Hansard — Thursday, February 21, 2008 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Budget Debate (continued)		9847
	J. Rustad
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. C. Richmond
	D. Thorne
	B. Lekstrom

Hon. C. Richmond: I call continued debate on the address in reply to the budget speech.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to carry on with my comments this morning with regards to our budget.

Yesterday I closed off by talking about a few of the differences between our side of the House and the opposition side of the House. I want to carry on with a few of those comments and put it into a bit of context.

When you think about what the NDP Finance critic has said in response to the idea of a carbon tax and our work on the budget…. He was asked whether he would eliminate the carbon tax if they were to form government. The response was no, he probably wouldn't. Yet the member for Cariboo North says, clearly, that he doesn't support a carbon tax.

When talking about the softwood lumber agreement, one of the members from the Kootenays for the NDP said that he thinks it's good for his industry. The member for Cariboo North says that he thinks it's a bad deal. It's clear that what you see is that the opposition doesn't seem to really have a position.

We brought forward some leadership and vision in the budget, just as we did in the throne speech. We brought forward some ideas that are going to build this province, and what do we see from the opposition? Just that — opposition. We don't see a government in waiting. We don't see a Leader of the Opposition that has a vision, who wants to see where this province is going forward. She seems to be very content to simply oppose.

That's good. If that's what the opposition wants to do, then that's fine. But on our side of the House, we're not interested in simply just opposing. We want to see the province move forward. I want to put that in the context of some of the things for my riding in my area.

Throughout the throne speech and the budget, we're making a commitment to looking at building an energy corridor between the Pacific Ocean and Prince George. What that will do is create an opportunity for about $6 billion in investment throughout and along that corridor and help to spur numerous economic spinoffs that will come from that.

We're seeing a $2 billion commitment coming from Rio Tinto in the Kitimat area in terms of rebuilding the smelter. We're seeing a commitment, also, that was talked about in terms of the electrification of Highway 37. We're going to continue to work with the mining companies to move that forward. That's another $400 million–plus, not to mention the billions of dollars that will be invested from the mining industry through that.

We're looking at Site C, trying to look at whether or not we should be doing that and moving that project forward. That leaves us with what could be up to $6 billion in investment and spinoffs that would come in the northeast sector of the province.

We've got work that's happening in Prince George in health care, where we've got a northern cancer strategy. That funding is in this budget — a $100 million commitment, at minimum, to put in a cancer clinic in Prince George and to move forward with a cancer strategy that's going to benefit the entire north. I can guarantee you that that side of the House will be voting against all of those initiatives.

All of those things — what we call leadership in rural B.C. and leadership in the north — provide the framework and opportunity for the betterment of the lives of the people in our area. That is what we are doing; that is what we're building.

When you look on the forestry front and at the work that we're doing on that side, more than $600 million have already been spent on pine beetle initiatives. We are moving forward on that strategy. We're going to be seeing here in the next year the plans coming back from the beetle action coalitions. We look forward to working with them to develop a positive future for our area.

Also on the infrastructure side, when you look at the work we're doing with the Cariboo connector, the twinning of the Simon Fraser Bridge, the moving of the weigh scales in Prince George, the addition of a passing lane on Highway 16 out west and the overpass work that we're doing, all of that is building the infrastructure for rural B.C., throughout my riding and the other ridings around the area, to be able to help us expand.

We have an agriculture plan that just came forward that has built…. It's designed to promote local consumption and local production. It's going to help the farmers get through some challenges that they have with wildlife. It's going to help farmers look at biodiesel options that can come from our agricultural products.

All of those are designed to support a very important component of our industry throughout my riding and throughout the Cariboo in areas on the agricultural side. Clearly, Madam Speaker, when you look at those initiatives that are undertaken, the foundations to move forward are very solid.

I want to repeat something else that I said earlier yesterday in my speech, and that's with regard to the carbon tax. What the carbon tax essentially does is take a portion of our income tax that we normally collect from people on a yearly basis and shift it over to a consumption tax. We shift that over to a tax on the use of carbon.

It's completely neutral in terms of taxation for the people. They're going to get the 5 percent reduction on

their taxes. They get the tax credits that I've talked about in the past, and those dollars get shifted over in terms of a consumption tax on carbon use.

That enables the people, if they want to take initiatives on improving around their homes and with the way they use their vehicles, actually to control their taxes. They can say how much they want to put forward in terms of that, and that shifting in priorities helps to raise the level of awareness of the issue of greenhouse gases. It helps to raise that whole level of discussion within the communities. Ultimately, that's what's needed.

If we're going to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, if we're going to tackle climate change, it's up to us to do it as individuals. Government can help provide some tools, and we're doing that with some of the incentives that are talked about in this budget, but it really is up to us to make the difference and make those changes.

It's just like it is with agriculture. We have to make choices. Do we want to have food that's shipped in from Brazil or Australia or from over in Europe, or do we want to eat our own locally grown products? I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I've had the products that are produced from the ranches and the farms out in my area, and there is nothing better. The taste and the quality are 100 percent. They're way better than what you can get buying from the bulk that's imported from the States or other places. It's those taste differences and nutrition differences that I believe people need to think about and step forward.

I'm actually encouraged, because when you look at farmers' markets and the products that our farmers are bringing forward in farmers' markets throughout our area, they're fabulous. And they're doing well. When you go down there, there are always lots of people. There's lots of interest. People are interested in eating healthy. People are interested in making the right choices.

I'm glad to see that the agriculture plan has brought forward $2 million a year to be able to help promote local products and help people make those choices to be able to eat locally. The idea of tagging on the number of kilometres that food comes from just helps to empower people to be able to make those choices.

Another thing that I'm very passionate about is our decision to ban trans fats. That is very progressive. It's the right thing to do, in terms of banning them from schools and our restaurants. It means that people can have healthier choices. That, combined with things that we're doing on the smoking front and what we're going to be initiating over this spring session in terms of some of the health care reforms that are needed…. It's what we have to be doing to help make our health care system sustainable.

We're adding $3 billion more into health care. That's a 25 percent increase over the current levels of health care spending over the next three years. The health care budget will go from about 43 percent to 47 percent of our overall provincial spending. We're doing that because of the demand, but we cannot continue to see those kinds of increases. Within the next ten years, if we were to see those kinds of increases, there would be no money for virtually anything else other than education and health care.

We need to be able to be making those reforms, and the plan that was outlined and discussed in the throne speech and the budget and stuff that are put in place are going to lead us toward those reforms — and the legislation that will bring in. They're going to lead us towards what we need to be doing so that we can have one of the best health care systems, not just in Canada but in the world.

We already have, according to the Conference Board of Canada, the best health care system in Canada. But that is not good enough; we need to be making some improvements. But we must be sustainable.

Talking about things that are sustainable, I want to just come back to one of the differences that we see between the opposition and us. They'd say: "It's not enough spending. We want to put more money towards that." Well, where are those dollars going to come from? Where would those dollars come from? I can tell you, Madam Speaker, if the opposition were to be in power, they would be looking at raising taxes and killing off our economy to try to put more dollars towards it. We must find the right balance.

One of the reasons why I suggest that is the evidence that comes forward in the forestry plan. On the one hand, on the forestry plan the NDP have brought forward, they say that they want to create a community stability fund coming from the export tax that we have on our lumber. They want to create a stabilization fund.

That's an interesting thing to look at. On the other hand, they suggest they want to eliminate the softwood lumber agreement. They want to pull out of it. You can't have it both ways. If you don't have the revenue coming in, how are you going to do the one thing? Clearly, they're in conflict even within their own policies.

I just want to say, in closing, that what we have done with our budget and what we have done with the throne speech, I believe, is going to help the people in my riding, in Prince George–Omineca. It's going to help to lay the foundations. It's going to help to expand our economy through initiatives with mining, through initiatives with oil and gas, through initiatives with the energy sector, our bioenergy strategy. All of those things are showing leadership on the economic front, on the environmental front, and are the kind of leadership that is needed.

I want to close with one more thing. What we've been doing with our taxation in this province is bringing down that tax burden. What the opposition seems to be standing for is…. They want to increase spending. Well, Madam Speaker, you cannot increase spending unless you increase taxes. That is what that side of the House stands for.

