Hansard — Tuesday, February 27, 2007 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Budget Debate (continued)		5565
	I. Black
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	N. Simons
	Hon. C. Richmond

I. Black: It is my distinct pleasure to resume my remarks on the government's budget and throne speech, which I began yesterday. I must admit I found, following on the heels of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville yesterday, that the remarks were both confused and confusing. I'm grateful for the opportunity to reflect a little bit on those as I resume and complete my remarks this morning.

Yesterday we heard from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville that our province has an unusual track record with respect to the closing of a mental health facility on the Riverview grounds. I found that astonishing, because the closing of Riverview and the changing of the way we treat our mentally ill in this province has been a consistent way for about 20 years now.

It was actually our Premier who was the first leader to stand up in his address at the UBCM and actually have the courage to say what people have been thinking for many years, which is that the way we treat our mentally ill in this province and the approach we've been taking for 20 years are not working, and we must change them.

I also found it astonishing that there were remarks in the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville's speech with respect to what I'd call classic NDP theory. There was a suggestion to take the property transfer tax that is currently being applied on the transfer of real estate in this province and put it to housing. That's a wonderful idea, but — not untypical, sadly, of the NDP — the second half of the sentence wasn't in place to say: "Yes, but what are you going to do to the health care system and the education system, which are currently the benefactors of that revenue source?"

Once again we're left with half an equation: spend now, and figure out the rest of it later. That is not the way our government acts, and it's not the way this budget is reflecting the success of this province and the way we're going.

I. Black: Notwithstanding the grammatical corrections being made by the member opposite, I also have to go on and speak for a moment on some of the absolutely ridiculous comments that were made pertaining to school closures in our area. This is a very stressful and emotional time for the families in my community, because within another two years we will have seen 5,000 fewer students in school district 43.

With a starting point of about 35,000 students down to around 30,000 students just now, we are facing the closure of schools because we've got schools with 38 percent and 39 percent population. These are distressing and difficult times for the families in my community. We've got a school board at the moment that's doing consultation with the community and trying to figure out what can be done in this area.

The remarks from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, frankly, are doing a disservice to these families and the school trustees who are trying to figure out what to do in this difficult situation. To suggest for a moment that schools that are less than half full are facing closure because of lack of funding for seismic upgrades by this province is absolutely preposterous and does a disservice to those families.

The NDP continue to illustrate — as former Premier Bob Rae has publicly declared, apparently now having seen the light — that the NDP is a party of protest, not a party for governing. They are certainly a party that has failed to even once, in my relatively brief tenure in this House, propose an alternative — never mind a constructive alternative.

Two days after a $38 billion budget has been tabled by the Minister of Finance, we get a question period full of geoducks. Thirty-eight billion dollars of expenditures; health care issues being analyzed…

I. Black: …education reforms being presented; enormous transportation networks being pursued and over two dozen points in an environmental plan; issues of mental health, addictions and homelessness that are complex and pertinent in our time — and we get a series of nail-biting questions on ducks.

We endured six months of dramatic indignation claiming an assault on democracy itself, despite simple fact and historical evidence to the contrary…

I. Black: …complemented by a frequent and zealous promise to "hold this government to account" when we fulfilled our commitment to convene the Legislature to appoint the Representative for Children and Youth.

Well, after all that buildup, all the melodrama, what crisis plaguing our province occupied an entire question period on day two of the fall session? Was it health care, education, child care, the environment,

human rights, pine beetle infestation, mental health? No. It was the scourge of building inspectors.

You know, what undermines the health care system at the moment is not what the member for Skeena was saying. The NDP is well aware of the challenges, some of them decades old, predating even their incompetence in the public health care system — a system that today has over 50 percent more money in it than five years ago, and a system that the Conference Board of Canada has rated number one.

The NDP member for Skeena has declared in his remarks that talking openly and honestly about the health care system with the people undermines the system and the people that work within it. What undermines the system and all the morale of those who work within it every day is the cherry-picking from four million emergency visits and the millions of planned procedures in our hospitals every year to isolate and bring to this House stories of people's personal difficulties and occasional tragedy for political gain. That is what undermines the system.

I. Black: Again, we find ourselves the party of protest, a party of cynicism — not a party of alternatives and certainly not a party fit to govern. I have been stunned to listen to some of the members of the NDP lecture this government on business fundamentals, listening to the trite remarks of the member for Surrey-Newton talking about business planning and allegations of our government catering to our big corporate friends in Vancouver.

Look, their government drove out from B.C. the big corporations and their head offices when they had a chance in the 1990s. News flash — there are none of them left for us to allegedly treat with favouritism. It's on the shoulders of small business that we have rebuilt, and it's on those shoulders that we stand in this province, because they drove away the big ones.

I listen to the member for Vancouver-Fairview make remarks about how we've mismanaged the economy since we've taken office and call into question any credentials, skills or aptitudes we may have on this side with respect to business and the economy. I'm not sure what's in that juice, but there's nothing I can say on that first remark that could possibly undermine the member's credibility more than the remark itself.

As for the resumés of my colleagues — resisting the urge to do a comparison between his colleagues and mine — let me for the record note the following about the government members, with a small amount of overlap.

We have 15 entrepreneurs or small business owners; five lawyers; two accountants; three corporate executives; five trustees or school board chairs; nine managers or owners of development, real estate or construction firms; eight former mayors of municipalities; 11 former city councillors; two bank managers; and while we're at it, five teachers, three farmers, a Harvard PhD and a Supreme Court judge. I'll take my team over theirs any day of the week.

I. Black: If the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain vote against this budget, they'll be voting against helping seniors stay in their homes where they raised their children. They'll be voting against a newly married couple in Port Coquitlam, Maillardville, Coquitlam and Port Moody saving $5,500 when they purchase their first home together.

They'll be voting against the lowest-income earners in this province, some of them in Port Coquitlam, achieving what is to be a 69-percent reduction in the amount of provincial income tax they pay. They'll be voting against a quarter of a million of our most needy citizens paying no income tax whatsoever. They'll be voting against a tripling of the housing budget relative to when we took office in 2001 and the immediate addition of 55 social housing units, as was called for in Coquitlam by this government.

They'll be voting against an additional $3.3 billion going towards our public health care and education system. They'll be voting against the immediate funding to expand availability and access to crisis housing for women — many of whom are fleeing abuse, often with kids.

Winston Churchill once said that socialism in any form — and most certainly including that of our provincial NDP — is not about achieving the distribution of wealth; it's about ensuring the distribution of poverty.

In concert with the same sentiment, the fact is that the most successful free enterprise, achievement-driven governments know that their success not only provides for a generous social safety net that provides for the most vulnerable in our communities, but it actually depends on it. This is the great divide, the great intellectual leap of faith that will never be taken by our colleagues in the NDP.

They cannot comprehend and they cannot ideologically accept that our strategies, while different from their own — that is, if they actually declared them — are most capable of achieving the same goals, and that our motivations of sustainable, publicly funded health care, jobs for our families, educating our kids, encouraging the evolution of balanced and sustainable communities are ultimately the same as their own.

Unless you doubt those words as mere theory and conjecture, consider this. Churchill — the great fiscal conservative, the great free trade zealot — took the leadership role in getting minimum-wage laws passed

in Britain, introducing old age pensions for the first time in the U.K., and likewise unemployment insurance and sick-pay legislation.

The NDP has offered nothing but a chorus of hollow disapproval on a throne speech and a budget that presents choice and opportunity to families; that leaves thousands more dollars in the pockets of families in my community; that funds women's shelters and transitional and social housing, and historically high investments in health care and education.

The throne speech closes with the remarks: "Let us test our limits and give our grandchildren the gift of a better province, a better country and a better world." Unlike some of my colleagues, I'm not old enough to have grandchildren. I'm busy trying to survive having three children, but in the very distant future I'll welcome that day. I'll remain committed in the interim to advancing the vision, the strategies and the direction that will ensure in economic, environmental and social policy terms that the British Columbia that welcomes them into the world is an extraordinary place and still in every sense the envy of the rest of this great country.

