Hansard — Thursday, March 1, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Budget Debate (continued)		5665
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Horgan
	Hon. G. Abbott
	J. Kwan

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to be able to get up this morning and make a few remarks in response to the budget that was delivered by the Finance Minister just a few days ago. I've had the opportunity to do this on a number of occasions in the last five and a half years. As we've made progress as a government over the last five and a half years, increasingly it's a pleasure to be able to get up and respond to the budget.

We have seen in British Columbia that we have moved from being a have-not province within Canada to being the economic leader in this country. Being a native British Columbian, it certainly gives me a lot of pleasure to say that. With all the people, the resources and the natural attributes we have in this province, I believe it is our rightful place in Canada, as a matter of fact, to be that economic leader.

We see in the economic results of the fiscal year that we're currently in that we're projecting a very significant budgetary surplus, which is a direct result of the budgetary prudence that's exercised by our government on an ongoing basis to ensure that we never again have a budget that strays into deficit territory. It ensures that we are able to continue to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio — in other words, lightening the burden of what we do today in terms of how that's going to impact on our children and our grandchildren.

I often reflect on children and grandchildren, as members of the House may be aware. My wife and I have six children, and at the moment we have six grandchildren as well. Often when I need a little motivation, I simply think of my children and grandchildren and of what kind of future we are leaving for them here in British Columbia. I think that is vitally important, at least for me. It's the very reason for being here: what is the future going to be like in British Columbia?

As we look forward, it is pretty clear that we have in our grasp enormous opportunities in this province. We are working on a gateway strategy. This is a gateway not only for the province but indeed a gateway through British Columbia to the rest of Canada. With the emerging economies that we see in India, China and other Pacific Rim nations, we have the opportunity today to grasp this opportunity and fashion it into something that will be enormously significant and enormously impactive as the economy of British Columbia unfolds.

There are, no doubt, going to be challenges in the future as we continue to develop the future of British Columbia, but based on a strong economy, there are many things that we can do. The strong economy that we have enjoyed and that I think will endure over the next number of years is the fundamental thing that we have to have in place. It is a strong economy, in fact, that gives us options and that gives us the choices we can make. When our economy is in trouble, frankly, our opportunities and our choices become increasingly limited.

With that in mind, when we review the economic performance of our province, as I've said, it is an economic leader in Canada today. In 2006 our GDP growth was estimated at 3.9 percent, just under 4 percent — again, one of the absolute leaders in Canada. That is a very significant rate of growth. We are forecasting a slightly reduced rate of growth over the next several years. Frankly, I think we will outperform our current predictions somewhat, but it is always wise, as I indicated earlier, to be prudent around these issues and to be conservative in our estimates so that we will be able to guarantee British Columbians that we will have a balanced budget.

The current economic expansion and economic prosperity we see across British Columbia is good for individual British Columbians as well. We should reflect on the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in British Columbia today that I have ever seen in my lifetime. I believe the last report that we saw from Stats Canada was in the range of 4.1 percent. Economists tell us that it is virtually full employment. That is a remarkable statistic.

We have a phenomenon going on in our province today where we no longer have people looking for jobs. We actually have, in many cases, jobs looking for people. As a result, people are able to command good salaries, good wages and good hourly pay rates, because there's competition for their services. I think that is a very healthy and commendable circumstance.

Frankly, it puts a lot less reliance on government intervention, such as through minimum-wage policies and the like — when you have fast-food restaurants, for example, paying well in excess of the minimum wages that are outlined in this province today.

The current economic prosperity also enhances the wealth of British Columbians, which I think is important to point out. It is estimated that the total cumulative residential property values in British Columbia today are somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 billion. That is $600 billion worth of wealth that is held in the hands of individual British Columbians and British Columbia families. That is going to help secure their futures as they move into the future and will enable them to secure the futures of their families.

Housing starts in 2006 were up over 5 percent. There is no question that with an economic expansion

comes increased demand for housing. The housing expansion that we have seen in British Columbia over the last two, three or four years has certainly been remarkable. In every community we see new housing being built. In communities across the north and the interior, where for many years no new housing was being built…. Today you drive through those communities, and it is indeed remarkable that new housing is being built.

I think the private sector has responded with alacrity to the opportunities provided to them but also to the needs of the growing population of British Columbia. I found it remarkable the other day when the member for Victoria-Hillside was commenting on a major housing development here in the Victoria area. I believe he alluded to the fact that it was, over time, going to be worth some $240 million — clearly a huge development. But the member opposite decried the fact that there was no affordable housing included in that development.

I guess I come at that from a slightly different direction. It seems to me that when a developer is developing $240 million worth of housing, there is bound to be a dramatic increase in housing stock in this particular area. When there is a greater supply of housing, automatically there is going to be better-priced housing available as well, simply because of the fact that there is more supply but also because of the fact that people move out of some of their existing housing — perhaps moving into newer and better housing, making their previous housing available to others.

There is sometimes a reluctance by certain members of this House to put any kind of stock at all in terms of how the marketplace can work to the benefit of individuals and their families. It is sometimes suggested that if there isn't a government program somewhere or if there isn't a government project somewhere, certain initiatives that we have undertaken will simply not be successful.

I am very proud of the fact that the Minister Responsible for Housing has put together a program whereby renters can access subsidies so that they can supplement the money they have available to pay rent. They then, in turn, can choose where they want to live and in some cases will be able to choose to live in housing better suited to them.

I think that's very, very important. The old reliance on government building a project somewhere and then telling people that that is where they must live is in many ways a failed experiment. On the other hand, government supporting these people so that they can make their own choices as to where they wish to live is, I think, a far more enlightened approach.

I want to be on the record clearly as being very supportive of the policies that the Minister Responsible for Housing has initiated in that regard. Particularly, with the policies that are outlined in the budget speech, I think we will see more of those types of initiatives.

We have certainly seen quite a number of housing initiatives in this particular budget. We've seen increased funding for shelter beds and increased funding for transitional housing. I think these are important as well. We always have to be mindful that there are people who are in circumstances where they do need, very directly, government's assistance. Again, with the strong economy we are well positioned to be able to provide that assistance to people who find themselves in those circumstances.

The $50-a-month increase in shelter rates for those who find themselves on income assistance is also an important step forward. That will now amount to $375 a month here in British Columbia. That is the highest rate of assistance available to people anywhere in Canada, and I think that's a very commendable statistic.

There's also going to be a program in place worth $45 million to convert social housing to supportive housing. Supportive housing is a concept we're all going to have to get much more used to. We are going to have to enable people to age in place to the greatest extent possible — first of all, because that is, more often than not, the express preference of people. They wish to live in surroundings in which they are comfortable — surroundings where they have spent, in many cases, a good portion of their lives.

The longer we can put off disruptive moves and moves into unfamiliar surroundings, the better off we will all be, but most especially the very people involved. So there will be more emphasis put on supportive housing, with the concept of aging in place being very much at the centre of that.

The rental assistance program I've already alluded to. The income threshold, of course, has now been moved up to $28,000 — a very important level of support for as many as 20,000 families in British Columbia. When you think of that, there are 20,000 families in British Columbia who are renting, who are now getting some meaningful support through this rental assistance program. They can more comfortably afford their rent or can actually take that money and find rental accommodations that are much more suitable for them.

Another notable feature of the budget is a $250 million endowment fund. Earlier I spoke briefly about the legacy we are going to leave to future generations in British Columbia, and this is another important contribution to that. This is $250 million that is being set aside. The interest on the money will be used to support and initiate different initiatives over the next number of years to promote innovation in housing solutions and to encourage viable new ideas as to how we can house people better and in a more supportive way.

Again, on the topic of housing, I think it was a very important move on the Finance Minister's part when the threshold at which first-time buyers would not have to pay the property transfer tax was raised to $375,000 across the province. This was a very much supported move across the province.