We are opposed to that. Our position is that we want to see dollars stay in the pockets of the taxpayers of this province. I'm proud of the initiatives we're taking. I'm proud of what our government is doing, and I look forward to bringing this forward throughout the spring session.

R. Chouhan: When the spring sitting of the B.C. Legislature began, I had high hopes that the Speech from the Throne and the new provincial budget would reveal some timely and useful initiatives from the government which would help children, families and seniors in Burnaby-Edmonds. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The speech was long on slogans and empty promises but very short on concrete actions to deal with any of our issues.

The budget gave ordinary families new taxes, and the banks and large corporations were rewarded with tax breaks which they do not need and which they do not deserve. There was nothing to help deal with child poverty, the forestry crisis, crime on our streets or the high costs of raising a family.

I had hoped there might be some programs to make housing more affordable in Burnaby. I have been working very hard to convince B.C. Housing to redevelop the government-owned Hillside Gardens into a mix of subsidized and market housing, but this government provided absolutely no help with that.

The affordable housing shortage is a serious problem in Burnaby, in Burnaby-Edmonds in particular. The majority of casework that my staff deals with is housing-related. The changing demographics in Burnaby mean that there is a long waiting list of people who need appropriate housing units to accommodate their large families. Instead of providing leadership to build more affordable housing units, this government played politics and blamed the city council. The province has been asking Burnaby to give up some of its city-owned land for this when the province already has a huge chunk of land they could use.

The government owns a big chunk of land at the corner of Willingdon street and Canada Way. The site is big enough to accommodate the minimal-barrier shelter and transitional housing. The site is huge. It's about half of the size of BCIT. It is zoned for a public institution, so the shelter and housing could be built without having to go through rezoning. It is on major bus routes. I hope the government will think about it seriously and do something to help the homeless and to ensure that they are connected to real treatment and adequate supports.

I had anticipated that the Liberal government would bring in measures to make the residential tenancy branch more responsive to tenants in our community, who have no choice but to turn to it for support when they are faced with unscrupulous landlords. That didn't happen.

I thought that the government could announce funding for a hub building for settlement services, to help immigrants find their way in their new country and in our community. Our community desperately needs to co-locate settlement services in one location. Currently our immigrant and refugee population must find their way to multiple agencies that are scattered throughout the community.

I was looking for some recognition of the serious impact on Burnaby streets when thousands of additional commuters opt to take the Pattullo Bridge when tolls go up on the Port Mann Bridge in a few years. The throne speech had nothing to say about this problem, and the budget didn't help either. We can count on extremely heavy traffic pouring through our neighbourhoods when the second bridge is built.

Madam Speaker, I'm concerned about the quality of health care available from Burnaby Hospital, particularly in view of recent unsettling news stories regarding the standard of maternity care. The government had nothing to offer on this issue. Instead of giving the health authority the additional $300 million they need, this government gave the big banks a $220 million tax cut.

I had hoped that the government might address the huge issue of seniors care, particularly the problem of moving frail seniors from one care home to another against their wishes, taking them out of their community and distances away from their loved ones. The budget offered no hope of new funding to improve the care we provide for older people, and this is a shame.

The government must answer these concerns. These are very serious issues for my constituents. We must continue to ask for programs we all need if we are to achieve the dreams we all have for ourselves and for our families. Government must restore our public services to the levels which existed before they began to cut services to pay for tax giveaways. All British Columbians should be able to share the prosperity which comes with the current strong Canadian economy.

Now is the time to build for a future for all of us in British Columbia. Our children need to be able to grow into healthy adults, enjoying the benefits of a first-class education system. All members of our family should feel safe on our streets and in our communities, and our grandparents should be able to enjoy their senior years in comfort and dignity. Instead of listening to ordinary British Columbians, the government continues to please its big business friends, and the rest of British Columbians are constantly pushed down and down.

This budget includes another cut in student aid, even as the debt load for B.C. students grows at alarming rates. The average student debt at the end of four years of university is $27,000. I think it's a great budget for banks and oil companies, but it is a terrible budget for students.

There was nothing in the budget for children. The Liberal budget didn't even mention B.C.'s shameful record of having the highest rate of child poverty in the country. Although there is a 5.5 percent demographic growth of children with special needs who need care, the budget increase allocated for this area is only 0.7 percent.

The budget may be revenue-neutral for the treasury, but it is not revenue-neutral for working and low-income people. This new gas tax is a cash grab. That's what it is. The day before yesterday the Minister of Finance claimed that the low-income earners would not be unfairly hit by the new tax. But by 2012 the government will only return a dollar in special credits to low-income people for every $2 it takes in the form of added carbon taxes.

The banks and big corporations will continue to get preferential treatment from the Liberals. I guess the Liberals feel obliged to return favours to their friends

who have made huge contributions to their election campaign fund. The ordinary working people, the working poor, children, families, seniors and students don't matter.

There's no new provincial funding for a new child care system to help working families with long wait-lists and higher fees. Nothing has been done and offered to address the severe shortage of qualified staff. What we need is a government providing real solutions, not a band-aid budget.

In the throne speech the government claims that the supports for women fleeing abusive relationships…. More will be done to improve programs to prevent violence against women. The same promise was also made in the throne speech in 2006, yet the Liberals still haven't restored the 2002 cuts to legal aid or to women's centres.

B.C. is the only province in Canada not having a Human Rights Commission. Despite the numerous attempts made by the opposition, despite the fact I have twice introduced a private member's bill to restore the Human Rights Commission, the government has failed to do it. There is no mention of human rights or multiculturalism in the budget and the fiscal plan. The only systemic barriers to economic equality for recent immigrants that are acknowledged by the budget and fiscal plan are work-based language training and credential assessment.

The 2008 budget does not acknowledge that poverty disproportionately impacts racialized women, immigrants and refugees in this province. Nearly one in five immigrants experiences a state of chronic low income, more than twice the rate of Canadian-born individuals.

According to the most recently available data from Statistics Canada, the rate of child poverty among recent immigrant families living in Metro Vancouver is over 50 percent. The poverty rate for recently immigrated, lone-parent families is 70 percent. These numbers compare only to the poverty rates among aboriginal peoples in B.C. In Metro Vancouver 60 percent of aboriginal children living in single-parent households are living in poverty.

The Liberals have refused to raise the minimum wage. There's nothing in the budget to implement effective monitoring and the enforcement of fair housing and labour standards under the unique conditions imposed by the guest worker program in which vulnerable workers are bound to a single employer.

The budget puts the burden of tackling climate change on working families while big polluters get a free pass. The new gas tax is unfair and will accomplish little in the way of actually reducing emissions. The oil and gas sector is responsible for 21 percent of all emissions in B.C., and they're getting the largest subsidy ever.

R. Chouhan: Exactly. People in forestry-dependent communities are getting thrown out of work. Mills are being closed, but the Liberal government has done nothing to help these people. There's nothing in the budget to address the crisis in the forest industry.

So what have we seen? The big banks and the oil and gas companies get a whopping $550 million, and ordinary British Columbians get $100. So $100 as compared to $550 million to their friends. Just $100, Madam Speaker, while the hydro rates are going up by 25 percent.

Medical premiums increased by 50 percent in this government's first term. Seniors who do not qualify for premium assistance are now charged up to $200 per year.

In 2003 the government initiated user fees in 28 of B.C.'s parks, and in 2005 they implemented fees in another 13 parks. These fees range from between $9 and $50. If that was not enough, as of April 1, 2008, fees in B.C. parks will increase again by $1 per night for rustic and basic sites and $2 per night for moderate and developed sites.

Ferry fares have increased, and fuel surcharges have been added to B.C. Ferry routes since this government's quasi-privatization scheme happened. Since 2001, ferry fares have risen in B.C. by 35 percent on major routes and by up to 75 percent on minor routes. They are projected to rise even further by 2011 — 46 percent on major routes and up to 85 percent on minor routes. ICBC rates went up an average of 3.9 percent in 2004 and by 6.5 percent on February 1, 2006. In May 2007 the basic premiums increased by 3.3 percent.

The government members, when they make their speeches, are blaming the opposition for not praising their budget. You tell me how on earth anybody who has even a small portion of brain working can support this budget.

