

From renowned Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver at the University of Victoria. "It is the most progressive plan I've seen anywhere in North America, for a start, and one of the best in the world," he said. "This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It is really super."

Also, Vaughn Palmer on Valentine's Day, a headline: "A Throne Speech That Even Satisfies Critics." In his

column, he goes on to say: "Even the critics were taken aback. I never expected a B.C. Liberal government throne speech would be greeted with a press release from the Sierra Club that began: 'The Sierra Club of B.C. today welcomed….'"

Identifying these goals is only the first step. We will need time under the leadership of the climate action team chaired by the Premier to develop a more detailed approach and attach costs. The opposition, of course, may have to be reminded that it's essential to actually have a business plan before you start spending the money.

All of this will be done in conjunction with starting to implement our new energy plan. This will be a preoccupation, no doubt, over the coming year. However, I want to remind everyone that there are a number of ongoing issues that are not being forgotten despite what the members of the opposition would like you to believe. Our budget clearly shows the ongoing commitment to a wide variety of initiatives that are advancing our quality of life in this province.

In contrast, the member for Yale-Lillooet calls the government's agenda an act of fiction. That is absolutely laughable. There likely has never been so much being achieved in so short a time in this province's history.

I was informed by a Clerk that the House has never been so busy as it was last fall — while we were supposedly not working, according to our opposition. For starters, there's never been such an ambitious turnaround in the economy. If he really believes it's fiction, you may have to ask yourself what planet he's living on, because you can be sure that his constituents are benefiting from our government's initiatives.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview last week insulted our government members by stating in this House that our government does not have the prerequisite ability and business experience to be running a $30 billion–plus organization. You should hear what your own member said: "Not many of the members opposite have experience in business, and all of a sudden they're in charge of 30-odd billion dollars' worth of expenses to manage. Fiscal responsibility, when you have no background in fiscal responsibility, is puzzling."

Has he checked our resumés? It's incredibly laughable and extreme, particularly in light of how the NDP managed the fast ferry fiasco and basically torpedoed the B.C. economy in their ten years of ideological rule in the 1990s. This government has returned B.C. from the basement to a leading position in the country, and in short order it's attained the highest credit rating possible, triple-A. Does that sound like incompetence or a fiction to you? I don't think so.

The Leader of the Opposition goes on and dares — and I say "dares" — to say in her response to the throne speech that our government's throne speeches "have always been a terrible barometer of the government's true intentions." This could not be further from the truth. In fact, there's been commentary over the past week that the one thing you can count on is that when this Premier puts his mind to something, it gets done.

We have a proven track record of achievement that no one can dispute. To me, these are just examples of members of a political party without their own concrete, realistic plan of action desperately trying to throw stones. These negative responses to a laudable plan of action outlined in the throne speech that even media and some of our harshest critics are praising are nothing short of completely pathetic and embarrassing.

I expected — I guess, it turns out, naively — full and genuine debate on the issues, on the merits of our plan and an intelligent analysis of the proposed budget, or at least some concrete forms of alternatives that we could discuss, that we could learn from. But no. Instead, we get insults and misinterpretation, along with the doom-and-gloom scenarios. I am so disappointed.

I'd like to know how this type of constant negativity benefits British Columbians. I think the NDP has to answer for this. However, I digress.

On to the fundamentals of our fourth consecutive balanced budget, which run the full spectrum of confirming our commitment to the most vulnerable, who need a helping hand, as well as to providing tax relief to a vast majority of British Columbians, who are best equipped to decide how to spend their hard-earned tax dollars.

While we are managing change, at the same time, we've reasserted our commitments to increase funding for our core public services, health care and K-to-12 education, to the tune of $2.69 billion and $633 million respectively in the three-year budget cycle. This brings these funding levels to $3.68 million in new — the operative word being "new" — funding for health care and $765 million, over three-quarters of a billion, for K-to-12 over the next three years. As enrolment continues to decline by more than 12,000 students alone this year, per-pupil funding will reach a record $7,910, an increase of over 4 percent over last year.

The funding increases to the health budget from $8 billion to $13 billion in round numbers represent an increase of over 50 percent since we rescued this province from the NDP in 2001. That's a cut? No. No, it just sounds like NDP math to me.

Access to post-secondary education, which is particularly key due to our increased need for skilled labour in a number of fields as well as in high-demand regions such as the Sea to Sky corridor, is receiving new funding of $343 million over three years. Additionally, there is $135 million over three years to support the creation of 7,000 new apprenticeships and to reach the goal of 25,000 new post-secondary spaces, including 2,500 postgrad spaces.

We are already significantly upping our efforts on the provincial nominee program to bring in workers from other parts of the world whose skills are in demand in B.C. and in the riding I represent. Landed-immigrant status can now be fast-tracked, sometimes in a matter of weeks. But oh no. I read in the media today, of course, that bringing in foreign workers is something else the unions are opposed to.

In this budget, in addition to core services, our government has identified a range of other key initiatives

to ensure that we will continue, with momentum, to progress on the right track and to provide solid supports to British Columbians. The theme of Budget 2007 is "building a housing legacy." We recognize that housing issues touch us all, right from homelessness all the way to home-ownership issues.

This budget delivers British Columbians a range of new supports worth $2 billion over four years to help address the challenges created by an economy on fire. How the NDP Finance critic could stand in this House and say that this budget "raises questions about the Premier's ability to govern in the interests of working families" is completely beyond me. This opposition is, in fact, opposed to the very initiatives that will assist working families — blinded by ideology.

Here are some key highlights that prove exactly how we are providing for every British Columbian, including working families. There's a housing endowment fund of $250 million — that's a quarter of a billion dollars — that will generate approximately $10 million a year to support innovative housing solutions. This is in perpetuity and will deliver benefits for generations to come — for your children and for your grandchildren.

Our government is also helping every taxpayer with their housing expenses by cutting personal income taxes by 10 percent for British Columbians earning up to $100,000. By doing this, the government is allowing British Columbians to redirect these savings to their own personal priorities. This latest personal income tax reduction builds on the 25-percent tax cut introduced in 2001 and the B.C. tax reduction introduced in 2005. As a result, 250,000 British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax. Others have seen reductions up to 70 percent, and most have seen reductions between 30 percent and 35 percent.

The budget offers new supports for homeowners. The first-time-homebuyers program is enhanced to exempt first-time buyers across B.C. from paying the property transfer tax on homes valued now up to $375,000. This will save first-time buyers up to $5,500, and that is a lot of money. To a young couple, people starting out to buy a new home, $5,500 is a significant amount of money.

Seniors will also greatly benefit from the new housing tax measures. Now low-income seniors will be eligible for the homeowner grant, regardless of their home's assessed value. New legislation will be introduced to allow people to start deferring their property taxes at age 55 rather than at age 60. This provides added budget flexibility for those on fixed incomes.

Budget 2007 also expands the rental assistance program, raising the income threshold to $28,000 a year so that more lower-income working families — that would be working families — qualify for benefits. An additional 5,800 families, more than 20,000 in total, will be eligible to receive up to $563 a month to help with their housing costs.

Our government is also raising the shelter rate by $50 a month for people on income assistance. This means that B.C. now has the highest shelter assistance rates in Canada for employable singles, couples and single-parent families. No, this isn't any help at all, I guess.

In addition to building a housing legacy, Budget 2007 builds on the province's three-year transportation investment plan, providing more than $2.4 billion of provincial investment in transportation infrastructure as well as $1.1 billion of investment leveraged — "leveraged" being the operative word here — through federal cost-sharing and partnerships with the private sector, local governments and other agencies. This includes allocating $266 million over three years for the ongoing Sea to Sky Highway safety upgrade in my constituency.

This budget includes $49 million in funding for initiatives targeting reconciliation of aboriginal rights and title as well as building strong and respectful relationships between government and aboriginal organizations. This builds from the $100 million for capacity-building previously budgeted and delivered.

I'd now like to move on to provide the House with an update on activities in the special constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, which I have the privilege of representing here in the Legislature.

The continuing work on the safety upgrades for the Sea to Sky Highway, which links most of the constituency's communities, is moving along at an amazing clip. It's literally moving mountains with, I must point out, minimal road closures and minimal disruptions to people's lives and schedules — except, of course, I have to say, on the few occasions when Mother Nature has not cooperated and has inflicted upon us severe weather and landslides.

I must take this moment to thank constituents for their patience and perseverance, as well as their suggestions for finding solutions and improving how, together, we can find ways to cope and keep the road open in dire circumstances.

Three- and four-lane sections of this $600 million highway upgrade are already completed, making the road safer and more efficient to travel. It's only going to get better as we move to completion in 2009, on or ahead of schedule and on budget — the great benefits of an award-winning, successful public-private partnership which has built-in incentives for performance. It's a concept that the NDP somehow doesn't seem to grasp, despite evidence of stunning examples of success in this province that are now being contemplated and copied by other jurisdictions.

The Sea to Sky corridor continues to have a number of land use challenges. As I said before, we must learn to share our resources like never before and try to find innovative ways to ensure that our practices are sustainable. So 2007 is going to be a very big year, as we anticipate signing the Sea to Sky Highway accommodation agreement with the Squamish First Nation, following on the heels of the successful land transfer agreement signed with Lil'wat Nation just before Christmas.

We're also looking forward to the possibility of implementing an LRMP — that is, a land and resource management plan — for the region as well as introducing a new recreational trail strategy. The economic boom in the province, especially in the Sea to Sky corridor, has

created new opportunities for apprenticeships on the highway and work in construction and in the forest for our first nations residents, which is not only proving to be an economic benefit but is adding to capacity.

What hypocrisy when the member for Yale-Lillooet, who was elected in '91 and '96 — during the NDP's dismal decade of deterioration, as it's commonly referred to nowadays — last week cried about the desperate situation on the first nations reserves of the many bands located in his region.

What did he and the NDP do for them when they had the opportunity for ten long years? Absolutely nothing. They did nothing in comparison to what this government has done to advance the interests of first nations in our term with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and all the related ministries that have allocated millions and millions of dollars for economic opportunities, for sharing resources, for building capacity and for setting targets for improving first nations health, education and skills.

They did nothing. They did nothing when they had the opportunity. We are absolutely determined to redress the past inequities and narrow those gaps. In the constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, as an example, 2010 has been the catalyst for untold opportunities for advancement for first nations. As I mentioned: land transfers; jobs and apprenticeships in the forest, in construction, in the hospitality industry; aboriginal tourism, with the pending opening of the Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre in Whistler; Olympic live sites grants and achievements in youth sports.

Lyle Leo of Lil'wat Nation, who recently has won a national award for his work in economic development, takes great pride in the band's drop in unemployment from well over 80 percent — which, I guess, would have been in the 1990s — to the low 20s, with expanded opportunities in the works to reduce that even further. This is not talk; this is significant action and accomplishment. It's real change and improvement in people's lives because there's a genuine will and a commitment to change.

As I near my conclusion, let's talk about the highlights in several of the riding communities over the past months.

There are too many accomplishments to enumerate, but I'd like to touch on several of the noteworthy. Let me start with Pemberton. A number of positive steps have been taken as the fast-growing, comparatively small community deals with its infrastructure needs. They've received a child care capital grant from our ministry, and they've made applications for Olympic live sites grants.

Arising out of some of our government-to-government meetings at UBCM last fall, the village of Pemberton was awarded a cross-ministry grant for a feasibility study for the Pemberton Airport, which has the potential to be a great economic driver in the region and to increase Whistler's competitiveness with direct access by air to the international resort.

Speaking of Whistler, it's a resort community that for years has been dedicated to implementing leading environmental sustainability practices, using their vision 2020 plan and the application of the Natural Step framework as guiding principles. I hope that Whistlerites, starting with mayor and council, are pleased with the aggressive environmental targets laid out in our throne speech.

Construction activities at the Olympic venues in the Callaghan Valley and at Whistler are in full swing. I had the privilege of joining the media tour last summer to see what incredible progress has been made. I also attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the athletes village, which will be converted to affordable housing units after the games as a lasting legacy for community residents, to help them live in the community in which they work.

Now moving on down to Squamish. It is enjoying rapid growth, which of course brings its own set of challenges. Major development projects are in the works, including on the Nexen lands on their waterfront. The province gifted 70-plus acres. There are other residential developments to satisfy the increased numbers that are moving there for lifestyle reasons to enjoy the outdoor recreation capital of Canada, especially now that the highway is improved. The adventure centre there, which the province also funded to the tune of almost a million dollars, is up and running and serving locals and tourists alike.

With $2 million of provincial funding, the West Coast Heritage Railway Park is also undergoing major renovation, adding a turntable and sort of convention centre facilities. It is just where we steamed up in the Royal Hudson with the Lieutenant-Governor a few months ago and was also the site of an art show at Squamish's Wild at Art Festival last week.

As an aside, when I hear "Squamish," I immediately think of and would like to take an opportunity to comment now on the thoughts of the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows on the Ashlu project, which he castigated in his comments last week when he accused our government of capitalist giveaway ripoff principles. Well, that very project, which is worth millions and millions and millions of investment in that community, has first nations partners — 45 jobs, going to 100 jobs for first nations. And it's clean energy. So guess what. The opposition cannot have it both ways.

Britannia Beach, going on down the corridor here, is also undergoing a major facelift, with new residential redevelopment. The award-winning P3 treatment plant had its official opening a number of months ago, and I had the supreme pleasure of emceeing. I now can assure this House that clean water is flowing into Howe Sound after decades of inaction.