Actually, it probably plays even a bigger role in rural British Columbia than it does in urban British Columbia. There are many communities in the province where, with a threshold of $375,000, a first-time homebuyer will pretty much be able to buy any home they wish in some of those communities — which,

As we're all aware, the homeowner grant threshold has been raised to $950,000. As I said earlier, with the current economic expansion there's been a tremendous expansion, as well, of the equity that homeowners enjoy in their property. We do not want that to be working against them. So progressively over the last number of years we've been raising that threshold, and recently it was raised again.

A provision was also put in place so that low-income seniors would have the cap removed altogether, so they would be able to remain in their homes — again, a very important contribution to allowing people to stay in familiar surroundings as they age.

The property tax deferral program has been one that has been used to a limited extent over the years, but with the increased equities that people are developing in their properties, there is an increased appetite for this very popular program. The age level has now been reduced to 55 so that people can start on that program as early as age 55. Again, that enables them to stay in their homes and not have to disrupt their lives simply because of economic circumstances.

One of the very central parts of this budget, though, and one that I want to spend just a few minutes on, is the income tax relief for people earning up to $100,000 — another 10-percent cut in the amount of income tax that people have to pay on earnings up to $100,000. That to me is one of the key features of this budget. That is $500 million of taxes that people will not have to pay. Obviously, that helps every taxpayer who is paying provincial income tax today. It means that in British Columbia, on the first $108,000 of income, British Columbians pay fewer income taxes than any other Canadians.

When you look at the cumulative effect of the income tax reductions — the income tax relief that has been provided over the last five and a half years by our government — it is truly quite remarkable. If you have $20,000 worth of taxable income, for example, the provincial income tax relief that has been provided so far, including that in this budget, amounts to a 69-percent tax cut. If your taxable income is $40,000, it's a 35-percent tax cut. If your taxable income is $60,000, it's a 33-percent tax cut. At $80,000 it's a 34-percent tax cut, and at $120,000 of taxable income it is a 31-percent tax cut. That is very, very significant tax relief, and it is one of the main cylinders in the engine that has driven our economy over the last five and a half years.

I was always quite intrigued over the last five years when the opposition and their friends invariably would say: "Tax cuts don't work." If I've heard that once, I've heard it a thousand times. "Tax cuts don't work" was the ongoing mantra of the New Democratic Party.

I think, frankly, it's time for them to come clean. The evidence is in. Tax cuts in British Columbia have worked, as indeed they work in every other economy where tax relief has ever been instituted. Individual British Columbians, I know, are very grateful that one of the continuing preoccupations of our government is that as our economic prosperity increases, we increasingly try to leave more and more money in their pockets — where they actually know how to spend it best.

Hon. J. Les: I know that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has some difficulty with that, but as I said, I think the evidence is in and the facts are clear. British Columbians enjoy far greater prosperity today than five and a half years ago. There is no doubt about it. Individual British Columbians and their families enjoy tax relief. If we can do more of the same in the future, I will be standing right here in my place again applauding that fact. I think it is very important that we allow British Columbians to keep as much of their own money as it is possible to leave in their pockets.

Also, because of our strong economy, we are able to take decisive action when it comes to the environment. In British Columbia we've been environmental leaders for some time. Some would suggest that this is a new-found idea that we've found intriguing in the last little while. In fact, I think British Columbia can be rightly proud of the environmental leadership that it's been able to display over a considerable period of time.

The sales tax exemption, for example, on hybrid vehicles, which will now be extended to 2011, didn't just happen in this budget. It has been with us for a number of years. The exemption for furnaces, boilers and heat pumps, which are an integral part of using less and consuming less energy, is also a very enlightened strategy. The new hydrogen buses that we will be supporting…. Again, this is showing leadership, as we're all speculating now — and I think there's a lot of substance to this — that hydrogen fuel will take a much larger place in the future in how we propel ourselves and how we drive certain things.

Hydrogen fuel cell technology has been under development here in British Columbia for quite some time. In many ways, it is not quite at that point where it's going to be used in a massive way in a broad range of activities, but the research that is occurring in British Columbia is advancing. The research that's occurring in this regard in other places in the world is advancing as well. British Columbia is showing some leadership. Helping in the acquisition of hydrogen-fuelled buses is the right thing to do, because it's going to take some demonstration projects of various kinds to convince people that this is actually a doable thing.

Some have said that the budgetary surpluses that we are running are actually not a good thing — and that we should be more optimistic on the revenue side — and tend, in fact, to end up close to zero at the end of the year. As I think I've indicated earlier, that would be an abandonment of budgetary prudence.

When we have these relatively large surpluses, it does give us an opportunity to invest very significantly in the infrastructure that we need in British Columbia — an infrastructure that is required to replace aging infrastructure but, just as importantly, infrastructure

that is required to support the growing economy in British Columbia. We've seen over the last year or so $1.6 billion invested in post-secondary education, $650 million invested in K-to-12 schools, $1.7 billion invested in health facilities and equipment across the province, and $1.6 billion invested in roads and bridges. That is a significant investment in infrastructure, but it also shows — on that list I've just briefly enumerated — that we are investing that money in a number of sectors in a way that is properly reflective of the needs we have in this province.

As we look forward over the next several years, we see, as I've already indicated, a significant surplus in the current fiscal year and predicted surpluses along with forecast allowances of about a billion dollars in each of the next three fiscal years. I think this is sound fiscal planning, and it ensures that we actually have some understanding of where we're going as a province and what our economic prospects are. I think we're showing the way to a brighter future in British Columbia.

To conclude, Madam Speaker, I'm honoured as always to be able to take my place in this House and make a few remarks and express my views as to what is important in terms of what we do as government in British Columbia. It all comes down, I believe, to giving people opportunities, to giving families a sense of security, to ensuring they have, first of all, education opportunities, then the employment opportunities, to build a secure and sound future for themselves.

If we continue to give people choices, give people the economic opportunities that they deserve and that they expect of government policy, then in many ways it can probably be said that the best years are yet to come here in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand in this place today representing the people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca and respond to the 2007-2008 fiscal plan that was tabled by the Minister of Finance last week.

I think that we have to put this budget, this latest dropping from the government, in perspective. I'd like to think of it as: over the past two and a half weeks we've had one flip, one flop and a flip-flop. I'd like to start with the flip. We've already had, of course, our opportunity to respond to the throne speech, but the biggest backflip of all since New Year's was the epiphany that the Premier had while on vacation reading a few books about the impending doom of climate change. All of a sudden the throne speech reflected this new reality, which is a good thing for British Columbians.

But of course it became quite a surprise to the Minister of Finance, who had been working on her budget from last fall. Documents were prepared, tables were ready to go, and on the February 13 the Speech from the Throne was replete with references to how we were going to change the world in British Columbia and how we were going to lead the country, the continent and the world with respect to climate change.

This was all very good news, and it was quite a flip, as I say. But a week later we had the flop, and that was the tabling of the budget with no reference, aside from a $4 million one-time-only fund to finance the climate action team.

So a flip, then a flop, and then this past week we had the flip-flop, which was the energy plan tabled by the Minister of Energy, proudly declaring there would be no dirty coal burned in British Columbia. Again, that was very good news, certainly, for people in Princeton, for people in Tumbler Ridge, but of course it was a complete contradiction of Liberal policy and the idiom in which they were operating up to that point in time.

One flip, one flop and a flip-flop. That's how I characterize the month of February for the B.C. Liberals. I'm fairly confident that — here we are on the first day of March — they're pretty happy about that. We've got the month of February behind us, which as you know, hon. Speaker, is supposed to be the month when the government blows its horn. It trumpets and champions the direction it's going to take over the next 12 months. It lays out its fiscal plan. We had the added bonus of having an energy plan which was a little bit of old gruel reheated and then distributed as a new plan and a new vision for British Columbia.

One of the goals — I spoke about this with the minister yesterday, and his enthusiasm almost knocked over the Minister of Environment when he came to his feet with all of the wind that he could muster — was with respect to the 50-percent reduction in conservation initiatives that he has directed B.C. Hydro to fulfil. What that would mean, in essence, is that one in five current consumers on the grid would have to unplug to meet that challenge — extremely ambitious.