Transit fares have continued to rise, and in January 2008 Metro Vancouver's transit fares became the highest in Canada.

At a time when we need to entice people out of their cars, the Liberal government has shown no leadership in making public transit more affordable. Instead of lowering transit fares, the government has decided to give a big gift of $550 million to their friends in the banking and oil and gas industries — but only $100 for ordinary individuals.

While the working poor will carry the bulk of the burden of this new gas tax, they got no help from the government — no help whatsoever. The government should have increased the hourly minimum wage to $10 per hour but did not do it. What a shame.

Speaking of the working poor, farmworkers are continuously ignored by this government. They don't

get the same rights as other workers. A year ago three farmworkers were killed in a road accident. A year after, there is no coroner's inquest, and no criminal charges are laid against the person or persons responsible.

Burnaby does not have adequate ambulance service, and cuts to long-term care are putting seniors' lives at risk. The budget does not address the critical need for improved ambulance service and better care for seniors in Burnaby. The government's refusal to adequately fund the New Vista Care Home so seniors can age in place….

The budget has confirmed that the B.C. Liberals won't provide the critical health care dollars for my community. B.C.'s health authorities are forced, with a $300 million shortfall…. As a result of it, patients will see even more cuts and longer wait-lists.

In closing, I would say that my constituents are totally disappointed. They were expecting help to deal with the rising costs of making a living. Instead, what they got was $100. The big banks and the oil and gas industry get $550 million. This budget and the throne speech once again have proved that this government is out of touch with reality and has neglected the poor and working families.

Hon. C. Richmond: It truly is a privilege for me to get up here and speak to the budget speech and to reflect back on the throne speech and talk a little bit about my constituency of Kamloops. I don't get a chance very often to stand here and talk about Kamloops. It's usually about other things. So this morning I am going to do that a little bit.

First of all, I would like to thank a lot of the people who work with me. We wouldn't be able to function properly if we didn't have a good staff around us. I'll be very brief with it. I have Ian, Muneesh, Gail and Barb, who are my right arms in Victoria. In Kamloops I have Linda, Jennifer and Lois. I thank them very much for all of the work they do on my behalf. My job is made very much easier by them.

I guess I can't help but respond to just a couple of things that the speaker before me mentioned. They love to say that we are favouring the large corporations and that we don't pay attention to working people. It seems to me that they haven't grasped the concept that if you wish to attract industry and business to your province, you must make sure your taxing policies are in line with all of your competition that surrounds you to the east and to the south. They don't seem to get it.

In fact, they didn't get it the whole ten years they had the levers of power in the '90s. What happened is that a lot of those companies decided that British Columbia was not a good place to do business, so they left.

Hon. C. Richmond: We had head offices leave this province, because they couldn't grasp the idea that B.C. was not a good place to do business. We will never get back those head offices that left, but we can make sure the ones that are here stay and that we attract more, because they are the people who provide jobs for British Columbians.

Hon. C. Richmond: Madam Speaker, I don't think they like to hear that, because they're the ones who chased thousands of jobs out of this province. They chased the people who hire people out of this province.

They don't seem to have grasped the idea that if you want to attract investment and business to the province, you must be competitive. We were not competitive in the '90s. All you have to do is look at the statistics of the people, young people especially, who left this province to find employment elsewhere.

Now we have a tax regime in this province that attracts industry and business, large and small, to this province, and the unemployment rates attest to that. In my hometown alone, in Kamloops, in 2001 the unemployment rate was 14.1 percent. It's now about 4 percent.

In fact, I just wanted to make a comment, as I made an observation to myself the other day. I've listened to a lot of speeches in this House over the years that I've been here. I haven't heard them all, of course, because nobody sits in here all the time and listens. We couldn't handle that. But of all the speeches I've heard sitting in here, I do not recall one from the other side of the House — not one — where they stood up and talked about earning money. I've never heard that.

I hear speeches every day about how we should spend money, but I never hear a speech about how we should earn money. I don't know if they have ever grasped the concept that you should earn money before you spend it. I don't think they know about that.

In fact, it is quite evident by their record of the '90s, when they spent money that they didn't have. We wound up $20 billion more in debt after ten years than when they started, and when they took our province from number 1 to number 10 in the country when the rest of the country was enjoying relative prosperity. The rest of the country was doing quite well, and we went to number 10.

Hon. C. Richmond: Now I want to talk about my constituency for a while. We've done a lot of things for and with the city of Kamloops in the last few years — things that you are able to do when you have a balanced budget and a thriving economy, things that you could not do when you didn't have. The proof is all around us. Families, students, workers and employers are truly benefiting from B.C.'s vibrant economy, strong housing market, increased social supports and numerous government initiatives.

Like all government MLAs, I take great satisfaction in working for all British Columbians and the wonderful people I have the honour of representing. I'm very fortunate to represent a constituency and a town in which I have a great deal of pride, Kamloops. It's been my home for a long time. I grew up there, and I've seen the many changes. I've seen the ups and downs that have happened in my community.

Kamloops is a city that provides an exceptional lifestyle. It is a great place to live, a clean place to play and a supportive place to raise a family and get an excellent education. Kamloops' economy remains strong — as I said earlier, a far cry from the 14.1 percent unemployment that plagued us during the '90s.

It's a wonderful place to work. One of the most important industries in Kamloops and the Thompson region is tourism. Each year hundreds of thousands of people visit us in pursuit of both rest and recreation. We are known now for the Tournament Capital Centre and the 2011 Western Canada Games. Speaking of recreation, Kamloops is known now as the tournament capital of the country, a reputation that is very well deserved.

To build on this well-earned reputation, the new $23 million Tournament Capital Centre was officially opened last May as part of an overall $48 million sports facility — an expansion project in the city.

You can do many things when the economy is strong. I am pleased to add that our government helped finance this worthwhile project with a $6 million contribution through the major recreational sports facilities initiative and a further $4 million through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. The centre has a stadium, an aquatic centre, a six-lane indoor track, gymnastics space and three world-class hardwood courts for games such as basketball, volleyball and badminton.

The Tournament Capital Centre is a very welcome addition to our community, and it is expected the new centre will add over 45 new tournaments each year — tournaments like the 2008 all-native junior provincial basketball tournament, the Scott FireFit Championships, the invitational slo-pitch tournaments. The tournaments could draw over 20,000 additional out-of-town visitors, requiring 23,000 nights of accommodation, and that means up to $8 million in direct and indirect benefits for Kamloops.

Speaking of major tournaments, I would like to remind everyone that the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games is not the only major sporting event that will be held in B.C. in the next few years. Kamloops will be proud to host the 2011 Western Canada summer games. Over nine days almost 2,300 athletes from Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the three territories and homegrown competitors from B.C. will converge in Kamloops and compete in 20 different sporting activities.

Along with the athletes, their coaches, managers, officials and 3,000 volunteers, the Western Canada Games are expected to generate $10 million in local economic activity. I know Kamloops will once again rise to the occasion and put on the best games that western Canada has ever seen. I invite you all to visit the city in 2011 and cheer on the young athletes.

In addition to promoting the benefits of healthy living and physical fitness, it's just as important to develop healthy minds, and I am proud that here, too, Kamloops is leading the way. Learning has long been a priority for our government, and we have committed significant resources to create more spaces for students. A brilliant example is the $12.3 million B.C. Centre for Open Learning located at Thompson Rivers University, which opened last autumn.

The centre serves students provincewide who are taking post-secondary courses and programs with media such as the Internet, video conferencing and traditional print methods. The new state-of-the-art building has 15,000 students who are enrolled in 400 open learning courses and employs 180 people. Needless to say, the B.C. Centre for Open Learning is an important component of TRU and helps Kamloops build as a centre for advanced education.

Now I'd like to briefly turn our attention to a very serious issue: subsidized housing announcements in Kamloops. The opposition, if you listened to question period yesterday, would have you believe that we're doing nothing about housing. Just give a listen to this:

That is three times the amount that was spent in 2001. The 2007-2008 budget number towards shelters and affordable housing is three times the amount that was invested by the opposition. I'm very pleased to say that those most in need in Kamloops are benefiting from the action our government has taken.