You might wonder: what did the NDP do about this all through the '90s? Yes, I guarantee you that there will be resounding silence, because guess what. They're opposed to the private sector involvement. They would rather do nothing — nothing.

The Britannia mining museum, I can report, is flourishing, with the updated concentrator building virtually completed with the aid of both provincial and federal funds.

Lions Bay is dealing with infrastructure needs, as are a number of the communities. They have the expanding highway and the aftermath of some nasty winter weather. But on a more positive note, I've had the pleasure of working with their mayor Max Wyman in developing the Sea to Sky cultural alliance, which is a fabulous grass-roots initiative designed to create critical mass for arts and culture in our region.

On Bowen Island I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of their new public golf course, the pride of many residents who have worked hard to raise funds and make it the success it is. Along with some of their local festivals, amenities such as this will definitely help in their tourism efforts.

As we get to the south end of the constituency, we arrive at West Vancouver. There has been a major cultural push in this community as a result of their designation last year as a cultural capital of Canada. Festivals will be taken to new levels. There's the Harmony Arts in August and now WinterSong in February, which I just had the pleasure of attending on opening night in its second year.

The North Shore 2010 Spirit of B.C. Committee and three local mayors have championed our North Shore MLA initiative of developing a path — more than a bike path — linking Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay as a legacy. Over $700,000 has been returned to the district for policing and should assist with West Van's venture into E-Comm. The 2010 venues at Cypress Mountain are well in hand, with one of two completed already in 2006, well ahead of schedule, to allow our athletes to practise.

Finally, I'm very pleased to report that highway construction is progressing well on the Eagleridge interchange — again, with minimal delays in traffic. So you can see that the Sea to Sky corridor, to borrow a phrase, is really a happening place as we progress to 2010.

I'm delighted that this Balanced Budget 2007 should improve the quality of life for most everyone in one way or another — whether it be youngsters who can take advantage of early learning and literacy programs; higher funding in K-to-12 and more government money for trades and skills development, apprenticeships and higher learning as they go into adulthood; or for seniors who can, as of last week, feel more secure in their housing arrangements. As a renter, an owner or someone in need of shelter or social assistance, rest assured that our government is putting together a full range of supports for all of us dealing with housing pressures.

Most of all, I hope that the proposed 10-percent tax break will be appreciated by a broad cross-section of British Columbians. This is the power of a strong economy.

In closing, I can't help but wonder if the NDP is actually going to have the courage to support this budget — whether or not, for purely political reasons, they're going to vote against these tax breaks and family supports and then turn around and try to claim that they are the only ones to represent the interests of B.C. families. Well, this is absolute nonsense, because if they vote against this budget, the NDP will be showing their true colours. Just look…. [Applause.] Yes, good, good. Keep clapping.

Actually, I appreciate the applause, because guess what. You go on record for opposing a 10-percent tax break for the vast majority, opposing record funding for health care and education. Opposed to increased financial assistance to keep seniors in their homes. Opposed to increased assistance for new homebuyers, yes. Opposed to expanded rental assistance for an additional 5,800 B.C. families. Opposed to an increase in shelter rates for people on income assistance, opposed to an additional almost $50 million for first nations initiatives. Opposed to a minimum of $100 million in environmental initiatives.

The NDP are just plain opposed — negative, destructive and pessimistic. In contrast, I feel buoyant. I feel buoyant about what this budget brings to this province. I am confident that this Premier has a vision and a strong commitment to lead in this province, to improve the quality of life for us all with a budget we can afford.

I am incredibly proud and humbled at the same time to represent the West Vancouver–Garibaldi constituents and especially proud to be part of this team that actually gets it.

H. Bains: I have a surprise for this member who just spoke previous to me. I'm here to tell her the real reasons why we should not support this budget.

This is the third budget that I've seen. There's the same theme developing: give it to the rich multinationals and their multi-millionaire friends at the expense of the working people, the poor and the most vulnerable in this society. That's what they're doing.

As a result, we have the highest number of children in poverty in B.C. Homelessness has doubled in the last four years. Tuition fees for our students in post-secondary education have doubled or tripled. We have the highest number of poor living in this province, more than anywhere in Canada. That's why we should be opposing this.

There are a number of other reasons, which I'd like to bring to the House, why we should be opposing this. This budget…. They've talked about how fiscally prudent this government is. Let me tell you that for any business you start, there's a fundamental to starting a business. You must have a business plan.

When you look at VANOC, at the games that are being developed, there's no business plan. Although it was promised two years ago that there would be a business plan that would talk about all of the components of the business plan, we have not yet seen a business plan. And they call themselves business people, business-savvy people. Those are not business-savvy people. That is mismanagement, incompetence.

I would like you to take it to my constituency, Surrey. Ever since this government has taken over, they have allowed the health care system at Surrey Memorial Hospital to deteriorate to a point where people are losing their limbs and lives, and this minister continued to say that everything is fine in Surrey and all of those hospitals in the lower mainland.

Just a few days ago you heard in this House about my constituent who had partially severed his fingers while trying to make a living at his workplace. He went to Surrey Memorial Hospital at 1:30 in the afternoon. He was made to wait two or three hours, and he was told that there are no doctors, no operating rooms available for him. From there he was shipped to Royal Columbian Hospital. Again, the same story there. From there his father was told to take him to VGH. His father drove him all the way to VGH and got there at 8:30 in the evening. He was told there that surgery would be performed on him first thing in the morning. That didn't happen. It was the same story there: no doctors; they're too busy doing other things; no resources. It took 22 hours in pain and agony in this day and age, in this province, before surgery was performed, and he ended up losing one of his fingers.

You know what was really, really disturbing? The family made a statement that if they were in India, a Third World country, they probably would have saved that finger there. That is a shame. That is a shame.

This is from the family, and I think all of you on that side of the House should go and talk to that family and listen to their concerns. Go listen to their concerns. This type of arrogance and ignorance that comes from that side of the House is the reason why we continue to get ignored in Surrey, and no one from that side has the guts to stand up to the Premier and tell him that we need resources in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Rather than fixing, all we see is announcement after announcement after announcement. The first announcement was made when they realized that they were going to lose elections in 2005. Now they will expand the emergency ward; they will build another hospital. Then they came to Surrey and said, "Yes, we will expand" — that was October 2005 — and that the construction will start on the ambulatory day care unit in 2007 and will be completed in 2009.

I'd like the members on the other side to pay attention to this. That was the announcement made in October 2005. Then the Premier came in about six months ago and said that the construction will not start in 2007. Instead, it will start a year later. Come on; stand up for Surrey. What is the reason for the delay of that hospital to start construction in 2007? What is the reason? There's no reason. There's only one reason. They need to pay for the mismanagement, the debacle, of the Vancouver Convention Centre and the cost overrun at the Olympics. That's what the reason is.

There are a number of other areas that they have failed to address in the budget. We have hundreds if not thousands of immigrants who are trained, who are qualified and who cannot use their skills, their credentials and their certificates to fully realize the potential that they bring to this country.

These were the folks — many of them are in the category — who were recruited from India, from Sri Lanka and from Pakistan and other countries and were told: "Your skills are needed in Canada, in British Columbia." As a result, they came through a skill category of the Immigration Act. When they arrived in Canada, they were told by this government, by the federal government, that their credentials are no good. As a result, as someone said, the hard-working immigrant families are desperate for meaningful jobs.

After many years of empty promises, repeated announcements and hot air, there's no time to waste. What we need is action rather than more promises, more announcements. That's all we hear from this government on this issue.

Ontario actually took some concrete actions. They actually brought in Bill 124. They have, through this bill, advised all of the professional organizations and the foreign-trained professionals that they're to work together to come up with a process which will speed the line in recognizing those credentials. They gave them about a year to come up with that proposal.

If they fail to come up with a solution in one year, then the government can use that act and introduce changes as they please to fix this problem. At least there's an attempt being made. Concrete steps are being taken — contrary to what this government does, which is just the announcement, promises, but no action. That is a shame. There's nothing in the budget to deal with that issue either.

As I said before, the trend continues on in this budget again — to help the multinationals, to help multi-millionaires or their friends at the expense of the poor and the seniors.

Manufactured home owners are another group of folks that are hit hard by this government. In 2002 they changed the act. Once they were entitled to up to $10,000 moving expenses. If the landowner decided to develop the land for other purposes than the home park, they would get $10,000 moving expenses. This government, true to their form, came in and changed that. Now all they're entitled to is the equivalent of 12 months' rent, which in many cases is only $4,000 or $5,000. That is a shame.

Many of these folks who live in those manufactured homes are seniors. Many of them are on disability, fixed incomes. How cruel a government can be. I have seen 85-year-olds, 87-year-olds who are affected by this change crying in my office because, they are telling me, the policy of this government has made them homeless.

They have no place to go, because they have a home that is too old to be moved. It does not meet the safety requirements of the highway. No one buys them. Now they're being moved out. There is no compensation, and as a result they have no home to go to. That is a shame, and there's nothing in this budget to deal with that issue.

The other change they brought in when they took office was the elimination of the Human Rights

Commission. A human rights commission is a basic fundamental right for every citizen in a democratic society. This was the commission that would help the employer, the workers and the communities to deal with the issues in the event there was an issue dealing with a human right.

They provided education and many seminars to deal with the issues they are facing, and there's nothing in this budget to deal with that issue either. Once again, many folks are disappointed — the visible minorities and folks all across the province.

WorkSafe B.C. — another area, same theme. The workers' benefits are reduced so that the employer can have a holiday in their premiums. If you look at the area of benefits that are being cut in WorkSafe B.C., it's so serious that there are people out there who basically have lost their homes, and they don't know what to do about it. There are people in my office who have been dealing with WCB for six or seven years now with no end in sight. All they see is roadblock after roadblock, and they have nothing to go to.

For whoever is entitled to those benefits, their benefits are reduced to a point where you're talking about working in poverty. That's the kind of stuff this government has done. Like I said, the theme is the same. Take from the workers, take from the ordinary families, and give it to the multinationals. That's the theme again when they changed the WCB and WorkSafe B.C. in the act.

The forest industry is another area. Many of my constituents work in the sawmills. I just had another sawmill closed, where many of my constituents work — Western Forest Products in Queensborough. Over 200 workers were given pink slips because of the policy of this government. This mill wasn't shut down because this mill was not profitable or wasn't efficient. This mill was shut down because the company can shut it down.

There's no accountability from this government. They'll continue to use our logs and tree farm licences. The workers are thrown on the street, and there's no responsibility, as we once had, on the companies through the social contract that we had in place in the '50s and '60s. These are our logs. These logs are supposed to be used to create employment, both in logging and in manufacturing.

There was that link, and they took that link out so that their friends the multinationals can do whatever they want with our resources — our logs. Log exports, as a result, are at a record high. In the meantime those companies shutting down these mills are claiming that they don't have enough logs to keep those mills running. That's the kind of stuff this government has done, and all you have to do is talk to those workers who are losing their jobs every day in the forest industry. They refuse to do that. They even refuse to meet with those workers. It is a shame — the kind of changes that have been brought.

Child care resource and referral funding was cut just a few weeks ago. My understanding is that of the $14 million that went to these service providers, $6 million came from the federal government and the remaining $9 million came from the B.C. government. When the federal government cut their $6 million, this government cut their $9 million down to $3 million.

In my own constituency we have a service provider called Options, which had 4,758 parent referrals; 53 workshops enrolling over 1,000 participants; 115 networking and drop-in programs; 19,000 loans of resources and equipment; 27,000 consultations with parents; registered 64 "licence not required" day cares; assisted 775 families with subsidy applications and supplied 2,834 applications.

Now they will not have this service in my community. Instead, there are 17 people being laid off from my community. Those folks, who provided all of these services to the parents and to the children in my constituency, are no longer there.

They call this a housing budget, for some reason. I looked at it, and the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi said that what the member for Yale-Lillooet — who I thought correctly described this budget — had said was laughable. But I'll tell you what's laughable, Mr. Speaker. They said that there's $2 billion in housing. Three-quarters of that — they know that — comes as a 10-percent tax cut, as they claim, which should be used as a housing subsidy. That's laughable. There isn't much about housing, but they call this a housing budget, just like the one before they called a children's budget and the one before the seniors budget, which I believe was the same thing. There was nothing in there — all talk.

I want to talk about crime, in closing. I know my time is running out. Just in the last few days a serious criminal, a rapist, was released in my community of Surrey-Newton. The Ontario Attorney General went to court and got a court injunction, got an order preventing this fellow from moving into Ontario forever. Where was our Attorney General? Where is this government in protecting the citizens of my community in this province? Nowhere to be seen.

While they are praising this budget, praising their Premier day in and day out, they are not doing anything about preventing crime. They are doing nothing to assure my community that they are safe in their homes, that they are safe when they're walking their children to school. Nothing is being done, and I think that is a shame. It is a shame for the record of this government.

I want to move on to the education side. When Bill 33 was brought in after the tremendous amount of pressure from the parents, the teachers and this opposition, they made some changes, but they went only halfway. They put the class sizes and the class-size limit on, but they provided no resources to pay for that. There was nothing for the special needs children — nothing whatsoever. I think, as a result, our children are suffering in that community, and those folks and the parents are not getting the support they need in our schools for their children.

I want to talk about the Olympics and the Vancouver Convention Centre. I've never seen any government doing what this government is doing — hiding the cost, not being up front, and this from a government that promised they would be the most open and transparent government in Canada. In fact, they are quite the opposite.