I gave the minister credit at the time for making the target, but then when I went through the fine print and looked at the documents, there were no new initiatives to meet that challenge. There was nothing there for consumers or British Columbians to incent them to do the things we need to do to meet the challenges as we go into a climate change environment. So one flip, one flop and a flip-flop. The month of February 2007 will go down as a very, very interesting month in the annals of B.C. history.

One of the challenges that the Minister of Finance had when she tabled her documents was that she had a plan. She'd been working on it earnestly with her very capable staff in the Ministry of Finance for months and months and months, and the focus was on housing. It was supposed to be a housing budget. If you look at all of the literature, many documents were produced by the public affairs bureau to champion and trumpet this great new housing plan that was laid out in the budget.

But when you stripped it all away, it was in essence a one-off tax cut that would amount to about $1.5 billion over three years — front-end loaded for those at the higher end of the income scale and less so for those at the bottom end of the income scale. The actual housing component was less than $500 million, and of that $500 million, half was for a slush fund to be used in the future. The interest from the $250 million housing fund would go towards housing research.

In my constituency we have many, many residents living in manufactured home parks, mobile home parks. In two instances, one in Pedder Bay and one in Shawnigan Lake, these people are being displaced from their houses and basically put out on the street with 12 months' notice and 12 months' pad rental. Insufficient to move their home to another location — if there was another location to go to on Vancouver Island, one of the hottest real estate markets in North America. An enormous housing challenge for those who are currently in affordable housing. Not a whisper from the government.

In fact, last year the government amended the Residential Tenancy Act to incent owners to displace people from their homes. Nothing in this budget to assist those people in my constituency. Nothing in that budget to assist those who need and are looking for affordable housing stock — not just social housing stock, not just shelter beds, but affordable housing for middle- and lower-income British Columbians. Not a thing in it, but yet they called it the housing budget.

I want to take a moment to comment on the commentary by pundit Norman Spector. Now, Norman Spector is not a political ally of mine. Norman Spector worked in this place.

J. Horgan: I take what the Minister of Transportation says. I would be inclined to agree with him.

Nonetheless, Norman Spector worked for the Premier of British Columbia as a senior adviser. He worked for Brian Mulroney, of all people, as a senior adviser in Ottawa. This is an individual who knows government very well. He understands budget-making and understands the processes of government.

He said in his comment on the budget that this was the first chink in the armour of the newly minted Finance Minister, the first blow to her credibility. I'd have to agree with him, hon. Speaker.

We have a Finance Minister with a group of professional public servants, who diligently went about putting together the fiscal plan for the coming year, assuming they had the blessing of cabinet and assuming they had the blessing of the Premier. It turned out that a week before the tabling of that document, the Premier had another vision. He had another direction he wanted to go in — something shinier to follow, as I've said in some of my commentary on this matter.

Norman Spector — again, no friend of this side of the House — made it abundantly clear that this is the first misstep — the first patty, if you will — that the Minister of Finance has put her new shoes in since she was sworn in, at the same time as I was, in 2005.

That's regrettable for her, and it's also regrettable for the able people in the Ministry of Finance. I know, having worked there for a time, that they take their job very, very seriously. They put together a budget — many, many long hours into January and February — to make sure everything is just right. To have a throne speech yank that out from underneath them must be very disheartening for those public servants and certainly, I would expect, for the Minister of Finance — particularly when it wasn't a housing budget at all.

It was a modest tax cut for middle-income families, a large tax cut for those who don't need it. I heard the Solicitor General say earlier on…. Those over $80,000 a year have had a 31-percent tax cut since 2001. I'm sure that's very good for them. They'll be able to buy their Lexus now. They'll be able to pay off a couple of their loans or make more investments and make more money.

Certainly two years ago when the minister tabled her first budget, unbeknownst to anyone, including the business community, was the $500 million corporate tax cut. So if the corporate sector and those high-income British Columbians aren't happy with the way the government is going, I don't know what will make them happy. I know you're doing the best you can, on that side of the House, to keep them very well fed indeed.

Certainly the CEO of Partnerships B.C. is very well fed on the tax dollar, bringing in his friends to talk about all the great and wonderful things we're doing here in British Columbia. But not all British Columbians can be fed that well, and not all British Columbians can buy imported wines and then bill the Minister of Finance for it later on. I heard her carefully say yesterday that we were going to review that policy, and I look forward to the tabling of that sometime in the near future.

Yesterday I heard the Minister for Mining, my good friend from Kamloops–North Thompson, speaking in glowing terms about the state of the economy in British Columbia. I would certainly agree with him on many counts that like other provinces, like the Canadian economy as a whole, like the world economy, everybody is doing very, very well. We're having a demographic shift. We have the challenge of dealing with our seniors. How do we meet their health and housing needs into the future? Not addressed in this budget.

In terms of the rhetoric, I just wanted to comment, because the Minister for Mining was saying that it was B.C. Liberal government policy that was driving this change. In fact, the Solicitor General just said as much as well.

I'd just like to remind them, though, that since 1995 the price of gold has increased 177 percent, silver 285 percent and copper 215 percent. Copper is the backbone of the mineral sector, the metal sector here in British Columbia with respect to mining — a 215-percent increase in that commodity price.

Those on that side of the House would have us believe that has nothing to do with the state of the economy today. It has nothing to do with the state of the economy. It's only the goodwill of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and his allies in cabinet — and the tax cuts they give to corporations and the tax cuts they give to high-income British Columbians — that has led to this resurgence in the B.C. economy. Poppycock, hon. Speaker. I may call it a vessel which you cook with, but I understand that's out of order in this place. But if I had the opportunity to say that, I would — a vessel which you cook with. That's what I think of

what those on that side of the House are saying about why the economy is where it's at.

Aluminum, a 73-percent increase. Despite that, this government felt it was important to give Alcan, the Aluminum Co. of Canada, a sweetheart electricity deal to offset their sagging profits with a 73-percent increase in the price on the open market for aluminum.

It strikes me that the economy is doing very well for a host of reasons — some policy, some commodity, some demographic. But what we hear from the other side of the House, and perhaps maybe a little bit too much from this side of the House, is the toing and froing about what the real answer is. Well, there's a whole bunch of answers, hon. Speaker. You and I have had this discussion in our private moments — that public policy doesn't happen when governments change. Public policy happens all the time.

History will record that over the course of time, governments have come and governments have gone. The economy has gone up, and the economy has gone down. Commodity prices in a resource-based economy are the primary driver of economic activity. They all know that. They should just admit it one day. I certainly know the member for Peace River South knows that. If he could maybe get more time with his colleagues…. Now that he's a parliamentary secretary, he could get into the cabinet room and say: "Why don't we just fess up to it? Commodity prices are driving our economy. That's good news. A labour shortage is the biggest challenge we have. How do we address that?"

How are they going to address the labour shortage in this budget? They're going to give a thousand bucks to every kid born this year. That's going to stimulate skills training sometime in the distant future, when I'm confident that not a soul on that side of the House and probably not a soul on this side of the House will care a whit. We'll be worrying about our hip replacements and how we're going to pay for them. That's what we'll be worrying about.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Health assures me that my hip is in good hands. My back is killing me, but….

I want to move on to some of the issues that are taking place in my riding and where I would have liked to have seen some of that $300 million cost overrun on the convention centre go. I say $300 million because it's in the range. It could be $400 million, $500 million or $600 million by the time they finish this thing in the inner harbour.

I was there the other day looking over at Burrard Inlet, a beautiful place. It's $300 million over budget, and all you've got is a couple of metal pilings sticking out of the water. It seems to me to be a bit of a challenge, but I'm sure Partnerships B.C. will call in Larry Blain. He'll have some cocktails, a couple of bottles of wine, and we'll get this thing straightened away without any difficulty at all.