In fact, 2007 could have been called "Kamloops — the year of affordable housing announcements." First, this government announced it invested $1.2 million to purchase the Whistler Inn and preserve its 28 units as affordable housing to help those most in need. I am pleased to say that the AIDS Society of Kamloops will manage the inn.

In addition, the AIDS Society received $480,000 in October to expand its homeless outreach services. Thanks to this funding, outreach workers will direct help to the homeless and connect them to supports and

services that will make a real and positive difference in their lives, including income assistance, housing options and health programs.

The John Howard Society received $5.9 million in provincial funding to build the 48-unit Georgian Court development on Fortune Drive. Construction is well underway on this four-storey building to provide housing this summer for those at risk of being homeless.

The New Life Mission received $1.8 million from this government to expand its House of Ruth. As a direct result of this funding, the New Life Mission can now provide 18 new units of transitional housing and shelter beds for women and children most in need.

Kamloops first nations were not left out of the housing mix. As part of a provincewide $50 million aboriginal housing initiative — a partnership between the federal government, our government and the Aboriginal Housing Management Association — the Kamloops Native Housing Society received a $5 million grant to build 20 residences on Summit Drive.

One of the announcements I was particularly excited about was also made in Kamloops at the John Howard Society's Victory Inn, one of my community's most respected and important service providers and a real success story. Low-income and other vulnerable British Columbians who are moving into provincially subsidized housing developments are benefiting from a $1 million grant that we gave to the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association for their welcome-to-your-home starter kits.

These kits provide people with the amenities they need to start a home. In fact, this idea was one that came from the ground up, from our staff, which we encourage in the ministry. They said: "It's pretty tough sometimes when you move someone into a new apartment, and they have nothing to set up housekeeping." So we gave them starter kits, valued at about $900 retail, that contain everything you would need to set up housekeeping, such as sheets, pillows, pots, pans and dishes. In fact, the response we got from these people was overwhelming. They couldn't believe that this was theirs to start setting up home.

As well, in Kamloops we just opened the Hamlets, a beautiful facility with 200 beds in west-side Bedford Manor, the seniors village. So Kamloops has really benefited from our housing projects over the last few years.

The home starter kits were just one of the many innovative programs that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance launched last year. The ministry implemented a new immediate-needs assessment process ensuring that the urgent needs of all income assistance applicants for food, shelter or medical attention are met when they first contact an employment and income assistance office, whether they become a client or not. If anyone shows up at one of our offices, nobody is turned away if they are in need.

I know the opposition would rather sit there and use data that's three years old to talk about some statistics that are flawed from the beginning and that are out of date….

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, but they haven't paid attention to the things that we're doing at this time in the ministry.

I also want to emphasize something that will explode a myth that's out there. I want to emphasize to members of this House and to everyone in British Columbia that income assistance is available to everyone who is eligible, regardless of whether they have a fixed address or not.

We should all recognize that the first step to stable lodging for our most vulnerable citizens is receiving the supports they need, and that includes financial assistance. This is part of our simplification project, with emphasis on ensuring that their needs are met first. Processes come second.

We also standardized payments for all income assistance clients residing in Community Living B.C. facilities, meaning that they will achieve the maximum persons-with-disabilities rate available of $906 a month.

To help persons with disabilities save for their future, we announced that the federal government's new registered disability savings plan will not be considered an asset when calculating clients' eligibility for disability assistance. This means that British Columbians with disabilities who are eligible for the government of Canada's disability tax credit will be able to contribute up to a lifetime maximum of $200,000 after-tax to a registered disability savings plan. Good news, indeed.

Our government provided 2010 Legacies Now with a one-time $900,000 grant to establish Access Works, a program that will help persons with disabilities benefit from employment and volunteer opportunities resulting from the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

One of the most memorable events I attended during last year was for the $4.2 million grant presented to the communication assistance for young adults program. This program provides communication devices and services to young adults who have severe communication disabilities.

While I was at this event, I had the opportunity to meet two very intelligent young women who use communication devices to speak. One was able to type commands on a computer to speak. The other was most impressive. She had cerebral palsy — extreme cerebral palsy, I should add. She was unable to speak and unable to hear, but by the piece of equipment that we had funded for her, she was able to move her head from side to side and tap out Morse code on two pads that were on each side of her head. The Morse code was then converted into text by the computer and then into speech.

Was it ever impressive when she was able to respond to the words I said when I was able to give them this $4.2 million grant on behalf of British Columbians. It made it all worthwhile when you sat there and saw in this dysfunctional body an IQ of about 170 able to send Morse code to a machine and respond to the audience. Their excitement to speak to the media and guests showed me just how much our government and community

partnerships are really making a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

Along with my colleagues the Minister of Children and Families, the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Community Services, I helped deliver $750,000 to the University of Victoria's CanAssist team to help build individualized technology devices and service for persons with disabilities. This is truly a fascinating program, and the creative minds of CanAssist have designed some really innovative technology that is improving the quality of life for many people, including children with special needs.

The ministry announced policy changes that encourage employable income assistance clients to accept short-term, seasonal agricultural jobs while allowing a seamless transition back into an assistance program, if it's required. This means expected-to-work clients who accept a seasonal or temporary agricultural job of less than two months in length will have their files kept open. Moreover, they will not be required to perform a three-week work search nor go through the application process again should income assistance be needed.

Not only does this policy offer encouragement to ministry clients, but it helps farmers and the agricultural sector recruit seasonal workers, especially for harvest work. Remember the quotation: "Work, not welfare, eliminates poverty."

Obviously, what we really want to see is clients move from income assistance to full-time work, where a good job provides a much better level of support than welfare. The average stay on our rolls of a person expected to work is just four months, and when they leave our rolls for employment, the average wage they are attaining is $13 an hour.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance invests over $70 million a year in a full range of employment programs. This includes $35 million for the new B.C. employment program, $7.5 million for the new community assistance program, $20 million for the new employment program for persons with disabilities, $5 million for the bridging employment program and $5 million for the community volunteer supplement program.

Each year over 25,000 people with significant barriers to employment participate fully and benefit from a full range of employment programs. Our employment programs are a proven and undeniable success. Since 2001 over 54,000 British Columbians have been placed into jobs through our programs. I'm pleased to add that the average wage paid to former clients who have been placed into jobs was approximately $13 an hour in 2007.

One issue I'm very passionate about is our province's commitment in building the best system of support for persons with disabilities. The government has a vision in which British Columbians with disabilities have real choice and are well supported by services that create healthy, accessible and welcoming communities.

The government's disability strategy includes focusing on a citizen-centred service delivery for all government disability supports and programs, enhancing employment opportunities and improving access to personal assistive devices. The disability strategy builds on the provincial government's current investment of more than $4.3 billion each year on disability programs and services, ensuring that B.C. is the best place to live, play and work for all British Columbians.

Hon. C. Richmond: I notice the member from Cowichan Valley cannot wait his turn to speak in the House. I'm not sure if he's sitting in his own seat, because they've moved…

Hon. C. Richmond: …around quite a bit in the last little while. But let me assure the member that he will have his turn to speak in the House the same as everyone else.

Last year our ministry completely revamped its $20 million employment program for persons with disabilities and made it even more responsive to individual needs. This program is available to all British Columbians with disabilities, not just people who are on our income assistance rolls.

Approximately 44 percent of working-age British Columbians with a disability are working, but I know we can do a lot better. The one way we can do it is with our 10 by 10 Challenge that we have issued to communities throughout the province. I'm pleased to say that over 50 communities have now taken up the challenge to increase the employment of persons with disabilities — to increase it by 10 percent by 2010.

It's an issue all MLAs should promote, and I urge you to speak to your municipal counterparts and encourage them to take up the challenge. There are still communities out there that we're waiting for to come on board. If we can get full participation, this will mean an additional 13,000 persons with disabilities will be working over the next two years.

Another highlight occurred for me last year in November at an event behind the steps of the Legislative Library to help celebrate the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons. My ministry announced a $225,000 funding grant to the B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association to help athletes with a disability participate in sporting activities. The grant allowed the B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association to purchase a new modified passenger van that will transport athletes and equipment to events throughout the province and western North America. In addition, they were able to purchase up to 50 new sport-specific wheelchairs designed specifically for court sports such as basketball, track sports and rugby.

