Hansard — Thursday, March 1, 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		5681

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5681
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007 (Bill 5)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act (Bill M201)
	J. Horgan

Speaker's Statement		5682
	Guidelines for members' statements

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5682
	Nanaimo RCMP
	R. Cantelon
	Hospice societies
	S. Fraser
	Festival du Bois
	H. Bloy
	Harriet Nahanee
	J. Kwan
	Kelly Scott and Kelowna curling team
	A. Horning
	Mitch Gillis
	C. Wyse

Oral Questions		5684
	Special needs students
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Funding for Fraser Health Authority
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Puchmayr
	Performance bonus for highway maintenance contractors
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Seal-coating of Highway 18
	D. Routley
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Agreements with independent power producers
	S. Simpson
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Offshore oil and gas industry
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions		5689
	R. Lee
	N. Simons

Motions without Notice		5689
	Committee of Supply to sit in two sections
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		5690
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	D. Routley
	D. Hayer
	H. Lali
	Hon. L. Reid
	S. Hammell
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. C. Taylor

Reports from Committees		5721
	Special Committee of Selection, first report
	Hon. M. de Jong

Motions without Notice		5722
	Powers and role of Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Powers and role of Public Accounts Committee
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements		5723
	Thanks to members
	Hon. R. Thorpe

I'm very, very honoured today to be able to welcome a number of people from my constituency involved with hospice — in particular, Ty Watson House in Port Alberni. I'd like help in welcoming Rose Waslyniuk, Bob Taschuk, Bob Barteux, Betty Argatow, Melanie Reimer, Christopher Stevenson and Lynn Turner. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. R. Coleman: Members of this House know I'm no scientist. Actually, many of them would probably say: "He's no rocket scientist."

However, in the gallery today we do have a number of scientists from Genome B.C., who are the catalyst for the internationally recognized life sciences cluster in British Columbia. Since 2001 they've turned a $100 million investment by the province into $400 million in research projects. The research they conduct is leading to improvements in areas of British Columbia's economy, from human health and agriculture, fisheries and even forestry.

Today I'd like the House to recognize Willie Davidson, Ben Koop, Bob Hancock, Christoph Borchers, Paul Keown, Joerg Bohlman, Bruce McManus, Steve Lund, David Dolphin and Alan Winter. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: With us today in the gallery are two special guests. Karl Segnoe is completing his bachelor of arts degree with a double major in history and anthropology and a minor in English at Simon Fraser University in my riding of Burquitlam.

As many of you know, SFU produces some of the foremost scholars in the country, and no doubt Karl is among them. He has conducted cultural research around the world, including Southeast Asia, India and Europe. With him today is the love of his life, Deborah Rimusso. Deborah is visiting British Columbia for the first time from Italy. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I think some people know, I was born in Port Alberni in the riding of Alberni-Qualicum. The member for Alberni-Qualicum was making some introductions earlier, but there's actually another delegation here today, as well, that I would like to welcome to the House. It includes Madelynn Kingsley, Ben and Irene Potter, Rita and Doug Faust, and Gerry and Paula Peterson. I hope the House will make them very welcome as well.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, provides for an increase in the amount of operating expenses for the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Forests and Range for the purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The additional amount for the Minister of Finance has been debated and passed as part of the supplementary estimate of yesterday, and the additional amount for the Minister of Forests and Range is to account for the statutory costs associated with firefighting.

I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Horgan: I move that an act intituled Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act, notice of which is on the order paper, be read a first time now.

J. Horgan: It is an honour and a privilege to rise in this Legislature today to put words into action. Many of my colleagues have come to me over the past number of months with complaints from people all over this province concerned that declining world crude prices have not been followed with the reduction in retail gasoline prices.

As a producer of oil and gas, and with our immediate proximity to the oilfields in Alberta, British Columbians are right to expect that retail prices here would be lower than other provincial jurisdictions. That is not the case. In fact, average retail prices this past week in Toronto — where hundreds of retail outlets have been closed because of a supply crisis in southern Ontario

unparalleled in modern times — are still eight cents lower per litre than in the lower mainland area.

The intent of this bill is to amend the Utilities Commission Act to protect consumers from wildly fluctuating petroleum product prices by giving the commission the ability to examine wholesale prices and regulate retail prices with the view of reducing apparent price gouging. Regulation of this nature is within provincial jurisdiction. Other provinces regulate the sector with a view to protecting consumers and providing certainty for the driving public.

British Columbians expect consumer protection from unfair pricing, and this act will provide that protection. The amendments within the bill will give power to the commission as an independent panel to ensure price fluctuations are consistent with market conditions and not set to realize windfall profits. It will also appoint an advocate to review and report on price volatility in B.C. so that British Columbians can be guaranteed that they are not paying more than the market requires.

A place for controls, an officer for appeals and a commitment from this Legislature to protect British Columbians. Words into action, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and assist me in passing this bill.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201, Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we get started on members' statements. Hon. members, several members of the House have indicated that there seems to be some uncertainty as to the appropriate scope of debate and subject matter under Standing Order 25b, the order which provides daily statements by members. The statement delivered to members of this House on November 18, 2002, will be of assistance to members in fashioning their statements under Standing Order 25b.

Last February 12, 2002, the standing orders of the House were amended to adopt, under Standing Order 25b, the provisions for daily statements by members. There has long existed in this House a similar provision for weekly private members' statements, under Standing Order 25a.

The intent and spirit applicable to weekly private members' statements are also pertinent to daily statements. Private members' statements have been well canvassed and discussed in a number of Speaker's rulings in this House and amply referenced in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at page 46.

In order to assist members with respect to their daily statements, I remind the House of the relevant guidelines in this regard. The jurisprudence of this House does not preclude members from expressing a party's position on political issues or policy. However, the topic covered should not revive discussion on a matter already discussed in the same session, nor should it anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by this House.

Statements should not reflect negatively on individual members or groups of members in this House. It is also contrary to the intent and spirit of statements to use these as a vehicle to criticize or rebuke another member's words spoken during other proceedings in the House.

R. Cantelon: I rise today to give an account of the RCMP appreciation dinner held recently in Nanaimo. It was held as a fundraiser for the Nanaimo crisis centre. It wasn't the scarlet tunics that sold out the house for this inaugural event, although it was a real gala event. It was because this event gave the community an opportunity to show their personal appreciation and gratitude to the members, one of each of whom sat at the tables.

Of course we respect and admire their ultimate commitment to put their lives on the line 24-7 to protect the safety of the citizens of the community. But it is about much more than that. It is about how each member takes it upon themselves to make it personal in making the place they live in a better place for all of us to live in.

Today it's about working with community leaders, neighbourhoods, business leaders and youth in rebuilding the cores of our cities on a safer, crime-free foundation. In Nanaimo Supt. Jeff Lott has set up a task force that works closely with the neighbourhood community groups, the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership, city bylaw enforcement officers and the fire department in a coordinated strategy to combat drug abuse. They are the front line in a compliance strategy using the nuisance house bylaw, the Safe Streets Act and the Trespass Act to push away drug squats and close crack houses. And it is working. Neighbourhoods are taking back the streets.

A special thanks for the event goes to the New Car Dealers Association for organizing the gala. They have special reason to be grateful, since car thefts have been reduced in Nanaimo by 70 percent.

I ask the House to please join me in adding our appreciation and congratulations to this fine police force, the RCMP.

S. Fraser: The hospice societies of Vancouver Island applaud the recent decision by the Vancouver Island Health

Authority to support the operation of a residential hospice in Port Alberni, Ty Watson House.. This decision opens the door of collaboration with communities and community partnerships between VIHA and the hospice societies, and is an important step in building capacity within our health care system.

Although palliative care and end-of-life care is a complex issue that cuts across all ages and circumstances, it is actually the baby-boomers and their aging parents who will define the face of this segment of health care in B.C. over the next 20 to 30 years.

Vancouver Island has the highest rate of aging population in the province, and it is clear that we must find new and innovative ways to meet that growing need. The provincial framework on end-of-life care in B.C. was released just last May 2006. It recognizes the value the hospice societies bring to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care.

Trained hospice volunteers and professional staff provide significant psychosocial care across all care settings in the continuum. Hospice societies need to be recognized as full partners in care, capable of delivering programs and services that effectively meet the needs of individuals at the end of life and during caregiving and bereavement.

We as government, with our health authorities, need to make a strong commitment to work in partnership with hospice societies and all other care partners to ensure that B.C. is an innovative leader in creating excellence in the delivery of end-of-life care — end-of-life patients and families who are experiencing possibly the most difficult time of their life.

H. Bloy: This weekend the annual Festival du Bois returns to Blue Mountain Park in Coquitlam. The theme for this year's festival is music that tells a story. The francophone cultural impact in British Columbia is quite the resilient story.

Coquitlam is home to the oldest and largest francophone community in British Columbia, Maillardville, with settlers arriving from Quebec nearly 100 years ago. Festival-goers this year are sure to be enchanted with an acoustically rich lineup of main stage performers, including the renowned lead of La Bottine Souriante, Yves Lambert, as well as Marco Calliari and the Mosabo Cultural Company and Maillardville's own — and my very favourite — Jammers, led by Jean Lambert.

In its 18th year, Festival du Bois is an important cultural event for all members of my riding, including families, who are sure to be delighted with the special children's stage this year. But the festival only happens because of the strong leadership of Johanne Anita Dumas and her huge team of volunteers. Year after year they organize every detail of this event in a humble manner, guaranteeing its success.

This year the new innovative workshop tent is sure to be a microcosm of what the festival actually stands for — an inspiration for the next generation of musical talent, an opportunity for members of my community to stay connected to their heritage and a whole lot of francofun.

J. Kwan: Yesterday was the funeral of elder Harriet Nahanee. She was 71 years old and died in hospital last Sunday of previously undiagnosed lung cancer and pneumonia. Her lawyer says that she may have contracted the pneumonia at the Surrey Pretrial Centre

On January 24 Harriet was sentenced to 14 days for contempt of court for her part in the Sea to Sky Highway expansion project at Eagleridge Bluffs. Harriet was one of numerous people who gave a prayer at the Eagleridge Bluffs site to protest against the government's decision on Eagleridge.

Harriet was born on the Pacheenaht Indian reserve on Vancouver Island in 1937. Along with other children on the reserve, she was taken from her parents at the age of five to live at the Ahousat Residential School. In 1998 she testified about the horrific abuse that she and other native children suffered, including beatings, rape and murder.

This morning at 10 a.m. over 80 people gathered at the aboriginal friendship centre in my constituency, where the proceedings began with a traditional women's warrior song. At the service many people asked why she was sent to jail at her age and in frail health when many other compassionate interventions existed. People were also asking for a public inquiry into her death today.

I would like to express my condolences to the family, friends and hundreds of people whom she touched through her activism and wise, dignified leadership on behalf of aboriginal people and the environment. My heart goes out to the family of elder Harriet Nahanee at this time of deep sorrow and lingering questions.

A. Horning: Kelly Scott is well on her way to becoming a Canadian legend. This 29-year-old skip and her team from my hometown of Kelowna has defended her title at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts and is heading to the World Curling Championships.

Kelly and her team — third Jeanna Schraeder, second Sasha Carter, lead Renee Simons and coach Gerry Richards — beat Saskatchewan 8-5 in the finals of the Tournament of Hearts last weekend. The Scott rink will represent Canada at the World Women's Curling Championship in Japan this month.

Curling is quickly becoming one of the most popular sports in Canada. I'm proud to say that Kelowna is now being touted as the curling capital of Canada, thanks to the dedication and talent of several curlers who call Kelowna home.

Despite receiving international recognition on her agility and grace on the ice, Kelly Scott has always remained true to where she has come from. Scott has never shied away from letting it be known that she

lives, breathes and plays on Canadian soil. Ms. Scott said it best during a recent interview after her win at the Scotties: "We were ready to wear the maple leaf and represent the maple leaf the way it should be."

With the emotion of a true leader and the depth of a skilled athlete, Ms. Scott has led her rink to successes that will forever be engraved in Canadian sports history. I would like to ask the House for a warm round of applause to wish Kelly and her team the best of luck in Japan.

C. Wyse: I am pleased today to recognize a member of my constituency who is an inspiration to many aspiring athletes. Mitch Gillis was born and raised in Williams Lake and graduated with honours from Columneetza Secondary School in 2002. Mitch is a sports enthusiast who enjoys hockey, fishing and snowboarding.

During his high school years he was a three-time zone 8 curling champion, but Mitch has pursued one sport — golf — with dedication and determination. His golf accomplishments include: member of the winning B.C. team at the 2000 western Canadian Juvenile Championship; 2000 B.C. match play champion; member of B.C.'s victorious 2001 Junior America's Cup team; three Pac-10 golf all-academic honouree including team selection 2004-2005.

In 2006 Mitch was named captain of the university men's golf team and in this same year won the Oregon Amateur Championship, the Oregon Men's Stroke Play Championship and the Pacific Northwest golf public links championship — the first golfer to win all three of these events in one year.

In October of this past year Mitch was featured in Sports Illustrated magazine's "Faces in the Crowd" and in an article on golfweek.com. Mitch has attended Oregon State University on golf and academic scholarships and will graduate with a degree in business management this spring.

In 2006 Mitch received the Glen Klein Community Service Award, and during the same year he served as president of the student athletic advisory council. These achievements, together with his accomplishments on the golf course, demonstrate Mitch's commitment to his studies, his sport and his community.

I ask the House today to join with me in congratulating this young man. Mitch Gillis has a bright future due to the support of his family and to his own hard work.

Mr. Speaker: Members must have anticipated Standing Order 25b. They did an exceptional job.

D. Cubberley: Recently the Minister of Education announced her intention to set up segregated schools for some of the nearly 60,000 special needs kids in British Columbia.

Now we hear that a former Liberal Education Minister — whose many blunders included the grad portfolio this minister buried quietly a few weeks ago, as well as cutting targeted funding for special needs kids — sees segregated schools for special needs kids as a business opportunity, and that she has the minister's ear.

My question to the minister: can she share her rationale for segregating a few needy kids when she refuses to supply teaching supports for the over 9,500 classrooms with more than three special needs kids?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The only side of the House that's actually used the word "segregated" in this House is the member opposite, and that is shameful.

Hon. S. Bond: What is even more disappointing is that…. Perhaps the Education critic should try to find the Leader of the Opposition, who spent a number of years as a school trustee in this province and probably understands that the system we have in place today does not meet the needs of every child. We're going to work hard to make sure we provide choice and opportunity in this province.

D. Cubberley: Well, this minister claims to have placed a "legal limit" of three on the number of special needs kids per class, but today there are 9,555 classes in B.C. violating this pseudo-cap. In Comox school district, 46 percent of all elementary classes, 53 percent of all middle school classes and 40 percent of all high school classes are breaking her legal limit.

Shouldn't the minister's priority be to fully fund the inclusion of special needs kids in B.C.'s blended classrooms, rather than segregating some in separate schools?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's interesting. Perhaps once again you should have a discussion with your leader. As a matter of fact, it was the now Leader of the Opposition who made the statement: "Kids don't come in class-size packages."

You know, as we look across this province today, we have record-level funding for public education. We have 1,100 more classes, 12,000 fewer students, 175 more teachers and 400 additional teaching assistants.

School trustees across this province make difficult decisions every day. The Leader of the Opposition was one. Perhaps she should spend some time with her Education critic.

D. Cubberley: Well, I hope the minister isn't claiming that nearly 10,000 classes exceeding her legal limit of three is a success.

This minister claims that she fully funds special needs education, so she may be interested in Sean Steele's plight. He's a 13-year-old autistic, and next year he hopes to go to high school. He's assessed as having the capacity to complete a Dogwood, but he'll need an aide's support throughout his entire high school. However, he will stop receiving the support he needs because his high school, Sir Charles Tupper, hasn't enough support staff for kids like Sean. His grade 7 teacher is advocating on his behalf, but Sean's future is uncertain.

If there aren't the resources available for kids like Sean in regular classes, what in heaven's name is this minister doing spending money on segregated schools? [Applause.]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm surprised that the members opposite clap at the use of the word "segregated" in this House. It's shameful. Let's be very clear.

Mr. Speaker: Member. We listened to the question; let's listen to the answer.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's make one thing perfectly clear. This is a government who supports inclusion and has in fact provided over half a billion dollars a year in funding to demonstrate that.

Perhaps the Education critic would have liked to have met with the parents that I met with today, in fact, who said that the current system doesn't work particularly well for their children. You know, parents have come to us and said: "We want to look at options."

I want to say to the member opposite that we're not going to stop looking for choice and opportunity to better serve children in this province, and we're going to keep doing that — even to the cries from the opposite members talking about the word "segregation." That is shameful. We are not contemplating that, and we will remain committed to providing choice and opportunity for parents and students.

A. Dix: The bed and funding crisis in the Fraser Health Authority and at Royal Columbian Hospital continues, and there's no end in sight. The director of surgery at Royal Columbian Hospital, Dr. Mark Matishak, had to cancel all of his elective neurosurgeries in the month of February due to the lack of beds and the lack of adequate budgets. For the Minister of Transportation's edification, we are talking about surgeries for brain tumours.

It was this government's mismanagement that brought about the chaos at Fraser Health. Former board chair Keith Purchase said it, doctors are saying it, health care workers are saying it, and patients are crying out for help.

My question to the Minister of Health: when will the Minister of Health step in and address the funding crisis at Royal Columbian and in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I've said before in this House, any time a surgery — including elective surgeries — is cancelled or postponed, we regret that. We always want people to have timely service; we always want them to have timely surgeries.

There are more surgeries in British Columbia this year than ever before in our history. Almost half a million surgeries have been undertaken in the province this year — more than ever before. Most of those surgeries were undertaken on a timely basis. There are exceptions. The opposition can raise those exceptions, and of course we want everyone in the system to have timely surgery.

It is not a matter of dollars. The budget for Royal Columbian Hospital has gone from $146 million five years ago to $224 million today.

A. Dix: What is the minister talking about? They cancelled 100 percent of the elective neurosurgeries at Royal Columbian Hospital in February, and he responds with that bafflegab.

At a time when we should be increasing capacity in the Fraser Health Authority…. It's right there in the budget: a deficit this year. As a result of this government's budget, there will in fact be dozens of beds cut. Keith Purchase predicted it in his letter of resignation to the Minister of Health, and it's coming true in hospitals across the Fraser Health Authority.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are two principal challenges that Fraser Health Authority is attempting to address these days. Both of them actually relate to the absence of investment during a critical period of the 1990s. One example of the challenge was the failure to….

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the challenges was the failure to invest in new capacity. They were a government….

Hon. G. Abbott: Apparently, they don't want to hear this, Mr. Speaker, and I don't blame them for not

wanting to hear this: 3,334 hospital beds cut during the 1990s — 3,334. There were promises made during the 1990s repeatedly. They were going to build the new Abbotsford hospital. When was it done? Never during the NDP's tenure. There were promises made about Surrey Memorial. When was that done during the NDP's tenure? Never.

Our government promised Abbotsford. We're delivering Abbotsford, on time and on budget.

C. Puchmayr: How can the minister dare talk about capacities when they tore down a hospital in that region? They tore down a hospital that performed thousands of surgeries a year. They tore it down. This government tore it down.

We always hear about the occasional surgery that the minister talks about, which has to be cancelled — the occasional surgery. In this case, this doctor had his entire elective surgery calendar cancelled due to a lack of operating room capacity. One patient had her surgery cancelled six times. Neurosurgery, serious spinal cord surgeries cancelled at the jeopardy of the patient.

Hon. G. Abbott: The second challenge…. I outlined the capital challenge from the 1990s in my previous remarks. The other challenge that really daunts the health care system in British Columbia today is operating room nurses and nurses generally. There are some 2,000 nurse vacancies in the province today. I know that Royal Columbian Hospital is one of the hard-hit institutions in respect of the nurse shortage.

The nurse shortage is entirely a product of the failure of the NDP government to invest in that area of public policy. There was a substantial decline in the number of nurses that were graduating in this province between 1993 and 2001 — a very substantial reduction. We've reversed that, but it takes five years to educate a registered nurse and get them at work in our hospitals.

