Hansard — Wednesday, February 28, 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		5625

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5625
	Peter Rolston
	S. Hammell
	Surrey firefighters
	D. Hayer
	Cowichan Valley community kitchens society
	D. Routley
	Sea to Sky Community Services Society
	J. McIntyre
	Eating disorders
	R. Chouhan
	Zajac Foundation
	R. Hawes

Oral Questions		5627
	Call for public inquiry into sale of B.C. Rail
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	J. Kwan
	M. Farnworth
	Audit of medical on-call availability program
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	R. Fleming
	Funding for Burnaby General Hospital
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Government plans for achievement of energy conservation targets
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Greenhouse gas–reduction targets for oil and gas sector
	S. Simpson
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions		5632
	C. Trevena

Tabling Documents		5632
	Office of the Auditor General, Service Plan 2007-08 – 2009-10

Committee of Supply		5632
	Supplementary Estimates (No. 1)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5634
	Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)
	Hon. C. Taylor

Second Reading of Bills		5635
	Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)
	Hon. C. Taylor

Committee of the Whole House		5635
	Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5635
	Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Budget Debate (continued)		5635
	R. Lee
	C. Wyse
	Hon. K. Krueger
	M. Farnworth
	A. Horning
	K. Conroy
	L. Mayencourt
	A. Dix

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome Sgt. Mike Davidson, a military policeman from Esquimalt who just returned from a six-month deployment in Kandahar. I know all British Columbians are happy to see our soldiers come home safely. In my office Sergeant Davidson's return is especially welcomed by my scheduling clerk, his wife Tamara Davidson. I ask that the House welcome him and thank him and his family for his service to our country.

S. Hammell: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 29 public servants seated in the gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. Offered by the Legislative Assembly, this workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is a constituent from Delta South, Judith Watt, who is a field officer with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. She oversees youth at risk, which includes special needs and aboriginal children for the province. Will the House please make her very welcome.

D. Hayer: I have some very special guests here today. First, Peter Van Der Zalm and his daughter Courtney Van Der Zalm, who went to school with my daughter Sonia, and Jordan Belton from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead are here visiting Victoria and the Legislature. Would the House please make them very welcome.

I also have some additional guests. They are Baljit Samra and his wife Jaswinder Samra, who live in Surrey. Along with Mr. and Mrs. Samra, we have Bawa Singh, a research scientist from New York state, and his wife Narinder Kaur, who are visiting our province from New York state. Would the House please make them very welcome too.

J. Rustad: Today it's a great pleasure…. We don't often have visitors come down from my riding, but in the crowd today we have Vic Bowman, who is a constituent and a friend of mine. He is a person who has contributed much to the community of Prince George as well as throughout the north. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today I am pleased to introduce two constituents from the North Okanagan. It's rare that people leave the Okanagan, because it's such a beautiful place, but today we're joined by Val and Diane Spearing. They're visiting the Legislature. They have also recently celebrated their 46th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to them, and please help me in welcoming them.

S. Hammell: We meet people every day of our lives, people who make a difference. Then, on occasion, you meet that exceptional person, the person that leaves you a little bit in awe because they are larger than life in their intellect or compassion or humanity.

Peter Rolston was one of these people. Peter died on November 3, 2006, after a five-month battle with lymphoma. Peter was a United Church minister, ordained in 1965, and was elected as a member of this Legislature for the Dewdney constituency between 1972 and 1975.

Hon. Speaker, Peter called himself a true conservative, despite being a staunch New Democrat. His conservative roots were nourished by his grandmother, Tilly Jean Rolston, who formed the Social Credit Party with W.A.C. Bennett. He called himself a conservative because he wanted to protect. When he talked about protection, he talked about the means of safeguarding farmland, forests and the natural resources for future use.

Peter's passion for life was boundless. As well as being an environmentalist, he was a promoter of good relations among the faiths of the world and a spokesman for justice and reconciliation with our first nations people, and he worked to eliminate poverty and homelessness.

It was inside Peter that was so special. He was without guile and was a consummate optimist. His positions were held passionately, whether he was railing against gambling or pondering the incongruity of unionizing the ministry. But his positions were held without malice to those who opposed.

Peter died at home with his wife Louise and family, enjoying a birthday party with their grandchildren. He faced death like he faced life, by embracing the inevitable through dialogue with his family and loved ones and by optimistically looking forward to the future through his faith. I'm sure that chariot swung low, and he is at home. He will be missed.

D. Hayer: On February 20, along with British Columbia's Lieutenant-Governor the Hon. Iona Campagnolo and other dignitaries, I had the honour of attending the city of Surrey's Fire Service awards. These awards pay tribute to the men and women who make up the largest composite fire department in Canada.

Not only do the 370 career and 200 volunteer firefighters protect our lives and the homes of Surrey residents; they provide support to many other small

fire units in communities across B.C. In addition, these exceptionally brave men and women fill rescue and first-response capacities and regularly attend many kinds of emergencies, including fire, auto accidents, electrical emergencies, environmental accidents and hazardous spills. As the Lieutenant-Governor noted, working firefighters often hold human lives in their hands.

As well, Surrey's firefighters greatly contribute their time as volunteers to support many community charities. They have raised millions of dollars for many commendable projects, such as the exceptional Surrey Memorial Hospital, the Simon Fraser University–Surrey campus and the Fire Fighters Burn Fund.

It was with great pride that I watched Surrey's exceptional firefighters receive the federal Fire Services Exemplary Service Medals and the provincial fire service Long Service Medals. These medals also identify Surrey and British Columbia's thanks and gratitude for our firefighters' exceptional role in coming to the aid of people. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating Surrey's outstanding firefighters and to express our thanks and appreciation to all the firefighters in every community represented in this Legislature.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of some incredible volunteers in my community, in my riding. These amazing people operate the community kitchens society in the Cowichan Valley. One person in particular, Lori Iannidinardo, I'd like to bring to your attention, and I acknowledge that she's a constituent of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

Our community benefits greatly from the service of community kitchens. This group of people work with underprivileged or struggling families to build life skills. The people contribute $2 per meal each. They shop collectively. They learn the skills of budgeting their food and of planning diet. This service is incredible because it adds so much to the lives of those it serves. It enables them. It empowers them.

Just as an example, in November the kitchens — there are eight of them altogether — produced 160, 114, 88, 164, 124, 114 and 100 meals respectively in a two-month period. In October and November they produced over 2,000 meals for the people in my riding. They cooked over 3,000 cookies, which they distributed to people, as well as 300 thank-you and help platters. They give a great service to the community, and all of this is done by Lori Iannidinardo from her garage — one person coordinating this entire service.

They are looking for core funding. They are looking for support. I'm sure they'll find it. In the meantime, I just want to celebrate what they do. They're amazing people who add something to the lives of individuals. They collectively raise the circumstances of the people in my riding, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart, as do all those they serve.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to an important organization in my riding. The Sea to Sky Community Services Society, a non-profit organization that was formed in 1978, is now headed by executive director Lois Wynne. With offices in Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton, the Sea to Sky Community Services Society offers valuable support services to individuals and families throughout the entire Sea to Sky corridor.

The organization provides early childhood development services, including a healthy pregnancy program, parenting programs such as Mother Goose and parent-and-tot drop-in, a toy-lending library and drop-in play groups. They also provide outreach and counselling services for women, youth, families and those suffering from addiction, as well as offering a Stopping the Violence outreach program. Via their community living services, the society runs a residential group home in Squamish and offers supports for persons with developmental disabilities and children with special needs.

In November, I had the pleasure of attending the Sea to Sky Community Services Society's inaugural advocacy fundraiser at the new Adventure Centre in Squamish. This organization has taken a lead role in bringing together stakeholders, partners and other supportive agencies to engage in dialogue about increasing cooperation and collaboration to better serve the communities in the corridor. I think that this will ideally develop efficiencies and maximize shared resources.

We know that social support at the local, community level is vital to enhancing our quality of life, and I'm proud to have an organization in our midst with dedicated, caring workers that is committed to providing individuals and families with opportunities to grow, develop and lead productive, healthy lives and, perhaps most importantly, to lend a helping hand to those in need. I'd like the House to join me in thanking Sea to Sky Community Services for the good work they perform every day.

R. Chouhan: Members of the Legislative Assembly may know that Eating Disorder Awareness Week was February 4 through 10. Today I am rising to speak about the seriousness of this issue that affects so many in our society.

Attitudes towards body image portrayed on television, in fashion magazines and elsewhere idolize an unrealistic and unhealthy body image, especially for young women. The social pressure to be unreasonably and unachievably thin is enormous. Reflecting these pressures, research conducted across Canada has shown that 71 percent of teenage girls want to be thinner, and as many as half of the female students in a given Canadian high school will be dieting at one time.

Eating disorders are now the third most common chronic illness in teenage girls. The fear of being fat is so overwhelming that young girls have indicated in

surveys that they are more afraid of becoming fat than they are of cancer, nuclear war or losing their parents. Tragically, the death rate associated with anorexia nervosa alone is more than 12 times higher than the overall death rate among young women in the general population.

Recently, some celebrities have been pushing back against media industry expectations and have started to advance and advocate for healthy body weight and acceptance of healthy body image in the industry. This kind of positive role-modelling should be applauded. We need everybody to understand that there's no conflict between being healthy and being beautiful or glamorous.

Our assembly and the minister opposite have taken attention to the need to curb obesity, but we also need to be aware that there is a downward limit to healthy weight. For some people, their health will be improved by gaining weight, and the health risks of being seriously underweight are no less dangerous than the risk of being seriously overweight.

R. Hawes: For almost 40 years, since the tragic deaths of both of his sons in separate sporting accidents, Mel Zajac has worked tirelessly on behalf of children with special needs and seniors with disabilities to make their lives better in British Columbia.

Almost 40 years ago he formed the Zajac Foundation — the Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation — which has, for those 40 years, worked to build such amenities in British Columbia as a house in North Vancouver for seniors with disabilities or the Sandcastle Developmental Preschool for children with special needs in Mission.

His latest venture is the Zajac Ranch in Mission, which is a facility for camping opportunities for children with debilitating disease. This is a magical place where children who are in terrible circumstances are brought together and can have a camp experience where they mingle with others with the same problems. Life is normal for them at the camp.

There's horseback riding, swimming. There are all kinds of climbing walls and rope, adventure playgrounds. These children have the time of their lives there, and there is no charge to any participant that goes. All of the funds are raised through the foundation, which has a board of directors that works tirelessly to make this happen, along with Mr. Zajac and his remaining children — his three daughters.

British Columbia is a richer place because we have people like Mel Zajac, and I'd ask the House to give a great round of applause for Mel and for everyone in B.C. that works on this wonderful project.

L. Krog: Yesterday the Attorney General refused to answer questions about the role his government played in the B.C. Rail scandal investigation. We know that there were leaks of confidential commercial information. We know that the Roberts Bank spur line deal was cancelled and taxpayer dollars were wasted. We know that criminal charges have been laid against B.C. Liberal political staffers. We know that the B.C. Liberals took massive political donations from CN. We know that several cabinet ministers sat on the committee charged with overseeing negotiations, but now none of those cabinet ministers will talk about their role and what they knew.

Will the Attorney General commit today to hold a public inquiry into the sell-off of B.C. Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate the advice given to us by the special prosecutor through the Deputy Attorney General, and that is: it is not appropriate to comment publicly on any allegations made in this case that is before the court.

As a former judge of the Supreme Court, I can tell you, the members of this House, that there is a very grave danger of prejudice to a fair trial by continually discussing this issue, and the member there well knows that. The member who asked that question is a member of the bar, and he should know better than to ask that question.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, Member, yesterday the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca was advised of the sub judice of the proceedings which are taking place, so I am going to advise you of the same.

L. Krog: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker. I won't ask the question directly, but I will say, through you to the Attorney General, that this is a situation that cries out for a public inquiry. The taxpayers of British Columbia deserve a public inquiry, and I am again asking the Attorney General to commit to this House that as soon as the criminal proceedings are concluded, there will be a public inquiry held so that B.C. taxpayers get the answers they deserve about this matter.

Hon. W. Oppal: It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment and speculate as to what may take place in the future after a trial.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Is this a new line of questioning?

J. Kwan: I am sorry to hear that the Attorney General doesn't understand that a public inquiry into this matter is essential for everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member, we have to be very careful where we're going here. I think, with the advice of the

Attorney General, that we have to be very, very careful, and I'm advising you once again.

J. Kwan: I fully understand that. My question is not about the court case. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier not show some leadership? Will he not commit to a full public inquiry after the court case into the B.C. Rail scandal? Or does the issue or the principle of double standard apply, and that trumps public interest?

Mr. Speaker: Member, this is the same line of questioning. I think we have to take a certain amount of advice from the Attorney General, in the fact that he was a Supreme Court judge and in the fact of where we're going. We can't go down the same line of questioning, because we are in an area that I think is going to cause some grief, as the Attorney General has said.

Does the member have something different that doesn't infer anything to do with the court case?

M. Farnworth: To the Premier: will he call a public inquiry, once all court cases and proceedings are over, into this matter?

C. James: My question is for the Minister of Health. Can he confirm that significant irregularities have occurred in the government's medical on-call program, including inappropriate billings, and can he confirm that there is currently an investigation into the program by law enforcement?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can tell the member is that we have very rigorous auditing processes in this province in relation to medical billing. If there are complaints or allegations that are made, we follow up on those with all of the due processes through the appropriate authorities.

C. James: I'm happy to provide some information, then, to the Minister of Health, who appears unaware of this. The medical on-call program, as we know, is funded to the tune of $125 million annually by this government. An internal audit by the Ministry of Finance was submitted to this government last September.

The audit found that the program was plagued by unclear accountability, non-compliant billings and inconsistent approvals. It now appears that law enforcement may be involved. Can the minister explain why his government allowed the administration of this program to go so far off the rails?

Hon. G. Abbott: If there's a problem, it rests with members of the House who form their conclusions before they have all of the facts. That is the grave failing that we so often see in this opposition — that they, as legislators, try and convict people before there is ever any due process involved.

The issue at hand is one which is being undertaken appropriately by the appropriate authorities. I think it would be unfair and unfortunate for the Leader of the Opposition to draw conclusions before that's completed.

C. James: I do. The only problem here is the problem that this government has with actually telling the public the truth about what's going on in the Ministry of Health. This audit was delivered to government five months ago, and this minister has kept it under wraps. The Legislature is about to head into estimates, where we'll be voting once again on this program's $125 million budget. But if it was up to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, we'd be voting on this budget without knowing the real issues.

Can the Minister of Health please explain why he sat on this report, and will he table it now in the Legislature?

Hon. G. Abbott: I very much look forward to the estimates process. Perhaps we'll get some decent questions from the opposition during that process. They have certainly failed miserably in the question period portion of this legislative session thus far.

We have a great health care system in this province. We have over 8,000 dedicated doctors. We have tens of thousands of dedicated nurses.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have people who commit themselves each and every day to provide the very best of service to British Columbians.

On those occasions when there are questions with respect to whether a billing is appropriate, those questions are thoroughly examined. We report out appropriately when all of those issues are resolved. We are not, unlike the opposition, going to form our conclusions prematurely, and we are not going to form them in a way that proves unfair or inappropriate to some of the parties to that.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health has had in his possession for five months a devastating report about the administration of an important part of his ministry, and he has nothing to say about it today? That's the problem in this House. It isn't the questions; it's the answers.

The version of the report released under FOI has 32 separate severed sections under section 15 of the Freedom

of Information Act. That's the section that provides severing of information if disclosure is "harmful to law enforcement."

Can the Minister of Health explain those 32 severed sections and why he has nothing to say about a devastating report into the administration of his own ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the last member of this House who ought to be making suggestions about cover-up is this member over here — the opposition Health critic.

Hon. G. Abbott: I find it deeply ironic that this member says to ignore the Freedom of Information Act and ignore the Protection of Privacy Act. It was an NDP government that brought in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, apparently, they want us to ignore that act, quite against the law. It is entirely typical of this opposition that they say: "Here we have a law. Let's ignore it at our convenience." That is so typical of this opposition. It is so typical of their contempt for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

A. Dix: It's true that it was an NDP government that brought in the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and it's the B.C. Liberal government's five years of systematically not following the law that has undermined that act and put it in the position it's at. It's this minister who covered up a letter from the chair of the Fraser Health Authority, who's currently being investigated by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner.

My question to the minister is this. This report says "unclear accountability" in the minister's ministry. This report says "non-compliance with contract terms." It's not me who says it. It's the Ministry of Finance that says it, and I think the Minister of Health should stand in this House and explain why the administration of his ministry under his command has so failed that the Ministry of Finance is condemning his ministry's administration.

Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of absolute nonsense from that member. What a load of nonsense.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, I don't know how ministry offices operated when that government was in power. When that member was chief political adviser to the NDP government, perhaps the minister's office actually did the severing of FOI releases. I doubt it, but perhaps they did.

But I can tell the member here right now that when he makes the attack that he does in the House today, he is attacking the integrity of lifelong public officials who are doing their very best job to interpret the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

It is so typical, again, of this opposition that they recklessly attack public officials who are following the rules of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Health rejects the question as "utter nonsense." Can he tell the House whether he's read the report, in fact? If so, will he release the report to the House today?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member or the members opposite have allegations that they wish to make, they should have the guts to make those allegations. What they should not do is stand back and attack public officials who are appropriately attempting to ensure that the provisions of a provincial act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy act, are inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your chair. Until I can hear the answer, we're not going to continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exists for a number of purposes. If the member is suggesting that in some way public officials have breached that act, he should say so. If he has a concern, he should file a complaint with the commissioner responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They should not sit back, I think, and take an entirely cowardly route of attacking public officials in this province.

R. Chouhan: Let's see if I can get a straight answer from the Minister of Health on this question. Mr. Minister, will you ensure the continuation of funding for the 19 overflow beds at the Burnaby General Hospital which are scheduled to be closed on March 31, 2007?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to look into the matter for the member. What I can tell the member is that British Columbia's health care system is better funded than it ever has been in the history of British Columbia —

$13.1 billion for the operation of the health care delivery system. That is almost $5 billion more than it was when we took office in 2001 — from $8.4 billion to $13.1 billion.

We are doing more surgeries than ever before in British Columbia, we're providing better services than ever before in British Columbia, and we look forward to continuing to work with health care practitioners in this province to continue to have a great health care system in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think there will be more funding available if you are not dumping the money in the black hole called the Trade and Convention Centre.

The situation at Burnaby General Hospital is so bad that the front-line nurses are opting for early retirement because they no longer can cope with the critical conditions created by the lack of funding. The 19 overflow beds will receive funding only until the end of March of this year.

Instead of spending money on political spin doctors and lecturing us standing here, will the minister help the people of Burnaby, at the very minimum by funding the 19 overflow beds currently open, and ideally by providing necessary funding to open the currently unfunded beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: I've had the opportunity, thankfully, to visit Burnaby General Hospital. It's an outstanding facility. I think they do an excellent job there, and I know that Burnaby General Hospital benefits from the fact that in British Columbia today we have more doctors, better paid, than ever in the history of British Columbia. We have more nurses, better paid, than ever before in the history of British Columbia, and that's thankfully because our government invested in educating more nurses after a decade of neglect under the former government.

