2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD


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


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 11


CONTENTS


Routine Proceedings

Page
Introductions by Members 9863
Statements (Standing Order 25B) 9863
Hugo Dummett Diamond Award recipients
     R. Sultan
South Park School
     C. James
Tri-University Meson Facility
     R. Lee
Poverty Olympics
     J. Kwan
Northern B.C. Winter Games in Dawson Creek
     B. Lekstrom
Teesha Sharma
     M. Sather
Oral Questions 9865
Budget priorities
     C. James
     Hon. M. de Jong
     B. Ralston
     R. Austin
     S. Simpson
     J. Horgan
Impact of fuel tax on taxi industry
     M. Karagianis
     Hon. K. Falcon
Funding for integrated sexual predator observation team
     M. Farnworth
     Hon. J. Les
Petitions 9870
S. Fraser
J. Kwan
Budget Debate (continued) 9871
B. Lekstrom
D. Cubberley
Hon. O. Ilich
M. Karagianis
I. Black
J. Horgan
Hon. I. Chong
H. Bains
Hon. R. Thorpe

[ Page 9863 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

           The House met at 1:33 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

           Hon. C. Richmond: Today in the House I am visited by the daughter of a very good friend. She has just graduated from the University of Victoria, and I would ask the House to help me make Stacie Dley very welcome.

           M. Karagianis: In the precinct today we've been graced by a visit from Crystal View Elementary School. They came in two groups. Accompanying the first group were parents Michelle Long, Nancy Lane, Darrell Bifort, Connie Zinstra, Linda McIver, Rebecca Lens and Louise Camsell; and the teachers Windy Beadal and Cathy Prette.

           We promised we would introduce them in the House. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

           Hon. S. Bond: As a non-profit voluntary organization, the CNIB has been helping people with vision loss since 1918. This morning a number of my colleagues and I were absolutely delighted to meet with members of the CNIB from across the province, including Brad Waghorn, who I had the pleasure of working with in Prince George. They do tremendous work.

           Today in the gallery I want to introduce the regional manager of services and operations from the Victoria chapter of the CNIB, Dawn Day. I would ask our colleagues in the House to make her feel very welcome here today.

           S. Fraser: I've got two small delegations visiting today, and they're here to visit with the Minister of Environment. It's swamp people and cave people meeting the Minister of Environment. Sounds like a bad movie, I know.

           Here looking for protection for a sensitive wetland known as Hamilton Marsh are Ceri Peacey and also Robin Robinson. Here looking for cave protection and karst protection are karst specialists Reid Robinson and Paul Griffiths.

           Would you please help me make them feel very welcome.

[1335]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor representing the country of Brazil. Mr. Fernando Jacques De Magalhaes Pimenta is the newly appointed consul general at Vancouver and is making his first official visit to Victoria.

           Brazil has upgraded its diplomatic presence in British Columbia and is now represented by a consul general and a significant staff in Vancouver. I would ask the House to please join me and give our visitor a great welcome.

           N. Simons: Today we have in the House visitors from the Sunshine Coast: Dan Bouman, Cathy Turner and George Smith, who are all looking forward to their meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

           As well, I'd like to welcome five young progressive people from the University of Victoria NDP Club. They are Khalilah Alwani, Graeme Scott, Allison Iganthron, Logan Richards and Evan Roberts. Would the House please make them welcome.

           J. McIntyre: I would like the House to join me in welcoming students that are visiting with us in the gallery and in the precincts today from Mulgrave School. We've got delegations from grade 5 and grade 6, along with teacher Nicola Ferguson and Mark Steffens, the band teacher. I would like you all to give them a big round of applause and welcome, as I'm delighted they're here.

           D. Cubberley: In looking around the gallery, I caught the eye of a longtime colleague of mine, Susanna Grimes, who is here joining us today. Susanna and I worked together for many years at Bike to Work Victoria, growing participation in commuter cycling in this region.

           For those who aren't aware, Greater Victoria is the cycling capital of Canada. We have the highest level of participation in commuter cycling of any urban area in Canada, and commuter cycling is the fastest-growing mode of transportation in the capital region. That in part is due to the efforts of people like Susanna Grimes. So would the House please join me in making her welcome.

           J. Horgan: I want to follow on with my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin in introducing a student at Crystal View Elementary, Jamie Beaman, who is here today. When asked why there were two of us, one of the kids said: "One man, one woman; makes sense to us." We all agree on this side. So make Jamie welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HUGO DUMMETT DIAMOND
AWARD RECIPIENTS

           R. Sultan: Every January, 4,100 members of the Association for Mineral Exploration, which used to be called the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, gather in Vancouver. These prospectors use the occasion to brush up on their geological science and to celebrate their discoveries from Brazzaville to Ulan Bator, illustrating that we should always remember the extreme mobility of this Vancouver-based industry.

           Anticipating the Finance Minister's budget, this year they turned their attention to the ultimate in carbon sequestration — diamonds. They gave the Hugo Dummett Award for Excellence in Diamond Exploration to Randy Turner, John Macdonald, Walter Melnyk and Nicolai Pokhilenko, who collectively found and developed the Snap Lake mine in the Northwest Territories, Canada's first underground diamond mine. Economic value — $4.8 billion.

[ Page 9864 ]

           Dr. Pokhilenko is a Russian, Order of Lenin, who lives in Siberia. The other three are members of my own professional association, the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.

[1340]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Dr. Macdonald capped a 13-year academic career by leading the team which made the Snap Lake discovery. Walter Melnyk was the exploration manager. Randy guided the enterprise from discovery to its ultimate sale to De Beers for a cool $300 million. The $300 million caught my attention, but also the part about De Beers, since years ago I toiled at mining conglomerate Anglo American, and De Beers was a very secretive company down the hall. It's fortunate that British Columbians came along, because as the years passed by, it became evident that De Beers wasn't very successful at finding diamonds on its own.

           Today I ask this House to celebrate our diamond explorers and their contribution to our prosperity. I would remind you of the words of that worldly philosopher, Marilyn Monroe, who once said: "Men grow cold as girls grow old, and we all lose our charms in the end. But square-cut or pear-shaped, those rocks don't lose their shape. Diamonds are a girl's best friend."

SOUTH PARK SCHOOL

           C. James: Heritage Week is a time to appreciate the city of Victoria's rich past, culture and people. Today I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize the contributions of the staff and students of a school that is just up the street from the Legislature, South Park School, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary.

           To commemorate this occasion, Debbie Marchand and Leah Picciotto have launched the publication of a book called South Park School: Memories Through the Decades. This coffee-table book contains decades of pictures, personal memoirs and important historical school, community and global events that have impacted the school throughout the past 150 years.

           I have the privilege of being a former student of South Park School. It's a school that my children also attended and that my mother taught at. In addition to South Park being close to my family and close to my heart, it also had an impact on my political career, as I stood up for students' rights in one of my first political actions at that school and took the entire school out on strike when girls weren't allowed to wear pants to school. I have the school to thank for actually starting off my political career in elementary school.

           A huge thank-you to all those who have contributed to this historic publication, as well as a thank-you to all the staff, students, parents and families of South Park School on their 150th anniversary.

TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

           R. Lee: British Columbia is increasingly recognized internationally as North America's capital for Asia-Pacific commerce and culture. We are also leaders in many fields of research and development.

           Last Friday I had the opportunity to visit TRIUMF, Canada's laboratory for particle and nuclear physics on the UBC campus, to learn about its collaborations with the Asia-Pacific region. Currently there are about 114 Japanese researchers and students working on experiments with TRIUMF staff in cooperation with Osaka University, the University of Tokyo, KEK and Toyota Laboratories.

           TRIUMF staff have installed cyclotrons at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research in Taiwan and the Seoul National University Hospital in Korea. Researchers from Seoul University and Yonsei University are also collaborating with TRIUMF.

           The Chinese Institute of Atomic Energy, the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Shanghai Joint Centre of Radiopharmaceuticals and Zhejiang University are associated with TRIUMF.

           Senior officials from institutions of our sister province Guangdong will be visiting TRIUMF next month to establish more collaborations. India's variable energy cyclotron centre of Calcutta has an MOU with TRIUMF, which has produced many fruitful exchanges. TRIUMF has already put B.C. at the global forefront for the development and production of medical isotopes used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

           I would also like to congratulate TRIUMF's subsidiary, Advanced Applied Physics Solutions, for being selected last week by the Canadian government as a centre of excellence for commercialization and research.

           Since 2001 the B.C. government has awarded $17.75 million through the B.C. knowledge development fund to fund research infrastructure at TRIUMF. I'm pleased to hear that TRIUMF now has expansion plans in life sciences and superconducting accelerator technology.

[1345]Jump to this time in the webcast

POVERTY OLYMPICS

           J. Kwan: I rise today to share with members of the Legislature a report of a community event that was held in my riding on Sunday, February 3. A standing-room-only crowd of 250 people gathered in the auditorium of the Carnegie community centre to see some of the most creative community theatre and protest in years in a downtown east side neighbourhood. The mascots included Itchy the bedbug, Creepy the cockroach and Chewy the rat. No, they weren't Olympic mascots; they were the mascots of the first annual Poverty Olympics.

           Neighbourhood residents competed in the welfare hurdles, the poverty line high jump and the long jump over a bedbug-infested mattress. Before individuals could sign on to income assistance, they had to fill out an online form, even though they had never used a computer before.

           I wanted to thank Wendy Pedersen from the Carnegie Action Project, Jean Swanson from Raise the Rates, and long-term resident Bob Sarti, who helped organize this festive event.

           In a neighbourhood which has seen the free speech riots of 1912, the labour union rallies of the 1930s and the Gastown riots of 1971, the organizers of this event

[ Page 9865 ]

stayed true to tradition, as they theatrically threw paper money into the audience. As Mr. Vanoc stood up to speak, the boos came from the audience as they asked for jobs and housing.

           In 1971 residents rioted when Mayor Tom "Terrific" Campbell attempted to implement Operation Dustpan to sweep the streets and increase private security. People protested then, and people still do today. When evictions happened during the Expo 86 period, the neighbourhood rose up and expressed its concerns.

           Now, as Olympic-connected gentrifications occur in this neighbourhood, the people who organized the poverty Olympics will ensure that the neighbourhood identity, history and culture will be defended every step of the way.

           I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our thanks for the peaceful, creative and entertaining community celebration.

NORTHERN B.C. WINTER GAMES
IN DAWSON CREEK

           B. Lekstrom: Today it's my privilege to rise and speak about a great event for northern British Columbia, and that is the Northern British Columbia Winter Games that were hosted from February 8 to 10 in Dawson Creek. We had the honour of a number of athletes and 800 volunteers. In total there were 1,058 participants.

           The Premier was in Dawson Creek to open the games and truly got a taste of northern hospitality, as well as northern weather. It was minus 43 on the morning of the opening ceremonies. So although it was a challenge weatherwise, the athletes assembled. We opened the games in Memorial Arena in Dawson Creek, and it was a great success.

           I rise to really thank the volunteers that make this happen in all of our communities across the north. Like any community across British Columbia, we're extremely proud of all of the events that we host. These events would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of the volunteers and families in Dawson Creek and, I'm sure, every other community that opens up their homes to billet the athletes and the participants.

           So I want to say thank you. As well, I want to thank the sponsors and the community. The surrounding community raised $433,000 in donations for this event, which is significant. That is from the smallest of contributions to larger contributions.

           On behalf of the people I represent in Peace River South, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, I want to again say thank you to the athletes, who I'm sure had a wonderful experience, and to the participants, the coaches and to the many volunteers. A special thank-you to Charlie Parslow, who headed up what I consider probably one of the best executives the games has seen to host this event.

TEESHA SHARMA

           M. Sather: I want to tell the House about a remarkable young woman in my community. Teesha Sharma is 16 and attends Samuel Robertson Technical School. She is an excellent student and will be graduating this spring a year early. Teesha has been president of her student council since she was 13 and serves on the executive of the district student advisory council. Teesha has participated in many events, including Pennies for Patients, Coins for Kids and a walkathon fundraiser for her school.

           She is an active community volunteer at the Maple Ridge Art Gallery, the Ridge Meadows Hospital, the Salvation Army and the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce. Recently Teesha organized, with the approval of her school administration, a noonhour protest to retain the semester system at her school.

[1350]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Unfortunately, near the end of the rally a few students took to the street and engaged in some rowdy behaviour, including pelting vehicles with fruit. Teesha did everything she could to stop them. When she returned to the school, she was dazed and distraught. She failed to enter the school when she was told to do so by an administrator.

           Unfortunately, rather than suspending Teesha for a couple of days, the administration chose to take her lifeblood connection to the school from her. She was removed as the student council president and as a director of the district student advisory council. She is no longer allowed to organize anything in her school. Teesha is devastated and humiliated. Her school was everything to her. She has dropped some of her courses and finds it difficult to attend school.

           Our schools function to train students to be leaders. We must do everything to encourage these qualities in our youth. We must not crush them but must nourish them in contributing to their community. I hope that the school will reinstate Teesha, that she can finish her grade 12 on the high note that it should be ending on and that she will go on to be a great leader in our society.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PRIORITIES

           C. James: On Tuesday the B.C. Liberals brought in a budget that they say is all about choice but that in fact hits average families hard. The Premier said people can make a choice to buy expensive hybrids.

           So my question is to the Deputy Premier. How does she expect an out-of-work forest worker in the interior to actually choose a $30,000-plus hybrid when this government has chosen to ignore the crisis in forestry?

           Hon. M. de Jong: On Tuesday of this week British Columbians got a chance to witness leadership. They got a chance…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Member.

           Hon. M. de Jong: …to witness the kind of leadership that has attracted not just attention but positive

[ Page 9866 ]

commentary, not just from across the province but from across the country. They saw a government move ahead with forward-thinking innovation as it relates to climate change.

           We know on this side of the House that we are in favour of those steps. The question is: is this Leader of the Opposition in favour of it? Will she finally disclose a position as it relates to climate change and this budget? Mr. Speaker….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Continue, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: We saw an announcement, a pledge to further reduce the tax burden that low-income British Columbians face, and on this side of the House we support that. The question is: does the Leader of the Opposition support it?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

           C. James: It's pretty clear, the choices that this government made. It's pretty clear this government….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Continue.

[1355]Jump to this time in the webcast

           C. James: I heard the Premier and the Finance Minister say that British Columbians can make a choice to walk more and drive less. Well, I would like to hear every member on that side of the House actually go and tell that to a family who lives up north and who's having to drive their children further now because the school in their neighbourhood was closed by this government. I'd like this government and every member on that side of the House to go and tell that to families who are struggling and don't have an option to be able to walk to work.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Just wait.

           Continue, Member.

           C. James: I also heard the government tell British Columbians they can just choose to turn the heat down in their house. Well, I'd like every member on that side of the Legislature to go and tell that to a senior citizen in the Kootenays who is living on a fixed income and can't afford to heat their house right now.

           My question is to the Deputy Premier. Can she explain why her government hit average families hard in this budget? They did make a choice. They made a choice to give a huge break to banks, to big oil companies and to make average families pay. How is that fair?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what I've heard. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition say that she's in favour of a revenue-neutral carbon tax initiative that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: The problem is that I've also heard her say exactly the opposite. The challenge is actually getting a position out of this Leader of the Opposition.

           The challenge is also this. If you were a low-income single mother just seven years ago living in British Columbia — an NDP government — earning $15,000…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: …in addition to all of the other challenges you faced, you had an NDP government come along and take money out of your pocket through income tax because they decided that they could do better things…

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: …with that money than a single mother with a single child on $15,000.

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: We said no. We said that person shouldn't have to pay income tax. We stand for that person not having to pay income tax.

           Mr. Speaker: Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: We want to know where the Leader of the Opposition stands.

           Mr. Speaker: Just wait a second. I want to remind the minister that when I say, "Thank you," it's time to sit down.

           Continue.

           C. James: I'm sure that single parent will be really pleased with the $220 million tax break that was given to banks. I'm sure the person who is sleeping in a building on the streets of Vancouver or Victoria or Kelowna or Prince George is going to be really pleased that the banks got a break, and they got nothing from this government.

           This government says that it's about choices. Well, they didn't give average families a choice in this

[ Page 9867 ]

budget. They made sure to give the big banks a break. They made sure to give the oil and gas companies a big break, but they're making average families pay.

           My question is again to the Deputy Premier. How on earth does she expect British Columbians to buy into climate change if they need to, when they're the only ones who are paying and the big companies and the big banks get the break?

           Mr. Speaker: Minister, reminding you to be brief.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we know this. We know that the NDP and its leader thought it was appropriate to take income tax from that single mother and her family, who was earning no more than $15,000. We said that wasn't appropriate. That's why that person doesn't pay provincial income tax anymore.

[1400]Jump to this time in the webcast

           We think it's appropriate that that low-income single mother should receive an additional tax credit this year of $100 and $30 for each child. We think that's a good idea. I'd like to know what the opposition leader thinks. Is she going to support that?

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: And lastly….