If the NDP wants to do something about that, why don't they admit that they failed British Columbia in the 1990s with their failed rationing policy?

C. Puchmayr: I wonder how many young people changed their career directions after this government tore up collective agreements and created this capacity problem in the hospitals, where nurses are absolutely overworked. What young person wants to get into a field that is so mismanaged and they're working in crisis every day?

C. Puchmayr: The resignation of Keith Purchase…. He said quite clearly that he was concerned about the capacity problems that are created. Dozens more beds are going to be cut from the Fraser Health Authority. Dozens more beds will be cut.

Yesterday the minister heard from my city council about the crisis. The minister has heard from Mr. Purchase about the crisis. The minister hears from us about the crisis. The minister has heard from the emergency room doctors who were bold enough to sign a letter explaining the situation in the Fraser Health Authority. What will he do today to address this serious crisis in our region?

Hon. G. Abbott: The facts speak for themselves. In 1993, 839 nurses graduating. In 2001….

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat it so you have an opportunity to hear this time.

In 1993, 839 graduate registered nurses in the province. By 2001 that had been reduced by 265 to 574 graduates. We've reversed that. We've added 75 percent more nursing spaces in this province — 3,021 additional nursing spaces in this province. We have tripled and then tripled again the number of international medical graduate residency spaces in this province — now 18 compared to two during the NDP's tenure.

As well, we are taking steps to add capacity. The Abbotsford hospital will add capacity on the acute care side as well as the cancer side. The additions at Surrey will be enormously helpful as well.

D. Chudnovsky: The Minister of Transportation wrote to a Kitimat city councillor that he has asked contractor Nechako Northcoast "to review their winter maintenance procedures and to make adjustments necessary to keep roads in your area as safe and reliable as possible."

So let's review. Thousands of residents are complaining. Business people are complaining. City councillors are complaining. Even the minister is complaining about the service and telling the company to improve.

My question: is this company, which even the minister is telling to improve its service, receiving a performance bonus payment, and how much is that bonus payment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, perhaps a little education for the member on why there are incentive bonus payments made to contractors. Under that member's term of

government they had a quality assurance program undertaken by the contractors that essentially identified the problems but had absolutely no feedback loop to actually fix any of the problems. As an example, counting the number of potholes may be an interesting exercise, but if you don't actually have a feedback loop that gets those potholes repaired and someone held to account for that, it's not much of a quality assurance program.

What we have today is that the contractors operate under the principles of our program, which the member may be aware of, called ISO 9001 — an internationally accredited, recognized program which has continuous improvement as the fundamental basis of that program. That means they continually work to identify and improve on their system. That's exactly what they're doing in that area, and that's exactly what they're doing right across the province.

D. Chudnovsky: Continuous improvement? Did I hear the minister say continuous improvement? Did he say continuous improvement? There are…

D. Chudnovsky: …only 46 people in the province who can claim that there's continuous improvement in road maintenance in this province, and they're all in this room on the other side.

Now, the minister lectures us on auditing and on monitoring and on feedback loops, but surely the issue is results. Surely the issue is the condition of the roads. On that score it's unanimous. The people of the province, city councils, business people, truckers — even the minister himself — are telling the companies to improve their service.

To the minister: what is the total amount that taxpayers in British Columbia are spending on performance bonuses to the road maintenance contractors this year? What's the amount?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, one of the things that might be helpful for this member to know is that when you want to actually encourage the right behaviour, you provide both incentives and disincentives. This member wouldn't know that, because the member has never worked in the private sector. I can understand his complete lack of understanding about how you want to motivate private sector contractors.

What we have done is made sure that we not only have performance bonuses that are paid to incent the contractors to do the right thing, but we have independent stakeholder reviews to make sure that as we analyze the work of those maintenance contractors, we're also speaking to stakeholder groups like the RCMP, the truck-driving industry, the major employers — pulp mills, for example — that use a lot of the roads.

Having said all this, the one thing I take issue with is the fact that we have had the worst, toughest winter we've seen in two decades. All we hear from across the way is, frankly, just a slagging of workers who have worked very hard to try and deliver under very, very difficult circumstances. I think that by and large, they've done a very good job.

D. Routley: The minister's awareness of the present is every bit as challenged as his comprehension of the past. In….

D. Routley: In 1979 the then Socred government resurfaced Highway 18 from Duncan to Lake Cowichan. They chose to use seal-coating, where gravel and tar are pressed into the road by passing traffic. The flying rocks cost millions in damage and numerous injuries. The method was proven to be a disaster on this 110-kilometre-per-hour, heavily trafficked route.

Since then, during the '90s the highway was twice repaved without significant nuisance and with good results. Now despite all of this experience and many, many warnings from local officials, the ministry has again chosen seal-coating. Again rocks are being sprayed like hail into traffic. Damage has occurred to thousands of vehicles. Will the minister commit to a proper repaving of Highway 18 now?

Hon. K. Falcon: I was kind of snickering because I saw the former Minister of Transportation on the other side banging the desk at that. He would know.

I'm pretty sure it's not the position of the opposition that we should eliminate seal-coating in the province, because these members are well aware, I would hope, that this is actually how we extend the life of our highway system and how we do it in a cost-effective way. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't tell us, as is their wont, to just act completely irresponsibly with taxpayer dollars and repave everything, when we can actually save significant money and still extend the length and the benefit of the highway system by utilizing seal-coating.

In this case, the member knows that on Highway 18 we had a seal-coat failure — very rare. In fact, we're still trying to figure out why that occurred. It did cause some challenges for the drivers, and I don't want to

understate that at all, except to say that we have sent over 500 cheques to the individuals who were affected. We've worked very closely with the community to make sure that we lower the speed limit. We ensure that traffic is not continuing to flick up gravel, and we will redo that job once spring arrives.

S. Simpson: A key component of the energy plan that was released the other day in terms of providing power for British Columbia is the private power sector. It's anticipated to supply as much as 40 percent of our demand into the future.

The private power producers have 20-to-30-year power purchase agreements with B.C. Hydro. There is no guarantee of renewal of those agreements when they expire. In fact, those companies will be free to sell that power to the highest bidder after those agreements are settled. The government currently has no means to compel those companies to meet British Columbia needs first.

My question to the Minister of Energy is: how can he fulfil the commitments he made in that plan around energy efficiency? And more importantly, how can he fulfil those commitments long term — past 2020, past 2030 — if those power agreements expire and some or all of those companies choose to sell their power elsewhere?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to stand in the House and just remind the member that when they were in government, they actually signed some contracts with independent power producers — on Vancouver Island, some up north. They had nothing in there to actually get that electricity back. I would say to the member that he should get proud and happy of an energy plan that most everybody in British Columbia appreciates.

I don't know what it is about the energy plan that these people don't like. Is it clean energy? Is it 90-percent clean energy? Is it zero emissions? What is it they don't like, Mr. Speaker?

There are huge opportunities in the province — $3 billion worth of green, clean power that's going to be built in the next number of years in the province. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? This group said they would nationalize it if they got into power. Can you imagine? Can you imagine what would happen? I suggest they review what they said very carefully.

G. Robertson: Last November 23 the Premier pledged to investors in Hong Kong that he would aggressively pursue offshore oil and gas development, but all bets were off on February 13 when the throne speech rhapsodized about this government's sudden commitment to tackle climate change. Then, only two weeks later, on February 27 the energy plan update reaffirmed the Premier's commitment to offshore oil and gas, with less regulation and more subsidies to industry.

The Premier has flipped and flopped like a flounder in an oil spill, Mr. Speaker.

G. Robertson: My question is simple. To the Minister of Energy: what takes priority — offshore oil and gas drilling or dealing with climate change?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, the energy plan was broad-ranging. It deals with climate change. It deals with actually having enough energy in the province to meet our needs in 2016, which the NDP government did not look at seriously at all.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …over the next two years for Power Smart and conservation initiative. Is that something the member for Vancouver-Fairview disagrees with? A $25 million innovation clean energy fund — does that member disagree with that?

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that that member would get up and talk about oil and gas, because of everybody in this House, he is probably the largest consumer — his company is — of, actually, natural gas in the province of British Columbia. Unbelievable that that member would stand up….

Hon. R. Neufeld: All we want to do is keep the planet happy. That's what we want to do. That opposition is riding a 50-year-old, dead, three-legged dark horse.

You know, up-country the old saying is: "When your horse dies, dismount." I'd suggest they dismount.

H. Bains: In the vicinity there are about 37 grade 9-10 members of Frank Hurt Secondary School band team, along with their teacher Mr. Jeff Williams. Please join me and extend them a warmest welcome to this facility.

R. Lee: I have a petition of the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association signed by 17,648 British Columbians asking the Legislature to defend and to preserve parental and children's rights.

N. Simons: On behalf of residents, children and families of the lower Sunshine Coast, I present a petition to the Minister of Transportation to ensure that safety improvements take place in their area, close to their school and their neighbourhood.

For the information of members, it is the motion that represents the usual division for the purpose of the estimates debate in this chamber and the committee room, and I so move with leave.

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, just for the information of members that are involved, the Committee of Selection is scheduled to meet at three o'clock to verify membership on the various select standing committees.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant continues where she left off.

J. Kwan: Just picking up from where we left off before the lunch break, I was talking about the evictions that took place around Expo 86. Many people in the city of Vancouver were displaced as a result. I even know of community members who died as a result of those evictions. So I would really hope that the government would in fact have the wisdom to leave a more socially just legacy when the Olympics are here in 2010.

I have a young child, a daughter, and I meet many young parents. They all tell me about their difficulty in finding and accessing child care. This government has not invested in child care in a way that meets the needs of the majority of families. This is wrong and unacceptable. Billions of dollars of surpluses this year and projected for next year could be put to good use right now. This government's child care policy, in fact, is hurting families.

By funding child care, we can move our economies and build our future by freeing people to work in a more productive way then, where their family life is stabilized. This government is not doing that. We have a situation where there is a labour skills shortage. Instead of providing support to families, the government in fact is decreasing the support for families.

We have the capacity for leadership, innovation and excellence in this province. We can build a strong economy together by not leaving people behind.

One of the first bylaws ever passed by the city of Vancouver was to place a geographic restriction on where Chinese residents could live. It became present-day Chinatown. In 1907 the anti-Asiatic riots took place in my constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. During the Second World War Japanese residents were taken to the interior to be interned from there. But today the Asian community contributes greatly to the economy and provides opportunities for British Columbians. It is amazing how far we have come.

Let's build our economies. Let's do it in a way that doesn't destroy historic neighbourhoods or contribute to climate change. Let's do it in a way that helps the people who need the assistance so that they have the opportunity to maximize their potential.

It is a deep honour for me to represent my wonderful constituency in this chamber with its many narratives and histories. The government would like British Columbia to be the best place on earth. I would like that too. But for that statement to be true, it has to be a place where no one is left behind — where the government addresses the issues of poverty and homelessness, where the government addresses equal opportunities for all.

Until the government recognizes the harmful policies that they have put in place and the negative impacts of those policies, I don't think British Columbia can be true to the statement that the government wants it to be — a statement that I too share.

So I urge the members in this House, and I urge the Minister of Finance, to take a good look at her budget and at the realities of what's going on in our communities today and not to hide behind her cloak of spin doctors.

The reality is, if you dare to go out and talk to the people on the ground and see what is around you — the government should know, ought to know — there's much more work to be done. They need to bring legislation in place that would actually bring progressive, positive change for British Columbians.

They need to invest in communities. By investing in communities, they're investing in the people. By investing in the people, they're investing in our economies. By investing in our economies, they're investing in the future of British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's a pleasure to take my place in this budget debate. I want to talk about one particular theme in my remarks, what I believe is one of the biggest challenges that British Columbia is facing today, and that's in the area of available workers.

If you think about it, what a phenomenal change it has been in just six years' time — from a time six years ago when we had workers who were looking for jobs. Today we have jobs that are looking for workers. That is true in just about every corner of the province and in just about every industry that you look at today.

One of the responsibilities that I have as a minister is the whole area of dealing with the skills needs of the

British Columbia economy for the years to come. When you look back over the last 15 years, we have seen some particular contrasts in the work environment in British Columbia.

In fact, if you go back to the mid-1990s, you actually saw a time when we had a mass exodus of British Columbians who were going to other parts of Canada to look for job opportunities. In fact, the year that it actually peaked was the year of 1998, when we saw a net out-migration from British Columbia of 17,500 workers who left to go and find job opportunities in other provinces.

If you look at the rest of the 1990s, under the administration of the NDP at the time, we saw in 1999 a net out-migration of 12,500 and in the year 2000 a net out-migration of 14,800. We actually saw that start to turn around with the election of a B.C. Liberal government in 2001.

You know, I have talked to numerous British Columbians who have been in exactly that boat. When you start to look beyond the statistics, what you realize is that these are typically young workers in British Columbia who went to other provinces because they couldn't find jobs in British Columbia in the 1990s — young individuals who went to build their futures in other parts of Canada, to take their skills and take their vision, their excitement, their future careers to other parts of Canada rather than staying right here in British Columbia.

Today we're starting to see that reverse. We're starting to see those young families now starting to move back to British Columbia because of the tremendous wealth of opportunities that are here today.

I met one of those individuals just today. At the introductions at the start of this sitting of the House, there were a group of scientists that were in the gallery who were introduced. At lunchtime today I had the pleasure and the honour of talking to one of those scientists.

He was telling me that he was born in British Columbia, grew up in Coquitlam and became one of the world's leading experts in his particular field. In the mid-1990s he left British Columbia to go to the U.S. because he could not find opportunities in British Columbia. There was nobody that was actually creating an environment where he could practise his world-class science and research.

Just a few years ago he came back to British Columbia because of the environment there is for research and development today — something that was actually stimulated and caused by this government over the last five and a half years.

We have additional challenges, because what the economists are telling us is that over the next 12 years, we're going to have about a million job vacancies in this province. In the same period of time we know that we are going to be graduating about 650,000 students from grade 12 in British Columbia. So we need to find ways of attracting workers to come to British Columbia.

One of the things that I thought of is: what are the reasons why a worker and his or her family would want to either return to British Columbia or move to British Columbia for the first time, to be part of this huge, dynamic economy and this great future that we are seeing for British Columbia?

When you ask that question of a lot of British Columbians, you know what comes to mind first of all? They say, "Well, it's our natural beauty and just the splendour of British Columbia," which everybody in this House has to admit is pretty special. It really doesn't matter what corner of this province you go to. We do live in a spectacular part of the world.

The challenge that I gave to myself is: what would be the top ten reasons why somebody would want to move to British Columbia to create the career of their future? Let's say that we put natural beauty as the tenth of the ten reasons. I challenged myself to come up with nine reasons that were equal, if not more important, for that young family in their decision to come to British Columbia.

Well, I'm going to do the David Letterman routine, and that's to count from ten down to one. Reason 10 is natural beauty, but reason 9 is this: the job creation record of this government in the last five and a half years. We have seen a net increase of over 350,000 jobs in British Columbia in just five years. We in British Columbia now see an all-time record low unemployment rate.

I know that members have seen these stats that say it's the lowest in 30 years. The reason that stat is used is because Stats Canada only started using that….

Hon. C. Hansen: The member said he's never heard that before. That's actually quite interesting. It shows you what kind of research they get fed to them.

The record low unemployment…. It was only 30 years ago that Stats Canada started actually recording the unemployment rates in the way they do today. Only 4.3 percent of our labour force in British Columbia is unemployed, and that actually compares to the time during the NDP government in the 1990s when our unemployment rate went over 10 percent.

For that young family coming to British Columbia, one of the great reasons that they'd want to come here is that we've got jobs not only for that individual and their spouse, but jobs that are going to be there for their kids when their kids get of an age where they're looking for employment in this province as well.

The number 8 reason as to why a young family would want to come to British Columbia and build its future is that the future actually looks pretty good. You know, people have said, "Well, yes, there are lots of jobs today, but maybe it's short term, and perhaps it's just because we're hosting the Olympics in 2010" — and I'm going to come back to the Olympics a little bit later.

The fact that I can stand here and say without hesitation that there is going to be strong growth and good jobs for families in British Columbia for the

medium and longer term is because of the number of major projects that are being planned in British Columbia. There is, in the latest reporting that we have done of the major projects being planned in B.C., $117 billion worth of major projects that are either being built or are in the planning stages today. Many of those projects are going to be built well into the next decade to be there to provide jobs for the future.

Let's compare that to just five years ago, when we formed office. Five years ago, do you know what that number was for the number of major projects being planned in British Columbia? It was $46 billion — less than 40 percent of what is actually being planned today. Today there are 781 projects. Five years there were just 315. What that tells that young family living in another part of Canada and thinking about moving to British Columbia is that there's not only a great job here today, but there are going to be great jobs for the years to come as well.

The number 7 reason why a family would want to come to B.C. is our education system. We have one of the best education systems of any jurisdiction in the world. If you look at the international assessments that are done for 15-year-olds in the school system — and there's a standardized test that's done in country after country around the world — what that shows is that those 15-year-olds in British Columbia score better than any other jurisdiction in the world in the areas of math and reading skills.

In fact, when you look at sciences, which is really going to be so much about what the future is about, we are second only to Finland and Japan — if British Columbia were actually looked at as if it were a country comparing to those nations as well. For that family wanting to make sure their kids have a great education system, they can count on that when they come to British Columbia.

The number 6 reason why a young family would want to come to British Columbia is our health care system. As we know from the survey that was released just a year ago by the Conference Board of Canada titled Healthy Provinces, Healthy Canadians, in British Columbia we have the best health outcomes of any province in all of Canada — something that we are rightfully proud of.

The number 5 reason why a family would want to come to British Columbia is that British Columbians actually have one of the highest levels of physical fitness. I think for any parent, that's something that they strive for not only for themselves but for their children as well — to have the opportunities to be physically fit; to be involved in sports, if that's their thing; but just to be outdoors, whether it's walking and running or skiing or playing soccer.

British Columbia has some great facilities in communities throughout this province, great things to encourage young individuals and older individuals to be physically active. In fact, some of the best physical fitness that we see in Canada is among our seniors. A great study that just came out yesterday that was reported from Stats Canada showed that B.C. seniors are a lot more active than seniors in the rest of the country. In fact, British Columbia is the only province in Canada where the majority of seniors are physically active and getting regular exercise.

That compares to a national average of 41.4 percent. So not only is British Columbia in the lead, we are well ahead of the national average in that area — something that I think is very attractive for young families when they're looking for a place to come to build their futures.

The number 4 reason why a young family would want to come to British Columbia in the next couple of years is because in three years' time we in British Columbia are going to be hosting one of the biggest celebrations that the world knows: the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is no doubt, Madam Speaker, that in 2010 this is going to be a very exciting place for families to be as we celebrate those Winter Games in three years' time.

We're going to see about 2,500 athletes from all around the world. They're going to come to British Columbia to compete and show off excellence and show how they can be role models for young individuals and older individuals from all around the world. We're going to see about 10,000 journalists who are going to come to this province to report on and showcase British Columbia to the world.

I think, for every British Columbian, we are going to be immensely proud of what those viewers of television and the Internet — which is going to be very important in three years' time for watching the Olympics — are going to see when they see British Columbia being broadcast around the world. I think any young family looking for a place to build their future today would be very proud to be here in British Columbia, bringing their skills to this province and making British Columbia their home as we go forward.

The number 3 reason why a young family should come to British Columbia is the fact that the world economy is shifting, and it is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. The Pacific Ocean is going to be the ocean of the 21st century. When you look at the geographic advantage that British Columbia has, families from around the world and across Canada should recognize that British Columbia is going to be the crossroads of so much of that exciting energy that we are going to see flow. Whether it's commercial energy and trade, education, just the exchange of cultural visits or tourism, British Columbia is going to be at the crossroads between the huge, growing economies of the Asia-Pacific region and the largest economy in the world, that of North America.