If I had $300 million, hon. Speaker, you know what I'd do with it in Malahat–Juan de Fuca? I'd put it into hospice beds in the district of Sooke. I'd go to Ayre Manor, the seniors housing project that I understand I'll be visiting with the Minister of Health in the coming days to do some groundbreaking. I'm looking forward to a photo opportunity with the minister. I will wear my best bib and tucker. I won't embarrass you. I'll try and make sure everything is in place.

What they're missing at Ayre Manor…. The Vancouver Island Health Authority is funding a certain number of beds. B.C. Housing is funding a certain number of beds. But what we could really use in the district of Sooke…. I know when the minister visits the site, he'll recognize, after an hour or so drive up the west coast of Vancouver Island into beautiful Malahat–Juan de Fuca country, that we don't have any hospice capacity there.

The people in Sooke who are working on this project, and have in fact been working on this project for three decades and are now seeing it come to fruition…. These were young men and women who felt that the community would need seniors housing sometime in the future. It turns out now that they are seniors, and they will be able to access this seniors housing. That's long-term planning, and that's what they're doing in Sooke.

What's absent from that is a hospice component. Two beds are what we need. I know the minister is listening intently, and I'm hopeful that when we get the opportunity to break some ground in Sooke, we can talk in more detail about the need for hospice funding at that location.

The other issue in my riding…. If I had $300 million, I'd probably want to do something about transportation infrastructure in my community. I know the Minister of Transportation listens to me intently whenever I raise these issues, and he wants to assist in addressing the transportation challenges in the lower Island.

Certainly in my community of Langford, there's discussion of an interchange at Spencer Road that would lead to breaking up the bottleneck as you come off the Malahat into the approaches to Victoria. The Minister of Community Services and the Minister of Transportation are talking intently about that because they know, as well, that it's an important issue in our community and an important issue for all in the south Island. That's why I'm always anxious to….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think we should not refer to the activities of other people in the House.

J. Horgan: Okay. Fine with me. And again, I apologize. I just know that both the ministers are avid proponents of the initiatives in our community, and I wanted to acknowledge them in my remarks. Certainly, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale are integral to the success in my community, as I see it, and as the municipal leaders in my community see it. Without their support and encouragement, which we've had from day one, we wouldn't be able to achieve these initiatives.

That leads me to a discussion of the Malahat corridor. Two and a half years ago the government, in a failed attempt to elect a Liberal in NDP country, said they would do a study of the Malahat corridor. They said they were going to spend a grand total of $250,000 — that's $250,000 — to do a systematic and detailed study and investigation of the transportation needs of the people in my community, and in fact the people in the South Cowichan and into the Goldstream Park area.

That $250,000 is certainly getting a lot of mileage, because we've almost had…. Well, let's see. At last count we've had something like 28 months without an even remote resolution to that challenge. Yet in that same period of time the government has managed to find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on transportation infrastructure in ridings that are currently represented by Liberal members of this Legislature.

Now, I don't begrudge those members, hon. Speaker. You know that. I'm as generous as the day is long, when it comes to encouraging other people to benefit from the resources of British Columbians. But in all fairness I would be remiss if I didn't remind members on that side of the House that although there are only 33 of us over here, we represent geographically a significant portion of the province and a significant portion of the population, and therefore are as in need of infrastructure spending as those on that side of the House.

No more in need than any other jurisdiction is my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. It's held together by two ribbons of highway. There's Highway 14, which stretches through Sooke, where the Minister of Health and I will be next week, out to the community of Port Renfrew at the far point of my constituency. Then there's the Malahat highway, Highway 1, through Victoria up to the city of Duncan. That's it — two roads, one north and one west. Victoria and the lower Island is the second-largest population centre in British Columbia, and it certainly is the second economic engine of the province. Yet it's being ignored.

It's been ignored in this budget. It's been ignored in previous budgets, and I'm disappointed to say that I don't have much hope that there's going to be any attention paid to the Greater Victoria area unless the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member from Saanich North get going. I'm prepared to sit down with them, as you know, hon. Speaker, at any time to talk about issues in the Greater Victoria area so that we can address some of these challenges in a bipartisan way in the interests of improving the economy, the quality of life and other issues in and around my community.

Another challenge that I want to raise while I have the opportunity is the $200 million giveaway to Western Forest Products. In January the Minister of Forests announced, with not much fanfare — wanting to keep under the radar, I would suspect — that in the interest of reducing the debt burden of Western Forest Products, the largest forest products company on Vancouver Island, the government agreed to allow Western Forest Products to take private land out of a timber farm licence. Now they can do whatever they want with it.

What that means in real terms for the people in my community is an end to industrial land–based employment and the beginning of a wholesale sellout of real estate on the west coast. That means in the Jordan River area and in and around Sooke 28,000 hectares of land was just given away to what had been in the past and will most likely be in the future a very profitable forest/real estate company.

If the government wants to give its friends, its corporate backers, gifts and trinkets, that's fine. But giving away land, giving away the common resource of all of us, for nothing is reprehensible. The minister has given no accounting to the people in my community as to why he made the arbitrary decision to yank that land out of a public Crown TFL and give it away to a private company. Imagine that — 28,000 hectares.

I have a little plot of land that my little tiny house sits on in Langford. The Assessment Authority says it's worth a whole bunch of money. It astounds me how much it's worth. But if I had 28,000 hectares, I would be a very, very rich man. I'd probably give some of it back to the Crown because I'm so generous. I know the Minister of Health understands me to be among the most generous people in this place, but I wouldn't give 28,000 hectares to Western Forest Products just because they asked for it.

When I see the Minister of Forests in this place walking down the corridors, I'm almost tempted to ask him if he'd give me a couple of thousand hectares. Maybe I could then sell that off and see some transportation improvements in my community with the benefits and the profits from that sale. Maybe I would be able to protect people in manufactured home parks from expropriation and eviction because they can't meet the needs of the landowners in and around Greater Victoria.

These are all big challenges. I don't believe that the government has any malice when they completely ignore Vancouver Island when they're making their decisions, when they're doing their budgeting, when they're planning for the future. I think they just want to ignore Vancouver Islanders because they know they have no real prospect of ever electing anyone here.

If that's the calculation they make, that's fine, but you can't just fly in on a white horse in 2009 and say, "Oh, here's some more money for a study," and expect to get elected. If you want to get elected, you have to earn the respect and support of the electorate. A good way for the government to do that is to spend lots and lots of money in my constituency.

I know that all the ministers on that side of the House are thinking: "How can I help the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca? His constituents, like mine, deserve to benefit from the abundance we're receiving right now in this province because of high commodity prices, primarily, and historically low interest rates that have been low for almost half a decade now."

These are economic indicators that I know the Minister of Finance is well aware of. I know that her staff brief her regularly, if not daily, on the fluctuations in

these commodity prices because they have such an important and integral role to play in her forecasting and the budgeting for this province.

Anyone who's spent ten minutes with a budget — I know that the Minister of Health and others have done that — recognizes that natural gas prices…. What happened with natural gas prices last year? Certainly, I know the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville knows what happened. They went through the roof. What was the result of that? Enormous windfalls to the treasury, good news for British Columbians.

Was that a result of policy initiatives instituted by the B.C. Liberals? No. Was that a result of policy initiatives whose foundations were laid by the previous NDP government? No. It had everything to do with the marketplace. You would think that a party slavishly driven by the free market would acknowledge that the free market is what in fact drives the revenues in the treasury, but they're not able to do that.

That brings me back to Norman Spector, who said in his commentary that if this government was honest with the public and if they said, "What we're going to do with this budget is give a modest tax cut to low-income British Columbians, another tax cut to high-income British Columbians and put $250 million away in a slush fund for pre-election spending in and around housing so we can warehouse people in the Greater Vancouver regional district so that no one will see them during the Olympics…." If they had been honest with people, I think some commentators like Norman Spector would have tipped their cap.

J. Horgan: Yeah. I'm not getting in bed with Norman Spector. That's for sure. I'm pleased that the minister reminds me that I should be cautious with whom I hang.

I'd like to get back, now that he's brought me away from my bedfellows, to my constituents in Malahat–Juan de Fuca and the importance….