D. Cubberley: Well what can one possibly say after all of that load of hooey? Oh no, gooey.

D. Cubberley: I hope you have more appetite than that, Member, because I do have some things to say, and I am going to inflict them — I mean offer them to you — for your consideration.

The throne speech asked rhetorically, I think, whether we will "have the foresight to reach higher in education and literacy, to reduce the weight of our footprint on the environment, or to sustain our public health care system." This is an important question about three of the most pressing issues that we face today — issues that are central to our future productivity and prosperity; to the independence, self-responsibility and personal potential of individuals; to our continued quality of life and place; and indeed to our very existence as a species.

If we're to judge by the failure to launch any major initiatives to reach higher in any of these areas in the throne or the budget speech, I think the answer has to be a resounding no. The government will not have the foresight. Indeed, this government lacks the foresight to invest in the very vision it invokes.

The throne speech made much of government's new-found concern about climate. It claims there's "no room for procrastination." The threat looms large, and should we fail to act now — aggressively, even — we may see the end of life as we know it. It promises climate action, energy and air quality plans in a quest to bring emissions down by 2020.

I welcome the Premier's conversion on this issue, however late in the day it comes. It's always good when a climate change–denying government comes over from the dark side into the bright light of concern about humankind's impact on the planet.

Unfortunately, the speech is long on urgent and stirring words, short on specifics, and really promises nothing measurable in the near term.

Why did I feel such a strong sense of déjà vu when hearing these government themes? Well, if one were to judge this government by its record to date on meeting the five great goals — or virtually any of its other stated goals, like moving quickly to seismically upgrade vulnerable schools or reducing childhood obesity…. It's much more about procrastination than it is about action. It's more about talk than walk. It's more about partisanship than partnership, and it's more about lack of resolve than about boldness of vision or deliberate change or seeing anything through to completion.

Many of us were left breathless — indeed, I believe some members suffered whiplash — from government's movement towards a position of concern about climate change and conviction about the urgency of acting after such a long time in denial. From Good Housekeeping tips on eating fruits and vegetables every day to stay in good health, to the potential end of life as we know it without any intervening developments whatsoever — just like that. Remarkable.

Government asks: will we have the courage to tackle difficult problems that have no easy solutions? Again, in light of the budget, the answer would have to be a resounding no. This government's appetite for tackling difficult problems is nonexistent. Take homelessness, for example — a problem that it has done more to expand with cuts to social services than any prior government and one that its Finance Minister claimed to be addressing in the budget.

We welcome government's baby steps forward on the issue of homelessness — conversion of 300 temporary shelter spaces for the homeless to permanent spaces and the long-overdue but still far from adequate increase to shelter allowances for social assistance recipients. All of those things are excellent, but they fall far short of a frontal attack on the scourge of homelessness and addiction ravaging B.C. communities, many of which members opposite represent. Not even close.

Yet government's energy for making bold and hyperbolic statements, setting distant and unenforceable targets, inventing nominal placeholder programs and congratulating itself for non-achievements continues unabated, as witness the preceding speech.

I would suggest that the history of overblown announcements is doing credibility damage to the Finance Minister and the Premier today. It just isn't believable; it doesn't add up. And when you finally do get there, there's no "there" there.

Look where children with disabilities are stuck in B.C. today — partially integrated at public schools where teachers are struggling in over 9,500 classrooms, operating above the minister's cap of three special needs kids, addressing the diverse needs of special needs children with inadequate supports and without taking time away from the 25 or more other children in the classroom.

Look at kids with severe disabilities who can access supports up to age 19 but who are then cut adrift if

their IQ happens to be over 70, irrespective of whether they're actually capable of any real level of independence in the community. When this unilateral cutoff is effectively challenged in court, this government's response is to take the unworthy step of appealing the judgment. Meantime, Community Living British Columbia services are so oversubscribed and it is so underfunded that even those who might qualify for assistance face indeterminate waits for access to severely limited resources.

Is this what the best system of supports looks like for persons with disabilities in the rich province of British Columbia? That, by the way, is one of the great goals.

Two items that receive a significant share of attention in the throne speech are climate change and education. Other equally important — indeed, vital — issues with great bearing on what we need to do, as the throne speech says, to secure the future of our children and grandchildren received little or none.

I would like to mention a few of those issues that were glossed over or given short shrift. I would have to say that in my view, this House should feel a measure of shame — all of us — to cut blank cheques for Olympic spending and other cost overruns and to offer subsidies to groups like the private liquor industry, when our citizens continue to struggle with poverty in the midst of plenty. Tax cuts as a preference to dealing with that poverty…. We have the highest rate of child poverty in the country. I think that's something that a throne speech should focus on and acknowledge and that a budget should attempt to counter.

One of the things that should have enjoyed more priority and got passed over very quickly was the area of child care and early learning, and the not unrelated area of literacy training, its kindred English as a second language and the services associated with that.

Government has a much-advertised concern for literacy and a purported resolve to act to lift the nearly one million British Columbians struggling with low literacy out of their trap, but there's nothing for those people in the throne speech.

There's nothing, despite clear recommendations to the Premier by the Literacy Roundtable, the B.C. Progress Board and the whole range of presenters to the select standing committee on adult literacy — recommendations for early interventions for those struggling with reading and numeracy in the early years of public school; recommendations to establish fee-free English-language services for adults up to level 8 of the Canadian benchmarks, which would begin to redress the error of shoving new immigrants, many of whom come here highly qualified and well-educated and are pushed out into the workforce with the equivalent of grade 5 English. That's not even enough to be able to work safely, let alone reach the level of education they bring with them.

How shortsighted is it not to focus on these things? Currently our economy suffers from an acute shortage of skilled labour in numerous sectors. We read about it in the newspaper every day, a situation that will worsen as we head for 2011 with sustained economic growth and when, for the first time ever, there will be more people leaving the labour force than are entering it.

That will only be offset either by increasing the rate at which British Columbians have children, which would take family-supportive policies, or by increasing the rate of immigration to bring in new sources of labour. If we look to our record, currently we're attracting immigrants who have high skills, often post-secondary education, but B.C. is failing to give these newcomers the language abilities to make their skills available to our economy.

The speaker previous to me was going on about the business case for things. The B.C. Progress Board, pointing to our provincial productivity deficit, which is below the Canadian average, suggests the value of adopting a focus on literacy — a strategy which, if aimed at bringing targeted numbers of people up to level 3 literacy, would pay huge dividends beyond the level of funding it would take to get them there; a strategy which, if aimed at providing early childhood development opportunities and licensed child care centres, would improve school readiness and reduce the numbers of B.C. kids who drop out of school or leave with low literacy.

Just to give you a sense of what it would be worth, the business case — being a so-called business party, I'm sure you're interested in the business case for anything — for investment in literacy is this, from the Progress Board. The productivity return on investment in literacy is remarkable. A one-point rise in overall literacy translates into a 2.5-percent increase in provincial productivity, and that is worth between $1.6 billion and $2 billion every year in gross domestic product.

D. Cubberley: Well, you should be interested in a business case, though, Member. I know you wouldn't be interested in a case based on social conscience, but I'm giving you a chance to look at it from the point of view of how we can increase our productivity. I'm trying not to bore you. I'm trying to speak to a degree of coincidence between our separate values, not just playing on the heartstrings but pulling on the purse strings. I'm attempting to open the ears, hoping that the minds will follow, but I sense that they may not. Undaunted, I will continue.

I was going to say in my notes…. It's wonderful; I segued. Set aside caring, and never mind equity. Look at the business case alone. A cold-hearted, cost-benefit analysis would lead to prioritizing investments in literacy and early childhood learning.

Educated immigrants are overrepresented among low-literacy adults. Ten years after they arrive here they are stuck in exactly the same place — people with post-secondary education driving cabs and washing dishes in Vancouver. It is something that has to be looked at. It is something that is urgent, and it is something that there is a return on investment from doing.