           Mr. Speaker: Minister. Thank you, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: You're welcome, Mr. Speaker.

           B. Ralston: Maybe we can talk about some of the pockets this government is stuffing with money. Let's look at the profits: Petro-Canada, $2.8 billion; Suncor, $2.8 billion; Imperial, $3.2 billion. Those are their profits for last year.

           What did this government do? B.C. Liberals handed out the largest subsidy ever to the oil and gas industry — $327 million this year and $358 million next year.

           So my question is to the Deputy Premier. Why is her government's budget boosting big oil's bottom line and giving them a free pass on climate change?

           Hon. M. de Jong: It speaks volumes that the opposition Finance Critic would stand up and, in the aftermath of a budget that is being touted right across the country for being visionary, for being forward-thinking, for being progressive…. He would choose to attack the performance of a sector of our economy that is undergoing incredible growth, creating jobs and opportunity across the province.

           Typical of the NDP, he is offended by success that is putting thousands of British Columbians to work. We're not offended. We love the fact that the economy is growing, we love the fact that people are coming back to B.C., and we love the fact that we've got a budget that's going to encourage that to continue in the future.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           The member has a supplemental.

           B. Ralston: It's not just big oil that this government is showering with money. Big banks are cashing in — CIBC, $3.3 billion in profits; TD, $3.9 billion in profits; RBC, $5.5 billion in profits. And the B.C. Liberals chose to give them a $220 million tax break while hitting average families with a new gas tax.

           Again to the Deputy Premier: where is the fairness for working families when the B.C. Liberals load the burden of climate change on them and give big breaks to the banks?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The member doesn't have to reassert his hostility and his party's hostility to attracting investment to British Columbia. We had ten years to see how much they believed in that.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I don't have a photographic memory by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be interesting to investigate whether one of those financial institutions — the one the member served as a director on, I believe — made a similar pitch to create a competitive tax structure in British Columbia.

           We are not apologizing. We are not apologizing for the fact that we believe our tax structure needs to be competitive. We believe it was the right thing to do to act on the incentives that were created by the federal government.

           When the investment that flows from this begins to become a reality — as it most certainly will, as it has right across the economy — I hope this member will stand up and have the temerity to apologize for what he said here today and recognize that once again the NDP is hostile to investment in British Columbia.

[1405]Jump to this time in the webcast

           R. Austin: The Premier and Finance Minister are right insofar as this budget is about choice. Too bad they made the wrong choice. Can the Deputy Premier explain why banks deserve $220 million in tax cuts…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           R. Austin: …but forest-dependent communities get nothing but a round-table discussion?

           Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides, including the Government House Leader, when I say, "Thank you," I mean it's time to end the answer, and when I ask you, it's time to pose the question.

           Minister, continue.

[ Page 9868 ]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Budgets are always about choice. Here's a novel idea. Why doesn't the opposition make one and stand for something or stand against something? But day in and day out, we continue to get conflicted signals. We are in favour of a competitive tax structure that will attract people to British Columbia.

           By the way, they were singing a different tune when it came to creating a competitive tax structure for the movie industry. Apparently, a competitive tax structure was the right thing to do there. Well, we think that's true, and that's why we're expanding those incentives so that movies can be filmed right across British Columbia.

           Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

           R. Austin: So let this government defend the choices that they have made — $220 million to banks that are already highly profitable, $327 million to oil and gas companies. Last time I looked, they make a ton of money, and guess what. They'll come here and take the oil anyway.

           We're close to the end of peak oil, so we don't have to worry about that. They go all over the world seeking to take oil out. They don't need to be drawn here. They'll come anyway.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           R. Austin: What about the people in forest-dependent communities who have gotten nothing? What about the people in northwest B.C. whose kids are on a four-day school week…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           R. Austin: …while you're giving $327 million to oil companies? Explain that.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Now, I want to remind members. I know it's Thursday. I know it's the end of the week, but this is disgraceful. This is really disgraceful, what's taken place here today.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Usually one relies on a political adversary to provide a critique on a particular public policy, but I think we just heard a ringing indictment of all that was flawed, of all the mistakes the NDP made when they were in power. "Charge them as much as you want," says the member, "because they'll come anyway. Tax them as much as you want, because they're coming anyway."

           All that member has to do is look back a scant seven or eight years to know they didn't come. They left British Columbia.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Wrap it up, please, Minister.

[1410]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. M. de Jong: We believe a competitive tax structure is important for business, for small business, but we also believe it's important for individuals and for families. That's why British Columbians will be paying the lowest income tax rates in all of Canada under this budget.

           S. Simpson: The fiscal plan shows that in order for the government to meet its budget projections, we need to increase the number of cars on the road and increase the amount we drive. The three-year revenue forecast requires a doubling in the growth of demand for gas and diesel over the years 1998 to 2005.

           For the government to put a fuel tax on British Columbians while they give away more than a half a billion dollars to the banks and the oil companies, at the same time that their own projections rely on the tax not being effective, is hypocrisy in the extreme.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           S. Simpson: Does the government truly expect British Columbians to believe that this budget is green when you're projecting a doubling in the growth of fuel consumption over the next three years and adding thousands of cars on the road?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Funny the member would mention the word "contradiction." I'm trying to reconcile what I just heard in the House with what the opposition critic said or is reported to have said. He said the NDP wouldn't repeal the carbon tax if, God forbid, they ever became government.

           Look, take a position. If the member is offended that British Columbia has now stepped forward and is leading the way in the assault on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, let him stand up. Let him say that. Let him have the courage to be accountable for those decisions.

           On this side of the House we're proud of the fact that the rest of the country and the rest of North America is looking at us and saying: "That's what leadership is all about. That's what a serious assault on greenhouse gas emissions looks like."

           Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

           S. Simpson: Maybe the minister would like to listen to some of his colleagues from the north and their comments, which differ from his.

[ Page 9869 ]

           You want to know, Mr. Speaker, what we'd do? We wouldn't give $220 million to the banks. We wouldn't give $327 million to the oil companies. We wouldn't exempt the large emitters from the tax. We know one thing. This government is listening to its friends, but it's not listening to British Columbians. It's not involving British Columbians in the conversation. They have shut British Columbians out of this.

           For a carbon tax to work, it needs to be fair. It needs to be linked to other programs and initiatives that move forward our progress on climate change. This budget offers neither of those things. Where is the green infrastructure program? Where is the forest communities program? Where is the funding for the much-hyped transit plan? Nowhere in this budget, anywhere.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           S. Simpson: My question to the minister: why should anybody believe that this is any more than greenwashing of a massive giveaway to your friends at the expense of British Columbians?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The day before the budget we sat here, and there was a great to-do about this insightful cross-examination that the critic purported to launch on a definition of revenue-neutral. I haven't heard any of those questions.

           The reason we haven't heard any of those questions is because the opposition knows this measure is revenue-neutral in the truest sense of the word. They have abandoned that line of questioning because they know that the tax relief included in this budget more than offsets the burden that the carbon tax will admittedly put on British Columbians. They know that. That's why they've abandoned this line of questioning.

           It was ten minutes before the Finance Minister stood up that a member of that opposition from Columbia River–Revelstoke said: "One of the most important things to me is that British Columbia finally create an arts and culture endowment." Ten minutes later the Finance Minister stood up and committed this province to a $150 million arts and culture credit. I presume that member is going to stand up and vote in favour of this budget for that very reason.

[1415]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. Horgan: It's a tragedy that the "minister of defence" either lives in the 1990s or the 2020s. The rest of us are living in 2008, and our constituents want to know how it is that a government on that side of the House can say it's fair to give $500 million to their corporate backers. The banks, last year alone — $110,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party. And for that they get a $200 million tax cut.

           How can you square that with the people in our communities, the people that don't have transit options, the people that can't go to Maui to warm up in the winter? How do you say to them that taxing them more for their carbon is fair when everyone else in the corporate sector is getting away with it?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly, if I were, as the member suggests, living in the 1990s, I'd probably be looking for work.

           I'm glad the member actually took advantage of the opportunity to get involved in this debate. I'm always glad when the member from Juan de Fuca gets involved. It allows us to juxtapose the position he seems to have been taking…. He has been speaking out against this initiative where other members, his critic included, have been speaking out for it.

           Can they get coordinated, Mr. Speaker? Can the leader stand up and lead? Can she lead a caucus to this point, where they can stand up and tell British Columbians where they stand on this budget? We know where we stand.

           We stand foursquare in favour of ensuring that British Columbians, low-income and middle-income earners, pay the lowest income tax in all of Canada. And actually, we stand for something else. They've dismissed this, but we stand in favour of providing British Columbians with a climate change dividend in June in advance of the tax coming into effect. That's the right thing to do, and we stand in favour of it.

           Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

           J. Horgan: I want to know again how it is that giving Jimmy Pattison a hundred bucks is somehow a progressive policy in this province. I can't understand that — how the Premier can give himself a 70 percent raise and then take another hundred bucks out of the purse on the way to the door.

           My question is to the "minister of defence" again. He didn't answer the first question from the Leader of the Opposition. He hasn't answered a question since we started today.

           How do you explain to people who don't have transit options — to people who are waiting in the northeast sector, to people waiting on Vancouver Island for transit options — that you're going to give away 500 million bucks just like that, and we're letting them pay more for their petrol because they don't have any options? How do you square that?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I must confess…. There's an ever-moving target on the other side of the House. That's not unusual. I'm referred to comments that the previous questioner from Vancouver-Hastings made allegedly…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: …yesterday on the radio. "So we support a revenue-neutral position. Much of this" — referring to the budget — "is absolutely revenue-neutral."

           Interjections.

[ Page 9870 ]

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that the opposition leader is desperate at a time when British Columbians are increasingly tuning her and her party out. Maybe that's because they no longer — if they ever did — have any sense of what the NDP stands for, because they refuse to stand in this place and take a clear position. We saw it in the fall.

           Mr. Speaker: Wrap it up, Minister.

           Hon. M. de Jong: We saw it on the Gateway project, we saw it on the Port Mann Bridge, we saw it on treaties, and sadly, we're seeing it again today on the budget.

IMPACT OF FUEL TAX ON TAXI INDUSTRY

           M. Karagianis: Anyone trying to flag down a cab in the city of Vancouver right now knows that it's virtually impossible. Vancouver has the fewest number of cabs per person anywhere in Canada. And now the government has levied a new gas tax that is going to hit that industry even harder.

           So my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will he admit that his government has done nothing about this problem and, in fact, is just making it worse?

[1420]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. K. Falcon: Well, no, I won't admit that, because actually the passenger transportation branch, just a short seven months ago, approved another 111 cabs.

           If the member actually did her homework…. Again, the NDP research staff is doing its usual great work. If the member did her homework, she'd know one of the problems is that no cabs were approved during the 1990s. That would have been real helpful too.

           The fact of the matter is that when the city of Vancouver says they want to license new cabs, they can apply and get new cabs. The challenge has been that there has not been that application coming forward. It has under Mayor Sullivan and the new NPA council, and they got their 111 cabs, which will come on stream over the next six months to a year. That will make an appreciable difference.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Members.

FUNDING FOR INTEGRATED
SEXUAL PREDATOR OBSERVATION TEAM

           M. Farnworth: Protection of children is a very serious issue, Member. Wait for the question.

           The integrated sexual predator observation team protects the children of this province from those who prey on them. It's a very important function, an initiative launched by this government. Internal memos obtained from the RCMP indicate that the program is going to be closed down, in part due to a lack of funding, a failure by the province to provide resources.

           The RCMP has stated that things are okay, that we're going to relook at things. But these memos are dated January 31. Clearly, the minister doesn't know what's taking place within his ministry with regard to the protection of children on this very important program.

           So my question to the minister is: will he fund this important program — the integrated sexual predator observation team? And will he ensure that it has the resources…?

           Interjection.

           M. Farnworth: You started it, and you are closing it.

           Will you ensure that it has the resources to function the way it is intended to — properly and efficiently — and that the money required to do it will be new money and not money shuffled from another part of your ministry?

           Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question, and I think I would emulate what the member opposite has indicated. There can hardly be a crime more horrible than the sexual exploitation of children. That is why I am proud that our government actually set up the program known as the integrated sexual predator observation team.

           I'm here to tell the House that that program is going to continue. I will quote from the deputy commissioner of the RCMP in a recent memo where he says: "The RCMP continues to support initiatives that advocate and support all community members, especially children. The ISPOT team remains an entity. We get tremendous support from the provincial government of British Columbia for these kinds of projects because they produce positive results. The government continues to fully fund ISPOT because they see the value of this work."

           [End of question period.]

           S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

           Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

           S. Fraser: I have a petition from hundreds of residents looking to protect the sensitive wetland of Hamilton Marsh.

           J. Kwan: I also table a petition. I have a petition containing 666 names calling on the government to increase income assistance rates, remove barriers to access on income assistance, stop the clawbacks, increase minimum wage to $10 and build 2,000 units of affordable housing a year.

[1425]Jump to this time in the webcast

[ Page 9871 ]

Orders of the Day

           Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate
(continued)

           B. Lekstrom: I rise to continue my response to the budget speech that I began earlier today, and I will carry on. I was on the taxation side, where I'd talked about the removal of the PST on ATVs for our agricultural community. I had talked about the $105 million that we had invested in our arts and culture community in this budget, our debt-to-GDP going down.

           [H. Bloy in the chair.]

           I'd talked about transportation and the investment in transportation for not only the lower mainland and the southern part of our province but rural British Columbia. Agriculture, as well, is very important, as I indicated earlier, and our investment in agriculture. It has been a long time since we have seen an agricultural plan put together and funded, and this budget actually funds our agricultural plan and the commitments made in it. So I'm very happy with that, and I know the people I represent in Peace River South are extremely happy as well.

           I mentioned the bioenergy strategy that will benefit rural and northern British Columbia, as well as the biodiesel initiative, which is a $10 million initiative that will see a nine- to 14-cent-per-litre incentive for the production of biodiesel. All very good things.

           But I do want to move on, and I want to touch on the carbon tax. This is an issue that obviously has raised a great deal of discussion in these chambers as well as around the province.

           The key issue that we talk about, and I think should be noted when you look at the budget, is that this is a revenue-neutral tax. We're going to raise just slightly over $1.8 billion over the next three years with this tax, and the result of that is there will be $1.8 billion put back into the pockets of small business, large business and individuals in British Columbia. All good news.

           So the issue is not: is there a carbon tax, or is there not? There is one. The issue is really, in my mind: is it going to be effective? I think it will be. Are there challenges? I won't stand here and say that I haven't received calls and questions about this from people I represent. What is the impact going to be on northern and remote British Columbia?

           Deputy Speaker: Could all members of the House please take their seats if they're going to stay here, so we can all concentrate and listen to the member for Peace River South.

           Please continue.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

           We look at what takes place. There will be a one-time $100 climate action dividend for every person in British Columbia. I think that is a wonderful idea. You know, it's not really an issue that carries a lot of debate. But is it a climate action dividend, or is it our province doing so incredibly well economically that we have the ability to share that wealth with the people we represent? Either way, it's a good-news story.

           Certainly, for the most part people are quite happy with this budget overall. I am. Do I think it's absolutely perfect? No. I think all of us have an obligation to the people we represent to go through this budget, look at it and see what could be improved. If there's anything that can be, it's our job as elected officials to work towards that.

           I find it interesting a lot of times that we'll reduce taxes…. I said earlier that by the end of next year, we will have reduced personal income taxes in this province by 40 percent — an amazing number. I see that as good news, yet I hear some people — it's traditionally members of the opposition — say that we've done nothing. We've done nothing for working people. We've done nothing for low income.

           I pointed to the budget and laid out where the majority and certainly the higher percentage of those cuts went, and that was to lower-income families. I think that's a good thing. I think we all want to ensure that we can enjoy a quality of life in this province, regardless of whether we make $15,000 a year or $100,000 a year. We're going to continue to work towards that.

[1430]Jump to this time in the webcast

           But I also remind people that when they talk about the $100 — again, I'll go to the positive ones — many people said: "Thank you. That will help offset that as we adjust to this new world in which we live, with the climate change."

           I've had others that said: "It means nothing to me." I would encourage those people to take that money and donate it to the charity of their choice, then, if it means nothing to them. This is human nature, and this transcends, I think, virtually any political boundaries. It seems that if you raise taxes by 1 percent, the world is coming to an end. If you lower them by 40 percent, it's no big deal. I can't find those two matching up. I think there's a balance that we all have to work towards.

           I do want to say that I do recognize that there will be an impact from this carbon tax on northern and remote British Columbia. I believe that we have no choice, in many cases, in the distances we drive, the vehicles we have to operate, the number of months we heat our homes when it's winter — whether it's 10 below, as we've seen in the case of northeast British Columbia, or 53 to 57 below on occasion this year. There will be an impact there.

           I'm also having the privilege to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development. Carrying with that, I believe I have an obligation to look at ways to mitigate this impact. I will do that not only for the people of Peace River South but for all rural and remote people of British Columbia.