We do more diagnostic procedures than ever before in the history of the province, including at Burnaby General Hospital. We do a great job. They do a great job. We do a great job because of the great nurses, doctors, care aides and paramedics that do such a good job for us.

J. Horgan: As much as I'd like to pose my question to the Minister for Mining, it's to the Minister of Energy.

Yesterday the government announced that it has directed B.C. Hydro to meet a target of 50 percent of new load to come from conservation measures. Reviewing the materials provided at the press briefing, we realize that there are no new programs, no new initiatives and no new supports for Hydro customers to meet those targets. The result of the announcement will mean that the equivalent of one in five customers will be unplugged, unless the government provides supports for consumers.

My question is very simple: absent any new ideas from the government, how is it possible for British Columbians to meet those targets?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is great news. We just tabled a plan yesterday that a cross-section of British Columbians and people that generally oppose what we do has come out in total favour of it, and all we can do is get a negative from the opposition.

Are they against ensuring that clean, renewable electricity generation continues to account for at least 90 percent of total generation? Are they opposed to maintaining our competitive electricity advantage in British Columbia? Are they opposed to zero greenhouse gas–emissions from thermal plants?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Have a look in the back of the book, and it'll tell you. Do your research, Member.

Before we continue, I want to remind the minister not to use props in the House.

Many of us on this side of the House assumed that absent any substance in the throne speech and absent any substance in the budget, we might see some substance in the energy plan.

J. Horgan: Now we know we may have enough spin from this side to turn a turbine, but we've got no programs in place for British Columbians to meet those targets.

It's, again, a very simple question. Besides putting a surcharge on hydro rates, what plan do you have to help consumers meet these challenges?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association says…. When they say this is one of the best energy plans in the world, I'm willing to say yes, and that's about where it is. Or when Joe Foy says all sorts of compliments to the provincial government, for gosh sakes, let's bury Site C. Maybe we can get an opinion from the member on that.

I would encourage him to go to the back of the energy plan, have a read of the back page, actually read the whole plan. If you can't get it from there, go to www.bchydro.com…

Hon. R. Neufeld: …for Power Smart things to do at home. You could go to www.gov.bc.ca. Go to the Ministry of Energy, and go to "Alternate Energy." You can find out all kinds of things. One thing you could do, although it's pretty dark on that side of the House most of the time, is turn your lights out at home, Member.

S. Simpson: The energy plan calls for a significant expansion about the oil and gas sector, including Nechako and offshore oil and gas. In the budget that was released, there's $265 million of credits and subsidies for that sector — a sector that, as the minister and the Premier will know, produces about 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in this province. In the energy plan there's quite a bit of discussion about alternative energy. However, in the press conference yesterday, we heard the minister be very clear that there would be no initiatives in the plan for supporting the growth of alternative energy like wind.

My question to the minister is: can he explain why, if we're going green, the oil and gas sector is getting $265 million in subsidies and credits and the alternative energy sector gets nothing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, they haven't done their homework. They just haven't done their homework. You know, Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the time when they were in government, when they actually chose different companies to give subsidies to, when they chose some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world to give subsidies to, and now they say we're giving subsidies. We give incentives to actually create the environment so that people can make the investment and live in the northeast and have a job year-round, and that's exactly what's happening in British Columbia.

As for the wind energy, they get a subsidy from the federal government. There is no sales tax on any equipment for wind energy. There is no sales tax on solar panels, on all sorts of generation from clean sources. The tax has been removed. There are huge incentives in the province to actually move forward. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Under this administration, we've signed energy purchase agreements for 325 megawatts of wind. That didn't happen under that government.

S. Simpson: This minister might call them incentives. It's $265 million of subsidy. You've got a government that talked about going green and doesn't put ten cents — not ten cents — into true alternative energy incentives. That's what this government's about: talk and no action.

This energy plan talks about a number of initiatives to be adopted by 2010 and by 2016. When the throne speech came out, it talked about climate change announcements but said we'd have to wait for the budget and then for the energy plan to get details. We now have the energy plan.

My question is that the throne speech talked about interim sectoral targets for greenhouse gas emissions for 2012 and 2016. Now that we have this plan, can this minister tell us what this plan will achieve in terms of meeting those targets? What can we reasonably expect the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to be from this sector in 2012 and 2016?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting. Just this last summer B.C. Hydro signed energy purchase agreements that amounted to $3.6 billion of investment in the province in clean energy. Just a year before that they signed contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars for clean energy in the province.

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to that opposition, they oppose every clean energy project in the province. That member opposes Ashlu — a clean energy producer — by letter to his constituents and then stands here and talks about it. We have actually instituted zero greenhouse gas emissions and no flaring in ten years — something that you have never thought of or probably don't know anything about.

C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, we have in our gallery today the mayor of New Westminster, Mayor Wayne Wright; Councillor Betty McIntosh; Councillor Bill Harper;

and Paul Daminato, the city administrator. They're all here to talk to the Health Minister.

C. Trevena: It's a petition with about a hundred signatures protesting cuts in child care by the province.

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary estimates (No. 1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I think they're going to distribute the estimates, so if you just remain in your seats.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, why don't we…? I move the House recess for ten minutes so that members can read the brief bill that's making its way through for the supplementary estimate that is being distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get started, I have the honour to present the report of the Auditor General: Service Plan 2007-08 – 2009-10.

On Vote 43(S): other appropriations, contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $290,000,000.

B. Ralston: This amount of $290 million, I understand, comprises part of the government's negotiating framework that provided for signing bonuses for union members. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: May I begin by introducing Tamara Vrooman, Deputy Minister of Finance, and Dave Stewart, who are with me today.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise the House whether that $290 million includes bonuses for non-union public employees?

B. Ralston: Are there any non-union public employees who are not receiving a signing bonus?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, there might be, because this bill is, of course, covering our public sector negotiations and management exclusions.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the minister has received — and I've received, as have many members — representations from, particularly, employees in the community care sector.

Can the minister confirm that non-union employees in the community care sector will not be receiving the bonus this year or in the future?

Hon. C. Taylor: I included in Budget 2007, which was introduced last week, a sum of $109 million that is set aside for the specific sector the member mentioned, and we recognize that those social service agencies…. Many of them hadn't actually had a contract lift since 2000 — 2001, some of them. There have been many pressures in terms of the service they provide, so that $109 million is in the budget and is for the negotiations that will go on between the ministries and those services.

B. Ralston: Is that $109 million, then, specifically allocated for bonuses in that sector, or is that for the individual executive directors of those agencies to decide how those funds increase so that they maybe will be allocated?

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not do the wage negotiations with these social service agencies. They have a contract with government. So this is to recognize that there have been some pressures on those agencies and to allow the ministers who are responsible to provide lifts if they feel them necessary.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if, for example, political staff who are order-in-council appointees, such as members of the public affairs bureau…? Did they receive the bonus, and is that included in this $290 million?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, they did. But of course, that was last year. It was not this money. This money is focusing on the teachers. This is the bonus for our teachers. As well, there is an allowance in there for some of our outstanding contracts that remain.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise which outstanding contracts she's referring to?

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member opposite could speak a little louder. I couldn't hear what he said.

B. Ralston: Could the minister advise what outstanding contracts she's referring to?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. There are 28 agreements still outstanding. I'm happy to provide the list, but it's primarily colleges and faculties.

B. Ralston: Last year in debate the minister said, referring to the billion dollars which was part of the supplementary estimates debate last year, that if the agreement wasn't reached, that $1 billion "will go immediately to paying down the debt of British Columbia. So that money is not lost to the people of British Columbia. It just goes to a different area. It's no longer a signing bonus because the contracts haven't been signed, and therefore, it will go to paying down the debt for British Columbians." Does the minister stand by that position?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, I certainly do. These labour negotiations have really been an important, I hope, turning point for British Columbia. Because so many of them actually came due on the same day last year, March 31, we had the opportunity to concentrate on those negotiations. It was a very heavy and demanding time for everyone.

Over 300,000 employees — our doctors, our nurses, people who work in the public sector and many others — were involved. We were very pleased to be able to say that there was a signing bonus that was available for those unions and their employees who signed their contracts either before or by March 31. By March 31, 100 percent of the contracts that were due at that time in fact were signed.

The member will remember that we had put extra dollars into that billion so that should the teachers, for instance, have decided to settle early, the money would have been there for them. We ended up using $710 million, and the remainder did go towards paying down the debt.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what statutory provision she's referring to that authorizes these surplus funds to go to paying down the debt as opposed to simply remaining as financial assets on the balance sheet?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is GAAP accounting policy that we follow very closely. We're pleased that we do, and it is the way that we carry out this policy.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister, then, could explain the GAAP policy. As I understand it, to say that the money went to the repayment of debt is not accurate. The assets would remain on the balance sheet as just that — assets — and would reduce the net liabilities by that amount, but they would not be directed to paying down outstanding debt. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.

Hon. C. Taylor: The option that the member is providing — I think he's saying you would leave it as cash instead of paying down your debt — would not solve what I think the member is trying to say. If the member is trying to say that in fact that money would have been available for people after March 31 to offer as a bonus, it would not have been available.

B. Ralston: What I'm suggesting to the minister is that that money did indeed remain as cash on the balance sheet. It did not go into paying down debt, as the minister has previously stated. I'm wondering if the minister agrees with me or whether she disagrees.

Hon. C. Taylor: I think we're into some technicalities that are very interesting for the accountants. To say that you would have cash there, which reduces your future borrowing needs because the cash is ready to go out to capital, or whether you say that we took that particular dollar and put it towards paying down the debt, so that we could borrow some more for capital, is something that I'm not sure why the member would have an issue with either way.

The point is that it moves onto the balance sheet. It is there so that we can build more capital, as we've been able to do. In fact, our past two years of surplus have been so large that we have been able to bring forward much of our capital spending so that this year in the budget we can include new hospitals, which are now mentioned in Victoria, Kelowna, Vernon and Fort St. John.

B. Ralston: The minister didn't answer the question. Did that cash remain on the balance sheet as cash, or did it go to paying down the debt? It is a point of some difference because the minister publicly stated last year that if the bonuses weren't expended, they would go towards paying down the debt. That was the express public statement of the minister. If that isn't accurate, then I think the public has a right to know.

Hon. C. Taylor: I stand behind my public statement, and I will continue to say that we had a billion dollars which under GAAP accounting had to be spent by March 31. We used it for the 100 percent of our public sector workers who signed contracts before or on March 31. That was $710 million. There was $290 million left out of that billion which then went over to the balance sheet, and I stand by my statements.

B. Ralston: Just to summarize, then: the $290 million went over to the balance sheet, remained as cash and was not used to pay down debt. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say the same thing over again. When the cash moves over onto the balance sheet, it can be used to reduce future borrowing; it can be used to immediately pay down the debt. Either way, it is used on the balance sheet so that we are allowed to do more capital spending and still keep our debt affordable.

We have the pleasure of saying that we have Moody's triple-A rating, only the third government in all of Canada — the federal government, the Alberta government and B.C. It's because they watch how we're doing our debt management, and this is a big part of it. We follow GAAP in doing it, and by reducing our borrowing in this way with our surpluses, we are able to keep our debt affordable for the people of B.C.

B. Ralston: If I might then summarize what I take from the minister's answer: the remaining cash was, to quote her words, "used on the balance sheet," but it was not used to pay down debt.

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say again: when you move dollars over to the balance sheet, then you enable yourself to reduce your borrowing or pay down your debt, so that capital in fact can be spent on all the projects that we want to build in our province. By having these dollars on the balance sheet, we are able to reduce our borrowing so that we can keep our debt affordable and still build the hospitals, schools and roads that we need.

B. Ralston: I'll have one more go at this. I understand clearly what the minister is saying, but it is different, I would suggest, from saying publicly that if the money wasn't spent it would go to paying down debt. That wasn't the intended use, and that wasn't the actual use. Does the minister agree with me or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: When we move the dollars on March 31 over onto our balance sheet, it reduces our borrowing requirements. By definition, that reduces the debt.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, doesn't it reduce net liabilities but not debt?

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I've come forward with a supplementary estimate for this year. It's for $290 million to pay the bonuses for our teachers who settled their contract. We're very pleased to see the first negotiated contract by the teachers in British Columbia in recent years. I would hope that the debate and the questions would be about this $290 million that I've come forward with today.

B. Ralston: I think the record clearly shows that the minister has refused to answer that question. So I'll leave that for the public.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Economic Development is offering his opinion on financial matters. Fortunately, for the province, he's not the Finance Minister at this point.

The further question that I have…. I wish to return to the community care sector. When does the minister expect or when is it anticipated that those negotiations will commence?

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Chair, that question, in fact, relates to the budget, not to the supplementary estimates.

Vote 43(S): other appropriations, contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $290,000,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.

Hon. C. Taylor: Forthwith. I move that the report of the resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 28 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $290 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, 2006-2007, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1).

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance, can we just have a short break while we distribute the bill for everybody to see? Just take a few minutes' break while we get the bill out for everybody.

Hon. C. Taylor: The use of supplementary estimates is consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, as outlined in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1 tabled earlier. The bill will provide the additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with established practice, the government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the practice of this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1), introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

R. Lee: It's an honour for me to stand up again in the House to respond to the budget speech, as well as taking a closer look at the throne speech. The riding I serve, Burnaby North, in the city of Burnaby is located in one of the most beautiful areas in British Columbia. We have mountains, parks, lakes, renowned post-secondary institutions, great sports facilities, and most importantly, a community of ethnic and cultural diversity. These strengths attract businesses and industries to Burnaby, especially when the overall economy in the province is strong.

This year's throne speech began with the tradition of honouring British Columbians who have passed away since the previous throne speech. It brings back to my memory the words of a former member of this assembly, Val Anderson, and the first unveiling of the Legacies Now logo at the Kensington rink with former Mayor Doug Drummond, and Yung Quon Yu's family farm in Burnaby.

It also led my mind to thinking of my grandfather's farming days on the Musqueam reserve at the southwest corner of Vancouver for over 20 years before he retired in 1965.

When we look at the throne speech or the budget speech, it invariably creates different views of what it means to different individuals. It's important, then, to look at the history as well as the facts.

It's a fact that over the last five years, British Columbians have turned this province into an economic powerhouse. The provincial unemployment rate is at an historic low, and the employment rate is at an all-time high. People are moving back to this province to live and work. The net gain of interprovincial immigration is in the thousands, and we are becoming the first choice in Canada for many international immigrants.

As the economy of our province remains strong, consumer and business confidence increases. We see a

high level of residential and non-residential construction. In Burnaby highrises and new construction projects are popping up everywhere, especially in the Brentwood-Lougheed area.

With increasing economic activities and prudent fiscal management, our government managed to reduce the taxpayer-supported debt to GDP ratio — a key indicator of debt affordability — from 20.6 percent in year 2001-2002 to 14.4 percent in 2006-2007.

B.C. now has regained a triple-A credit rating for the first time in over 20 years. This means that the interest rate of debt services for this province will be lower, saving millions and millions in interest payments to pay for other valuable services.

When we look at the financial situation of this province, it's helpful to analyze the provincial debt. The total provincial debt has three components.

The first one is the provincial government direct operating debt, which is debt incurred over the years by government administration. The second one is other taxpayer-supported debt — mainly capital investment in schools, hospitals, highways and public transit, government buildings, social housing, etc. The third one is self-supported debt, which is debt essentially incurred by Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission, Columbia Power, etc.

The B.C. government operating debt is a good measure of the efficiency of government operations. In year 1990-1991 the B.C. operating debt was $4.7 billion, or 6 percent of GDP at the time. After ten years of NDP government, by year 2000-2001, it had increased to over $12 billion — more than double.

Our government, however, is on the way to paying down the operating debt to $9.1 billion, or 4.9 percent of GDP, which is a recovery to the debt-to-GDP ratio before the ten years of NDP government. It took us six years to undo some of the damages done by the NDP government. It is not easy, but it is what a responsible government must do.

Let's look at another number: the total taxpayer-supported debt. In year 1990-1991 the total taxpayer-supported debt was $9.8 billion. By 2000-2001 the NDP government had increased the total taxpayer-supported debt to $25 billion. The total taxpayer debt to GDP ratio will decline to 14.8 percent next year from 20.6 percent six years ago, which is really a measure of how responsible our government is in managing the taxpayers' money.

Keeping our financial house in order is the right thing to do, and a responsible government raises people's confidence in the future of this province. Our government is focused on fiscal management, but we are also committed to providing the best supports for B.C.'s most vulnerable and to capitalizing on the Asia-Pacific gateway.

I'm happy that the Conference Board of Canada ranks our health care system as the best in Canada, and our students are winning national and international awards in academics, sports and innovations. Our diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients is the best in Canada.

Burnaby North Secondary School topped the list of advanced placement scholars. Our B.C. hockey and football teams won the most prestigious cups. We have world leaders of business and innovation in this province in such diverse sectors as software development, telecommunications, biotechnology and alternative energy developments.

Our government has taken many steps to create a favourable business environment to encourage investment and entrepreneurship. The government has successfully cut red tape regulations by over one-third and reduced personal income taxes and corporate taxes.

In this budget, income taxes are reduced for families. Every person earning up to $100,000 will be paying the lowest income taxes in Canada, and 250,000 British Columbians will pay no income taxes. How exciting.

More British Columbians than ever before pay no income taxes. For the overall majority who pay, it's the lowest in the country, leaving more money in people's pockets and increasing their choices. They can use the extra dollars to help pay for the rent or mortgage.

In fact, a strong economy allows the government to improve important programs and services such as education, health care and transportation. However, a strong economy also creates an increased demand for housing — hence, the issue of affordability.

I believe this budget has initiated a multi-pronged approach to address many housing issues. From the homeless to the renters, first-time buyers to homeowners, and from people on social assistance to seniors living in their own home, no one is untouched by this budget. The housing endowment fund ensures that even the future generation will benefit from this budget.

This budget is both focused and visionary. In order to keep our economy growing to continue to generate the revenue needed to support our health care, education and social services, we must increase our trade activities, including exports. The emerging economy in Asian countries such as India, China and Korea, and in more mature markets such as Japan, creates many opportunities for British Columbians.

As a provincial government and Canada's only Pacific province, British Columbia is determined to make the most of the opportunities that rest in Asia. After all, our province has some unparalleled advantages aside from our strategic location, our natural resources, our economic stability, our cultural and social links, and our people — all of which are great assets that will help.

But in this highly competitive world that we now live in, it's not quite enough, which is why our government provincially has embarked on something we call the Asia-Pacific Initiative, a culmination of cross-government efforts to think more globally, build on the resources we have and look to form new relationships with individuals outside of our province.

The Ministry of Economic Development will increase international marketing activities to attract qualified business immigrants and provincial nominees. We will expand the B.C. provincial nominee program, and reduce processing time for applicants and recruit additional internal advisers with more in-house immigration specialties.