D. Cubberley: Well, you know, the minister groans. Perhaps she's read the Gunderson study.

D. Cubberley: Well, Gunderson presented them to the ESL workshop in Vancouver about three weeks ago. As he said, in the cohort of 5,000 that he studied, the majority of them simply disappeared. They didn't write the compulsory examinations at the end of high school. They disappeared. Now, that's probably not a problem for the minister. I'm sure she'll pull a Rubik's cube out and realign the dots, and everything will be fine on the cube.

One of the things to note is that the composition of the immigrants coming to British Columbia is changing, and it's changing rapidly. The system is not set up to deal with it. The numbers of refugee kids, in particular, that are arriving are causing huge disruption in the classroom because they come in a state not ready to learn. We do have to pay attention to the readiness-to-learn factor in how well kids do when they get to school.

You know, the biggest risk factor for failure to thrive upon arrival at school, or the likelihood of leaving school without thriving, is foreign language spoken at home — the number-one risk factor. As we increase the in-migration of immigrants to British Columbia, this becomes more and more salient for how well we are set up and how poorly we are set up.

What's the second-highest risk factor for failure to thrive in our school system? First nations as a cultural background. Guess what. First Nations are also significantly overrepresented in the low-literacy community. So despite the opportunity for what the Progress Board calls strategic investment in literacy, the throne speech and the budget speech come up with the tepid and timid proposal to fund drop-in centres at schools for stay-at-home parents as a boost to literacy and school readiness.

Heaven help those British Columbia families who are at work and don't come to drop-in centres with their kids. That would include, by the way, all lone-parent families. All single-provider families would not be able to use those, and eight out of ten of those households are headed by a woman. For them, all those people, the news in the throne speech is essentially: "Tough noogies."

It would also include all two-income families, because both of those providers need to be at work, and all families where there are two parents and a second provider needs to work in order to be able to sustain the family. Oh, and by the way, that would be the overwhelming majority of all families in British Columbia who would not be served by that policy, for whom early learning would not occur as a result of that policy.

How terribly shortsighted it is to neglect child care and to refuse to see the developmental component of early childhood education.

The throne speech reserved its urgency for the pros on climate change. Strangely enough, there was nearly none reserved for new measures to address the sustainability of health care. Only a drive-by nod in the direction of crisis and hysteria: "Insatiable demands for more funding in health care have gone past the tipping point. Left unchecked, those demands will see our public health care system reach the breaking point, not in decades, but in a matter of years." The end is nigh.

Sustainability is indeed a vital issue for public health care. It was the framework challenge taken up by the Romanow commission, which resulted, ultimately, in all those extra federal dollars flowing into provincial coffers to fund urgent action to repair the system — those dollars which are largely responsible for the increases in funding that members opposite like to talk about as testimony to their commitment to sustaining public health care. Those dollars now pump up the health care budget and make it appear, in the Minister of Finance and the Premier's politically skewed lens, to be eating the consolidated revenue fund.

Sustainability is a challenge not because, in the bogus accounting of this government, spending is about to break the bank, but rather, in large part, because the government is failing miserably to manage the system effectively — building bloated regional health bureaucracies while closing needed beds without replacements; expanding the wide end of ER funnels without increasing the receiving capacity; and delisting and cutting back on services that keep patients out of emergency rooms, services like physiotherapy and home care. Those are things that reduce pressure on other parts of the system.

It's also, in part, because this government neglects the imperatives of population health interventions that will turn trend lines and cap, and ultimately reduce, the growth in health care spending. If you do not act to begin to reduce the growth in the total mass of disease being produced by our lifestyle choices, the system of sickness cure will sink under the weight of demand.

I'm going to quote Hippocrates again, Member. As Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine observed presciently in the fifth century BC: "The function of protecting and developing health must rank even above that of restoring it when impaired."

I'm going to send a copy of that over to the Minister of Health, Member, because I see he is preoccupied with an important other conversation while I offer him these pearls of insight into how to manage the health care system. I don't want him to miss a word, so I'll send it over.

Hippocrates's suggestion applies even more today than it did in his time, where the sickness care system is working beyond its limits to deal with the sheer mass of illness being generated largely through alter-

able lifestyle practices and little or no attention is being paid to prevention, where most of the control lies. It's all very well to have a great goal of being the fittest and healthiest jurisdiction in the entire Milky Way, but disregarding the concrete steps that can and must be taken to achieve it is more hypocrisy than Hippocrates.

To date, despite all the concerned chatter about sustainability in health care, B.C. lacks effective strategies appropriately resourced to reduce population cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke, type 2 diabetes, lung cancer, obesity and overweight and physical inactivity.

Excellent work has been done by our provincial health officers and by this Legislature's Select Standing Committee on Health developing workable strategies that require only resolve and resources. Yet there is nothing in the throne speech or budget speech to support any of it. Yet it is these conditions that are driving massive annual growth in health care expenditures.

I spoke yesterday — and I will again at the risk of boring those members who tediously heard it the first time — about the strange case of type 2 diabetes, a lifestyle disease which is largely reversible, preventable and precipitated by three risk factors: being overweight, being physically inactive and smoking. In none of these areas does government have an effective intervention in the field at the present time. We are living off the yield of prior interventions in tobacco control, but we are not redoubling our efforts.

There are over 220,000 diabetics in B.C. today, nearly all of them type 2, and 20,000 new cases a year; 6,000 diabetics die every year — it's 1/5 of all deaths in British Columbia — for a net gain of 14,000 new diabetic individuals every year with a preventable, alterable lifestyle disease. The total cost of diabetes and its complications, which include renal disease, eye failure, amputations and cancer, was over a billion dollars in '03-04, or nearly 10 percent of total health care costs.

Those 20,000 new diabetics a year add roughly $80 million a year in costs to the health care system every year; 27 percent of the Pharmacare budget is spent on drugs related to diabetes, almost all type 2. Now we are starting to bump up against the limits of renal dialysis capacity to deal with kidney failure in people who have the disease. We are simply not going to be able to handle the tsunami of kidney failure which is rolling towards us. But don't look to the throne speech to identify that threat to health care funding or to prioritize effective interventions to bring down the trend.

If we were to divert or add an equivalent amount per year towards a diabetes reduction strategy and prioritize that on the part of the health authorities and other agencies to develop it — because a lot of the solution lies outside the Health budget — we could turn that trend line in a decade. We would have to invest far more aggressively in infrastructures that support physical activity. We would have to become much more resolved about improving diet and prompting other changes to obesigenic environments, including processed food and the advertising that sells those foods.

Instead, what do we see? Doctors prescribing more statins to otherwise healthy people in a fruitless quest to offset high cholesterol levels with publicly subsidized pill popping, growing the Pharmacare budget and normalizing prescription drug dependence in preference to healthy diet and exercise, and all the while stoking the sustainability crisis in health care and saying: "We just can't afford to pay for this."

Going hard on smoking, making exercise the easy choice and improving diet would do a lot more than statins and across a wider range of diseases. But the throne speech remains silent on prevention as the key to sustainability.

I note with absolutely no satisfaction that the Minister of Health isn't listening, which is exactly my experience since I have been in this chamber. The complete disconnect from the real conditions for sustainability on the part of those who manage the system is becoming the problem we face today.

Well, perhaps on the day that the sense of urgency that infected the Premier's mind when he made the conversion to see climate change as an issue…. Perhaps on the day when that happens to the Minister of Health and his colleagues in the cabinet, they will read the report from the Select Standing Committee on Health and consider the strategy which is suggested in that report for how you would begin to turn things around. I look forward to that, but I'm not holding my breath.

One would think we could be inspired by what other people have done. I like to think we can, but I'm a bit of an advocate when it comes to these things. I discovered in the course of my work on the committee the Finns — a small nation, but a very interesting group of people with the best educational outcomes in the world, which may interest the Minister of Education. They achieve better than we do. We do well, but they do better.

They had a great deal of trouble in their society with hypertension and with deaths from strokes and heart disease, far higher than the average in the world. They conceived as a group a campaign to reduce the amount of salt that people had in their diet because they discovered, as we did on the committee, that people ingest too much salt — eight to ten times the amount of salt they should take in.