We calculated that the real cost of the Olympics is over $2 billion. When we add all those numbers, it comes to $2.7 billion. The Auditor General came up with their report and confirmed that there's $2.5 billion of Olympic costs for the taxpayers. But this minister, this government continued to say that it was only $600 million. They have off-loaded hundreds of millions of dollars on the municipalities, off-loaded on the government agencies, and they have tried to hide all of that cost in different budgets.

This is the independent office of the Auditor General saying it's $2.5 billion. But this government, instead of saying, "Yes, we made a mistake. Yes, we could not add up as you have. We're sorry," continued to say: "No, it's only $600 million, and the Auditor General doesn't know what he's talking about." That's the response from this government. That's nothing but arrogance and a contemptuous attitude toward the taxpayers that we see day in and day out from this government.

The convention centre is another story. In 2003 this government, this Premier said that the budget would be $495 million. Only a few months later they updated that to $565 million. Then it went to $615 million. The minister at the time said that is the final cost of the building. That's the taxpayers' money — $615 million. The minister said that's the final cost. That was about a year ago when the minister made that statement.

Then they tried to come up with all kinds of excuses. It's not the incompetency. It's not the mismanagement. Oh, it's the labour cost. It's the material cost. This Premier, their two successive ministers and their handpicked people who are running that project — friends of the Premier — said that the construction cost is 11 percent to 12 percent and that they anticipated it was only 2 percent.

A year ago the minister was saying that it was only $615 million. Now it's $800 million. That's not 10 percent. That's like a 33-percent increase. What's the explanation of that? There's no explanation from their side because they know it's pure mismanagement. It's pure mismanagement.

I was asked this question: are we facing another fast ferry fiasco? When you compare that fast ferries cost over $250 million, the Premier — who was the opposition leader at the time — lit his hair on fire, and I say rightfully so. But now we are facing over a billion-dollar cost overrun, and not a peep is coming from those members from their side — not a peep. They think everything is fine.

Where are you? The business-savvy folks — where are you? Stand up to this Premier. Stand up to this Premier and tell the Premier: "Put some competent people, competent managers, in that project so that taxpayers can be saved from future cost overruns rather than continue to run these with the Premier's friends whose only interest is to protect the Premier's political hide rather than protecting taxpayers and their tax dollars." That is a shame.

When you look at how incompetent they are…. The current minister responsible for convention centres said only a week ago that about a week earlier, he didn't even know. He said he didn't know how far the cost overruns are going to be. Here's a minister responsible, and he didn't know. He didn't know at all what the cost overrun is going to look like.

"So who is in charge?" we ask. Who is in charge? Obviously, it's not the minister. It wasn't the previous minister. It's someone else — either the Premier or the Premier's friends who are running that project into the ground.

While I've been going at this, I have misplaced all of my papers, and I don't know where to start now.

I just want to say this at the end. This budget has nothing in it for the students who like to go to post-secondary education. There's no relief for them. There's no relief in this budget for the seniors who are paying through their noses for Pharmacare and because of lack of housing. There's nothing in it for the children of this province. There's nothing in it for the women of this province. There's nothing for those folks who came from outside as immigrants, and they have those foreign credentials. There's nothing to deal with that issue.

There's nothing to deal with the accountability and lack of transparency that oozes out of these government offices. There's nothing to deal with that.

In the meantime we continue to see our health care deteriorating, where people are losing their limbs and lives. In the meantime the minister thinks everything is fine. That's just pure arrogance and contempt towards the taxpayers of this province.

In conclusion, I would say that we — all of us — should oppose this budget and ask the Minister of Finance to bring back a budget that actually deals with the ordinary folks, deals with ordinary families, deals with the poor and deals with those who are most vulnerable in our society.

R. Sultan: My goodness. What a litany of incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance we've heard from the member for Surrey-Newton.

This is what incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance have produced in this province under this government — 320,000 new jobs. That's the result of incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance, I suppose. Gosh, what would competence, good management and sophistication achieve if all that was accomplished was 320,000 new jobs?

One of my notes reminded me that we are at a 30-year low in unemployment, but that's a mistake. Apparently, according to Statistics Canada, since they started keeping records unemployment has never been lower in British Columbia than it is right now. That's an incredible accomplishment.

In contrast to people's voting with their bus tickets and cars taking them elsewhere under the previous government, under this government we've seen the population of the province growing about 1 percent a year through immigration. This is an incredible growth rate to achieve, as obviously people from elsewhere in Canada and elsewhere in the world rather like what they see as a result of incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance. So let's keep it up. This is an achievement to be proud of, and of course, it is the underlying foundation stone upon which the Finance Minister has presented the budget.

I find curious the tactics of the opposition in response to both the Speech from the Throne and the budget. The Speech from the Throne — to which I will not separately speak, so let me just inject a brief comment — clearly addressed one of the big issues of our day — namely, global warming, energy conservation and climate change. I expected, particularly from this party opposite, of all parties, well versed in the doctrine of these issues over many, many years than people on this side of the House focused on it…. I give them credit for that.

What did they choose to talk about? Child care. Now, child care is important too, but I couldn't help but think that they had the wrong parliament. The consequences of abrupt changes in child care that have caused upset in all the ridings should be better directed through Jack Layton, it seems to me, rather than in this House because of the source of the difficulty.

Turning to the budget speech, again focusing on tax cuts, homelessness, helping seniors and helping first-time home buyers and so on, I expected a very thoughtful and probably pointed — to the point of discomfort in spots — criticism of the presentation of the platform by the Finance Minister.

What, instead, were we given the pleasure of? Hours and hours of debate about the hours of work in this Legislature. I never thought I would see the day when an NDP opposition would vote against the 40-hour week, but that's what we seem to have seen here.

Having said all of that, perhaps it was their discomfort at finding a handhold on the various programs that were rolled out which accounted for what I would call some lapses in opposition opportunity.

Indeed, I can't resist quoting the member for Surrey-Whalley who said, to quote Les Leyne's column in the Times Colonist:

I suppose the question one must ask is: given the philosophy and historical strategies of those on the other side of this aisle, what would they have done in lieu of what our Finance Minister presented in the way of a budget? In the main, aside from the applause from the member for Surrey-Whalley, it's been carping criticism if not a diversion to some other off-topic thing, like hours of work for this Legislature.

We do have the benefit of another quite detailed financial plan and budget offered by allies of the members opposite. I refer to our old friends at CCPA, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I took the opportunity of seizing their B.C. Solutions Budget 2007 document and comparing their numbers with those in the Finance Minister's budget on this side of the House.

Again, we heard some echoes of those tanks trundling across Red Square as we flipped through the pages of what CCPA had to offer. In sum, it's an interesting comparison, and I chose the years 2008-2009 because both are carefully detailed in the Finance Minister's budget and in their alternative budget.

Here are the high spots. Their economy is going to be a little bit bigger than our economy in 2008-2009 by 0.6 percent. Not a lot, but significant. Their government revenues are going to be 8 percent larger. And this is the really strange curiosity. Their government spending is going to be 2.3 percent less.

Juxtapose that with the words with which they introduced their budget, saying that government must tackle poverty, growing inequality, rising homelessness, nothing inevitable about unacceptably long wait times in the health care system, cash-strapped schools, inadequate child protection, etc. One would have thought, based on that preamble, that they were going to really cut loose with some very ambitious spending plans to rectify what they view as weaknesses in the program.

Here is the reality of what they in fact propose, large item by large item. In the health sector the allies of members opposite, CCPA, would actually spend in 2008-2009 about 8 percent less than this government proposed to spend — 8 percent less. In the education sector, another favourite topic, they would spend 6 percent less. Less in social services, 0.3 percent — not by much, but nevertheless less. They would spend a lot less, 11 percent less, on public protection, 7 percent less on transportation, 3 percent less on natural resources and economic development, and 3½ percent less on general government. They would only spend more on debt service, which perhaps stands to reason.

Total spending overall is 2.3 percent less in the CCPA alternative budget. I think this is certainly unexpected, and it surprised me because it did suggest an approach to debt reduction, for example, that went far beyond what was envisaged on this side of the House.

Their main theme was that generally revenues had been underestimated in the past. They came up with their alternative plan, which showed more revenues, but instead of spending it, they put it towards debt reduction. I find that very, very strange.

The other thing to comment on with CCPA is the proportion of the economy that they would see flowing through government coffers in the way of taxes raised

and government revenues. Here we do see some distinct policy differences. The Minister of Finance is projecting 15.1 percent of the provincial economy flowing into the provincial government in '08-09. CCPA projects 16.3 percent — 1.2 percentage points more — but also speculates in some text that maybe it could go as high as 17.7 percent.

Well, 17.7 percent of the British Columbia economy flowing into government through the tax machine is certainly significantly greater than what the Minister of Finance is projecting at only 15.1 percent. You get an extra $5 billion with those 2½ percentage points of revenue. I could not see how they were planning to actually raise that additional money, but I just couldn't resist the opportunity to compare it to where it might come from and what kind of a tax increase that might imply.

It would be a 76-percent increase in personal income taxes, for example. It would be a 359-percent increase in corporate income taxes, if that was the target of the entire $5 billion. It would be almost a doubling of the social services tax — i.e., the sales tax. It would be a 500-percent increase in the fuel tax or a 250-percent increase in property tax. In fairness, if they were going to raise another $5 billion, they clearly would not load it all under one sector, but that gives you some idea of the scale of what seems to be in the minds of some of the analysts over there.

To sum up the CCPA's B.C. Solutions Budget 2007, they're gambling on a slightly higher economic growth rate and on quite a bit more government revenues. They've got a bigger share of the economy, and they're planning less government spending than this government is. That's a first in budget history, I would suggest, although maybe my research is inadequate in terms of left-leaning think tanks.

The opposition here in this House, while not putting up their own budget for analysis, certainly has indicated what they're against in no uncertain terms. I'm sure we're going to hear more about that before the debate is ended. Let me just list eight of the things they've indicated clearly that they're against, which, as I sit in my own constituency office, I don't hear much complaining about.

The first point is to increase the number of beds available for full-time shelter by almost 30 percent. They're against that, I presume. Secondly, the Finance Minister announced up to $38 million in new funding for housing initiatives around the province for those that are currently homeless or at risk of being homeless. I presume they are against that.

They seem to be against having a family of four receiving up to $700 a month for housing. I presume it means they're against British Columbia having the highest shelter assistance rates in Canada for employable singles, couples and single-parent families — the highest in Canada.

I presume it means they're against this government providing $45 million over four years to upgrade up to 750 of our social housing units to help people age in place and provide the kinds of housing our communities need.

I presume they're against the SAFER program providing monthly cash payments to subsidize rent for 15,000 British Columbians 60 years and older and adding 5,800 additional families to the rolls. I presume they're against the first-time-homebuyers program helping people get a foot in the door by exempting them from the property transfer tax.

A couple of other things that I presume they're against. They presumably are against making low-income seniors, veterans and people with disabilities eligible for a homeowner grant regardless of their home's assessed value — an issue of particular importance on the North Shore.

Finally, I presume they're against changing the opportunity to defer your property taxes from eligibility at age 60 to eligibility at age 55. I presume they're against that.

I will look forward to the evolution of this debate to see what they are in favour of, but I would say there's a rather long litany of what they seem to be against by their opposition to this budget.

I think there are some huge missed opportunities. I must admit in my heart feeling the occasional irresponsible impulse to rush over and say: why don't you ask this question, or why don't you ask that question? I'm restrained from doing so, so let me just offer you some comments from this side of the House.

I think a missed opportunity for the opposition in debating this budget is to raise the issue of productivity. It's not mentioned in the budget at all, but it's becoming an important issue among many observing the Canadian scene, including British Columbia.

We have had a slippage in productivity in Canada, and I don't think British Columbia's immune. Interestingly for those who think productivity means getting workers to work harder and uncomfortable things like that, I think it's the business sector, in fact, that is showing not to be as productive as it should be in comparison with our international competitors.

Let me just cite a few statistics again. Since 1961, if we look at the total economy, gross domestic product per worker, we lost about eight points vis-à-vis the United States. We used to be about 92 percent of where they are, and now we're on an 84-percent basis. Business has lost a smidgeon more.

The consequences of loss in productivity are serious. It appears in the most recent data that the slide in Canadian productivity has actually accelerated.

You might say: "Well, who cares? This is Canada; that's the world. We run our own affairs here." But the consequences of poor productivity have been outlined, for example, by economist Don Drummond, who talks about Argentina: "Argentina illustrates the long-term consequences of an unproductive economy." Its anemic productivity is hobbled by "excessive public spending, mounting deficits, nationalized industries and a closed economy," producing many "formidable problems, including hyperinflation. This has led to serious social ills, particularly for the most vulnerable, who have

seen the value of their savings and salaries diminish" and, in some cases, virtually disappear.

Productivity is not something people talk about very much or think about very much, but if we wanted to look at the economics of British Columbia and how to make sure we all benefit from the boom that we are in, I think the opposition could have raised some questions about productivity and asked with legitimacy: "What are you folks doing about it there? You're in charge."

Instead, what we get from members opposite typically are pleas for more protectionism, a closed economy, anti-TILMA — heaven forbid, let's not compete with those rude and rough people from Alberta. Let's have more regulation, not less. Let's nationalize enterprise.

We heard a rumour this morning that one of your critics told a meeting that should members opposite come to power, they would nationalize the independent power producer sector. I don't know if that is true or not, but it would certainly seem consistent with the philosophy of many members opposite. Certainly, the higher taxes implied by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives would also be a part of the overall picture.