We'll work with key partners as identified in the Asia-Pacific Initiative. We will lead international activities with other western provinces through the western trade secretariat and leverage opportunities from the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games to raise awareness and increase commerce for B.C.

The Ministry of Economic Development will also formulate strategies to ensure that other government ministries help advance B.C.'s Asia-Pacific leadership. Many ministries are already working to ensure B.C. is recognized globally as an integral player in the Asia-Pacific economy, both domestically and internationally.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy, a key initiative within the Ministry of Transportation's mandate, is a critical component of the broader Asia-Pacific Initiative. Key areas have been identified for action to establish a competitive, full-service transportation corridor between Asia and North America.

In cooperation with the federal government and industry stakeholders, advanced implementation of the Pacific gateway strategy action plan is going to secure federal cost-sharing arrangements for key infrastructure projects to accommodate growth and improve the efficiency of our province's land-based and intermodal links, such as the Pitt River Bridge, lower mainland railroad grade separations and South Fraser perimeter road.

Projects such as construction of the bridge and a new grade-separated interchange at Lougheed Highway and Mary Hill bypass are the first of many Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor projects that will help our local communities as well as contribute to Canada's trade competitiveness.

Participate with all the relevant parties to pursue measures that attract new investment and expand trade volumes is one of the mandates.

Improve the reliability and cost-effectiveness of ports, expand air services through Greater Vancouver and expand use of these facilities by international carriers. Of course, the development of the port in Prince Rupert is very important.

These transportation projects are part of B.C.'s Gateway program to improve infrastructure, reduce congestion and improve the movement of people and goods to boost our economy.

The Ministry of Advanced Education is also striving to make B.C. the preferred international education destination for Asia-Pacific students. Currently the ministry has increased its overseas missions planned for 2007, and the Premier signed a memorandum of understanding with China this past November.

International students have created close to 6,000 jobs in public post-secondary institutions while injecting $511 million into the provincial economy. Close to 27,000 international students from 150 different countries are choosing B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions. This government will embrace Asia-Pacific cultures by supporting its representatives and employees to gain proficiency in Asia-Pacific languages and cultural issues.

The Ministry of Advanced Education is working with post-secondary institutions to expand quality international education activities, market British Columbia as an educational destination, reduce barriers that confront international students who choose to come here and support policy measures to ease transitions between studies and post-graduation employment in British Columbia. It's also helping expand and diversify academic links to the Asia-Pacific region.

The ministry is also creating two new scholarship programs for study abroad: the One World scholarship for study, an integral part of the student's program; and the Pacific Horizons for Youth program to support student travel exchanges with families across the Pacific. A very good service plan.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands opened an award-winning FrontCounter B.C. in Surrey recently to serve natural resource–based clients with a specific focus on Asia-Pacific business prospects.

FrontCounter B.C. Surrey reflects the ethnic diversity of the lower mainland by offering clients services in English and 11 additional languages. The Surrey office capitalizes on its position at Canada's Pacific gateway by helping B.C.'s natural resource sector pursue new opportunities in rapidly developing markets such as China and India.

The integrated land management bureau under the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands is also preparing a multilingual DVD that showcases B.C.'s land and resources development information, with the goal of encouraging more international investment in this province.

To enhance the province's Asia-Pacific identity, the Ministry of Attorney General is promoting cultural diversity by building partnerships and collaborations and by supporting the efficient delivery of multicultural services. To support development and growth of smaller communities outside the lower mainland, the ministry is implementing regional integration pilot projects and raising awareness about the benefits of multiculturalism and the elimination of racism.

The Ministry of Community Services has been working closely with the Ministry of Economic Development, which has led sister-city research focusing mainly on how the tool could be used to facilitate B.C.'s relationship with China and other countries.

Most recently the China–Hong Kong Market Advisory Group submitted its report on enhancing the B.C. and China–Hong Kong commercial relationship, including how the province could promote sister city arrangement.

Two of the initiatives recommended in the report link to the ministry's role in the communities: create and maintain a database of sister-city arrangements, and develop a best-practices guide to sister-city arrangements.

The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources supports the government's Asia-Pacific Initiative by promoting increased investment in British Columbia's mining sector and in new and existing pipelines, both within the province and through British Columbia from Alberta.

It is streamlining and updating legislative and policy frameworks to minimize regulatory burdens and to

increase British Columbia's competitiveness. It is doing ongoing promotion of our province's alternative energy generation technologies and the hydrogen fuel cell and mining services sectors.

The Minister of State for Mining and staff attended the November 2006 China Mining Congress in Beijing to gather information, to build relationships with key Chinese officials in the mining industry and to attract direct investment in British Columbia's mining sector. By chance, I was there as well.

The forum was an opportunity to promote British Columbia–based mining, energy services and technology businesses, including mine engineering, reclamation and environmental consulting services, the province's hydrogen fuel cell sector, and alternative and green energy technology businesses.

The Ministry of Environment is also working on increasing sales in Asian markets by B.C. producers of goods and services. For example, the ministry is working to cultivate expanded export markets in the Asia-Pacific for British Columbia's seafood products.

The Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts supports the government's work to build closer links with the Asia-Pacific nations and with Asian tourism. Additionally, the ministry is working to establish the Asia-Pacific museum of trade and culture in Vancouver.

The Ministry of Forests and Range supports the Ministry of Economic Development in the pursuit of new markets for forest products through Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd.

In close collaboration in Canada with Canada Wood Group, Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. is directly responsible for doing the basic market research to determine where the best potentials exist to introduce B.C. wood products and North American wood-frame technology to China's housing sector.

Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. is also leading the provision of demonstration projects to showcase B.C. wood products and wood construction technologies. In its first two years Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd.'s wholly-owned subsidiary in Shanghai has built Dream Home China–Canada and the wood-truss roofs of two older, low-rise apartment buildings of the type in which nearly half of China's population live.

I was in Shanghai with the Premier to see the completion of one of these projects. This conversion of the flat roof in those low-rise apartments with the sloped roof type we use in B.C. will reduce a lot of energy consumption, and it creates a better environment. The project actually can be completed sooner than the regular concrete construction.

In the coming years Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. expects to complete a landscaping demonstration project, featuring cedar and pressure-treated wood, and one or more hybrid, low-rise apartment buildings. I was in Guangdong with the Premier last November at the foundation-laying ceremony of one of these projects using our B.C. wood to do landscaping in the park.

Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. is also seeking markets for our new wood products from the beetle-affected wood. Ministries and Crown services have plans to reflect and advance our leadership role in the Asia-Pacific, and they have the agenda well set up. The focused engagement as well as the relationship strategy to coordinate and support efforts overseas will maximize outcomes here at home, and we will increase market representation overseas.

The Ministry of Economic Development is developing an 18-month engagement calendar, providing detailed descriptions to ensure timely and relevant information to prepare missions and maximize on returns.

We have to reach out to Asia more. We know the importance of personal relationships. Our government is travelling to the region to make and solidify these connections. The Minister of Transportation travelled to China last year to highlight our efforts to become the North American gateway.

This past spring the Minister of Economic Development, the provincial minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, travelled to the region. He was followed in the fall by the Premier and myself as Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and, as well, by the Minister of State for Mining and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

I made many contacts in China while accompanying the Premier in Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangdong, our sister province. More trips are planned as we continue to build these personal connections. Their vibrant economies are drawing the attention of all Pacific nations.

If we want to continue our success, if we want to build on the commerce that already exists with that region, we are going to have to take action. That's why last year the B.C. government created an Asia-Pacific Trade Council.

This group of British Columbians, individuals across many sectors, has been tasked to help set our long-term vision for B.C. in Asia, identifying opportunities and challenges for investment and trade. The council carries out research and uses advisory groups focusing on specific markets to develop recommendations for the Premier in all areas affecting the success of British Columbia. The council has established three market advisory groups, specialized subcommittees, to focus on China–Hong Kong, India, Korea and Japan.

We already have two reports: the China–Hong Kong market advisory group and the India market advisory group, with many recommendations. As a result of their recommendations the province has begun seeking out individuals with experience in Asian markets who can represent B.C. overseas. Those are on-the-ground representatives. We anticipate we will have full-time, on-the-ground representation in key Asian markets within the next few months.

British Columbia has an unprecedented opportunity to reap enormous benefits from Asia's current economic transformation. By showing strong leadership and investing immediately in priority action, by 2010 or by 2020, B.C.'s annual trade with Asia-Pacific could total $105 billion from $25 billion today and add 255,000 new jobs to the economy.

Unfortunately, Canada is already considered to be at least a decade behind our competitors in Asia-Pacific, and it's losing out on major economic opportunities. To address this challenge, the province, as mentioned, has developed the Asia-Pacific Initiative. Just as importantly, the Asia-Pacific Initiative is a signal to other levels of government and our private sector and international partners…

C. Wyse: I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague from the opposite side, the member for Burnaby North. I appreciate very much the time that he has put in, in preparing his speech. I am sure that we could reach agreement, if the member wishes to complete his statement.

I wish to begin my response to the throne speech that received little reference — one sentence, in fact, on page 6 — that said: "The precedent-setting trade, investment and labour mobility agreement with Alberta will create jobs and opportunity in every region of the province." One short reference to an agreement that was reached with no public discussion and most limited public input to the agreement.

The trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, or TILMA, has not been debated. It was signed quietly with little fanfare and then simply announced. This side of the House favours agreements that encourage trade, encourage investment and encourage labour mobility. However, this side of the House does not believe that TILMA is the way to achieve these goals.

I would like to examine why this side has reached this conclusion. The side opposite hired the Conference Board to do the research from which TILMA evolved. The Conference Board consulted 13 businesses, and four responded; 11 government agencies, and six responded. The Conference Board did not consult major government ministries such as Health, Education, Children and Family Development, or Environment. Of the 24 surveys taken, 11 responses were returned, only four from businesses. No specific industry or trade was surveyed.

In my opinion this is a very narrow sampling to develop a document as far-reaching as TILMA. From this limited sampling the Conference Board reports that billions of dollars of new economic growth and the creation of thousands of jobs will result. Quite a conclusion, in my mind, based on the sampling of four business responses.

In fact, this report uses figures of economic benefit based on primary industries. The primary industries are excluded under the agreement. This fact accounts for 60 percent of the accredited economic growth assigned to TILMA.

There are some further myths surrounding TILMA. The basis of TILMA is to break down costly interprovincial trade barriers. These trade barriers cost no more than 0.05 of 1 percent of GDP. In fact since 2000, interprovincial trade has been growing much faster than Canada's international trade — 25 percent from 2000 to 2005. This rate is greater than Canada's growth rate for international trade.

TILMA opens up the following areas, which asks for trouble, in my opinion. Governments must reconcile all existing and future standards and regulations so they do not impede trade, investment and labour mobility. In some areas government may adopt or maintain measures that deviate from TILMA rules, but only if they pass a three-part test which stipulates, in part 1, that the measure be a legitimate objective. These objectives do not include protection of heritage sites, promotion of culture, provision of education or expansion to supply affordable housing.

Part 2 is that the measure is not more restrictive to trade, investment or labour mobility than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective. Part 3 is that the measure is not a disguised restriction to trade investment or labour mobility.

All provincial government entities are covered by TILMA, including municipal governments, school and health boards, Crown corporations and agencies. Governments cannot grant business subsidies that distort development.

Now let's look at some examples of regulations that could be ruled to be TILMA violations if they impair or restrict investment. Differences in B.C. and Alberta regulation of private schools. Restriction the B.C. government may consider necessary to regulate the operation of private for-profit surgery clinics. Regulation of recreation and tourism to protect ecologically sensitive areas. Restrictions on particular products like ozone-depleting substances or pesticides. Regulation of air pollution produced by manufacturing plants and automobiles, such as B.C.'s AirCare program. Designation and protection of ecological reserves. Protection of public views and municipal height allowance bylaws. Municipal bans of billboards. And finally, bans on junk food in schools.

There's also the possibility of a $5 million fine if government is found to be in violation of the agreement. A chill effect might result in public policy–making, whereby governments eliminate measures or decline to introduce new ones to avoid TILMA challenges. Challenges may be launched on these grounds: measures restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility; lack of reconciliation of existing regulations and standards that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility; establishment of new regulations and standards that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility; business subsidies that distort investment decisions; treatment less favourable than the best treatment provided to a province's own persons, services, investors or investments in like circumstances.

Under TILMA, B.C. has agreed to allow individuals and corporations to legally challenge the decisions government makes to protect the interests of its citizens

— a worrisome situation, to say the least. And all of that is contained in one sentence on page 6 in the throne speech.

Now let's examine a part of the throne speech where much was said. Specifically, I refer to: "Little has been done to seriously address this problem, which is literally threatening life on Earth as we know it…. The government will act now and will act deliberately…. We will act to stem its growth and minimize the impacts already unleashed. The more timid our response is, the harsher the consequences will be."

Great words in addressing the serious issue of climate change. I was hopeful that the members opposite had finally concluded that climate change had arrived and that action was required by the government. Targets were set to be achieved by 2020 — 13 years to reach targeted goals, when the goals are developed.

To add some smoke, to give the pretence of achieving these goals, we find previously announced programs re-announced as means to affect climate change. I name three: the LocalMotion fund, Towns for Tomorrow, the B.C. Spirit Squares program. A new one, a $26 million climate change fund, was also announced.

The throne speech concentrated on achieving its climate change goals by focusing on coasts, ports and oceans. The government left out the north and the interior with its heavy industrial uses. The same government that scrapped the B.C. climate change business plan and the climate change working group in 2001 saw the light and reintroduced a similar committee in 2007.

Let us fast-forward one week to the budget and compare what it does for climate change, compared to the throne speech. For example, let's see what happened to that $26 million for climate change. Whoops, not there. From my limited experience, this has to be a world record for any government in its effort to highlight a government objective. From throne speech to a budget and abandonment of a funding goal — maybe a week in the sun. Maybe British Columbians should be thankful for the short attention span of the government on this important issue in the budget.

Let's look at some past issues that the government highlighted, announcing they would focus upon these issues and make improvements. Heartlands were focused on and highlighted in 2003. Anyone who visits the interior of B.C. cannot help but notice the mountain pine beetle and what it has done to the pine trees. These interior rural communities are forced to be dependent for their economic existence. These communities are suffering the consequences of climatic change, and have been for decades in some instances.

In 2007 the province still has no social-economic plan for these rural communities which are bearing the brunt of this climate change effect. So much for communities like 100 Mile and Barriere.

The seniors were highlighted in 2005. After health authorities shut down hundreds of beds for seniors care, the province continued not to supply the 5,000 long-term care beds that it had previously promised. Communities and seniors advocacy groups regularly highlighted the effect of the government's failed plans to provide for their needs. In fact, seniors from Williams Lake travelled hundreds of miles to both Kamloops and Victoria to present their concerns to the Minister of Health and the Premier.

Finally, children were highlighted in 2006. After all of the rhetoric of 2006, the unkindest cut of them all was the provincial cut that will lead to the closure of most child care referral and resource centres around B.C. I do understand that there may be some reason for some optimism for some change by the government, but this is a response to the budget and the throne speech, so I will wait to see what may unfurl in the future.

Communities like Anahim Lake, Ashcroft and Savona no longer will receive the support of these centres to provide much-needed quality child care — the same child care provisions that assist people to find employment. In fact, a nurse in 100 Mile will not return to her field as the wait time for child care in her community already approaches a year — another worker removed from the labour force unnecessarily.

In closing, on this part of the throne speech and budget, maybe British Columbia is better off that climate change is only highlighted for about a week by this government.

Now, let's examine how the budget was presented as a housing budget. I do want to acknowledge the government's increasing the shelter allowance by $50 per month — definitely a good idea. The government may have been slow in increasing the shelter allowance, but it did so — albeit after the worst winter in six years — as was reported by the Minister of Transportation recently in this House.

Providing funds to move 750 much-needed social housing units to seniors housing units is a sign of a desperate government scrambling to fulfil an unfulfilled election promise from 2001. Calling $1.5 billion in tax cuts a housing strategy is misleading, to say the least, and quite possibly insulting to many.

A tax cut of $30 a month does not do much for an average working family's ability to obtain affordable housing. In fact, local governments continue to be requested to foot the cost of provincial responsibilities. Local governments are being requested to provide exemptions for development cost charges and levies. Local governments that only have property tax to raise revenue are asked to financially assist the provincial government with billions of dollars in surpluses — a provincial government that decided not to fund child care but instead to reduce its revenue by granting tax cuts to the wealthiest British Columbians.

Finally, on housing, the contracts for individuals to assist homeless people to find housing and shelter in both Williams Lake and 100 Mile expire March 31 of this year. These two programs have proved to be highly successful in achieving their goals. Hopefully, money has been provided to extend this needed service in both communities and funds are there to be expanded to other communities across the province.

I now wish to reflect upon education. Again, "this government is determined to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in the continent." Last session, government introduced Bill 33 to reduce class sizes and set class composition requirements — a noble idea, but no funding to implement the costs of the bill.

Class size and class composition play a major influence in becoming the most literate, best-educated community in the world. Funding policy changes made in 2002 have increased the pressure — beyond the pressures of declining enrolment — for rural schools to be closed. For example, school district 27 is struggling with the Trillium report, which recommends up to eight schools be closed over the next five years.

Virtual schools do not replace the school environment for developing social skills required to function in today's society. The number of school teacher-librarians has been reduced by the province to make up for budget shortfalls in meeting the needs of B.C. children in its schools. The budget has no mention of providing for students with special needs.

Now I would like to return to the major reason why I'm here in this House: to bring forward some of the interests directly of the people from Cariboo South. I now wish to examine some of the areas lacking mention that directly affect the constituents of my riding.

No mention of support for women fleeing domestic violence. Pressure continues on remaining women's centres to remain open. The throne speech acknowledges the Harper government's work with first nations but fails to mention the cancellation of the Kelowna accord. No wonder first nations leadership and community band members are tiring of the rhetoric of this government. When it comes to going beyond the words of reconciliation, one only needs visit amongst the first nations of Cariboo South to see why more than words are required to establish and sustain a promised relationship. I invite the minister to visit Cariboo South and meet with first nations directly.

On the matter of road maintenance, my office continues to be bombarded with complaints of deteriorating road conditions and inadequate road maintenance standards. The people of the Cariboo would prefer their existing roads be properly maintained while they patiently await the promised four-laning of Highway 97. Trauma patients from the Cariboo are refused admittance to Kelowna and Kamloops hospitals because of extreme overcrowding conditions at these hospitals.

The continued shortage of paramedics continues to cause remote ambulance stations at Clinton, Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek to either be shut down or be open at a reduced service level. The chiefs of Redstone, Nemaiah, Alexandria, Stone and Anaham have voiced and written their concerns to the Minister of Health regarding the frequent closure of Alexis Creek, still to no avail.

There is not one dime for child care, as I previously mentioned. I hope that that will become less true as this unfolds. In rural communities obtaining adequate, affordable and available child care is further complicated by bus transportation for school-age children. A working parent often requires a child care provider to take the child to and from a school bus route. Besides many inquiries to my office on this issue, I am stopped on the streets by parents concerned about the government's decision to reduce its financial support to child care referral and resource centres.