Over a period of 30 years the Finns chose to act. They reduced the amount of salt by a relatively modest amount, and as a consequence of doing that, they reduced the incidence of death from stroke and heart disease in Finland by 85 percent — by eliminating a portion of the salt in processed food, because 90 percent or more of the salt we get comes from processed foods. It's not added at the table.

They focused on that, and they effected that outcome. They got a population health gain, and they reduced the mass of disease. That is the way to lower health care costs — less disease and a healthier population through a population health intervention.

My time is running down, I believe, so I just want to comment very briefly in a personal sense on the disappointment in that speech when it comes to children in British Columbia and to supports for families.

The recent government cuts to child care and early learning have inflicted damage on a struggling system that already had too few spaces. Cutting funding by a third from the levels promised in last year's budget — a pass-through of the federal cuts without so much as a whimper of objection from the members opposite — is backward. It's incomprehensible, and it's indefensible.

I wonder how government members square the cuts to child care with the buoyant commitments of the early learning and child care consultation paper of just over one year ago: "B.C. is committed to giving children the strongest possible start by increasing supports for available child care, early childhood development programs and early learning programs, all of which should increase the proportion of children entering school ready to learn."

That document notes the five great goals, and it says that in order to realize them, government is developing a plan to ensure that B.C.'s children have the best possible future, focusing on the three key areas of healthy development, early learning and child care.

Government, in that document reporting out the consultation, noted the election of a hostile federal government and the cancellation of a signed agreement but said this: "The government remains committed to its vision to provide access to quality early learning and child care and child care in all B.C. communities." Committed to a vision of access to quality early learning and child care — we don't see it.

Hon. S. Bond: I stand today and am incredibly proud to be the representative in this House for Prince George–Mount Robson. It is an incredible riding. It is one of the, I tell my colleagues all the time, most beautiful ridings in the province of British Columbia. In fact, it is the home of the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies. It is a fabulous place to represent.

One of the things I want to do today is say thank you, first of all, to the people who have elected me to represent them in this chamber. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to represent people who are resilient and hard-working and who care incredibly about British Columbia.

I want to say that I recognize that I work with great leaders in my riding. I have mayors in my communities who work very hard on behalf of their constituents.

I am proud to be part of the riding which is home to the Lheidli T'enneh. In fact, under the leadership of Chief Dominic Frederick and chiefs that have preceded him, we are so thrilled that we are one of the places in this province where we have an agreement-in-principle. We have one of the first agreements under the modern treaty process, and we are very proud of that as a government as we move forward on our aboriginal relationship in this province. I'm so proud to represent, also, the riding that is home to the Lheidli T'enneh.

It's so interesting. We sit in this House — this place of honour, this place where we bring the views of British Columbians to the floor — and we've had to listen day after day after day in this House to the floor, and we've had to listen day after day in this House to the negative reactions of the members opposite to a throne speech and budget that actually reflect a future that would be bright and full of promise for our children and grandchildren.

But to really, actually appreciate where we've come from in this province, it's important for us to take a moment to look back. The members opposite will start to roll their eyes and feel incredibly uncomfortable, but let's just look at where British Columbia has come over the last six years. Let's just look at the record of the members opposite. Let's look at the summary.

The economy. Canada's worst economic growth was under that government. It was last in investment in job growth. The average annual take-home pay dropped by $1,738, and 50,000 British Columbians left B.C. One in ten British Columbians were on welfare. Tell me that's a record to be proud of. We had eight consecutive deficits under that government, and they doubled the province's debt. There were countless missed budget forecasts; two fudge-it budgets…

Hon. S. Bond: …two credit rating downgrades and the worst fiscal record in Canada; some of the highest taxes in North America; and B.C., much to the shame and humiliation of British Columbians, sunk to have-not status — have-not status for a province like British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, let's talk about resources, since we heard a lot about that from the members opposite — 13,000 forest jobs lost. The Forest Practices Code increased costs by millions of dollars. The members opposite ignored the pine beetle epidemic. Mining jobs disappeared, while mines shut down. They failed to invest in transportation infrastructure. Not only that, they closed 3,000 hospital beds, announced a $125 million mental health plan and didn't fund it, ignored the needs for thousands of new long-term care beds, built the tower at VGH and left it empty for years, cut 1,600 nursing positions and cut nurse training spaces and ignored the doctor shortage. And we listen to negativity from the other side of the House? Unbelievable.

Let's talk about British Columbia today. B.C. created 32,000 new jobs in January. We led the country in job creation in January…

Hon. S. Bond: …creating nearly 32,000 new jobs. Not only that, the Business Council of British Columbia is forecasting above-average economic growth in British Columbia of 3.4 percent in 2007 and 3.5 percent in 2008. In addition to that, B.C. remains tops in small business growth. According to B.C. Stats, the number of British Columbians employed by small business increased 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2006. B.C. mining expenditures are soaring. Investment in mineral exploration in British Columbia soared to a record high of $265 million in 2006.

Not only that, but there's more. According to the Central Credit Union of B.C., economic growth in British Columbia will remain robust in the lead-up to the Winter Olympic Games. Imagine that. We're going to see real investment spending, excluding residential construction, growing by more than 45 percent. And all we continue to hear is negative, negative, negative.

Let's talk just a little bit about what Budget 2007 says to the people of British Columbia. First of all, I have to tell you that to sit and listen to the member opposite, just previously speaking, talk about the literacy agenda in this province is unbelievable. You see, the throne speech doesn't lay out every initiative of government. In fact, it lays out the plan for the future of this province, and it builds on the foundation that we're already working on.

Let's talk about literacy as one example. Since September of 2001, apparently unbeknownst to the member opposite, the provincial government, this government, has announced or invested over $106 million in new literacy funding in the province. Madam Speaker, we have started book programs for families, Books for Babies. We are now providing books to kindergarten children, because we know that one of the most important things we can do is provide families with the opportunity to read to their children.

We've provided millions of dollars, $25 million, to look at textbooks in schools. We've provided $3 million for Ready, Set, Learn — a program which brings three-year-olds into schools and connects them.

Madam Speaker, $106 million speaks very clearly about this government's commitment to literacy, and I can assure you of one thing. We have a plan, a brand-new plan that will build on that.

Just recently the Premier of this province announced a brand-new program called ReadNow B.C. In fact, ReadNow B.C. comes with additional resources to make sure that people in British Columbia — whether they are early learners or whether they are adults or whether they have needs in terms of low literacy skills…. This province cares. This government cares, and we're going to make a difference. It's just a shame that the members opposite apparently are opposed to ReadNow B.C. and literacy funding as well.

To have to sit and listen to the Education critic for the members opposite talk about the public education system in this province is frankly embarrassing. The results of students in British Columbia…. The member opposite talked about the Finns. Well, I'm going to talk about British Columbians, and I'm going to talk about the fact that on international tests of 15-year-old students, no one — not the Finns, not anyone — outperformed B.C. students in math and reading.

Similarly, on the student achievement indicators program, science tests for 13- and 16-year-old Canadian students, only Alberta scored higher than British Columbia. I can tell you what, Madam Speaker. Our students and our teachers and our system have Alberta in their sights, and we are going to work until our students are as successful and in fact passing Alberta results. We're on our way. We're going to talk about British Columbians, not the Finns. We're proud of our students' records, apparently unlike the members opposite.

We also need to point out that Budget 2007 says clearly that despite the fact we are facing an ongoing challenge of declining enrolment in this province…. And it is a significant issue. Since 2000-2001 we have lost over 40,000 students in this province. That provides challenges for school districts and families across this province.

But I can tell you this. Despite that declining enrolment, our government is funding education at record high levels. In fact, Budget 2007 will see an increase of nearly $123 million to almost $5.5 billion — the highest funding ever in the province of British Columbia for public education.

Apparently the Education critic from the opposite side is prepared to vote against a budget that brings the best funding levels that have ever been seen in British Columbia to support B.C. students. It's very unbelievable, and in fact very disappointing, to have the members opposite talk about aboriginal accomplishments and our students in the system.

Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that one of the most significant breakthroughs that has been seen in British Columbia, in terms of aboriginal education, was the signing of a tripartite jurisdictional agreement. The province, the federal government and the First Nations Education Steering Committee, or FNESC as we know them, agreed that FNESC will work with interested first nations to assist them in developing their educational laws establishing community educational authorities to deliver educational programs and services — first nation programs and services.

First nations will be responsible for certifying teachers and schools and establishing curriculum. This agreement recognizes that aboriginal students are likely to be more successful when courses and learning resources reach out to aboriginal students, and when their communities are empowered by a sense of control and a pride of ownership.

With that goal in mind, we're also continuing to pursue aboriginal enhancement agreements with school districts and aboriginal communities. Aboriginal enhancement agreements set specific academic goals and bring aboriginal culture into the classroom. We've signed 31 aboriginal enhancement agreements to date. That is over half of all school districts. Districts with enhancement agreements are reporting improved aboriginal student achievement.

We also are investing $500,000 to develop a first nations English 12 course with an exam equal to English 12, in which students can learn about their aboriginal history, their culture, their literature and their language. I can assure you of this: this government, this side of the House, will not rest until we have closed the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.

I can assure you that we want our aboriginal students to have every opportunity and the literacy skills and the ability to pursue their dreams. We've seen remarkable achievements. In fact, our aboriginal completion rates are at the highest level they've ever been at in this province, but it's still not good enough. We have more work to do. In fact, we need to ensure that our aboriginal children have a future that's as bright and full of opportunity as all British Columbians will have.

To hear the member opposite stand up and talk about the issue of dealing with childhood obesity…. I want you to know that this side of the House is actually the government that said: "We're going to remove junk food from schools because we think we have to make that an aggressive part of our strategy."

We also created the Action Schools program, where across this province, in schools every day, our students have the opportunity to be physically active during their classroom time. Thousands of schools are involved in Action Schools.

We are going to make a difference in the area of childhood obesity. We have a plan. We have a strategy, but apparently the members opposite aren't in support of that plan either.

To have members opposite stand up, member after member, and to hear the Education critic on the other side of the House talk about special education students being stuck…. I want you to know that I have visited hundreds of classrooms across this province. I have met with literally hundreds of teachers as I have visited those schools. I want you to know this: every single day in British Columbia, professionals who are teachers and support workers and school secretaries and principals…. Every single one of those professionals is committed to supporting students with special needs.

They work hard, and families and this government appreciate the fact that they are working to make sure that our very special students' needs are met. I'm appalled at the fact that we would use that kind of language.

As we look at the issue of early learning, we must say that we know it is absolutely unacceptable that one in four of our preschool children arrives at the kindergarten door, and they do not have the developmental skills necessary to be successful. We know that there are a variety of ways that learning takes place from the time a child is born. In fact, the child's first teachers are their parents.

We know that there are a variety of ways and places that we have for our children to learn. But I can tell you this. The member opposite made comments about the fact that we're creating a new program in British Columbia called Strong Start B.C., which will provide opportunity for children and their families and their caregivers to attend a local elementary school and be part of a program that will not only provide them with opportunities, but resources for their families. How can the members opposite be opposed to a strong start for British Columbia's children? Unbelievable.

As we look at the opportunity to move forward, we have to look at the unique needs of our students. The throne speech is full of promise and exciting opportunities for us to look at how we're going to take a system that serves the needs of most students and move forward to provide new opportunities for other students in the province.

The member opposite also reflected on our English-as-a-second-language students and talked about the struggles and challenges they face, and that's true. We certainly know that it's challenging and difficult for those students, and we need to find new and creative ways to be inclusive and to care for them so that they have the opportunities.

But make no mistake about it: the English-as-a-second-language students in this province are actually excelling. In fact, the completion rates for English-as-a-second-language students are higher than both our non-aboriginal and our typical students. The completion rates for ESL students in this province are actually at 82 percent — a remarkable accomplishment and a demonstration that the system is working hard to meet the needs of all of our children. Once again, the Education critic should do his homework and look at the results and outcomes.

Of course, there's more work to do. That's why there's a throne speech that reflects enormous new opportunities for us in public education — opportunities to work more closely with school boards and opportunities for us to talk about achievement in this province. Because I can tell you that this side of the House is not going to settle for the fact that we have a completion rate for our aboriginal students in this province that is at 47 percent. It is not acceptable; it is not good enough.

We are going to work with school boards across this province to ensure that they have plans in place to demonstrate to us and to British Columbians that we're going to close the gap for first nations students in this province. That's our priority.

It's unimaginable that the member opposite could get up and talk about the environment with the examples that he gave. Let's look at the facts. Do you know that B.C. has been a leader from day one, starting with our renewable-energy commitment outlined in our — wait for it — 2002 energy plan? Yes, 2002 — the cleanest and the greenest in North America.

In fact, in 2004…. 2004? Oh, it's 2007. That would indicate we actually had an energy plan in 2002 and in

2004. Guess what we did. We introduced a comprehensive, 40-point climate change action plan, B.C.'s — let's hear it — first such plan.

I wonder what that says about the record of the previous government. It highlighted investments such as almost a billion dollars on projects like rapid transit and energy efficiency.

B.C. today has the second-lowest per-capita emissions of any of the provinces in Canada. Under this government, our own emissions of carbon dioxide, CO₂, were reduced by 23.9 percent between 2000 and 2004.

Maybe we should hold the members opposite accountable for their record. Let's just listen. Greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. increased by 24 percent from 1991 to 2001, compared to — let's just wait for the number — 5.7 percent between 2001 and 2004. Whose record should we be talking about on the environment today?

Not only that, the NDP failed to build power generation in the 1990s, forcing B.C. to become a net importer of energy. During the 1990s — you have to know, Mr. Speaker — the NDP dramatically expanded the use of gas-fired power plants, causing huge spikes in emissions. This resulted in B.C. Hydro emissions tripling between 1996 and 2001.

But not only that. Let's listen to this one, because I can tell you of the frustration on this side of the House. As we listen to being opposed, on the other side, to everything, let's remember their record. The NDP continues to oppose emissions-free, small, green, power projects such as run-of-the-river, which would enhance B.C.'s clean energy mix. How can you be opposed to run-of-the-river, clean energy? But apparently, the members opposite are.

Let's just bring it right down to what budgets are about. The members opposite voted against budgets that introduced incentives for home energy efficiency.

Apparently, they're opposed to home energy efficiency, PST rebates for hybrid cars and a tax framework to foster green IPPs. But for me, it sums it up completely when one of the members opposite said this: "Our party" — meaning the members opposite — "has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications for socialist principles." When was that said? August of 2006.

Let's talk about who has a track record on the environment and who's prepared to be aggressive and make sure British Columbia has an environment that we can save for our children for today and in the future.

You know, it's so easy to sit on the other side and just be opposed to everything. Let's look at what Budget 2007 tells us. Budget 2007 says that we are going to provide a comprehensive range of supports for British Columbians to deal with housing challenges. I'm not sure how you can be opposed to that, but we'll wait and see. Apparently, the members opposite are opposed to making sure that we're caring for people and their housing needs.

We also need to look beyond what's right in front of us. We actually have to look at planning for the long term. In 2006 we had an incredibly strong economy, and British Columbia will finish 2006 and 2007 with a significant surplus. It's prudent, it is wise and it is responsible, when times are good in your province, to put aside some of those dollars to make sure that we're creating a legacy for our children.

I want you to know that we're going to create legacies for our children. We're going to make sure that we look beyond tomorrow and the short-term answers. In fact, we're going to create a housing endowment fund in this province. That fund will generate $10 million a year, and it's going to support innovative housing programs. It's going to allow us to look at new ways to meet the needs of families in this province. I'm not sure how you can be opposed to that, but apparently, the members opposite are opposed to that as well.

Let's talk a little bit about how we're going to enhance income assistance in the province because, boy, we sit and listen on the other side of the House about how maybe this isn't such a good idea either, and we haven't done this, and we haven't done this. Let's be clear.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear to the members opposite, as they make comments about the size of the increase, the fact that it has taken so long. Let's be clear. Budget 2007 will increase the shelter allowance by $50 a month to people on income assistance, effective March 28, 2007. That is the first increase to the shelter rate since 1992. Where were the members opposite in the eight years…?