Now, let's add this up. Higher taxes, nationalization, more regulation, a closed economy — it sounds like the path Argentina went down many years ago and has never really recovered from.

I am positively delighted to speak warmly about the budget our Finance Minister has brought forward. It certainly has been received with respect and acclaim among people across Canada who look at how governments are managing their fiscal affairs. It maintains the tradition of prudence and caution, the maintenance of our superb credit rating, and at the same time, it injects a very human face and some tangible programs to persons such as the homeless, to seniors struggling to maintain a standard of living, to people who are less advantaged right across the system.

I think it's an excellent budget, and I'm disappointed that the opposition has not seen fit to zero in on the real issues rather than issues that, frankly, I think are somewhat spurious.

C. Puchmayr: In the dwindling hours of our first overtime shift, I'd like to thank the members in this House, and I'd like to make my comments on the tax cut.

There are certainly some interesting remarks coming from the other side about what we've seen here. "The people's housing budget" is what they're calling it. When you look at the fact that they're talking about $2 billion in tax cuts and somebody that's earning $100,000 a year would get returned probably the equivalent of the payment on a gas-guzzling Hummer for one month, well, they could have called it the "Hummer budget." Or for people who, between the family, are getting a dollar — a family of three, 30 cents for the two children and the mother…. That's not even enough to buy a chocolate bar, so you could call it the "can't-even-buy-a-chocolate-bar budget."

I guess it depends on what tax bracket you're in. They certainly praise this budget, just as they praise the throne speech. But, you know, the proof is in the facts. When you look at the facts, the facts are glaring. It's not only this side that is making that observation. Here are some quotes. Here's Keith Baldrey on February 21: "The most misleading part of any budget I have seen since the Liberals came to power."

Vaughn Palmer says: "Carole Taylor insisted Tuesday that her budget was all about 'building a housing legacy' and pointed to a reputed $2 billion housing plan. The claim was entirely misleading…. Taylor could have just as easily packaged her tax cut as 'building a legacy' for child care, education, retirement or buying a new car."

C. Puchmayr: The member across takes offence at the media for making those observations. We made those observations as well, and she takes offence to that as well.

I will continue through this. I will continue to let this House and the people of British Columbia know what the true observations are of this so-called housing budget.

Michael Smyth: "Somebody should sue the Liberal spin doctors for malpractice because they sure botched the operation yesterday." That was on February 21.

Paul Willcocks: "Can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax cut worth $25 a month for a typical family is really the centrepiece of an effective housing strategy?" Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

Don Cayo: "This could have turned into a real housing budget. But, despite modest increases for the homeless and low-income renters, it isn't. And Minister Taylor and her colleagues deserve to have their noses tweaked for pretending it is." That's in the Vancouver Sun.

A professor of political science at UVic says: "When you consider that we have a growing population, a waiting list for housing and a continuing homelessness problem, it is very timid. It's a…most timid…start of a housing policy." That was in the Globe and Mail.

There are many more quotes, and I won't continue on with them. I will make my comments now. But I also want to say that Mayor Sullivan of the city of Vancouver had some glowing words about this budget until, I guess, he did an analysis of it and realized the same thing that we are realizing. This is not a housing budget.

It's just like the children's budget was not a children's budget. We now have the worst level of child poverty in Canada. Some 24 percent of children live in poverty. This is after the children's budget of about a year ago. When there are children living in poverty, there are parents living in poverty as well. I think it is shameful that in an economy that is doing as well as this — with the highest resource values that we have ever seen in electricity, in copper, in oil…. We should not have so many people living in poverty, and we certainly shouldn't be number one in Canada in child poverty.

It used to be Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island was number one in 2001. British Columbia was

about eighth, almost the best place in Canada to raise children. Now it has become the worst place to raise children for those living in lower incomes. This budget does nothing to address that issue. As a matter of fact, not only does it do nothing, we've seen unprecedented cuts to child care in this province.

I know, they blame their brothers and sisters in the Conservative government, but nevertheless, when times were tough…. I'm not going to take credit for the '90s, but there were some good things done in the '90s.

The federal government got out of building affordable housing. The federal government decided: "No more building of affordable housing, social housing. We're getting out of that market." Quebec and British Columbia continued to build social housing. We had fewer people living in the streets and fewer people that were homeless because we were building social housing, like any progressive city or any progressive country does.

I remember recently I was at Whistler, when I was back with the UBCM. I was a representative of the social economic policy committee. I was representing the city, and I was a little concerned that we would have a conference at Whistler. I thought that it's not really money well spent for a municipality.

It was really interesting to see, about six years ago, what was starting to happen in the Whistler area. Every store you walked into in the village had stacks of application forms, people looking for workers. Why were they looking for workers? Not because there were all these jobs but because nobody could afford to work at minimum wage and live in Whistler.

When I was back at the conference, I said: we're going to see this happen here. It's going to happen on a larger scale. It's going to happen in British Columbia. It's going to happen in Vancouver, and it'll probably happen in my community of New Westminster.

Folks, it has happened. It is happening. If we can't supply starter homes or transitional housing for homeless people, especially those with mental disabilities, we are not a progressive government. If we didn't speak out about it, we would not deserve the right to sit here as an opposition. If we allow this government to trumpet this as a housing budget and say nothing about it, we shouldn't even be here.

I'm proud to be here and speak out for my community and for British Columbians who are living in poverty.

You remember the seniors' budget. Look at where seniors are now: in desperation. The government promised to build accommodation for seniors — 5,000 or 6,000 accommodations for seniors — and long-term care beds. Where are they?

Now they've announced this ingenious plan. They're going to take existing social housing and convert it into seniors housing. Add another displacement to social housing.

Somebody came into my office one day and said: "Why is there a ten-year waiting list for affordable housing for a mother and child? The mother's trying to work at minimum wage and needs some assistance and shelter. Why is there such a long waiting list?" She tells me that at one of the social housing developments that has been around for many years, there are vacancies. There are empty units. Now we know why. They were purging those units out so that they could come back in and build a different type of seniors housing.

Then they're going to trumpet that as: "See? We're meeting our obligations. We're building this housing."

We need housing for both. We need housing for seniors. We need housing for the elderly, for the disabled, and we need housing for the homeless.

We need transition. We need to be able to treat people with drug and alcohol addictions so that they can become part of society once again.

In my city of New Westminster, there is a group called Lookout. Our Leader of the Opposition and myself toured it one time. It was incredible to see the pride of these individuals who were at one time at risk. They were living in the streets. They were at risk of abuse. They were at risk of becoming drug addicted. They were being victimized by other people who were living in the streets, and they found a home. They found a home in the Lookout shelter, which provided a safe accommodation.

It was supposed to be a transitional space, where they would move them off the streets into a room, a very small bachelor suite, and eventually, hopefully, they would be able to move on into other accommodations. Well, transition housing isn't transition housing anymore. Once people get in there, if you make them leave after two years, they have nowhere to go.

They will be back on the street again because we are seeing such a shortage of housing and such a crisis in housing that now transitional housing is ending up being permanent housing. There's nothing wrong with that, but we need to build more so that we can help people, especially those with disabilities.

Recently we saw the issue with long-term care. The Albos were a couple. Because of the new first-available-bed policy, there was no ability to deal with that. There was no ability to have two people who were married for 60 years or more be able to live the last years of their lives with respect and dignity together. The way that they were torn from each other and transferred and the tragic results of that, with both of them passing away very quickly…. Mr. Albo, I think they said, died of a broken heart.

We need to have more compassion. It can't just be dollars and cents. There has to be more compassion. If there's money for a corporate tax cut, which on our first budget…. I believe it was a 1¼-percent corporate tax cut, almost half a billion dollars over the term. That tax cut went to oil companies who didn't even ask for a tax cut.

The business community said: "Wow. We're surprised we're getting a tax cut. We didn't even ask for one." It went to oil companies who right now, in my opinion, are gouging British Columbians on the cost of fuel — sometimes a hundred percent higher cost of fuel in British Columbia, which is close to where it's being produced, in northern B.C. and in Alberta. A massive markup compared to other parts of the country.

They received a tax break. I mean, they can take a 1¼ percent every five minutes. They jack those prices up and down and condition you to pay 3.5 cents less at the pump to make you believe you're getting a deal. They received a tax cut.

Banks have just raised their costs. A lot of them have just raised their service costs. They get a corporate tax cut, and people like the Albos are having trouble decent, dignified accommodation together in the last years of their life. So to call this a housing budget is just beyond belief to me.

We talk about the 300 more shelter beds. Why shelter beds? Is that dignified? We're going to bring in a budget where we're going to put 300 more mats on the floor for the homeless to sleep on. Pat us on the back, somebody. You know, 300 more mats….

C. Puchmayr: The member wants me to tell him…. I'll tell the member what I would do, so he'd better listen up really close here.

The United Nations came out with a statistic that said for every dollar you spend on rehabilitation of drug addiction, on homelessness, you have a saving of $7. For every dollar you spend, there's a saving of $7.

Why don't you take the $250 million — that legacy fund that's going to draw $10 million a year on it — and invest the whole thing? You've got $1.5 billion of benefit to society by building that housing right now — a $1.5 billion saving to society — instead of $10 million and rolling out some mats so that a drug-addicted homeless person can be brought in and laid down on the floor. Then at seven in the morning, you punt them back out on the street: "Sorry. Come back tonight." Or in some cases: "Come back if it gets below a certain temperature."

I mean, that's so sad. That is so sad. That is where we are at. We built housing under the former NDP government. They stopped building housing, and we have had the biggest increase in homelessness since the Great Depression, and all that during a time when the economy is booming.

The economy is booming: highest resource prices, highest copper prices, highest oil prices. Copper went from 30 cents to — what, Member? — about $3 or more? Thirty cents a pound to $3 or more? Oh, and this is a global price. This isn't a made-in-B.C. price. You think B.C. sets the oil price? If the oil price was set in B.C., I would hope the other side would set an oil price that was reasonable rather than an oil price that people can't even afford to travel around on anymore.

I think that's how you measure a government. You measure a government on how they do when times are tough.

I remember back in the '90s — I wasn't in the government; I'm not taking credit for this — they built a school every 19 days in ten years. The previous Social Credit government — which is some of the people across from me, only a different name — didn't build schools. The schools were run into the ground. Seismic issues prevailed.

We built a school every 19 days. What does this side do? They're closing schools. They're ripping the schools out of the heartlands, out of the communities. And what do people do when the school leaves? They leave. Where do you go? Am I going to move to an area where the school has just been closed so my children have to travel for hours and hours a day on a bus?

What happens when you do that? Trades leave, skills leave, and then you go: "There's a skills shortage." Put a school in there, and see what happens.

Hon. S. Bond: First to worst when you were in government. You can list it all.

C. Puchmayr: Yeah, right. First to worst in child poverty under this government — the worst; one in four. It's sad, and they don't look at that. They refuse to look at that. They refuse to make that analysis. It's so simple.

Let's talk about jobs again. I'll just use my community as an example. We've lost hundreds of jobs in the sawmills. They've left. They've gone south of the border. Who was in government when they went south of the border? The Liberals. Hundreds of forestry jobs and value-added, high-paying manufacturing jobs — gone south of the border. This government was on watch.

The brewery in my community. Under this government they found reason to leave. They went to Alberta — under this government. I didn't know that jobs left for Alberta under this government. Well, not only are they going to Alberta, but they're going south of the border. Our logs are going down there, being manufactured south of the border, while value-added, good-paying jobs that sustained the communities are gone — absolutely gone, under their watch.

I'm pleased that the Forests Minister is here. My community has been trying to get him to come out and talk about the mill closure. The mayor of my community, the councillors of my community, the workers at the Western Forest Products mill…. I even phoned his office. I asked if there was a wide enough hallway that I could put a tent there so that I could actually see him coming and I could say: "Please come to my community and talk to my council. Talk about a transition program. Talk to my council. Talk to the millworkers that are losing their jobs. Give them some hope."

This isn't a mill that wasn't making money. This is a profitable mill. This is a mill that was making money. Under their watch, those jobs are gone. Again, jobs are gone south of the border.

I was in the hospital visiting with doctors and hearing the horror stories of doctors saying: "Why would I want to stay here when I can't even operate? I don't have the operating theatre time. Why would I stay here?"

One of the doctors, who is very prominent in the emergency wards, said that it's not even worthwhile training them because if you train them and don't give them the opportunity to work, they're going to leave. They're going to leave and go to the United States. They're going to go to other parts of the world where they are in demand.

Under the watch of this government, we're losing doctors. We're losing value-added jobs. We're losing millworkers. We're losing nurses — under this government.

C. Puchmayr: Really, it's great to know that they're thinking about my comments, or they wouldn't be sharing their frustrations with me. I'm glad that they are listening, too, because maybe they will take some of this to heart and do something about it.

I'm going to talk a little bit about TILMA. We heard the member across talk about TILMA. Let's say all the Conference Board of Canada comments are accurate. Let's say there was a net benefit to British Columbia. Let's say there was. Well then, have the guts to come into this House and debate it in here so that we can actually debate TILMA in this House. They won't debate it. They make a deal. This is the open and transparent government — about as transparent as ink from a squid. No debate.

They go to Alberta, and they cut a deal. They bring it in. We don't have the right to come in here in committee stage. We don't have the right to get the minister to answer the questions that my community is asking and my municipality is asking. We've seen examples of TILMA in a different context in the United States, in Oregon, and it's disastrous. It is absolutely disastrous.