Finally, the throne speech closes with reference to the Olympic dream. In the interior there is growing concern that the Olympic dream will turn into a nightmare for the interior of the province and the Island. This fear arises from cost overruns for the Olympics, coupled with the large number of major projects complementary to the Olympics will leave no funds for the rest of the province…. Such projects as the four-laning of Highway 97 from Cache Creek to Prince George, to give an example, may not be built anywhere in the near future as a result of those conditions.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, you took me by surprise when you said that. I almost sat down, because it's a relatively new title for me.

I walked into my house that weekend. I was sworn in on Wednesday, and about ten minutes later the door burst open, and all of these little feet came tearing in, and little voices yelled: "Hon. grandpa, hon. grandpa." It was a sweet moment.

Hon. K. Krueger: I am old enough, Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I have my fifth grandchild on the way and….

Hon. K. Krueger: I know that everybody would be really sad if they couldn't hear me. Is that better?

I was saying that I have my fifth grandchild on the way and…. [Applause.] Thank you.

Like our friends across the way…. In spite of the things they say that make it sound like they have very different values than us, I know that just like us, they care very much about the future of all of our grandchildren and the generations to follow. We're all here because we think we can find a better way day by day in this House, and we're working on that.

Speaking today, I follow the member for Cariboo South, who has always struck me as a really good guy — well, almost always. Yesterday he told me he thinks that ideologically I'm a little to the left of him — which may surprise some of his colleagues, as it did me. In some ways it's probably true, because we're not as remarkably different in this House, in many ways, as people think we are or as people say when they get flying in full rhetorical flourishes. I thought it was an interesting comment.

The fact is that, certainly, every member of the government's side of this House cares very deeply about the people of British Columbia, especially those who are in need of help one way or another, and just as deeply as any member across the way. We have different conceptions of how to get there, different ideas, different plans. So far, ours are working pretty well. We're a whole lot better off in British Columbia than we were in the 1990s and getting better every day. You'd never know that from listening to some of the rhetoric from across the way. But we can show — and we have shown, and this budget is further proof — that we not only care very deeply about the needy and wish to meet their needs, but we've delivered the financial capability to do so in the robust economy that British Columbians are enjoying today.

It's only because we have balanced budgets, which have led to an economy that's absolutely flourishing, that we're able to deliver all of the programs and budgets we've been rolling out to help and serve the people of British Columbia. Everybody remembers what happened in the '90s. I don't want to harp on that; we have so many good things to talk about. But I can vouch, and the members opposite can check the record, that there was not a single new extended care or intermediate care bed built in the whole Thompson health region during the whole decade of the '90s — not one.

We're building them by the hundreds. Around the province we're building them by the thousands. There are new facilities all over Kamloops. Even though we fully restored Ponderosa Place, one of the older facilities…. We turned what were miserable, sad, little four-bed wards, where people couldn't get into the bathrooms with wheelchairs, into comfortable rooms for individuals — sometimes two rooms where there used to be one ward. Even though we've done all that, and it's much more modern and much nicer, seniors are actually telling me they'll wait for a spot in one of the new facilities. They'd rather not go into Ponderosa, even though it's fully refurbished.

So when I hear members across the way make an issue about old facilities being decommissioned, even while they know brand-new facilities are being built in their constituencies and all around the province, I kind of shake my head. There must be something the opposition could reproach this government for, where they could point out to us a way to do something better, accomplish better results. But I'm honestly not hearing that from across the way at all. I'm not hearing any constructive criticism, just a never-ending stream of criticism, negativity.

Hon. K. Krueger: Now, my critic across the way points to himself and promises me better. He keeps promising me things. So far he's not delivering, but it's not that I don't believe him. He picked me up once in the rain, and that's about the best we've delivered so far, and I appreciated that.

In my opposition years, five years at the end of the '90s, I would frequently have seniors come to me in tears because of the health care they were not receiving. Sometimes they were seniors and sometimes younger people who needed cardiac care, and they were on long wait-lists. Sometimes there were people of all ages and their families who had been diagnosed with cancer and couldn't get in for treatment. As you know, there are zero wait-lists for any life-threatening condition in British Columbia today. That's a record that our government has every right to be proud of and that I'm tremendously proud of.

Our record speaks for itself, but I'm happy to speak for it. We've been delivering things that we couldn't even dream of — any of us, on either side of the House — during the 1990s because the money just wasn't there. During those 10 years British Columbia's debt more than doubled, and we were left, when we became government, paying almost $3 billion a year in interest and carrying charges. Of course, the bankers always get paid first. That's how it works in our homes, and that's how it works for government. You have to pay your carrying charges before you can start paying for health care and education. In spite of that, in health care we've added almost $5 billion a year in funding. We're up to $13.1 billion a year, and that is something to be tremendously proud of.

I always wonder how people across the way, good people, can stand with straight faces and say that the B.C. Liberal government has cut health care, because it is so manifestly not true. When we were in opposition, we promised that if the people of British Columbia elected us as government, we would deliver a new era of hope, prosperity and opportunity. No one could deny that we have done that. We're delivering on it every day, and we'll continue to do so.

Another $855 million of new annual funding in health care was delivered with this budget, increasing, as I said, to $13.1 billion a year from $8.4 billion a year, which was the best that the NDP government ever managed, and they were going in debt to do that.

Thousands of new beds all around the province. If you visit Westside subdivision in my constituency, you'll see one of the beautiful new facilities under construction. The beauty of many of those facilities, like other construction projects that we're doing all around the province, is the beauty of public-private partnerships, which almost seems to be a swear-word to the opposition. Every public-private partnership we're doing in the province is on budget and on time — often ahead of time. That's a wonderful thing to see.

These seniors facilities that are being built often include about as many private living homes as publicly funded homes, but you can't tell the difference. You couldn't tell by visiting any of them who is paying for their own and who's got a government subsidy because they're the very same — high-quality housing for every senior there. Thousands of new beds around the province, as I said.

Education. We're spending at record numbers per student in the K-to-12 system, and every year we're able to increase the amount that we're funding per student.

Sadly, the number of students keeps dropping. That was the one big export during the NDP years: people of child-bearing years — young people graduating from high school and university in the 1990s having to move outside of British Columbia to get a job, start a career, get their start in life and start raising their families.

They're still doing it. There are young British Columbians, expatriates, living all over Alberta, working there and contributing to that economy. They've had to build specialized maternity hospitals in Calgary to accommodate all of the young moms and their babies because that's where the young population moved to in the 1990s.

Since we became government and kept our promise of balancing budgets, we have delivered, year after year, huge new budgetary injections. Lately we've been able to focus on individual groups that everybody really wants to see helped — seniors, children, those in need of better housing.

This is the housing budget, in spite of the way that the opposition derides it — a tremendous injection into British Columbians' pockets, one way or another, across the board for housing. Whether you have been a homeless person — and none of us want to see anyone homeless in British Columbia; whether you're a homeowner; whether you're a senior who's been worried about how you're going to stay in your house because the values are escalating so rapidly in this high-flying economy; or whether you're a person who's hoping to get into your first home, there's help across the board.

I listened to the member for Cariboo South talk about climate change. I felt sad for him and for his party that they were never able to deliver much of anything on the concerns about climate change.

Yes, we mapped out in our throne speech what we're going to do about it. As the opposition knows, university professors and people of renown in the field are saying that they couldn't have written a better plan themselves, and if they could have in their dreams, it might have been something like what the throne speech delivered, although they doubt that they would have thought of all of those things.

The member opposite said how suspicious he is of the TILMA agreement with Alberta. How typical, and how sad. We're creating the second-largest economy in Canada with that agreement. Some 80,000 new jobs are going to come out of it. Other prairie provinces are pleading to get in.

I see the member from across the way giving me a sardonic look about that. When he's done with politics after the next election, there will be more customers for his juice company, by far, because of TILMA. We're growing this economy, and business people like him are going to profit from it whatever their philosophies are.

I can't imagine why the member would be so suspicious of Alberta. Our neighbours are our friends. When we prosper, we prosper together.

The member for Nelson-Creston, a former cabinet minister in the NDP government, said — and his friends, his colleagues, know this — that the NDP doesn't have a clue what to do about climate change and never did. Maybe they should turn to the Green Party to try to figure it out.

We saw in the polls today that the public is listening to that. They know that that's true. There's a 4-percent drop in the NDP vote and a 3-percent rise in the Green Party vote. I see another member frowning, but it's true. It's a poll that came out today. Just like the member for Nelson-Creston, the people of B.C. don't see much hope that the NDP could do much about climate change.

Then, also, the same member — who, for any faults he might have, tends to say a lot of really honest things — said at one point that when he was seeking the NDP leadership, those in the party had promised things that they never intended to do. Frankly, we saw a lot of that. Now we hear a lot of criticism of the government because we're doing things that they would never be capable of doing.

Imagine the member for Cariboo South criticizing the Towns for Tomorrow program. There has never been a program like it.

These small communities around British Columbia with under 5,000 in population miss out on a lot of the big infrastructure programs that come along because they don't have the matching money. Our Premier listened to that need. Those communities spoke to him at the UBCM about that need. Incidentally, we pretty much all attend the UBCM conventions because we think they're pretty important, and we listen to those communities.

People from these small communities — there are 81 incorporated communities with less than 5,000 population in B.C., for the benefit of the members opposite — told him that they have infrastructure needs, but they don't have any matching money. So when the one-third, three-way programs come along, with the feds and the province each putting up a third, they just can't afford to match.

What did the Premier do about that? He delivered a whole new program. He appointed me as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development. He said: "I want as few barriers as possible. What they say is priority is what we're going to treat as priority, and we'll pay 80 percent. They'll only have to come up with 20 percent." There's never been a program like that before in this province. If the people opposite were still government, of course, there wouldn't be one now.

How can the member for Cariboo South criticize that? I wonder if he knows what the project of choice for 100 Mile House is. It's in his constituency. It would be interesting if we could ask him if he knows. I know, and I expect that it's going to be delivered. I talked to the mayor, Donna Barnett, personally. She's got a wonderful project in mind there.

How could that member criticize us for delivering a program like that in his own community? He even mentioned the town of Barriere, which is in my community. When Barriere was struck by wildfires in 2003 and six dozen people's homes burned, many of them without insurance, and the biggest employer in town burned down — 180 of the best-paying jobs in North Thompson Valley — never to be rebuilt, we found out to our sorrow, because the licensee went off to consolidate at one of its surviving mills….

When all of that happened and people were in despair, our Premier did something about it. Our Solicitor General of the day, who is the Minister of Forests now, did something about it. They gave me $5 million. I actually travelled to my constituency office with cheques for $5 million in my briefcase.

We put a million dollars into training through the North Thompson Skills Centre, now called the Community Resource Centre of the North Thompson. They're carefully husbanding that money. They're training people, fulfilling their mandate.

We put $2 million into hardship grants to help those who had losses that weren't insured get back on their feet. We put another $2 million into economic development, and we're still stretching that money. Community groups, all of whom were entrusted with that money, are making very careful decisions.

Now the North Thompson Valley has full employment. Barriere is thriving. Clearwater is thriving. Blue River is thriving. But then, pretty much the whole province is thriving.

We have the government that can respond to these needs and that believes in putting money in local people's hands, whether it's the southern interior development initiative, the north Island development initiative or the northern development initiative, people have money in the accounts.

They have autonomy. They have tons of intelligence. They just never had any money, and whatever they raised was taxed away from them so heavily and they were so overregulated that they had a tough time making any of their good ideas operational. Not anymore. Entrepreneurship has broken free to thrive in British Columbia under this government, and thrive it does.

A little story about seniors housing. A friend of mine came to me. He's on the board of Thrupp Manor in Kamloops. Thrupp was and still is a home for seniors who didn't have very much money — low-income seniors. But the people who moved in who were young seniors enjoy it so much that they have stayed for decades. Now they're getting to be very elderly seniors, and the facility isn't really suitable anymore.

My friend on the board — his name is David Beardsell — told me that they had an opportunity, because a wonderful man who lived on a beautiful farm property in north Kamloops not far from Thrupp Manor had passed away and he'd left in his will that he would like Thrupp Manor or an organization like them to have his land. But he did need to realize some money out of the land for his estate. So we went looking for the money, and we found it. We found it in the Interior Health Authority, who purchased that land and signed a commitment that Thrupp Manor would have as much of it as they need when they're ready to build.

Again, that's the sort of thing that you can do when you're a government that's operating in the black, that balanced its budget years ago and balances it faithfully every year so we get a triple-A credit rating. We're able to take advantage of opportunities like that as they arise.

The people opposite, when they were in government, could never do that. My friend from Cariboo South talked about rural development. Again, if I was him, I'd be embarrassed to talk about that because of the record the NDP had in the '90s.

We committed that we would deliver high-speed Internet broadband service throughout British Columbia, and we've done that. We have brought the pipe or the wireless service to 366 communities in British Columbia that didn't have it before — what an achievement.

The things that people are getting done. I saw a video recently of a first nations Cariboo South individual who makes teepees in the south East Kootenays. He talked on the video and showed us how he uses a computer to order supplies from all around the world and to sell the tents that he makes — teepees — in places like Israel and Jordan, all over the world. A wonderful story, and there are stories like that all over B.C.

I was in the rural development role very briefly, and I miss it already — although I certainly have a rural constituency, so I'll always have a focus on continuing to help those people. But the member for Peace River South has taken up that torch, and he's carrying it on.

The member for Cariboo South also had the temerity to criticize our housing programs. Our Minister for Housing has delivered programs that are going to benefit British Columbians forever. People don't seem to have twigged yet to what a beautiful deal he made with the federal government, who have turned over properties all over British Columbia that belonged to them so that he could apply his genius, his ability and his approaches and turn those into high-density, brand-new housing with the help of private capital. There'll be more public-private partnerships, folks. Whether you think they're a good idea or not, they deliver for British Columbians, and we'll continue to do that.

It always surprises me when the NDP bring up the subject of child care, actually. We had signed an agreement with the federal government. The province and the Paul Martin government had signed a deal which, if it had been maintained, would have delivered another $455 million over the next three years in child care.

The current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to his credit, said in advance what he was going to do. I'm sorry that he decided to do things this way, and I'm sorry that it happened. But he said that he'd be putting $100 per child in the pockets of parents in British Columbia and across Canada. He's delivered on that,

How members opposite could stand up and berate this government for a moment over that, when it was they, under their federal leader, Jack Layton…. Of course, they're all on the same team. They make no bones about that. They work on each other's campaigns. Mr. Layton decided to pull the plug on Mr. Martin. Mr. Harper was elected and did what he promised to do and did not do what Mr. Martin had promised to do and had delivered on, as far as he could, before he was turfed out of office.

But it was the NDP who held the balance of power, it was the NDP who brought Mr. Martin down, and it was the NDP who took that $455 million off the table, as far as I and other British Columbians are concerned. It makes me wonder how the NDP can dare to accuse anyone else with regard to the funding of child care. And $455 million is an awful lot of money. It was planned that it would go a long, long way to provide that service to the British Columbians who need it. You can't fault this Prime Minister for doing what he said he'd do, but people can surely fault the NDP.

The member opposite talked about school closures. What do you do with schools when children aren't showing up at them anymore? What responsible government would keep two schools open when there are only enough students between them for one school?

As I said earlier, in the 1990s the primary export of British Columbia was people, and especially young people. People are now raising their families elsewhere, and we're trying to win them back, but it's not that easy when they put down roots with their young families in another jurisdiction.

When you export young people, you end up with a declining population in your schools. Maybe it would have happened to some extent anyway, but it's happening with a vengeance. It's over 12,000 students that we've lost from the K-to-12 system this year. We desperately want more children in B.C. We only have between 600,000 and 650,000 in the K-to-12 system, and we know we've got more than a million jobs coming vacant over the next ten years.

In the mining sector alone in the next year, we're going to need 11,000 new employees across Canada, many of them right here in B.C. But the NDP exported our kids. Mining is another tremendous success story. I've got to tell you, folks — I don't think it's a secret, although they didn't do it in front of you — that when the mining folks were here on Monday and some members of the NDP told them they felt that the upsurge in the fortunes of mining in British Columbia were only about commodity prices, that made them laugh. That is so wrong. I trust the members opposite know it, and that's just another rhetorical thing.

Folks, there were $265 million spent on mining exploration in British Columbia last year, in 2006 — some 265 million bucks. That is more than a 1,000-percent increase in mining exploration since this government came to power — since 1999, more than a 1,000-percent increase. Anybody in the industry just laughs when somebody from the NDP says that the upsurge is just because of commodity prices.

It's because we listen to them, like we listen to other job creators around the province, and always have first in mind as priority the protection of the environment, good stewardship and safeguarding of the environment, which those industries do as well, by the way. They're no enemies of the environment. They want to be environmentally responsible; they know they have to be. They want to sell to their customers around the world certified products that everyone knows come from companies that practise environmentally friendly ways of doing business.

We listened to them. We got rid of unnecessary rules. We work with them. We work with first nations. Last week we were able to announce that the environmental certificate had been provided to the Galore Creek project, NovaGold's project, way up in northwestern B.C., right near the Alaska panhandle. They're going to spend $1.6 billion building that mine over the next four years and employ a thousand people doing it. Once it's in production, it's going to employ 500 people year after year after year.

The first nations involvement. Right now half the workforce at the Eskay Creek mine are first nations people, and I fully expect that'll be the case at Galore Creek as well. The first nation, the Tahltan, actually helped them choose the haul road that they will use to get their product out. They were so good at helping them choose that the company is only having to build a 4½-kilometre tunnel, which is an incredible feat of engineering, as far as I'm concerned. But they would have had to build a 14-kilometre tunnel under the route they were thinking of before the Tahltan showed them the way. It's 8.1 metres in diameter, this tunnel — a huge construction project.

The Tahltan are involved from start to finish — treated very respectfully by the company, by government, as everyone expects in the new relationship with first nations. By the way, who created that? The current Premier of British Columbia. Not a single treaty was negotiated from start to finish by the NDP in ten years. The one treaty that was signed was initiated before the NDP came to power, but not one treaty concluded.

We have forest and range agreements, economic arrangements and agreements-in-principle all across the province, with a whole lot more to come. Things have never been as good between the first nations and the general population as they are now in British Columbia, and getting better.

The mining industry, like the rest of British Columbia, has gone from no hope — although their hopes were even deeper in the basement than most of ours in the dark decade of the '90s — to brimming with hope and success. Out of the 52 major mining projects that are coming on stream across Canada, that are in the pipeline for approval, 25 are here in B.C. and another eight in the pre-application phase. Galore Creek was the first major announcement of its kind in more than a decade in British Columbia, and I believe there are many more to come.

The member for Cariboo South also talked about roads, and it really surprises me when an NDP member will talk about roads, because in those ten years of the NDP our roads crumbled. They weren't maintained, let alone rehabilitated. There was very little new construction. The mid-Island highway that was completed was soaring over budget. It cost far more than the Coquihalla to build, through much less rugged terrain, and they had to eliminate all the cloverleafs and the roundabouts.