We actually have that opportunity to build a pretty exciting and dynamic place in British Columbia to facilitate that kind of international trade and international exchange of people. Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia can become the meeting place where people from Asia and North America can come together to share their ideas, to share research and to share education, a meeting place for conferences and a place where

tourists will come to really be one end of the bridge between North America and Asia. I think anybody that wants to be part of that exciting future would want to make their home right here in British Columbia.

The number 2 reason why a family would want to come to British Columbia is around the area of what it costs them to live in this province, and particularly how deep government is into their pockets when it comes to how much money government leaves in their pockets. This is an area where British Columbia's gone through a pretty big transformation.

If you talk to people who built their impressions of British Columbia from, say, ten years ago, they might have an impression that British Columbia is a high-tax jurisdiction. Well, that is definitely the last century's news, because under this government in the last five and a half years we have actually made the tax regimes in British Columbia the most attractive in Canada.

Particularly when I talk about the number 2 reason, it's about all of those various taxes and near taxes that the provincial governments take from individual families. Let's look at income tax, property tax, sales tax, fuel taxes and health care premiums. In other provinces they have payroll taxes to fund their health care system; in British Columbia, we have a health care premium.

Let's look at all of those together and then compare where British Columbia is today to where we were in 2001, but also compared to other jurisdictions across Canada. Today if you look at all of those taxes or near taxes combined…. Look at a two-income family of four. Let's say that family is living today in Ontario. That family would pay a total of $8,025 in those total taxes, if they had a family income of $60,000 — $8,025 they would pay in Ontario.

Well, if they moved to British Columbia, they will actually see those total taxes drop to about $5,800. That's a pretty big saving they would realize, leaving more money in their pockets, more money to support their kids, more money to spend in the ways they choose to spend, compared to what they would be paying today in Ontario. In Quebec by the way, that same family would be paying $9,372 in those total taxes compared to just $5,867 in British Columbia.

Now, if this family was earning $90,000 in combined income, again, there's even a bigger contrast from what they would be paying in other jurisdictions. In Ontario that family would be paying over $13,000 compared to less than $9,000 in British Columbia. In Quebec they would be paying over $17,000 compared to less than $9,000 in British Columbia. Again, as families across Canada look at where their future should be built, British Columbia has a pretty attractive tax environment for them to consider.

In fact, before I leave that subject of those total taxes, we might just want to look back to 2001, to the last budget that the NDP government ever brought in, and look at exactly the same taxes in exactly the same families. The contrast is pretty stark. That family of $60,000 income under that NDP government would have been paying $6,900 a year compared to $5,867 today. That same family earning $90,000 a year, in fact, in 2001 would have been paying $10,307 compared to $8,860 today.

If you look at all of those taxes, those families are paying less today in British Columbia than they would have five years ago, six years ago under the NDP and less than the other provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, which are the provinces that we are seeing significant people move back to British Columbia from.

Madam Speaker, if you actually look through all of the various family makeups — it's included in the budget documents, if members want to go and look at it, on page 142 — you can look at every single family makeup, whether it's a two-income family of four earning $90,000, a two-income family of four earning $60,000, a two-income family of four earning $30,000, an unattached individual earning $25,000, an unattached individual earning $80,000, a senior couple with equal pension incomes of $30,000.

For the information of members, these were actually the family makeups that were included in the 2001 NDP budget, and we have tracked the exact same family makeups in every single budget since. What this shows, in the budget documents on page 142, is that every single one of these families are paying less today in their total taxes, which I outlined, than they would have paid under the last NDP government in 2001.

The number 1 reason why I think families from other parts of Canada or, indeed, other parts of the world would want to look at British Columbia for their future is in the area of one of those taxes, and that's in the area of income tax. I think it's the one thing that's sort of top of mind when people move from province to province to bring their skills and to build new careers when they go forward. The fact today is that, under the budget that was brought down by the Finance Minister, British Columbia will have the lowest personal income tax for incomes up to $108,000 of any province in Canada.

In the 1990s under the NDP government, you know what British Columbia's reputation was? That it had the highest marginal income tax rates of any jurisdiction in North America. What a contrast today, where we have actually been able to go from what they were taking out of families' pockets in British Columbia and say that we're going to let families keep more money in their pockets. We have brought in the lowest income tax rates for families, for individuals earning up to $108,000.

I think that's one of the big challenges this NDP opposition is going to have. Later today we're going to vote on this budget, and I challenge those NDP members when they stand up to vote. They have to decide. Are they going to have to go back to their constituents and look their constituents in the eye and say: "I voted against your tax cut"?

If you want to be unpopular in your constituencies, vote against this budget and go back and tell your constituents that you voted against a 10-percent tax cut for them. That they voted against leaving money in the pockets of their own constituents….

Those are my top ten reasons why I think young families should come to British Columbia. British Columbia actually has a very promising future. We are seeing those young families coming back to British Columbia today. We are seeing the immigration numbers back into the positive numbers that we did not see. In fact, if you look at the year 2003, we saw a net in-migration from other parts of Canada of 4,055 individuals. In 2004 it went up to 7,077. In 2005 it was 4,526. Last year, in just the first three quarters of 2006, we saw a net increase of 5,100 citizens coming across the B.C. border from other parts of Canada.

We are going to build a very attractive and rosy future for this province, and we are going to put out the welcome mat to ensure that those young workers are invited back to this province or invited to come to this province for the first time and bring their families.

Madam Speaker, there's one subject area that I want to touch on in just the few moments that I have remaining, and that's something that is called TILMA, the trade investment and labour mobility agreement. The reason I want to touch on it is because I heard some of the NDP members talking about TILMA in a context that convinced me that they have done no research on it at all. I don't believe that they have even gone into the website to look at what's in the TILMA agreement. I don't believe that they have actually gone into the website to look at some of the various letters that I have written to people around the province which we put up on the website that actually helped to explain TILMA and counter some of the gross misinformation that has been spread by some individuals in this House and across Canada.

I heard the member for Cariboo South, actually, a few days ago talking about TILMA, saying it evolved from a Conference Board report. That is absolutely untrue, and if the member did even five minutes of research, he would have known that.

The TILMA agreement actually evolved from ten years of discussion that started with the signing of the agreement on internal trade in 1995. There has been an ongoing debate…

Hon. C. Hansen: …across Canada about the failings of the agreement on internal trade, and the fact that we need to ensure that we can break down the barriers to interprovincial commerce across Canada. It has been a subject of numerous conferences. It's been a subject of numerous ministers' debates. That actually led to some discussions between B.C. and Alberta that said: you know what? If we can't get consensus among all provinces in Canada in terms of how to move forward and actually break down some of those barriers, then B.C. and Alberta will, in fact, go it alone.

We have heard from some of the critics of TILMA across Canada that it's going to somehow compromise our ability to regulate, to put environmental regulations in place. That is absolutely not true.

If you haven't read the agreement, go read the agreement. If you still don't understand the agreement, go and read the actual interpretations of that. A lot of the language that's contained in TILMA goes back to the agreement on internal trade — the same language that was, in fact, signed by somebody by the name of Glen Clark on behalf of the NDP government. The same interpretations spill over into the TILMA agreement as we go forward.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have heard people say that it's going to impinge on the ability of municipalities to regulate things like the size of billboards. That is absolutely not true, unless a municipality was to put in place a regulation that said that only B.C.-based companies could install billboards in that particular municipality. That would be a violation of TILMA.

What TILMA says is that we're going to break down some of those impediments between B.C. and Alberta. We're actually going to create one economy. We're going to ensure that individuals and companies can actually flow across the border within our own country in ways that are impeded today, and there are barriers of many types.

I look forward to the opportunity in estimates debate, because when you get into the estimates of my ministry, I am very sure that the members will want to come into the chamber and raise questions about TILMA. I hope I can help to correct some of the misinformation that they have been spreading. They can raise whatever questions they want, and we can have whatever debate they want to hear in the estimates debate when that comes up during this session.

In that area I certainly welcome any of the members that would like to come in for a briefing on TILMA. Officials in my ministry have worked very hard on it, and they've done a fabulous job on behalf of British Columbians to put that agreement in place. I know that there are a couple of members of the opposition who are going to actually come in for that opportunity on Monday morning, and I welcome that.

I urge other members, given the fact that there are obviously some misunderstandings they have, to also take up an opportunity to come in for a full briefing. If they don't want to do that, just come and join us during the estimates debate on the Ministry of Economic Development, and we can have a thorough discussion on TILMA at that time. I do invite the members to go into the website in my ministry and read through all of the material on this agreement. I think you will find that it is actually a very positive agreement that's going to benefit British Columbia well into the future.

D. Routley: I had this nice speech prepared, but now that I've listened to the Minister of Economic Development, I think I need to address what he's just said.

You know, the Minister of Economic Development stood up here and talked about jobs looking for people, in a province where we have the largest-growing age group of seniors and where we have fewer and fewer younger children. It's not surprising — is it? — that jobs would be looking for people.

But there's something else going on in this province. There are also 14,000 people looking for housing in this province. There are thousands upon thousands of people looking for their cancelled surgeries in this province. There are tens of thousands of students looking for some time with their teacher in this province. None of them are going to see any of those because of this government's policies.

Then the minister went on to talk about out-migration, and he spent some time framing the '90s myth. The growth rate is only now reaching the same rate as it was in 1999. It's all about demography; it's all about external economies. It's galling that the minister would stand here and talk about scientists from the Genome project and take credit for that — just like my opponent took credit for five schools built by the NDP when he ran in his election. It's not surprising. It's the Liberal way. Cut, slash, and then make up a reality out of words. But it defies the reality we face in our communities.

I heard the minister talk about his top ten reasons for a young family coming to British Columbia, and I'd like to address his top ten reasons. The number 1 reason…. I'm sorry. We're going backwards — aren't we? David Letterman style. We'll start at number 10.

Number 10 is natural beauty. I'm sure the B.C. Liberal Party will take credit for the natural beauty of B.C. But I believe it's been here…. Even before the '90s I think it was naturally beautiful. So let's just dismiss that one. It's lovely; we all agree.

Job creation record. Wow. Look at the net increase. Yes, the increase is high, but you know what? The Conference Board also rated your job creation as creating the worst-quality jobs in the country. That's what they said about your jobs. And yes, we have a skills shortage, but how is it being addressed? With the decimation of the ITAC program? With a three-year gap in coherence and training? With a disinvestment in child care so women can't access training? Is that how you address the job shortage in this province? It's kind of funny.

Let's go on to number 8: medium- and long-term prospects are driven…. Yeah, yeah, okay. Medium- and long-term prospects. Would that have anything to do, perhaps, with world markets? Would it perhaps have anything to do with the price of metals? Remember, Minister…. Well, actually, I'm going to have to return to that, because you've taken me off my notes. I love this conversation, but it's difficult.

Number 7: our education system. Yes, that young family will look to B.C. What will they see? They'll see closed schools. They'll see overcrowded classrooms and too many special needs students in their child's class for their…

D. Routley: …teacher to spend adequate time with them. Their teacher will be so stressed that that person will not be able to react to what they do best — to identify that teachable moment, to have that experience with children that gives them the grounding and the foundation that they need. That's what you've cut. It's disgraceful.

The downloads into our education system, the downloads of the MSP premium increase, the downloads of the teachers' settlement that you legislated but did not fund, the download of costs from Bill 33 that you offered to this province. This province stood together with the teachers, defending their classroom conditions of those selfsame children that the minister is trying to attract, and what did you offer them? Words. Just like this budget, just like the throne speech, just like everything you've offered this province — words, slogans, but nothing of substance. No funding. You don't have the gumption to stand behind your words, because you never had the intention to.

Okay, let's move on to number 6: health care system. Oh, yes, health care systems are the best in B.C., but then they have been for over 20 years. What do we see now? Seniors being the largest-growing group of homeless. Are you proud of that, Minister? I didn't see it in your ten points here.

Number 5: physical fitness levels. Yes, ActNow B.C. Act soon. Act some day. Insufficient diets amongst those 25 percent of the children of this province who live in poverty? It's amazing — the highest poverty rate amongst children in Canada. The seniors' fitness levels? Yes, part of that demography that has come here to retire, that boomer bulge that has come to B.C. to retire…. Many of them are very healthy, but for those seniors who lead as the fastest-growing group of homeless in this province, the physical fitness they get is pushing shopping carts and looking for the next warm place to sleep, and that is disgraceful. The minister should be ashamed.

And 2010 — a wonderful NDP initiative. We're very proud of it. The minister asked: "What will viewers see when they watch the Olympics?" They'll see B.C. They'll see homelessness. They'll see devastated forests. They'll see public services that have lost their purpose of universality and equality of service, because this government has stripped away the very means to achieve those things.

Boy, they're going to see something — aren't they? They're going to see something. Just look at the foreground. We'll keep the shot fairly narrow. Yeah, we'll just keep them out of the field. The camera shot won't be too wide.

You know what? There's a lot of space under that convention centre — $800 million. Maybe you could

have made that your housing program instead of a 10-percent tax break to those who already have homes. You did nothing to address homelessness, but that $800 million convention centre will be a good place for them to bunk out during the Olympics, outside that field of view.

Let's go to number 3, the Asia-Pacific century. I think that was a Liberal idea too — wasn't it? — the Asia-Pacific century. I give you great credit for the revolution in China. It's amazing. To the ideologues over here, it's funny that they would claim great favour for that. It's really funny.

Number 2, the cost of living — how deep is government in your pockets? Well, Minister, it's not all about taxes. It's also about downloaded fees. It's also about MSP premiums through the roof. You know what? The first year that this government raised the fees for drivers' licences, my wife, myself and my daughter needed new licences — my daughter for the first time, so she needed an "N" and an "L." Under the NDP government, that would have cost my family less than $80. Under your system, it cost my family $375.

D. Routley: Oh, it's a tax cut — right. That's how we're paying for his tax cut. I remember now; I get it now. Sorry, he knows from what they've been saying…. A bit slow, but I've got it now, you see.

That's number 2, cost of living. Wow, fee increases and service cuts, yep. Tax breaks that have favoured the wealthy and the rich and your friends, and service cuts that have penalized those living in poverty and struggling — that's what you've done. You should be very proud of it. You should be very, very proud.

Number 1, income tax. Well, that's what it's all about, isn't it? It's all about that, yeah. Never mind that we lead with the lowest tax rate. Well, we lead with the highest level of child poverty. God, it hurts to say it, doesn't it?

I grew up here. It wasn't that long ago that people from my town on the Island would go to Vancouver and come back, and they would be shocked. They saw people living in doorways. They would come home, and they'd say: "This is amazing. This isn't B.C." But you know what? Increment by increment, this government has made us used to the suffering of the poor. It's not the way B.C. envisions itself. That's not the vision we want.

Now he brings up TILMA. Yes, we want to debate TILMA. Bring it to the House. Your deal, negotiated behind the closed doors of the corporate boardrooms, doesn't satisfy British Columbians. You should consult the former Education Minister, Christy Clark, and her remarks around the education program and what effect it would have on your effort to remove junk food from vending machines.

D. Routley: Well, go talk to Christy Clark, and ask her why she went to Coca-Cola and other companies and asked them to voluntarily comply and not challenge under TILMA.

D. Routley: So there we can dismiss ourselves with the minister's comments, except to say that of the three million tax returns in British Columbia last year, which totalled $5 billion, 53 percent of them were from people who earned less than $25,000 per year. Of this massive tax break, housing program, environmental program, new car program — however it might suit the government to define it…. I'm sure there's a bumper sticker in your mind somewhere, isn't there?

Those 53 percent of the people are taking home 4.9 percent of the tax break. Whoa, whoa. Put the brakes on, family coming from Ontario. Put the brakes on. And 3.3 percent of those tax returns were from people who earned more than $100,000. You know what? They took 20.7 percent of that tax break, $107 million. That is three times the increase in the shelter allowance in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Where are Liberal priorities? It's crystal-clear to the people who have suffered from the cuts, the lack of service and the devastation you've brought to rural communities and all the other people in British Columbia who are struggling under the yoke of this government. They know it. They see it clearly. They see Liberal priorities very clearly.

Now I'll return to what I had initially intended to talk about, which is exactly the same thing: hypocrisy. Hypocrisy — a throne speech on the environment that has no mention in the budget, a children's budget from a couple of years ago that followed with us leading the country in child poverty for two years. Well, that is a little bit hypocritical — isn't it? — to claim that as a child's budget.

Then the seniors' budget. It took a little stab at housing with an increase to the SAFER grant but then followed that up with Bill 27, which made it much easier for landlords to evict seniors from mobile home parks and from assisted-living buildings. The eviction of seniors continues relentlessly under the watch of this Liberal government.

We see a budget that advertises a surplus. At the same time it propels us further and further into debt. Our debt is growing at 5.2 percent, double the rate of inflation. If I wanted to show a surplus in my chequing account, I could certainly take an advance from my credit card, but it wouldn't do me much good. This budgeting isn't doing B.C. much good.

This is Enron budgeting. This is off-book budgeting, and we're all going to pay for it. We're all going to pay for it because of things like the Vancouver Convention

Centre — $400 million over budget. And it's the first of our many Olympic projects.

What kind of legacy — not now but then — will that family from Ontario inherit from this government? This is a cynical baiting and switching, but it's not surprising from this corporate government. They advertise a green leather armchair, just like a bank might. Then you get there, and it's a big lineup and a total pain in the pocketbook. The history of failures of this government is undeniable but not well advertised — not well advertised by them or their friends that print those advertisements.

The great golden goals. I think we've forgotten them, haven't we? The first one was literacy. What happened? We were tasked as a literacy committee, and we were told by the executive director of Literacy B.C. that this province spends the least of any province on community-based literacy projects.

We heard that a 1-percent increase in the rate of literacy amongst our labour force would translate to a $1.6 billion increase in the GDP. How would that happen? It would happen by directing benefit and improvement in standards to people this government isn't interested in. That's a problem. That's why they're not interested in that. It helps the wrong people.

A 10-percent tax break was dressed up as a housing plan. How disgraceful. After six years of ignoring the housing needs of this province, after shutting down housing projects, now they denigrate those projects that are world-renowned. Social housing just doesn't work in their world.

It's all about supplements. They'd rather not build, because it's too late. They've wasted six years, and now they're going to offer a supplement. That, Madam Speaker, will be a landlord supplement, because we all know it will do nothing more than drive up rents for those who struggle the most. That, again, is very sad.

Then you have a look at the conversions that this government goes through. The environmental conversion. Coal was the way to go. But now we'll just wait. It will be the way to go when a technology comes along that doesn't exist yet, but we're going to put all our eggs in that basket anyway. We say, "We're all for offshore" when the Premier is in Asia. Then he comes back in February to this House and rules it out. Then, a mere matter of days later, it's back on the table. So the insincerity and the hypocrisy are galling.

This government, this Premier who would like to paint himself green…. The same man, the same government, has denuded the slopes of Vancouver Island from all of its forest lands. It is disgraceful. This Premier can lean on a thousand hybrid cars, and he will never make up for the damage that he did in my own riding alone.

It's horrible; 200 truckloads of raw logs leave our community every day. I go back into the bush…. I worked as a chokerman on my first job out of high school. In those days if we dragged a log across the ravine of a creek and broke a piece off, it didn't matter how much it cost. It had to be pulled out. It didn't matter. But this government has put an end to that standard.

We see mountains of wood rotting. We see a forest land loaded and ready to burn. We see pulp mills that can't get fibre. We see sawmills shutting down. We see job loss, and we lose that carbon sink that this government is counting on.

They can plant a million trees, but they've cut down what it would take to really address this problem. The devastation in our riding is atrocious. The bottom third of every river valley is completely logged off. We have pictures of machines operating with their tracks in the creeks. Forget the riparian zone. It is awful.

Now they supplement that by allowing Western Forest Products to remove private lands from the TFL — a massive giveaway of public funds. Here you go; have it — given away. But along with the value of that land that goes up five, eight, ten times as soon as it's released from that TFL, that massive giveaway to that company is not only a giveaway of money, it's a giveaway of Vancouver Island and British Columbia and that wonderful industry that is renewable and that is sustainable. Or at least would be if it had a government that had that as its interest.