We're also going to make sure that we have enough supportive housing and enough diversity of housing to meet the needs of B.C.'s aging population. Budget 2007 provides $45 million over four years to convert up to 750 social housing units provincewide to supportive housing, to make them accessible for seniors and others with special housing needs.

A vote against Budget 2007 is a vote against making sure the seniors of British Columbia are treated with dignity and respect. It's time that we actually had facilities that move away from four-bed units — when we look at the array of housing that we have — where we have facilities that honour and respect the seniors of this province.

Voting against Budget 2007 is a vote against upgrading social housing. It's voting against enhancing income assistance. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the rental assistance program will expand so that more lower-income families will qualify for benefits?

Budget 2007 raises the income threshold to $28,000. That makes a difference for an additional 5,800 families. More than 20,000 in total will now be eligible to receive up to $563 a month to help with their housing costs. Apparently, the members opposite don't support that either.

Let's talk about something that I think all of us find most interesting. We believe that in order to help all British Columbians manage with their lives, Budget 2007 — and we're proud to say this — cuts personal income taxes by 10 percent for British Columbians on the first $100,000 of income. This latest tax reduction actually 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 pay no provincial income tax. Others have seen reductions of up to 70 percent, and most have seen reductions between 30 and 35 percent. With the 10-percent tax cut, British Columbia will have the lowest personal income tax burden in Canada for individuals.

As we sit in this House day after day and we bring the views of our constituents to this place, it's our job to look to the future of this province. It's our job to make sure that we have an environment that we are making sure will be there, that will be healthy and clean and green for our children and our grandchildren.

We're going to increase funding to health care. We're going to have record levels of funding for public education. We're moving forward with a positive relationship with the first nations people of this province — so right, so long overdue.

I can tell you this. Budget 2007 builds on the fiscal certainty that this side of the House has brought to British Columbia. It will provide a hope, a prosperity and a sense of future to British Columbians. I can only hope that members opposite will think very seriously before they say no and continue to oppose all of those things that will make such a significant difference for British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: May I remind all members of the House to allow the speakers the courtesy of delivering their message without interference. May I also remind all members of the House that they are not allowed to make comment unless they are sitting in their assigned seat.

N. Simons: Hon. Speaker, I thank you very much. I especially thank you for making that reminder to the House before my comments started, as I am one of the chief hecklers, I suppose.

I don't mean to throw the minister off, but it's just very difficult to hear the pulp that seems to be emitting from that side of the House, and I'm just so frankly pleased to be standing up just to have the absence of that.

With that comment, I'd just like to point out the other thing that I'd like to point out, and that is the response of most of the media to this so-called budget — this so-called budget that's attacking the issue of homelessness. Unfortunately, they didn't say in the throne speech that homelessness is real, and consequently, they didn't recognize it when they came down with this budget, which is about tax cuts and has nothing to do with a program for housing. Let's get that out of the way first.

The other thing I should point out is that the issue of primary concern to families and communities right now is: where are they going to have their children stay when they go to work? Two-income families need to find a place for their children. It's still expensive. This government failed again to address this urgent situation in British Columbia.

Their climate change program should be called "act soon B.C." because it has absolutely nothing for now. This is a government that has supported itself with rhetoric, glossy advertising and slogans. These kinds of things make me embarrassed, quite honestly, because this government is all style — and hardly that — and no substance.

Quite frankly, it's about time that some of the people on the other side of the House started to realize that this party on this side of the House is as optimistic as we can be in the face of this kind of government's disturbing approach to the issues facing British Columbia.

We are optimistic despite this government, which in a time of record surplus still manages to have poverty levels higher than anywhere else in this country and levels of housing that are inadequate for the people of this province.

I could go on and on and on, and quite frankly, I might have to do that. Although the members opposite are happy to be here listening to me, I can guarantee you that they don't want to hear what I have to say.

N. Simons: I really like to hear comments from the member who was a Socred, among other things. I don't think he's ever done anything in this House except heckle with his arms folded. Quite frankly, I find the level of debate to be debased by the comments that I heard from members opposite who happen to sit behind me — their mockery of the new relationship and making jokes about ducks.

I happened to bring up an issue in this House…. I'm providing the entertainment for the members opposite, so they're finally listening. I'm telling you that I rose in this House to ask an important question about the consultation process with the first nations governments, and you know what? The answer was garbage. The answer was — am I allowed to say an earthenware pot? — full of nothing.

What I was asking about was the consultation process regarding a new aquaculture industry in the riding which I represent — the traditional territory of the Klahoose, of the Sliammon, of the Sechelt — and you're mocking the discussions they had with the Chief. They're mocking that kind of consultation. That's a shame. It's even more a shame, I might add, because of the hyperbole and the spin that they pretend to put on this new relationship.

It's not a new relationship. If you ask the people on the ground, the people who are affected by this government, it's no different from the relationship of colonialism that this government is perpetuating.

I'll tell you one thing. The member from an urban riding spoke earlier — a joke about ducks. We're talking about 900 acres of subtidal waters off the coast of my constituency. This is a process that is devastating to the marine environment, if you use your common sense. Unfortunately, the common sense escaped the members opposite, and they decided to think about science. But that's all they did; they thought about science. They did nothing to find out what the science was with this aquaculture industry before proceeding to go ahead and give out a licence.

Oh, they forgot to ask the Chief. The Chief said no. The Chief said: "I'm protecting my territory for my people, not for now but for the years and the eons and the decades and the generations to come." That's why the Chief said no. This government, in its cynical way, says: "Well, we just haven't told them strongly enough. We just haven't consulted them aggressively enough."

Quite frankly, I find that shocking. I've worked with first nations people, and they have been disappointed over and over, but no more can they be disappointed then when they're being told that there's a new relationship. They cannot be any more disappointed than the new relationship and the actual impact of that new relationship. You're causing divisions between first nations people, you're causing political divisions, you're causing economic divisions, and you're causing one nation to fight for resources against another. That is shameful in my province of British Columbia.

N. Simons: As the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, I didn't take my happy pills today, but I've got to tell you that it's difficult to start off feeling happy when you hear the kind of stuff that's coming out of some of the members' mouths.

I will take this opportunity to be very positive and optimistic. There are a lot of things about this budget that we can point out and say, "Okay, there's something that's actually pretty good," but it's sort of like looking for a….

N. Simons: Yeah, you know, I'd list them off if I could find them. If the member has some needles in the haystack that he wants to pass on towards me, maybe I'll read about them.

I'll tell you one thing. I'll point out that most of the credible media in Victoria, Vancouver and British Columbia have also pointed to this budget as essentially a public relations gesture — a public relations gesture that has nothing of substance.

I was going to compare it to something, but I'd better not go that way. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, most of the people who I speak to about this budget ask: are we going to be continually fooled by this? The debt's gone up. Just on simple facts about this budget, saying it's a housing budget…. Does anybody in the housing industry, does anybody in the advocacy for housing industry, does anybody who is not having a house or is having trouble with a house think this is going to help them?

I'm sorry. It stretches the bounds of credibility, and quite frankly, that's what gets me worked up. It's not the little gentle barbs being tossed my way, the ill-thought-out little whimsical treats that I get to hear from the members opposite. That's not what gets me going. It's the fact that I know people in my community who are suffering, who are living in their cars, living in their tents. This housing strategy does nothing for them.

I know families who are wishing that they could find child care resource spaces, and they can't, because once again this government has rolled over and played possum, saying: "The federal government has the choices on that. We can't do anything about it."

I don't want to talk about the members opposite — anything to do with how big or little anything is, quite frankly. I'm standing here talking about an important issue for British Columbians, who I might add raised the level of opposition in this House to the point where the Liberal government has to take notice. I'm sorry you can no longer say: "No official opposition status. We know what we're doing. There are 77 of us, and there are two of you. We win; you lose; you're out. Any ideas that you represent — forget about it."