You have traffic lights all the way up the mid-Island highway. It just feels ridiculous. A 100-kilometre speed limit. You get up to it, you get to drive for a few kilometres, and you see flashing amber lights. You have to come to a full stop for a red light on a major four-lane highway. I think there are 14 traffic lights on the way up the Island. No traffic lights on the Coquihalla, but to build it cost, I believe, about two-thirds what the NDP spent on the mid-Island highway. How sad.

Our Minister of Transportation is investing billions and billions of dollars into new transportation infrastructure in British Columbia and rehabilitating what's there. I'm really proud of his accomplishments.

The North Thompson River had an ice jam in early 2005, and then it burst suddenly and broke two bridges up the North Thompson Valley. One of them was a major highway bridge on Highway 5. The other was the bridge over the North Thompson that has to be there in order that the little community of Birch Island can get from one side to the other. That river splits the community, and they were really scared that the bridge wouldn't be built.

I phoned the minister, and the minister got on a plane and flew up to Kamloops. We hopped on a helicopter, and he came up with me and looked at those wrecked bridges. He walked out on the Birch Island Bridge and made a commitment on the spot: "We'll build you a brand-new bridge."

I got a postcard — one of the most heartening pieces of correspondence I've ever had — from all the children of Birch Island holding up signs that spelled out "thank you." They're grateful. We're all grateful, and I think that the members opposite are grateful, too, for the successes of this government.

I was recently in Lytton, listening to the communities from up and down the Fraser River system talking about their plans for the sesquicentennial — how they'll have Celebration 2008. They are going to showcase their culture, what they do in their communities and everything about them — and they're fiercely proud of it — to the thousands of tourists that will come through in the sesquicentennial and for years and years thereafter.

We have lots to be excited about in British Columbia. We're really excited about 2010. We're really excited about the sesquicentennial. Those are events, but the things that we have managed to accomplish in British Columbia — the prosperity we're enjoying, the future we have — is there forever for the folks opposite, for us, for our children, our grandchildren, and we should celebrate. We should celebrate every day.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the throne speech debate and to follow my colleague across the way from Kamloops–North Thompson. I congratulate him on his appointment to Secretary of State for Mining. I know that he'll bring enthusiasm to that post.

However, having listened to his remarks, I feel compelled to address a number of his points. I think that if he's to be successful in that post, he needs to get some facts straight and get a better understanding, perhaps, of economics than he seemed to display in his comments.

Before my remarks, I also want to comment that I'm really fascinated, because there's been a trend in this throne speech debate that when a New Democrat MLA gets up…. Then there's clearly been a targeted MLA to get up and pick apart that speech and to pick apart that individual. So I can hardly wait to find out which Liberal MLA has been tagged with the responsibility to pick apart my remarks.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I see enthusiasm over in the corner. I see enthusiasm. I can hardly wait.

Anyway, where to begin about this throne speech? I mean, I want to address the remarks of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, but I also want to address the issues that are important to my constituents.

I know that the member will be leaving momentarily, and I can see that he has that eager look in his eye that he has a meeting to go to. But I will just point out a couple of facts. He has been going on about how his government and the Premier are the ones who have delivered this prosperity. Well, guess what? It is not this government that has delivered this prosperity. China and India and global commodity prices are what have delivered prosperity, not just here but right across the country and indeed much of the world.

He talks about the mining industry. Well, guess what? Metal prices today are at record highs because of demand from overseas nations, industrializing nations. We produce those metals.

What drives exploration and pulling metals out of ground? It's the price. There's a huge difference between who will go look for a pound of copper when it's 65 cents a pound as opposed to $3 a pound. When it's $3 a pound, everybody is looking for it. They're looking for it here and in Peru, Chile, South Africa, Angola, Congo and a hundred other countries around the world. That's what's driving mining exploration, not the wishful thinking of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

I'm going to come back to talk more about this in my comments relating to my constituency, but he talks about: "Oh, my God, schools are having to close because they're declining, because six years ago the NDP was in power and chased everybody away. Now all those families are having kids, and they're having kids in Alberta because the bad NDP…. That's why we're having to close schools."

What a load of nonsense. I'd like to remind the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that they've been in

You know, the fact is that this government has been shortchanging school districts. They have been putting school districts in a bind on a whole host of issues. One of them is seismic, which I will be talking about in a few minutes.

What else does the hon. Minister of State for Mining comment on that I just can't help but feel I need to comment on? Climate change. Oh, my God, we've heard from Liberal MLA after Liberal MLA during this throne speech: "The NDP did nothing about climate change."

Well, you know what? We did deal with climate change. We started to deal with climate change.

M. Farnworth: Started to. We started to. Ah, the member for Vancouver-Burrard says "started to." Did we get to finish it? No. Was there a lot more that we could have done? Absolutely. But guess what? We started; we started. [Applause.]

I'm glad to hear you applaud, hon. Member, because maybe you'll applaud for this next statement. For the entire ten years they were in opposition, they never asked one question in this House on climate change — not one question, not in this chamber and not in the estimates debate. All of a sudden they seem to have discovered religion, and they want to blame everybody else's record for not having done enough.

We at least started. We at least started the process. They never asked one single question.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and the Minister of Housing is heckling. Did he get up and ask a question about climate change in his entire time in opposition? Not once. Not one member asked a single question on climate change. Some hypocrisy.

Anyway, what else? Oh, I know. I'd like to remind the member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. He's going: "Oh, we have to pay our carrying charges. The banks make us pay our carrying charges." Didn't he ever see those commercials where the banks said to pay yourself first? I would like to remind him of that. He seems to have forgotten about that.

I do this every budget speech because it's important to remind the members opposite. They like to go on about — oh, my God — the '90s. You know what? For my constituents, the '90s were pretty good. My riding in 1991 had a population of 51,000 people. In 1996 it had a population of 85,000 people. Dramatic growth and increase, and that has continued to this day.

When I represented Port Coquitlam on the government side, we built schools, and we didn't see schools close as we see now. We built roads, and we built transit systems. We put in place West Coast Express commuter rail, which had been sorely lacking.

In this budget, for my constituents in Port Coquitlam, there's nothing for rapid transit. There's nothing for rapid transit to the Tri-Cities. There has been some talk about the Evergreen line — we'll do that now as a P3 — but there's no guarantee of any funding. There's no money in this budget for that. There's no money for rapid transit for the Tri-Cities, and that's a priority for my constituents. If you want to talk about practical ways to deal with climate change, that's one of them, and that's not in this budget. I think that's a shame.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson said that he didn't want just railing against the budget. He wanted constructive solutions. Well, this is a constructive solution. The fact is we need to have more rapid transit in British Columbia, and a rapid transit line to the Tri-Cities is crucial. We are one of the fastest-growing areas of the province. We're an area of the province that's intended to take the bulk of the population growth or a significant amount of population growth in the lower mainland, and we need rapid transit to do that. It's important that the funding is there. It's not in this budget, and that's a shame.

I mentioned seismic upgrading. Again in this budget there's no increase in the funding for seismic. Instead what we've seen over this government's seismic program is that what was originally supposed to be accomplished in ten years, this government said: "No, no, no. We'll do it in 15 years."

Yet we have seen rapidly rising construction costs. The number of schools that we are able to do has declined, and this is putting huge pressure on school boards. The rising cost of replacement means that for many school boards, what happens is that where a school could be seismically upgraded, it now needs to be fully replaced — or capital replacement, which means it gets shifted out of the seismic allotment and into the regular capital projects. It languishes there, and it doesn't get built.

So school boards are forced to make decisions such as the closing of Lincoln Elementary School, which I think is a real tragedy. It is a real tragedy because that school should have been seismically upgraded. It is this government's responsibility to fund the capital construction costs of schools in this province. It is this government's responsibility to fund seismic upgrading. It is this government's responsibility to fund replacement costs. It is this government's responsibility to fund the capital construction of schools in this province.

That is not happening. The closure of Lincoln Elementary School is a tragedy, and the reasons for that can be laid right at the feet of this government. It is something that is just unacceptable to my constituents.

The hon. member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about roads. "Roads crumbling," he said. "Roads crumbling during the '90s." Well, I'm thinking back to some of the road projects that were done during my tenure as MLA in Port Coquitlam, and you know what? I drive over the Red Bridge, which was replaced by a government that recognized that local priorities were important, and we built that Red Bridge. We widened the Mary Hill bypass, we put in the counterflow

lanes on the Mary Hill bypass, and we did a lot of highway improvements in my riding — the Johnson-Mariner overpass. All those things have contributed to the quality of life.

Now we need to focus on roads in our area, and I'm happy to see the bridge that many of us have fought for, for so long over the Pitt River. The permanent replacement is going ahead. But my constituents have concerns. They're hearing rumours that, in fact, the government intends to toll that. They intend to toll the Pitt River Bridge. Well, I'm here to tell them on behalf of my constituents that they must not toll the Pitt River Bridge. It wasn't planned that way, and they don't agree, if this government has any plans to toll the Pitt River Bridge. I'm getting that on the record now.

What's important is that this budget impacts my constituents in all sorts of ways. I've mentioned lack of rapid transit, which is crucial, and the issues around seismic upgrading. I've mentioned Lincoln Elementary School, but there are other schools that need to be seismically upgraded. This government needs to recognize they have to be replaced or have to be upgraded, and that work needs to happen now, not 15 years from now. It needs to happen today, and it needs to happen over a much shorter time frame than 15 years. The ten-year program was a doable one; 15 years is too long.

Schools such as Minnekhada Middle School need to be seismically upgraded. Burke Mountain elementary needs to be built. Centennial Secondary is another one that needs to be seismically upgraded. This government needs to recognize the issues around seismic and how important it is that we get that work done.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. I really did enjoy listening to his speech. It's just that it was full of so many factual errors that I felt compelled to respond.

I see the member from across the way, Saanich North and the Islands, is laughing, but it's true. I mean, to listen to some of that nonsense…. For six years school enrolments declining because people have left…. You guys have been in power for six years, you know. It's your responsibility now. You have to be accountable.

I know you don't like it, but you have to be accountable, and it's about time the government and the government side of the House started recognizing that. After six years they have to start taking responsibility. They have to start taking responsibility for the increasing rate of homelessness in this province. They have to take responsibility for having the highest child poverty rate in this country.

They have to recognize that their housing strategy is not working. It's a strategy, if that's what you can call it, that seems to focus on rent supplements. Rent supplements have their place, but they are not a housing strategy. We need to see the building and construction of social housing units in this province, affordable housing units, and we have not seen it. They like to say they spend more money now than ever before, but the fact is that the number of units being built has dropped significantly. In fact, they're not being built.

We need to recognize that new approaches are needed in a number of ways in which we tackle many issues. We do have to try new approaches in dealing with homelessness and housing. But you know what? We also have to stick with what has worked. Building affordable housing units works and has worked in our communities for decades. As we approach 2010, if this government doesn't start to take action, the problem will only get worse.

They say that a tax cut is a housing strategy. No, a tax cut is not a housing strategy. A tax cut puts money back into people's pockets, and they'll decide where they want to spend it. But it's not a housing strategy, and to say that it is, is wrong. For too many people, housing affordability or trying to find a place to live is getting beyond their means. This government does not have a real, practical response to dealing with the problem. There has been a lot of talk but no action — no real, concrete action.

The issue of climate change has come up, and I said that this government in their entire time in opposition never once asked a question on climate change. But there are other issues around the environment that are important. For example, in my own constituency the state of rivers such as the Coquitlam River is of concern to many.

Streamkeeper groups in my community that work on Scott Creek, Hyde Creek, Hoy Creek and Maple Creek need to see money for fish habitat protection. They need to know that the Coquitlam River is going to continue to be rehabilitated and that we continue the progress that was started in the 1990s when we brought forward the first stream flow agreement on the Coquitlam River. We need to continue that work.

We need to look at finding ways of bringing back the sockeye salmon into the Coquitlam River. It would be nice if there was funding in the budget for initiatives such as that. That's a concern to many in my constituency.

We also need to change our approach, and one of the things that troubles me is that this government says it wants a new approach to things. We need to think outside the box, yet too often they want to stay with issues that are tried. They don't want to be imaginative.

As I said, in this budget we've got the new bridge being built. Last night there was a rally by people concerned about saving the Wild Duck Inn. The Minister of Transportation recently acquired the property so that the new bridge can be built. People are saying that's great. They think it's wonderful, but they also want to know: why can't the government let the owner move the old hotel and protect part of our heritage?

People such as Karon Fuson, Wendy Sankey and members of the Port Coquitlam Heritage Society have been working really hard along with the owner to allow this building to be moved. It would be nice if in their budget talk and in all the budget presentation about new ways of doing things, when it came to implementing those things, they actually did something. You know, work with people in the local community. I think that's important.

Another area where people are concerned about this budget and want to see changes is around law and order, public safety. I know this government has been trumpeting in this budget that there is more money for guards, for prisons. They're saying this is a great thing they're doing, and I'm pleased that allocation is there. Unfortunately, their actions are only making up for cuts that happened before then, for the stress that they put prison guards under before then by doing things such as double-bunking and closing prisons. So I'm not sure the actions of this government are going to make my community or other communities that much safer.

That's something we'll be exploring further in estimates. In terms of this budget, I have serious concerns about this government's ability to ensure that public safety is indeed a priority or receives the attention it deserves. In my debate in estimates, I will have more to say on what other policies I think the government needs to be taking in this area. But certainly when it comes to on the ground, I have a lot of concerns and a lot of questions that need to be answered.

The issue of health care, again, is of central concern to my constituents, and again we see members opposite going: "Oh, we're spending more money than ever before." Well, that's not rocket science. You know, that's just inflation. That's not even keeping up with the pressures on the system. Every year the budget is more than it was last year, so to say that we're spending more money now than we were ten years ago…. Well, so what?

The question is results. This government has been failing my constituents in that area, and I don't hold much hope that in this budget those issues are in fact going to be addressed — issues around rising drug prices and skyrocketing drug costs, wait-lists and, of course, seniors long-term care beds. Assisted-living beds, despite what this government likes to say, are not seniors long-term care beds. They are something completely different. Unfortunately, this government seems intent on trying to tell the public that they're not — that they're the same — when in fact they are very, very different.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds says that they don't understand. I think that's part of it. I do think that's part of it.

So whether it's wait-lists, whether it's the closing of beds or whether it's the rising of health care costs — drug costs, waiting lists, all those things — this government is failing my constituents on a daily basis.

The government says it does its financial plans in a businesslike manner. In my constituency of Port Coquitlam they closed a downtown liquor store — not a big liquor store, a small liquor store. Despite the protests and the signatures of over 4,000 people, they ignored the wishes of my constituents and closed it.

The minister responded to those concerns by saying that yes, he recognizes there may be some inconvenience, but there is a business plan. Well, no one has ever seen this business plan. The fact of the matter is that they built a new liquor store, and that's great because it's in a good location. It's in the right location.

What they forgot is that in closing that liquor store, they made it very inconvenient for hundreds and hundreds of seniors in downtown Port Coquitlam. They made it very inconvenient at a time when there's a lot of apartment construction taking place, when the only way to get to the new liquor store is to go through a one-lane-each-way underpass, under train tracks, across a major highway. That underpass is choked from two in the afternoon to well past seven at night.

This government talks about wanting to reduce carbon imprints to deal with climate change. What they've done is forced people who would normally have walked — many of them seniors who don't want to drive; many of them young families who could just amble, have a pleasant stroll into downtown Port Coquitlam…. They now have to drive. They have to get in their car, they have to put more smog in the atmosphere, they have to go out of their way, and they have to inconvenience people.

That's not a government listening to people. That's not a government that seems to want to be in touch with what people are saying government should be doing, which is listening to people's needs. No, hon. Speaker, that's just the same tired old thinking, and it's that tired old thinking that we see in this budget. That's what I find disturbing.

The final points I want to make are that this budget fails to deal with the bottom-line priorities of my constituents when it comes to infrastructure, whether it's education in terms of schools…. It fails to deal with the health care infrastructure that's required in terms of long-term care facilities and beds in my riding of Port Coquitlam. It fails to deal with the transportation needs such as rapid transit, which is crucial. It fails to deal with issues of homelessness and affordable housing. It fails to deal with all those things.

That's a shame, hon. Speaker, because at a time of prosperity — not just here in British Columbia but right across this country and most of the industrialized world — and at a time of record surpluses caused by commodity prices that are at record highs, we have the ability to deal with some of these issues. It's a shame that this budget doesn't do that.

That is why I am speaking against this budget, and that is why, when it's time to vote, I will be voting against this budget.

A. Horning: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Kelowna–Lake Country in support of our government's budget. Budget 2007 is not just a good-news budget. It is great news for Kelowna–Lake Country and for all of British Columbia.

The budget continues the commitment our government made to the people of our province in the New Era document. This budget is the next step on the economic road to the golden decade we promised British Columbians.

Our government has been consistent and clear in its goals, and once again we have delivered.

I believe that Budget 2007 will be viewed as a historic document. It is compassionate. It is caring. It has considered the needs of all British Columbians. It has addressed what the people have been telling us. We have listened, and we have responded. Above all, it's a responsible budget. It's a balanced budget, and it is one that is sustainable and will leave a legacy for future generations.

Because of our government's fiscal responsibility, B.C. has one of the lowest taxpayer-supported debt ratios in Canada. As a result, we have earned the distinction of being rewarded with a triple-A credit rating, which means millions of dollars in savings to our citizens. With these savings, it means we can invest even more money in important social programs to better the lives of all British Columbians.

By all accounts, the vast majority of the feedback has been positive, and there is a good reason for that — the Finance Committee. The dedicated staff have travelled to every corner of B.C. to listen to local concerns. The process was open, extensive and transparent. The citizens told us what their priorities were. The people themselves provided the process. For this, I would like to thank those individuals who took the time and effort to help us design Budget 2007.

This budget is not just historic for its far-reaching benefits for every British Columbian; it is historic for the dramatic collaborative process that created it. Before our government came to power, the political landscape was polarized and confrontational. Now it is positive and cooperative. On behalf of this House and every British Columbian, I want to recognize the Finance Minister for her vision, dedication and enormous effort.

Kelowna–Lake Country has much in common with the other 78 ridings in our province. It also has much to make it unique. My riding consists of half the city of Kelowna and the district municipality of Lake Country.

Kelowna is one of the most dramatic cities in B.C. and in all of Canada. This city's population has more than doubled in the past 30 years, and today it stands at 110,000. The rate of growth is almost three times the provincial average.

The population of the Central Okanagan increased dramatically, as well, in the early 1990s. This increase created intensive demands for a review and upgrade of infrastructure. The population of Central Okanagan regional district now stands at 167,000. The rate of population growth over the past ten years is more than 8 percent.

Much of the area's appeal relates to exceptional scenery, moderate climate and lifestyle. It offers the lifestyle of a smaller community with the amenities of a large urban centre.

A few short years ago Kelowna General Hospital adequately served the needs of the community. Today KGH has been transformed into a regional hospital, serving as the Central Okanagan's primary acute care facility. It is also one of the two Interior Health referral hospitals in the region and offers high-level specialty medical care. The cancer centre for the southern interior is a centre for cancer research, education, prevention, diagnosis and treatment. It too is located in Kelowna.