J. Horgan: You know, what I like about this most of all is when my colleagues on the other side of the House engage, because it gives me a chance to reflect on their comments, have a glass of water and then continue on.

Again, I look to my friend from Peace River South because he is my beacon of hope on that side of the House. I know I continue to highlight that, and it hasn't had an impact on his career. Since I've adopted him as my singular B.C. Liberal friend, he's rocketed through the ranks to become a parliamentary secretary. So no harm has been done to the member by my affection for him. I think that's good news.

Similarly, my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson also rocketed through the ranks.

Transportation, health care and education — those are the fundamental issues to the people in my community.

Health care is being addressed in small measure in the district of Sooke. I've already talked about the absence of any hospice care or any benefit from the province. I'd also like to talk about primary care because in a constituency like Malahat–Juan de Fuca, you are in close proximity to Victoria General Hospital and the Royal Jubilee Hospital — two fine institutions in and around Greater Victoria. You're still an ambulance ride away from health care, and it's a long ambulance ride on a very treacherous piece of highway — Highway 14. If you have the misfortune to have ill health in Jordan River, you're that much farther away.

The need for some form of primary care in Sooke to service the growing population on the west coast of southern Vancouver Island is very, very important — in fact, I believe fundamental — to the health and well-being of the people in my constituency.

I make an appeal today to the Minister of Health to contemplate that in his planning and his discussions with VIHA over the next short while. In a growing population centre like Sooke — absent any other health care initiatives — you can do a lot of dying in an ambulance coming out on the west coast to Victoria General Hospital.

I want to conclude by touching on an issue that I think is going to be the fundamental issue for us and future generations, and that is climate change. I think the epiphany that I spoke of earlier that the Premier had whilst on holidays is good news for all British Columbians, particularly those who have a concern for our natural environment. We can't continue to live with the lifestyles that we've become accustomed to. We have to adapt. We have to change.

That is a difficult message for public officials. Elected representatives knocking on people's doors saying, "You need to change the way you do business," is a hard, hard message. But I'm confident that those on this side of the House are prepared to carry that message forward. If there is anything to be clutched onto from the throne speech and the modest funding announcement in the budget, it's that some of those on that side of the House are coming around to that fact as well.

What does trouble me is that the announcement of the energy plan…. The Energy Minister said that climate change is real, and then he said that human impact on climate change is partly real. That troubles me because that's the Ronald Reagan approach. Trees create pollution. I remember that during the acid rain discussions in the 1980s — the cross-boundary challenges that we had as two nations addressing the negative impacts of coal-fired generation and the acid rain that resulted from that — the President of the United States at the time said that burning coal wasn't causing acid rain. Trees were.

It's that shortsighted view of the world that led to an extended negotiation to meet that challenge, which we're all happy to say has been realized today. But we can't ignore the fact that human activity is resulting in the changes that we're seeing in our climate, whether it be weather events, as we have seen in British Columbia, certainly on the west coast of the Island….

I know that they were holding a tag day for Stanley Park. I know that Stanley Park is the jewel of the lower mainland. But the damage there is insignificant compared to the challenges that we have on the west coast, whether it be the West Coast Trail between Port Renfrew and Bamfield, where thousands and thousands of old-growth trees….

These are big trees. These are not twigs that we're talking about. These are big trees that were blown down in the storms of November and December in and around Sooke. Individuals suffered significant damage to their homes.

I'm pleased that I've had discussions with the CEO of B.C. Hydro, and Hydro officials will be coming to my community to talk about the extended power outages that we experienced in November, December and January. That, I know, is important to the people in my community. I am grateful that Hydro recognizes…. I think the quote I heard from the minister is some $35 million in damage just to the hydro infrastructure, the distribution infrastructure in the lower mainland and in south Vancouver Island.

Those are issues that the people in my community want to talk about. They're concerned about it. I'm hopeful that….

J. Horgan: I regret very much that I wasn't able to complete my remarks. I want to advise those on that side of the House that I will be voting against this budget.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to join in the throne speech debate today.

I'm just short of devastated by the advice that the opposition won't be voting for this budget. Obviously, the budget is, I think, a very fine piece of work and holds tremendous promise for the province. It is most unfortunate, given the many positive things that are contained in the budget, including some of the new projects, the new housing and supportive living and assisted living and residential care opportunities identified by the previous speaker, that those aren't going to be supported as well.

Let me begin by thanking my constituents in the Shuswap for the continued honour of serving them in this Legislature. It is a great honour, a great privilege for all of us to be members of this assembly and its great history. I do thank them for that.

I've had the honour of being a member now since 1996 and have enjoyed both the opportunities and the challenges very much. I've also had the opportunity of serving them now for a longer period of time, actually back now to 1979 — 28 years ago. Since 1979 I've had the opportunity to serve at the regional district level, at the municipal level and have had actually the opportunity to serve with a number of members of the assembly on both sides of the House in local government.

The Shuswap is an exceptional place to represent. It's an exceptional place to live, to grow up, as I did, and to retire. It is one of the very fabulous areas in British Columbia that we're so privileged to enjoy. I think the opportunities that are contained in the budget promise to make the Shuswap and the province of British Columbia an even better place than it is today.

I know that the Shuswap has been, and continues to be, the beneficiary of some very timely and very important investments that have been made by the Ministry of Transportation in the Shuswap, and I thank the Minister of Transportation for that.

The Minister of Education has also, I think, been very kind and thoughtful in terms of the investments that have been made on the education side in the Shuswap, and I thank her for that.

We are making, I think, some very important and timely investments in health in the Shuswap as well. I am particularly delighted to note, as the recent budget speech and the budget documents note, the commencement of the Shuswap Lake General Hospital redevelopment project, a project that is an investment of $20 million–plus in the future of health care for the Shuswap. I'm delighted by that, because that investment is due and overdue in Shuswap Lake General Hospital.

Like some other areas of the province, Shuswap Lake General Hospital is dealing with a combination of population growth…. Because it is a very attractive area to work in, invest in and retire in and also because it's really been home to a retirement industry for probably 20 or even more years, we do feel the pressures on Shuswap Lake General Hospital of the broad, aging demographic that we have in our society generally. But it is felt in even stronger terms in areas where retirement is a popular feature.

The combination of generalized population growth plus, particularly, the aging demographic in our society has created some pressures on Shuswap Lake General Hospital in both its emergency room, on its acute care beds, and this reinvestment, this redevelopment project that will be undertaken over the next couple of years will be enormously valuable in having the Shuswap Lake General Hospital meet those growing pressures.

I do want to take the opportunity to thank the nurses who work so hard each and every day to cope with those pressures around growth and now the pressures associated with the logistics around redevelopment of a very busy hospital; the care aides, who do so much to help people not only in the hospital setting but in the community setting as well; the doctors; the ad-

ministrators — all of those who are a key part of the effective provision of health services in the Shuswap and, indeed, across the province.

We have been benefiting from the leadership that is provided in the Shuswap and across the interior by the Interior Health Authority. They do a great job in what are often challenging circumstances around the provision of health care. Interior Health serves a very broad geographic expanse, but I think quite unique to British Columbia, they also serve literally dozens of large, medium-sized and small communities that range across, again, that broad geographic expanse of the interior.

I want to take this opportunity as MLA for Shuswap to thank Alan Dolman, who has served so capably as the board chair of Interior Health Authority for, I guess, five years or more. He has done a great job there, and his board have done a great job. The board leadership is not at all an easy role. Alan has done a great job, as has the board.

I also want to thank — because I think they, as well, have done a remarkable job of meeting the pressures of our growing and aging society — Murray Ramsden, the chief executive officer at Interior Health, and his very professional, effective executive at Interior Health, who have done a remarkable job. Among other things, they have made some very timely, very strategic investments in residential care and assisted living, particularly in the Okanagan but right across the Interior Health area.

I believe it's now in excess of 400 residential care and assisted-living units that have come on stream in the Shuswap and Okanagan since 2002. Those are incremental units. That's over and above the quantum of residential care and assisted-living units that we had prior to that. So this is a very important investment.