For the uninitiated, wheelchairs that are designed for playing rugby are quite different than the ordinary

wheelchair, and they cost in excess of $3,000 each. It's a bone-jarring physical engagement, as I can attest to. The Minister for ActNow and I had a short game of wheelchair rugby out there, and I can tell you that it almost jarred the fillings out of your teeth.

The Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association won the bid to host the 2010 World Wheelchair Rugby Championships, beating competitions from Britain and elsewhere. They're taking place from September 16 to 25 in 2010, and 144 athletes from 12 countries will compete at the Richmond Olympic oval. Please join me in congratulating the B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association for being afforded this great honour.

While it's always enjoyable to announce funding and awards and to talk about events, there are many pressing issues that all of us British Columbians must face. The issue of low-income working families is an issue our government takes very seriously, and it has made positive progress over the last few years. Statistics Canada reports that the number of British Columbians, including children, living in low-income situations is declining. From 2002 to 2005, 103,000 fewer British Columbians were recorded as living in the low-income cutoff category, accounting for over 80 percent of the national reduction.

The percentage of British Columbians, 13 percent, falling into the LICO category is the lowest in a decade. The number of children living in low-income circumstances declined by 16 percent in one year alone, from 2004 to 2005. These numbers are from Statistics Canada. They only cover up to 2005, and we know our economy has improved significantly since then. Today our unemployment rate sits at 4.1 percent provincially, one of the lowest ever on record. In the past 12 months alone 53,400 new jobs have been created in our province. This is the number equivalent to almost the entire population of Vernon.

While encouraging, our government is working hard to see the number of British Columbians in low-income circumstances drop even further. To help, we have introduced a number of initiatives and programs that help low-income families and children. Working families with children and household incomes of less than $28,000 a year — I have to revise that now, since the budget, to less than $35,000 a year — are eligible to receive up to $563 a month in direct payments through the rental assistance program towards their housing costs.

I noted yesterday that the member — I think he's from Victoria-Hillside — said: "What good is a rental assistance program if you have almost zero vacancy rate?" I don't think he gets it. This assistance program is for people who are already in houses. They already have a home. The only problem is that they're paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent. They are assisted immediately. They don't have to wait for housing to be built. They're assisted right now, thousands of them, with up to $563 a month.

There is much more I could say, but I thank you for the time. It's always a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this House.

K. Whittred: Visiting me today are family from Saskatchewan, that place where I think it's still really cold. I hear they're having winter there. Anyway, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House my cousin Dalice Abraham; her husband, Max Abraham; and their very good friends Linda and Les Ferguson. All of these folks are from Saskatoon, so welcome.

D. Thorne: Oh, there you go. I have a fan. I hope that's not eating into my time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I am honoured to represent the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville in this House and to bring forward my comments and concerns re the 2008 budget on their behalf. I find this so-called green budget quite alarming, as it appears to put all the pressure of tackling climate change on average families who are already struggling just to get by.

I see big banks and big polluters getting an even better financial break, while key public services like affordable housing, child welfare, crime and public safety are ignored. This budget won't help families living in poverty, in substandard living conditions or, worse, facing eviction from the only housing they can afford.

This budget won't help the thousands of people on the growing waiting list for non-profit affordable housing, those unfortunate enough to not be benefiting from the good life in this rich province of ours. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that a cheque for $100 will not change the lives of these people or their future any more than this new budget will.

Before I discuss other issues of concern in my constituency, I want to talk a bit about my role as opposition critic for Housing. At this time last year I outlined the many challenges facing thousands seeking affordable and decent housing in this province. Regrettably, once again I must report that there has been no significant progress toward alleviating B.C. Housing's crisis.

Throughout my remarks today, I will be reading quotes from some of the e-mail, phone and written messages I have received recently. I think it will be valuable for this government to hear from British Columbians who, in their own words, talk about the situations they are facing. The government members opposite may not like what is being said, but I hope they will listen carefully to these words, which are not my opinions only or the

opinions of the official opposition. These are the life experiences and views of real British Columbians.

In my work as Housing critic, I hear constantly how affordable housing is virtually non-existent and even more so for the lower-income tenants who are often threatened with losing their home due to a strata conversion or to renovations which lead to exorbitant rent increases or eviction, just to name a few examples.

Pascal, a tenant in Vancouver, tells me: "All 22 tenants in my building are being evicted for renovation purposes. The new owner estimates the rent for my unit will subsequently go up from $705 a month to $1,150."

I am asking this government to make an immediate commitment to build non-profit housing. Non-profit housing and cooperatives are partnerships where all parties have an interest in making them work. They are community assets — long-term investments that benefit everyone. The sooner the members across the way acknowledge this, the sooner we can move ahead together, all of us, to really make B.C. the best place on earth for everybody.

The story told by constituents who contacted my Coquitlam office recently reiterates this need. "We are immigrants from Sudan," they told my staff, "a married couple with four children and a fifth due in several months. We are currently living in a one-bedroom suite in a run-down building on Brunette Avenue. We have contacted B.C. Housing and our social worker on many occasions but have received no response so far. Please, can you help us?" The words of real British Columbians.

R. Fleming: With us today are a number of students from the Four Corners Language Institute in downtown Victoria, and I would like to introduce them. They are students from Japan, Korea and Mexico who are coming to the Legislature for the first time.

Would the House please welcome Ms. Jisun Hong, Ms. Alice On, Ms. Misun Kim, Mr. Joon Young Lee, Mr. Tomoyoshi Ueno, Ms. Naoko Fujimura, Mr. Kyo Jung Cho, Mr. Edgardo Del Olmo, Ms. Hyo Jeong Jeong and Mr. Takamitsu Yanase. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Thorne: Government promises and expectations aside, the free market is not helping to provide affordable rental housing. Virtually no new market rental housing has been built in British Columbia in the last 20 years as a result of the rising cost of land and the lack of incentives for developers. This, along with strict eligibility requirements, is also why the government's rent supplement program has had such minimal success.

To date about 4,500 people have taken advantage of the program, far below the 15,000 promised by the Housing Minister last year at this time. In a low-vacancy market like ours, rent supplements will only work for people who already have an apartment and who also meet the numerous eligibility requirements. Raising the income level will help some people, but only those fortunate enough to have housing.

Renters who are fortunate enough to have housing also face many issues with their tenancies. Since 2001 this government has slashed the number of residential tenancy branch offices and the staff who work in them, to the detriment of all renters and landlords in British Columbia.

B.C. has been left with only two and a half RTB offices, residential tenancy branch offices, leaving dedicated staff struggling to keep up with the growing number of people who need assistance. Wait times for services are simply unacceptable. There are long waits no matter how you try to access the system — in person, by phone or by e-mail. Arbitrations are so far behind that by the time the RTB rules in favour of the tenant, it's often too late. They have already been evicted or have already had to find other accommodation because of their fear of being evicted.

It's not just the tenants. Landlords are also being negatively affected. Let me quote directly from my constituent Chris, who contacted me about this. Chris says:

The words of a landlord, somebody living in British Columbia who feels he has significant issues. These comments are from a landlord, and I've received many, many more from tenants who are also adversely affected by delays in service. They complain of telephone waiting times of more than an hour and three weeks for an e-mail reply.

There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Clearly, many landlords and tenants feel that the government's lack of commitment to providing an efficient and properly funded tenancy branch is denying them fundamental justice. I do not fault the staff at the branch, who are doing the best they can in the face of office closures and budget reductions.

I brought these issues up in the House last fall, and the minister acknowledged the problems. He said that there would be improvements, and I am pleased to see that finally, there is some movement in this budget. We've been waiting a long time. Renters and landlords will be watching with me to see how far these changes actually go, if they really make a difference on the ground.

Changes to the Residential Tenancy Act in 2004 appear to have created many of the problems with amendments that were intended to balance the rights of landlords and tenants but that instead created loopholes that are causing many of the problems we have seen the residential tenancy staff trying to deal with, loopholes that might allow landlords to circumvent the legislated annual rent increase in several ways.

For example, landlords can deliver letters to tenants that propose above-guideline rent increases, sometimes as high as 50 percent. Tenants who are unfamiliar with the Residential Tenancy Act often agree to these exorbitant rent increases, believing it is the only way they can keep their home. B.C. regulations at the moment do not protect tenants from these letters.