The Interior Health Authority is responsible for the largest geographical area in B.C. extending from Williams Lake to the U.S. border, from Anahim Lake to the Chilcotin to the Alberta border. Within this area there are three health regions governed by regional boards: the Okanagan-Similkameen, Thompson, North Okanagan, and Cariboo East and Central Kootenay. The head office of the Interior Health Authority is in Kelowna.

This huge increase in population has also provided a challenge to our transportation system. Kelowna International Airport is located only 15 kilometres from downtown Kelowna. The airport offers a full range of services, including international arrival facilities.

Competitive air service is key to success in the global marketplace, and Kelowna International Airport provides a link to the economic prosperity of the entire region. In fact, Kelowna International is now responsible for generating $265 million of local economic activity annually, sustaining almost 2,000 full-time jobs.

Kelowna International is the 11th-busiest airport in Canada. Our government has proudly partnered with the city and airport to provide an important part of the region's transportation link to the outside world, and we've lengthened the runway to 9,000 feet to accommodate flights from anywhere in the world.

Another important transportation link is our extensive highway system, with Highways 97 and 33 providing the main routes both north and south, east and west. Our government has worked hard with our federal counterparts to plan upgrades for these routes. With the opening of the Okanagan connector, the fastest route to the lower mainland from the north part of our riding is the Okanagan Lake Bridge. The existing bridge is being replaced by the new William R. Bennett bridge, a $144 million project which will open in 2008. The new bridge will relieve one of the most congested bottlenecks in the interior and make a safer, more efficient route for all traffic.

We are clearly experiencing an extended boom cycle. While these economic and social conditions provide benefits, they also present challenges. Meeting these challenges requires cooperation and leadership. To this end, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Kelowna-Mission for her cooperation and commitment to making Kelowna the success story that it is. I have to say that my colleague from Kelowna-Mission is resting in hospital in Kelowna as we speak. Hopefully, things will turn out well for her.

I also want to extend my appreciation to Mayor Sharon Shepherd and her council for their effort and dedication to making our community a great place to live, work and enjoy. We have much to be thankful for, and I thank them for their part in making it happen.

While Kelowna celebrated a centennial year, Lake Country didn't even exist over a decade ago. The district of Lake Country lies north of Kelowna and was

incorporated in 1995. It is made up of four distinct neighbourhood communities: Oyama, Winfield, Carr's Landing and Okanagan Central.

Shortly after incorporation a referendum was held, where the residents decided they wished to maintain their distinct neighbourhood identities. That desire to maintain their independence resulted in the formation of the only municipality in British Columbia that currently utilizes the neighbourhood constituency system. This allows each of the four communities to elect one councillor, while the mayor and two councillors-at-large are elected by the residents of the whole district.

Today almost 11,000 residents live in Lake Country. Just like Kelowna, this population will certainly double in the near future, and just like their counterparts in Kelowna, the citizens of Lake Country have enjoyed the benefits of and experience the challenge of a booming economy.

This would not have been possible without the leadership of Mayor James Baker and his unique council. Thank you to them. It's been a pleasure to work with you to ensure that Lake Country continues to prosper and meet the challenges that lie ahead.

The prosperity enjoyed in my riding is a similar story throughout the province. In fact, the economy has never been better. Because of the course that our government set over the past several years, B.C. has emerged as Canada's leading economy. Our economy is robust and sound. We are enjoying historical low unemployment rates, and a strong economy allows us to sustain and improve important programs and social services.

However, a strong economy creates such challenges as affordable housing and labour shortages. The residents in my riding fully support the fact that Budget 2007 is dedicated to housing, and so do I. There is no greater need than housing. Everyone shares a desire to have a decent place to live and to provide an affordable shelter for their families — in short, to have a place to call home, a place to call their own.

As I stated earlier, Kelowna-Lake Country's economic boom has outpaced much of the rest of the province. We continue to be one of the fastest-growing regions in B.C. and in Canada. Housing prices have soared, making our region one of the hottest real estate markets in the nation. In fact, in the latest industry report the Greater Kelowna area had the second-highest average house price in Canada.

For some, that might be a windfall. However, for many working families, this has created a housing crunch. They are getting squeezed out of the market. The dream of home-ownership is fading. I am pleased that Budget 2007 has focused on the hardship of affordability. It delivers a comprehensive range of new supports for British Columbians to help address the housing challenges created by a growing economy.

Budget 2007 provides support for everyone from the homeless to the homeowner. This support totals $2 billion over the next four years. Our government's budget makes the major step towards ensuring every British Columbian has access to a safe, affordable place to call home.

As a result of our government's sound fiscal management, we will enjoy significant surplus. Even though times are good today, we should never lose sight of the future. That's why it is wise to put some money aside so there won't be a rainy day for our children.

To that end, the budget has set aside $250 million to establish a new housing endowment fund. While preserving the principal, the fund will generate $10 million annually to encourage new ideas in housing for seniors, the mentally disabled and those with addictions.

This legacy will help individual families with diverse housing needs that currently are not served through existing programs and services. The fund will be administered by the Housing Ministry, and I encourage those interested in Kelowna–Lake Country to contact the constituency office for application information.

Just as elsewhere, homelessness has taken root in my riding. No one wishes to see people living on the street. Our government recognizes this and has addressed it in the budget. To ensure homeless individuals have a safe, warm place to sleep, the number of year-round shelter beds will increase by almost 30 percent. In addition, $38 million will be set aside for housing and support services for people who are homeless or at the risk of being homeless. The funding will support several projects in communities right across the province, including those in Kelowna–Lake Country.

Budget 2007 also recognizes the important role that transition houses play in society. They provide safety and support temporary accommodation for women and their children fleeing domestic violence. To this end, $6 million of funding will be provided over the next three years for around-the-clock staffing in transition houses when they need it. This money will increase the safety of women and children and provide additional crisis assistance and support.

The role of government is to assist those truly in need of a helping hand. Our budget addresses the fact that income assistance is there to help the disadvantaged in society. Effective March 28 we will increase the shelter allowance by $50 a month for people on income assistance. This is the first increase in the shelter rate since 1992. B.C. now has the highest shelter rate in Canada for employable singles, couples and single-parent families. This budget also increases income assistance rates for employable singles and single parents by 20 percent. This is the first increase since 1994.

We should never forget that the best support for families is a strong economy. We've created 356,000 jobs and have 4.3-percent unemployment. We have moved people off welfare to work, and those families are earning more to support their children. Since 2001 there are 52,000 fewer children on welfare. In 1995 one in seven children had parents on welfare; today it's one in 30. We have consistently stated that B.C. needs a strong economy to afford strong social programs.

The housing crunch also hits some renters hard. Our government is aware that there are low-income

working families struggling to make ends meet. The rental assistance program will expand so that more lower-income working families will qualify for benefits. Budget 2007 raises the income threshold to $28,000. This means 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.

We also must ensure that there is enough supportive housing and sufficient diversity to meet the needs of B.C.'s aging population. Our budget provides $45 million over four years to convert 750 social housing units for supportive housing. These upgrades will make them more accessible for seniors and others with special housing needs.

The new reality of our strong economy is that the results are soaring property values. The higher values make home-ownership a challenge for many people. As I've stated before, people in my riding face some of the highest housing costs in the country, so I'm particularly pleased to see the budget has enhanced the first-time homebuyers program. This program will now exempt first-time homebuyers across British Columbia from paying the property transfer tax on homes valued at $375,000.

In my riding this will promote home-ownership and result in huge savings. In Kelowna–Lake Country the threshold has been raised by $110,000 to accurately reflect the reality of a new economy. These measures will save first-time buyers up to $5,500. This is money that will stay in the pockets of taxpayers to spend as they wish, further stimulating the economy.

Other initiatives to assist homeowners include the raising of the homeowner grant threshold to $950,000. This will allow more than 95 percent of homeowners to be eligible for the full grant. Low-income seniors, veterans and persons with disabilities will now be eligible for the homeowner grant regardless of their homes' assessed value.

Our government will also introduce legislation to allow people to start deferring their property taxes at age 55 rather than age 60. This provides added budget flexibility for those on fixed incomes.

Although this budget is dedicated to housing, it is also comprehensive. Our government believes in lessening the burden on taxpayers. Therefore, we will cut personal income taxes by 10 percent for British Columbians on the first $100,000 of income. This personal income tax reduction builds on the 25-percent tax cut introduced in 2001. As a result, 250,000 individuals now pay no provincial income tax, and others have seen reductions of up to 70 percent. Most taxpayers have seen reductions of between 30 and 35 percent.

Now here's an example of our tax cut. A family of four with both parents working, earning a combined $70,000, will now save $1,800 a year compared to 2001. The tax relief will help everyone in British Columbia with their housing costs. With the 10-percent tax cut, B.C. will have the lowest personal income tax burden in Canada for individuals earning up to $108,000 a year. While putting more money directly in the pockets of every taxpayer, the cuts provide a far more reaching benefit for our province.

One of the main challenges of a booming economy is a need for good, dependable labour. By having the lowest personal income tax in Canada, we are able to attract the skilled, qualified workers needed to fill increasing job vacancies. Businesses in Kelowna–Lake Country are begging for workers. The most common words one sees through my riding are "help wanted." Almost every employer needs help.

Small companies, institutions, big corporations and farmers all need workers. That's why I was pleased to hear the throne speech address this issue with the expanded commitment to the provincial nominee programs. The PNP will substantially expand, and new efforts will be made to expedite entry for temporary workers in skill-shortage areas.

Although our government has embarked on the largest post-secondary and apprentice expansion in 40 years, we still need to attract more workers. This has never been more so than for my agricultural industry. As farming techniques evolve in an ever-increasing competitive world, agriculture needs to embrace innovation and attract skilled workers.

Agriculture continues to play an important role in the economy of our community. This fact is confirmed in Budget 2007 with the commitment of $51 million for the safety net programs for farmers. This new funding will go towards CAIS, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, a joint federal-provincial initiative to assist farmers during hard times. The funding will extend the program for another three years. In addition, the budget provides for 20 full-time-equivalent staff to increase extended services in ministry offices in rural areas.

In addition, we have embarked on the school fruit and vegetable snack program. This program, to encourage healthy eating among students, will be in 50 schools this year and will be available for every public school by 2010. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and his staff on behalf of all farmers in our province.

Since elected, I've also had the pleasure of working closely with the leaders and members of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association under the direction of president Joe Sardinha and vice-president Peter Calissi. I look forward to the continued and fruitful relationship to ensure the industry remains viable well into the future.

Another challenge facing my community is a result of the population boom. An aging demographic is a strain placed on our health care system. Budget 2007 reconfirms our government's commitment to health care and provides $2.69 billion over three years in increased funding. This is in addition to $987 million previously allocated, for a total funding increase of $3.68 billion.

In an effort to meet future challenges, our government has created the $100 million health innovation fund, which will promote innovation within the health care system. The fund will assist health authorities in implementing best practices, restructuring service delivery systems and eliminating key information bottlenecks.

Our government has listened to people since elected in 2001, and it has increased health care spending by more than 50 percent since being elected. We are continuing to listen. A Conversation on Health recently held a very successful two-day workshop in Kelowna. The residents responded, the stakeholders participated, and at the end of the day it was a positive step in shaping the future of our health care system. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health for his vision and dedication in creating the best health care system in Canada.

I want to also thank the Premier for taking the time out of his busy schedule to personally come to Kelowna last week to announce the anticipated expansion of our regional hospital. The new ambulatory care centre will go to tender this spring, with construction commencing at the end of this year or early next year.

The four-storey building will offer three large operating rooms, renal dialysis and space for medical students at the new medical school. The parkade will provide 200 stalls and a heliport on the roof. When completed in 2010, the expansion will double the size of the emergency room. In addition, six operating rooms are also part of the plan. This will ensure that the interior will receive the quality health care that the residents deserve.

As we move forward to completion, I look forward to continuing the positive relationship that I have with Alan Dolman, the chairman of the Interior Health Authority, and with the CEO Murray Ramsden and his hard-working staff.

I want to assure the citizens of Kelowna–Lake Country that our economy remains strong. The future of our riding and the province remains positive. It is supported by positive consumer and business confidence, high levels of residential and non-residential construction, and a low unemployment rate.

Economic growth is forecast to be 3.1 percent in 2007, with a similar trend through to 2011. Total revenue is forecast at $38 billion for 2006-07. Healthy growth is forecast over the next few years. Total government expense is expected to increase at an average of 2.8 percent annually over the next three years.

We will continue our dedication and direction to create balanced budgets. To ensure debt remains affordable for future generations of British Columbia, our government remains committed to ensure that debt does not grow faster than the economy.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse Budget 2007 and support our government's sound management of the B.C. economy. I will continue to listen to the concerns of our fellow citizens and the move forward to an even more prosperous future. Together we can build the best that British Columbia can be.

K. Conroy: It is indeed an honour to once again respond to the budget as the MLA for West Kootenay–Boundary. It is getting close to the midterm of my mandate as the MLA, and to say that the learning curve hasn't been steep, frustrating and rewarding would be an understatement.

First, I want to take the opportunity to thank the staff who work in my constituency office in Castlegar. Elaine Whitehead and Edena Brown are an amazing team who keep things running smoothly back at home. Also, thanks go to the many people we work with here in Victoria. Your dedication and support is much appreciated.

In dealing with the broad spectrum of issues representing the constituents of my constituency and as the critic for Seniors Health, a common thread keeps revealing itself again and again. It's become woven into the fabric of our society, in some areas more quickly than others, but all too soon it will blanket the province. After listening to the throne speech and then the budget, I am more convinced than ever that the current government will not be happy until we are all living in a privatized society.

Health care is being starved to death. The government gives lip service in the throne speech and then in the budget puts forth phantom numbers, breaking their own laws by not ensuring a budget for the health authorities. They then blame it on the authorities themselves without taking responsibility for the fact that it is this government's policies that have caused the havoc in this province.

When this government was elected, they promised a new era of health care management and appointed senior business people to the new regional health boards that were accountable, not to the people, not to patients, but to government itself. Five years later and those very business people who we were told would make the system run better are quitting. They are quitting because they, like so many British Columbians, don't believe that the government has its priorities right when it comes to public health care. They are quitting because they don't want to continue to be part of the government's misguided experiment with our hospitals and our health care system. They know the value of a sustainable public health care system and won't be part of a regime that doesn't believe in it.

We see chaos in emergency rooms, doctors pleading for help and seniors still not getting the long-term care beds promised over five years ago. But we also see the slim edge of the wedge: the intrusive, exclusive services of private health care for those with money to pay; the patients who can access services and jump the queue with only a swipe of their credit card; those British Columbians who have told us that they have to wait for months for services, and then the same clinic calls and says for a fee they can get taken care of in a matter of days.

That is morally wrong and against the law. Both the Canada Health Act and the B.C. Medicare Protection Act prohibit charges for medically necessary hospital and physician services — something that this government seems to ignore. You can't convince people of the value of private health care when the public system is working. The United States, a system that this government seems to want to emulate, spends $5 for every $3 that we spend in Canada on health, yet 46 million Americans have absolutely no health coverage.

What did we get in the budget? We got a fund for innovation — not ongoing operating funding and not

the long-term care beds so desperately needed. We get funding for innovation. Administrators all over the province are struggling to provide desperately needed health care services, and now they need to write proposals for a share of a fund that is not sustaining itself. What hypocrisy. Instead of having the courage to ensure that there's funding where it's needed in the health care system, we have a make-work project that takes energy away from the system.

We have heard many promises from this government, and how many of them have they actually kept? The promise of high-quality health care for patients where they live and when they need it: the results are 1,279 acute care hospital beds closed, eight hospitals and ten emergency departments closed and another 50 hospitals downsized.

People in my constituency are still suffering from the closures in our region: being taken to Kelowna and then sent back home, as there were no beds. Beds were available when they were originally sent and then, in the space of three hours, no beds. These are people who are in pain, ill and needing access to a higher level of care than could be provided in our regional hospital in Trail.

What did we get in the budget? Well, I'm going to have to disagree with the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. The new tower gives absolutely no guarantee of new beds. It's a fancy new building with no enhanced capacity. What good does that do for the people of my constituency or the entire health authority region? And the province: a promise of 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006, which was, I want to remind the House, a promise of 5,000 publicly funded long-term care beds in 2001 to the now mix of intermediate and long-term and not, as we are seeing across the province, publicly funded beds. But instead, 54 residential care facilities were closed, and the number of long-term care beds was reduced by 2,529 — over 10 percent of the provincial total.

Remember the promise? Better home support and home care services? Instead, there were major cuts to home care services for seniors. The results have been dramatic across the province. Seniors are paying higher and higher fees for nursing home care. Couples are being forced to separate after years of living together, oftentimes being forced to move away from their communities and live in isolation away from loved ones. This government says the number of seniors separated is down; however, I would suggest that the number should be zero. Ask how many of those seniors have actually passed away before they could spend their final days together.

It's been a year since the tragic death of Fanny Albo and then ten days later the consequent death of her husband Alfie. It's been a year, and I did not hear in either the throne speech or the budget of the funds to implement recommendations to ensure this tragic situation does not happen again. A year later and in our region there's not, as recommended, a robust palliative care system in place. Seniors are still struggling to access home support, and families are still dealing with moving loved ones out of their home communities, as there aren't enough beds.

Another recommendation that hasn't been followed through on was the one to listen to and work with the community. A regional committee was formed and put together an excellent proposal for meeting many of the needs recommended in the reports completed in response to the Albo situation. Did the Interior Health Authority respond in a respectful manner to this proposal? No. In fact, not only did they discount the suggestions presented, they also had a response formulated before even meeting with the group to discuss the proposal.

The authority put out speaking notes to the local mayor on how to deal with the public's reaction when their decision to dismiss the proposal was announced three days later. This disdain shown to the community is unconscionable — done with this government's support as they endeavour to close publicly operated seniors facilities across the province.

The cutting of the number of long-term care beds means more seniors continue to have to stay longer in inappropriate acute care hospital beds. The alternate level of care number — known as ALC, which means the seniors actually waiting for placement in a long-term care bed — in our region, in our regional hospital, averages from 10 to 15 people on a daily basis. It's higher across the province in other facilities, and it continues to grow. There are still not enough long-term care beds, and new beds are not projected to come on stream for at least another year in our region alone.

There has been no dedicated increase to provide the palliative care at specific facilities. Our communities have been let down with this budget, and a tax cut will not provide the funds to ensure health care for the citizens of West Kootenay–Boundary.

I could go on more about the health care situation, but I need to address some of the other areas neglected by this government's budget. I want to point out that stats released today show that, in fact, B.C. has the highest proportion of seniors living in poverty, at 19.6 percent. That's unacceptable in a province with over $2 billion surplus.

The throne speech also posed the following question: what can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren? However, the speech goes on to mention only early learning programs for preschoolers through the opening of StrongStart centres in empty schools. While a good concept, it should be part of a comprehensive system of early childhood education and not the only service. The StrongStart programs do not address the issues raised by this government's cuts to child care funding.