They talk about free trade across the border, like there isn't free trade across the Alberta border. Are there border lineups? Are there border crossings? Do you need to have all of your documents in two languages?

There are no restrictions in going across the border to work. There are no restrictions. Are there restrictions to investing? If I want to invest, if I want to put my money in a bank in Alberta, are there restrictions? No. So why do we need this?

If there is not a net gain, if the economic growth for Alberta equates the economic growth for British Columbia, it'll be a push. We both will benefit equally, so why do we need it? Why do we need TILMA? If you don't agree with that, at least have the decency to bring it into this House as legislation, and let us debate it in here. That's what we're here to do. TILMA needs debate.

I love to talk about this new green plan, this environment. We see certain concerns about the environment. I was certainly pleased to hear many, many minutes of the throne speech talking about the environment and about greenhouse gas. But where are the results? Where was it in the budget speech? What happened?

We went from all of that to $4 million. Not only that…. This is how creative it is. Heading into the throne speech, you do a whole bunch of spin about the environment at the last minute, and then you do it in the throne speech at the last minute. Then when you're doing the budget, you announce that you're going to tax the two cleanest resources we have — gas and electricity — and people go: "Hey, I feel good. It's the green tax."

Then they wake up, and they go: "What just happened here? How did we go from 'We're going to be leaders in the environment, we're going to have the green environment, and we're going to have the hydrogen highway,' and then absolutely no money to do it?" Nothing. Nothing to do it. Talk about greenhouse gas. A lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors.

How did the Premier become the environmentalist all of a sudden? Where did that come from? Well, remember the Governor of California. The Governor of California had a worse approval rating on the environment than even George Bush, the President. He went: "Wow, midterms are coming up. I have to reinvent myself. I know what. I'm going to convert one of my seven gas-guzzling Humvees to a hydrogen fuel cell, and then I will get re-elected as a green governor."

Well, you know what. He did get re-elected. So what does Stephen Harper do? He goes: "Wow, I better get rid of my Environment Minister. I'll dust off the old federal Liberals' plan on the environment and then re-announce it and say that I'm a green prime minister."

Yet at one time…. Listen to this. Here's a quote from Prime Minister Harper denying climate change only a few years ago when he was with the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. He referred to Kyoto as a socialist scheme. Then all of a sudden he borrows something from that green guy across the border — not Arnold; Kermit. He borrows his jacket. "I'm green now. I'm going to get re-elected."

I don't think that British Columbians are going to fall for this. I mean, this is pretty bizarre. This is pretty far-fetched, as $4 million to reduce greenhouse gas between now and the end of this term just doesn't fly. I'm baffled that they would call…. We had a green throne speech, and there's nothing green about it. Then we had a homeless budget, and we've got record homelessness, and it'll continue to grow. It's just beyond belief.

The member across, for Vancouver-Burrard, rose in the House the other day to talk about NIMBYism. He spoke about my community, New Westminster, and his quotes were: "New Westminster is not a very good example either." He's talking about affordable housing. He goes: "New Westminster is so bad…the member from New West who sits across the House has done nothing to help this…. They were so bad that they not only ran the Salvation Army out of town; they also ran Union Gospel Mission out of town. They have no desire and no commitment to create social housing in their communities."

C. Puchmayr: Well, I've got it here — Mayencourt. He could have corrected it in Hansard. He did have time.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would advise the member that it's inappropriate to use surnames or personal names in the context of debate.

C. Puchmayr: I want to talk a little bit about social housing and housing initiatives in my community. We were the first city to build social housing. Social housing came in after the Second World War because soldiers were coming back and they needed accommodations. Social housing came in as a result of that. In New Westminster they just did a report card on housing, and New Westminster rated the highest, a "B minus," and Vancouver, a "D plus."

New Westminster has 1,400 subsidized housing units. New Westminster was one of the original communities to bring in a secondary-suite bylaw. A secondary-suite bylaw is necessary to clean up some of the illegal suites that there were and make them safe and clean for families to live in. Also, New Westminster since 1971 has had a moratorium on stratification of condominium units, which Vancouver doesn't have.

In Vancouver you can just pay the money and stratify hotel units. New Westminster has a moratorium on it. I certainly hope that the minister again looks at the proof and finds that his statements were absolutely wrong. The Union Gospel Mission is still in New Westminster. The Salvation Army is still in New Westminster, and we're working with them to try to ensure that we have more affordable housing.

C. Puchmayr: Yes, the member. The other thing that concerns me that isn't in the budget is WorkSafe B.C. — Workers Compensation. We see nothing of the changes. There were 22 violations, 23 recommendations by the Gramlich inquest in the forest faller's death. I certainly would have liked to see some more with respect to changes to that. I'm anticipating some issues may come forward with WorkSafe B.C., and I certainly look forward to debating those in the House.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to respond to Balanced Budget 2007 debate. First of all, I like the title of it because, frankly, that's all we've ever done — balance the budget in British Columbia. As we've balanced it, we've actually put this province back on its feet. We've changed the direction for hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in the direction of a great future for people of British Columbia, including my children in this province.

Before I start I should tell the House that our friend from Okanagan-Westside is doing better. We expect he won't be there long, and we wish him well.

I was pondering how a budget comes about and the hours of work that take place to create one. As anybody that has ever been a member of an executive council or a cabinet in the province knows, there are hours of work by ministry staff, by people within their finance departments. There are hours of work by the ministers themselves, Treasury Board staff, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board itself. Priorities are identified and debated, decisions are made, numbers are nailed down, and a budget reaches the House.

What a budget does is give you a template for the operation of government for the next year. In the case of the way B.C. does it, it actually gives you a fiscal plan for three years. That fiscal plan is a plan that directs us in going forward as we try to look at how we set our priorities and at how it's going to affect the lives of others.

Whenever I reflect this, I always try and look back. I haven't debated the throne, so I haven't had an opportunity to talk about my family and my children, but I do look back at the last year, and I look forward to the future for my kids. I see this: I see that my daughter-in-law got her degree this year, my daughter got her master's this year and my son-in-law has applied to get a master's in music at the university so that he can move forward in conducting and scores, etc.

My son has made a monumental decision as a Canadian: that he'll leave and be in Shilo, Manitoba, on the second of April to take training to go to Afghanistan as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. When he returns from his commitment to this country, he will have a job waiting for him, because a company in British Columbia that he works for has actually said: "We believe in what Canada is doing. We will be there, and the job will be there for you when you return after you fulfil your commitment to this country."

That makes me proud as a Canadian, as a British Columbian. It makes me particularly proud as a father, but it makes me proud to know that there are companies that will also step up to the plate for this country in that way.

This budget, as I sat and listened to the different discussions with regard to it…. I'm going to get to the tax cut and the housing in a few minutes. Let me tell you: the way that some people like to contextualize some of these things boggles my mind with the lack of understanding that they have of amortization and investment, and how you can leverage funding from mortgages

to do more, because they don't quite have that contextualized on a 35-year investment.

Before I do that, though, I sit and listen as a member of this House. Many, many times, of the questions that come before the House, there are always these questions that come on health care. I spent five years in opposition, so I do know how these questions come about.

Someone feeds a story into the opposition, and they say, "Oh boy, we've got them this time. Let's bring this one to the House to embarrass the government, because somebody didn't get service the way they should have in some emergency room or something happened. So let's say: 'Health care is a disaster. It's underfunded. It's crashing and burning, and it's no good.'"

We became government in 2001. We were spending about $8 billion a year on health care. Just five and a half short years later, $13 billion is being spent on health care. What are the challenges we face as we come forward? When you try and fix something, the first thing you do when you find out you've inherited an old, decrepit and uninvested-in physical plant is that you have to make an investment in the system.

The investment in the system is not just in people like nurses and doctors being trained and bringing them forward. It takes four years to train a nurse, by the way, so it takes a while for them to get to the system as we try to build the capacity. In addition to that, as we do that we also have to look at what we were facing and at what we're facing going forward. That's why we're in a position — after getting our books in order, getting the finances of this province together and turning the economy around — to make the largest capital investment in health care facilities in B.C.'s history, ever.

As we do that, I want to touch on a couple of things that one of the members talked about earlier. It has a bit to do with housing, but it's also got to do with health care. They talk about the 5,000 beds which will be completed on time and on budget in the next year and a half. They talk about, "Oh, jeez, they're doing that," and, "Why are they doing it? What's going on? What else is going on?" and all the rest.

I was actually in the business as a consultant working for companies in health care many years ago. The one thing that disturbed me back in the 1990s — even as a housing critic in the 1990s, when I talked and debated in this House — was the decrepit, disgusting facilities that we felt our seniors should have to live in and live out their lives in.

Some of the facilities that we had in this province were an embarrassment to any one of us. They were not a facility that any one of us would want our parents in. They were rooms the size of a small- or medium-sized bedroom in a house, with four beds in them and no bathroom. The bathroom was outside and down the hall. There was no door large enough to take a proper wheelchair and an inability for two wheelchairs to actually pass each other in a hallway.

Not one of us could disagree with the fact that you have to do something about this. Not one of us could disagree that maybe you had to knock some walls out to make some of these rooms bigger and bring in washrooms and facilities for our seniors so that they could age better in place in those facilities with some dignity and some service that they deserved.

Not one of us would argue with the fact that it would be a good investment. In some cases the investment would have to be that the facility needed to close and a better one be built for those people. As you do that, you come up against two things. One, you're going to have 5,000 new net beds, and you're doing 7,000 or 8,000 other new beds just to take care of the capacity you have had to close down because of the crummy, crappy stuff we thought seniors could live in — stuff that we should not as a society, in any way whatsoever, have found acceptable to us. I toured way too many of those facilities in the days I was involved in the business. Today I can look at the facilities we're doing and know that the quality is there and that seniors in this province will have a much better future for housing in B.C. in their latter days.

On top of that, I know this. In the last five years we've done more hip and knee surgeries than at any time in the history of the province, and there's still a waiting list. Why is that? Could it be because the baby boom is coming through, society is aging and we keep coming up with new technologies to do these types of procedures, which then puts pressure on people with regard to the fact that those waiting lists are filled up? But if you sit down with people and say, "How is your care when you do get your surgery, and how is your aftercare?" they say: "It's great."

We all have become much too familiar in the last year or two — or for our lives and maybe, for some of us, in the last 10 years — with people who are suffering and dying with cancer. We do know this: there is no better jurisdiction in the world than British Columbia to deal with cancer. We are very good at it. We shouldn't be ashamed of saying it.

We don't always have to say the sky is falling to recognise that there are people every single day, friends of ours, constituents, who are actually receiving phenomenal, world-class cancer treatment in the province. We should be proud of that because, frankly, it's important as we move forward.

I know that in this province every year about two million people arrive in emergency rooms. I know when two million people come through a system in one area of the system, sometimes there may be difficulties. I know that we have to be there to try and address those as we try and find solutions for those as we go ahead. But we should also recognise all the people who actually have good service and success when they walk into an emergency room in the province and remember that we have front-line staff and doctors in B.C. who are doing a great job. There's an article out there.

Let's remember that together we will solve the issues around health care. Don't just pooh-pooh, "Oh,

my goodness, we can't have a conversation about how we can improve it," or say that we can't actually have a legitimate discussion among us — whether it be with our constituents or with members of this House or with people in the health care profession — about how we could have a conversation about health care.

Of course, some people say: "Well, we don't want to talk about it. Just put more money in it." Some of us say: "Actually, maybe we're not getting the results in a particular form of health care that we want, so maybe we've got to target how we do it better. Maybe we have to sit down, with the people that can tell us how we do it better and improve it, to do that."

I live in a constituency that I have represented now since 1996. When I came to public office in 1996, the biggest education issue in my community was this: there were too many portables around Parkside and Aldergrove elementary schools in the community. The schools were bursting at the seams, and another school needed to be built. All the work went into it, and finally, to their credit, the previous government invested in a new school in that community. That school was built, and it was filled in 1998, approximately.

Today in 2007 there are fewer students in that community alone so that only two elementary schools are now needed. Because of the demographics, the changing population, of that community, it saw a dramatic drop in student population.

Here's the crunch. My community is working with this issue. We'll work through it, and we will work through it together, because we know there are fewer students, but what's the rest of the crunch in my community? In another area in my community, not that far away, there's an explosion of development. A new elementary school was recently built, and now the high school is under capacity in that area of the community.

On the eastern side of my community there are two high schools presently under pressure, and the demographics and the number of students entering the school system at every grade level today tell us this: we will eventually not need those two high schools. We might need one of them. We won't have the students to make them work because there won't be enough kids.

One of them is set in a rural area, not near any bus routes or access routes, so we have to adjust and understand that in education we have challenges in student population and how we manage it. Even having said that, the largest level of funding per student and the largest investment in B.C.'s public education system is taking place under this government.

I know that the opposition has to be the opposition. But I don't think they're opposed to this: 250,000 low-income British Columbians pay no provincial income tax. Are you opposed to that? Are you upset about that? You're not supporting it. It's unbelievable to me.

The member for New Westminster gets up and says that a single mother in my community gets nothing, when a single mother on a low income in my community pays no income tax. He never mentions the second part of the sentence. It's amazing to me.

I will talk about the rent assistance program in a minute, because it all goes back into the whole package, but oh no, you don't want to meet that either. The other thing is, in 2001 they railed — the opposition, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — about 25-percent income tax cuts for British Columbians. The economy turned around. More money went into people's pockets. Amazingly, we received more income from personal income tax than we ever did, even though we did a personal income tax cut.