For four to five years the people of British Columbia suffered through regressive social policy. I happened to be firsthand aware of it, and you all know about it. We all know we have an officer for children and youth. That's because of the failures of this government, and they know it — and not just, may I add, the ignorant failures of this government but the wilfully erroneous path this government took when it came to slashing social programs.

They cut 33 percent of the regulations. They did that in mining. They did that in forestry. They did that in child and family services, and they're clapping for that. They're clapping for the 33 percent reductions in regulations in child welfare. How are you going to look after children in foster care?

Let's cut the regulations, make it easy. Put a kid in there cheaper, easier, faster. That's the government's approach. Make it cheap, make it easy, and make people think that you're doing what's good for this province, when in fact, the future is being mortgaged on the current inadequacies of this government to look to the future.

Of course I'll be upset about that. Of course I'll get worked up. It has nothing to do with taking any sorts of pills or not. If you allow me to go off script….

The members opposite represent a few people in their ridings, which I respect, and they have their voices to be heard, and they're accountable. They'll be

accountable. They'll be held accountable in an election. I hope they can say where they stood when services to children were cut. I hope they can say where they were sitting when services to families were cut. I hope they know where they were sleeping when homelessness doubled.

I hope they look closely at their social compass, at their conscience, and find out why that needle is spinning all over the place. It's because they have no direction for the future of the health of this province. All they look at, everything is based on: are they going to make money on this, or are they going to lose money?

I'll tell you what. The lives of aboriginal children and vulnerable children in this province have nothing to do with their priorities. It shames me as a British Columbian to know that my government is skilfully planning a public relations campaign that will pretend it's doing the right thing for British Columbians.

I'll tell you what. I happen to know regular people. I go shopping with people in my community. I don't have people to do that for me. I'm proudly saying that as a member of my constituency, I meet with my constituents on a regular basis, and they say that nobody's being fooled anymore. Nobody's being fooled anymore.

That's a caution for the members opposite, because not being fooled…. The whole plan, your whole vision, your whole everything is shown to be the fraud that it is.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that I've made them quiet with my stern lecture, but I'll point out a few other things that I think are sadly missing from….

N. Simons: Oh, if the heckles were good, I could hear them. I can't even respond to the heckles.

N. Simons: Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at the shocking quality, or lack thereof, of the heckles.

N. Simons: Not only do I remember your riding; I remember offering to write to the Chief of the Sliammon Nation when you made fun of his concerns over the use of traditional territory.

Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that the people who make decisions in this province know what the backbenchers in that party think, and if that's in fact the case, I think that not only have we exposed the new relationship for its faulty foundations, we have found some of the cracks in that foundation, and they're sitting in this House.

Quite frankly, I think the people of British Columbia deserve better. The first nations of this province deserve better. It's just disappointing to me that when we had an opportunity for a budget filled with opportunity and vision, we saw something with basically a skeleton of nothing — no flesh on this whatsoever. We've got the "act soon" B.C. climate change plan, and we've got a whole bunch of other slogans that I can't remember. It has to do with great, golden this and golden globes of that.

If that's the best they can do, I'm sorry. I'm very sorry, because it doesn't reflect well on the standards to which this House should become accustomed. Now that we're here, I can guarantee you that this government has to know that it has an opposition of strength that can point out the numerous flaws in their vision, the numerous flaws in their throne speech, the numerous flaws in their budget. And that's not pessimism; that's realism. Quite frankly, I don't think that this government knows what that is.

Let me just bring up a few issues that I think are of concern to people in my constituency. I've raised the issue of housing. The fact is, it's not just an urban problem. I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard works strongly for his constituents in the area of housing, as I do, and I support people in my community to try to find solutions to a very complicated problem.

I don't think that the member opposite would consider a tax cut a housing plan, and I don't think people in my constituency buy that either. We need to find some solutions, because in the rural areas of this province, where housing prices — in particular in my riding — are very high, we do have people living in tents, we do have people living in their station wagons, and it's not appropriate.

It's not what a province that claims to be so good at everything — so conceited, in fact, if you listen to the government's line…. We have people living in cars. How do we reconcile that complete juxtaposition of the best place on earth to the place where you can find the best parking to park your car so you can sleep in it?

I'm sorry, that doesn't wash with me. I'm sorry. That's just not appropriate. They can laugh and joke and call us pessimists and everything else. Our job is to represent the people that this government isn't representing. I'll tell you right now that that's more than the majority of these…. It's everybody I talk to saying that this government has an opportunity to do something good, and it's wasting it away — wasting it away, resting on its laurels, planning things without thinking.

How long did it take to write that budget speech? I think I prepared more for my mining response to a motion yesterday than they put into their throne speech. It's like suddenly a new idea comes up, and they say: "Oh, we'd better write something on that." I've never seen a more…. Well, I don't want to comment on the writing skills, but the content was lacking. Now we see, obviously, from the throne speech, which is bad advertising, to the budget speech, which is mis-

leading advertising, and then to the reality that faces everybody here in the province now.

Look at the arts community. This is a province that is wealthy. How can we be ignoring Arts Council's responsibilities to promote arts and culture in communities? If that's not a lack of vision, I don't know what is. We have an opportunity to support young musicians, to support young writers, to support young artists and to support young actors — and what have we done? We've neglected them.

We've neglected them in repeated years, when we have money to spend, and what do we spend it on? We spend it on corporate tax cuts, or tax cuts that nobody has asked for, or reducing the threshold on this or an increase on that.

The fact of the matter is that in order to have a healthy community, in order to attract workers, in order to make people comfortable in their own communities that are rich and diverse…. As we all know, the UBCM talks about vibrant communities. In order to achieve that goal, you need more than one big museum over there. You need communities to have space to store archaeological material. You need to have space for people to promote local artists. You need to have space to display the tools that have been used throughout the decades in this province to open up British Columbia.

N. Simons: I quite frankly think that the member for Vancouver-Burrard probably shares in my concern for the artist community. His community has a lot of artists, and I'm sure that if his door wasn't locked and if his attack dog wasn't on the front mat, people would be coming and telling him that the arts community has been failed again. The arts community has once again been failed.

You know, my job is not to point out all the things that the government calls good in their budget. That's not my job, if they expect me to do that. They're all sitting here waiting for me to say nice things about them.

My job is to say where I think they've failed. Quite honestly, they did a good start on that themselves by just talking…. They're supporting their budget, and all they can talk about is what happened in the '90s. If they look across at this side, I wonder if they know where most of us were in the '90s.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that their ludicrous allegations, their weak-kneed defence of their government's budget is…. As I've mentioned the word pathetic once again, I'll use a different word this time. Shall we say shallow? Yeah, without substance perhaps. That would work too.

I think the truth has to be said about this budget. I think that British Columbians want to hear what in fact this budget….

N. Simons: Please hold. Please use an available brain cell to wait until I get a few quotes here.

Keith Baldrey: "The most misleading part of the budget I've seen since the Liberals came to power." Vaughn Palmer: "She could have packaged her tax cuts as building a legacy for child care, education, retirement or buying a new car." Michael Smyth: "Somebody should sue the Liberal government's spin doctors for malpractice."

Paul Willcocks: "Can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax cut worth $25 a month to a typical family is really the centrepiece of an effective housing strategy?" Don Cayo: "This could have turned into a real housing budget. But despite modest increases for the homeless and low-income earners, it isn't."

It's not just me. You can call the whole media gallery pessimists. You can call them living in the '90s. You can do all the same things, all the childish tricks that you do to us, to the media because we just happen to agree that this budget was not what it said it was.

I'm sorry. It can't be more simply put than that. This budget was false advertising — yet another attempt to reinforce the glossy image of a visionless party that has only structure and no substance.

It baffles my mind that when the members from the opposite side, the government side, actually stand up…. Since they can't say anything really good about their budget, they pick on the few of us who are really concerned about their attacks on the '90s. Quite frankly, we're going forward from here. We're talking about 2007. They've had since 2001 to start doing something of any substance, and you know what? Hospital situations are worse. Homeless situations are worse.

It doesn't make sense that in a time of high commodity prices and world markets, we in British Columbia can say all these nice things about living in a time of great plenty, but at the exact same time, I can go into my community and look at kids and know that they haven't had breakfast on the way to school.