Let's be clear. This government cut child care funding in 2003 and then backfilled their own cuts with federal dollars. This government had child care resource and referral programs go out and upgrade their facilities, become storefront operations, hire more staff, lease vans, photocopiers and other expensive equipment, knowing full well that the federal dollars would be cut. What kind of management is that of taxpayers' dollars?

And still, to date, we have no assurance for the programs across the province that this government will cover the costs associated with the upgrades to these programs on an ongoing basis. Non-profit societies who are struggling to make ends meet are suddenly faced with the closure to a program that has been doing just fine, thank you, until this government and this Minister of State for Childcare told them to expand.

The programs and the people in my constituency are devastated — over a thousand signatures on a petition collected in a few days; municipalities passing resolutions to ask the government to not make these cuts; and children, even children, writing letters to my office and the minister.

I just feel that I really need to read one to have it on the record. This is from Liam. He's eight years old.

That's pretty succinct wisdom from an eight-year-old. I think it pretty well sums up what a lot of people are feeling in this province.

The minister does not talk about the caps to subsidies or operating funding to new programs or new funding to the new child care programs that people are trying to initiate to deal with the wait-lists. The response to child care in this budget by this government is shameful. When every sector of the province is calling for funding support to the child care sector, only this government sticks to their message box, ignoring the cuts made.

I also want to talk a bit about our access to Crown land. It is continually under threat as talk continues in government about selling our forest land to the forest companies. Much of our province is already under tenure to recreational operators who call for even more control over the land. Now, resident hunters, people in my constituency, will lose the ability to hunt in areas where they have hunted for years. Generations of families who have hunted together for decades will no longer be able to access territories that will be given to guides who will control access to the land. That is shameful.

Sadly, as many of us have experienced this winter, highway privatization has left us with a lot more questions than answers. Maybe it's just as the Minister of Transportation says, our roads just seem bad because we don't use winter tires. Well, just an FYI for the Minister of Transportation: in the Kootenays we do use winter tires, and it has not been an abnormal year. The minister actually needs to come out and travel our roads in the West Kootenay–Boundary. It's been a year of hell for people that are driving in our communities. Complaints about roads were just as regular as complaints about health care, which gives people an understanding of how really difficult this winter has been.

The people who work in the sector are doing the best they can, only to be told that our standards are being maintained. But those standards are lower than Alberta's. Alberta has countless kilometres of flat, straight highways and has higher standards than us in B.C. Was there any relief in the budget for our highways? None that I can find, which means the problem will only continue.

Another issue that was not addressed in this budget is that of student debt. Students from across the province have been expressing their concern about the high cost of tuition fees. Students are struggling to make ends meet, working two or three jobs and trying to get an education. We should be investing in these young people now — and not 20 years from now, as this budget puts forward. These are the young people who will be filling much-needed positions in the years to come, and they are overwhelmed with an increasing debt.

Homelessness. Well, my colleagues, who have all spoken before me, have all detailed the farce that was called the homeless budget. What I want to add to it is that in our community six years ago homelessness was not an issue. We didn't need a homeless committee in the communities that now all have them. Our communities don't need homeless shelters. They need affordable, accessible housing on a permanent basis.

The issue of climate change was raised in the throne speech, issues that are near and dear to my constituency. In Grand Forks we have some of the worst air quality in B.C., where the ministry has stated that they cannot ensure that the community gets air quality alerts on a daily basis, as they don't have the staffing resources to do this.

Well, there was no more money in the budget to deal with this. In fact, there was no money to deal with any environmental issues that we will be facing. I want to point out that the Minister of Environment talked about a power project that has been approved in our area, known as Cascade Falls. He, in fact, chastised my colleague from Nelson-Creston for not supporting this project.

However, what he didn't say was that the entire community is against the project. The regional district and the neighbouring municipalities are against the project. The chamber of commerce is against it. The tourism industry is against it. In fact, the only one to think that it should even go ahead was this minister, and he chose not to listen to a community — a community that has been against a project for 15 years — but to listen to a private company who will come and destroy the beauty of the falls and all that it offers to the community. That is a true story of what this government is about and its environmental practices.

These are just a few examples of the varying degrees of the move toward privatization. They are by no

means the only ones, but illustrate the varying trends. In today's world the most successful societies care for their sick and elderly, equitably educate their youth and utilize their natural resources for their people. Where we're coming from in British Columbia, the notion of a society capable of benefiting and caring for all, is not where we are going.

We must decide on the type of society that we want to come. Our present direction has been very well thought out by capable, somewhat misguided people who won't rest until North America becomes totally privatized. For British Columbians, the tipping point is coming, when the opportunities for all of us to own, control and benefit from the natural wealth of our province will become virtually impossible to retrieve.

These issues of concern to the residents of West Kootenay–Boundary, as well as to others — and not addressed in this budget or this throne speech — are reasons that I will be voting against it.

L. Mayencourt: It's a great pleasure to stand today and speak in favour of the budget. It has been a very wonderful debate. I've spent time here in the chamber listening to members on our side of the House as well as to those that sit on the other side.

I want to assure the House Leader for the opposition that, in fact, we are not pairing with you. It seems that you are pairing with us. It is a great pleasure to stand in this House and, you know, respond to things that you might have said or might have alluded to.

This is the sixth year that I've had the opportunity to represent the good people of Vancouver-Burrard. I've got to tell that you it's always been an honour from those days back in May 2001 to sit in this House, to sit here with a group of individuals and to work hard with members of the executive council and members of the opposition to ensure that people in British Columbia get the kind of supports that they need from their government and from this chamber.

Just a few days ago our Lieutenant-Governor sat in this chair and delivered one of the most compelling and relevant speeches that has been made in this House in the 149 years since we became a colony. It is no secret to British Columbians that, once again, this government is listening to the people, and it is lighting the way to a better life for all members of the great province of British Columbia. Nowhere on this continent has a government unveiled a more ambitious plan to deal with climate change.

Ahead of all expectations, apparently — especially to the members of the opposition — our government has made it clear that we will stop at nothing to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Together we've launched an all-out effort to lessen the negative ecological impact of our lives upon this planet.

The plan that was put forward last Tuesday speaks in breathtaking ways of our commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by a third over the next few years. We're going to require that all energy production have a net zero impact on the environment. We've paved the way for homegrown and internationally acclaimed environmental technology to expand our capacity to light our cities and towns, to provide warmth in winter and to cool our long, hot summers.

I am immensely proud to be part of this assembly as we launch this aggressive plan, a plan that will serve as an inspiration to our people as much as it will to others outside of our jurisdiction — to people in Alberta, in Ontario. Not only that, but to the people of North Carolina and California. All across this continent the eyes are focused on this most progressive and aggressive attack on climate change in North America.

It is because this government is listening to people in British Columbia that we have been able to craft a bold and dramatic new path to environmental sustainability, one that is endorsed by first nations, the founding peoples of British Columbia, and by environmentalists, scientists and ordinary citizens.

Over and over in my community I am reminded by private citizens of the importance of these goals to be stated, the importance for us to stake our claim to this issue and to make sure that we deliver on climate change initiatives that will lessen our impact and will help us to reach — if it is possible to reach — an environmental nirvana. I do not doubt the possibility that I — and I do not doubt that we — shall reach this environmental position. This we can and must do.

I am untroubled by the words that come from the naysayers across the chamber from me. Clearly, they haven't yet seen the light, and they do not dare to dream of a future in which man can live in harmony with Mother Earth. But I carry that torch, and Members of the Legislature on this side of this House carry that torch daily. We pledge to do that alongside our Premier, our Energy Minister and our Environment Minister to ensure that all British Columbians know where the B.C. Liberals stand when it comes to environmental activities.

Only through our ceaseless dedication and commitment could one have prepared themselves for this eventuality. That is why it has been so shocking to members of the opposition, because for one reason or another they have crafted or taken the time that they had over the winter to complain about a variety of things that have actually been improving in British Columbia. Instead of focusing their energy on finding methods for reducing the impact of man on our environment, they have spent their time trying to shed light on all sorts of things that just simply do not matter to ordinary British Columbians.

Only by us on this side of the House constantly lifting our heads above the bleak predictions from the opposition, the dark scenarios that they paint, can we reach for such a place in our history. Only by imagining our destiny unfolding as a province that demonstrates to the world that kind of leadership can we actually stand in this House and say: "This is something that all British Columbians endorse, regardless of their political stripe." Whether you're a Green Party, B.C. Liberal, NDP or Conservative member, you've got to know that

this particular budget and its subsequent initiatives that we're putting forward are endorsed by all British Columbians.

It is the right thing to do; it is the right time to do it. It is time to stop snipping at the details of this to the point where it just waters down what we're trying to do. When we come forward with a budget like this and we start to sketch out a vision of a better British Columbian, we are stretching. We are reaching for something that no one else has been able to achieve in North America, that no one has been able to achieve in Europe. But it is important that we stretch.

The challenges that we face may be great. The objectives that we set may be hard to reach, but that does not mean that we should abandon the hopeful cause that we have set ourselves upon.

Yesterday the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, when he was speaking about another issue, talked about government's need to do more, to reach higher, to try to do something better because that's what British Columbians deserve. He said:

People expect us to get off these chairs and start to walk the talk. Start to do things like drive hybrid vehicles, provide clean-energy buses, make sure that people are using public transit, provide infrastructure that is green in nature. For example, the LEED building that was built recently at the Vancouver Public Aquarium — something that I am very, very proud of helping them do, where government has actually added more to the budget of a building so that it can be environmentally friendly. That means that every piece of that building is green.

Those are the kinds of things that we are stretching for and reaching for to ensure that all British Columbians can learn, not just from our words but actually from our actions.

So I let the doubting Thomases on that side have their say. They can state their case, but they will not affect my resolve or the resolve of this government to lead North America in dealing with climate change. We must never abandon the strategic goals that we've set to create a good, clean and responsible agenda that protects the land, this beautiful British Columbia, that has given us so much.

There can be no greater privilege than to stand in this House and serve the people in this House. I have joined the ranks of a strong and dedicated team, a caucus that had the foresight to unleash the power and ingenuity of the great Canadians that call our province home.

People like Sandra Menzer, and Susan Low and Janet Austin have worked tirelessly in my constituency and around the province to ensure that families have access to quality, affordable licensed day care in our neighbourhood and around the province. Sandra leads the Vancouver Society of Children's Centres, while Susan works for the YMCA — which is, I think, one of the largest child care providers in the province — and Janet Austin is the executive director of the YWCA.

Teri Nicholas, Travis Kowalski and Dawn Schooler and others are making a huge difference in the lives of street-entrenched youth in my community. They work with Renata Aebi in the Directions Youth Services Centre on Burrard Street, a project that I worked on for many, many years in my community. Just a little over 18 months ago, that team of caring and entrepreneurial professionals launched and opened Directions, with the support of three ministries of this government.

Health, Children and Families, and Employment and Income Assistance joined together because they recognized that a holistic approach to dealing with the challenges in British Columbia is what is needed here today. They joined hands with the Family Services of Greater Vancouver to ensure that street-entrenched youth have access to services that will make a positive impact on their lives.

Thousands have accessed the services and support that these fine Canadians deliver daily. Many youth have come to the Directions Centre to go to school, to get their grade 12. They've gone through job training programs. They've entered the artistic programs that are offered there.

These all allow the youth that sit on our streets and have challenges…. Sometimes it is because of horrific circumstances in their homes; sometimes it is for other reasons, but all of them have come to the Directions Centre to reach into their human potential. There is nothing greater than seeing someone that has struggled on the streets of Vancouver reach higher, be stronger, and be able to become full and productive members of our community.

Many of those kids — I know many of them — have added so much to our community, whether it's through street youth job action or the tile project that took place around our sidewalks in Vancouver. Nothing makes me feel more proud than to see those kids reaching out and making it. There is hope for those kids on our streets, just as there is hope for other people in our community.

Seniors also benefit from a high quality of supports through groups like the West End Seniors and the 411 Seniors Centre, Haro Park and Yaletown House. I would be remiss if I overlooked the folks like Lynn Parkin, Carole Crichton and Mary Benson. Being a senior can leave many of our great elders in our community isolated, but these citizens are ensuring that the folks at Yaletown House are living vibrant, fully engaged lives and living in an enlightened environment.

Haro Park was one of the first assisted-living projects here in the province. I can remember being there for the opening of it. I want to tell you that Haro Park is one of the finest institutions that I have in my riding. Led by Karen Baillie, I know that our constituents like

Ms. Weitzel, Ms. Benson, Ms. June Park and others are getting the loving care and independent lives, which makes their lives so much better because they are engaged in meaningful, fun, exciting activities. Diana Buric and Neall Ireland ensure they have strong leadership and the highest standards of care. They rely upon the support of people like Debbie Walker and Carey Camen.

Though he's moved from Haro Park to another seniors centre, the legacy of people like Dan Levitt is one that I must mention. The care and the kind of dedication that this man demonstrated has put Haro Park on a solid financial setting. Now he's moved to another neighbourhood, Vancouver-Kingsway, to do the same in another neighbourhood.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, I'm very sorry. It's in Vancouver-Kensington. My apologies to the member.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologized to the member. I did not mean to put Dan Levitt in the wrong riding.

The point here is that Dan Levitt is a hero in the community of seniors in British Columbia. He's done it not only in Haro Park but in other areas of British Columbia, and he'll continue to do that.

Meanwhile, Lynn Gardiner, who works at the Senior's Network, is ensuring the ongoing viability of that organization while Margaret Coates — who runs the organization as executive director — leads a team of professionals at the 411 Seniors Centre. Recently I had the great honour of attending and being at 411 Seniors with the Premier and Margaret's team of great people, like Carrie Belanjer, Yuri Cvitkovich, Debbi Leith, Carol Lloyd and Neil Stark, when the province gifted to them this multi-million-dollar building on Dunsmuir Street.

That was a very terrific day, and the 411 seniors had told me as early as 2001 that one of their greatest hopes was to be able to have their home forever for seniors for B.C.

The story of Vancouver-Burrard is one of community heroes that work diligently to support those in need. It's hard to imagine, but many of our communities simply would not make it without the support of community leadership demonstrated by the strong network of social service agencies, like A Loving Spoonful, which was started in 1992 by Easter Armas-Mikulik, a very good friend of mine. It's now led by a strong chairman, Graeme Keirstead, and folks like the former executive director Sue Moen, Ken Channon and Lukas Maitland.

Where would they be without the leadership of Ross Harvey? Ross Harvey is the executive director of the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society. Just so I don't get heckled from the other side, I want to point out that Ross was one of the only NDP members in the Alberta Legislature. He's a great guy, and he's done some fantastic stuff here. So this is not a partisan speech.

His team includes people like Paul Lewand; Damian Callicot; Marc Seguin, who's also involved in Friends for Life; Terry Howard; Malsah and James Ong, just to name a few.

And what about YouthCO and the people there, like Sheena Sargeant and Brandy Svendson? Where would we be without the leadership of people like William Booth at AIDS Vancouver, Phillip Banks Burkhart who's now known as Brother Shane, Denise Woolsley, Miranda Compton and Jeff Van Steeves?

We have over 6,000 people living with AIDS in our neighbourhood, trying to fend for themselves without these people. I dedicate this speech and this opportunity to respond to the throne speech to those local heroes.

Today we're in Victoria, and I do not want to miss an equally impressive team here at AIDS Vancouver Island. It's led by Miki Hansen, and it helps AIDS Vancouver Island respond to the many complex needs of the south Island population.

But it goes beyond the bounds of Victoria. I've seen Rick Barnes up in Nanaimo running support groups and Heidi Exner Murdock, who came over to help me work on some of the initiatives that I have planned to create a stronger effort to ensure that people are aware of the effects of HIV/AIDS as well as ways to help people without stigmatizing them.

I've also had the pleasure of working with many of those fine activists in my community over the past years — people like Diane Collis, who runs the community kitchens initiative through the Vancouver Food Bank. It would be unfair of me to not mention Cheryl Milton-Prepchuck and Doug Aason, who work there with her and daily make sure that the people of British Columbia and the lower Fraser Valley have access to the supports they need.

I'm glad, as a private citizen, to be able to work with those fine people on programs like the Cooking Fun for Families program. It's a great program that Diane Collis started it. It's a program that goes into schools and helps families that perhaps have challenges around food budgeting, or what have you, to be able to learn how to cook together, learn how to create good healthy meals for their children. I really salute all of the people that are involved in Cooking Fun for Families but, also, the individuals that have made the effort to reach out to community members who maybe have felt a little disconnected from their schools, from the places that their children spend so many hours.

I have three elementary schools in my riding. They are wonderful, wonderful places. And I have one high school. The students from my high school, King George High School, were here just this week, and it was great. I had 120 of them from the socials 11 classes at that school, and it was so great to see the very many teachers that came along with them.

We had a question period up in the Ned deBeck room, which I'm sure many of the members of our executive

council would have cringed at. These kids were pretty tough and hard. They wanted to know what our government was doing and why it was doing certain things.

What touched me about these kids was the sense of social responsibility that they bring from their young, young hearts and their young, young minds — the sense that we as a society owe each other something, that we are not just here for ourselves but are here for other members of society. I was so touched by the level of commitment and desire in them to see government — whether it's the opposition or members on this side of the House — do the right thing.

Over and over I heard about the environment from young people in that group. They talked about what a golden opportunity it is for them to be part of a society that understands that we have an impact and that as a result of understanding that, we have to find ways to look after our planet, to look after the good earth that we live off of.

I want to mention two gentlemen that came with them. Terry Howe is the principal of that school. By the way, King George High School is right across the street from my office. I can look out my window, and I can see that school. I can see the kids as they come out of class. I can see the way they interact with the people of the West End, and I am very proud that they're there.

They also have a great social studies teacher by the name of Damian Wilmann. Damian is very, very committed to making sure that the citizens of his school, those kids that came to see us, understand those responsibilities that they have — not just to themselves or to their family or to the little West End but to this entire province and perhaps to all of Canada. I want to salute the work he's doing.

I have an elementary school, which was built in my constituency long before any of us were born, called Lord Roberts Elementary School. It's one of those classic brick schoolhouses that sits in the midst of the West End with all of the highrises around it. There are wonderful green fields and basketball courts and slides and things like that.

Inside, are the most dedicated teachers I have ever met — people who are committed to each of the children that are in there. They face significant challenges. In that school alone we have 62 different home languages spoken. We have kids from Serbia and Croatia and Romania. We have kids from Japan and China and the Philippines. We have kids from all over the world — a truly international gathering that happens right in our schools.

What a gift that is to all of us. What a gift it is to be able to look through the eyes of a kid from Persia or to look at the world from the eyes of someone from, I don't know, just anywhere in the world. You can just name any country, and there's a kid from there in Lord Roberts Elementary — kids from India, kids from Pakistan….

L. Mayencourt: Kids from Winnipeg, as the member for Port Moody–Westwood is always trying to promote. Actually, I was born in Manitoba, so I'm sympathetic to his views on Manitoba.

I just found it so much more interesting here, so that's why I'm here in British Columbia. Also, I'm here in British Columbia because this is the kind of place that I want to live. I want to live in an international community. I want to live in the cultural nexus of North America. Certainly, Vancouver is one of those.