But not this government. It's log it and flog it. Build some more housing. Forget about the forest, and forget about the forest industry. They have no interest in managing it for the future. It's: cut it down, log it and flog it. It's disgraceful.

Then the friends of labour conversion. After having decimated the employment standards of this province, after having damaged lives in communities, after a 25-percent cut in the minimum wage…. It is sad. After the hours of work were torn apart so that young people are now on call for one or two hours of work…. That's why the Conference Board rated your job creation as creating the worst-quality jobs in Canada. You took away overtime rights. You took away on-call rights. You changed the complaints process so that anyone who isn't computer literate and doesn't have the backbone….

D. Routley: Yes. They changed the complaints process so that anyone who is not computer literate or doesn't have the backbone to stand up to an employer, who is already abusing them in most of these cases, can't access that system. They shut off the tap. They knew it — a cynical move hurting the very immigrant population that they hope to address the skills shortage with.

This is all very sad, and what's the source of this boom? Retiring boomers from elsewhere coming here. Just as Ralph Klein will never convince the dinosaurs to die again in Alberta, this Premier can never convince the boomers to retire again in B.C.

Victoria has the lowest vacancy rate in the country, but it has the highest vacant-bedroom count. So they have had no planning, no vision. Just throw the dust in the wind. What will we be left with? Well, we'll be left with more of the same — more homelessness and more vulnerable people, particularly people like that family from Ontario that the Minister of Economic Development just invited into our province. Put the brakes on, family.

What else drove this boom? Well, metal prices. From the mid-'90s to now, silver has increased by 285 percent in value. Copper, the main driver of our mining industry in B.C., is up 215 percent. So it's at a price now where it comes out of the ground, and it gets shocked. Back then it was at a price where it stayed in the ground, and we got shocked.

The minister says it's all about their policies. Well, I think those metal prices are driven from far bigger forces than this minister's policies. Take a look, if you doubt that, at the theft of metals from construction sites — the theft of kilometre after kilometre of hydro lines in my own riding, in Ladysmith. This is created by Asian demand. They know it, and B.C. knows it.

The mismanagement of that prosperity. The skills shortage. The fumbling of the transition from ITAC to the ITA. The ignoring of repeated warnings. The experience in New Zealand, the experience of other countries that have invested in this same model. One of the main recommendations was to keep all the stakeholders at the table. So what does this government do? They say: "We'll have industry at the table. Labour, you're gone."

You have no interest in apprenticeships and skills training. I'm waiting. Does anybody want to rise to that and explain that? No.

Then we take a look at the literacy issue and the child care issue — the cuts to child care. How do we address a skills shortage if women and men who have children cannot access child care, cannot access literacy programs, cannot access training?

In Quebec they have the lowest effect of skills shortage and the highest participation of women in the skilled trades. Why? Because they have universal child care. Because women are not barriered from participating. Because they weren't so cynical as to put up those barriers as this government did. That's a very sad record.

Then we take a look at the Vancouver Convention Centre. What a wonderful project. What a wonderful display of fiscal management — in the neighbourhood of $800 million. What was the original price?

D. Routley: Thank you, Member. The original price was $495 million. Going, going, gone. Well gone past that — $800 million. Isn't it the first of the Olympic projects? With that kind of overrun on our first project, what can we expect of the others? What kind of legacy is being built by this government? It is a legacy that is a mountain of debt and a valley of human suffering. That is just too sad for a wealthy and strong province, a beautiful place like ours. That is sad.

If I had that $800 million, or if my riding could even recommend spending the $400 million overrun, let's see what we might do with it. First of all, in the aboriginal file, we might create a real new relationship by doing something about the living conditions of first nations people on reserve, which have been made so much worse by this government. All the cuts that they have made that have affected first nations people living in urban settings off reserve have driven them back home, and that has terrifically overburdened the social services on reserve and made living conditions that much worse. So the cup of desolation from their policies overflows. It overflows into our reservations and our aboriginal populations.

You know what? We'd do something to really change their lives. We would offer opportunity for training, because in most of these reserves the unemployment rate is between 70 percent, probably at best — and in my communities from 80 percent — to 95 percent unemployment.

D. Routley: I'm not happy about 80 percent and 90 percent unemployment. The Liberal member asks me: I'm not happy about that? No, I'm not happy about that. Neither are they.

What would we do in education? Well, we might give the teacher enough time to address that teachable moment. We might give enough resources not to have more than three children with special needs in a class.

My own wife has five. Now, with students that were added to her class after the beginning of the year, seven. She had to be consulted with by her principal. He came into the room and said: "You know what. You're going to have five. See you."

D. Routley: You go right ahead. Bring it back there, Minister. Bring it back.

D. Routley: Right, yeah. I'm sure my wife is shuddering that the minister is going to get her name and check on her.

D. Routley: Yeah, you go ask what kind of consultation. Walk in the door, and say: "How do you feel about this? Five special needs children in your room — how do you feel about it? I'm glad it's okay. See you later."

Agriculture. We would do something to help the small farmers of our riding who are being forced out by policies around meat-packing, who are being forced out by attacks on ALR. This government has done nothing to increase the value-added food industry in this province. In fact, they cut from food industry creation…

Then we would look at forestry in my riding. We would look at the decimation done by this government, and we might actually be able to do some of the planting that this government talked about.

We'll look to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and address some of the hardships inflicted there. We would restore some of the cancelled surgeries that this government has inflicted.

Transportation. We'd certainly not increase the ferry fares and decrease the service to the point where economic development on Kuper Island, amongst the first nations, is practically devastated. We wouldn't do that. No, we wouldn't do that.

We look at the overall picture here. We have a government that says, but doesn't do. We have a government that governs through slogan. We have a government that governs by turn of phrase.

We have a government that's busy redistributing the wealth of this province and its benefits to its friends and the rich. We have a government that has hurt people, that has destroyed environments and that has the gall to brag, has the audacity to ask British Columbia to forget that record. With a can of green paint we'll forget that record. Pretty and positive words; ugly and destructive actions. A radical agenda from a gang of ideologues.

You know what? I urge this government to take a look in the mirror and see, as we see, the true face of the B.C. Liberals, and that is one of cut and dash. Hold a gun to the head of public workers. Now we're your best friends.

D. Hayer: Before the last speaker from the NDP we had our MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena….

Deputy Speaker: Can I remind all members of the House to show respect for the speaker.

D. Hayer: Before this member from the NDP spoke, we had our MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, who is the Minister of Economic Development, respond to Budget 2007. It was a very good speech, a very detailed speech.

Then I tried to say: which is the real world? Is it the minister's from our party or the opposition's? Then I went to this headline from Now newspaper. This is from Wednesday to Sunday, February 24. It says: "Surrey's Business Crowd Backs B.C.'s Budget in a Big Way." The Premier was greeted by three standing ovations at the board of trade dinner Wednesday, at $85 per person, and the Leader of the Opposition was a day later, at $30 per person. Only 60 people showed up, and no standing ovation.

When we are in Victoria, sometimes people say that we don't live in the real world. That just shows me, because the opposition doesn't really understand what the public understands, and the proof is in the pudding. If you take a look it, it's probably the same story in many places all over again.

Anyway, I just wanted, before I start, to try and say what the reality is outside and what is the reality here. But on the other hand….

This budget speech is all about sharing the incredible opportunities created by a strong and powerful economy that leads Canada — an economy that has created more jobs than people to fill them and revenues that allow our government to share the wealth that we are creating. More affordable housing, less taxes and a better environment — things that make our province the best place on earth to live.

Those on the other side of the House know this and enjoy it. People are now flocking back to B.C. in droves, unlike the dark days of the 1990s. Our Minister of Economic Development, in his previous speech, covered all of the steps, so I don't have to repeat them.

They're coming back here from across the globe — many new immigrants and Canadians coming back from other parts of the province and other parts of the world — to seek opportunities, to seek prosperity and to seek security for their families and their children. They come here because it is the best place on earth to live. This government has made it and will continue to make it even better with growth, opportunity and prosperity. They are precious.

Homes are in demand, so the values of homes increase. Because of demand, products become more expensive, but this budget speaks loudly and clearly to those issues. Through income tax cuts, we will put more money into people's pockets to give them greater purchasing power and allow them to put a little more money aside each year for their children's future and the family's future.

This budget will, through dramatic change to housing policy, allow people to feel more secure in their homes and to make home acquisition a little easier. It is all about addressing the pressures of prosperity. To be perfectly honest, what better pressures are there than those of prosperity instead of the poverty of the 1990s?

Yet this budget recognizes that not all of us are basking in prosperity and economic good fortune. There are families and single moms out there who need a helping hand, who need to benefit from the strength of our buoyant economic times. So this government is

increasing the income assistance rate by 20 percent, the largest increase in the history of this program.

This government is also cutting income tax rates for those most vulnerable. Now those who earn up to $15,000 will pay no income tax at all. That's the first in Canada. Those at the $20,000 level will pay almost 70 percent less than they did in 2001. The family of four with a household income of $70,000 will save more than $1,800 a year compared to 2001. Even those earning $100,000 a year will pay one-third less than they did before our government came into office.

These tax cuts will help them with their housing costs. It will help them to save for their family and enhance their discretionary spending power. This means that all British Columbians earning up to $108,000 a year will pay the lowest income tax rate in Canada. When these tax reductions are fully implemented, the total provincial personal income tax burden will be lowered by $550 million a year. That is truly remarkable, and all of that because in six short years, we turned the economy around from the worst economy to the best economy in Canada.

Again, we changed the worst economy in Canada to the best in the country. This budget outlines how we are sharing that change, which moved the prosperity, promise and security for all British Columbians, regardless of their income level.

We know — and all the members from the opposition know this too — nowadays people can't find workers. In the 1990s your kids had to go to Alberta, Ontario and the United States to look for jobs, and they know that.

D. Hayer: That's okay. They're entitled to have a different view, which is different than what's outside in reality, in the outside world, as I stated in the Now newspaper previously.

By boosting the qualifications for the homeowner's grant — a grant for homes valued up to $950,000 — this government is providing relief for seniors and others who are feeling the pressure of soaring housing values. This will help seniors who have been concerned that property tax rates may force them out of the houses they have called home for decades.

In addition, this budget now lowers the qualification time for property tax deferment to age 55, providing even more security for other seniors. This is good news, especially for those seniors on fixed income who have worked all their lives to help create the prosperity this province enjoys today.

With this budget, we have taken away the fear that they'd need to sell their longtime homes, because now they don't have to. Now they can feel that their future is good. It is not in jeopardy anymore. They don't need to think that they have to move away from their community, their friends and family, and their roots.

Young people — new, first-time homebuyers — will benefit too. The housing legacy that this budget and this government are creating will allow more people to acquire their first-time home, their first significant investment in the future. With this budget, the first-time-homebuyers program has been enhanced by exempting the first-time homebuyers throughout the province from paying property transfer tax on a home valued up to $375,000. This will save those buyers up to $5,500, and that's a significant cost savings to those who have struggled to acquire that first home, that first step toward financial stability and security for the family.

It is not only the homebuyers who are benefiting from our government's decision to create a legacy of housing for all British Columbians. We are expanding the rental assistance program. We are raising the income threshold for those who qualify to $28,000 a year. This means close to 6,000 more working families — more than 20,000 in total — will be eligible to receive subsidies of up to $536 a month to help them with their housing costs. That is incredible.

For those most vulnerable in our society, our government is providing an additional $27 million over the next three years to increase the number of year-round shelter beds by close to 30 percent, as well as providing related support services for those on the street. As well, another $38 million in one-time funding will be given to projects that provide direct housing and support to those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

Those most vulnerable citizens of our society deserve to participate and benefit from the good things that have happened in our economy. This budget addresses that issue and addresses the assistance it will provide to these people to get on with their lives, to cope with their lives and also to make sure those people with addiction problems or mental disorders are looked after. Part of that will be an additional $50 per month to provide better shelter for those on income assistance. With this increase, British Columbia now has the highest shelter assistance rate in Canada for employable singles, couples and single-parent families.

For those women and children who are at risk of domestic violence, there is $6 million in funding to provide safe havens and strengthen support for them when they are in transition houses. They need extra help. The government is helping them.

For those with special housing needs, seniors and others, $45 million over four years has been allocated to convert up to 750 social housing units to supportive housing.

Again, we are reaching out to everyone in a very positive way to assist those most in need. On top of all of that, Budget 2007 establishes a $250 million housing endowment fund. This will generate approximately $10 million a year to support new projects beyond those that meet the criteria of established housing programs, opening up the way for innovation to provide new housing solutions for people throughout our province.

While I know that across the spectrum, everyone will appreciate that easing of the burden of home-ownership for housing in general, there is a particular

For those most vulnerable in Surrey, the following housing project announcements were made last week. The Atira Women's Resource Society is planning 32 units for women and children at risk of homelessness through a mix of second-stage transition housing units and emergency shelter beds. The development will also feature a high-risk-pregnancy clinic with prenatal and postnatal care. Counselling and job skills training will also be planned. The province will contribute up to $9.3 million in capital costs.

The Fraserside Community Services Society plans 12 transitional housing units for people with mental illness and addictions. The society will receive assistance through a $1.3 million purchase by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation of a property that will be leased back to the society at a very nominal rate.

The Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver will receive a $243,608 grant to help renovate a duplex for 11 housing units in Surrey. These units will be a mix of shelter beds and transition housing for people with addictions. We are indeed walking the walk, not just talking the talk, on homelessness.

Surrey will benefit greatly from the $2.1 billion in capital funding set aside over the next three years. That money is for a new major construction project — the upgrading of health facilities, equipment and information systems.

Some of the health care improvements in Surrey include the announcement of a new 148-square-foot outpatient hospital in Surrey with an estimated cost of $126 million; the opening of a new $4.8 million minor treatment centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital to relieve ER congestion by treating more than 80 outpatients a day; opening up 20 beds — sub-acute units in Surrey — to care for patients prepared either to return home or move into residential care; opening up ten new hospice beds and 18 additional acute care geriatric beds in Surrey.

Further plans to improve health care in Surrey include a new state-of-the-art emergency centre and urgent care facility, which will triple the existing emergency floor space at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Construction is planned to begin in 2008 with a projected completion date of 2010. A new prenatal care facility at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Some 67 new acute care and critical care beds by the end of 2007.

There's more — 12 new renal units by 2009 and 250 new residential care beds to be built by the end of 2008. These investments in Surrey's health care options are both needed and welcomed by Surrey residents — in the fastest-growing city in British Columbia, if not the fastest-growing city in Canada.

We heard just recently what people of Surrey wanted in health care when our Premier's conversation on health care visited our city. I am certain that outcomes, once the conclusions of this Conversation on Health are reached…. My constituents and my fellow Surrey residents will be pleased with what the future holds for them in increased health care options.

For families in my riding, the great news in this budget was education for their children. Overall the budget shows an increase of 2.3 percent for K-to-12 education opportunities. That is $633 million more over the three years on K-to-12 spending, an addition of $132 million allocated in the previous budget. It means a total of $765 million over three years for kindergarten-to-grade-12 students — all that while school enrolment throughout the province keeps on declining.

This budget does not overlook advanced education either, with more than $700 million allocated to post-secondary institutions throughout B.C. The new Kwantlen trade and technology campus in Cloverdale is now helping students. That will help to make sure that students reach their full potential, with an official opening planned for this spring.

This was announced when I was on the board of governors at Kwantlen University College. There was no funding available in the '90s, but our government has finally given the money and finished the construction.

I also want to remind this House and the people of Surrey that we now have conveniently close to home a full campus of Simon Fraser University, one of the best universities in British Columbia and Canada, located right in Surrey. It was with great pride that I joined our Premier and the president of Simon Fraser University and many others on the wonderful occasion last fall when Surrey's SFU campus was officially opened.

It was a great day for Surrey, for students and for the parents. The students don't have to go far away. They have such an exceptional facility and an opportunity for higher education or advanced education located right in their own community very close to their homes.

I also want to remind this House that Surrey has not been overlooked in the past years' budgets either, particularly in the area of dramatic transportation improvements. We already have the Golden Ears bridge underway. Now on- and off-ramps at Highway 1 and 192nd Street have been completed. Four-laning of the Fraser Highway right by my constituency office has been completed from 160th Street to 168th. Four-laning of the Pacific Highway, 176th Street, from the U.S. border to the Trans-Canada Highway….

Also, the four-laning of Highway 10 is underway, and a new underpass to link the Golden Ears bridge and 176th Street is underway. A planned underpass at 156th Street and Highway 1 in my constituency to improve access to Fraser Heights is also being planned, and the work is starting on that. The route planning for South Fraser perimeter road is on track.

There's more for my residents of Surrey-Tynehead. As a matter of fact, all the residents of the lower mainland will benefit from this. That is the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 to eight lanes, and improvement of all the overpasses and underpasses on Highway 1 and also all the overpasses in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead.

We have done a lot in the past few years, and this year's budget promises even more. In fact, there's so much good news and so many good things contained

in this budget that I'm sure the discussions about this budget will go on for weeks — about the benefits of this budget, about its inclusiveness of all people in the province — in the households of British Columbians and at the meetings they hold with their business organizations or their offices.

Never before have I seen a budget that addresses so much, provides so much for so many regardless of their economic status. That is why so many people are happy about it. We have with this budget reached out with assistance to our most vulnerable, providing them with increased shelter care, with the biggest increase in financial assistance in the history of this program.

We have reached out to seniors, providing them with long-term security against inflation and the increasing value of their homes. I know that the opposition doesn't like it, because they would like us to go back to the 1990s, but progress has to be made. Things have to get better. The way we have done it is with the help of all British Columbians and all the businesses, by turning this province back to number one from the worst economy in Canada.

We have reached out to parents and their children with help to make them the best-educated, most literate in all of North America. We have reached out to those who need health care, and we have allocated more funding to improve and enhance access to these most vital services. We have reached out broadly to everyone in this province who pays taxes by making it the most taxpayer-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We have increased the health care budget by almost 55 percent since we took over this government. That's great news.

When I talk to my constituents, the British Columbians, they're really happy about it. A lot more needs to be done, and we want to continue to do that.

I wait with interest to hear what the opposition has to say, because I'm certain that beneath their rhetoric will lie their personal belief that this budget, like the throne speech, is good for British Columbians. They support it, and they like it.

If the NDP chooses to vote against this budget, here's what they'll be voting against. Here, as a matter of fact, are some of the things they would be voting against.

They will be voting against raising the shelter rate by $50 per month for people on income assistance. I guess they don't want to increase that. They would be voting against expanding the rental assistance program, created by raising the income threshold to $28,000 per year. They would be voting against a move that will make 5,800 additional working families and more than 20,000 additional people in British Columbia eligible to receive up to $563 per month to help with their housing costs.

They would be voting against cutting personal income tax by 10 percent for British Columbians who earn up to $100,000. They would be voting against an additional $27 million to increase the number of year-round shelter beds by almost 30 percent and to provide additional related services for those people that are homeless and on the street. It is truly remarkable that the members of the opposition would oppose these benefits and these supports for all British Columbians.

In closing, I want to reiterate that we have addressed in this budget what is nearest and dearest to the heart of every British Columbian — security of home and work provided by the prosperity of an economic plan that leads the nation. That is remarkable, because in a short four years we have turned the economy around. We have created more jobs than anybody else in Canada, and we have turned this province into the best place to live and the best place to work.

H. Lali: I rise to speak against this budget speech 2007, and I'll be pointing out the reasons why I do so.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, this is the third term for me as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the constituency of Yale-Lillooet. I'm very proud to represent the most beautiful part of British Columbia, in the southern interior, and will be talking about those issues on behalf of my constituents.

Before I do that, I just want to make a few comments about the member before me, the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who just spoke. After listening to the hon. member's speech, I'm sitting here, actually…. I was sitting here during his whole speech wondering what planet that member is actually from. I was wondering what world that member actually lives in. Obviously, he's living in some fantasyland, some Lalaland where he thinks that everything in this province is just perfect.