           I do want to talk a bit about the oil and gas industry, something that is a huge benefit to the province

[ Page 9872 ]

and certainly to the region I represent, being Peace River South. It's amazing. I hear there are these giveaways to the oil and goes industry. My God…. One of the most interesting things I heard from the opposition today during question period was: "Tax them as much as you want. They'll come anyway."

           I think it was said earlier that we've seen what happened in the 1990s. I live in the area, and I encourage people to come and visit it. They didn't come anyway. They left. They left and left until our children had to leave the province to find work. That's a sad, sad situation.

           I do want to point out that the oil and gas industry, these big bad people that we hear from the opposition…. I'm going to stand up and tell you that I think they've done a pretty amazing job. It hasn't taken government, for the most part, to say that you have to do this or you have to do that.

           Our oil and gas industry has recognized over the last number of years that there's a change in climate in which we live. These people have families. They actually have children, and they've begun to make the changes necessary that they see and recognize can make less of a footprint on our land base. When it comes to oil and gas leases, when it comes to the flaring issue, we're working with them.

           To say there's this mass tax giveaway to oil and gas is nothing but a mistruth. That's what it is. I want to point out that last year the oil and gas industry paid over $1 billion to the province for oil and gas leases alone. Over $1 billion — a record. Pretty good. They paid over $1 billion in royalties to the province, all of which actually helps us fund the health care, the education, the social programs and our homelessness initiatives, which I think are going very well. There's no doubt. Doesn't matter what political stripe you're from.

           Would you like to eliminate homelessness? Yes. Was there homelessness in the '70s? Yes, there was. Was it in the '80s? Yes, there were. Was it in the '90s? Yes, there was. Is there today? Sadly, yes, there is. But they tout that it's worse than ever.

           Interjections.

           B. Lekstrom: I hear the members across talking about that. I guess, to be a little facetious, you may have higher numbers out there because, to be honest, during the '90s, everybody left. Everybody left. That's what happened here in British Columbia. So there wasn't much of a worry. There wasn't much of a worry.

           The other thing that takes place…. They talk about the giveaways. I want to point out that the single largest taxpayer in this province — and I know that they have all done their homework on this; I'm sure they've read the information that's available — is Spectra Energy.

           Spectra Energy — one of those big bad oil and gas companies, according to the opposition — is the single largest taxpayer in British Columbia. They contribute to the economic well-being of our province. They certainly contribute to the economic well-being of the northeast part of this province. They employ hundreds upon hundreds of people that then provide for their families.

[1435]Jump to this time in the webcast

           We have for the first time in a long time, I think, a feeling in our province that is optimistic that we are in the right direction. Does that mean everything is perfect? No, it doesn't. It means that we're going in the right direction.

           I think this budget takes us in the right direction, but as I indicated, I'm going to do what I can to make sure that if there's opportunity for us to mitigate an impact of this carbon tax on northern and remote British Columbia, my commitment is to work with our Premier, to work with my colleagues and the Minister of Finance, to look towards that. But the tax reductions more than offset the impact this year, and I'll speak to this year.

           We have $100 going back to every person in British Columbia, which I think is welcome news. I think they'll use that for numerous different things. It may be to put gas in their tank. It may be to pay off a bill. It may be for a number of things.

           Overall, I want to make sure…. I'm sure I've made it clear. I fully support this budget. I think there are numerous things in it that benefit us in the northeast part of the province. There are numerous parts of this that help us in each and every region of this province. But what I want to encourage, during this debate in this Legislative Assembly and during the responses, is that people use factual information. That they actually go to the budget document, open it up and speak from the facts that are there, because it is an incredible document.

           I carry these in my constituency office. I encourage people that are interested — and not every constituent wants to come in and go through the full document, but many do — to go through it, to ask questions of your MLA, to find out what different issues mean, because it's complex. When you're dealing with a $37 billion budget, no one individual is going to be able to answer every single question.

           In closing, I want to thank our Minister of Finance for the work that she has done on this issue. I want to thank our Premier and my colleagues, and I want to thank the people of Peace River South, again, for the support that they've given me over the last seven years, for their commitment to making British Columbia a better place. I want to thank the industry that the opposition seems so, I guess, easy to slam for the commitment they've made to this province and the jobs they create.

           I'll close with this. I believe it's a government's job to create an environment where the private sector will come and invest because that investment creates jobs for you, for me, for our children, for our grandchildren. And we do, whether we have differences…. I understand the political system quite well. We obviously have differences in philosophy between the two parties here today, but we can debate it respectfully. We have a great, great budget.

           D. Cubberley: I appreciate the opportunity to begin to address the content of the throne and budget

[ Page 9873 ]

speeches. I have to begin by expressing my disappointment in the material, in contrast with the member who just spoke, because rather than actually achieving a sustained focus on the fundamental problems, even those that government has identified and especially those that we know apply to all British Columbians — whether they're climate change, health care, seniors quality of life or children in need — what we got in this budget is a continuing focus on the privatization of public assets and subsidies to special interests. That is the primary framework for the budget — and hundreds of millions of dollars to the banks.

           What you see when you look into it, particularly in the climate change area, which members spoke to so eloquently today, isn't a well-thought-out approach at all. As I see it, it's a grab-bag of half-baked ideas with cute names and absolutely no evidence in most cases that they represent best-value investments for tackling climate change.

           It reminds me, once again, that this is a Premier who has an idea for everything and a plan for nothing, and that instead of the leadership that he promises, which was to be focused and relentless, what we see is government with a short-to-no attention span whose deeply held convictions of last year have dropped off the face of the earth.

           A theme a year, an enthusiasm a month, an idea a week, a flavour a day and no plan and no follow-through on anything except for privatization, giveaways and tax relief for special interests like the banks.

           Literacy and reading, the crusade that was going to change British Columbia — vanished. People with disabilities, special needs kids in our schools, now 10 percent of our student population and chronically underfunded — nothing in the budget. Improving the lives of seniors — that was a mission two budget speeches or throne speeches ago. There is nothing substantive, except for privatization of elder care.

[1440]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The lack of focus and follow-through is so chronic that things actually get lost between the throne speech and the budget speech. That's about a week in the same year.

           Consider the alarmist rhetoric on health care and the urgency of adopting what government calls new effective strategies, new approaches, forward-thinking, new commitment, long-term results and "long-term thinking that transcends the time lines of electoral cycles." How about just a little bit of consistency and some old-fashioned deep thinking?

           What we heard throughout the Conversation on Health was overwhelming support for more focus on disease prevention. The Premier says that we have to be relentless and focused on these things and that the Legislature will be asked to approve major new investments aimed at strengthening our ability to prevent disease. So was it in the budget? Was it there? And what would it have been if it were there?

           Think for a moment about type 2 diabetes, a by-product of obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet — all things that the Premier used to be evangelically interested in. A preventable lifestyle disease that's the single biggest driver of health care costs in our province, at a time when government is obsessed with rising health care costs, so it says. Wouldn't one expect in that context that a diabetes action plan would be part of the budget? It's not.

           Think about it. Some 250,000 British Columbians today have diabetes. Almost all of it is type 2. Some 20,000 additional people get it every year. People with diabetes incur medical costs two to three times higher than those without diabetes. Diabetes and its complications, including chronic kidney disease, cost us $1.04 billion, or just about 10 percent of total health care spending, in '03-04. It's going up by $75 million a year — a tsunami of disease.

           What does the brain trust tell us? It tells us that we need effective public health interventions to manage and prevent obesity. Type 2 diabetes and its complications in '03-04 accounted for 1/5 of all hospital costs in the province, 14 percent of all MSP costs and 27 percent of all Pharmacare costs.

           By 2015-2016, if nothing is done, nearly 400,000 British Columbians will be living with the disease. That's up 77 percent in ten years, and there is no focus in a budget that said it heard British Columbians when it said we should focus on prevention.

           There were other prompts. The provincial health officer's report in '05 recommended population health interventions be developed to reduce the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes. Nothing was done.

           In '04-05 the Auditor General reviewed progress on diabetes and noted that current British Columbia efforts to prevent and manage it are praiseworthy but inadequate. That was ActNow B.C.

           November 2006. The Select Standing Committee on Health, with all-party support, recommended that government develop an action plan for population health interventions to address type 2 diabetes and that funding for health activities of this kind within the Health budget gradually increase from 3 percent to 6 percent. Nothing happened. It sat on the shelf.

           December 2007. A reminder, in time to get it into the budget. The Auditor General reports out the Ministry of Health's response on its progress in dealing with type 2 diabetes. It acknowledges that we don't have a diabetes-specific prevention strategy. We're counting on ActNow B.C., and it's not happening.

           Follow-up recommendations from the Auditor General — very succinct. He's obviously gently and patiently trying to guide government towards the obvious in time for the budget. He says: "Search out potentially effective and research-supported methods of preventing diabetes." Get cabinet to endorse them, and then "implement the strategies chosen."

           An all-party committee, the provincial medical health officer and the Auditor General, on two occasions, recommend specific action to prevent disease. We have a budget that proclaims it's going to fund prevention of disease, and there's nothing in it. Who's actually invested in protecting the status quo here and driving health care costs up?

[ Page 9874 ]

           Again, I have to say that I'm reminded of Barack Obama's comment that it's not the momentousness of our problems that's troubling. It's the smallness of government's thinking when it comes time for solutions.

[1445]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Let's look at something else that mattered to this government for a nanosecond, which was improving B.C.'s literacy rating to the first in North America by 2010. There are a million British Columbians that suffer from low literacy, an inability to read and use abstract information at a level that allows them to hold the typical jobs being created in our economy.

           We thought, from the Premier, that there was a commitment to act. Clearly, there is a benefit to be gained, and a signal was given to the public that change was coming. Since then, nothing has happened — no plan, no follow-through and, one can only conclude, no sincerity.

           As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast noted, what we hear is support in principle for the principle of improving literacy, but no support in fact. It's too bad.

           The Progress Board gave government the rationale for intervention. There's a business case, and it's simple. Low literacy equals people who are less employable, have lower earnings, have more dependence on government supports and have higher health care costs throughout their lifetime — in fact, four times higher health care costs than members of the general public. So the cost of intervention would be more than covered by the savings from the cure.

           The case for prevention is even stronger. Here's what the Progress Board said in 2006. This is the Premier's handpicked Progress Board. "Raising literacy levels by 1 percent is associated with an eventual 2.5 percent rise in labour productivity," which is $1.6 billion in GDP. Now that, you would think, would catch the ear of the members opposite.

           It's important to keep in mind who's affected by this, who our low-literacy adults actually are. At the very lowest level in British Columbia there are 400,000 people. Two-thirds of those 400,000 people are immigrants to British Columbia. They are people who are not low literates in their home language. They're low literates in British Columbia because they're not getting enough English to participate effectively in the economy. We are giving them, at best, the equivalent of grade 3 English and pushing them out into the economy, where they have to take McJobs. We're pushing them directly into poverty.

           This is silly. We require people to have skills and education and training to get into British Columbia and Canada. That's our immigration policy. We bring highly skilled people here with social capital that could be put to work in our economy, and we get them stuck at the lower end because we don't give them the passport to success. That's access to language.

           Look at level 2, a larger group of people closer to being able to participate effectively. One-third of those people are immigrants. Again, exactly the same reason. They are not being given enough English to be able to translate their skills effectively into participation in the economy — 600,000 people.

           In both those two groups aboriginal British Columbians are overrepresented. What should we be doing if government actually followed through on its professed commitment? We would be focusing on getting fee-free adult ESL programs to new immigrants. We would be giving those programs to a higher level and raising their outcomes. We would be focusing on pulling up the 600,000 workers who are close to having adequate literacy to participate in the knowledge economy — the low-hanging fruit.

           Seventy-two percent of those people have completed high school, and many of them have some post-secondary. Some have entire post-secondary, and they don't have the language skills to participate. That group contains a lot of the people who are grey-area kids in school — the ones who drop out because they fall behind, because they started behind and never caught up or the ones who get pushed through and graduate and have low literacy skills.

           The other thing that we would be doing is focusing on play- and activity-based early learning, kindergarten literacy screening and targeted interventions to catch and lift challenged kids so that they can participate at grade-level literacy. We'd be funding reading recovery in every school in British Columbia and ensuring that it's happening. That's how we would improve our dropout rate if the Minister of Education cared.

           We'd also be focusing on culturally appropriate interventions in urban aboriginal communities and on ensuring there are recovery teams for struggling aboriginal students so that we could raise their graduation, employment and income expectations to provincial standards.

[1450]Jump to this time in the webcast

           If we did those things, these measures would not only raise our productivity dramatically, creating new wealth and new potential for prosperity. They'd also reduce the incidence of child and adult poverty in B.C. communities.

           Poverty. We have the worst child poverty rate in the country, and poverty is the major risk factor for being developmentally at risk when kids arrive for kindergarten, as one in four B.C. kids are. Exactly the same number who are poor are developmentally at risk when they come to school. Interestingly, to close the loop, poverty raises the risk of being overweight, obese and physically inactive, and that increases the likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes.

           You know, just this February the Auditor General reported out an audit of government's literacy initiatives, and what did he discover? He discovered that for the three primary target populations there were a lack of meaningful initiatives to improve literacy. A lack of meaningful initiatives — immigrant British Columbians, aboriginal British Columbians and children developmentally at risk. That was this February.

           We have to change what we're doing, and this government needs to open its mind up and embrace what it says it cares about. Immigrants are vital to B.C.'s

[ Page 9875 ]

future. We'll hear that all the time on the other side in two-minute statements. They're expected to fill one-third of all job openings between now and 2014. Any future growth in our labour force after 2014 in this province — any growth at all — is going to come from immigrants. So if they don't get English, we're going to have a complete disconnect from the direction our economy is travelling.

           We're importing new social capital, but we're not effectively translating it into economic growth. Socially, what we're doing is creating poverty and depriving skilled individuals of opportunity by sticking them for a lifetime in McJobs.

           Look at the aboriginal population. It's growing at a faster rate than the rest of the provincial population. It has very low levels of literacy compared to other students. The non-completion rate for aboriginal high school students is 53 percent. It's less than 20 percent — 19, I believe — for others, for the rest of us. For aboriginal kids, it's 53 percent.

           Fully half of all aboriginals are now under 25 years of age, and the number of aboriginal students in B.C.'s public schools rose by 50 percent in the decade to '06 — to just under 60,000, which I think is about 10 percent of the student population now. Their completion rates are stalled, and there is nothing in the budget that will move that.

           What about basic literacy learners? The population at large? Some 25 percent of B.C.'s kids are developmentally vulnerable upon school entry which affects their ability to learn and become high literates across their entire lifetime. Over 20 percent aren't completing high school in six years following grade 8. A significant number of those who do complete still go on to become low literacy adults, people who don't have the skills to effectively participate.

           How has our government with the short attention span, the high-minded commitments to improving things and not much delivery on the ground, done on this file?

           Interjection.

           D. Cubberley: Well, Member, you might be interested in this. You might learn from it. But then, perhaps not.

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Members.

           Please direct all your comments through the Chair.

           D. Cubberley: Certainly.

           The Auditor General audited progress on the literacy goal reporting out. What did he find? Well, despite frequent calls from far and wide for additional funding and targeted initiatives, the ministry, it found, did not identify what each proposed strategy option would cost to implement — that's the Ministry of Education — or provide a consideration of funding options. Gosh, we have a great goal of raising our literacy rate by 2010.

           But you know, it gets worse. "Currently the government does not have sufficient data to monitor the progress for the population groups it is targeting in its literacy strategy." It's not actually monitoring what's happening with them. Worse yet, there are a lack of meaningful initiatives to improve literacy among target populations, despite an overwhelming business case. Worse yet, the framework has not been translated into interventions tailored to each target group. The first step, it said, would be for the government to first determine what strategies it should employ.

[1455]Jump to this time in the webcast

           You know, the Auditor General's not being patronizing. He's stating the obvious. If you had a commitment to raise literacy, what you would do is develop strategies for target populations. We've been at this for a long time now, and nothing is happening, and there is nothing in this budget.

           He says that if strategies are to be successfully implemented, they need to be adequately supported by funding. He's not being patronizing. There has to be money in a budget if you want to make the social changes you're notionally committed to. Government needs to know what it will cost to implement a strategy so that it can determine whether and how to fund it.

           What did he hear? We were told that the ministries were asked not to request more funding for the '06-07 fiscal year. I think we can assume they were asked not to request it for the '07-08 fiscal year, judging by the budget.

           So no quantified data, no strategies, no funding relating to the principal target groups. To deal with this complete failure to follow through on a commitment that was stated publicly everywhere…. What does government do? It pushes off the deadline to get something done until 2015. What's the message to B.C., really? We don't really mean it, you know. We don't really care.

           What do we get in the budget? What we get in the budget is the creation of an agency that will investigate more lesson-based learning for three-, four- and five-year-olds as an early learning strategy. I don't think you can call it a strategy. It's going to investigate it. I could stop and dwell on that for a good long time.