Where's the vision in this budget? Where's the looking towards the future, the capital of this province — the people? Where is there any concern for the people of this province? It's all about satisfying someone, writing something down and sending them a letter saying: "I brought this up, and I made this an issue in my speech about the budget."

British Columbians deserve better than that. They deserve better than that, and quite frankly, I think that when this current government is out of office, they'll see. I'm looking forward to that. If they continue on this path — cutting programs to child care, to housing, to education, cutting programs for health systems that are beneficial and useful…. I didn't even mention child welfare this time. If they continue on that route, I think that they've got a lot of reckoning to do before the election.

I'd like to point out a few things that are happening in my constituency, and I want to just take this oppor-

tunity, as we all do as members of the Legislature, to thank the people who've sent us here — to thank the people who went out and voted and who thought about the issues and made a considered decision on who to vote for.

I think it's appropriate to remind all members of this House that we are elected, perhaps, by those who voted for us, but we are representatives of all of those who live in our constituencies and all of the resources that are in constituencies — not just taxpayers but people who don't pay taxes and children. We're responsible to do what we can to ensure that governance is our main goal.

I think that the issue around transportation is another one in my constituency that is of major concern. I just point out to the members opposite that there's a lot of money in transportation in this province, but if you look at where the needs are, it doesn't seem that the needs are being met by the financial resources available.

I'll tell you that in a 120-kilometre section of the only highway in my constituency, in the last year six girls under the age of 19 have died in car or pedestrian accidents — six in five separate accidents. That's unheard of, and it's a shock to a community of my size.

We have small communities dotting the highway. Each one has been strongly impacted.

N. Simons: And I don't believe this is an appropriate moment to heckle a speaker who's talking about the tragic deaths of girls in my constituency, and to continually heckle.

My comment is simply put. The needs for the rural transportation system are being ignored by this government, and I'm calling on this government to rectify the mistakes it has made.

N. Simons: Oh, thank you. I've been made aware that car accidents are often the cause of drivers and pedestrians. Well, I'm not negating the importance of that factor, but I'm telling you that we've got a highway that has inadequate shoulders.

The head of Coast Cable television drove up the highway just the other day between Gibsons and Sechelt. We're talking 20 kilometres. He had to drive into the highway 67 times to avoid terrible maintenance problems on the edges of the highway, and that is a reflection of the inadequate contracts that this government signed with the private companies.

If the members opposite want to do a little bit of work, they would know that this is affecting people in British Columbia. As representatives of the government, it's their responsibility to think about it. It's their responsibility to do something about it and not sit here heckling when somebody says there's a tragedy in their community, with six girls dying. And I'm not even talking about the adults.

We had a toddler die in Powell River at an intersection. They are now waiting for a coroner's report in order to do something about it. That's shameful. Since when is the coroner the decider of public transit or transportation systems?

That's what this government has done. It has gutted the services. Even the Ministry of Transportation can't say: "Look around. We've got an intersection with five driveways coming onto it, two main highways, and we've got a flashing yellow light." We have a flashing yellow light, and we have to wait? We represent the Ministry of Transportation, and we're waiting for the coroner to tell us whether to put up a traffic signal? That's shameful.

Another thing. A 12-year-old girl died crossing the highway very close to my home in an 80-kilometre zone. They're waiting for a coroner's report to figure out if they should perhaps lower the speed limit in front of a very large trailer court in a community that has had its population rise by at least 25 percent in the last ten years.

This is not a government that's looking to the future. This is a government that is trying its best to cover up the mistakes as they go along. This is a government that every time we ask a question about health, comes up and solves that one health issue. What about the rest of the province, Mr. Speaker? That's no way to govern a province. It's shameful. I'll wait for the applause.

Our communities have desperate needs. Our communities have needs that are not being addressed by this government. It's our responsibility. Whether we're backbench members or frontbench members, we represent all British Columbians. I'm hopeful that this government recognizes that the sheen, the gloss, the polish that has basically coated them since they got elected is starting to wear thin, and we're starting to smell a rat.

We're starting to figure out that, in fact, all of those wonderful promises, clichés and turns of phrase…. "The best place on earth since 2001," or whatever it is. Or "the great, golden goals of the golden decade" — something repetitive and tongue-twisting and ridiculous.

The truth of the matter is that British Columbians want a government that does things for British Columbians and doesn't content itself with performing with self-satisfying slogans that do nothing at all to address the true social concerns of our province.

Yes, we have a very healthy economy, and there is no more relevant and opportune a time than now to do something about the shameful social circumstances that we find in the best place on earth to live. With that, I'll take my seat.

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me assure you it was not my intention to even respond to some of the diatribe I

just heard from the opposite side. I don't know what's in your water, but it's illegal, whatever it is.

The member says: "I knew where I was in the '90s." I heard him say that. "You don't have to tell me," he said. "I knew where I was in the '90s." I know where the member was in the '90s too. He was putting one in ten people in British Columbia on welfare. That's where he was.

Hon. C. Richmond: He couldn't control his mouth when he had the floor, and he can't control it now. There were 375,000 people on welfare, and they thought that was successful…

Hon. C. Richmond: …to put 375,000 people on income assistance — one in ten British Columbians. Today, just to show you where the province is headed now, there are 115,000 fewer people on income assistance than there were when his government was in power. That's a decrease of 45 percent in just under six short years. That's because we have 350,000 more jobs in British Columbia than we had when they were here.

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm glad you brought that up. I need some help. I'm glad he brought up child poverty because they're always ready….

Members, it's all right to do a little bit of heckling, but when I can't hear what's being said, keep it down. Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's all well and good for them to keep bringing up child poverty, but they are constantly quoting statistics that are four, five, and with the last report, eight years old. Just slightly out of date. The last figures were from 1999. The reality is this. In 2001 one child in seven was in a family on income assistance. Today it's one child in 30. That is progress.

It's always a pleasure for me to stand in this House and speak. I can remember the first time I ever walked into this House, which was quite a while ago. I could tell you the exact….

I was humbled by the experience at that time. I always felt privileged to be here, and I still do today. I think most of the members here do. We have a great respect for this place, and we're very thankful for the people who have sent us here. The people of Kamloops, I'm proud to say, have sent me to this House five times. I'm very grateful and very thankful for that.

I know that all of us here do our very best to do the best job we can for the people who sent us here. We should, as I said, always be grateful for the honour afforded us on behalf of the voters of British Columbia. It doesn't matter which side of the House you sit on; it's a privilege to be here.

But it's even more of a privilege to stand up and speak on the fourth balanced budget in a row presented by this government. I wish to talk for just a few moments before I get into things that pertain to my ministry — just a few of the things that have happened in my hometown of Kamloops.

In the last five years an awful lot has happened in Kamloops, and it's because there is confidence. When you walk down the street and talk to the people in Kamloops — and, I'm sure, in many other cities in this province — you can't help but note the air of confidence everybody has. That's why housing starts, for example, are at an all-time high in my community.

Because people have confidence in the economy and where we're going, they're not afraid to invest their money, as they were just a few short years ago. Great projects are coming on stream or are being expanded in Kamloops. Let me list just a few of them before we break for our lunch.

Great projects like Tobiano, just a few miles west of the city of Kamloops, on Kamloops Lake. It's a wonderful project, and I do commend Mike Grenier for his perseverance over the years in finally seeing that project to an opening. It is going to be just a wonderful project.

Sun Peaks. The expansion that has gone on there is just incredible. It's possibly the finest ski hill in the interior, although I might get an argument from some people about that. But for those of you who haven't been up to Sun Peaks lately, I urge you to do so.

Sun Rivers — a wonderful development in partnership with the Kamloops Indian band. Guerin Creek — another wonderful housing project on the south shore of the city. The Benchlands — and others.

Kamloops Airport is expanding, and I'll touch more on the airport later. And, of course, Thompson Rivers University is becoming the showplace of the community with its expansion. A dormitory of nine floors — wonderful accommodation for 550 students. Thompson Rivers is rapidly becoming one of the finest universities in the country.

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.