H. Lali: Lali land. If he was living in Lali land, Yale-Lillooet, he'd understand that it's not a fantasy that he's used to. It's just unreal for that member to actually stand up and ignore all of those hundreds and hundreds of problems that his own constituents face — the other side of the railroad tracks that the hon. member refuses to actually go on to see how the real world lives, instead of the Lalaland that the hon. member actually lives in.

I want to point to one comment that he made about how he, supposedly, and his government, the Liberal government…. He talked about talking the talk and walking the walk. Again, it leads me to wonder: what province, what fantasyland, does that hon. member live in? The last thing that the Liberal Party of British Columbia — or this Liberal government, this Liberal Premier — does is actually walk the walk and talk the talk.

Nowhere is that more evident than in this budget speech. They'll say one thing, but they'll do exactly the opposite and continue to ignore the plight of British Columbians in this province, as they have done continually over the last six years.

Hon. Speaker, I think you might want to remind the member opposite that props are not allowed in the House. He keeps waving some piece of paper over there. He's not allowed to do that.

I'll continue. The most notable thing about this budget is not what's in the budget but rather what's not

in the budget. That's what the most notable thing is about this budget. When I talk to my constituents and talk to people around British Columbia, what they're saying is one thing and one thing only: this is a disaster for the people of British Columbia, especially working people in rural British Columbia.

Perhaps the hon. members, if they actually got out to look at and talk to working people in this province, would know what the reality is instead of the Lalaland that they're living in. The Liberals don't care about working families and the poor in this province, because of their mean-spirited policies.

Nowhere is that more evident than in this disastrous 2007 budget. They continued to abandon rural British Columbia, as they have done for the six long years they have been in office. For those six long years they continue to blame others for the problems they have created in this province, and it's a real shame. You'd think they would actually stand up and be honest with themselves. If they're not going to be honest with the people of British Columbia, at least they could be honest with themselves and look around at all the problems they've created all across British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia.

Again, it's about a whole lot of nothing. The Liberals have a little bit of nothing for everybody. What's notable in this budget is that they have a little bit of nothing for everybody except when you look at one area, and that's the huge tax breaks they have given to their friends. Those huge tax breaks they have been giving to their friends, to big business and to folks who make the most amount of money in this province…. They have given massive tax breaks to them, which have resulted in massive cuts in services. The Liberals said that they would return the cuts during the good times, but they have failed to do so.

Those massive cuts, if you look at my constituency of Yale-Lillooet, have resulted in the closure of all courthouses in the constituency during those six years. A number of schools were closed in that constituency, teachers laid off, classrooms shut down, class sizes going up.

Hospitals. They closed down the Lytton hospital. That's what they have done. They're going to put it back now after six years because of a hue and cry from the people of Lytton and the area. That's what they've done. Every other hospital in the area was downgraded to diagnostic treatment services or services pulled out. An example of that is in Merritt, where we had 24 beds, and they cut it down to eight.

The situation repeats itself, whether it's in Keremeos or Princeton or Hope or — what used to be in Yale-Lillooet — in Ashcroft just outside my riding, in Lytton and also in Logan Lake. They took those services out and put them into the regional centres or Vancouver.

Highways offices were closed. They pulled out legal aid services from my constituency and all across rural British Columbia. Forestry offices were closed. Probation services, social services offices, environment offices, etc. — all those people.

Now the folks in my constituency have to go to Kelowna, Vernon, Penticton, Kamloops, Abbotsford or Vancouver in order to access those services which they were able to do in the 1990s under an NDP government within the constituency. It's a real shame.

If you are a student and you're looking for tuition relief from this Liberal Premier and this Liberal government, guess what you get. You get nothing — nothing. If you're a lower-income earner or a person on social assistance, and you're looking for relief for your heating bills from this Liberal government and this Premier, what do you get? You get nothing. You get nothing in the budget. If you're a senior and you're looking for home care support, as so many seniors….

H. Lali: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin — her constituency, my constituency, those members opposite and their constituencies…. All of those tens of thousands of seniors who during the bad times…. For a long time they've been contributing to the health care system, and now it's their time to get some of that back. What do they get from this Liberal Premier and this Liberal government? They get nothing in the budget. They get nothing. If you're a senior looking for Pharmacare relief from this government, what do you get? You get nothing from this Liberal government.

Again for health care. They like to talk about how much money they're putting into health care. What they refuse to talk about is that in the six years the Liberals have been in office, they have closed five hospitals in this province and severely downgraded 45 others by pulling out wholesale services that were available in small-town, rural British Columbia before. That's what they've done.

This Liberal government closed hundreds and hundreds of acute care beds and long-term care beds, and fired 1,200 nurses three years ago. That's what they did. So if you're looking for quality health care, especially in rural British Columbia, what do you get? You get nothing because there are no new moneys in this budget.

The only money in this budget for health care is what the federal government is giving in the increase in transfer payments. That's it. That's all you get from this government. You get nothing in terms of new money coming in for health care.

If you're an immigrant and you're looking for some English-as-a-second-language support so you can upgrade your English language skills and be able to compete with average British Columbians for jobs in the private or the public service — those cuts that they have made for English as a second language a few years back…. Immigrants get nothing for ESL.

If you're an adult and you never got a chance to finish high school for whatever reason — personal reasons, financial reasons, whatever your reasons may

have been — and you're looking for some support so that you can go back and finish your high school so you can go on to take a course to get a meaningful job in life so that you can support your family, especially if you happen to be an adult single mother…. If you're looking for this Liberal government and this Liberal Premier to support you, what do you get? You get nothing.

It's the same thing for aboriginal education funding. There is nothing. The funding that they had taken away for aboriginal education several years back…. You get nothing in terms of that return coming back.

What's really in this budget, this ballyhooed budget by the Liberal government? What's really in it? What's really in this ballyhooed Liberal budget?

Well, I'll tell you something. They made much ado about a climate change initiative in their throne speech, which was about a week before the budget speech came down. If you look at the details — not even the details…. You just have to take a cursory look at what's happening in the throne speech and you take a look at the budget speech…. I have never seen a complete disconnect between the throne speech and the budget speech since I've been watching politics — even before I got elected here in 1991 and was watching television.

I have never seen such a disconnect between what was said in the throne speech — all of those false promises that were made by the Liberal government…. When it came time for action, there was nothing in the budget.

The member for Surrey-Tynehead talked about talking the talk and walking the walk. I want that member to show me where in this document, when they were talking the talk on climate change, they're actually walking the walk when it comes to putting money where their mouth is. What do you get? They get nothing.

They have given nothing. It's sheer hypocrisy. Six years they've been in office, and they continue to blame others for the problems that they have created since 2001. This decade of despair that these people, this Liberal government, have created in every area…. They refuse to acknowledge that. They continue to blame others for the problems they have created all across British Columbia.

They talked about housing. When I talk to my constituents and talk to British Columbians….

H. Lali: To continue the budget speech, when the Premier threw one of the cabinet ministers out…. You know, he was really scraping the bottom of the barrel when the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was brought in as a cabinet minister. That's for sure.

It's hypocrisy when they say that they talk the talk and they walk the walk, because what they say and what they do are two totally different things.

Housing. I was talking about housing before I was rudely interrupted by the minister from Kamloops–North Thompson. You know, when folks tell me, "This budget is a sham. It's bogus when it comes to housing…."

The Minister of Finance tried to pass off how they're putting $2 billion into housing. She tried to pass off this tax cut to the rich as being something that was going to be part of housing. When you look at it and you take those peels off the onion and get down to the core of it, there's only $125 million in this year's budget for housing. That's it.

You've got tens of thousands of people across British Columbia that need affordable housing, and these folks are putting just the measly amount of $125 million in this year's budget. One of their platforms is to convert existing affordable housing into shelter housing. It's not new housing; it's a conversion. That's their solution, and the solution is to try to put it over three years. This is what they're trying to do. They're trying to pass off this huge tax break to the rich as somehow going to help the folks who are homeless — homelessness that this Liberal government has created because of their uncaring, mean-spirited policies over the last six years. They've created homelessness, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Clerk has suggested, and I agree, that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson probably needs to have an apology.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think that the comments of "scraping the bottom of the barrel" are inappropriate and unparliamentary.

I'll continue with my comments on homelessness. You know, homelessness was created by this government, and they are providing a solution. What they're saying is that they're going to provide permanent but short-term beds for folks. This is a temporary solution; it's not a permanent solution.

It's a temporary solution, and their solution really can be summed up in the statement "out of sight, out of mind." That's how they view folks who are homeless. If they can put them out of sight somehow, they'll be out of mind, and people will just forget about it.

Their whole solution of "out of sight, out of mind" is to put them on the back burner, and then after the Olympics they can deal with it, if they're ever going to deal with it. So they want to put them out of sight for the Olympics. That's what their permanent short-term solution is, as it was stated in the budget — that it's going to be permanent but short-term beds for folks, instead of finding a permanent long-term solution to this problem.

But they have no problem giving a continued huge tax break to the wealthy, and they're trying to somehow pass it off as the 10-percent tax cut — how it's going to help all of those people in British Columbia. I mean, look at the people at the lower end of the economic cycle who are the ones who could use the tax breaks the most. You'll find that as you go up the income cycle to folks making over $100,000 a year — $120,000 or $150,000 — they're the ones making the big tax break. The very people who already had huge tax breaks from this Liberal Premier and this Liberal government…. They're benefiting even again, and this in the face of nobody actually asking for tax breaks over the last year.

They're looking for a reinstatement of services as it was promised by this Liberal government when they made their massive cuts to services when they had that big tax giveaway to big corporations and to the wealthiest in the province in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. They said that they would return it when they were able to balance the budget.

In the face of an almost record surplus that is coming up, they still refuse to give those moneys back to the services — those massive cuts that they made to services in health care, in education and in social services in this province. Yet they continue to shovel money off the back of a pickup truck to the wealthiest in this province and to big corporations, in the face of them not even asking for the tax breaks.

Again, when you look at child care…. They made a big deal about child care. Mind you, even the word was missing in the throne speech. But now they're talking about how they want to look after folks who need child care so they can go into meaningful jobs. But when you actually look into the budget, it's not even in the speech. They forgot to even mention it in the speech. That's how important child care is to this Liberal Premier and this Liberal government. Child care is so important to the Liberal government, it's not even in the speech. It's not even in the budget. It's a shame.

They keep saying when they are questioned by the media, by our opposition critic for Childcare…. Every time they get up in this House to answer questions, the Liberals keep talking about how they've got increased subsidies. That's what they talk about. Yet what good are subsidies if there are no spaces available? It's about spaces. They just don't get it. This Liberal government doesn't get it, and the reason they don't get it is because they're not out there talking to real people in real situations who need child care — the single mother with two kids who needs child care so she can go out and get that meaningful job, so that she can go to a job on a regular basis.

They're not out there talking to these people. They're not out there in the real communities talking to real people about their real problems. They're not out there. Why? Because they don't care. They don't care about people in those communities. This whole budget is a mean-spirited budget. They don't care about the needs of average working-class families in this province, especially those people who need child care.

You know, they can't find $5 million to keep child care referral centres open in this province, but they can find $1.1 million for hiring extra Liberal Party hacks for ministers' offices. They think it's more important to hire party hacks to work in ministers' offices to pull out more spin, like increased subsidies as opposed to actually putting that money into real spaces so that the folks who need it can have the space for child care. That's what the priorities of this government are. Why? Because they don't care. They don't care about working people and folks who need child care.

I want to talk about rural transportation for a minute. When we talk about rural transportation needs, it's not there. It's not in the budget. It hasn't been in the budget for six long years, and rural British Columbia continues to suffer. Look at the Thompson-Okanagan, the constituency of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and all across the north, the Kootenays, Yale-Lillooet — all of these communities. They're all suffering. In my communities — if you look at Lillooet, Lytton, Gold Bridge, Princeton, Merritt, Logan Lake and all of these communities — they're all suffering.

The last time any meaningful moneys have gone into the transportation needs of the people of Yale-Lillooet was when this government was in office in the 1990s. That's the last time. It's been six long years, and if those members on the Liberal side would actually get out of their ivory towers and start taking drives throughout rural British Columbia, they would see the real picture. They can sit here and make all sorts of statements in this House.

They can make these lofty statements all they want, but the reality is something else. That's because they don't get out there into those communities to take a look around for themselves to see the needs of those people. You will see potholes after potholes in what used to be a good highway system in rural British Columbia under an NDP government — potholes under this government.

H. Lali: I wonder who was the Minister of Highways in the late '90s. I think you're looking at him, hon. Speaker. It's the last time any kind of moneys went into rural British Columbia — when this member was the

Record amounts of rehab and capital work went into Kamloops–North Thompson under an NDP government. It's in the records. You can look at before that time, and you can look at it after that time. You'll find out that the record amount of investment was made by an NDP government, when this MLA was the Minister of Transportation and Highways, into Kamloops–North Thompson and all across rural British Columbia.

We were actually getting rid of some of the backlog in terms of transportation, and now it's falling apart. The reason it's falling apart is because they're seal-coating the seal-coat. They're crack-sealing the crack-seals that were already crack-sealed. They're hot-in-place remixing the hot-in-place remix.

They're not providing any new two-inch overlay in all of those parts of the province in rural British Columbia. That's why it's falling apart. That's why you've got record amounts of complaints about windshields being broken.

It's the same thing with the highways maintenance. They're letting them loose. They've got complaints all across…. And you get the present minister of highways saying: "Well, we've had the worst winter in 25 years." I think he's forgotten about 1996-1997. If you look at the number of complaints, they were about 1/10 of what they are happening now. It isn't anywhere near as severe as the winter of '96-97.

My constituents in the Lillooet area are looking for relief from this government in terms of looking after the Texas Creek slide, the Big Slide. The last time moneys were spent on there is when I was the minister — spent $890,000 to actually do it on the one-time, short-term solution that was there, for cribbing and meshing that were put in place at the time.

Also, we put over a million dollars into a study to look into the long-term solution, which this present minister has canned. He's said he's not going to do it. When we were in government, we were going to create a circle route. We started the Sea to Sky Highway with funding when I was the minister — to go into the engineering and design on the work. Some of that is being done now to create a circle route starting from Vancouver into Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton, through to Lillooet, the Duffey Lake Road; and then from Lillooet on to Lytton, the Fraser Canyon Highway; Highway 1 from Lytton on to Hope; and then the Trans-Canada Highway, the four-lane from there into Vancouver.

A complete circle route. Tourism British Columbia wants it. The local tourism association wants it. The chambers of commerce in Lillooet and Lytton want it. The town councils of Lytton and Lillooet also want it. The communities want it. The first nations want it. The MLA is in favour of it. When he was the minister, we were going to do it.

It behooves this minister to actually create a safe route. It just isn't good enough to put money into the Sea to Sky Highway and stop at the mountains, at the Duffey Lake Road.

You know, this mean-spirited Liberal government can find billions of dollars to pour into the transportation megaprojects in the lower mainland, but they've got nothing when it comes to the people of Yale-Lillooet and rural British Columbia for their transportation needs.

Again, when you look at the biggest infestation in the world that is taking place, it's the mountain pine beetle infestation in British Columbia. All of those working-class communities like Lytton and Lillooet and Merritt and Princeton and Hope and others, and so many in other members' communities as well, up into Cariboo in the north…. They're all looking for relief. The feds were going to cough up some money, but the Liberal government in this province refuses to do that. In this budget there is nothing in terms of any new money, nothing to fight this epidemic that is taking place with the infestation.

They've got nothing to eliminate surgery wait-lists in the hospitals either. It's tokenism, what they're doing. They created those large wait-lists to begin with. They created them when they gutted health care in this province. There's nothing wrong with the publicly funded health care system that we have in British Columbia. There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is wrong with this Liberal government, which is actually creating the crisis by underfunding it and because they don't care.

They don't care about what's happening, especially in rural British Columbia where they've taken health care out of those hundreds of small communities in rural British Columbia — just yanked it out and put it into some of those regional centres and also into Vancouver. They've taken access away for people — people with low income, people who don't have cars, people who are on social assistance or on unemployment. It's called EI now; it used to be called UI. All of those folks, the working poor.

A lot of those folks, if they are fortunate enough to own a car, can't find enough money to put gas in the car so they can get out from Lillooet to go to Kamloops or Kelowna or Vancouver to get access to health care. That's the state of affairs. If only the Minister of Health, who himself is from rural British Columbia, would once again actually turn his eyes to rural British Columbia and see the plight of those people — the low-income people, the single mothers, the seniors and the aboriginal people. It just goes down that list, on and on and on again — all of those people that they have abandoned.

In this chamber we see Liberal minister after Liberal minister, Liberal MLA after Liberal MLA, getting up to say how proud they are of this budget. When you look at this budget, what are they proud of? They're proud of a whole lot of nothing. That's what they're proud of. This Liberal government should hang its head in shame.

They're robbing the people of British Columbia of billions of dollars, taxpayers' dollars, out of their pockets. They're bringing it into Victoria. They said they were

going to do that during the bad times. I can see it if there was a record deficit like they had in 2003. The largest deficit in the history of this province was brought in by a Liberal government, and they justified those massive cuts to services in British Columbia because they said they had to balance the budget.

Now they're on the road to a massive surplus, but they refuse to put the moneys back. I see ministers clapping. They're clapping for the fact that I said they have robbed the people of British Columbia by taking taxpayers' dollars out of their pockets — $3.5 billion surplus — but they refuse to give it back. They made that promise in the early part of this decade that they were going to put the money back when they had it.

They have the money right now, but they refuse to put it back. They have no problems shovelling that money off the back of a pickup into the pockets of their friends who finance their campaigns. Howe Street, big business, people making over $120,000 a year — they're the ones who are benefiting.

It's not the single mother on welfare in this province who is benefiting. It's not aboriginal people in this province who are benefiting. It's not the people who need assistance with English as a second language and the immigrant community, who need the help…. They're not the ones who are benefiting.

When you look across the province, it's the seniors who have paid their taxes and who have paid their dues all their lives who are looking for support from this government to help them for Pharmacare and home care. When they need that care in their communities — "when they need it, where they need it," as the Premier promised…. They're the ones who are looking for support, and they're not getting it from this government.

They want to talk about talking the talk and walking the walk. Well, I challenge those Liberal ministers to get out there into the rural part of British Columbia and get into my communities and tell seniors, aboriginal people, students, women…. Tell those people who are working poor — tell them to their face — that they actually care for them, because they don't.

Hon. L. Reid: I may indeed be the best one to respond to the member for Yale-Lillooet, because I've listened to this interesting diatribe since 1991. I was especially intrigued when he thought he would somehow suggest that he made decent decisions as the Minister of Transportation in this province.

I would ask the member opposite to harken back to the idiotic decision that resulted in the No. 5 Road interchange in my riding. Absolute idiocy when it comes to transportation planning in the province, and that member opposite took enormous pride in that. That is not something that speaks to good government or good planning or good forethought in British Columbia.

I'm pleased this afternoon to respond to Budget 2007. There are great opportunities before us in British Columbia, enormous opportunities.

I'm delighted to represent the riding of Richmond East, hon. Speaker, and I'm delighted to tell you that this riding has done some amazing things over the past number of years. I enjoy tremendous support from a superb executive, and I am grateful. I extend my sincere thanks. They're an amazing group of people.

The Richmond Farmers Institute in Richmond has great stewardship ability and will steward farmland as we go forward. I thank them for their stewardship.

I can tell you that I do believe that Richmond East is the best place to live, to work and to raise a family. We have cranberry growers. We have blueberry growers. And I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that we have a brand-new business in the riding of Richmond East, the Sanduz winery. Neeta and Dave Sandhu take an agricultural product, a blueberry product, and make it into a glorious beverage. They grind berries. They powder berries. They're making bread from berries.

There's a whole array of product that is healthy for British Columbians that emanates from the farmland of Richmond. The antioxidant ability of a blueberry is well known, well researched. That research comes to life in the riding of Richmond East. They have built a superb business which celebrates great agricultural product. They're employing British Columbians.

We have community space. We have an amphitheatre at King George Park in Richmond, meeting space, schools, parks, a new millennium park at Garden City and Alberta Road in Richmond. It's a tremendous place and an opportunity for folks in Richmond to plant trees in celebration of family members, as memorials to family members — an opportunity to put something in the ground that actually matters as they go forward.

The Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House in east Richmond is a glorious place, and I don't believe for a second that there are people who would oppose individuals living until they die, having the opportunity for a good death as they go forward. Those things are vitally important to building community, and it is about building community. It's incredibly important that we do that.

I'm a mother of two children. My daughter just turned seven. My son is two years old. So I'm a purchaser of child care, a funder of child care through 4,000 providers supported by governments, a builder of child care spaces — 3,300 spaces in the last two years, 1,500 of which will come on line.

Just last Thursday I officiated at a groundbreaking in Langley for 80 new spaces. That calendar is full in terms of openings and groundbreakings. It will result in 1,500 new spaces. It's a $14 million investment. That is a good investment on behalf of the children and families of British Columbia. It is important that that work continue.

I have served in government now for more than six years. I've had the absolute privilege to serve in early childhood development and now in child care — complex, challenging areas, no question. My fundamental approach has been to support those who care for children. I firmly believe that a parent is a child's first

and best teacher. There is no question. I have a challenge to create as many choices as possible for British Columbia families.

This is not for one moment a simplistic discussion. The members opposite would have you believe that somehow one size fits all. One size rarely fits anyone. This is about flexible child care opportunity in British Columbia, and this is about inviting players to the table to work with us as we go forward — no question.

Again, that is my challenge: to create as many different opportunities and choices for British Columbia families. Because that will recognize the unique needs of B.C. families for family child care, for group child care, for infant development, for supported child development, for special needs youngsters, for professional development of child care providers, for parental support, for parenting support, for an early learning framework recognizing that parents are a child's first and best teacher.

That is the discussion underway today. How we support parents matters in British Columbia. How they parent their children will then determine how those youngsters parent their own children. That is the essence of the discussion. What we pass on to our children is important in terms of the type of parents they will be when that time comes for them. It's vitally important that we remember that.

The child care subsidy. We have been abundantly clear that the priority has been placed on vulnerable families. That is without reproach. That is a fabulous decision for 25,000 B.C. families earning under $38,000. We lifted that income threshold from $21,000 to $38,000, capturing thousands more British Columbia families. That is a $126 million investment today, and growing. The members opposite have not said that that's important. I clearly say that is important for British Columbia families.

I began my career some time ago as a teacher of youngsters with special needs. There is no more challenging a child to parent than a child with a special need. For the members opposite to somehow suggest it's not important enough for them to say that that priority is important, is above reproach…. Interesting. They will be held to account for it.

As a government, we have very clearly taken the decision to support vulnerable families. There are no families more vulnerable than those attempting to parent a special needs youngster. That decision by this administration is one I'm incredibly proud of. It speaks to me.

We're talking about youngsters today who would not be welcomed into child care centres — with autism, with Down syndrome, with cerebral palsy, just to name three — without the appropriate supports and resources. We had individuals in this province, child care providers, who turned those children away from centres — unbelievable and wrong, hon. Speaker. Our challenge as a government is to support those families, to support those parents. That is hugely important.

The provincial operating fund for child care is intact going forward. Members opposite will know that the federal government has cancelled the early learning and child care agreement. The province in year 1 received $85 million. In year 2 it received $92 million. In year 3 it should have received $152 million. In year 4 it should have received $152 million, and in year 5 it should have received $152 million.

There are members opposite who have continued to suggest that the provincial government cancelled the federal early learning and child care agreement. They have said it, they have written it, and they have carried that message forward. Of all the irresponsible, ignorant approaches to take — absolutely ignorant. I can tell you that the predictability of this opposition, which has done nothing but agitate around an incredibly important issue for families in British Columbia, is unhelpful.

Hon. L. Reid: Your agitation — take it to the federal government, Member. Take it to the federal government. Understand clearly…

Hon. L. Reid: …that you have no idea of the approach that needs to be taken.

Deputy Speaker: Members, will you please refrain from commenting, and have respect for the speaker, as they show respect to you when you're speaking.

Hon. L. Reid: I certainly have been unimpressed by the absolute predictability of the opposition, hon. Speaker. One tool in the toolbox. Let's upset as many parents as possible, and somehow they think that that's been useful, thoughtful. I only have to look at the Leader of the Opposition. Review the history. A child care plan ill-conceived and unfunded — that's their legacy to child care in British Columbia. Not one of the members opposite should stand up and be proud of that.

Hon. L. Reid: There was nothing to cancel, hon. Member. It was unfunded, ill-conceived, hon. Speaker. If that is indeed what they will continue to be happy being remembered for, so be it, but there was nothing that was thoughtful or helpful — nothing thoughtful, nothing helpful.

Hon. L. Reid: To the member opposite: you didn't fund child care. So yes, yes, you do have much, much to be held to account for.

Again, the provincial operating dollar for child care in British Columbia is going forward. There is no change. There has been no change. The province's accounting in terms of the provincial operating dollar for child care — no change. The federal enhancement evaporates on the 31st day of March. The members opposite know that, and they know that it evaporated because the federal government took a different decision. They absolutely know that.

If the members opposite for one second would suggest that they have any expertise or skill around provincial-federal negotiation, I would not concur. I would not concur, and they would be well-advised not to take great pride in their record in that regard.

The early learning and child care agreement, $633 million over five years, is not coming — a federal decision. It's misunderstood by the members opposite, misconstrued by the members opposite, miscommunicated by the members opposite — again, because there's one tool in the New Democrat toolbox, and it is about unsettling families. Wrong, wrong, wrong — every time. Members opposite will know that I have watched that single tool in the opposition toolbox for more times than I care to acknowledge.

Hon. L. Reid: The federal government cancelled the early learning and child care agreement, yet the opposition critic continues to ask: "Why, why, why?" Ask the question of the federal government. The question should be put to the federal government.

I know that many members continue to repeat misinformation, and do so knowingly. They are knowingly misleading parents in the province. They continue to repeat misinformation; they continue to say that the province has cancelled the early learning and child care agreement, knowing full well that what they say is untrue. They will be held to account for that. They know full well that it's not true.

The discussion about spaces in the province. I intend to put on the record the distribution of these spaces across British Columbia. It's a $14 million investment. The number of spaces that are going forward…. I'm sure that if they listen carefully, they will find that some of these are actually in their ridings.

Bowen Island Preschool and Community Daycare Society is building space for 30-month-olds. The Bridge River Indian Band in Lillooet — the hon. member may have an interest — 20 spaces are coming on line.

Capital Families Association in Colwood, 25 spaces coming on line. The Langley Meadows Community Association, 20 preschool spaces coming on line. Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, 20 preschool spaces coming on line.

The Montessori Training Centre in Vancouver, 15 spaces; Seabird Island in Agassiz, 12 spaces; Spare Time Child Care Society in Vancouver, 30 spaces; the Step-by-Step Child Development Society in Port Coquitlam, 25 spaces.

The Tsawwassen First Nation in Delta — many, many spaces: 12 preschool, eight under 36 months, 24 for 30-months-plus and 16 out-of-school care spaces. It's a tremendous contribution to that community.

The YWCA, building spaces for babies; Beecher Bay First Nation in Sooke, 16 spaces; Campbell River Child Care Society, 35 spaces; Central Island Independent School Society, 32 spaces; Children's Circle Daycare Society, 56 spaces; Young Men's Christian Association, YMCA, 50 spaces; the Kincolith village government, 32 spaces; Halfway River First Nation, 20 spaces.

Kids Cottage Daycare Society is adding eight spaces; Langley Children's Society, 20 spaces; Lax Kw'alaams village government in Greenville, 32 spaces; North Vancouver school district, 60 spaces; Oak Avenue Neighbourhood Hub Society, 32 spaces; Pemberton Child Care Society, 56 spaces. Penticton and District Community Resources Society, 12 spaces. School district 47, for the member opposite, Powell River, eight spaces. The list goes on for three additional pages.

When the members question whether or not there's new space coming on line in British Columbia, I will happily add to the record the spaces coming on line. It's a $14 million investment, and it is creating child care space in the province. The reality is that there are thoughtful, committed people in a whole array of different venues in British Columbia who are doing exactly that. There are businesses today who have employees that they are creating on-site child care for.

The members opposite would say: "No, no, that's not appropriate child care." They've said that. They should ask those moms and dads who get to take their baby to work with them in the morning, get to have lunch with their child and get to take their baby home in the evening. They don't have to rush in the morning to drop off the child in a different location and don't have to watch the clock every second to think they might be late to pick their child up. This is a kindness to families. The members opposite cannot get their minds wrapped around being kinder to families.

I am more than happy to continue to put the number of spaces on the list, and I can tell you that this is about flexible, inclusive child care. My challenge is to encourage people to build child care.

Your contribution has been to discourage people. Why in the world would you think that would be helpful to the ridings in British Columbia? I have no idea. Most of the behaviour of the members opposite, hon. Speaker, frankly defies logic. These are people who are making a contribution, delivering a space and doing it because they value their employees. I'm not sure why the critic opposite somehow believes there's something wrong with that. I can't fathom it.

There are child care opportunities before us. There are municipalities in British Columbia who are joining with us to build child care. I read some of them into the record moments ago. This is a partnership with providers, with levels of government, with community members,

with people who are committed and interested in building something — not dismantling something, as the members opposite would continue to mislead and misinform. This is about building something in the province. I, for one, am incredibly proud of the people who work with us to see that they can add some choices to the child care basket in British Columbia. It's incredibly important.

I can tell you that not so long ago we had the opportunity to talk about where we were in terms of some of the other child development services in British Columbia. Some amazing projects have been undertaken, and we as British Columbians are now reaping success. The newborn hearing screening program at Children's Hospital. The vision testing outreach. The ads that many members in this chamber will have seen on television talk about the importance of an early vision screen for youngsters. It's important work because it's all part of an early childhood development package — vitally important.

Children First initiatives , expanded in the past year to 45 distinct communities — hugely important.

We continue to be guided in our work by some of the best research in the country. The universities in British Columbia have formed a consortium where they analyze some pressing questions here and there that allow us to drive better public policy as we go forward — vitally important.

The Roots of Empathy program in British Columbia, a program that has had enormous success, has been enormously important in districts, families and communities who are interested in addressing the bullying question. The program is designed to teach vulnerability to very young children. The best by-product of that program is that the youngsters engaged in that program no longer spectate at instances of bullying. They understand vulnerability, and they take forward that message. They engage. They understand that a six-pound infant is a vulnerable person. They take that early learning with them as they go forward.

The research that's been handled by Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl at the University of British Columbia is demonstrating that in spades. Children are bringing down the incidences of bullying in British Columbia classrooms and British Columbia schools — vitally important.

I'll tell you that one of the pieces we're incredibly proud of is that we in British Columbia are the pilot site for the Seeds of Empathy. Seeds of Empathy is a program for three- and four-year-olds. Indeed, if this is about teaching lifelong habits, we want to teach those children at even younger and younger ages. That research will conclude this June. That work is underway. I've been amazingly impressed.

It's been a joy in my life to know Mary Gordon, the founder of this program. As a kindergarten teacher in her day, she has brought something to the delivery of education that, frankly, is changing the world. She is delivering that program in China and Australia today. There are offers for her to be in many, many parts of this country and this world. That work will have an impact.

I talked about special needs youngsters who may go to preschool and to child care in British Columbia. They go having been supported amazingly well by the infant development program in British Columbia. Dr. Dana Brynelsen is an amazing leader. This is an amazing service that is there for families when their little person is born — i.e., with Down syndrome, diagnosed at 18 months with autism today. They are there to walk that family through the process and guide them in their parenting practice. They are there to deliver that level of expertise. I'm extraordinarily proud of the program.

We touched earlier on supported child development. That is running a $54 million investment today. That is the people in British Columbia who see those youngsters from three years of age to six years of age — vitally important. I can't imagine that there would be anyone who wouldn't be proud of that. So birth to three is infant development; three to six is supported child development — building a continuum of care that matters to families.

Unlike the members opposite, we no longer ask families to find a new set of providers, a new care plan or a new treatment plan when the child turns three. We transition to the end of their grade 1 year. An amazing program and an amazing set of individuals who deliver that day in, day out in British Columbia.

Is that a piece of the early childhood development puzzle? Absolutely it is. It couldn't be anything else. Is it important? Is it a support to the child care community? It couldn't be anything else.

Aboriginal supported childhood development in the province of British Columbia is led by Diana Elliott — an amazing woman, first nations — doing the work that needs to be done to assist families, to assist moms and dads in communities across British Columbia to be the best supporter, best teacher they can possibly be for their youngster.

I have enormous pride in this program. They do amazing work. They will continue to do that work in British Columbia because we have focused very clearly on supporting aboriginal youngsters in the province. That work will matter as these children go forward.

The Success By 6 initiative. This work doesn't happen because, as members opposite would have you believe, they pit one group against the other. This works, frankly, because you create a continuum of service that's comprehensive.

The Success By 6 initiative in British Columbia matters. Many members opposite have spoken very highly of it in their community papers. Even though they're nattering now, they have supported the program in their local press. They've attended the Success By 6 celebrations in their ridings. I have the photos. They have at one point been proud of a service that connects services in British Columbia. They may not be proud today, but they're pretty changeable on these issues. They have been proud.

These programs deserve recognition, and they deserve support as we go forward because they are improving

the connections, the lives, the supports for families. They rely on good research, and it is about local delivery. These programs, these connections, these integrations are in most cities, towns and villages in British Columbia. They have been successful. That has been a successful enterprise in British Columbia.

An area that needs ongoing diligence — and I'm pleased to tell you I have tremendous support from my cabinet colleagues to ensure that this issue goes forward — is the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome spectrum disorder prevention and treatment. It's incredibly important to me. We were the first jurisdiction in Canada to come out with the report that talked about a provincial strategic plan, how we would work through that plan. We've accomplished the first plan. We are now working on the second. It's vitally important — absolutely vitally important.

We participate in the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder partnership. It's a network — four western provinces, three territories. The members opposite didn't choose to join when they were in government and missed a glorious opportunity that looks at how we go forward so that not every jurisdiction starts every research project or every implementation or every action plan from ground zero. They actually have the ability and the interest, incentive and insight to build on what has gone before. It's a vitally important program.

We continue as the Canada Northwest FASD Partnership and, in fact, the minister's meeting is happening in British Columbia in March. That work continues relentlessly across Canada. Day in, day out there are researchers working to drive the best practice. There are families coping daily with the challenges of raising children affected by alcohol consumption. There are teachers today well supported by the Ministry of Education to better equip themselves in terms of the types of care and the types of teaching they engage in with youngsters.

Cross-ministry projects in terms of the liquor distribution branch, in terms of better signage, in terms of better messaging — really, really important. The B.C. Centre for Social Responsibility is another glorious partnership across government which looks at responsibility in terms of when it is not appropriate to consume alcohol: when you're underage, when you're driving and when you're pregnant. That message has to come forward and is coming forward from a responsible government.

Certainly, the work that the Minister of Education has done is vitally important, because it's not just the birth to six piece that is important. It's how we transition those children as they move through public school, as they move into the community. Vitally important. I am absolutely committed to how we transition youngsters through community work, education and the medical system so that, indeed, their families are supported as they go forward.

We've had lots of great assistance. Lots of great assistance. Family resource programs are just one avenue where that has been incredibly helpful to us, and those are opportunities for families to come and learn how to parent more effectively.

Members opposite see no value in that. I see enormous value in that. It's a partnership. It's child care. It's early childhood development. To somehow suggest — and the members opposite do it regularly — that there's some win in pitting one group against the other…. Not sensible. They will be held to account.

S. Hammell: It's a great pleasure to rise and respond to the 2007-2008 budget. I'd first like to acknowledge the voters of Surrey–Green Timbers and how proud I am to be sent by them to this chamber. For a community to place their confidence in you to take their voices to the place where decisions are being made that affect their lives is indeed a heavy responsibility and one that I take seriously.

My constituency is named after a huge urban forest that sits in the middle of North Surrey, an urban forest that the voters, through a referendum in the '80s, dedicated as an urban forest park. In the '90s a logged section of it was transformed — in collaboration with the community, the province and the city of Surrey — into a lake that's stocked with fish. There youngsters often find their first thrill of the catch.

The walking trail around the lake allows members of the community to enjoy the unique space: a flat, open meadow and a dense forest. It's actually just a wonderful place to have a constituency named after, and we have a particularly unique character in Dale Denny, who was the man who envisioned the more active part of this forest.

In Surrey–Green Timbers we also have two major shopping centres — one Surrey Place and one Guilford. Surrey Place is the urban home of Surrey's first university. It was called Tech B.C. at one point, and it fulfilled the dream of a university, which was in the mind's eye of the community for 16 years. That university morphed into SFU Surrey, where I am actually taking classes in Punjabi.

I have been taking classes in Punjabi. It takes quite a long time to learn another language. No comments. The university is centred in a beautiful building that has won many awards and, like many things in government, is a result of public policy and government actions that crossed both of the recent governments.

The architecture features the timber and products of our forests and is breathtaking. However, it was a bit disconcerting, if not amusing, to watch a video on the opening of the event, which seemed to try to revise history just a little. According to the video at the official opening, the only credit was given to the current government and the Premier — not the 16 years that the community fought to have a university and not the city. No credit to the city, no credit to the school board or the previous government — unfortunate, I think.

We can find other small centres in the constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers. My community is very, very mixed. We have Canadian-born Canadians as well as Canadians from every corner of the globe. We have every language, every religion, every race, and all these ordinary folks are trying to raise their families and

meet the needs of their community. The people are concerned with issues of government, particularly issues that the government deals with that directly affects their life.

Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that health care is an issue within my community. Now, I don't think that they lie awake at night because the Fraser Health Authority has not hired a permanent CEO for two years. We've just passed the second anniversary of when Bob Smith was fired, and there is nothing yet in terms of a new CEO. There is more money for more headhunters, but nothing yet for a permanent CEO that guides the actions of the Fraser Health Authority.

I also don't think they lie awake at night over the fact that our board chair resigned, as well as a board member, but I don't think that it builds their confidence. I do think it gives them pause to know that in the '07-08 budget we are facing a $65 million deficit and that the current budget documents, as they pertain to our health region, are not in compliance with the law.

After blowing up St. Mary's Hospital during the last term of government — literally blowing it up; in fact, during the election, if I remember — we have lost further acute care beds, in the region that is the fastest-growing and the largest in the province. At the heart of the dysfunction in the system is the lack of acute care beds. It is the addressing of the acute care beds, as was seen today, which is at the heart of the matter in the Fraser region.

During the election the Premier noticed the problem at Surrey Memorial, and I think it was the flooding of the emergency ward that caught his attention. He promised a new emergency ward and some more facilities in the South Fraser region, and he also promised that the crisis in health care would be addressed. In fact, there was a promise that a new emergency ward would be constructed in 2007. However, there was a new announcement, and now that construction is to begin in 2008. We were also promised a new hospital and that construction, which was originally to start in 2007, has been pushed off into the horizon and won't start until 2008.

Hon. Speaker, Surrey has been on the map and on the radar over the fact that its health care has been in crisis for a while. In the first four years, in the fastest-growing region of health care in the largest region, no capacity was added to the system, and in fact, the capacity was reduced. In the second term promises to add capacity with an ever-receding commitment to a time line to begin construction has been done, but that time line continues to recede. That is the central issue of the constituents in my community.

Prior to today one of my colleagues asked what would he do, or what would his constituents do, with the overrun from the convention centre? Now, there is some debate around what the amount of that overrun will be. I think the original numbers around the convention centre were around $495 million, $496 million, and they're now in the range of $800 million. I actually agree with the member for Surrey-Whalley, who is suggesting that that convention centre will break a billion dollars. A billion-dollar baby — a $500 million potential, $500 million overrun.

I would ask: what would my constituents want done with that money if it was not being spent on the convention centre? The first thing I know my constituents would want is a hospital they could have confidence in to look after them if they were in a medical crisis. Instead of promising my constituents a $3 tax break or less this year, let's give them a hospital that doesn't leave them in the hall, in a closet or in a lounge. Instead of promising my constituents a $3 tax break a week or less, give them a hospital that's well-funded and funded well enough to treat them with dignity when they end up in the hospital.