           Honestly, what this is really is a continuation of the government's ABC policy on early learning, and that is anything but child care. Don't invest in the care that's needed in order to allow kids to become developmentally ready for school. Don't allow the kind of care that allows them to develop through play and activity into young beings who are ready for the lesson-based schooling that comes in kindergarten. Don't supply the care that allows working parents — eight out of ten parents — to be able to hold a job, to be able to take their child somewhere in the morning on the way to work and pick the child up at the end of the day and know that throughout that day the child was involved in activities that helped him or her to grow with his or her peers.

           That's not something that British Columbia can commit itself to, it seems — at least not under this government. That's an enormous tragedy. I was on a radio show talking about the budget just yesterday, and it was interesting listening to the call-ins. It actually does

[ Page 9876 ]

connect back to climate change and the professed concern about emissions and climate change in this province.

           I heard a working father — and he's not somebody with a political axe to grind — simply state the fact that he and his wife are in a position now where they have to run two automobiles, living out on the West Shore, working downtown or in other parts of the region, because they cannot find child care in a location that lines up with school. It means that one of the parents has to drop the child off and another parent has to be available during the day to move the child around.

           Two automobiles are required for that because care is not lined up with the working day. Heck, not only is it not lined up with the working day; it's simply not available. It is so bad in the capital region that mothers who become pregnant and expect children list themselves for child care, if it's a second child, when they become pregnant. If they're really confident, they do it when they start trying to become pregnant. Why waste nine months or longer? You're going to be on a waiting list for child care if you're in this region — if you're in any region in British Columbia. That's because the resources are not being put in place.

           For the professed concern for early learning and making the best start for our children, there is very, very little openness to the idea that the best start for kids may be to be in developmental child care provided by credentialed teachers of early learning. There is absolutely no interest on that side of the House in this. Yet there's some idea that the challenges that we face, the 25 percent of kids who are developmentally at risk, will in some manner be helped by thrusting lesson-based learning down to three- and four-year-olds? Yeah, that's it. That's got to be the answer.

[1500]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Twenty-five percent are coming, and they're not developmentally ready to learn? The answer to that is get them started on math when they're three. Yeah, that's going a long way. I'd love to see the research that in any way, shape or form would suggest that that is an approach to improving the situation in British Columbia.

           In the time that remains, I want to pass over for a little while to climate change, which is nominally the key focus of this year's budget. In point of fact, what we see really is a gas tax that's giving back to people something that's being taken from people, without a single meaningful initiative to enable choice and change around low-carbon infrastructures. Again I'd paraphrase Obama. Exactly the same thing.

           What troubles us here isn't the momentousness of our problem, as grave as it is; it's the smallness of the thinking being offered up as solutions. And it's used, quite frankly, as a cover for cuts in taxes to banks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry — never mind the contradictions. They don't do anything bad, apparently. They don't need to grapple with climate change. They need help. They're not making that much anymore — just tens of billions.

           [K. Whittred in the chair.]

           You have to ask yourself: if global warming threatens our future existence, and I believe it does…. It's not something I came to at the time the Premier came to it, but I came to it long before. Is the idea of the Walking School Bus and the Bicycle Train actually an adequate response to government's own actions that are making it harder and less likely for kids to walk or ride to their school, or is it just gimmicky spin? I'd have to say that for me personally, it looks like it's gimmicky spin.

           There are overlapping imperatives today to take meaningful action on problems government has identified: physical inactivity and obesity, type 2 diabetes and reducing carbon emissions. All of these have been described as societal emergencies in one form or another by the Premier, and the latter is supposedly the Premier's current crusade.

           All three of these things to address require environmental re-engineering of poorly designed urban environments. You simply have to make travel by car less necessary in order to reduce emissions per capita, increase the amount of active transportation that people engage in, and reduce the amount of type 2 diabetes that's coming from physical inactivity and bad diet.

           On-the-ground change that will actually affect carbon emissions — not hot air rising in the chamber but on-the-ground change — means altering physical environments, the design of cities. Chiefly, it's land use and road design to facilitate transportation choices by citizens where today automobile travel is essentially necessitated — low-carbon, higher-activity choices.

           Behaviour does not change by invitation. Change has to be enabled. It requires supportive infrastructures and, without it the default option, will remain the automobile, whether the price of gas goes up or not.

           Why isn't government investing in retrofitting cities for walking and cycling, two primary ways that we could insert exercise into our daily lives? Why does government invest massively in things like sports and recreation — which are good things to do that result in marginal increments to activity for portions of the population, minorities — but systematically avoid investing in urban cycling and walking infrastructures that would grow them substantially while reducing emissions? Why is that?

           We know that those investments pay dividends to our climate change, health, quality of life, neighbourhood security and school achievement accounts. Yet this government refuses to invest in them, despite professed concerns, preferring to reward tied interests and to try to buy votes by sending people back a chunk of their own money.

           People will walk and cycle more if you enable the choice. If you simply exhort them to do it and don't give them the way to do it, you'll get the same results you get from telling them that they need to become more physically active, which is no results at all. Thirty years of telling people to become more physically active have not moved it one whit.

           If you retrofit cities in ways that support active transportation, so that destinations like school and work are accessible from home, people will walk and

[ Page 9877 ]

cycle in larger numbers. Health will improve, and emissions will go down. It's precedented. Look at Holland. If you need to look at an example, look at Holland.

[1505]Jump to this time in the webcast

           But if you move schools further from home and the linking environment is unsafe and unappealing, more people will drive their kids to school and then drive themselves to work, which is just what's happening today under the brave leadership of the Premier.

           This government is resistant to learning from experience, especially its own, which means it can't effectively lead us where we have to go. Walking and cycling as modes of transportation, not recreational activities, carry more trips per day than public transit in this region — more than double the number of trips — and they're much more elastic as activities, when it comes to expanding them, than transit is. It requires far less infrastructure at far lower cost.

           Yet they get nothing in this budget, or previously, from a government bleating about global warming and wanting to be a leader. Zero-emission travel, which at the same time is a proven fighter of obesity and type 2 diabetes, can easily be incorporated into daily life, because it uses time that is already committed for travel to work or school.

           There is absolutely zero interest on the other side. If the government actually felt the urgency to act as it routinely proclaims, if it supported the principles in fact and not just in principle, it would begin doing the obvious. It would invest in those with the greatest need in ways that enable their independence. It would invest in prevention of disease, of low literacy and of carbon emissions. It would invest in actions that pay dividends in multiple accounts like the redesign of cities. Climate change, inactivity and diabetes are all affected by that.

           It would invest in breaking a cycle of poverty by redistributing some opportunity in British Columbia so that our children come to school better prepared to learn; so that parents find child care that provides them early learning while enabling the parents to keep their jobs; so that our seniors get care in their communities and age in place in their home; so that immigrants can put the skills that we've chosen them for to work within our economy to grow our collective prosperity; so that people with disabilities have the same life chances and the same life choices the rest of us do; so that our cities become walkable, complete communities with high quality of life.

           Invest in reconfiguring our urban areas for walking, cycling and transit so that active, healthy, climate-positive choice becomes the easy choice, and we will see change. Invest in infrastructures that enable change so that change can be triggered, so that we can stop hearing hollow calls to action with no follow-through from government.

           Stop living with this disappointment in the lack of vision — vision without leadership, ideas without action, declarations of intent with no plan and no real commitment to effectively act now.

           Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, let me say welcome to all the students that have joined us. I hope you're going to find this entertaining.

           It is an honour to rise today to respond to Balanced Budget 2008. This budget is a tremendous accomplishment. It is the foundation for government's bold plan to reduce British Columbia's greenhouse emissions. It supports a strong and growing economy, and it makes important investments in key public priorities such as health care and education. It truly is a budget that will be remembered as setting our province apart as a leader in climate action while preserving our economic well-being and positioning us to meet the challenges of the future.

           I come from the business world, where accounting and annual budgets tend to be very dry documents that only accountants would love, but British Columbia's budgets are something very different.

           They look to the future, a blueprint for progress during the next three years and beyond. They examine the present, a snapshot of where our province is right now in its financial health and its economic outlook. They're a look at the past, a summary of our stewardship of government's finances and the measures we've taken to support the priorities of British Columbians — priorities such as services for seniors, addressed in Balanced Budget 2005; like children, the focus of Budget 2006; and housing, for Budget 2007.

[1510]Jump to this time in the webcast

           That history speaks well of this government. It speaks of prudent fiscal management, sound public policy and innovative ideas that have gone a long way to improving the lives of our citizens. I'm proud that this government has a fifth balanced budget.

           Prudent economic assumptions, built-in forecast allowances, planning for contingencies and a close eye on debt have given our budgets built-in shock absorbers to withstand economic slumps. The approach has meant a triple-A credit rating and more choices for British Columbians to make investments in programs and services.

           Our policies of tax reduction and deregulation have resulted in one of the most competitive business environments in Canada. British Columbia has enjoyed robust growth in our economy in recent years. Our economy is estimated to have grown by 3 percent last year.

           As Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, I'm particularly pleased at how the strong economy has meant that more British Columbians are working. We have created more than 400,000 jobs since 2001. Our province has drawn 40,000 net new residents every year since 2005. Think of that. That's the same as adding a city the size of Kelowna to our economy in British Columbia. That's a large increase in population, and for many it's an opportunity to work.

           The unemployment rate today is down to 4.1 percent — one of the lowest in Canada and one of the lowest in British Columbia in three decades. That's 4.1 percent. Compare that to 7.7 percent in 2001.

           We have gone from people looking for jobs, to jobs looking for people. Good-paying jobs too. The average

[ Page 9878 ]

wage in British Columbia is now over $21 an hour. That's one of the top wage rates in Canada. In fact, during the past three years the growth of our hourly wage rate has been twice the national rate and more than four times that of Alberta.

           I am pleased that in today's economy, more and more young people are also getting a good start in the working world. Back in 2001 the youth unemployment rate was nearly 14 percent. Go back to 1998, and it was more than 17 percent. Today it's only 7.5 percent. Young people are earning more than ever before, with an average hourly wage of more than $12.

           More jobs, higher wages and competitive tax rates have meant that our province has enjoyed the largest boost in our standard of living in two decades. All British Columbians can be proud of that achievement as we look forward to an even brighter future.

           We have had fewer strikes and lockouts since 2002 than at any other comparable time in the past 30 years. That speaks not only to the underlying strength and diversity of our economy but also to the significant achievements by negotiators for employers and organized labour.

           As you know, the groundbreaking negotiating framework detailed in Balanced Budget 2006 led us to an historic series of labour agreements with the public sector — 166 contracts covering more than 320,000 employees. That's 99 percent of the public sector.

           These agreements are fair for workers, fair for employers and fair for taxpayers, and thanks to the long hours and hard work of negotiators on both sides, the agreements will see us through the 2010 games.

           The labour stability we've seen in the public sector is also mirrored in the private sector, where the overwhelming majority of collective agreements have been achieved with little or no job disruption.

[1515]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Labour stability; a strong, increasingly diversified economy; and now a turning point in the way we think of our economy and its relationship to a healthy environment. A turning point marked by this historic budget, in which we invest not only in British Columbia's economic competitiveness but also in a new measure to address climate change and promote greener choices. My colleague the Minister of Finance has said that either/or thinking belongs to the past.

           We can take steps today to build a better future for our children. We can reduce our province's greenhouse gas emissions and take bold steps to improve our environment, and we can sustain our vital public services and keep our economy strong.

           The world took notice on Tuesday when our government announced its plans for a fully revenue-neutral carbon tax. The principle is simple: tax carbon-emitting fuels to discourage their use and give money back to people, back to businesses, so they have control. They can make their own choices about how tax affects them.

           It makes sense to discourage the use of carbon-emitting fuels. Higher costs for higher carbon choices will also make cleaner choices more commercially viable and more broadly available. It will also mean more innovation and more economic opportunities. So I am pleased that the Finance Minister has announced built-in protection for lower-income British Columbians and a $100 climate action dividend for all British Columbians this June. That's $100 for every woman, every child and every man in British Columbia.

           We're making a $1 billion investment in climate action. The list of initiatives is long: measures to encourage energy-efficient choices, improved public transportation and using technology to reduce emissions from trucks and ships; developing a cap-and-trade system for large greenhouse gas emitters; support for biodiesel and solar energy; tax relief for fuel-efficient vehicles and energy-efficient appliances; and $130 million for a carbon-neutral public sector by 2010.

           I am particularly proud that on that last point, my ministry is making significant contributions. From green buildings to green buying, we're helping government lead by example.

           Take, for example, the buildings the province has in more than 200 communities throughout British Columbia. We will be retrofitting existing provincial public buildings with greener technology. The budget allocates $14 million in operating funding over three years and $75 million in capital funding to bring in these improvements. For example, we'll be installing higher-efficiency lighting and more efficient boiler systems, and this will reduce energy and water consumption to cut carbon emissions.

           We have already seen the benefits of this kind of change. A retrofit program for British Columbia's education and health care institutions has resulted in annual energy savings of more than $14 million. It has also reduced greenhouse gases each year by the equivalent of 10,000 cars. The energy management program has increased the energy efficiency of other provincial buildings by more than 50 percent. It has avoided costs of about $200 million and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 61,000 tonnes a year.

           While we make our existing buildings greener, we will also be going gold with our buildings of the future. From now on, all new provincial public buildings will be built to LEED gold standards or the equivalent. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's a rating system administered by the Green Building Council, and the higher the certification, the higher the energy efficiency of the project.

           Examples of LEED-certified buildings include the new B.C. Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver and the Medical Sciences Building right here at UVic. These kinds of buildings will become the norm as we move forward to reduce government's carbon footprint.

[1520]Jump to this time in the webcast

           My ministry's approach to climate action includes more than buildings. We're also having an impact through our procurement policies — everything from toners to Toyotas. If you thumb through the catalogue of office supplies and other items handled by the ministry's distribution centre, you'll see a growing list of greener choices. These include recycled paper, notebooks, envelopes, pen and pencils, and toner cartridges. Small things, but with a big impact when you add them up throughout the public service.

[ Page 9879 ]

           More dramatically, the ministry has recently purchased for government more than 450 hybrid vehicles. That compares to only 45 hybrids in 2005. These are Toyotas, Fords, Saturns and GMCs. By replacing a conventional vehicle with a hybrid, we can cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent.

           Our government is investing $2 million toward developing new low-carbon procurement procedures so that we can apply the green lens to our purchasing. We're also looking at ways to reduce government travel by using today's technology to bring employees together. The budget announces $15 million to begin developing advanced communication tools and collaboration tools for the public sector — tools like desktop video conferencing.

           I'm excited about the potential for this technology to help public servants share information and ideas without having to drive and fly. This will not only reduce the impact of government travel on the environment but also allow our staff to deliver better, more efficient services to British Columbians.

           We'll be able to track our success in reducing travel. Right now we're piloting an on-line tool to help ministries track and calculate their emissions from travel. This ability to measure their impact will help ministries reduce their carbon footprint even more.

           My ministry also supported another bright idea, and that's replacing the 3,300 light bulbs on the outside of this building. The lights on the legislative building are a famous Victoria landmark. We've sent a message to the world by replacing the old bulbs with leading-edge energy-efficient lamps, which means improving energy efficiency by two-thirds, not to mention the longer bulb life and fewer bulb changes.

           Perhaps the tourists who stroll the Victoria causeway in the evening won't notice the difference, but we will. I think it's a great symbol of our commitment to climate action, a commitment that is the heart of Balanced Budget 2008.

           The Finance Minister began her budget by noting that this year we are celebrating British Columbia's 150th anniversary and that the spirit of opportunity that existed in 1858 is still with us today. I would add that the spirit of service also lives on, exemplified by the government agents who have helped shape our province since the founding of the Crown Colony of British Columbia.

           This year our government agents are celebrating 150 years of providing service to British Columbians. They have served as members of the Legislature, magistrates, gold commissioners, provincial police, notaries public, tax collectors, insurance agents and public health officers. They have been an important part of our history, as they represent the spirit of our province.

           Today government agents are the foundation of Service B.C., part of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. They continue to serve in 59 communities throughout the province, and their commitment to quality customer service is as strong today as it was 150 years ago. I want to congratulate them, and I look forward to events celebrating the 150th anniversary.

           I am delighted to vote in favour of a budget and to speak in favour of a budget that introduces a revenue-neutral carbon tax, invests over a billion dollars in climate action, provides tax cuts for individuals and businesses, invests in a stronger economy, maintains our government's tradition of financial prudence and provides more support for key social services.

           This is a pioneering budget in a special year in our history. It's bold, it's visionary, and it leads the way to an enduring legacy for our children and grandchildren — a healthier planet and a thriving province. It will be our guide for the months and years to come as we work here in this House to make British Columbia, the best place on earth, even better.

[1525]Jump to this time in the webcast

           M. Karagianis: As always, it's an honour to stand here in the chamber and speak up for my community on issues like the throne or budget.

           When I spoke the other day in response to the throne speech, I talked about my constituency staff, and I'd like to start out today with a special thanks to my legislative staff. I've been very fortunate to have really terrific support, and that helps me do my job better. So a special thanks goes to Teresa Scambler, who is my LA. She is a no-nonsense lady but also has a great sense of humour, and it's a pleasure to work with her.