I know they don't like it that 250,000 low-income British Columbians are not paying any income tax. I know they want something from them. I know they want to bleed money out of the poor people of the province. I know that.

They haven't jumped up and said: "Boy, we spent ten years in Victoria, and we didn't put any money into the shelter allowance for people on social assistance. You guys come along and raise it." You don't have a thing to say about it — do you? Not a thing. Not a thing to say about it. Yet we did it. You didn't.

We raised welfare rates. Do I hear any compliment other than: "Oh, gee whiz, you know…."

Hon. R. Coleman: "Not enough. Oh, they did something, but not enough. We don't have any idea why we couldn't do it for all those years that we were there."

Then we move on to some critical linchpins of this budget as far as I'm concerned. They're important pieces of the budget, because it has to do with homelessness, mental health, addictions and helping people. Actually, I must admit that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said in the House this morning that she thought that the increase in the rental assistance program and the rental assistance program were good now.

That is not the position her leader took with rental assistance programs last fall. It's not the position they took for the five years I was in opposition doing housing questions with them and asking why they wouldn't help people where they lived — when they knew very well they couldn't build it, own it and operate it fast enough to take care of the waiting list in B.C. Housing.

They knew that then. They did nothing. They built some social housing and put no supports, no multiple barriers, no addictions. And they didn't go after the issue with regards to the most vulnerable people in our society. They ignored that problem in British Columbia.

Now, just listen to this carefully. In 2000-2001 when we came to government, the housing budget in the province of B.C. was $112 million a year. The budget is now $328 million for British Columbia.

Two and a half or three years ago the Premier started the Premier's task force on mental health and addictions.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member from Victoria, on the other side, is heckling, which is fine. His community is part of that task force and has worked very well with government on strategies with regards to it and is actually moving ahead with a number of projects with the government. I'm sure he might want to come to the openings of them to say: "I was an MLA. I opposed the project, but it's a good idea that you helped people in my community." Maybe he won't show up. Maybe he won't. I don't know.

Just last Friday, as a result of a proposal call for 450 units of supportive housing in the province, by leveraging and building partnerships, we managed to announce 758 new units of supportive housing in the province.

Earlier today, in question period, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who has asked me what I'm going to do in the Cowichan Valley and where am I going to be to help his community, was over there heckling when I was answering a question in the House. I know that he should know that the Canadian Mental Health Association in the Cowichan Valley received $675,000 to purchase property for an emergency shelter and transitional housing for 37 units in his community. But, whew, he won't stand up in this House and say: "I asked you for this a year ago. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for actually working with my community to find the solutions in housing."

Oh, the member from Surrey is over there today. The member from Surrey should know — I'm sure he does, but you never know — that just on Friday we announced four projects in Surrey — four projects. One of them is in Surrey–Green Timbers for $9.3 million: capital costs for second-stage housing, an emergency shelter for women and children. It includes a high-risk pregnancy clinic with prenatal and postnatal care, counselling and job skills training — also to be provided within the centre — and we did it. We did it, hon. Member; you never did.

We also had the Elizabeth Fry Society, which got 11 units, and the Fraserside Community Services Society, which purchased a property for transitional housing for people with mental illness and addictions in that community at a cost of $1.3 million that they were awarded on Friday as well.

In the spirit of partnership we've also identified another piece of property that we actually had, and we've asked non-profit societies — and I'm sure you must know some, hon. Members…. You can have them send them to B.C. Housing tomorrow, because we have the property identified for another 35 units of housing in your community, and we're putting it up for free.

There are also units in Vancouver, and there are units in Coquitlam, in the Fraser Valley, in the Okanagan, up in Terrace and Prince Rupert. Even in Prince Rupert we've invested money in a development proposal to help them find something in their community for the future.

That was before Budget 2007. Then in Budget 2007 the Finance Minister has given us a block of funding to go out and do some very creative things very quickly in the housing sector in the next 30 to 60 days. We're in the market now doing that work.

You members can sit there, and you be ready, by George. I know you'll want to be critical, because you're going like it but you're going to have to find a way to not like it when we have additional success for people on the streets of Vancouver and other communities across British Columbia.

Then, Madam Speaker, it's unbelievable. First they get up and say…. I heard the member for New Westminster say, and he answered my question for me: "It's terrible. A single mother with a child renting in my community comes to my office and says: 'There's a ten-year waiting list for social housing. I can't get affordable housing.'" I wonder if he said: "Here, take this brochure, and apply for the rent assistance program in British Columbia so that we can actually give you some money to offset your rent where you live and have better outcomes for your child today rather than waiting for…."

The opposition lives in fantasyland where somebody could go out tomorrow, snap their fingers and build 15,000 units of housing that would still be applicable to the market when you finally got them built — because of the aging and changing demographics of people within communities — rather than immediately helping them where they are.

I look forward to when the members opposite actually come forward and say one of two things: "We actually do believe a rent assistance program for people, helping them where they live so that they can make choices in their lives and have affordability, is important." I'd like to hear that, but I think what I'll hear is nothing. I won't hear what the truth is, which is that they really don't support those types of programs and that they would gladly cancel them if they ever became the government of British Columbia.

When they finish that sentence, I want them to also say this: "We don't like rent assistance programs; ergo, we don't like SAFER, because it's a rent assistance program for seniors." Fifteen years — not one dime raised or category changed in SAFER by the opposition. Ten years in government — not one change, not one addition, not one tweak, not once.

We always supported SAFER. We always said to the minister that it was a good idea, in opposition. We actually said that he should start a rental assistance program, in opposition, back in the 1990s, and he didn't listen. But I can tell you what: when we raised the threshold and changed the qualifications, more and more thousands of people are on SAFER than ever before in the province's history. We're helping seniors have affordability in their rental places in British Columbia, where they live, and that's the way it should be.

I know they don't like the idea. I couldn't believe the logic of the member for New Westminster on this particular subject, because he said that they're converting social housing into supportive housing. He should actually read the context of the budget. Mind you, he should read the whole budget and find out how really

good it is for every aspect of government and every aspect of the citizens of B.C.

We have a number of thousands of units in B.C. that are seniors social housing units. Today when a senior falls, breaks their hip or gets injured and can't take care of themselves in one of those units, they need to be moved to another type of supportive housing, because those units are old. They're nice — they've got bathrooms; they're clean; they're well-managed — but they haven't been modernized with the simplest of things, like a lever-handled tap. If the person living there has a little bit of arthritis, they can actually move the tap up, move it back and forth, hot and cold. They can actually take care of themselves and their washing and their bathing and their food.

Hey, bars on the walls. They can be put in the washroom so that people can actually have a grab bar to get in and out of the bathtub. I know the members over there find it funny, but it's not that humorous if you're the senior who has arthritis or is disabled and who now has to leave your home because nobody put the supportive services on the walls to take care of you so that you could age in place and live in that particular apartment a lot longer than having to be put in some other form of housing, Madam Speaker.

In addition to doing that, we will put in the buildings the opportunity for them to have meals and more home support and nurse care. People can come in and help them with their meds and the things like that, so they can actually age in place.

It's something I debated in 1996, the first time I debated housing in the province of B.C.'s House. I talked to the minister at that time, and I said that you need to move into age-in-place, putting services in place and widening doorways so that you can get some wheelchairs in. These people are going to get older, and they should be allowed to stay and live where they are today. That's important. It's important to their quality of life, it's important to their families, and it's the right thing to do.

The member opposite can pooh-pooh that we're going to invest $45 million in converting some of our seniors housing so that it's more supportive for the people that live there. I will never apologize for thinking of people who are seniors being allowed to age in place with dignity in the province.

As we came through this, we put together an endowment fund. Now, $250 million stays on the books of government, and the Ministry for Housing gets the interest to do innovative projects. It's calculated very conservatively that the interest on the $250 million at 4 percent will be $10 million a year. I know, but I'll let the members go away to get their mortgage calculators to figure out what type of leveraging you can get if you have an additional $10 million or $20 million per year to do different and innovative things with partners and housing in B.C.

It also allows us to look outside the box. As the Minister of Finance articulated in the budget speech, what about the developmentally disabled adult? What about the aging parent of a developmentally disabled adult? Why can't you come up with an innovative idea to sit down with those folks and say: "Okay, maybe you can buy four or five units of apartments in an apartment block. Maybe we can put supports in place so that your adult developmentally disabled children can now live there, and you can be comfortable as you age"?

Their fear is this: they're aging, and they want to know there's something there for their kids who are developmentally disabled. We're part of a government that made a significant change for the developmentally disabled in the budget a year ago, which very few people talked about.

For years in this province, and I mean years — probably ten, 15, maybe even 20 years — there was a quota on the number of members of developmentally disabled in the community who could get a hundred dollars a month for coming and doing volunteer work in community organizations around the province. That meant there were over 3,000 developmentally disabled who didn't get anything, yet they were still there with their friends, developmentally disabled, and not receiving a hundred dollars a month.

We changed that last year — a simple thing, an important thing for the developmentally disabled. I believe that now is the time to sit down with parent groups and find out other options for the future of these kids, these young adults going forward for their housing opportunities in B.C. You do that by having some money that you can be creative with.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for Nelson-Creston. It's always nice to know when my time is running out.

I am so proud to stand here as a member of this House and know that we put together the largest increase in housing in the province's history. For the first time we have a housing strategy that takes care of all of the people who are developmentally disabled, the continuum of people who have multiple addictions — supports needed for them — and people with mental illness. A strategy is being built on an intergovernmental relationship like has never been accomplished before between the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, the Ministry of Health and all other ministries of government as we go forward to build on the future.

We'll do that because we'll work together. The only challenge that I ask of the opposition on the other side of the House is that maybe just for once you could actually step up to the table and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Maybe just once you could actually recognize that when you have 20,000 or 30,000 additional people getting rent supports, it's important to the people with lower incomes in British Columbia.

Maybe just for once, when you know there's an integrated strategy to build on the future of housing for all people in B.C., you can work with us. And maybe just for once you'll stand up and say: "You know what?

The tax cut is good, the budget is good, and what you're doing for the people, the children and the families of British Columbia is very critical to the future of the long-term supports they need."

I'm proud to stand and support this budget. I'm proud of the Minister of Finance for the budget she's brought forth. I'm proud of the work that people in my government have done, and I'm particularly proud that we have vision in front of us to change things for the right way for the future of B.C.

D. Thorne: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for letting me speak today. I am honoured to represent the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville in this House for the third year.

During the past year I was pleased to take on the critic area for housing and homelessness. I want to tell you why housing is such an important issue for me. Since 1972 I have been working with women and families at the community level — on the ground, as this government likes to say — working for safe, affordable housing for families. As we all know, it's pretty tough to deal with life's unexpected events if you don't have the security of a roof over your head.

In 1989 I chaired an affordable housing committee in Coquitlam and working with SHARE Family Services. I worked for a time as the on-site manager for the non-profit society that is run by SHARE. I've also served for more than five years as a board member of the Greater Vancouver Housing Corp., which is one of the largest non-profit providers of housing in the province next to B.C. Housing.

During my time there — which I'd like to point out was all under the previous government — we completed a number of important housing initiatives, including the unique Inlet housing project in Port Moody, which provided a hospice, senior and family housing, and housing for mature women. This was all done under the Homes B.C. program at B.C. Housing, which this government cancelled in 2001.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Coquitlam resident Sandy Burpee and the Tri-Cities Housing Coalition, who have been working tirelessly for a full continuum of affordable housing in my region. Sandy was instrumental in bringing about a recent partnership between the city of Coquitlam and B.C. Housing, which has resulted in a request for expressions of interest being put out to the non-profit market to develop and operate between 35 and 55 non-market housing units for individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

As part of its affordable housing strategy, the city of Coquitlam is making available a vacant 18,000-square-foot site. It's been a number of years since the last non-market housing development was built in Coquitlam, and it is only happening now because the city is making land available at no cost to the non-profit developer. This is not to diminish B.C. Housing's role, but this development would clearly not be happening without the city becoming a funding partner.

Let's not forget that housing is a provincial and federal issue and that we have a long way to go to address pressing housing needs in British Columbia. I will continue, through my role as an MLA, to demand that government pay its fair share towards non-profit housing; to deal with the living conditions of residents in single-occupancy rooms — SROs, as we commonly call them — particularly in Vancouver's downtown east side; and to better manage the remediation of leaky and mouldy non-market housing, which is causing an ongoing financial crisis for many B.C. societies.

At a time when B.C.'s economy is performing well, we are seeing record numbers of homeless people on our streets. The Minister for Housing just stood here in front of us and spoke about how much his government is doing for these homeless people, how much more than the previous government. Well, one wonders if this Minister for Housing ever goes outside, if he ever leaves the Legislature or his constituency office, because what I see when I go outside is pretty awful in an awful lot of places. The growing numbers of homeless is something that most of us find very, very hard to take, and I advise the Minister for Housing to spend a little more time outside and see what's actually happening under his watch.

In November the downtown women's centre in Vancouver, which is already dealing with its own lack of funding, was forced to open its doors to more than 50 homeless women every night — women who had no other housing available to them. In my own community, Coquitlam-Maillardville and the Tri-Cities, we have now got about 170 people living outside, many along the Coquitlam River. In 2005, when the official homeless count was done by United Way, we had 32 people. I think it's shameful.

This is a government that can stand up and try and fool the people of British Columbia into thinking they're doing more than the previous government, when in the Tri-Cities, which is not known for being a particularly low socioeconomic, the numbers have gone from 32 to 170 in less than two years. Shame, Madam Speaker. Shame.