If a tenant doesn't agree to excessive rent increases, landlords can use section 49 of the act, which states that landlords can end a tenancy to do renovations or repairs that require the unit to be vacant. Relatively minor renovations often allow an entire building to be evicted. Once a tenancy is ended, rents can be raised to amounts otherwise prohibited by the act. Evictees include long-term tenants, new immigrants, foreign exchange students and elderly individuals, many of whom do not have the time or resources to go to arbitration.

When tenants do challenge their evictions, they often find that the residential tenancy branch offices are inaccessible and understaffed and that the process is intimidating. Until recently most tenants who fought evictions under section 49 lost their cases.

Sharon, Janine and Sarah are neighbours in the West End's Bay Towers who refused to agree to rent increases up to 55 percent. Shortly after, along with their other neighbours, they were evicted floor by floor "for renovations." Not a coincidence, they thought. They challenged their evictions at the RTB, and they won.

Recently another group of evicted tenants in Richmond overturned their residential tenancy branch decisions at the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. After these two notable cases, called Allman vs. Amacon, and Berry and Kloet vs. British Columbia, the hon. Justice Williamson stated: "The purpose of section 49(6) is not to give landlords a means for evicting tenants; rather, it is to ensure that landlords are able to carry out renovations." He went on to say, "It could not surely have been the intent of the Legislature to provide such a loophole for landlords" — very, very sharp words about our Residential Tenancy Act in British Columbia.

It is obvious that the courts are aware that section 49, particularly (6)(b) under that section, is being used improperly and that tenants' rights are not being properly protected — an urgent situation which requires the attention immediately of legislators. Section 49(6)(b) needs revision or removal, as does the issue of those "voluntary" rent increases.

British Columbia should seriously consider recent Ontario legislation developed in response to evictions for renovations. New regulations include the right of first refusal, allowing tenants to return to their units at the same rent once renovations are completed or three months' compensation and 120 days to move out if tenants are able to move elsewhere. The right of first refusal is really the only way to give renters in B.C. any security of tenure in this increasingly tight rental market.

These examples illustrate the trend — I hope my mouth is not going to stop working, Madam Speaker; I'm only halfway through — of large apartment owners buying up older affordable rental buildings and using loopholes in the Residential Tenancy Act to engineer large rent increases. Leading up to the Olympics, this is a trend that is exacerbating the crisis in affordable housing in this region.

We also continue to have manufactured home owners around the province suffering as more and more of them see the property their home sits on sold for condo and subdivision redevelopment. Changes made to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act by this government did not deal adequately with notice or fair compensation, and in the past year further changes have enabled manufactured home park owners to raise pad rentals above the prescribed limits to cover increased operational costs. As a direct result, many manufactured home owners are facing financial ruin.

Some members will say, "Oh, there goes the Housing critic finding fault again," so let me quote directly from an e-mail, which I received ten days ago — not my opinion. Bruce, a man living in Burnaby, writes: "The residents of the manufactured home park where I live have received their notice to vacate. The property has been sold to a developer. This park is occupied by citizens, disabled, new arrivals and otherwise disadvantaged citizens. There are very few options available to us. Where will we find somewhere else to live that we can afford?"

Manufactured home park owners should be required to provide a fair and uniform relocation package to those they are displacing. The city of Coquitlam has been a leader in this regard by requiring owners of manufactured home parks to negotiate fair agreements with their tenants before they can rezone the land for other development. The Union of B.C. Municipalities agreed with this.

What is really needed is improved provincial legislation so that all manufactured home owners in B.C. receive fair and equal treatment when faced with relocation. Fortunately, several manufactured home owner associations have formed and have taken on the plight of those living in parks facing possible closure due to redevelopment. I have found these groups very efficient and knowledgable, and I wish to thank them for bringing such important issues to my attention in a timely manner.

The plight of float home owners who are presently not covered by any provincial legislation at all is another

issue I intend to bring to the attention of the minister, as Budget 2008 has ignored both these two groups of homeowners.

The government's current housing strategy does little to increase affordable housing stock for families. It relies heavily on rent supplements, but everyone knows that rent supplements will not raise our vacancy rates, which are the lowest in the country.

I also wish to remind this government that the cities and towns of British Columbia, our community partners, are not responsible or funded to provide social services or housing. These are the responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments, who collect tax dollars for that purpose and who must always be held accountable, especially in these troubling times when homeless numbers are tripling and quadrupling.

I have met with owners of the so-called leaky condos, who are still suffering from their financial fiasco. These are often people whose lives have been ruined, who now suffer ongoing medical conditions as a result of too many years of uncertainty and chaos, victims of a seemingly uncaring system. Even though we may not hear as much about it in the media, thousands of owners are still paying for faulty construction. Frankly, many of these people feel abandoned by our provincial government, which had promised, before the 2001 election, to take on a leadership role and to move immediately towards the resolution of this problem.

Again, it is the volunteer consumer advocacy groups that are carrying the torch on behalf of victims, not the provincial government, and I again thank these groups for their continued hard work and their tenacity.

The leaky-condo crisis has now spread to the subsidized housing market. Last June it was reported that at least ten buildings run by the GVRD need major repairs. Many wood-frame apartments and townhomes built 25 years ago are rotting from water leaks. At that time, it was stated that the average unit would cost $70,000 to repair, and the costs have probably escalated since then.

Recently, a B.C. Housing official informed me that they have dozens of projects underway to correct water ingress and other construction problems. One of the affected sites is a family and seniors complex located in my own constituency. The mainly low-income tenants have already endured 18 months of intrusion, noise and dirt from a very disorganized and slow repair process. Now they have been informed that the renos are being expanded to include more work and that they will have to endure another two years of living in a construction zone. As Jerry, one of the tenants, so aptly described it: "It has been a nightmare. You can only imagine how it has affected the old and the ill. Now, to add insult to injury, B.C. Housing is increasing my rent, which I suspect is due to the cost overruns of this project."

I have continued to communicate with members of various home and property inspection associations to discuss the need to establish standards for the home inspection industry. When I questioned the Solicitor General about this in the Legislature, he pooh-poohed the idea and was quoted in the media as "having seen no evidence that such standards are needed."

As it was clear that there would be no action forthcoming from the government, I took action and initiated a private member's bill calling for regulations to license home inspectors — again with no response from the Solicitor General. Then suddenly, a few weeks ago, with very little publicity, the Solicitor General did another of his famous flip-flops and acknowledged what I and many others have been saying.

He announced that his ministry is intending to regulate home inspectors after all. A public consultation process asking for input has been launched, with a very tight time frame for feedback. I'm glad the Solicitor General has finally recognized the error of his previous statements.

It is still concerning me that this process was launched in such a quiet way that the public and even some industry stakeholders were not aware of what was happening until the deadline for feedback was rapidly approaching. I would say to anyone who is listening that they can certainly contact my office if they have information that they need to input and don't know how to do it.

I've met several times with representatives from the B.C. Real Estate Association and discussed with them many items of interest to their members, including and especially the property transfer tax. One interesting suggestion that they have put forward, which I believe warrants further discussion, is the feasibility of using a portion of the PTT to fund affordable housing. Along with the Real Estate Association, I have raised this issue, which continues to be ignored by this government.

I guess all we can hope is that another in a long line of flip-flops will take place one day and this source of revenue will be earmarked for projects to assist those who need help to find adequate, affordable housing — often seniors, single-parent families and the disabled. Surely their needs should be paramount in our just and caring society. There are no excuses. A rich province with a huge surplus can do better to assist vulnerable people.

In my role as critic for consumer protection, I am receiving a significant amount of feedback from British Columbians who are upset about continual rate increases for basic services such as Hydro, B.C. Ferries and ICBC. Over the past six years we have also seen huge increases in tuition fees, medicare and prescription costs, park fees and, of course, continuing pressure on child care costs.

Transit fares in Metro Vancouver — where residents need affordable, accessible public transportation — have soared. Recent fare hikes will seriously impact working people, seniors and youth, and will do nothing to encourage people to use transit. It is unconscionable that transit riders, often minimum-wage earners, will have to pay $10 to get to work from Surrey to Vancouver, especially in the face of the 500 percent increases to the newly appointed, unelected TransLink board.