I know my constituents. On the whole, they are not high flyers. They are ordinary men and women who work hard. They raise their families, and they hope their children have the opportunity to have a good life. They know that one of the treasures of our country is that we as a community have decided to pool our resources, to provide a health care system that treats all of us the same regardless of the size of our wallet. The members of my community understand that it is their future and the future of their families that is on the line, because they are the ones that will not be able to afford the $1,300 for an MRI or the quarter of a million dollars for a kidney transplant if our public health care system falters.

Health care is the heart of our government. It's the biggest thing that our government spends money on. It's the thing that we rely most on government to do well, and I think that the budget needs to ensure that that is the number one priority.

Hon. Speaker, I am also pleased to respond to the particulars of the budget. This budget has been called a housing budget to the people, because everyone understands that finding adequate housing in a heated economy where housing prices are increasing, year after year, in double digits, is a big problem. And it is. Housing is a problem for those people trying to enter the market or move up to accommodate a larger family or live in the city close to where they work.

There's also a problem with renting. There is no rental accommodation being built, and some of what has been cheap rental is being transformed into market housing. The SROs of the downtown east side are disappearing, and the people on the streets are increasing everywhere. I know that we loiter on this area a fair amount, but never in the history of this province have our cities looked more like the nightmare that was the image or stereotype of the down-and-out sides of the U.S. cities.

I don't know if all of the people in this House have actually wandered down the downtown east side, been in north Surrey, in and around the Newton Exchange. We have a very serious problem with the homeless. What happens is that the problem spills out into the community, and ordinary people are addressing not only the physical problem of the homeless but the mess that's left behind.

We had our mayor cleaning up the Newton transit exchange, because it's a mess. Most of us who live in our nice tidy houses can put our mess in a proper garbage can, but you have people living on the streets that create havoc for the people that are travelling or moving or shopping on the streets. Then the streets end up looking like the worst kind of nightmares that you can imagine.

I don't want to end up in here being called a bleeding-heart liberal and that all I really care about is doing the right thing and it's too expensive. It has been proven, and it is being acted on in the cities of the United States, that it is cheaper to get the people off the streets. The cost is more leaving a person on the street than it is actually housing them, because the cost is found in our health care system, in our court system, in our jail system and in our police.

People are just not on the street and then that's all there is to it. Some 156 cities in the U.S. have created a plan to deal with the homeless. They're doing it because it's the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do economically. I think it's a disgrace that in a province that is of this quality, in this kind of economic prosperity that we're hearing about daily and we know is correct, we cannot deal in an effective and profound way with those people that are on the streets of our cities. I just don't get it.

I wish this housing budget had been big and bold and one that we could all look at and say, "Well done" instead of a budget that claimed to be a housing budget and was really something else. To quote Michael Prince, professor of social policy at the University of Victoria: "When you consider we have a growing population, a waiting list for housing and a continuing homeless problem, it's a very timid, modest start of a housing policy."

An editorial in the Times Colonist asked, "Will the measures ease the critical problem of homelessness on Victoria's streets?" — and then answered: "Not likely."

There are 35 cold-weather beds being turned into permanent shelter beds, and five places for addicted young women and men, already promised to the Salvation Army. Before the doors of that place had opened, 150 parents had asked if there was a place for their child. Now, you do have to ask at some point: what is going on? Why do we have so many people on our streets? What is the difference between now and ten years ago or now and 20 years ago? What's going on? This is not the history of this country. It's a shame that it is the history now. It's a shame.

I'm not going to say that I go back as far as some people in here, but I know that after the Second World War the government invested in housing for the people who came back from the war. I grew up in a veterans' subdivision. We had an acre of land, and it was offered to the veterans because they were respected. The government understood. They made a huge commitment to this country. They were provided not only land at a reasonable cost, but they were also provided free university.

Through the '50s, the '60s and the '70s the federal government and the provincial governments engaged in not only social housing but low-market housing. You could get an AHOP house in the '70s. There were many AHOPs made available to low-income families in Surrey during the '70s. The governments of the day were engaged in creating housing in the marketplace.

In 1993 the federal government abandoned the field. In 2001 the provincial government did likewise, and the consequences are clear. We have a huge problem with housing. It's not getting any better, and this budget will not address it. It will not address it. You can call it a housing budget if you want. You can call it whatever you want. But in fact, this budget will not address the housing problem. It will not help address the problem that is very, very serious in our community. To again quote Professor Prince: "There are seven very small spending initiatives," in this budget, "a lot of little dribbles and drabs. In fact, it's charitable to call it modest."

Few people are going to complain about tax cuts, and in a perfect world I assume that we wouldn't pay any taxes. I know there are countries in this world that collect very few taxes, and there is a corresponding condition of the citizens with that lack of tax base. The government embarked in the fall on a budget consultation process, and as in most years they consulted the public on how the public thought the government should spend their tax dollars and what the government's priorities should be. All the time we do that. It doesn't matter whether it's the Liberals in government or the NDP. We go out and we consult the people.

The budget consultation process as reported did not find the public focused on tax cuts. In fact, they expressed very little interest in tax cuts. They did not ask for the lowest income tax in Canada. Instead, they wanted protecting and improving services to be the priority. The people of B.C. wanted great health care and education. They wanted to deal with children at risk, and they wanted to deal with the ever-increasing number of homeless on the streets. That's what they wanted as their priority.

What an opportunity we've missed. You had a population that gets it and wants the government to deal with the issues of community, the issues that they know can be best dealt with by government. You had a government that is so ideologically driven that its only mantra is to deal with their preconceived notion of what's good for the individual. Whether they ask for it or not, they're getting a tax break.

Underneath the cuts for the individual is the greater benefit to the communities, to the individuals who make a lot of money, and those are not the people in my community.

This is not a housing budget. The housing initiatives as mentioned are modest, to be charitable, and most of them are slight extensions of programs that exist. A huge chunk of the commitment sits off site to be accessed through the interest.

A budget called a housing budget that isn't one — a fact that the Minister of Finance now admits. It follows

the seniors' budget and the children's budgets that were as superficial as is the so-called housing budget.

A throne speech that was about climate change with no follow-up in the budget speech. We could have been bold. We had the winds at our back. We had the people with us. We could have made a significant difference. Instead, we have great prosperity and a corresponding lack of vision, a vision that won't make the services to the people of B.C. the best in Canada.

B. Lekstrom: It is my pleasure to stand here today to respond to Budget 2007-2008. I do it with pride when I look at what we've been able to do and to accomplish, not only in this budget but in previous budgets. I think we are moving the province in the right direction. I think it is not without challenge.

I guess I'm going to start by saying…. It may be a novel approach, what you're going to hear, but I'm actually going to address the budget. I thought that's what budget responses were for.

I'm going to start off by speaking not only to the people that I represent in Peace River South, who have given me the privilege to be their representative, but to the people of British Columbia.

The budget this year is going to expend $36.24 billion delivering the services that all British Columbians expect and enjoy. In return the revenue side is going to bring in $37.39 billion. That's the projection. Can that number vary? It can, whether it be natural gas prices…. There are a number of different factors that come into play, but we do have contingencies. We look after that.

We talk about surpluses. Sometimes they're larger as a result of a good year. Sometimes they're smaller as a result of some unexpected consequence — for example, fires, floods, different things that we as government in British Columbia, and we as legislators, ensure that we maintain and look after the people of British Columbia.

I want to speak about housing. I had the privilege of being the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We travelled this province, and we listened to British Columbians. We put forward a report. I was under no illusion as Chair — as was, I'm sure, each member that sat on it — that every recommendation we put forward would be included. But there are a number of them.

Again, I think that shows British Columbians that if they take the time to come out and speak to committees, to write in their views, that they're going to be listened to. I'm proud to have chaired that, and I'm proud to see this budget including a number of the key issues that we talked about.

We hear a lot about housing. Certainly, I would hope that people aren't going to disagree with the budget because they don't like the title of it. I can see if people don't think that it should be called a housing budget or that. I want them to look at the content. This is a great book. I send it out to many of my constituents, and I hope that each member in this Legislature reads it from cover to cover, because it is a great book.

It lays out where our revenue comes from, where our expenditures go and the different offsets from year to year. I encourage members here, if they haven't had the chance, to pick it up and read it cover to cover.

We, under housing, are going to implement a $250 million housing endowment fund, the first time that I'm aware of in the history of our province. We're able to do that as a result of a strong economy and a good surplus. But what that should mean for the people of British Columbia in housing is that, conservatively, a $10 million return on that — and I think that's extremely conservative — will be able to be invested every year for innovative housing ideas in our province.

I don't think there's a person in British Columbia — or at least I don't know any on either side of this House — that doesn't think that everybody should have a place to live and call home. Now, if we do that, people have to reach out and take some of that opportunity on themselves as well. For those less fortunate, it is government's job to ensure that we create opportunity, and when we create that opportunity, it's really a team effort. Government can't do it all. Opposition can't do it all. The people have to step forward and embrace the opportunities that are presented.

Not only is there a $250 million housing endowment, we actually…. The supports for the homeless. I've heard a number of people, not just in the opposition but actually in British Columbia, talk that this isn't enough. You have to move forward. Can we do everything all at once? I think it's fair to say that I haven't seen a government in my 25 years of studying government that has been able to accomplish everything they wanted to do all at once. So we try and move forward on that.

We are going to increase the number of shelter beds and, no, these aren't homes. These are shelter beds to help the homeless. Each and every night, and it is unfortunate, there are people in our society that don't have a place to go to, so we as a government create shelter beds. We're going to increase the number of beds that we have available by 30 percent for those less fortunate in our society. I see that as a good thing. I don't see that we should be criticized for it, although opposition has a role to critique, to offer alternatives, but hopefully they're not saying that a 30-percent increase in the number of shelter beds is not a good thing to be included in this budget, because it is.

Also, we have an additional $38 million for housing and support services for people who are homeless — again, moving in the right direction. The debate I can certainly see is not that you don't believe that you can help these people, or I would hope that the debate is never perceived that way. The debate should be: is it enough? What can you do with that money? I have yet to hear any of the responses from the opposition say: "You know, if we're dealing with this $38 million, I think that it should be $52 million, and here's how I would spend it." That's the type of dialogue that we need in this chamber, and hopefully we will get there.

We're also going to upgrade our social housing stock in British Columbia — $45 million over four years to upgrade up to 750 housing units provincewide.

That's going to be utilized for British Columbians, for people who use social housing. For many of our seniors, we're going to upgrade many of these facilities so they don't have to go into assisted living. I think the best quality of life…. As long as we can maintain our seniors in their own residences, not only is it good for them, for the community, but when I get there, I think that's what I'm going to expect. I don't want to be shuffled off to a place, and many times this is what took place in the past, just because you're old.

I'll tell you, our population right now is aging, but we have probably the most active —and I think it was just reported on — seniors population in all of Canada, if not North America. We should be proud of that.

The rental assistance program is something that helps those…. I say less fortunate, but I guess probably another way to say that is that they aren't as well-off as many. We've expanded this program to allow additional low-income families to qualify for the benefits. We have now raised the threshold to $28,000, which is a good thing. What that means is that if you make $28,000 or less a year, you qualify for rental assistance. This new increase that we've just made in that threshold is going to benefit 5,800 additional families as a result of this change, now bringing that assistance to more than 20,000 families in British Columbia — again, something that is a good thing.

Our support for homeowners. I've heard people say that, you know, we've done it for the rich. Well, I can tell you up there in Peace River South we don't have a lot of million-dollar homes. I guess it's just a different climate up there. But I do hear and I see the reality for seniors in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland and possibly the interior, who may have bought their house postwar. I'll take a guess at what they may have paid — $20,000 or $30,000, which I'm sure was a huge amount of money in that time frame. But today that house is worth a million dollars or more, just because of a number of circumstances.

Yes, they're the beneficiary of that. But when your house climbs to that kind of a value, the taxes also follow that. So the ability to help these people…. This change was not, as some would like people in British Columbia to believe, made for the rich. It's made for our seniors, who helped to build this beautiful province so that we can enjoy it, and the people who should benefit are the people who it's rightly directed at. I'm proud of what we've done there.

The low-income seniors, veterans and persons with disabilities are now eligible for the homeowner grant regardless of the value of their home. I think, again, something we should all be, regardless of political sides that we seem to want to take all the time…. I know that's the game we're in, but one day, just one day, when things actually are done right and help the people of British Columbia, I would love to hear from the opposition, to hear you say: "You know, that is a good move, government, and we appreciate it." But I'm going to wait. I'm going to hold out hope, and I know it will come.

We've enhanced the first-time-homebuyers grant, which is going to help a number of young families in this province. I think that right now, in today's era of getting into the market and buying a home…. It's something we all strive for. It's our largest single investment, I would think, for most of us. We save and save, and all of a sudden that market just rises a little more. The first-time-homebuyers grant is going to help. I'm proud of being able to stand here and say that that is in this budget as well.

Income assistance. That was something we heard, not only from the people I represent in Peace River South but on our Finance tour as well. People have said: "It has been a long time. We would love to see the shelter portion raised. We would also like to see the monthly income supplement raised, if it's at all possible."

I understand that. I have to believe that some of the people with low income and on social assistance are probably some of the finest budgeters we have. They don't have a great deal of money to live on, yet they make it from month to month. So we raised the monthly income supplement for the shelter allowance by $50 per month.

Now, that may not sound like a lot, but it definitely makes a significant difference in the lives of the people who are on assistance. Mr. Speaker, $50 per month is the first increase we've seen since 1992. Man, I'll tell you. All you have to do is sit back and think of your own situation. Think, for you, of what hasn't changed since 1992 and what it would take for us to endure that kind of change.

I'm going to speak…. I'm not here to condemn the opposition, but when I hear that they say, "It's not enough. You should have done more…." My God, from 1992 to 2001 you had every opportunity, each and every year in your budget, and we didn't see it. So we've done that — $50. If time frame is it, we did it in six years. I'm proud of that.

Can we add more? I think people on assistance would like that. If our economy continues, if everything keeps going in British Columbia like we expect it to and like I think it will, I think the opportunity is going to be there to look again at this in the future.

Not only did we increase the monthly shelter allowance, but we also increased the income assistance rates by up to 20 percent. I think that's a tremendous lift — $100. That's the first increase since 1994.

Again, I would expect that the people who sit in this chamber would appreciate that as a move in the right direction. I guess I am somewhat concerned, because although we had presentations on this issue right across the province, when people came to talk to us, regardless of political spectrum, they said: "The economy is doing well. Let's try and help those less fortunate." I think we've moved in that direction.

In moving on that, we've done it. But it's unfortunate to hear some people out there in the public that actually don't think it's good enough. I think it is a move in the right direction.

I'm going to, I guess, throw my thoughts out on the people that have tried to condemn the government for

not doing enough. I think the approach should be: "Thank you, but we still expect more. We think you can do more if the economy is good and if you have the ability to raise that revenue. We appreciate what you've done, but we're still going to sit, we're going to talk to you and talk to our MLAs, and we're going to expect additional money."

That's not what I heard from many. I did hear thank-you's from the people that come into my office on a regular basis, many of them because we know each other in the smaller communities. You pass them on the street. They've come in and said thank you. There are others that said: "You know, it's a great first step. Let's try and continue." That's the attitude. That's how we move our province forward.

I do want to touch on health care. We hear a great deal. Is it facing challenges? There's no doubt that it's facing challenges. It faced challenges 22 years ago, when my first daughter was born. My wife and I were in the hospital. We had wonderful staff then. They came in to help, but the reality was that there were some cleanliness issues, just because of the capacity and the workloads they faced. We were in there, and we pitched in a little bit. We helped. That wasn't anything I was too worried about. That's what we do as a society.

The challenges aren't going to be solved by the opposition blaming the government or the government talking to the…. It's going to be solved by all of us. The Conversation on Health is not the invitation of a select few people. These people are picked at random. I want to make that perfectly clear.

It's a chance for each and every one of the people who are interested, many of whom have talked to each of us as MLAs, to have their voice heard at this conversation. Because I personally, in watching the budget — and this isn't a private health care–public health care issue — am convinced that unless we get our heads around looking at some form of change, we are destined to have a health care system that will collapse.

Each and every day we hear health care concerns, and I hear words that we possibly don't have hearts on this side of the House, that we don't care. Well, I'm going to tell you that I think each and every person in this chamber cares, and I think it's maybe just politics saying that, versus the people with hearts on the other side.

Together we're going to work to fix health care, but here are the real numbers. We have budgeted $13.1 billion in this year's budget, the '07-08. I still hear, in some of the speeches from the opposition members: "You've cut health care." In 2000-2001, $8.4 billion was the health care budget, and $13.1 billion is the budget today.

Please understand the mathematics of that, and it's pretty basic. That's an increase. It's not only an increase. It's an increase of 51.84 percent since 2001, the most significant health care increase in a six-year period in the history of our province.

Does that mean that there are no challenges left? No, it doesn't mean that. But to me, it certainly means that there hasn't been a cut. The discussion isn't: "You've cut health care. You've cut health funding." The discussion should be, if we're going to have a healthy, legitimate debate on this: "We think it could be spent differently. We think that maybe the focus should shift from 'A' to 'B.'" That's what the Conversation on Health is going to bring us.

This year's budget alone has an increase of $885 million for our health care budget; $100 million is in the health innovation fund. The health innovation fund is about finding new ways — not finding public health care versus private health care — to deliver services.

There's no doubt…. I go back to this, and I'm not here to scare people. I'm not a doctor; I'm not a nurse. But I'm a British Columbian, and I'm a proud British Columbian. I do not want to see our health care system collapse, so we had better start thinking about how we can deliver health care for British Columbians in a method that's sustainable.

We have always said that the Conversation on Health is about working within the Canada Health Act. I do hear people, not just opposition members, because we talk…. It's interesting. People watch question period, and they think that people are mortal enemies in this building, when in fact we're friends. You talk to each other. We talk about improving things.

We're going to use that $100 million health innovation fund to try and work towards a sustainable, improved health care system. I don't want the people of British Columbia to think — and I think that for the most part people understand this — there were no troubles in the health care system in the 1990s, because there were. There were troubles in the 1980s and the 1970s. And you know what? There are challenges today, but we're going to work through those challenges.

Our education system — I do want to touch on that. Mr. Speaker, an additional $343 million over the next three years into our K-to-12 system — a significant lift. I think we have done some incredible things, and I think we should all be proud.

I'll tell you who should be the proudest: our teachers. Those are the people who educate our children. Each and every day we as parents will take our children to school. Our children are there, and they spend as many hours with their teachers as they do with their parents. They do a great job, and they educate them.

What we need is more of our parents to take an active role in their own children's education. I encourage you to open your children's books when they bring them home, regardless of the grade. It may be a little, I guess, embarrassing at some points if it's a grade 12 math course.

In my case, my daughter opens her book and says: "Dad, help me with this equation." Let me tell you. It's a bit of a challenge, but we've got to take part. Because this isn't all about just the teachers having to educate our children. It's about our families, ourselves helping in that.

I want to thank the teachers of this province for the job they do. I want to thank our administration and the support staff, because I think it's not an easy job. I've

said this in this House before. It isn't a job you go into to become a wealthy person. It's a calling that you have, and you go.

Right now I'm proud. My oldest daughter is going in to become a teacher, and let me tell you that she's looking forward to it. She's excited. I'm looking forward, actually, as a proud father. I'm digressing a bit here, but when we talk about education, I think we should all be proud and continue in the direction we're going.

Skills training. I've heard not many speakers, but a number of speakers, talk about how ITAC was decimated. Well, ITAC wasn't decimated. We have the ITA today. I have a history and my family has a history in the trades. My father was a trades-training person. He was a welder. My brother was a welder. He actually teaches trades training now as dean of trades and apprenticeship, Northern Lights College.

So to hear people say that it isn't working…. I'm here to tell you that you're dead wrong. It's working, and it's working better than it ever has in our history. Pick the things that you want to go at politically, but don't pick the things that are working. Stand up and be accountable to the point where you go: "You know what? The decisions you made there are the right ones and they're working, not only in my region but across this province."