           I have terrific research people, especially Jeff Dean, and other great staff, like Sara Goldvine and Neera Ritcey. Both women help me do my job as well, in a great way, and Jeff is a terrific source of information.

           I anticipated the budget with a certain sense of excitement. I knew that the things my community has been telling me about for the past year that are important to them would show themselves here in the budget — whether the government had listened to my community and other communities around British Columbia, whether they, in fact, heard the things that I've stood in this House and talked about for my community. I was very interested to see what was in the budget and what it held for my community.

           The thing that my community really cares about is, of course, health care. That's the primary, number one concern for my community right across the board. Whether it's seniors health care for their parents or whether it is because they're raising a family and they have young children, they need the full gamut of the health care system. I think my community very much exemplifies families today that have those responsibilities of both raising children and caring for their parents, on either end.

           My community also is, unfortunately, part of the statistic on child poverty, because we have a very high level of child poverty in my community. So it mirrors what the statistics are here in the province. It's a grave concern for all the members of my community.

           Certainly, we've gone through school closures. That has been a hotly contested issue especially in Esquimalt, where a beloved school, Lampson Street School, was closed last year. That galvanized the community to really stand up and fight for that. They were very sor-

[ Page 9880 ]

rowful and still continue to be very sad about the fact that we lost that battle.

           Because my community is made up of mostly young families, they're certainly very acutely aware of the need for child care. Most of them really depend in some way on a child care system. I know that there's been a great deal of anticipation about whether or not the government would take the step to repatriate an appropriate and well-funded child care system here in the province.

           The forest crisis, although it doesn't touch directly on my community, is a contributor to the economy here on the Island. My community has been watching, as well, the deterioration within the forest industry here on the Island and has been gravely concerned about the domino effect of that crisis on the economy.

           Transportation — a big issue in my community. It is in the newspaper here almost every single week. Issues around transportation in and out of my community. The ongoing wishes and hopes of the community that we will get a commuter rail system, that we will get expanded transit, and that we will, in fact, be much more futuristic in addressing the concerns here of a growing community in the western communities part of my riding.

           Homelessness touches us all, of course. Part of my community in Esquimalt has its feet in the downtown, and we've seen homelessness actually creep into little corners of the community that we didn't expect. I remember talking with the director of the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, who said she'd begun to see people sleeping in the lawns and yards around the neighbourhood house, thinking that it was a place that they could find shelter and hope.

           That's a long way from downtown. So it's not just happening in downtown; it's happening in our suburban communities and happening in small towns across B.C. It's a concern, and it has my community very concerned. Because so many of the members of my community are really struggling to make ends meet, I think there's always that fear that any of us are only perhaps 30 to 60 days away from homelessness ourselves.

[1530]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I know, doing a homeless tour last year with the police, that I was really saddened to run into a woman who had just been made homeless in the community of Esquimalt. She was a woman who was not young, Madam Speaker. She was in her early 60s and had found herself homeless and living on the streets for three weeks at the time I saw her.

           It touched me very deeply that that kind of thing could occur in my community. I'm always looking towards budgets as proof that government, in fact, is going to put resources out there that care for communities. That was one of the things I anticipated seeing.

           Public safety is a big concern. I've talked about it in this House before and will continue to. My community police force of Esquimalt was amalgamated by this government, with a promise that it would be the first of a wholesale amalgamation in the south Island here. That has failed to occur. As a consequence, the cost of policing in the downtown core is now being borne by two communities only, when it should be the responsibility of the entire region. But the government has shied away from actually making good on the promise that they made to my community, and it's costing my community more money.

           At the end of the day, we have all of the same kinds of issues, I think, as many communities, but affordability is first and foremost and uppermost in people's minds after their health care. After worrying about their children and their parents in the health care system, worrying about how they're going to educate their kids and make sure their kids get the best start in life, the other challenge is affordability.

           In fact, families in my community are pinched between all of the fees and charges and ever-growing costs of living here in our community, as government continues to pile on more and more. We'll talk a little bit about that in a moment, because that's really what was delivered to my community out of this budget.

           The throne speech was full of re-announcements and repackaged promises from the past and lots of fancy slogans, but it was really up to the budget to deliver on all of that fancy talk. I would say that it's greatly disappointing to me, and to those in my community that I've already spoken to, that government has seen fit to make it more difficult, rather than less, for families to get by.

           The gas tax that has been levied against working people here is a hardship, no matter which way you look at it. It's not offset by a lot of delivery on the other end for them. For the families there's no security in their knowledge that there are going to be other options for them, other things for them to choose if they choose not to drive as often.

           In fact, we don't have the kind of transportation system here in the south Island that allows that kind of choice for people, so now they've been backed into a wall. They've got a gas tax that they are going to have to pay whether they can afford it or not, because there are no other options here for many of them.

           For people who live out in Sooke or work in Sooke and have to drive back and forth, for anyone who lives where there aren't adequate bus routes and who has to work early in the morning or late at night…. There are inadequate transit options for them, so they're going to have to drive. They have no choice but to bear the cost of this gas tax.

           The hundred dollars in some ways trivializes this enormously. Most people, I think, are feeling a bit insulted that this is what government delivers back: "You are now going to bear the costs of a gas tax that you may or may not be able to afford. We're not offering you a lot of alternatives here in your community, but we're going to give you $100 back, and that is somehow going to make your life better in many ways."

           It's a little bit like Stephen Harper sending families $100 to get child care. It's absolutely so trivialized and inadequate to really address the issues that families need that it just makes families angry. That's what I've heard from my community — that they are angry, because certainly….

[ Page 9881 ]

           You know, they've got increased hydro rates coming. They've got ICBC. In the lower mainland, of course, they've got increased transit, and we could, again, see that kind of thing here. They have a lack of affordable child care here. Many of the families in my community are living from paycheque to paycheque, and this has not delivered to them anything that they can take comfort in.

           This climate change plan hasn't delivered alternatives for them. They don't see that there's a way out of this in the future, that there will be a delivery of something that they can achieve. No. The government said: "Take the $100 and help replace your water heater." I don't know if government members have gone out and bought a water heater lately, but they're a lot more than a hundred dollars. "Buy a new energy-efficient fridge." Well, an energy-efficient fridge is a thousand dollars — right?

[1535]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Again, it trivializes it that somehow this $100 or a couple of hundred dollars into the household is going to allow people to make these choices. So I think the government is really out of touch with reality.

           At the same time, the constituents in my community know that the government has given huge subsidies, a huge gift to the banks of $220 million and over $300 million to the oil and gas industry. Frankly, these are both sectors that cannot in any way plead poverty. These are not poverty cases. The banking system, the banks in this country and big oil and gas are hardly hardship cases. Yet a much more significant gift of dollars has gone into those sectors, into those industries than what my families are getting. They're getting a hundred bucks to try and go buy a new water heater.

           It seems to me that government is so completely out of touch with reality on this that it's no wonder that my constituents are angry, and they are angry, Madam Speaker. When I talk to them, they are angry. When I'm on talk shows, they are angry when they call in. They are angry at the government for failing to deliver anything useful in their lives — something real and tangible that would make their lives different or better.

           You know, we see gas prices rising. Oil companies' profits are quite bloated, but the government feels perfectly happy and quite boastful about the fact that, on top of these bloated profits that banks and the oil and gas industry are making, we feel compelled to use taxpayers' dollars to give them half a billion dollars in a gift. It says to you that that's taking money directly out of the pockets of families in my constituency and giving it to hugely profitable organizations.

           It's no wonder that people are saying: "What is wrong with this picture?" Where are government priorities when it's about that? Frankly, we'll have to see if the cap-and-trade scheme that the government brings down in the future is in any way punitive on any of these industries.

           What I see is that this climate change initiative by this government is being borne by consumers and the working people of this community. All of the onus is being placed on them, and none on some of the biggest polluters and on those who should be taking the first and biggest leadership role. Government is not forcing them to do that.

           We've got families who struggle for rent and mortgage payments, to get by from month to month, to pay for child care, to try and pay all the additional fees for MSP and all of the other things that this government has raised and levied onto these families. They're worried about their parents and what kind of seniors care they can expect in the future, and are spending time looking after those parents while they're trying to raise their children.

           They're faced with the fact that their young people, in order to achieve every possibility in their lives, to achieve their dreams and to achieve their greatest potential, are going to actually come out of post-secondary education in debt for life. That's the reality for many, many of the constituents in my community, and this is what the government has said is low on their priority list.

           No tuition relief. We're not taking all of this largesse. We're going to give half a billion dollars to oil and gas and banks, but not do anything about relieving tuition costs for young people so that they can actually get the education they deserve. Instead, we're going to make it difficult for them and leave them in debt, burdened in debt for years.

           When I hear the government talk about how much they're spending on health care and how much they have sacrificed here for health care, I really want to put a little bit of a reality check into this, because we have this argument all the time in the House here. The reality is that we are spending more on health care because the population is growing, because we have more people using the health care system. In fact, the ratio of health care spending to GDP in this province has changed very little in 20 years — very little in 20 years.

           So all these big figures that the government throws around just confuse and dazzle the listener, but in reality, with our population growth, our health care spending to GDP has changed very little. It's stayed very much the same, within the 20 percent range, for 20 years.

[1540]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Madam Speaker, you have to say to yourself: what is it that the government is actually doing here for the constituents in my community? Many of the things that we see foreshadowed here in the throne speech, and somehow now not appearing as an offset in the budget, are things like this MSP sustainability plan which, in fact, means that we're going to see higher fees and fewer services. The government has already been incrementally delisting services since the day they got elected. That means more hardship for the seniors in my community and for the families in my community.

           I will stand here today and say that I will bet that this is where we're going in the future with this MSP sustainability model. There is no place else that that would go to be sustainable, but to reduce services and to charge more money.

           You know, the other side of this coin is for families who are looking after their mothers and fathers, whether it's in some kind of home care or some kind of

[ Page 9882 ]

facility. Now the government has foreshadowed that seniors will have to really start planning for themselves.

           In fact, that's a bunch of the baby-boomers. I guess the government has decided now that the baby-boomers must have money. They'll be on their own. So you better start socking away money to look after yourself in your old age. If you want home care, you're going to have to have a bank account that is flush so that you can afford that, foreshadowing here that the government is about to renege on the responsibilities for seniors who have built this province, who worked to actually create the kind of province we live in, which we are all so proud of. They are going to be now told: "No. You have to reach deeper into your pockets."

           What that says for many of the seniors in my community, I don't know. Frankly, a lot of the seniors in my community are women. I have a very large percentage of women in their senior years, most of whom are living in poverty. And so they have no option. The day that the government begins to pull the plug on the rest of the home care system…. They've partially dismantled it. As they continue to sort of dismantle it towards this independent living savings scheme, a lot of the women in my community are going to be the first to suffer. That is just unacceptable to me.

           Public safety is a big issue and a big concern as well. I talked earlier about the lack of amalgamation, the lack of follow-through. The government has left my community with growing costs and growing discord, frankly.

           Now I've got communities fighting with each other over the cost of policing, because the government has let them down. Inevitably that will fall back on the shoulders of taxpayers who will have to pay more and will not get the public services and safety services that they actually deserve. So there's a growing list of things that the property taxpayer and my community is going to have to bear.

           We've watched schools being closed. I talked a little bit earlier about Lampson School. I was quite amazed when I saw that one of the things the government wants to do now is turn kindergartens into child care centres by having children as young as three years old going into kindergarten.

           Well, first of all, teachers are not day care providers, child care providers. Secondly, where are all these resources? Is this the healthy thing to do? I would be very alarmed if I was a parent. When my children were three, they weren't ready for school. I know that. Any mother here knows that.

           They did have child care because I was a working mom, and that allowed me to go out and provide a living for my family. But there was a big difference between child care and kindergarten, and I'm very alarmed.

           Nonetheless, when Lampson School proposed to the government, as one of the options to stay open, that they begin to provide child care options in that school, they were denied. Yet now we're seeing the government turn around and ask for the very same thing. Start utilizing your schools for child care — or, God forbid, kindergarten at three. My community was not allowed to do that, and so we have lost one of the fundamental education centres, not just in my community but a historic education centre for the entire south Island.

           Now families are forced to go further for school. Kids have to take longer walks, or in many cases, parents have to drive further. So we have this continuing sort of dichotomy. Close down schools; parents have to drive further. Oh, wait, we have to reduce greenhouse gases. Get out of your car. There isn't a bus in your area. Well, too bad. Gas prices are going up anyway.

           What are families to choose? Where are the choices in that? Government talks about choices, and yet I see that there are very few. Everywhere you go, the avenue has been closed.

[1545]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The lack of child care is a huge issue. It's a controversial issue. There is nothing that galvanizes my community more than a discussion on the lack of child care resources here, because families feel it every day. Unlike some communities, where maybe mom can stay home, most of the people in my community have to have a dual income in order to be able to afford shelter over their head and food for their families, and to get by day to day.

           That's the reality for the majority of the people in my constituency. They need child care. It is a fundamental part of their life. Yet this is a government who has failed in any way to invest in a child care system here and offer security for these families.

           No wonder they are angry at government. Everything costs them more. All of the things that they get from government are being whittled down. Services are being pared down every single day. They're getting less and less, and they are frustrated by that.

           It's very interesting when I look through a number of the things that are gone from government's promises of the past, because it also speaks very much to what their priorities are. They no longer are putting a focus on literacy. They're no longer putting any kind of focus on the forest industry as it begins to fall apart.

           We see the government often is only being held to account by Auditor General reports. We've had lots of those. In fact, that's what we now have to rely on, because the government is less transparent and less accountable every single day. So we become more reliant on the Auditor General to go in and investigate.

           Why do we have to do that? What kind of province do you live in where you have to rely on the Auditor General to go in and closely examine the actions of government, to uncover all of the inadequacies of what this government has done to its citizens? Something is wrong there. Something is fundamentally wrong there.

           I will say that there are a number of things in the budget that I can support, and I'll tell you why in a moment. In fact, I've been kind of fortunate. Last year I called on the government to change the policy around homeowner grants for seniors. Seniors on fixed incomes, through no fault of their own, had their real

[ Page 9883 ]

estate values escalate beyond the maximum threshold that the government had set for homeowner grants. They were being punished by being denied their homeowner grants. I petitioned the government, and I would say, to the Finance Minister's credit, that she heard that and understood that was a situation that affected seniors across this province. And that policy was changed.

           Interestingly enough, we've seen a couple of my other pet projects and passions here also responded to in this budget speech. PST on electric motorcycles. I think the House is very familiar with the fact that I drive a little electric motorcycle. One of my first motions that I put on the order paper when I was elected in 2005 was to say we should do away with PST on electric motorcycles and enable people who wanted to really engage in lifestyle choices and changes that were responsible actions towards climate change — that they should in fact be rewarded. It's taken a couple of years, but government has finally responded and has finally done away with PST on electric motorcycles. For that I give them full credit.

           The other issues here…. Smoke-free cars when you have children in your vehicle, and getting rid of trans fats. These have been ideas that were put forward by this side of the House, and I'm always pleased when I see government respond to that. I think it does show that in some ways you can be collaborative. It would be nice if you could do it more often, but it's competing priorities here, I think — as many of the speakers on this side of the House have outlined.

The reality is that affordability for families is a high priority in my community but not a high priority for this government. That makes me sad.

           All of the things that this government could so easily do, they could so easily do by first of all not giving huge gifts of millions of dollars to industries that don't need it, like the oil and gas industry or banks. If we had not done that, that half a billion dollars could certainly go a long way to setting up a child care system here in British Columbia. It could go towards making it more affordable for families in the future to have hydroelectricity.

[1550]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I think one of the biggest tragedies…. We'll look back, and history will be very unkind to this government around what they've done with the hydroelectric system here in British Columbia. This is one of the resources that we have prided ourselves on for many years. We kept it public. We therefore benefited from low hydro costs. We sold our energy at a profit to those who needed it.

           Now what we have done is undermined all of that. We have said that we will allow private enterprise to step between us and our resource — a middleman.

           I spent lots of years in retail. I know exactly what that means. The middle person then begins to make the profit. Who's going to pay for that? Well, we are, the citizens of British Columbia. Our own resource. We're now buying it from private enterprise at a much inflated rate from what it would cost us if we bought it from ourselves. Does it make any sense? No, it does not. It makes no sense to me.

           History will look back on this and say that was a tragedy. That was, for sure, letting the barbarians in through the gates to take money directly away from British Columbians and deny them the benefits of their own public resource. Instead, we become consumers just like anybody else in the world. We're paying more for our hydro than what we're selling it for.

           Things like that. More MSP fees — we will see that. We've already seen that. We're going to see that continue. The sustainability is going to be a sword that is not necessarily used to make a better lifestyle for everybody but, in fact, will be used to again find ways to give less and charge more.