I know in the Kelowna area there will be 120 additional residential care and assisted-living units coming on later in the spring. That will have a profound effect on the demand for acute care beds in Kelowna General Hospital, but because Kelowna General Hospital is a tertiary centre for really the entire Okanagan and the Kootenays, as well, it will have an important and beneficial effect, I believe. So I do thank them for those investments.

I want, too, before I move on to perhaps more general comments about health care, to note two of the projects which were committed to in the current budget, and these are two that are so important to the Okanagan and to Interior Health generally.

They are the redevelopment project at Vernon Jubilee Hospital…. Vernon Jubilee, like Shuswap Lake General Hospital, like Kelowna General Hospital, is one of those facilities that is now decades old, which was constructed for a population which is much smaller than what we have seen over that period of time.

Vernon, Kelowna and the Shuswap are typically growing incrementally faster than other areas of the province. As a consequence, we do see the pressures both in Vernon Jubilee Hospital and in Kelowna General Hospital. I'm tremendously excited that we are going to be investing tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars in those projects in the months and years ahead.

That is all part of our $2.1 billion investment in new capital projects in British Columbia over the next three years. That is an unprecedented investment in health care in British Columbia — $2.1 billion — unequalled ever in the history of British Columbia. The government is certainly proud of it, but I think every member of the Legislature should be proud of it.

Among the huge investments that we are making is the Surrey out-patient hospital. Surrey Memorial Hospital is, again, a facility that was built for a population of about 50,000 almost five decades ago, and it now serves a population of several times what it was at early construction.

The Surrey out-patient hospital is a critical piece and a huge investment in the future of Surrey, the fastest-growing area in our province. Similarly, we are investing — I believe it is — $355 million in the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. That was long promised and, I think, promised a number of times in the 1990s and never delivered. We are delivering it.

The Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre is on time. It's on budget. It's a fabulous facility. It's going to provide not only an extension to what is already the leading cancer care system in Canada, if not in the western world…. It's incredible. The state-of-the-art facilities that are going to be available to us at the Abbotsford cancer centre and the Abbotsford regional hospital are going to be such an important part of us continuing to lead the nation in terms of cancer care.

The perinatal wing at Nanaimo Regional Hospital is something which I know all members will welcome. The member for Yale-Lillooet is here. I know he is looking forward to the investment in the Lytton health care centre. Again, I know this is long promised but is going to be delivered — and a very, very welcome feature, as well, for all of the citizens of Lytton and area.

The pediatric intensive care unit at Children's Hospital. I do want to take a moment to talk about that and to talk about the children's hospital. There are a lot of great health care facilities in the province, but one I know that all British Columbians are enormously proud of is children's and women's hospital. Children's does a fabulous job. It is amazing to see.

I've had the good fortune to visit Children's Hospital now several times. Children's Hospital does an absolutely amazing job of managing the trauma patients that might come in from all around the province. Or it may be an unusual illness. It may be a highly unusual birth, as was the case recently with the women and children from Vernon. Children's does a wonderful job, and I know all members of the House will join me in saluting them.

I've mentioned Shuswap Lake General Hospital. I mentioned the Jubilee in Vernon, Kelowna General Hospital.

Also, I know the members from the Victoria area will delight in noting that Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria is going to have a long-awaited, much-welcomed reinvestment. Portions of that hospital are several decades old. I think some of them are actually close to a century old. The reinvestment in Royal Jubilee Hospital is a tremendously welcome feature for all

One of the members from Victoria said, "Well, that really should have been done six years ago," which is an interesting commentary in itself, given that a different government was in office six years ago. But it is being done by our government. When we promise, we deliver. I am proud of the fact that when we make a promise, a commitment, we deliver on that. Certainly, we're doing that.

Right across the province we are delivering. I know that occasionally we have some differences of opinion in this House, but I do want to spend a few minutes and just talk about some of the basic facts around health care in British Columbia. Hopefully, these are facts that we don't have to dispute, because they are the facts.

The health care budget that is contained in the '07-08 budget, which was tabled by the Minister of Finance just days ago, is the largest health care budget ever in the history of British Columbia, and by some considerable measure. The budget…. And this is just for the operations within the health care delivery system; this is not capital. This is just the Health Ministry and the health authorities' operations: $13.1 billion.

Now, recall that when we took office back in 2001, the budget for health care that year was $8.4 billion. So what we have seen in just five years is a growth in the health care budget of over 50 percent in that period between '01-02 and in the coming year '07-08. That is a remarkable and unprecedented investment in health care in British Columbia — an over 50-percent increase in the investment that we are making in health care.

So what does that mean to us? Well, it means many things, and we can measure the importance of that investment in a number of ways. For example, this current year there are going to be about 500,000 surgeries performed in this province — close to half a million surgeries performed in our population of 4.2 million people. That is a record number of surgeries ever in the history of this province — close to half a million surgeries. I am particularly proud…. This is a fact. There's no disputing it: 500,000 surgeries.

I am particularly proud, as well, that for the first time in the history of British Columbia, we will be performing more than 10,000 hip- and knee-replacement surgeries in the province. Over 10,000. If we think back only a decade ago, a hip or knee replacement was a relatively unusual thing. Now we are making a huge investment in that area. We're getting more timely surgeries. We've done all that against the context of the growing population and the aging population that we serve.

Obviously, as the demand increases for these procedures, we've been bringing more resources into play. Some 84 percent more knee replacements than five years ago — that's a remarkable increase.

There are 47 percent more hip replacements than just a few years ago, 62 percent more angioplasties and on and on. In virtually every area of health care surgical procedures, we have added a great capacity.

In terms of the diagnostics that are often the predecessor to those surgeries, we also have been making unprecedented investments in this province. I know that at times, particularly for those people who have a need for elective surgery or a possible need for elective surgery, the waits are longer than we would like, but it is not a consequence of a lack of investment. We have doubled — more than doubled, in fact — the number of MRI machines that we have in this province. That's a remarkable step ahead. We have far more CT scanners.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says: "Burnaby." That investment has been in Burnaby, as well, and if the member has missed it, that's unfortunate. We're investing in every corner of British Columbia. Unlike their government, we are making investments in every corner of British Columbia, including way more CT scanners than was ever the case under the NDP. Again, let's talk about the facts.

Let's talk about the facts. There are 50 percent more MRI exams being done today in British Columbia than there were when we took office — 50 percent more. This year about 75,000 MRI procedures will be done in this province. About 28 percent more CT scans will be done in this province. That's a big figure: 360,000 CT scans in this province. I think it is a remarkable investment that we have made.

I know the members opposite will often disparage the health care system in British Columbia. They will often look for those exceptions to the rule, and they will try to have the exceptions to the rule define what we get in health care in British Columbia. But we have a great health care system in British Columbia. That is widely acknowledged. No amount of disparagement by the members opposite will make it any less than a great health care system in British Columbia.

There are lots of reasons why we have a great health care system in British Columbia, and it's not just me saying it. It is the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board of Canada did an exhaustive analysis of health care systems across the nation. They looked at 119 different indicators of the quality and timeliness of health care in the 13 or 14 jurisdictions that exist in Canada. Guess who was number one, Mr. Speaker? British Columbia. We should all be proud of that fact. Number one in Canada: British Columbia. We should be proud of that fact, well documented by the Conference Board of Canada.

It's not just the Conference Board either. It's the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, who have for two years running found British Columbia to be head and shoulders the best jurisdiction in Canada for the provision and the management of cancer services in the nation. Again, we've got to be enormously proud of that.

Number one in Canada for cancer care. There is no good place in the world to get cancer. We all are concerned about that. We all fear that. But there is no better jurisdiction in the world where we can receive treatment in than British Columbia as well. The cancer

control network, the cancer management, the treatment, the diagnostics, the surgical facilities — all of that is absolutely first rate, and we are working each and every day to make it an even better system in British Columbia.