We are training more people. We have more registered apprentices in the province today than at any point in our history, so something is going right. Stand up and say: "We want to work to make it even better." I'll stand up and clap for you. But if you stand up and say that it's not working, it's decimated and you've cut the number of apprentices, you're dead wrong. You're misleading British Columbians, and that I won't accept.

We're moving with $189 million in new spending from the '06-07 budget, which was last year. So I do want to touch on this, because people seem to think that we move forward with these grand ideas but don't put in funding. Actually, $189 million between '06-07 and '09-10 for initiatives for a number of things.

When we do this, we have 25,000 new spaces — 7,000 new apprenticeship spots in the province. That is progressive. Now, I'm not going to blame somebody, but I do want to point out — I hear a lot, and I'm going to just jump back to health care — about where we're at.

The reality is — and I don't think that I'll get any discussion or rebuttal from this — that between 1993 and 1997 in British Columbia, we lost, laid off from their jobs, 1,600 nurses. I wasn't at the table, and I wasn't part of government during those years, so possibly there was a reason, possibly there was a vision, why they'd done that.

They also cut the number of nurse-training spaces in the province. That's fine. They made the decision. But for God's sake, don't stand up now and point to this government who has actually increased the number of nurse-training spaces by 70 percent and recruited more nurses than we can find — we have 2,000 vacancies — and say we created the problem. How can that possibly be?

So just like I'm not going to say that you created our problem…. I wasn't at the table when you made your decisions. But let me tell you, a 75-percent increase in the nurse-training spaces in British Columbia is a pretty good move, and we are playing catch-up.

We want to touch on post-secondary education a bit. I've touched on that. Tuition fees. We heard that. I did hear a member earlier speak about that they supported…. I thought she had said they supported the Finance Committee's report. I want to make it abundantly clear: we voted on that report in this Legislature, and the opposition didn't support it — now, for different reasons. That's fine. But I did want to make that clear.

Last year the average undergraduate tuition fees at B.C. public universities were $4,636. The increase this year was 1.9 percent. That's what our increase was — a commitment we made. So the issue that we have to do…. We have the fourth-lowest tuition fees in Canada. Would we like to have the lowest? I think it's a goal we can strive for, but I think that we have to be realistic.

It's about affordability as well. Tuition fees, I think, account for about one-third of the cost of a student's education. There's housing. There's a vast array. My oldest daughter has just concluded university, and I can tell you that she worked very hard to help herself get through there. We, as parents, helped.

We have programs, but I want the programs to assist those children who are less fortunate. Whether it's tuition or social programs, my goal in representing the people of Peace River South is to ensure that — you know what? — if you can work, I want you working. I want the social assistance payments — I want that help to go to people who need it. That I am going to continue with, and I will fight for that as long as I am in this House.

I want to move to tax relief. We hear that this is about tax cuts. Well, I think tax cuts work. I think that we can all come in and…. In 2001 we had a 25-percent tax cut. Many people thought: "Will it work? Will it not work?" If you look at the numbers and you relate the personal income tax from 2000-2001, then you look at the tax cut and you watch the years, have they paid for themselves? Yes, they have.

So to hear that they wouldn't, again, is somewhat of a misunderstanding. I'll be gracious here. But tax cuts do help. This year's 10-percent tax cut helps everybody. I do hear people, whether it be opposition members that are standing up…. I'm not sure if they're against tax cuts. To be honest with you, it's tough to hear.

I'm for them. I'll stand here and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I like them. I don't like them for myself. I like them because I think that they work. I do believe that if people have money in their pockets, they're going to make the choice of where they're going to spend that money. So a 10-percent tax cut helps.

Also, I'm not opposed, although I guess one day I would like to…. We have people that make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in this province —

hundreds of thousands. They don't all work in the oil patch. They work in every corner of this province, and you know what? I'm happy they do, because they pay taxes, and they pay a significant amount of tax, and those taxes help generate the revenue we need to deliver the social programs.

To be honest, right now in British Columbia we have the lowest income tax bracket for everybody, I believe, at $108,000 and under, as a result of this budget. That's progressive. That's positive. So people, when they talk about this — that the tax cuts are going to help the rich.... Well, you know what? If you want to compare a person that makes $30,000 a year to a person that makes $150,000 a year, and you give them a 10-percent tax cut, who's going to save more? Probably the person that makes $150,000 a year. That's pretty basic math.

What I think you also want to look at is the amount of money that the person on the higher end is paying. They're delivering far more to the consolidated revenue fund of government, which is the revenue fund that we use to deliver the programs, than the person that pays less. It's a balance.

I worked with the labour movement for a number of years when I was with B.C. Tel. We certainly focused hard on raising our members' wages based on a percentage increase, not an across-the-board, because at $1 an hour, that meant someone making $16 an hour got a higher percentage increase than the person making $20. So we work it together. There has to be some equity, and that's why a percentage drop works.

To be honest, the largest beneficiaries…. Setting aside if we want to take the percentage who make it, the largest percentage is for lower income. That's what happens when you work this out, and that's why…. Again, I'm going to use this. I encourage people, every British Columbian, if they're interested, to speak to their MLA, to look at this book and go through it. It's a great document.

Right now we have — what is it? — 250,000 British Columbians paying no provincial income tax. No provincial income tax. What I also heard is that these tax cuts have been eaten up by all of the fee increases and so on. I want to address that briefly as well.

The reality is that I think with all of the changes in fees and licences and things that have been dealt with in this Legislature since 2001, the amount adds up to about $600 million that has been raised. The reality is that the tax cuts we have put back in people's pockets is about $2 billion, so to say that the fees have eaten up everything is wrong. I add it at an additional $1.4 billion in people's pockets — again, something that, to me, actually seems pretty good.

I'll give you an example of that. It's a family of four, under this budget, who earn a combined income of $70,000. Now, I don't think that's unrealistic. I think that may be in the ballpark of what most two-income families are earning in British Columbia, if not more. That two-income family making $70,000 a year will now save more than $1,800 a year compared to 2001. That's money that they can use to invest in their children's future, and if they don't have children, in their own future — possibly in a new home, a new vehicle or whatever they choose.

The whole idea in my life, growing up, is I always heard: "Get government out of the people's pockets." That's what we've done, and I'm proud that I can stand here and tell you that we've done that, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing financially is our debt-to-GDP. We today in this budget are at 14.8 percent. Now that is a pretty amazing number. I don't have the number in front of me, but I think we are at around 20 percent, 20.7 percent, our debt-to-GDP. Not only is 14.8 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, I think, extremely good, we are moving down to 14.1 percent debt-to-GDP by 2009-2010 — again, something that we should all be proud of. We should work together, build this province.

I see I am quickly running out of time, but I'm going to touch on transportation. We have additional investments. Let me tell you that I live in the oil and gas part of this province. To hear members talk about, "You're subsidizing those big oil industries. There's transportation money in there. You're building roads for them," the roads you're talking about are the roads that take the people I represent back and forth to their homes. They are the roads they use to take their children to and from hockey and ballet and so on. They are the roads our school buses travel on.

Again, I don't think that it's as much help to the actual industry as it is to the people I represent, and for that I'm thankful that we have an industry like that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage every British Columbian, if they want to debate the budget, if they want to talk about it, to contact their MLA, talk to a government representative. Most importantly, be proud of your province, and recognize what the budget really is.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like to thank everyone, actually, for the comments that have been made over the last few days about the budget. If you noticed my pattern in the past, I tend to be very quick here and get straight to the vote, but I have to say that once in a while you wake up Momma Bear. So Momma Bear is awake here.

When the member for Surrey–Green Timbers just stands before us and says that this budget will not address the housing problem, when this member also said that, in fact, the Finance Minister admits this is not a housing budget, when the Leader of the Opposition actually goes on a public radio station and says that in this budget they're doing nothing to actually address affordable housing and also says there's nothing in there that addresses the long-term issues that are facing us, well, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go over the budget again.

We're very, very happy to say that Budget 2007, in fact, shows that the economy in this province is very strong. We're very pleased that we're showing a growth

of 3.9 percent for last year, and with the policies that are now in place, 3.1 percent next year, 3 percent the next and 3.1 percent after that.

The last time that this province had five straight years of growth of at least 3 percent or greater was in 1976. This accomplishment is something that I think all British Columbians should be proud about. It has involved all of British Columbia in changing our policies around so that our economy could be strong.

I would say to you, and it's no secret that we have said from the beginning, the way that you turn an economy around and encourage businesses to locate in this province is to make sure that your taxation regimes are competitive; that you don't have so much regulation which is complicated, overlapping and contradictory that you drive businesses to other provinces; and that you say to not only Canada but the world that British Columbia is back, and we're open for business.

As we have said time and time again, the point of working so hard to get a strong economy is so that you do have some extra dollars to put towards the priorities in your community.

Certainly, this economy — in January 4.3 percent unemployment; that's the lowest in 30 years — is showing remarkable strength in retail, housing starts and non-residential construction. We believe that by being prudent, as well as with these changed policies, that this is the kind of economy that British Columbia can continue to enjoy for many, many years.

But there are challenges with success and challenges with a strong economy. Last year we identified labour shortage as being one of the main ones. So we put $400 million aside to really address the issue of how we train our labour force and how we can encourage people to come and get a job in this province and show the possibilities that were there.

We just introduced with this budget the specifics of the training tax credit that was announced last year. It is one that I know other areas in Canada are now looking at, because it says that we will provide credits not just to the employer, but also the employee. We will increase those tax credits as you get closer to completion because that was shown to be one of the weaknesses in our training.

Furthermore, we said that if you look at our labour force…. We've got to increase our labour force, so who would be the groups that are underrepresented in our labour force? Well, they are people with disabilities and first nations. So we've given the super credit so that 150 percent of the tax credit is available if you as an employer are training someone in these two categories.

But this budget is, in fact, about housing. We are concentrating on looking at housing and all of the stresses that come with a successful economy, which shows that our assessments around this province are up 24 percent in just one year. For the first time as a government we are looking at housing from every possible demand and problem. There are those who think that a housing budget should only be about social housing. Social housing is extremely important. I'll talk about what we're doing for social housing.

But people have stresses with housing prices, housing availability, through the whole spectrum of their lives and their financial situations. So the advantage of this kind of comprehensive strategy is to start with those in most desperate need, and I would say those are the homeless. We are immediately putting in $27 million to keep open 300 of our cold-wet weather beds full-time, all year round, around the province.

May I make an introduction? I am so pleased to see that my good friend representing Okanagan-Westside has joined us to give me support. He's been watching at home and supporting government as he's been going through some stressful days, so thank you for coming in for this.

There are members of the opposition who have been saying quite publicly: "Well, just opening shelter beds is not enough." Of course it's not enough. That's why this budget specifically says "immediately, $38 million," so that the Minister for Housing, who has a number of projects that he has been looking at and working on in this province, will immediately get the provincial portion of their funding that's required so that those beds can start to roll out.

These are beds that, in some cases, are for those who have mental illness issues, for those who have addictions. Some of these housing units are for people who are making a transition in their lives and need a bit of help. These are important beds around the province that will be part of our housing strategy going forward.

But more than that, we do have some old social housing stock that is no longer meeting the needs of the people in British Columbia. Our low-income seniors who need to age in place but need a different kind of space…. If we don't do this initiative, then all of a sudden they will be out of homes. This $45 million will go towards making sure that these units have railings, if that's what is required; room for wheelchairs to move down the halls and through the doors; and on-site facilities, in some cases, that will provide either the food that they need, help with laundry or emergency response. These kinds of units — again, supportive units — are housing units that are essential for the people of B.C. going forward.

We have, as well, increased the shelter rate on income assistance by $50 a month, which brings the employable singles and couples up to the highest level in Canada. Again, for those who say that this budget is not about housing: what else is shelter? It is about housing. It is helping those on income assistance to actually pay for their apartments. But that's not all. There are areas where people are in apartments, but they're finding, because of these high housing prices and stresses, that they can't afford the rent anymore.

That's why the Minister for Housing in the fall introduced our rental assistance program — again, this is a housing initiative — that was available for families making up to $20,000 a year. This budget raises that ceiling to $28,000 a year. This will ensure that 200,000 families in British Columbia will be able to access our rental assistance program and receive dollars, privately, that they can use toward their rental cost in a way that

we believe will help those with very stressful housing situations to meet those needs.

Housing is more than just homelessness and social housing and rental housing. It's also about home-ownership. It is the full spectrum. Every piece is important. So this budget says to those who are first-time homebuyers: one of the stresses we see you facing is this increase. How can you possibly organize your life when you're young and starting out and, say, you're saving for your down payment, and the prices are jumping on you 24 percent a year? You can't do it.

This budget recognizes the problems that young people — it could be someone older for the first-time homebuyer — are facing in trying to get into the market. So we've raised to $375,000 the threshold at which you will be exempt from the property transfer tax. We are also extending this threshold throughout the province, so for some of those members opposite who have been going on radio saying that there's nothing for the rural areas of B.C. or nothing for areas outside of the lower mainland, this one is especially for those areas outside the lower mainland.

I must thank my colleague for Nanaimo-Parksville, who has given up his time so that I could speak today. He had a story to tell about someone in his riding and the fact that the young couples there are saying that for the first time, the housing product that is now available for a first-time homebuyer to access — and have the availability, the possibility, of an exemption of up to $5,500 — has just escalated enormously.

Again, for those opposite who say this isn't a housing budget…. For those who have found their own homes have increased in assessment to the point that they would not have been able to receive the homeowner grant, we have raised the threshold to $950,000 for homes around the province.

But as well, there are still some seniors, low-income seniors and low-income disabled, who have been receiving that $845 grant. They have found that all of a sudden, in one assessment, with these jumps that we've seen that their house is now a million dollars. So how does a low-income senior…? And the description was made by my other colleague, just earlier, saying: "All of a sudden, this is a little bungalow, perhaps bought after the war, now priced at a million dollars." This low-income senior does not have one extra cent in their pocket, yet $845 has just been taken away from their income.

This budget says to those individuals, "We will help you with your housing situation and your housing stresses," by saying to any low-income senior or disabled who qualified for that extra supplement: "You'll receive that supplement. It doesn't matter what the prices do from now on."

Again, for those who are retiring — many are retiring earlier — we are changing our tax deferral age, when you can qualify, from 60 to 55, because it is a program that has increased the uptake by five times — just since 2001. It is one of the ways you can stay in your house and have more flexibility with your budgeting as you age.

The pièce de résistance is for those who think that giving people an income tax cut where they have more dollars in their pocket does not….

Hon. C. Taylor: For those who say that leaving dollars in people's pockets, helping families with extra dollars, is not going to help them with either their high rent or their high mortgage or their other housing pressures, you're just being foolish.

I will give you three stories that have just…. As I've been out speaking to groups, people, unsolicited, have come up and talked to me about the income tax cut. One was a young woman who is in television, and she said: "This budget is my budget." I said, "Why?" and she said: "Well, first of all, I will be a first-time homebuyer, because you've now given me enough moving room in terms of the apartment that I want to buy." She said: "Second, with an income tax cut, I will be able to start to afford that mortgage."

More specifically, another young couple, both working, came and said: "We were thinking about getting into the market, and now you've helped us because the ceiling is higher, but we were worried about the mortgage payments. We had the down payment, but we were worried about the mortgage payments. With this income tax cut, we have figured out that for the two of us that will cover one and a half mortgage payments for us every year."

The third story came when I spoke to the Mining Association on Friday. A couple of the gentlemen who were involved in companies said: "You know, this income tax cut has hit the sweet spot. We need workers. We have to pull them from Alberta. Our industry is thriving. We need those young people, but the first thing that they always say to us is that the housing costs in British Columbia are too high. They can't afford to come." He said: "With this income tax cut, we will now be able to say that housing is more affordable in British Columbia."

Hon. C. Taylor: This budget does so much more. It does because our economy is strong, and we are able to do that — $468 million towards social services.

We have $176 million towards policing and justice issues. We have in our education system $765 million more dollars, so that per student it is the highest funding ever in the province's history.

Also, just to keep records correct and straightened, another member of the opposition has been saying there isn't any money in the budget for Surrey Memorial Hospital. Not only was it in last year's budget, but it is in this year's budget. As well, because we have had such strong surpluses, we have been able to advance our capital spending on hospitals, education and the Gateway strategy from four years to three. That means besides Surrey Memorial, we've also included dollars for Royal Jubilee, Kelowna, Vernon and Fort St. John. So, Mr. Speaker…

This is the opportunity for the opposition to show that they're not just negative, that they really do see good policies and that, when they see good policies, they support them. I am sure that the opposition will vote in favour of support for the homeless. I am sure they will vote in favour of support for social housing, to increase the shelter allowance for income assistance, to help first-time homebuyers, to help low-income seniors stay in their houses and to help the people of British Columbia have a 10-percent tax reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the 38th parliament.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is the usual report, but I am going to read the names into the record for the various select standing committees.

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: convener, Lorne Mayencourt; Al Horning; Dennis MacKay; Joan McIntyre; Val Roddick; Katherine Whittred; Gary Coons; Harry Lali; Scott Fraser; David Chudnovsky.

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth: convener, Katherine Whittred; John Rustad; Dennis MacKay; Bill Bennett, Mary Polak; Ron Cantelon; Leonard Krog; Maurine Karagianis; Jagrup Brar; Nicolas Simons.

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations: convener, John Rustad; Ron Cantelon; Joan McIntyre; John Yap; Dennis MacKay; Iain Black; Corky Evans; Chuck Puchmayr; Guy Gentner; John Horgan.

Select Standing Committee on Education: convener, John Nuraney; Dan Jarvis; Richard T. Lee; Lorne Mayencourt; Mary Polak; John Rustad; Doug Routley; Rob Fleming; David Cubberley; Norm Macdonald.

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services: convener, Bill Bennett; Harry Bloy; Dave S. Hayer; Richard Lee; Randy Hawes; Iain Black; Jenny Kwan; Bruce Ralston; John Horgan; Bob Simpson.

Select Standing Committee on Health: convener, Ralph Sultan; Dave S. Hayer; Dan Jarvis; John Nuraney; Val Roddick; Katherine Whittred; Adrian Dix; Michael Sather; Katrine Conroy; Charlie Wyse.

Select Standing Committee on Legislative Issues: convener, Al Horning; Harry Bloy; Randy Hawes; Ralph Sultan; Dave S. Hayer; Lorne Mayencourt; Mike Farnworth; Bob Simpson; Katrine Conroy; Adrian Dix.

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills: convener, Al Horning; Harry Bloy; Randy Hawes; Dave S. Hayer; Lorne Mayencourt; Val Roddick; Mike Farnworth; Diane Thorne; Adrian Dix; John Horgan.

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: convener, Rob Fleming; Joan McIntyre; Iain Black; Randy Hawes; Mary Polak; John Rustad, Ralph Sultan; John Yap; Harry Bains; Bruce Ralston; Diane Thorne; Guy Gentner.

Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner: convener, Iain Black; Harry Bloy; Katherine Whittred; Mike Farnworth; David Chudnovsky.

Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act: convener, Ron Cantelon; John Rustad; Mary Polak; Leonard Krog; Harry Lali.

Again, I believe the Opposition House Leader has perused the report. I'll not read it all into the record but with leave will move its adoption in this House.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've received a note indicating — and I'm not sure from whom — that there may have been an error in the tabulation of the recorded votes.

Hon. M. de Jong: Almost finally, I wonder if the Chair might defer to the hon. Minister of Small Business and Revenue, who has a short message, I think.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Members, I would like to say thanks to each and every one of you for your support and for your good wishes both to my family and to myself.

I would also like to thank those members of this House who have spent time with me this week. They know who they are. Their assistance and support is greatly appreciated by my family and myself.

Hon. M. de Jong: With that, I wish all members a safe, happy and healthy weekend and move that this House do now adjourn.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 41

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

	NAYS — 18

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
Ralston	Cubberley	Hammell
Simons	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Wyse	Sather