This government's refusal to investigate increasing gasoline prices is also a concern. Income tax reductions and cheques for $100 are of little use if they are offset by continual price increases and by the hands of government always in people's pockets. My Coquitlam constituency office continues to hear from residents about all of these and about a variety of other concerns and suggestions which have not been covered in Budget 2008.

The biggest issue in my community right now is the future of the Riverview lands. I was disappointed to read in one of my local newspapers that the member for Port Moody–Westwood complained that a "new level of hysteria" surrounds the Riverview issue. Surely the member is aware of the deep feelings that residents of the Tri-Cities, including his constituents, have expressed regarding the preservation of the Riverview lands. Why isn't he joining the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and me in our efforts to support the community's wishes instead of dismissing their concerns as hysteria?

One of his constituents, Elaine Golds, a freeman of the city of Port Moody, summarized the solution perfectly in a recent letter to the editor in The Vancouver Sun. "The Riverview Hospital should be kept for the mentally ill, and public transit should be built to serve Port Moody, where a number of highrise towers are under construction and more have been approved."

It now appears that pressure from the 11,000 — and still growing — signatures petition that the opposition tabled in this House opposing market housing on the Riverview lands, as well as opposition from Coquitlam city council, may finally have been heard in some government circles, as the minister was quoted recently as saying he has no plans. "We're not doing anything — at least, not right now."

I'm glad the minister has suspended his secret discussions that were initiated last summer and fall. He and the Minister of Health should concentrate on utilizing Riverview for the mentally ill, as there is a great resource being wasted there that could be used for transition and supportive housing for mentally ill homeless currently languishing on the streets of communities throughout British Columbia.

The recent Evergreen announcement has created more questions than it has answered. Will the necessary federal funding come through? Why is the southeast line option, which runs past Riverview lands, suddenly back on the table? Important questions, as so far no representative of the federal government has given any guarantee that they will come up with at least $400 million to close the funding gap. Resurrecting the southeast line as an option has raised huge concerns for Coquitlam residents fighting to preserve the Riverview site.

When announcing the plans for the Evergreen line, the Minister of Transportation claimed the northeast route option, through Port Moody, and the southeast option shared identical construction costs, operating costs and ridership projections. In fact, the southeast corridor was projected to have a slightly higher ridership potential.

This did not agree with numerous and intensive earlier studies done while I was a Coquitlam city councillor. Naturally, many questions had been raised by current council and others about these numbers. Then TransLink officials confirmed that a redevelopment of the Riverview lands with thousands of units of market housing was, in fact, included in the ridership projections for the southeast route. Transportation Ministry officials deny this.

When I sought clarification from the minister in the House as to which version was correct, he ignored and basically refused to answer. We need answers now so that the public can make an informed decision during the short, 45-day period they have for input on route selection.

Residents in my riding also watched the budget carefully because of ongoing problems in the delivery of health care. Emergency room doctors at the Royal Columbian Hospital repeatedly voiced concerns that the department is dangerously overcrowded, a problem confirmed by the fire inspector in New West last week, who closed down the hospital because of crowded hallways and too many people in the emergency ward.

Even more shocking was an incident several days later when a patient left in a side hallway went into unnoticed respiratory distress — a close call that further shows the need for expansion of the emergency ward at the hospital and for more facilities in the community to which patients can be moved.

Here's a quote from a doctor on the front lines. He says that the Fraser Authority has approximately 300 patients who at any one time are floating around hospitals without beds, and that's the size of one whole hospital. That's the quote from Dr. Sheldon Glazer, who works in the emergency room at RCH. That one badly needed hospital, of course, could have been St. Mary's, until this government closed it down. The Fraser health region continues to suffer from that loss to this day.

Of course, all of these problems were forecast by the former chair of our Fraser health board, who quit last year because he said inadequate government funding threatened patient care in the region, and he felt powerless to change its course. His predictions have all come true.

Many of my constituents are also concerned about the threat to the Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, where Northwest Cascade Power has applied to allow the removal of 52 acres of park to facilitate construction of a hydro transmission line to Squamish. It is an unprecedented move, an unprecedented request, prohibited under the B.C. Park Act. To facilitate an IPP, the proponent has requested that land be removed to get around the Park Act.

The transmission line will go through sensitive wetlands and critical grizzly bear habitat. Fears are high that deletion of land from Pinecone Burke will set a new precedent and that many more boundary adjustments will follow in British Columbia.

The proposed Upper Pitt run-of-the-river project will divert all major tributaries that lie outside of the park boundaries. Within only a short 12-kilometre stretch, eight creeks would be diverted. The Upper Pitt

Transmission lines and roads and gravel pits will clear riparian cover and forest covering, and creek crossings will have to be built in the Upper Pitt. Despite these high environmental and financial costs, the electricity produced from this project is considered low value because the lakes and the streams will be frozen in the wintertime. With no overall planning, B.C.'s remote wildernesses are likely to become covered in these webs of overlapping private transmission lines.

I wish I had more time, because I have many, many more concerns, but thank you for letting me speak today.

B. Lekstrom: I rise to take my position to respond to the budget speech this year, a budget speech that I wholeheartedly support and will speak to and will break down into a number of categories. We're talking about a budget this year, in the '08-09 budget presentation, that will spend $37.69 billion to deliver the services for British Columbians. I think this money is being wisely spent.

I'm going to start off by thanking the people of Peace River South, the constituency which I represent. I want to, as well, thank my colleagues on both sides of the House who come here with the honour and privilege to represent the people of British Columbia and try and make a difference in their lives.

I want to thank the staff I have: my legislative assistant Katy Fairley, who works here in Victoria, as well as my constituency assistant back in Dawson Creek, Mr. Jim Noble, who has been with me since 2001.

Most importantly — and not to take anything away from the others I've mentioned — my family. My wife Vicki and my daughters Lindsey and Taiya — thank you very much. I also will be in big trouble if I forget this thank-you. I think my mom is watching, so hi Mom, and thank you very much.

Health care. I'm going to start by discussing that. It is an important part of any budget in British Columbia, regardless of the year in which we operate. But health care has been a challenge, not just for British Columbia but right across this great country of ours.

This year's budget will see us invest an additional $2.9 billion into our health care budget over the next three years. That is an amazing amount of money. It's easier to say $2.9 billion the longer I seem to hold this position. We talk in millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, but it is a significant amount. It is two thousand nine hundred million dollars.

That means that next year's health care budget will stand — just the Health budget, and there are other moneys spent on health care — at $13.765 billion. That is a significant increase. By the end of our three-year fiscal plan we will have increased the health care budget in British Columbia by $4.9 billion from 2001.

Does that mean health care is completely resolved and everything is fine? No. I think there's a great deal of work, and we've taken the bold step as a government to say that no longer is it going to be satisfactory to just inject money after money after money. We as a government have engaged the people of British Columbia in the Conversation on Health. We engaged them in a discussion that went out and talked about what works in health care, what doesn't work and what they think may help our health care system.

We are going to go down a road of a delivery model that we think is sustainable, one that is within the health care act, one that is publicly funded. I want to make that very clear, because we often hear: "You're going to go private." Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It's unfortunate that the opposition seems to want to mislead the public, because fear sometimes plays a role, but they do that.

They also say that we've cut health care. The member for Yale-Lillooet was railing on about: "They have cut and slashed health care." That's the kind of math that got you guys in trouble in the '90s. And $4.9 billion is a significant increase. Two-thirds of all new government spending in this budget will be spent on health care. That's a significant amount of money — two-thirds of all new government spending over the next three years.

I'm going to focus just briefly on my area of Peace River South. We have an expansion going on in our complex care facility and assisted living with the redevelopment of sites at Rotary Manor and Southview Housing in Dawson Creek. These are redevelopments of the Pouce Coupe Care Home in Peace River Haven in my region. That is very welcome news for the constituents that I represent and for the seniors that are reaching that level of care and need. So it is a bonus and a very added benefit, not to me as an MLA but to the people I represent.

As well, to the north of the river — my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy and Mines — we have a new hospital being built in Fort St. John. Many people think: why would that be good for members of Peace River South? Because it helps us all. In northeast B.C. we have about 63,000 people total. But we work together to benefit all people of the northeast.