I also want to pay tribute to the folks that run Lord Roberts Elementary. Val Coopersmith is our brand-new principal. Sadly, Patti Lefkos, who has been in my riding for a number of years and who was the principal there, retired last year. I can't believe that she did it at such an early age. Apparently, she's moving on to journalism. She called me for an interview not long ago.

I know that Patti and the tradition she set for the inner-city school program across Vancouver continues her work through people like Val Coopersmith, the brand-new principal there. Terry Jeremiah stays on and David Telefar. There are many, many fine individuals that make up Lord Roberts Elementary.

At Lord Roberts Annex we have Mr. Cannon and a group of professionals that look after our K-to-3 students that are in the middle of the West End. If you make your way down to — oh my goodness, I've forgotten my neighbourhood — Yaletown…. It's just that the place is growing so rapidly that I forget about the neighbourhoods.

In Concord Pacific area we have one of British Columbia's best and brand-new schools. We have Elsie Roy Elementary. What a joy it is to see the kids out there playing in Dorothy Lam park or being a part of the community.

I noticed that the Minister for Housing is here. I want to talk just for a minute about the success of the downtown neighbourhood growth, because he has a lot to do with it. You see, we made a commitment that 15 percent of all housing in my neighbourhood would be non-market housing to help those that are less fortunate in our community.

You can walk through the downtown core. You can go to the West End, Coal Harbour, Concord Pacific, Yaletown or the downtown south. I'll tell you something: you can't tell that there's non-profit housing in my neighbourhood.

You know why? Because we built non-profit housing that is as good quality and every bit as beautiful, every bit as integrated as every other building in the downtown peninsula. I am proud of that. Because you know what? Sometimes kids get stigmatized in school because they come from non-profit housing or because maybe their mom is on welfare or they receive supports.

What we've done in my neighbourhood is unique, and it's something that should be done in each and every neighbourhood in British Columbia — a way to integrate, to not stigmatize, to make sure that all people in British Columbia are part of the same community and that there is no dark side of the neighbourhood, no slum, and that there is in fact a full integration.

There are other benefits besides kids not getting bullied in school. There are the benefits of better educational outcomes, of a better level of child care, of safer communities that come from this successful — I mean, bold and aggressive — housing strategy that has been put forward by our Housing Minister.

I am proud of the neighbourhood that I'm in because we embrace all members of our society. We don't have a bad side of the tracks in the West End in the downtown core. We have only a wonderful, well-integrated neighbourhood that combines community centres, schools, non-profit housing, seniors care, AIDS service organizations and mental health service providers in this one wonderful milieu. It's a wonderful thing to be part of this.

While I am on the subject of housing, I want to spend just one moment talking about the housing strategy that has been so highly profiled in our budget. It is a strategy that says to British Columbians that we care about housing affordability. We don't care what your income level is. We're going to make sure that if you need housing supports, you get those housing supports.

It means that a single mom with $28,000 or less in income has access to a rental assistance program that could give her as much as $563 a month to help her stay in an integrated neighbourhood — not in a slum but in a neighbourhood in which all members of society are equal and represented.

We've done that for seniors. I've got to tell you. One of the things that I hear from the other side of the House that just burns me to the bit is this fact, this belief, that somehow it is wrong to do rent supplements, to support seniors in staying in their own home in their own community.

I know that the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters makes a difference in people's lives, like Mrs. Whitehall and Mrs. Smith and many, many others that I know very well. Individuals that are struggling to stay within their own community and stay in their own homes now have the benefit of an increase — a doubling — of the SAFER grant. I know that on this side of the House we can well be proud of the initiatives launched by this budget, by this focus on housing that is going to affect each and every person in British Columbia.

There's one other thing I want to say. I know my time is running short. I want to talk about the tax cut and what that means to British Columbians. I can remember coming into this Legislature for the very first time and being at a caucus meeting and saying to the Finance Minister…. We were talking about making sure that British Columbians paid less taxes….

L. Mayencourt: I guess I'm going to have to talk about that at length on some other occasion. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all of the members of this House for the great debate we're having. I hope that members opposite will help us support this budget.

A. Dix: Of course, I'm fascinated to hear the member for Vancouver-Burrard speak about growing equality in our community, because this runs contrary to what we see, what we know, what we experience. It's his understanding, his belief, that growing levels of child poverty and inequality don't matter — that these are not divisive things in a society, that these are not things that increase the level of crime in a society and decrease our sense of community in society. That understanding, unfortunately, drives what we see in the government's actions, not only in this budget but over the last six years.

When we look at this budget, we need to think about what makes a healthy society. I think international studies have always said the same thing. If you invest in access to education and universal health care and if you take strong and effective measures to reduce child poverty, then you will in fact increase the level of entrepreneurial activity in a society in the long run.

If you see a dramatic increase in child poverty and a growing divide between those who have housing and those who don't, between those who are doing better and those who are not, what we see — and our experience tells us this, both in the United States and other jurisdictions in Canada and increasingly in British Columbia — is an increasingly unhealthy society. That is what has developed in British Columbia, partly as a result of global conditions and partly as a result of the actions of this government. You see it reflected every day — certainly in my community every day.

When you condemn parts of society to despair…. According to Statistics Canada's 2004 stats, in British Columbia today 24 percent of children are living in poverty. What you're saying is that their access to the hope and opportunity that should pervade a wealthy society has been diminished, and that's important.

I have to say that if I or a member on this side were Minister of Finance, we wouldn't see that as a spin opportunity, as an effort to deny the fact of the matter — what we see every day, what I see when I walk in my community every day, what we see from the statistics. I would see that challenge of child poverty as the number-one challenge in my budget. It wouldn't be tax cuts; it would be child poverty.

Why is it important in an entrepreneurial society? Because when you create a divide between those children that inherit opportunity and those children that inherit poverty, then you in fact are depending for the future successes of society — in every way, in cultural, social and economic success — simply on the children of inherited opportunity and inherited wealth. That makes you less entrepreneurial.

Societies that invest in education — look at Scandinavia — see more mobility between income classes than societies that do not. Societies that expand public health care see more mobility between income brackets than those that do not. Those that go the route of this government see entrenched class differences develop — an entrenched sense of us and them in a society which is almost as pernicious to us who have inherited wealth as to those who have not. That's what we're seeing in this province.

It seems to me that that is what's so missing in this budget. Instead of seeing child poverty as our problem

and advancing measures to address it and saying that if we're going to be a successful society — a society with less crime, a society that is successful in the future…. We need to address this now.

The government, every time the issue of child poverty is raised, attempts to deny what we know — what the facts say, what Statistics Canada says, what our experience walking the street says, what our experience in our community centres says. They try and deny it.

I represent, I think, a community that shows the best of what Canadian society can be, a community, in spite of many challenges and many differences, that comes together again and again at important moments to support one another.

I had the opportunity, when I came to this House, to become the opposition spokesperson for Children and Family Development. I don't think we need to go over this government's shameful record with respect to children in care and its shameful record in terms of income assistance — cutting benefits for single parents, which means, in a system of choosing winners and losers, that the government chose as a loser the children of single parents.

I don't need to go over that record at great length, except to say that I think that for all of us that single fact of a society more divided — a society of growing child poverty, of wealth that we see all around us, of million-dollar homes, of opportunity, of Olympic Games — existing in the same place that a full quarter of us, a full quarter of our children, are living in poverty, as measured by Statistics Canada…. But in many communities, including my own, it's clearly more than that. I think that poverty is much more profound than we might think.

I had the great privilege to grow up in a household where both my parents were there, a household where to this day — and I'm 43 years of age — both my parents continue to support me. When you think of that, when you think of the opportunity that comes with that…. Many people in this House have had different experiences, but many of them have had that experience. I have to say that it is an experience we wish for everybody.

I campaigned in my community of Vancouver-Kingsway to come here. Just as an example, in my community there are 1,600 hospital workers, members of the Hospital Employees Union. There used to be more. Many of them now are not members of the Hospital Employees Union. They're working in non-union work in the hospital sector, or they're doing cleaning or other jobs or other security jobs.

As I went around my community and knocked on doors — as all of us do at five, six, seven, eight o'clock at night — I was shocked, frustrated and challenged by the fact that in many homes there were young children home alone. I don't mean five or six or ten or 20 or 30 homes. I mean, over the course of the months that I knocked on those doors, hundreds of homes.

One of the reasons for that is the direct attack on the lower-income end of the labour market from this government's measures — the attack on employment standards, which are essentially and often no longer applied in sectors in British Columbia, like the agricultural sector and other sectors; the attack on the minimum wage; the attack on health care workers, many of whom saw their incomes drop by 50 percent.

When you go around in my community, those health care workers…. You have a single mom who used to earn a living wage as an employee in a health care facility just outside of my community, but living in my community, who now has had her job privatized. Instead of earning close to $20 an hour, she earns $12 an hour. She has to have a second job because she has financial ambitions for her children and heavy costs. It's expensive to live in the city in Vancouver, so she has a second job cleaning banks in the evening, and then she takes private clients.

She works 75 hours a week, and she is to be admired. She is to be supported, and in this province…. Let's face it that 35 of those hours she's working — when she's not home supporting or helping make dinner for her kids, when she's not helping them with her homework, when she's not part of their lives — are directly the result of the policies of this government.

A. Dix: I'm telling you that if I had a budget and I had a surplus, I would care about that. That would be my number-one priority, and it's nowhere here. It's nowhere here.

There's a remarkable book. In the course of reading it, it talks about the ways in which to support the working poor — the growing number of working poor — in our increasingly unequal society. It talks about and compares the lives of hotel workers in Seattle and Vancouver. It's by an author named Dan Zuberi, and he's at the University of British Columbia. What it shows is that over time the things that make a difference in the lives of the working poor are those social supports — the very social supports that have been under attack in this province.

It makes a difference in the lives of the working poor. The rationing of MRI services means that you have to spend $1,400 to get an MRI in many parts of this province, and they can't afford it. It automatically puts their family at the end of the line, because you need an MRI to get on the wait-list for surgery, and all those people that can afford it jump ahead of you in line.

That is contrary to the principles of health care, and it's going on systematically in this province. The reason is because of the policies of the government across the way, and they've done nothing about it. That increases inequality, increases, I would say, a sense of social division. That is, in fact, what's happened.

It's why, in my community, we give real focus on these issues. I have a really remarkable constituency

assistant, Easter Tocol, who works on a lot of issues and supports me on the issues as well. We've gone out in the community. We've spent many hours with youth at risk and many hours with service agencies talking about the things that are lacking in our community — the things that are particularly lacking to children and youth who have nothing and are now, unfortunately, exhibiting behaviours that are difficult for our public education system, our criminal justice system and others.

We are a community that is in desperate need of services, that has systematically seen services reduced over the last few years. There are simply no outreach services for youth out of school or attending school infrequently. There is a profound need in our community for youth outreach services, particularly in the Joyce SkyTrain area, which is in my constituency, and the Broadway SkyTrain area, also in my constituency.

Higher-risk youth don't get a spectrum of services that are offered in the community. These are the youth who are often engaged in high-risk behaviours such as drug dealing, the sex trade, graffiti and vandalism and, sadly, sometimes violence. In fact, we lack in our community the basic services that could give those youth options.

In this budget, with this surplus — with a $550 million tax cut that no one asked for, lumped on top of a $175 million corporate tax cut that came in the budget of September 2005 that nobody asked for — there was nothing to deal with youth and youth agreements. Youth agreements are a fundamental issue for me. I have met many of the youth in the youth agreements. I work with them. We work with them in our community. We meet with them. We seek services for them. We work to build youth in that community.

A. Dix: The Minister of Environment, who's talking and heckling now, apparently doesn't care about youth and youth agreements — doesn't care about them. Youth and youth agreements — in British Columbia, 16 years old, the responsibility of the government…. We are their parents. The members of this Legislature, even the Minister of Environment, are their parents.

A. Dix: The Minister of Environment talks about the Leader of the Opposition, a person whose contribution to children at risk, whose contribution to children and youth with developmental disabilities is such a personal one. For him to be snide about that when we're talking about an issue of youth at risk is really shameful.

I don't know very many people in politics who have made the commitment of decades like the Leader of the Opposition has done — decades to supporting youth at risk and actually in a personal way doing that. Can you imagine building a remarkable career and actually having foster kids for decades, some of them dealing with the most difficult of issues? That's the contribution that she's made. That's who she is, and she doesn't deserve the snideness that we get from the Minister of Environment and others when we're talking about issues of youth at risk.

I'm telling you that when you think about the fact that there are youth at risk, youth in youth agreements, who are currently living in the downtown east side of British Columbia…. We've talked a lot about supplements here, but we're talking about 16-year-old and 17-year-old youth who are getting a maximum of $750 a month, all in. They are the responsibility of the government; we are their parents. They've never lived on their own before.

All of them, to qualify for the program, have to have serious problems, and I know they are living, in many cases, in the Avalon Hotel, living at Sharp Villa, living in places that most people drive past a little faster than other places and are happy and must feel a sense of relief that they're not there. Those youth who are the responsibility of this government, who have faced cuts from this government, who have been abandoned by this government — there's nothing in this budget for them.

This is about priorities, and I don't think the priorities of this government, given the experiences of those youth in my constituency, are the right priorities. They are lost, and we are building a society of division, a society where some people do very well and other people do very badly. It is clear that we're facing a dramatic increase in inequality. I would suggest — and certainly the work of Mr. Zuberi would suggest and all of the international studies would suggest — that those decisions are the wrong decisions.

One of the areas that I think defines Canadian society and makes this in fact a more equal and progressive society, of course, is the existence of public health care. We see again in this budget the lack of commitment of the government to our public health care system.

As you know, late last year, in September, the Premier announced his conversation on health care, and he has spent some $6 million of public funds driving the idea that public health care is not sustainable, that we can't do it, that we can't succeed in maintaining a public health care system, like every other country and jurisdiction in the industrialized world. Here in British Columbia we cannot do it. He spent $6 million convincing of us of that fact — trying to convince us of that fact. He's wasted that money unnecessarily.

Now we see again another budget, if you look forward…. Well, first of all, what budget? In my health authority, in the Fraser Health Authority, there is no budget, and the budget that we have will lead to bed closures in this coming fiscal year — significant bed closures, particularly in Fraser Health at a time of growing demand. That's what this budget does. This government, which has been saying, "It's not sustainable. We can't do it. We can't afford it on our current tax base," then turns around and cuts our current tax base by $550 million, or $1.5 billion over three years.

You can't have it both ways, I say. You can't push forward the canard, the idea, that you can't afford

public health care and then cut taxes. You can't do it. What they're saying is, "Well, what we've been saying in that propaganda is wrong. We don't actually believe that because when the rubber hits the road, we're going to cut taxes, first for our corporate friends," and then the tax cut we saw in this budget.

What they're saying, in fact…. Presumably, it's the only conclusion you could draw, because surely the government isn't saying that we should take away the money needed to support the necessary public health care services we all need. Since they're not saying that, they're essentially saying: "We haven't been telling the whole story."

In fact, what we know about British Columbia is that health care as a share of our GDP has been relatively stable over time. When people talk about what the appropriate measure of health care is…. Should it be a share of GDP, or should it be a share of the budget? These are interesting debates.

The government says that the overwhelmingly important thing is: what percentage share of the budget was dedicated to health care. This means that every time over the last five years that they've cut the income assistance rate of single mothers, the percentage of health care spending has gone up. It's just arithmetic. If you're spending less money on everything else, the percentage of health care spending goes up.

When you're adding people to communities in significant numbers, you have to add services. That's why it's reasonable to compare health care spending to GDP. That's what we should do, it seems to me. Unfortunately, we have a budget that goes in the other direction. Over three years…. Well, contrary to their own budget transparency law, they don't give us a three-year plan for health care, the most important area of government.

In the member for Cariboo South's riding there's a community called Alexis Creek. They can't get ambulance service. In Nelson-Creston, where my colleague sits, there are people who have to travel to Kelowna for health care. In the past couple of weeks, when they get there, they're sent home — no room at the inn.

Yet the Premier goes up to Kelowna in some sort of vanity exercise last week, announcing something in Kelowna — which includes no new acute care beds — that might be ready in four years. They have code purples almost every day now in emergencies in Kelowna. The reason they don't have them every day is that the one thing this government invests in is spin doctors, and $1.1 million more for ministers' offices.

They spend a lot of money on spin doctors. The largest increase in the whole health care system was in the Minister of Health's office — the largest increase for that. So what do they do in Kelowna? What is their solution to the crisis in Kelowna? Their solution is to rename the problem. What used to be a code purple is now an overcapacity initiative. So we could call code purples every day, but they don't want to call code purples every day.

They don't want to do anything about the problem. They're not going to do anything about the problem this year. They're not going to do anything about the problem next year. They're not going to do anything about the problem in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or 2011. What they did about the problem was rename it. Code purple is no longer code purple in Kelowna.

When the constituents of the member for Nelson-Creston go to Kelowna, there's no room at the inn. There's no room there. They go all that way, in some cases desperately ill. It would be absurd, if we weren't talking about people who are desperately ill. We're talking about people who are desperately ill. Two years ago they were warned about this. They did nothing, and they're doing nothing today.

There's a crisis facing my constituents in Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Fraser Health Authority of surgeries being cancelled, which happens on a routine basis. At Vancouver General Hospital there are very committed health care workers. People waiting in line for spinal surgery — that can't be called minor surgery — are told by their doctors or sent a letter by their doctors that they are likely to have their surgeries delayed and cancelled. In some weeks up to 70 percent of surgeries are cancelled.

This government has failed to address that crisis. In fact, similar to what they did in Kelowna, their response was not to deal substantively with the problems of Vancouver Coastal Health — the cancelled surgeries, the wait-list. Their response was to fire the part-time chair of the board, to try and hang this fiasco on the part-time chair of the board. It's a fiasco that has led to this budget virtually not being worth the paper it is written on, because they have to do the dog-ate-my-homework at the beginning of their budget.

They have to say this budget hasn't been signed off appropriately in Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health, the two largest health authorities in the province, because they messed up the budget. They didn't adequately fund Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. They didn't recognize the important role of teaching hospitals in Vancouver Coastal Health, and they needed a scapegoat. Who did they fire? They fired the part-time chair of the board.

It's not just me that says this. Would it be so. It's their friends. Not even their friends believe them on health care anymore. Think of the letter of Keith Purchase describing the government's budget process as totally inadequate.

A. Dix: Imagine the fact that members of the boards of Vancouver Coastal Health, of Fraser Health, of Interior Health were denied access….

I know that members on the government side want to go to 6:30. They debated and fought for that right, so I look forward to them getting that right.

The former chair at Fraser Health said it very plainly. He said that the budgets are inadequate. The government is disrespecting the board, disrespecting health care professionals. The consequences in Fraser Health, just as they will be in Vancouver Coastal Health,

are bed closures. It is shameful. It is a shame on every member of the government that they decided not to take responsibility, that the Minister of Health ran from his responsibilities in that matter and blamed that issue, blamed that fiasco on the part-time chair of the board.

Hon. Speaker, I'll have more to say about this issue tomorrow. For the moment I will 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.