Also, in November I was shocked to learn of a plan to spend half a million dollars to cleanse Vancouver streets of the homeless during the 2010 Olympics. How easy it is to get a financial commitment for a two-week party when real people need homes now and every single day up to 2010 and beyond.

The loss of single-room accommodation in the downtown east side demands immediate government action. Last Monday the opposition moved a motion to call on the new Auditor General to monitor the rate of SRO loss as part of the evaluation of the Olympics. This province has signed on to the Olympic inclusivity agreement with the city of Vancouver. One of the commitments is to ensure that there are no displacements in the downtown east side community.

Since the award of the 2010 games the rate of SRO conversions has been alarming. It is imperative that the independent officer of this Legislature looks into this issue and determines if the terms of the inclusivity

agreement are being honoured. In recent days one landlord was quoted as saying that he was evicting his current tenants to make his building available for $1,000-a-month rentals to Olympic project workers.

It is extremely disappointing to me to see this government reject the opposition's motion and thus give the green light to more of this type of eviction in spite of their earlier commitments to protect the vulnerable residents of the downtown east side. As I just mentioned a few minutes ago, in 2001 the B.C. Liberal government cancelled Homes B.C., a program which built around 1,000 affordable units per year. Had this program been maintained, I am sure that we would not be in such a dire situation today with our homeless.

I'm asking this government to make an immediate commitment to build non-profit housing. Non-profit housing and cooperatives are a partnership where all parties have an interest in making it work. It is a community asset, a long-term investment in ordinary people.

The wait-list for social housing in British Columbia has increased dramatically, to almost 14,000 people. When I left the board of the GVHC, we were 2,000 or 3,000 less than that. That was only a year and a half ago. Applicants are now waiting up to five years to be placed in safe, affordable units. As of December 2005 there were over 700 tri-city households on the B.C. Housing wait-list, and no doubt this has increased over the past year.

I recently received an e-mail, as did the Minister Responsible for Housing — or non-housing, as the case may be — from a family with a special needs child who has been waiting six years to get into housing which would fit their requirements. Obviously, the need for non-profit housing is great and continues to grow. It's not something that we are saying or I am saying as fearmongering. This is reality. These are facts, and the government needs to face up to that.

The free market is not helping any. In many cases of new development, hundreds of tenants are being evicted from older but affordable rental suites. One such casualty was in New Westminster just before Christmas, where nearly 150 people were given eviction notices for New Year's Eve after their 73-unit tower was sold to a property management service. Families, seniors and tenants with disabilities are under unbelievable pressure to find affordable homes in a region where vacancy rates are low, homelessness is growing and the wait-list for social housing is thousands long.

I predict that as we move closer to the Olympics, we will see more and more of these types of evictions — evictions based on so-called upgrading of suites. The residential tenancy branch is struggling to keep up with the people that are needing arbitrations. What's happening is…. The arbitrations are so far behind that often by the time the residential tenancy branch rules in favour of the tenant, it's too late; they've already been evicted or already had to find other accommodation because of their fear of being evicted.

Another example of this problem is in Surrey, where a sharp rise in the homeless population was given another blow a few week ago when the government failed to provide critical operating funding for a homeless shelter which subsequently had to close its doors. Surrey, with an estimated homeless count similar to Vancouver's, has just 45 shelter beds compared to Vancouver's 550, which is not nearly enough. Last year Surrey's Hyland House Society turned away an estimated 4,000 homeless people. This fact contradicts the Housing Minister's assertions that Victoria will do its part if only municipal governments would step up to the plate.

We also have manufactured home owners around the province suffering, as more and more of them see the property their home sits on sold for condo and subdivision redevelopment. Changes made to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act by this government in 2002 have removed adequate notice and fair compensation. As a direct result, many manufactured home owners are facing financial ruin. Property owners should be required to provide a fair and uniform relocation package to those they are displacing. My riding of Coquitlam has been a leader in this regard by requiring owners of manufactured home parks to negotiate fair agreements with their tenants before they can rezone the land for other development.

At its last convention the Union of B.C. Municipalities also passed a motion that recognized the importance of having relocation agreements in place throughout this province. Sadly, this Legislature has not seen fit to do the same. A motion has come forward by the people on this side of the House, which was rejected by our government. Shame, again, on this government.

I hope all of the people in manufactured home parks are now aware of this awful situation. So here we are: growing numbers of homeless, skyrocketing wait-lists for social housing, a dwindling supply of affordable rentals, virtually no new rental housing being built by the marketplace, evictions becoming the new business as usual, manufactured home owners forced to move and a government that refuses to acknowledge these realities — a government that can do no better than blame municipalities, continuing this decade of denial. Housing must once again become a provincial priority. This decade of denial must end.

The government's current housing strategy does little to increase affordable housing stock. It relies heavily on rent supplements, but everybody knows that rent supplements will not raise vacancy rates, which are the lowest in the country. This was the situation for thousands of people when last week we went into the House to hear the budget speech, to finally hear what the Minister of Housing has been asking us since last February to wait for.

"Wait for it," he said. In October he said it again: "Wait for it." Well, we waited. He told us we wouldn't be disappointed. Well, guess what. I, my colleagues on this side of the House and people across this province in desperate situations were all disappointed last Tuesday.

It appears that the government's strategy is to blame municipalities again for supposedly putting up roadblocks to social housing. It's just not true in Coquitlam

and in many other cities. I am an active participant on the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Force, which meets regularly to look at solutions in our area. I actually attend the meetings, unlike some other politicians who sit on the task force.

Local municipalities have recently agreed to provide funding towards a strategic action plan to agree to deal with homelessness, and the city of Coquitlam is working on an affordable housing strategy which will have far-reaching implications — a strategy that the government of the day might take some lessons from, if they would take the time to read the strategy.

Let's all remember a few months ago when lower mainland municipalities, through the GVRD, put forward an affordable housing proposal — a well-researched, well-documented document — and the reaction of the Minister Responsible for Housing was to dismiss it immediately without any due consideration. As a former city councillor, I say that's just not good enough.

I also wish to note very seriously that the cities and towns of British Columbia are not responsible or funded to provide social services or housing. Those are the responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments that collect tax dollars for that purpose. They are whom we must always hold accountable, especially in these troubling times when homeless numbers are tripling and quadrupling.

I have met with the owners of the so-called leaky condos who are still suffering from this financial fiasco. These are people whose lives have often been ruined and who now suffer ongoing medical conditions as a result of too many years of uncertainty and chaos — victims of a seemingly uncaring system. Frankly, many of them feel abandoned by our provincial government, who promised before the 2001 election to take on a leadership role and to move immediately towards resolution of this problem.

Well, that was nearly six years ago. Leaky-home victims have yet to see any assistance coming from this government, not even any help in putting pressure upon the Prime Minister to fulfil his election promises. Both the B.C. government and the federal Conservatives have abandoned people who often can't even live in their homes anymore. Once again, I say: shame, shame, shame.

I've also met with tenants in seniors housing complexes who fear they will be evicted by new owners who come in and issue eviction notices. I've met with the advocates of the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and with many members of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. They are all equally concerned — advocates, tenants and seniors alike.

A lack of affordable housing and downsizing of Riverview Hospital, which is also in my constituency, does not bode well for the most vulnerable members of our society. There is very little new funding in this budget for programs to address the lack of supported community living arrangements, which were supposed to replace institutional care.

Last month one of my colleagues heard from a family of a Riverview patient who must leave at the end of February. Their son is seven months clean from drugs and doing very well. He has a job and is able to live independently. However, he's been on the Vancouver Coastal Health mental housing list for eight years. They now say there should be something available for him in the fall. It sounds like: "Wait 60 more days." They must be talking to the Minister of Housing, I guess.

His stay at Riverview is up at the end of February, and they've already allowed him to stay longer than he's really allowed. The Riverview housing liaison stated that the housing wait-list is very long and that many patients are discharged with absolutely no housing to go to. This patient is vulnerable, and if he ends up on the streets, there is a danger of him getting back into drugs.

Clearly, this government is neglecting to provide housing for Riverview patients and others in danger of becoming homeless. The Riverview situation is really, really awful — the waiting list for Riverview. They're moving people out, and there is no housing for people to go to. The people in my riding bear the brunt of this, and we are tired of it. We're very, very tired of it. I'm speaking on behalf of them, because I get most of the calls at my office.

I've also met with members of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (B.C.) several times now to discuss their wish to establish standards for the home inspection industry. I have in this Legislature questioned the Solicitor General on why the government has not acted on its promise to implement regulations for the home inspection industry. I am still waiting for an answer, although the Solicitor General was quoted in the media as "having seen no evidence that such standards are needed." This, in a province full of leaky and substandard homes, just defies the imagination.

I've met several times with representatives of the B.C. Real Estate Association and discussed with them many items of interest to their members, including and especially the property transfer tax. One interesting possibility that I believe warrants further discussion is the feasibility of using a portion of the PTT, the property transfer tax, to fund affordable housing. The revenue from the PTT for next year is estimated at around $900 million, and the money being put into new social housing construction at around $139 million. This is less than 15 percent. Surely, as a rich province with a huge surplus, we can do better than that.

My Coquitlam constituency office continues to receive dozens of phone calls from people with a variety of concerns. One of the most pressing in the last few months has been the possible closure of eight schools in our district, three in my riding of Coquitlam–Maillardville: Meadowbrook Elementary, Vanier Elementary and Millside Elementary.

Our school district 43 already, a couple of years ago, closed four schools, and eight more are on the chopping block — three in my riding. I actually have more in my riding than any of the other ridings in Coquitlam. It's a tragedy. I have attended all the school closure meetings at the three schools as well as making a presentation to

the school trustees last week. I will continue to help parents fight the closure of these valued neighbourhood schools, which are often the heart and soul of their communities.

The taxpayers in my riding know full well that the school district is being forced to look at school closures to save money, mainly because the provincial government is not funding many things — seismic repairs for one; a huge budget item. The schools on the chopping block in my riding all have huge seismic repair items in their budgets, so we know that this is probably the main reason that the school district is looking at closing these three particular schools. They're also not funding — or haven't funded, I should say — teacher wage increases or Bill 33, and they've frozen maintenance funding.

Millside Elementary is one of the schools on the closure list because the school district says it cannot afford to keep it open. Millside is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Ironically, plans are well underway for a big celebration. I recently toured the school with Deb Smith, executive director of Step-by-Step Child Development Society, which operates an after- and before-school child care program there.

If all eight schools in my school district 43 are closed, 300 child care spaces will be lost to the Tri-Cities area. This will be a huge setback, and I want the Minister of State for Childcare to explain it at some point. I asked last week in question period and didn't get an answer, of course.

I'd like to know how the Minister of State for Childcare possibly plans to mitigate this loss of 300 spaces. How will families in Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam find quality, affordable child care when these schools are closed and when the other school child care centres are full and have waiting lists?

These spaces are mainly provided by non-profit societies, and it will be impossible for all of them to find new locations and absorb the extra costs involved in moving to a new building. This is if they can even find any space. There is virtually no empty space — certainly, in my riding and in most of the Tri-Cities. When they do find space, the rents in our area are so high that I predict these child care spaces will be lost. Like housing subsidies to our most vulnerable, child care subsidies are of no use without a good supply of empty spaces to move into.

Even though I am no longer the critic for Childcare, this issue continues to be close to my heart. I was shocked to hear no mention of child care in the budget speech. Just down the block from my constituency office, a child care resource and referral office operated by the YMCA will shut its doors because its funding is being eliminated by the government — by September '07.

This move makes very little sense and leaves me deeply disappointed. The office opened just a year ago, with expanded services and client base, because they were encouraged by this government to do so. When I met with the staff there they told me that the government is now planning to pay out their lease and staff contracts.

What a waste of tax dollars. This office helps hundreds of parents find child care to meet their families' needs and provides information in what to look for in quality care. They also help parents apply for the B.C. child care subsidy. We could have a resource office that was well used by parents seeking child care, but instead we are wasting child care dollars paying out a lease, and parents have lost a valuable service.

There are 43 other child care resource and referral programs in this province that will close by the end of September, which likely will be replaced by a phone service that will be very difficult for all, but nearly impossible for new immigrants already struggling with language problems and other settlement issues.

It seems as if there's, like, the flavour of the day sometimes with the members who sit across from me. One year CCRRs are the flavour of the day. Let's expand them, and let's make them better. They're the best thing in town. The very next year it's: "Oh, it didn't work out so well. Let's get rid of this."

Well, you know, parents and people across this province, including the staff in these places, are a little concerned about this hippity-hoppity stuff — from one thing to another. I think this government is in for a big surprise when they keep hearing about this child care issue. This is not going to go away. This issue has legs, and this government is going to hear about it.

Health care, as you know, continues to grab headlines. In my riding, emergency room doctors at the Royal Columbian Hospital — which is not exactly in my riding, but it is my regional hospital, and it feels like my hospital — again last week repeatedly expressed frustration at least and anger at worst that their department is dangerously overcrowded.

Anyone in my region who needs neurosurgery, cardiac surgery or interventional radiology for trauma cases goes to the Royal Columbian Hospital. Doctors have said that ambulance crews and stretchers are backed up on far too many days. The hospital can't put people into beds because many of these beds are being used by people who need rehabilitation and extended care facilities that don't exist.

I recently had a personal experience with just this when a friend of mine suffered a back injury and ended up…. He just came out of the hospital after five weeks. He had been shuffled off to Queen's Park Hospital after he spent four days in a closet at the Royal Columbian — a very nice closet, mind you. The staff treated him very well, as they try to do with all of their patients, but there is a limit to what doctors, nurses and hospital staff can do. This government should recognize that.