There's also a $300 million transformation fund in our health care budget that is going to help us go down a road of changing how we look at delivering our health care services in this province, changing it to one that is sustainable for the long term. We've enjoyed a great quality of life in this province. It's our job to ensure that that great quality of life remains for our children, our grandchildren and future generations, and we are going to do that.

Education in this budget sees an increase of $144 million in our K-to-12 system over the next three years — again, not much of a cut, in my eyes. This is a significant increase. There's $38 million for StrongStart centres, which is a very, very good number. We have student enrolment that continues to decline in this province. At the same time, we recognize the importance of the….

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. It's very hard to hear the speaker. If we could keep our side comments to individuals and the discussions across the way so that we can hear the speaker. You'll all have an opportunity to speak to the throne and budget speeches.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and certainly I think it will help if he can keep it quiet a little bit over there.

But anyway, going back to education — 144 million new dollars into our K-to-12 system. This is an investment at the same time that we're seeing our student enrolment decline because families are having fewer and fewer children. We know that. That transcends any government party.

I note there are a number of students in the gallery here. We're doing this for them. We're not doing it for us. We're doing it for them, and I'm very proud to be able to say that. In this budget we have a K-to-12 education budget of $5.675 billion.

I encourage the public and the members of the opposition to actually read the budget document. It's a good document. It lays things out very clearly. I think every British Columbian would be well served to look into this.

Our social programs. We hear a lot about that in British Columbia, because that's the balance. You need a strong economy so that you can deliver the programs that we all would like for ourselves, our families and our children. And 438 million new dollars are going in with this budget into our social programs over three years.

We hear a lot about the opposition talking about homelessness and the increase. There's an additional $104 million to continue reducing homelessness. That's significant — $104 million.

B. Lekstrom: I hear from the opposition that that's not enough. You know, I'm not sure what the number would be. We haven't heard an option from them.

What we've got is an additional $78 million going into the emergency shelters in this province to keep them open 24-7 and provide the services that those less fortunate don't have.

B. Lekstrom: I'm trying to stick to the budget, unlike many of the members from the opposite side. I haven't quite understood what they spoke about because it wasn't the budget. But there are 135 million new dollars to create 2,000 new child care spaces. Again, good news for the people of British Columbia.

There's $42 million to develop programs and services for adults with developmental disabilities. Again, something we can all be proud of — all British Columbians, not just government.

Our justice and public safety in this budget is something that stands out as well. Budget 2008 invests $329 million over four years into that; $165 million to improve safety and maintain critical services in our justice sector. There's an additional $164 million to increase our correctional facility capacity.

We hear a lot about taxation. I want to talk about that for a while. We have in this budget personal income tax reductions of 2 percent this year followed by an additional 3 percent next year on the first $70,000 of earned income. I want to put that in context. Since 2001 that will mean that in British Columbia our government has reduced personal income taxes by 37 percent by this year and by a full 40 percent by the end of next year. That is the largest reduction that our province has ever seen.

I'm sure that it's welcome news. The people I talk to are thankful to have that money in their pockets. They are very happy to be able to make the choices for themselves.

The other taxes that we've had in this and the adjustments we've made are the general corporate tax in British Columbia, one that is important to keep us competitive with the rest of the country and, also, with North America. We are going to reduce the rate to 11 percent immediately for our general corporate tax and reduce it further to 10 percent by 2011.

It makes us competitive. Our small business community is very happy about this. The people I've talked to in my area are saying: "You recognize what we need to be competitive. You recognize what we need to employ people."

We're going to lower the small business tax rate from its present 4.5 percent to 3.5 percent this year, followed by another reduction to 2.5 percent in 2011.

I've also heard the opposition rail against the issue of the financial institutions and the phase-out of the capital tax for that group. There is no reason that British Columbia should not be the western capital for our financial institutions, and it's unfortunate that actually we don't have that yet. We are going to do what we can to make sure that we are western Canada's financial centre in this great country of ours, and we will do it through this.

I want to speak briefly about some of the PST issues. Here's what I think we have to relate. I heard again from the opposition that were railing that there's nothing in it for agriculture. It's clear to me that they haven't read the budget.

We're going to remove the PST on all-terrain vehicles for our agriculture community. That may sound like something small and trivial to the members who are from different parts of the country or province that don't have farming, but no longer is the horse the main tool when we go out to look at our cattle or look at our fences. They jump on an ATV. To remove the PST on that because it's for farm use is welcome news to myself, to the community I represent and to all of the agricultural community right across this province.

We also hear on the personal income tax side that we've cut taxes for the rich, and that the poor and the

low-income have been left out. I want to refer people to page 105 of the budget document. Again, I'm going to hopefully enlighten some members and some of my colleagues from the opposition.

If you look at a single individual who earns $15,000 of income — and this is prior to 2001, prior to us coming to office — they paid $419 in income tax in this province. That was under the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. Today in British Columbia those same people pay zero. That's a 100 percent reduction — 100 percent.

I'll go to a person who makes $40,000 a year. Prior to 2001 they paid $2,553 in income tax in our province. Today they pay $1,564, which is a reduction of 39 percent — a 39 percent reduction. So the lower income has 100 percent reduction; a middle income is at 40 percent. I'll even use an $80,000 income; it has a 37 percent reduction. The higher you go, the lower your reduction.

I want to make it very clear to the public who are watching — I know they're tuned in and listening — that when you hear the opposition talk about that they have cut taxes only for the rich and that the poor and the low-income have been left out, they're misleading you. They're misleading you with mistruths. We have some good news, and we're going to make sure that we tell the people and that we base it on facts. That's what I pride myself in.

Also, in this budget we have $105 million for our arts and culture community in this province. I have had the privilege of chairing our Finance Committee for a number of years — since I've been here, since 2001 — and each and every year we have the arts and culture community come to our Finance Committee and say, "You know, we make an incredible contribution to this province," and we recognized that. We've increased it slowly over the years, but this year is the most significant increase we've seen, at $105 million, and I think that is great news.

Our debt-to-GDP continues to go down. It's the highest in the country. I can understand why they got in financial trouble from '91 on. I can understand. For those people that want to look at our debt-to-GDP ratio and watch the steady decline in that, that's great news. That's why we have a triple-A rating from our bonding agencies in this country. That's why.

Transportation is another very important aspect of this budget. It's certainly important in the area that I represent. We continue to invest record amounts of money in our transportation infrastructure, and I'll speak to the Peace region. We have invested, in Peace River North and Peace River South, about $240 million in each of those constituencies since 2001. That is the most we have ever invested in our road infrastructure in our history, ever.

I want to speak about agriculture, something that's very important to me, to the people I represent and to this province. We have just put out our agricultural plan. Certainly, I think it was well received right across this province. In this budget we have funding to implement that agriculture plan, and I want to focus on a couple of key things.

B. Lekstrom: I know he talks a lot over there; doesn't he, Mr. Speaker? He does.

We have a wildlife mitigation and compensation program, something the farmers in the Peace region have been working on and asking for, for many years. Our Crown resource known as wildlife is all of ours, and it's a great asset, but it actually has an impact on our agricultural community, a negative impact, where it can be devastating to their crops. It can get into the feed of our ranchers. So we are implementing, similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan, a wildlife mitigation and compensation program that will take into account the impact that this wildlife has on our agricultural community and make sure that they don't lose as a result of a Crown resource that we all should be very thankful we have in this province.

We also have a bioenergy strategy, with $25 million attached to that. That bioenergy strategy is really about rural British Columbia. That's where the impact will be felt. What we're going to see from that is new innovation, and we're going to see new opportunities right across northern and rural British Columbia with this strategy as it comes into play. I want to focus more closely on biodiesel and the production of biodiesel in British Columbia.

We have a $10 million amount set in this budget for the development of biodiesel. It comes in the form of a nine- to 14-cent-per-litre incentive to develop that, so that we can be competitive with our neighbours to the east. We're very close to seeing a production facility put into place in the Peace country, developed from canola, and it's something our agricultural community — my farmers — are very thankful for. We're diversifying our markets, and this will go a long way to that, Mr. Speaker.

I note by the look I'm getting from you that time is coming to a close prior to our lunch break, so at this time I do want to reserve my right to continue my speaking on the budget.

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.