One of the reasons why I think the health care system that we have in British Columbia is as strong as it is, is the people who work in it. Let's take a moment to reflect on that. We have more doctors now, well in excess of 8,000 doctors in British Columbia. It's a record number of physicians in this province. We've never had more physicians. They've never been better paid than they are today in British Columbia as well.

Now, I know physicians, because they have a remarkable skill set that is built over many years of education and training…. Because doctors have that remarkable skill set, they have an opportunity to go literally anywhere in the world that they wish to use those skills. Their skills are in demand everywhere.

I think it is the highest compliment to the health care system in British Columbia that last year alone, among jurisdictions in Canada, British Columbia enjoyed a net in-migration of 113 medical doctors from across Canada — an amazing statistic. Only Alberta, who had only a few, actually enjoyed a net in-migration. We enjoyed a net in-migration of 113 medical doctors from across Canada. So I think we should be very, very proud of that fact.

We have also taken steps — as you know, Mr. Speaker, because you're a tremendous advocate in this area — to try to ensure that what is clearly an underutilized resource, the international medical graduates, are also more effectively utilized in this province. I meet regularly with their association. They do great work. One of the things we have done as a government to recognize that underutilization and try to build their utilization and their ability to serve our large and growing multicultural communities in the province….

We took the number of medical residency spaces in British Columbia from two when we took office, two residency spaces when we took office…. We tripled that to six. Even more delightful, in the past few months we have tripled that again to 18 medical residency spaces in British Columbia — a huge step ahead in terms of utilization.

We know we've got to do more. Yes, we will. But we've come a long ways from the two international medical graduate residency spaces back in 2001 to 18 today. I know we'll continue to work in partnership with the association representing international medical graduates to ensure that we can improve further on that utilization.

I'm very proud to say that we are in the process of increasing the number of medical spaces at UBC, UVic, UNBC now and soon to be UBC Okanagan. We are committed to going from 128 medical spaces in this province to 256. That's an enormous investment in the future. It's an enormous investment, ensuring that we have the medical professionals that we need in this province.

The other area — and I think it is just as important and quite possibly more important — is the area of nursing. Our biggest challenge in the health authorities today, in the health service delivery system today, is the 2,000 nurse vacancies that we have in this province — 2,000 nurse vacancies. It has a profound impact on our ability to deliver services, and I know the health authorities struggle each and every day to try to deal with the challenge that is posed by 2,000 nurse vacancies.

We recruit nationally and internationally for those nursing positions. We have taken steps to educate more nurses. We have turned around from the 1990s, when there was no reinvestment in nurses. We've gone from a situation in 1993, with 839 nurse graduates…. In 2001 it was down to 574. We've turned that around with a huge reinvestment — 75 percent more spaces in nursing school today; at colleges and universities, over 3,000 additional spaces for nursing in our province. So that's been huge. That will help.

We have to remember when we have the health human resources, the investment in residential care and assisted living and the new, improved surgical management, all of these things add up to what we clearly and demonstrably have: an exceptionally fine health care system in British Columbia.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. That's why I'm committed, that's why my colleagues are committed, and that's why I wish the opposition would be committed to building a better health care system. Let's hear some constructive ideas from the opposition. Let's hear how we can make the system better. Let's not hear how we can disparage the system, downgrade it on a daily basis. It is a great system, and everybody is working hard to ensure that we can make it an even better system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to be a part of the budget debate today.

J. Kwan: I rise to respond to Budget 2007, and let me begin by outlining some of the issues in my riding. I represent a riding where I think every failure in public policy is magnified tenfold. Public policy is one of the root causes of homelessness, and it is homelessness and poverty which lead to many health effects including depression and mental health and physical elements that contribute directly to premature deaths of people.

When we leave people untreated, it hurts our economy and affects our neighbourhoods. People who are in pain and suffering come into my office all the time while we sit there in the Legislature and debate public policies and public priorities, as we're doing today.

Priorities are what this is all about. Priorities — who matters, whose voice gets heard in the expression of public policy, how we regulate rules, how they're interpreted, and the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground resulting from this government's policies are brutal, aggressive and, quite frankly, show a profound lack of empathy. This is a government directly implicated in dividing people and communities. This is

a government which has divided British Columbians in a way that I've never seen before.

I have been in this Legislature since 1996, and I have never seen the situation as bad and as dire as it is today on the ground in my community. This government has attacked civil-society organizations, decimated the funding for groups which were meant to articulate the interests of communities and undermined the efforts of communities to organize themselves.

If you want to see the worst effects of the government's policies, then come down to my riding. Last night Global TV called my community a lost cause. In my community we have what we call the million-dollar man. They are the people that depend on our social infrastructure just to survive every day. My community is where the women went missing for so many years, and barely anybody noticed until now. There are people who fight those injustices every day in every way that they know how, and they get accused over their methods.

People see my community, but they don't see what is really there, and they don't want to see what is really there. Why? Because it challenges their sense of justice. I think it challenges our sense of basic decency. That's why this government has chosen not to see reality.

For legislators, the downtown east side of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is a litmus test of how well we treat those living in the shadows of life. Yes, governing is a serious enterprise. We as elected people have no right to hide behind public relations and have no right to pretend that things are going okay when they're not.

If the government promises housing, the people of this province should get housing. The Finance Minister is touting this as a housing budget. If the issue weren't so serious, weren't so devastating to the community in my riding, I would laugh out loud. I would think it's a joke. But the Minister of Finance, quite frankly, is playing a public relations game with the very serious nature of homelessness and poverty — which, I might add, is a direct result and a creation of her government's policies.

We are in the midst of dangerous times in this province as our Finance Minister spins a false housing budget. This government needs to learn how to separate public relations from public policies. This government has built surpluses by lowballing revenues year after year. Why? Because this is a government that's lurching from crisis to crisis, that's making up policies by chasing headlines and that's using the budget surplus to put out fires due to their mismanagement of the issues.

A government with vision would instead choose to invest in communities. By investing in communities, you build a better economy for everyone. The government could have increased a variety of supports for our communities. The government could have invested in rural communities by developing a strategy for community economic development. The government could have devised a plan to address the long-term forest health issue.

The government could have provided support to the regions that are facing crisis situations, including the drought in the Peace River region, mountain pine beetle–affected areas, the fruit tree industry in the Okanagan — not for my riding, but for the sake of the province.

The government could have invested in the future of our economy by investing in students. The government could have brought back free adult basic education to promote literacy. The government could have enhanced student grant programs, supported ESL training and lowered tuition fees.

The government could have promoted the arts and culture economy by increasing funding for the B.C. Arts Council. The government could have invested in bringing back a universal child care program. The government could have put teeth into the Asia-Pacific strategy by funding a trade office overseas in Hong Kong and China.

The government could have built 2,010 units of affordable housing for 2010. The government could have increased rates for welfare for the most needy and vulnerable so that they had enough for their basic nutrition and housing accommodations. They chose not to do that in Budget 2007. Old habits die hard.

There are three trends that this government has created, and they have set forth in a dangerous direction, in my view, for B.C.

First, political parties have monopolized the spheres of decision-making and the space of public debate. Civil society has been undermined in B.C. by this government due to the lack of true consultation.

Second, the institutions and channels facilitating public participation either do not exist or are far too weak. Let me just give you one example of that. Organizations such as VANOC and Legacies Now do not fit under the Financial Information Act, and they spend hundreds of millions of dollars of public money without adequate accountability. There are severe distortions of process and accountability.

Third, citizens are not encouraged to acquire the means to shape their own future and protect their interests. They're just punished when they don't do it. The government has undermined basic safeguards for living in a self-sufficient way.

As the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I've witnessed the disrespect that this government shows to the people that it pretends to protect. Since 2001 it is as clear as day that this is a government that has waged war against its own citizens who live on the periphery and the margins, who are the most vulnerable. This is a government which is hurting people through their public policies.

Let us not hide behind the false language of decency and niceties and hide what's really happening in our community. This is a government relying on public relations in order to govern. They're using bureaucratic rules to kick people off government support services. British Columbians, I believe, can see this.