           The gas tax. We can already see that the backlash here from the public — despite the government's attempts to pooh-pooh it and ignore it — has been instantaneous. The public can see through what is happening here. They're saying: "Why should consumers have a gas tax as a solution to climate change, but big industry doesn't have to pay the same kinds of taxes?" In fact, they're going to get a great big huge dividend back. They're going to be subsidized. That infuriates people, and it should.

           The government, I think, is being shortsighted if they think for one minute that the public is fooled by this. The public is not fooled in any way. The public is very savvy. It's funny. I had a group of high school students come through to do a tour the other day. I went and spoke with them. It was the day after the budget, because they had had a chance to look at the budget.

           I went and said to them: "What do you think of the government's climate change plan?" All those grade 11 students got it. They got it. They understood immediately that a gas tax is not a climate change action plan.

           Until we are actually going to invest in new and innovative technologies and make sure that we are offering other options for families, so that they can get out of their cars and get on the transit, or that what they are driving is sustainable…. Unless we are looking at better ways to supply wind and wave power and all kinds of solar power that are free, we are in fact denying the next generation their rightful due and the kind of climate change that they would like.

           I would have to say that I will continue to stand with my community here to demand better from this government. Seven years of disappointment for families is a bit too much to bear.

           We have got to do something here in this province to change a government that would deny its own people, at the expense of big oil and gas; that refuses to put a child care system in place; that insists on charging people more money for their own resource, like B.C. Hydro; that will make seniors pay for their own home care in their senior years; and that continues to bluster and bluff us with what they are doing with the health care system, while families know that they are not getting what they are paying for.

           While we continue to get less and pay more, families will tire of this. I believe that they will ask for a change in 2009. They will say: "Enough is enough." This government caters to big oil and gas and banks long before they do to the people of this community.

[ Page 9884 ]

They've trivialized their climate change plan, and the public sees through that. They want more. They deserve better.

[1555]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The next generation sure deserves a lot better than to be in debt for life and to have had a government give away their resource like B.C. Hydro to private power producers. The next generation knows they're being cheated and that the legacy left behind by this government is zero.

           I. Black: It is indeed an honour to stand today and speak in favour of this budget and the direction of this government. Before I begin my remarks on the specifics, however, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the tremendous support I receive in the day-to-day job of an MLA, both in my constituency — the marvellous constituency of Port Moody–Westwood — and indeed here in Victoria.

           I am very fortunate to have an extraordinary woman named Linda Kingsbury, who keeps my world organized and keeps me on the straight and narrow. Linda at the moment is on a very, very well-deserved vacation, but I can assure you that burned DVD copies of this speech will be awaiting her upon her return, and she'll watch it many, many times.

           I also have the able and very capable support of Vicki Collins in my office in Port Moody. Today Evelyn Kennedy is assisting because of Linda's absence, so I say thank you to Evelyn as well. Here in Victoria I have Sabrina Loiacono, who does a great job trying to keep up with me and chasing me down the halls to make sure I have what I need as I go from meeting to meeting.

           Of course, I could not do my job without her and Sarah Elder and Sarah Morris, my research officer and communications officer respectively. I remain in their debt for their ability to give me what I need to help serve the people of Port Moody–Westwood.

           I also understand that some of my family are watching today. They really should find something better to do with their afternoons. My mom and dad are watching, I understand, and my mother-in-law from Winnipeg.

           Interjection.

           I. Black: I'm not sure if you're clapping for my mother-in-law or my parents, but I'll take it for both as well as my kids and my wife, who I suspect is watching if she's not being run off her feet attending to the three of them.

           I am pleased to voice my support for Balanced Budget 2008, a budget that asks very clearly what kind of legacy we want to leave for future generations here in British Columbia. There has been a tremendous amount of attention over the last few days on the climate change elements contained within this budget. I will touch on those. I also want to touch on some of the really crucial and creative areas within this budget that are really important to the people of Port Moody–Westwood and that have been overshadowed slightly because of the legitimate attention that the climate elements have received.

           [H. Bloy in the chair.]

           First, on the climate side. This budget supports and adds new momentum to the government's plans to reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions. It also includes a series of initiatives to keep our economy strong and growing, and makes new investments into key public priorities such as health care and education.

           The budget introduces a wide range of new measures to address climate change, promote some greener choices and encourage economic investment that will allow British Columbia to meet the challenges of its future. To help reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020 — a very challenging and lofty goal.

           Budget 2008 includes a revenue-neutral carbon tax, widely spoken about in recent days, and provides $440 million for a one-time climate action dividend to help buffer the impact of the carbon tax — especially in the first year, giving it in advance to the citizens of this province so they're not waiting for a tax return eight or nine months after its implementation — and over a billion dollars for a broad range of climate action programs and tax incentives.

           Our goal is this: tax carbon-emitting fuels to discourage their use, and give the money back to people, back to businesses so that they have control and can decide. They have the power to make their own choices about how the tax affects them.

           For example, let's consider the impact on a family of four with one parent working, earning $60,000 a year. Let's assume they heat their home with natural gas and the family car is a minivan, and I can assure you there are many minivans in the wonderful community of Port Moody–Westwood. They will pay about $45 a year in carbon tax in 2008 — less than the price of a tank of gasoline — rising to about $113 in 2009. But that's only if they choose not to change their habits.

           As has been reported by the Finance Minister, if they reduce their driving by just ten kilometres a week, they'll save enough in fuel costs alone to completely offset the impact of the carbon tax in 2008. If they do as I've done recently, which is tune up my car and keep the tires inflated to the proper levels, the additional fuel cost savings could make up for most of their carbon tax in 2009 as well.

[1600]Jump to this time in the webcast

           For the lower-income earners in our province, we're putting together a program of tax credits as well as a climate action credit that would be worth about $100 for each adult and $30 for each child — this is every year — so that a family of four would have an income. If they, for instance, earn less than $35,000 a year, they would have income credit of $260. Plus, they'd receive the 5 percent cut in the income tax that also features in this year's budget.

           The carbon tax will help us in our goal to encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices, reducing their use of fossil fuels and related emissions.

           Our foundation grows stronger with our economy, and that strength of the economy enables our ability to

[ Page 9885 ]

not just react but to plan and to envision the future that we desire for our children. There really is no finish line in this race, and we've embraced that in this budget — not just with the climate action elements but also with other elements included in the budget. Yes, in a funding context, this means that we can continue the historically high investments of the B.C. Liberals in health care and education. It's witness in and of itself to the power of a strong economy.

           But it's so much more than that. Our investments, policies and decisions over the past seven years leave us in a position of positive momentum, a heretofore unseen resilient economy and confidence in the hearts and minds of the families across the province. Indeed, it would be tempting to rest on our laurels, to float out a safe, "keep it going and don't mess with the formula" throne speech and budget.

           But rather than coast along, we have embraced our solemn obligations to look forward, to look long term, to think about the world we wish to leave not only for my children but for my grandchildren that I plan to spoil rotten one day.

           D. MacKay: You're entitled.

           I. Black: Apparently, according to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, I am entitled.

So much more than climate change, this budget builds on the power of a strong economy and reflects new initiatives and the priorities of not just this government but of British Columbians.

           In the lower mainland and in my riding of Port Moody–Westwood, Balanced Budget 2008 addresses a plethora of issues important to all of my constituents. Let me start with one of the most important: health care.

           Health care funding will rise by $2.9 billion over the next three years, and it represents about two-thirds of all new spending over the period. Two-thirds of every new dollar spent by this government is focused in the area of health care. That is in addition to the $2 billion in increased funding allocated in previous budgets.

           It is important to recognize that when our government took office in 2001, the health care budget was approximately $8.3 billion. It has risen by over $5 billion before this year's budget. It took 40 years to get to that first $8.3 billion mark. In five short years it is now facing an increase of over 52 percent.

           B.C. Children's Hospital, which is used extensively by families across the lower mainland, and indeed across the province, will be upgraded and expanded as a result of this budget. Now, I had the privilege of touring Children's Hospital a few weeks ago with Sharon Toohey, the president of Children's and Women's. It was a phenomenal tour. They were trying to impress upon me the need for the upgrade that has been identified in this budget.

           I know Sharon from my days as a director on the board of Canuck Place children's hospice. It was bittersweet to hear the good news that she is planning to retire. I would be remiss in bringing up the remarks about Children's Hospital this morning if I didn't express to her my heartfelt wishes for a wonderful and well-deserved retirement. She is an extraordinary leader in our province, not just in health care but she's also an extraordinary role model for women in this province. I know that the members in this House share my words and wish her well.

           I would like to make mention of the fact that the additional funding within our budget has been very well received, first by the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day. His exact and very tight quote, typical of Dr. Day, says: "We have a budget that's really dealing with an issue British Columbia's citizens feel is important, and I think that's great news for health care."

           I can tell you that in my own community we have benefited from the increased spending in health care in British Columbia, as Eagle Ridge Hospital received one of 11 new CT scanners across the province — a 64-slice scanner. I was delighted to help them celebrate that a few months ago.

           Moving from there to the area of education. Budget 2008 provides a $144 million increase in funding for K-to-12 education, on top of the $648 million increases allocated in previous budgets for a total of $792 million extra. Over the fiscal plan, the K-to-12 education budget increases by an average of 2 percent even though enrolment is expected to decline by an average of 1 percent per year.

[1605]Jump to this time in the webcast

           It's been stated in this House that we have over 50,000 fewer students in the education system in British Columbia than we did five years ago. We are not strangers to that at all in the constituency of Port Moody–Westwood and in school district 43, which runs it.

           Budget 2008 continues government's commitments to put students first when it comes to education funding, and per-student funding will increase in each of the next three years to the highest level ever. Budget 2008 commits $144 million over three years.

           It also increases our investment in StrongStart early learning centres in communities throughout British Columbia. This is a fantastic program. This excellent program is currently offered in 84 elementary schools. We're going to add an additional 116 of them in the coming year with an another 200 centres opening the following year, for a total of 400 StrongStart early learning centres within the province.

           It has been proven time and time again that children learn best when they show up ready to learn. That's what these centres are all about. I'm very, very proud of the fact that we continue to not just support the existing program but to expand it as dramatically as this budget does.

           Budget 2008 invests over $329 million over four years in justice and policing and public safety, including $165 million to improve safety and maintain critical service in the justice sector and $164 million to expand the physical capacity in B.C.'s correction centres. Now, I have to say that this is a very, very important topic in our area. Public safety ranks consistently as one of the biggest concerns for my constituents, and I want to

[ Page 9886 ]

reflect for a moment on what we've done in this area over the last couple of years.

           First and foremost, as a result of a policy change in 2004 by this government, we have returned now 100 percent of the traffic fine revenues to municipalities to help them battle crime in their communities. Some of the people watching at home — and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands watching at the moment — may not be aware that this program used to be 25 percent. That is, for all the traffic fines that we collected in the province, 25 percent were traditionally sent back to our municipalities. But with the leadership of our Solicitor General and this government, we committed to increase that to 50 percent. We're delighted, again on the strength of a strong economy, to take that up to 100 percent of traffic fines being returned.

           This is what that means for my community — specifically the city of Port Moody and the city of Coquitlam. This means that the incremental amount — that is, the additional amount being given to the cities over these last couple of years since 2004 when we made that change — is almost $6 million of additional public safety resources put directly into the hands of the police boards and the policing services in my community.

           We've also done other things with a broader, lower mainland focus. We've supported Air One, a dedicated traffic helicopter that intervened in more than 300 dangerous situations in the lower mainland during its first year of operation alone. And — a really, really important one for me — we brought in civil forfeiture legislation that ensures that crime doesn't pay.

           The province has now funded more than 400 new police positions since 2003, including 215 officers to fight major crime and for general duty, 110 dedicated traffic safety officers and 75 police and support personnel for the Integrated Gang Task Force. British Columbia now has more integrated units and joint operations per capita than anywhere else in the country.

           There are some great programs, I think, that have flowed from this as well. We've got a real-time sharing and information system now called PRIME, one of the best in the country. We've got these great programs called bait cars. They were so successful that we expanded them to boats and bikes as well. We've got auto licence plate recognition that reads plate numbers and checks them against a police database. As well, on-the-spot car seizures when drivers are suspected of street racing.

           There was a great article in one of our local newspapers recently — just last weekend, actually — talking about crime in our area. It was jointly done with the CBC, I believe. In contributing to that article, I was given a wonderful series of data and statistics. Although I have three pages of very small print in front of me, there's one number, really, that sums it all up.

           When you take the total number of Criminal Code offences in the Tri-Cities area — it's broken down by different cities: Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam — and you summarize them and compare them over the last ten years…. We have right now, based on our population and the total number of crimes such as violent crimes, property crimes and what's categorized as other crimes, the lowest crime rate in the Tri-Cities in ten years. That is an achievement for which we can be very, very proud.

[1610]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I'd be remiss, in speaking about crime…. We have got extraordinary police officers in the Tri-Cities. We are served so well by the RCMP detachment based out of Coquitlam that services Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam and the little communities of Anmore and Belcarra that I so proudly represent.

           We also have the Port Moody independent police force as well, and I want to touch on them for just a moment. There was quite literally a changing of the guard there a few weeks ago, and I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not stop and celebrate the fact that the chief of police, Paul Shrive, has retired after 43 years of exceptional service to policing across Canada, but most notably over the last several years as the chief of police in Port Moody.

           He's replaced by Brad Parker, who is an extraordinary young chief with vision. He is well regarded throughout the province. I had five or six phone calls in the week or two after his appointment to say that we have snagged one of the best in the business. I'm very, very proud to have met with him once or twice already to discuss the issues important to my community, and I certainly wish him very well indeed.

           Moving on. Budget 2008 provides $105 million over four years to B.C. arts and culture initiatives, including the BC150 cultural fund and a new $150 million permanent endowment fund that is expected to generate about $8 million annually for new arts and culture activities in communities across the province.

           I have the honour of sitting on the Finance and Government Services Committee, which tours this province every fall. We hit about 14 or 15 cities in 21 days. It's an exhausting but at the same time exhilarating tour of this beautiful province, seeing corners of it that I probably never would have if I didn't have the privilege of holding this job. A consistent theme we heard over the last two years from a very passionate, organized, articulate arts community was that they see the arts and culture element of our society as an untapped area of economic growth and absolutely crucial to our future and crucial to the fabric of our communities.

           I have to say that their efforts have paid off in spades, because not only did they receive mention in the subsequent report of that committee, but this government has listened to the arts and culture community in a way that has never been done before.

           It's one thing for me to say it, but I want to read from the press release from the Alliance for Arts. The headline is: "Alliance for Arts Applauds the 2008 Provincial Budget." It says that it "applauds the government of British Columbia for the arts and culture initiatives announced yesterday in the provincial budget."

           "On behalf of a membership of over 340 individuals and organizations, the alliance welcomes the $105 million investment set out in the budget, which includes" — and their words are better than mine — "support for key initiatives such as the restoration and revitalization of the

[ Page 9887 ]

Vancouver East Cultural Centre and establishment of a $150 million endowment to assist with ongoing operating costs, support for a new aboriginal art gallery and a world women's history museum, and planning for a new maritime…centre for the Pacific and the Arctic, to be located in North Vancouver.

           "The alliance especially welcomes the establishment of this $150 million BC150 cultural fund as a permanent endowment."

The fund will generate approximately $8 million every year in revenue, which will be administered by the B.C. Arts Council.

           I love the way they put this:

           "On behalf of our sector, I applaud the government for affirming, through this budget, the important role the B.C. Arts Council plays as the key adviser and vehicle for the distribution of government investments' in this area."

           It says here that the decision "attests to the provincial government's support of the essential role the cultural sector plays in building the economic, social and intellectual capacity of the province and will enhance the sector's capacity to help build healthy, creative, prosperous and sustainable communities throughout all of British Columbia."

           Not only congratulating the various artisans and arts organizations that came before our Finance Committee, I must also — and I would be extraordinarily remiss if I didn't — make specific mention of the Port Moody Arts Centre Society. Port Moody is the centre of the arts, as every member in this House has heard me say so many times, and I'm so proud to represent the great work that they do.

           I was on the phone earlier with Brenda Finlayson, who is the executive director of the Port Moody Arts Centre Society, and her actual word was "awesome." She just thinks this is terrific. This is the group that leads the spring Festival of the Arts as well as the Wearable Arts contest every year. I am so happy on their behalf and so proud that the voice that I had been taking forward personally over the last few years on this issue has come to fruition in such a meaningful and unprecedented fashion.

           I would like to turn to the next issue of my comments, which has to do with transportation. Over the next three years the updated transportation plan will provide $2.3 billion in direct provincial investment in transportation infrastructure, plus $700 million more in investment leveraged through federal cost-sharing and partnerships with private partners, local governments and other agencies.

[1615]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I could not stand before this House today and talk about my riding and transportation without talking about the Evergreen line and the excitement that is going and building through our community right now. This project has got a 20-year history behind it, and we're actually making it happen for the very first time.

           We are the first government who has actually performed a detailed business plan on that project and the alternatives around it. We are the first government to formally approach the federal government to assist in their contributions to it.