I've been conducting my own conversation on health care in my riding, and here's what my constituents are saying to me. They appreciate our publicly funded health care system. They want to see it strengthened and improved. They don't want millions of dollars spent on advertising and administrators. They want wait-lists reduced and more resources for front-line workers and effective treatments.

Here in B.C. we need more medical doctors and not, as somebody said the other day, spin doctors, who are promoting private, for-profit services. On March 22 in Coquitlam I'm holding my own public meeting on health care. This will be an opportunity for everyone, not just 100 preselected people, to have their say and give genuine input that will be listened to.

It's no wonder that my constituents feel this government has already decided the future course for health care when they read the comments of the former chair of the Fraser Health Authority board, which is my health authority, who said that he quit because inadequate government funding threatens patient care in our region. He felt powerless to convince the province to change its course. "I now believe that decisions beyond our control are taking Fraser Health rapidly backwards," he wrote in his resignation letter. "The very community leaders we enticed to provide good governance and business acumen to the management of the health sector now appear totally ignored." Comments like this are hardly reassuring to the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville.

The people of British Columbia are looking for leadership in health care, child care and housing. In recent years the budget speeches and throne speeches have made commitments to these issues. However, the government's record on follow-through is more than dismal.

My constituents are also expressing concerns about the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, as was discussed earlier in this House today, which is scheduled to come into effect on April 1. At first glance this may seem like a fairly innocuous deal that will ease the flow of trade and labour between two provinces, but not all British Columbians accept this at face value.

Recently I received a letter from Eunice Parker, a former Coquitlam city councillor and a freeman — one of five freemen in the city of Coquitlam — who pointed out that there was no plan for public hearings or even a debate in the Legislature about this agreement. In Eunice's words: "This is a strange kind of democracy. One has to wonder what we elected these people to do."

I see that my time is starting to run out, and I still have four more pages. So I will just say that my constituents have also contacted me about concerns, particularly the Burke Mountain Naturalists, about the run-of-river hydro projects that might not be as green as we, at first blush, thought they were. I think I'll do a two-minute statement on that, Madam Speaker. It's so well-written that I just can't not say it in this House.

Rapid transit did not get the attention it needed in the budget, in my opinion. I'm living in a riding that's suffering because all the money is being sucked up by the RAV line, and we once again have no money for rapid transit.

I. Black: It is indeed a privilege and an honour for me to stand and address the provincial budget on behalf of the constituents of the fine riding of Port Moody–Westwood.

We receive a budget this year with the affairs of the province well in hand. Our province has continued to lead the nation in terms of job growth for five consecutive years. Our employment levels are at historic highs throughout the province, and in some places unemployment is so low that it simply can't be measured. We have a triple-A credit rating for the first time since 1983, which means less interest rate gets paid on our accumulated debt of the last several decades, and that means more money is available for programs for the families in British Columbia.

We've got a building excitement towards the Olympic Games and the spirit of achievement that they represent. We have historically high investments taking place in education and in health care.

I'm honoured to represent the riding of Port Moody–Westwood and its 69,000 students. It's one of the largest ridings in British Columbia, and it is the fastest-growing riding of all 79 in the province. We have participated in the extraordinary success of this government in the last five years. I'm going to touch briefly on some of the ways that we have and on how our community has participated in this enormous economy that we have going.

Contrary to almost all of the remarks of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, we've seen an investment in mental illness in our community with the opening recently of Cottonwood Lodge, a 24-bed specialized mental health residential facility for individuals requiring more intensive, ongoing supports than are available in existing community mental health residential services. It's one of the components in Fraser Health's plan within the Riverview Hospital redevelopment project.

We've participated with the building of the David Avenue Connector. The provincial government contributed over $2 million towards the David Avenue Connector and the bridge, which is the largest infrastructure project ever completed in the city of Coquitlam and proof once again of our government's commitment not just to transportation throughout this great province but also to the Tri-Cities itself.

On the lighter side of things, we have Rocky Point Park. This magnificent facility, our answer in the Tri-Cities to Stanley Park, underwent a major $3 million renovation and redevelopment. It included the addition of a bandshell and a spray park, upgrading of landscaping and pathways, new parking facilities and a new park services building. Many amenities for families are included in this new park, including a new wading pool, a new playing field, drainage improvements, new wetlands and a pond, a new playground and a new performance stage.

I'm very pleased with much of the work that has been done in the Tri-Cities area in the area of housing and homelessness in the last several years. It was this government that piloted the Hope for Freedom outreach initiative. It was so successful in its efforts to go out to where the homeless are and bring them into the government services available to help them during the difficult times they're going through that we extended this pilot by another three years.

We're also a government that recently put $200,000 toward the InnerVisions Recovery Society — this was announced as of last Friday — allowing it to purchase the property where it operates a ten-unit transition housing development providing a substance abuse treatment program. As part of the provincial homelessness initiative, created through the work of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions, funding for more than 758 additional housing units across the province was announced last Friday, and up to 55 of them have been called for in Coquitlam, again as part of the Housing Matters B.C. program.

The province is now committed to creating over 1,291 new housing units under the provincial homelessness initiative. The initiative aims to break the cycle of homelessness by integrating support services with housing so people may move beyond temporary shelter to more secure housing, gain greater self-reliance and achieve appropriate employment.

In our community, Madam Speaker, you could not bring up the initiatives within the government without talking about rapid transit. I must comment on it, though it is a TransLink project. It is the number-one priority for our community, as a result of our number-one issue, which is growth. It's a priority that is shared by our Ministry of Transportation and our Premier.

The $170 million commitment that was requested of this government by TransLink remains absolute. Upon completion of the TransLink governance review, we'll be in a position to analyze the remaining funding shortfall under a P3 model, to the benefit of all of the citizens in the northeast section of our community.

As recently as last week the Minister of Transportation again voiced his support of rapid transit into our community, and I remain focused, as he well knows, on keeping this project as a very clear priority within his ministry and within our government.

The throne speech both reflects our achievements since 2001 and anticipates the road ahead. We have our students outperforming their counterparts in international assessments. We have labour peace, not just looking back over the last four years but also going forward for the next five. We have the independent Conference Board of Canada rating our B.C. health care system as number one — not okay or middle of the pack, but number one.

We also have yet another reminder of the importance of low income taxes, as we see seniors in our province who are earning less than $30,000 a year paying $1,000 less in tax today than they did under the NDP.

The throne speech reflects both the strength of our position and the priorities within our communities. Because of our strong economy, we have the ability to make the historic investments in health and education. It gives us the ability to plan and manoeuvre and choose. It allows us to feed the insatiable appetite of a health care system while we analyze what we can do with it to ensure its survival.

It allows us to reflect our priorities of helping those most in need. Housing, known as the cornerstone of a strong social policy. Continuing on our remarkable path of progress, respect and trust with our first nations communities, not just with respect to treaties and the various funds that are available and the various initiatives that we've embarked on as a government but also challenging the health outcomes and the educational outcomes of the first nations people. Then, underlying so much of this is that they are focused on the quality, the choice and the accountability within our health care system and the education system.

You could not escape the focus on the environment in the throne speech and our budget. This is merely the next step in fulfilling our already announced great goal. It was number four. You'll recall that we ran an election on five great goals back in 2005. As part of what we've done, we've preserved in years past the Kitasoo spirit bear conservancy, taking the size of the conservancy from 10,000 hectares to over four million. So 14 percent of our province is now under conservancy. This made the cover of the Wall Street Journal.

We also have 43 new class-A parks and 38 existing ones that have been expanded, and we have the 2002 energy plan, which was billed at the time by external analysts as the cleanest and greenest in North America. Government emissions — the emissions from government bureaucracies and employees and the working of government — have been dropped by over 24 percent from 2000 to 2004, and yet we're just getting started.

When the city of Victoria announced the fact that they were ready to step up to the issue of raw sewage, the government of British Columbia stepped up and said: "We will pay up to one-third of that bill."

The go-forward plan on the environment, as articulated in our throne speech and budget, included over two dozen specific initiatives — not just legislation proposals and regulation and incentives and partnership funds but also linkages to human behaviour and choice in areas of conservation, public education and information, which is a critical component of making impact in this area, as well as commitments to holding public forums and conservation councils.

I absolutely love the one on reforestation. We've got over six billion trees that have been planted in this province as of 2007, and we're currently continuing our reforestation efforts at a pace of about a billion trees every five years. It took us 51 years to get the first billion, which I think is kind of interesting.

It's also reflective of the need to do planning with respect to the environment at a community level, as we embark on our $21 million Towns for Tomorrow infrastructure fund and our $20 million B.C. Spirit Squares fund focused on outdoor meeting places and bringing people in and making them more aware of the importance of the environment and how they can have an impact on ensuring its survival going forward. This is not just about legislation. It's about setting the stage

and setting the example, and it's about encouraging a very specific behaviour in our citizens.

In the area of education our budget outlined $1.4 billion additional funding for health care and education, in addition to the full funding — not partial funding, as was mentioned recently by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, but full funding — for the salary increases from the historical and sizeable settlement reached with teachers last June. It's a settlement, I might point out, that they never achieved in their ten years in government. With that settlement, the $1.4 billion increase in that area actually rises to $3.3 billion.

I'm very pleased that in the throne speech it was announced that our boards will be authorized to charge fees approved by school planning councils to defray non-instructional costs or additional costs incurred in offering special academies, trade programs and — near and dear to my heart — band instruments. Of all the responses I got back from my constituency in the last several months, the concern from budding musicians, their parents and school teachers who teach in band programs was the concern that the inability to charge band rental fees would dramatically reduce if not shut down programs that were so critical to me personally and that remain so critical to the families and youth in our communities.

I'm also very pleased that we announced the establishment of a teacher employment registry to report the names of teachers disciplined for misconduct involving emotional, physical or sexual abuse. We are blessed, and we must remain mindful of the fact that the vast majority of our teachers are outstanding professionals, but where there is the kind of misconduct that this contemplates, we must make sure that our families and communities are aware.

I'm also pleased to see that my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard's initiatives in the area of bullying are being addressed in this throne speech, as it was announced that we'll be requiring our boards of education to establish codes of conduct for students, which meet the provincially set standards, and that we'll institute zero tolerance in bullying in B.C. schools.

There are other elements in the budget, including $178 million over four years for policing, justice and the correction system to protect our communities and our citizens.

There's no question that a great deal of the budget focused on the area of housing. I'm going to touch on one or two elements and bring them close to my community once again. Budget balance 2007 includes $328 million in our housing budget — three times what it was when we took over government in 2001.

There are some very creative ideas in this budget, including the $250 million housing endowment fund to allow British Columbians to come up with ideas to best meet the needs of the evolving demographics and the changing communities in which we all live. In addition, we've also got $27 million over three years to increase the number of year-round shelter beds by almost 30 percent and provide the related support services.

One of the first things that young couples in our area encounter when they go to buy a house is the first-time-homebuyers program. Thanks to this government, first-time buyers are now in a position to save up to $5,500, when new couples are starting out in their lives.

We've extended the eligibility for the homeowner grant to lower-income seniors as well, regardless of their home's assessed value. This means that people on fixed incomes who may have bought homes 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, who currently are in a position of almost being driven from their homes because of property taxes, are in a position to have a great deal more insurance than they had before. They can remain in their homes and live where they want to live.

One of the exciting elements of this budget was the personal income tax cut of 10 percent. As has been mentioned here many times today, we now have 250,000 of our most needy B.C. residents paying absolutely no provincial tax whatsoever, while others at the low end of our income brackets are seeing up to a 70-percent reduction over what they paid five and six years ago.

Most other brackets of our income, right up to the top ones, are seeing a savings of 30 percent to 35 percent over the provincial income tax they paid under the previous government. This is good news for British Columbians of all ages and income brackets.

I want to touch on one fact that I came across as I was preparing my remarks for today, and that is what I refer to as the $1,800 phenomenon; $1,800 represents two things. It represents the lower amount of tax that is paid by a family of four since 2001. We're seeing a family of four, since 2001, save $1,800. Just to put this in comparison with the previous government, $1,800 happens to be the same amount of money by which incomes in this province fell during the 1990s. On that point, $1,800 is a number to celebrate in this budget.

Now, I am noting that we are running a little short on time, so I'm going to close my remarks today by focusing on some of the external reaction that we've seen to the budget and to our throne speech. We've had environmental experts such as Andrew Weaver refer to our plans as "the most progressive plan I have ever seen" and use the phrase "great leadership." We've seen similar sentiments from David Suzuki and the Sierra Club — hardly traditional friends of a free enterprise government.

Now, is this a slam dunk? Of course not. The environment is a complex matter. It has taken many decades of human behaviour to get us where we are, and it's not a problem we're going to solve overnight. But when you've got a government that's got the vision and the leadership, that puts principle above political expediency, you do the right thing. You're not afraid to stick your neck out a little.

Over half the people surveyed in the days immediately following our budget and our throne speech believe that we can meet the targets, as ambitious as they are, by 2020 — with younger residents more confident than our older ones. Well, what a wonderful statement about the confidence, the focus and the commitment of our youth

to embrace and understand the challenge that is ahead for their world and their children's world.

The NDP could learn a great deal if they actually pulled their heads out of their ideological sandbox and listened to the measured and considered thoughts of the community of British Columbia. Noting the hour, I would like to reserve the remainder of my comments, and I would move adjournment of the debate.

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.


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Campbell	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 30

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