Yes, let me begin by saying that the changes to social assistance are moving in the right direction, to be

sure, but they do not address some of the key issues and problems that this government caused when they were first elected in 2001.

Individuals attempting to get services continue to suffer the reality of bureaucratic duress. This government's move to put in time limits on social assistance was unprecedented, and as a result, it has had devastating consequences across the province. The city of Vancouver's outreach workers found that 90 percent of the homeless on the street were qualified for income assistance, but they needed someone to help them navigate through the bureaucracy that this government set up. Doesn't that tell you something, Mr. Speaker?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the barriers to access to support are far too onerous for those in need, and it is this government who has created that. This government is keen to reduce regulations for the business community, but let me tell you, they like to increase regulations for those who are in need. That is the reality.

The best place on earth. That is what this government likes to use — the phrase "the best place on earth" — for B.C. If we want to claim that for British Columbia, we have to address the fact that under this government's watch B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in the country. Most recently, it was just reported that B.C. is one of two provinces with the highest percentage of low-income seniors.

In three years we will indeed invite the world to see the best of what B.C. has to offer during the Olympics. When that hopeful torch finally flickers out, the actions of all of us in this sitting of this Legislature will determine what memory the world will have of us, of British Columbia. Our actions right now will determine the true Olympic legacy that we will be leaving for our grandchildren and future generations.

Today thousands of British Columbians are out in the cold — homeless, desperate, hungry and dying. This is entirely a preventable disaster. Ending homelessness is no longer an ideological position. It is about common sense. It is about human decency. It is about human rights. As the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I have a responsibility to relay the concerns of my constituents. Frankly, we're in a crisis mode because not everyone is actually sharing in the prosperity of this government, of British Columbia.

We cannot run on the economic laws of game theory. We need to have social values. We need to have a balance. We need a developed public sphere with an enriched civil society and public policy that's not just purely neoliberal ideology that leaves people behind. This is a time when the larger-term partisan ambitions are less important than the immediate humanitarian emergency growing ever more critical despite our reported prosperity.

I do believe the members of this Legislature will find themselves ashamed, perhaps, if we reflect back in regret at our negligent inaction. Instead, we can actually take a different turn. We can and should move in a positive direction for those people who have hopes for us to do the right thing. We have the chance right now to realize the real opportunity before us.

What can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren? That was the question in the throne speech. It's the question that is now on the public record, and it's the government's own challenge to themselves. The question poses: what can we do today?

Now, I've heard this before from members of the government — that the 2010 Olympic Games have played a role in our economic prosperity. I believe that to be true myself — that when Vancouver won the bid to host the Winter Games, the economic forecast improved as well. But it was the NDP that actually initiated the process so that B.C. could make that bid. This point I know the government does not dispute — that the benefits of the Olympics, as visitors from around the world spend money in our province, are no doubt a good thing.

What happened to the social legacy, the public safeguards and the inner-city commitment? What happened to them? Were they just words on paper? Where is the housing? Where is the sustainable community blueprint?

What worries me is that while the potentially positive impact of the Olympic Games seems clear, the possible negative impacts of hosting the games may overshadow our 2010 legacy. Which legacy will it be?

For the constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, their concern centres on the housing crisis facing Vancouver. This housing crisis does not just affect the poor anymore. Middle-class residents are seeing their rents rise as vacancy rates continue to drop. The search to find adequate housing becomes more and more difficult, and people are forced to move out of neighbourhoods.

Vancouver, quite frankly, is becoming a city of two solitudes. Leases for businesses and non-profit societies are skyrocketing, and it's jeopardizing the viability of businesses and organizations central to the city's culture.

People are being evicted right now. In fact, yesterday at 2 p.m. the Piccadilly Hotel in the downtown east side just evicted 40 people. Yet another single-room-occupancy hotel is lost. Those are deplorable housing conditions, to be sure, but at least it provided a shelter over somebody's head.

To secure the future of our children and grandchildren, we need to take action now to make sure that everyone in our province can find the security they need with adequate housing. That's why I urge this House to make certain that the various levels of government live up to the inner-city inclusivity agreements outlined in the final bid book.

The provincial government needs to invest in a plan and find the resources to make good on its commitments. The government of B.C. can live up to these commitments. Every negative aspect of the Olympics can be averted and planned for, and this government has been, to date, negligent in that regard.

The throne speech mentioned the failed approaches of the past in regards to housing. I find that very interesting. I want to hear from the government whether it considers building social housing a failed approach. For the citizens of Vancouver, I know there are many

who've already benefited from social housing, and they feel very lucky to have safe, secure affordable housing. But there are many others who are left out and still struggling.

In fact, the homelessness number for Vancouver is projected to triple by 2010. Building affordable housing, having a continuum of housing options — these are essential to addressing the issue of homelessness. I believe that without such actions, the future of our grandchildren and our children will be jeopardized.

As Olympic construction continues, the need for workers and the demand for skilled workers will continue, and that will put a strain on the Vancouver rental housing market as well. So I would ask the members of this House to consider the anxiety facing British Columbians who have no housing or who are at risk of losing their housing.

Let us be clear. A shelter is not a home. The government would have you believe that's what it is. A shelter is not a home. I would challenge the government members, the Minister of Finance, to go live in a shelter for a week or two and see how it feels, and one will know the dire situations that many people feel in our community.

It is often said that child poverty is a result of poor families. For families to raise themselves out of poverty, a stable, secure home is vital to achieve the independence and prosperity that all of us hope for.

The Premier can learn to say no to his backroom dealers. He could say yes to British Columbians and actually build a legacy that we could all be proud of.

For it to be a true legacy, it has to go beyond 2010. The government could put some accountability measures in place and ask the Auditor General to in fact monitor the rate of single-room-occupancy hotel room losses that is happening right now and put an independent voice to that.

The government could ask someone else, ask the Auditor General, to measure the inner-city inclusive commitment statement — a statement that promised to protect rental housing stock and to ensure no residents are displaced, evicted, made homeless or face unreasonable increases in rent as a result of the games. Ask the independent watchdog to examine that issue and measure it. Ask the independent watchdog to tell British Columbians whether or not the government actually has a plan in place to do just that.

VANOC is currently holding discussion tables with inner-city stakeholders, but so far there are no commitments made as to how the inner-city inclusive commitment will be measured or how it will be honoured. VANOC's own social impact review notes that "the literature cites the potential for rental conversions of boarding houses and for low-rent hotels and caravan parks in the vicinity of venue sites to be threatened. However, vulnerable housing types anywhere within commuting distances of the games sites may be affected."

Real solutions that do not just provide the spin necessary for the government to fool the public but provide solid actions that make a real difference in the lives of families in British Columbia — that's what we need. That's what this budget could have been.

Vancouver's Olympic legacy should not be just poverty cleansing in the downtown east side. It shouldn't just be trying to sweep people under the rug. It should be about giving everyone an opportunity to succeed by ensuring that basic needs are met; that more people from communities who need to be on those construction sites are offered those opportunities; that the government, the Minister of Finance, could have actually listened to her own Finance Committee by reviewing B.C.'s income assistance policy to enable income assistance recipients to have access to further educational opportunities — a direct recommendation from the Finance Committee, which this government's members also endorsed.

My community is a neighbourhood that is rooted in social justice. I can assure you that those voices will not be forgotten when the flame is lit. To Mr. Premier, who likes to come and unveil big statues and make big announcements, let me just say this: please pay attention. The people are crying out. They are crying out in all sorts of ways. You may consider those ways inappropriate, but the cries call for one thing. That is for the government to act, to do what a government should do. What the government promised its people is to provide a lasting legacy that would actually support the community. They're calling for the development of affordable housing.

I have to mention for a moment, as we talk about the 2010 games, the issue around Expo 86 and the experiences there, and what happened to the people who were displaced, and how we could actually avert that, and how we have an opportunity to do that.

I am noting the time, Mr. Speaker. I have more to say, so I would at this point move that we adjourn 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.