           There was a meeting on February 1, as many members in this House and certainly members in my community know, where some certainty was announced by TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation around this project for the first time in history. SkyTrain, or ALRT, will be the preferred technology that's going to be used.

           Most urgently to myself and the member for Burquitlam is a very, very important consideration that Douglas College stands as the final stop on this Evergreen line. It was absolutely included in these plans, and that, too, represents a government and a Transportation Ministry that listens to members of my community.

           It was also announced that the northwest route was slightly preferable in the analysis. The mayors that were present that day were given 45 days to come back to the Ministry of Transportation and identify whether they were missing anything before proceeding on that basis.

           The councils have been reflecting on this, and I think they are addressing the notion and dealing with the notion that there are pros and cons to this particular matter. Within the Tri-Cities there are mixed views on the councils on this particular issue, and there should be.

           In Port Moody, for example, there are issues about the heritage element of that city, which nobody wants disturbed, as well as the construction implications of boring through four kilometres of solid rock. In Coquitlam the southeast route has yet to have some of the detailed environmental assessment worked on, and that certainly should and does weigh heavily in the minds of the councillors and the mayors who are contemplating a response back to the ministry.

           Earlier today my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville mentioned that the recent Evergreen announcement has created more questions than it has answered. Well, I would suggest that that is not a view that is shared with the mayors of the particular community that I represent.

           There has been an element of cooperation and constructive conversation and some unprecedented working together on this particular file that I didn't think possible when I got into this profession. One question they do have, perhaps, is: "What is the date when we're going to celebrate the shovel going into the ground?" Under the leadership of this government, that day is not too far off.

           The member also posed a question pertaining to federal funding and whether the federal funding might actually come through on this matter. I was prompted by that, because I felt that I was missing a piece of pertinent information. I took a moment before lunch, and I called my Member of Parliament who happens to be in Ottawa today. He answered his phone on the first ring.

           I expressed my concern that maybe there was something going on that I didn't know. Was there any new news that he had to share with me? Was there something that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville knew that I didn't in questioning the federal government's sincere analysis of this particular project? His response was, "I'm not sure what she's talking about," to which I said: "Well, when's the last

[ Page 9888 ]

time you spoke with her?" He responded: "I have never spoken with her on this particular matter."

           He went on to say that he's very optimistic about the discussions he's having right now with the federal ministers and the federal cabinet on behalf of the community that we represent. So I look forward with optimism on this particular matter and share in his.

           One thing that has come from this particular project is an opportunity to work cooperatively with the federal counterpart for that area. Member of Parliament James Moore has proven to be extraordinarily cooperative and constructive on this project. He's proven that we can work with the federal government and with our municipal governments on this. Under the leadership of this government and working in a cooperative manner that we've proven can actually lead to results, the Evergreen line will become a reality under this government.

           Earlier today the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville took exception — to which she's certainly entitled — to the notion that there was a comment made in the media last week by me that made reference to the hysteria that was being created by the NDP on the particular topic of the route of Evergreen relative to the Riverview lands.

           I have to explain that particular comment, perhaps. You see, what's happened is that there's been a linkage made between a major transportation project, which is moving ahead after 20 years of not moving ahead, with assertions of a clandestine plan for developing a property of great significance to our community — that is, the Riverview lands.

[1620]Jump to this time in the webcast

           There has been an assertion made that the Evergreen southeast alignment is somehow linked. The advocates who are acting in favour of that have somehow linked it to development at the Riverview lands, and yet you've got a minister who stood up in this House and unequivocally said that there is absolutely no linkage between them.

           You've got a Minister of Transportation who stood up in this House and said that the calculations used for the Evergreen line ridership did not include any numbers pertaining to Riverview. You've got a Housing Minister who said that he's got no plans of any kind and no schedule for starting the crucial community consultations that would be required to move forward with anything to do with development of Riverview.

           In a nutshell, you've got no data on any of the implications of the different options. You've got no plan developed for consideration, to either attack it or defend it, and you've got no community consultations on those plans that have started.

           Let me repeat what I have said on this particular matter. I have said clearly that Riverview represents an opportunity to replace dozens of now dilapidated and empty buildings and gravel parking lots and create a new home for people most in need. I've also said that an exhaustive consultation process lies ahead in the years to come. I am confident that every angle, every approach, every financing model and every consideration will and should be explored.

           I expect spirited debate, as there should be, as there are many points of view on this topic. Through it all, the treatment of the mentally ill and drug addicted must remain our primary focus no matter the model nor residential mix that ultimately defines Riverview's state.

           So what we do have then is the fanning of emotional flames on the basis of a rehashed newspaper story from seven months ago, based on a draft discussion document authored by bureaucrats in a ministry that's not even responsible for the future consultation and any resulting strategies for Riverview. When two ministers of the Crown have emphatically stated the underlying cause of these fears is groundless…. Yes, I do think it's irresponsible. Yes, I do think it takes this dialogue to a new level of hysteria.

           The budget also included the mention that the province will invest $187 million in municipal infrastructure over the next three years.

           This continues a phenomenal trend that we've seen in my riding of investing in Anmore and their crucial 1.3 kilometres on East road; in Belcarra, the $4.5 million that has gone to a crucial, reliable and safe drinking water project that also gives them fire safety protection they didn't have before; in Coquitlam, where we've put money into the library, the Spirit Squares and the new Glen Pine seniors centre that I so proudly helped open a few weeks ago; in Port Moody, the development at Rocky Point Park where families gather and enjoy the recreation of our area, the Petro-Canada ice centre where kids learn to skate and our hockey team plays, and the Westhill trail which is making an accessible and traffic-friendly walking trail in an area that has not been really taken advantage of by our citizens up to this point.

           We're also seeing the province spending an extra $438 million over the next three years to strengthen the social services, including $104 million of additional money to reduce homelessness.

           Now, I'm going to stop here just for a second and talk about the Hope for Freedom Society, who has done some extraordinary work in our community. Led by Rob Thiessen, this is a group of people who piloted this program in our area and are very proud of the work they do. I've done a ride-along with them to help take our homeless people off the street and connect them with government services. Their success in this area is just terrific.

           Last comment before my closing remark is this. I also have in my community the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, who's advocated for the torch relay to go through our community. I certainly hope they're successful in that. They had a terrific awards night celebrating the achievement of the leaders of our community a few weeks ago. They're true community builders, and they're very pleased that Budget 2008 provides $12 million over four years for initiatives to attract a skilled and knowledgeable workforce, because I can tell you they share the need that…. The growing economy and the burgeoning economy has us looking for workers, not workers looking for work.

[ Page 9889 ]

           It is an honour for me to stand in this House and represent the community of Port Moody–Westwood — the communities of Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra — each of them so individually different and so very special in their own ways. I proudly stand in favour of a budget that will take meaningful steps to ensure a province for my kids of both economic opportunity and environmental sustainability. I, for one, will be voting for this budget.

[1625]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. Horgan: It's a pleasure and a privilege again to rise in this place and represent the residents of Malahat–Juan de Fuca in the Legislature and discuss Budget 2008, the greenwashing. "The revenge of the technocrats," I've been calling it back in my community, where innovative and unique policies 30 years hence will somehow miraculously pay the rent in February and March of 2008.

           I'm also delighted to follow the member from Port Moody–Westwood whose parents I am proud and honoured to represent in this place, and I know that it comes as a surprise to him, but they have confessed to me that they will be voting for the New Democratic Party in the next election.

           Interjections.

           J. Horgan: Point of order on that one, yeah.

           I want to mention two individuals who have passed on since I last had an opportunity to speak in a debate such as this, and I appreciate that the throne speech debate has adjourned and will be coming back at some time. But I don't want to miss the opportunity, because His Honour Steven Point mentioned John Webb in his remarks.

           John was a public servant here in British Columbia, and he was also a municipal councillor in one of the communities in my constituency of Metchosin. John was an outstanding individual. All I can say about his passing is that the world has lost a good guy. Hon. Speaker, as you know, as we toil here and as we toil in other places, when we're laid to rest, if people say, "There goes a good guy," we've done our bit.

           John was an extraordinary man — a renaissance man, a carpenter, a poet, a hard worker and just a generally decent guy. He's greatly missed by his spouse Moralea, his stepchildren, and also the community of Metchosin.

           Another individual who passed just recently was Jim London in my community of Langford. Jim was the first mayor of the incorporated district of Langford — now the city of Langford — and was, until his passing in January, a school board trustee. Certainly, I know the Minister of Education has met and knows Jim. He was an outstanding fellow. His contribution to education and public policy is going to be difficult to replace in my community and in fact across the province. So I wanted to acknowledge his passing as well as that of my friend John Webb.

           Now with that, I'd like to move on and talk about the issues that I believe are relevant in this debate to the people in my community. As you know, I say this when I stand in this place that Malahat–Juan de Fuca is a vast and diverse constituency that incorporates the south Cowichan, the Cowichan Valley regional district, the communities of Cobble Hill, Cowichan Bay, Glenora, Cowichan Station, Shawnigan Lake, Mill Bay and then down into the capital regional district, representing the district of Highlands, the city of Langford, portions of Metchosin and the unincorporated areas of East Sooke out toward Port Renfrew as well as the district of Sooke.

           It's a diverse area where we're seeing rapid development — housing development, commercial development and some light industry as well. It is certainly leading the capital region, my area of Langford, in terms of growth, as is south Cowichan with burgeoning communities of Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake and touching on Cowichan Bay as well.

           The challenge of living in fast-growing communities is that the demand for services goes up year after year. Sadly, Budget 2008 again leaves a disconnect for the people that I represent. It's all well and good for the member for Langara to stand and deliver a speech and talk about all the great and wonderful things that are happening in the greater metropolitan area of Vancouver. Good on the people in the lower mainland. I'm sure they deserve everything they're getting. We have the Olympics coming in 2010. The infrastructure requirements for that are enormous — certainly well exceeding the $600 million price tag that the government has put on that. But they still hold to the fallacy that somehow the circus in February 2010 is only going to cost taxpayers $600 million.

           Interestingly enough, in this week's budget the government has committed $300 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies and a $220 million tax cut to large banks. So you're almost at $600 million right there, in one fell swoop. I'm wondering if you can eliminate that revenue in only one short day, how is it that you plan for an event for ten years and only spend $600 million? It's inconceivable to me, but somehow the math on the other side, the sketchy numbers on the Olympic circus that will be coming to our communities in the lower mainland, seems to be part of the mantra from the other side, and they're going to hold to that, regardless of the reality that the people of my community are seeing.

[1630]Jump to this time in the webcast

           So we have rapid growth. With that comes a requirement for services. There's nothing more important in my perspective than education.

           It's spring. Another spring, another round of school closures in the Cowichan Valley and also in the district of Sooke. Right in my community, around the corner from my home, Glenlake Elementary is slated for closure. This is in a community in the Sooke district that has an increasing student enrolment, not a declining student enrolment. Yet because of the skewed and misguided funding policies of the B.C. Liberals, we have a situation whereby education funding provides for individuals, but it doesn't provide for edifices.

[ Page 9890 ]

           If you can't have a school, then you don't have an education community. You need teachers, children, administrators, custodial staff and special needs assistants, and you need a building. You need a place to go. You can't just say: "Hey, let's go to school today. How about we go to Centennial Square in downtown Victoria?" People grow accustomed to going to a community school. This government doesn't seem to pay any heed to that. Glenlake Elementary School is on the chopping block.

           In the Cowichan Valley there are two schools — École Mill Bay and Koksilah Elementary. I want to take a few moments to talk about those two schools in particular, because they are unique not just to the valley but potentially to Vancouver Island.

           [K. Whittred in the chair.]

           École Mill Bay is a single-track French immersion program that's only been in existence for three years. It's ironic that the program started at Elsie Miles Elementary in Shawnigan Lake. Of course, that school was closed, so they moved the program to École Mill Bay just two years ago. On the day that it was announced they were going to close École Mill Bay, 38 children signed up for kindergarten.

           So 38 kids signed up, yet we're going to close the school. This is a program where you've got kids K-to-2. It's going to go from kindergarten to grade 3 next year, and in three years, kids who started in kindergarten at Elsie Miles will be going to their third school, and they haven't even got out of grade 3 yet. That makes a lot of sense to the people in the Cowichan Valley.

           I've raised these issues with the Minister of Education, and the board office has raised these issues with the Minister of Education. I'm sure her in-box is full of correspondence from very committed and passionate parents, yet what we get is: "The funding formula is the funding formula, and you're just going to have to get by. Move on; go somewhere else. Take your kids and put them somewhere else." That's the solution for École Mill Bay.

           Very active parents, hon. Speaker, as you would expect with an immersion program. There was a public meeting in the Cowichan Valley some weeks ago, and 150 people showed up. The board listened carefully and attentively to the appeals and the overtures from the parents and from others that are interested in the program, but sadly, their hands are tied. They're shackled by a policy put in place by this government that says: "We want you to be autonomous, school board, but you have to do what we tell you. We're only going to give you so much money, and it's not going to be enough to meet the needs of the people in your community."

           I know that the Minister of Education finds this humorous and laughable. Perhaps she could take her sense of humour to the Cowichan Valley and meet with the people and the parents there who have a disconnect.

           You have a government talking about billions of dollars in surplus. We live in a time of prosperity not just in British Columbia but right across the….

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I thought the Minister of Education had something to say. Perhaps she'll answer the question: why are you allowing this school to close? I haven't even got to Koksilah Elementary, where the promise of this government to close the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal learners….

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I'll just wait for the Minister of Education to get her two bits in. I've got time. I've got 30 minutes.

           Fire away, Minister. Give us your best shot. If you're not going to answer the correspondence from the ministers, let's go….

           Interjections.

           J. Horgan: Give it to me, Minister. Give it to me. Why is it that I have to go back to my community and say that you don't care about the kids in that district?

           Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, through the Chair, please.

           Interjections.

           J. Horgan: Classy — to have the Minister of Education talk about class. You close classes. That's what you do.

           Are we ready to go? Are we done? Oh, the minister is getting nice and comfortable over there. Let's carry on.

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: Bring it on. The empathetic Minister of Education.

           From École Mill Bay let's go to Koksilah Elementary School. The minister speaks glowingly of her administrative triumph of managing to get agreement with the federal government to allegedly — allegedly — close the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal learners. This is all, again, revenge of the technocrats: "Let's get in a room, and let's strike a deal that has no relevance to people on the ground." In the case of Koksilah Elementary School, it's 98 percent first nations….

[1635]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Members.

           Take your seat, Member.

           Interjections.

[ Page 9891 ]

           Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat.

           To all members on both sides of the House, including the government front bench: I think that we all know the meaning of proper parliamentary decorum, so let us practise it, please.

           Continue, Member.

           J. Horgan: I was speaking of Koksilah Elementary School in my constituency, in the South Cowichan — 98 percent population aboriginal learners, the Hul'qumi'num community, the Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nations community on Vancouver Island. For the first time in generations first nations have some comfort that the education system is doing something for their children rather than something to their children.

           These are people who lived through the residential school crisis. I know those members on the other side are certainly not accountable for that, nor am I, but history is the judge that stands to look at all of us in this place. How did we respond to the way people have been treated in the past?

           There's no better example, in my opinion, than Koksilah Elementary. Every day elders come and teach language and culture to the kids in that school. It's supported by the Cowichan Valley trustees; it's supported by the Cowichan Valley Teachers Association. But in the wisdom of the Minister of Education, her funding policies have put the district and the trustees in a position where they may well have to close that school.

           How is it that the Premier can stand in this place and say he wants to, as a point of policy, close the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal learners with one breath and with the other breath say: "Well, sorry, school district. There's nothing we can do about that. We only have $4 billion in surplus this year. We only have $4 billion that we don't know what to do with"?

           "I know what we'll do with that money. We'll give some of it to affluent people. We'll give a hundred bucks to Jimmy Pattison."

           Why in the world would we stand in this place and ignore first nations learners in the Cowichan Valley and, at the same time, give money back to people who don't need it? Why would we give the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank, RBC Dominion Securities $200 million in tax breaks when we're closing a first nations school in the Cowichan Valley? Why would we do that? It's absurd, hon. Speaker, and it's a complete and utter disconnect.

           When I travelled around the province with the Finance Committee last fall and the fall before that, I was with the member for Port Moody–Westwood and other members of this place from both sides of the House, and we would go into communities and talk to people. I can remember very well going to the community of Terrace. We had witnesses come to the committee and say: "We're not getting the programs and the support we need for our kids, whether they be in child care, whether they be in the public education system.

           One of the government members, a decent guy, a good fellow, a thoughtful fellow, said: "That's not true; we funded that program." It's that disconnect, that complete and utter misunderstanding of what goes on, on the ground that doesn't just afflict this government. It afflicts all governments, whether they be New Democrat, whether they be Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Social Credit. Once you get into that side of the House, you go into the cabinet room and you've got technocrats following you around with big honking binders saying that everything is fine.

           It's not fine, and there's no better example than Koksilah Elementary.

           The Premier stood in this place three years in a row, three consecutive throne speeches, saying, "I am committed to reducing the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal learners" — three years in a row. Lots of money for the summit, lots of money for this, lots of money for that, but on the ground in communities it's not showing up.

           I don't know why that seems to be a problem for those on the other side. It's just reality. It's not just the Liberals' fault. I'm sure this happens to all governments. I'm certain it happens to all governments. I know it happens to all governments. When you stop listening to the people who elected you, you're completely out of touch with the reality of the world. We hear the members on the other side, the revenge of the technocrats, talking about what a great place this is going to be in 2020 and 2050. Who cares, hon. Speaker? Who cares?

           We want to leave this place better for our grandchildren — absolutely. We have that obligation as individuals. We have that obligation as legislators. But today….

           Childhood comes once. If we're going to underfund and scrape back money from kids and programs for children, then how are we serving the future? How are we helping the kids of tomorrow?

           An Hon. Member: A generation of deprived adults.

[1640]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. Horgan: That's right.

           Koksilah Elementary, for those who are listening at home and those who are listening in this place, is a classic example of neglect by government of a program that's working effectively. It's taking down the shadow of residential schools across the south Island, and it's being replaced by a government who says: "We got $4 billion in surplus. We're going to give Jimmy Pattison a hundred bucks. We're going to give the affluent each a hundred bucks, but that school is going to close." That school is going to close for want of a few bucks. It's a tragedy.

           The other issue that's of significance in my community is transportation. I talk about transportation all the time in this place. My colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin joins me in saying to the government of British Columbia: "With your $14 billion announcement back in January…." It was a delightful announcement because we remember the same announcement being made in 1996 by the government of the day — commitments to the transportation initiatives in the south Island and to transportation initiatives in the lower mainland, and nothing is happening.

[ Page 9892 ]

           We got a really nice highway to Whistler. This is with no disrespect to the people of Squamish and those who are going to be on a safer highway. Good for them. But there are highways all over this province. The Malahat Drive in my constituency — closed with regularity, deaths with regularity, no transportation alternatives….

           M. Karagianis: And now no money for the south Island.

           J. Horgan: And now no money for the south Island again from this government.

           I sit on a committee called the committee for commuter rail. It's a group of regional politicians from View Royal, Langford, Esquimalt and the city of Victoria. What they're looking at is using the E&N corridor, an existing railbed and an existing bit of infrastructure, to move people around on the south Island. What a good idea.

           We've had a consultant look at the situation, and they've issued a report that says the capital costs of getting the train running from Langford into the city of Victoria in the morning and returning in the evening, two or three or four times in these two critical periods, would be only $16 million.

           M. Karagianis: A fraction of what the banks got.

           J. Horgan: That's right.

           Imagine what we could have done had we not given $220 million to the big banks. Imagine what we could have done if we hadn't given $327 million to oil and gas. Sixteen million bucks to get the train running in the right direction here in my community and through the community of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

           Why wouldn't you want to make that investment? Why wouldn't the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head support those initiatives at the cabinet table? Why wouldn't they say: "There's a good idea"?

           There's a transportation initiative that would not impact on the daily commute that's already in place. You wouldn't have to have construction along the highway. You wouldn't have to build bus routes that businesses in the lower Island don't want and that won't necessarily change or dramatically alter transportation patterns. It won't take any cars off the road. It will increase traffic, in fact. Why wouldn't you invest in the E&N corridor?

           Apparently, this government doesn't see any value in putting money into the lower Island. Not for transportation initiatives. Not for education programs. Not for child care programs.

           One of the challenges that we have in this place — and it was evident today during question period — is that when the love is gone, it's well and truly gone. Those on that side of the House refuse to listen to reasonable ideas if they come from this side of the House.

           When we came here in 2005, all of us were new, shiny, ready to go, sent here by our constituents with some expectation that we were going to work for the common good — not for partisan purposes, not with any malice or mean-spirited attributes. We were here to help the people that put us here.

           The other day the Ministry of Energy was making some derogatory comments about where people had come from before they came here. It's my view, hon. Speaker — and I know you share it — that we're all equal in this place. We all come from different backgrounds. We all come from different parts of the province. But we all come here with one common objective, and that is to work for the public good.

           Whether we came from finance, from education or from any sector of the economy, we all came here with one common purpose. Regrettably, those on that side of the House — the Jimmy Jones–juice drinkers over there, the cult followers of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, those who say he can do no wrong….

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: Yeah. The Minister of Education says: "Keep it up. We'll get some quotes." That's the extent of discourse in this place. "Say something so that I can throw it back at you two months from now."

           It has pissed me off from the day I got here, and it will piss me off until I leave the place.

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

           J. Horgan: I withdraw, hon. Speaker. I withdraw.

           But this famed decorum….

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down, please.

[1645]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Members.

           Continue, Member.

           J. Horgan: But it is laughable. For those at home to hear the "shame on you…."

           The famed decorum that takes place in this chamber. We saw it today in question period — the roars of laughter, the roars of approval, the roars of disapproval. The public, the people at home, the people that are working every day to pay the bills don't understand what the heck we're doing in this place.

           When we stand up and speak passionately for the people that put us here…. "You're out of order. Shame on you." I don't know. I've been around this place for a long, long time, and it's days like today that just….

[ Page 9893 ]

What do people at home think is going on here? Are they concerned about what I'm saying? Perhaps.

           Interjection.

           J. Horgan: Go ahead, Burrard. I missed that. Come again.

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair, and that includes members on the government side.

           Continue, Member.

           J. Horgan: Now, I appreciate that I get under the skin of the members on the other side, and I'm delighted to do that.

           I haven't had an opportunity to talk about B.C. Hydro and the rate increases that are coming because of an ideological drive to create an artificial market for electricity for independent power producers. I want to touch on that just briefly and not use up too much of my time before I get to the Western Forest Products giveaway by the Minister of Forests. I know he's anxious to hear what I have to say on that matter.

           I'll only spend a few moments on the resulting rate increases from B.C. Liberal energy policy. In 2002, hon. Speaker, you'll recall that the Minister of Energy came into this place and said: "B.C. Hydro is not broken, but I'm going to try and fix it anyway. I'm going to take a Crown corporation that's served the province of British Columbia very ably and very well for generations, providing a dividend to the taxpayers so that we can fund our education, our health care programs, and I'm going to say that you can't generate new sources of energy. You are precluded from creating your own power. You have to buy new sources of supply from the private sector."

           On the surface one would think that's not such a bad thing. I mean, there's expertise, certainly, in the private sector with respect to construction, and so on, but what we miss in this is that B.C. Hydro doesn't have a profit motive. Its motive is to serve its ratepayers — least cost, most affordable, less intrusive on the environment. That's their objective.

           What's the objective of the independent power producers? Profit. Why wouldn't it be? I don't blame them for wanting to make a profit. I encourage them to want to make a profit. But why would we take a public utility that has served us very, very well and say: "You can only buy power from one source; you can only buy power from one group of people"? They happen to be contributors to the B.C. Liberal Party. That's an aside. We'll put that over here for a moment.

           Why would you say to a company that's working well, serving all the people of British Columbia: "You must buy high-cost, low-value power to meet the needs of this generation and generations in the future"? Well, that was B.C. Liberal policy in 2002.

           They made matters worse in 2007, because then they said, "We want to be self-sufficient. We don't want B.C. Hydro to do what they have been doing for decades" — playing the markets, as entrepreneurs would do, as free-enterprisers would do, and finding the least-cost energy with the least social and environmental impact and purchasing that for the people of B.C., for ratepayers. That's what they've been doing for years and years.

           Hon. J. Les: In Pakistan.

           J. Horgan: The member, if he's going to make a jibe, should know what he's talking about. I'm happy to go outside with him and explain Pakistan to him without….

           Interjection.

           Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, can we please direct remarks through the Chair. This is not a conversation between members.

           Continue, Member, and through the Chair.

           J. Horgan: Madam Speaker, I regret that I've had to sit down so many times today, but that's largely my fault, certainly not yours. If it gets a little bit of life into the back bench of the B.C. Liberal Party, then that's probably a good thing too.

[1650]Jump to this time in the webcast

           We were talking about B.C. Hydro. In 2007 the Minister of Energy said: "Not only are we going to restrict where you can purchase your power; we're going to give you a date certain where you can only buy from one source. Inside the province of British Columbia you're going to only be able to buy power…. Even in high water years, even when we don't need the power, you're going to have to buy it from our friends in the Independent Power Producers Association."

           Ridiculous policy. Not just the B.C. NDP's saying that; the Independent Business Federation is saying that. The industrial users are saying that. The large industrial users of electricity are saying: "Why is it that the budget documents say that the mid-Columbia price, the benchmark price for electricity today, is 50 bucks a megawatt hour? Why is this government telling B.C. Hydro to buy power from independent power producers at $88 a megawatt hour?"

           Let's do some quick math for those on the other side. That's 38 bucks a megawatt hour more than the market would charge. Does that make economic sense to you, hon. Speaker? It doesn't make sense to….

           Interjections.

           J. Horgan: The member for West Vancouver — wherever it is up there toward Whistler…. You know, as long as we're building dams in her neighbourhood, she's happy as she could be. Her constituents aren't too happy about it. In Squamish the Ashlu Creek has been given away to independent power producers. What's the benefit to the community? Higher electricity prices.

           Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is drawing short. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to talk a little bit

[ Page 9894 ]

about our friends at Western Forest Products, who came to the Minister of Forests saying: "Well, we have a bit of a bad patch here, hon. Minister. The industry is on its knees. What can you do for us?" The minister said: "Well, why don't we allow you to release your private lands from tree farm licences?" This is a covenant that's been in place for 50 years in the province, certainly here on Vancouver Island. The minister let those lands go.

           I want to read a poem. I know the top cop will enjoy this. This was sent to me by a constituent at the height of the debate over the Western Forest Lands giveaway by the Minister of Forests. It's an interesting poem. It's by our friend Anonymous, but I'm sure the members on the other side will enjoy it. It goes as follows:

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But lets loose the greater felon
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire to break the law;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.

That's from a constituent of mine, and that really rings true with the Western Forest Products deal. We look back at what could have been. What could we have done?

           I know the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head…. It looks like she's going to be following me in debate, which should be fun for her. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head should have known, as the Minister of Community Services, that releasing that much land in the unincorporated area on the west coast of Vancouver Island right when these people are in the midst of a governance study to review how they want their community to evolve, right when they're in the midst of looking at their official community plans and looking at new government structures…. Why would you release that much land into the marketplace? It's inconceivable.

           What could we have done for the price of that land? We don't know the final cost of the real estate transaction, because events have overtaken us, and the Capital Regional District has made some zoning decisions. They've downzoned some of the land to make it forest-only or restricted the type of activity that can take place. But we know that roughly 50 million to 70 million bucks is about the going price for 1,200 hectares of land on the west coast of Vancouver Island. What could we have done in my community for that $70 million, for lack of 70 million bucks that the Minister of Forests seemed to think Western Forest Products needed?

           Why didn't we instead go to the first nations in my community, the Pacheedaht people, the Beecher Bay band and the T'sou-ke Nation? Why didn't we go to them and say: "How can we reconcile with you? How can we come to a treaty by using these lands to meet your objectives for community development? Why didn't the government purchase those lands and use them for treaty settlement? For 50 million bucks to up to 70 million bucks, why didn't you use that to resolve outstanding issues with first nations in my community? Why didn't you use that…?

[1655]Jump to this time in the webcast

           If you wanted to give money to Western Forest Products, why didn't you write them a cheque? Why didn't you just write them a cheque? Why didn't you buy it off them and put it to public use?

           It was traded in the 1950s for access to public lands, and the minister knows that. He broke the covenant. He gave the land back to them, they're selling it for a song, and we could have done so much with that land.

           We could have solved treaty issues. We could have created parks. We could have put a community forest project in place. They've closed the dryland sort at Jordan River. The minister knows that. He said that it was about jobs. The jobs are gone. Thanks for nothing, Minister.

           Madam Speaker, I've had a delightful time. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

           Hon. I. Chong: I, too, take my place to respond to Balanced Budget 2008. Before I do, I would like to make some comments regarding what I just heard. I do want to keep to the budget debate. I do want to stay with relevant facts, but I cannot let a comment that was just made by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca go unnoticed.

           Being the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency, I was particularly disheartened to hear him speak of our public service employees as technocrats. It's very discouraging, when the public service works as hard as they do to deliver the services and programs for British Columbians all across this province, to have them be disparaged in such a way. I think it's reprehensible.

           For that member to call them technocrats not just once but twice…. I would hope that all members opposite, his colleagues, would rebuke his words. If they do not, then obviously, that's the impression they leave — that that's what they think of the public service. So I'm very discouraged to hear that that is the commentary we hear from members opposite.

           It's not a point of order. I'm responding to comments made during a debate, Madam Speaker.

Point of Order

           Deputy Speaker: Point of order, Member.

           J. Horgan: Yes, hon. Speaker. As a former public servant, I know full well the hard work that's done by the public service in British Columbia. My reference….

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Members.

[ Page 9895 ]

           Interjections.

           Deputy Speaker: Members, the member has the right to speak to his point of order.

           J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It was leading to a withdrawal of any remarks that may well have offended the minister or the good people that make this province run each and every day. My reference to technocrats may well have been inappropriate. It was actually directed at members of the executive council.

Debate Continued

           Hon. I. Chong: It just goes to show that…. I know that at times here in this chamber emotions can run high and that rhetoric obviously can run as high. It is important that we choose our words carefully, because those who listen and who may not have the opportunity to later hear subsequent withdrawals or apologies do not understand the context with which words are spoken here.

           I will accept that from the member, but I would certainly caution others to remember that the public service do a good job for all of us here in British Columbia, as they did in other administrations.

           I'm responding to Budget 2008. I want to state most emphatically and most passionately at the very start that I am supporting Balanced Budget 2008. My first question to the members opposite is: are you? Because very, very….

           An Hon. Member: No.

           Hon. I. Chong: Oh, I heard a no. So now we have it. At least one member has admitted no.

           I've heard an awful lot of negativism. I've heard an awful lot about the things they don't agree with, but if they are going to stand up when the budget vote is taken and say that they're not going to support it, then I guess they're not going to support all the additional dollars that are going to be invested in their communities, all the additional dollars that are going to build our health care system, all the additional dollars….

           Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, take your seat, please.

           Now I am addressing my remarks to the opposition. I insisted on decorum from the government benches while your member was speaking. I ask the same, please, while this member is speaking.

           Continue, Minister.

[1700]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. I. Chong: As I was saying, I have to wonder exactly what this NDP opposition stands for. On the one hand, members rise and say that we need to invest more money in health care. So we've invested more money in health care, and they're not going to support the budget.

           They say that we need to invest more money in our remote and rural communities. We're putting more dollars into our remote and rural communities, and they're not going to support that. We're putting more dollars into education, and they don't want to support that.

           Even the BC150 cultural fund that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke spoke about in his private member's statement the day the budget speech was delivered…. Are you not going to support that, Members?

           It's very hard to get a read on exactly what the NDP opposition stands for, because there's so much they don't stand for. But then they don't exactly say that that's not what they stand for.

           Today was a really interesting day because there was a challenge to the members opposite. There was a challenge to find out exactly where they are, because we haven't heard a lot of decisions from that side — a lot of rhetoric, but certainly no decisions.

           Madam Speaker, let's talk about Balanced Budget 2008. It has been noted as one of the most visionary, one of the boldest and one of the most exciting budgets ever. People across Canada….

           The members opposite don't have to just read the local papers and hear the newscasts that are done in their communities or in the province here. Right across the country we are getting glowing remarks on this. In fact, the people who are looking at our Balanced Budget 2008 and at our revenue-neutral carbon tax are wondering, I believe, how soon they can implement it and catch up. British Columbia has become a leader in so many other ways, and this is yet another piece of policy that other jurisdictions are wanting to follow.

           Budgets truly are a reflection of our province's strength. There's no question at all that this province is strong, and we will still perform strong in the next number of years in spite of what is going on around us, in spite of the other jurisdictions, the other provinces and even Canada not performing as well.

           Why is that? It's because our Finance Minister has put in five levels of prudence in the budget. We have monitored it consistently. We have watched how our revenues have changed as a result of natural gas prices, as a result of what's happening in the U.S., as a result of the American dollar.

           I can tell you that we have adjusted to it. We have been able to adjust to it because we have a strong economy, because we diversified very early in our term as government to ensure that we were not solely dependent on one area. We have seen mining exploration quadruple or, I think, go up 1,300 percent, as the Minister of Mines would tell you. We have seen our oil and gas industry do extremely well. Even in our financial area, our retail market — extremely well. All this is because we have focused on the economy.

           You know what? In 2001 we were scoffed at, at that time. "Oh, you can't spend your time thinking about the economy." But a strong economy is exactly what has allowed us to reinvest those dollars back into the social programs and all of the health care and education spending that those members opposite have been asking for.

           If we were to go back to 2001 or 2000 or even 1999 and take a look at the policies in place at that time, we

[ Page 9896 ]

would end up in the same place we were then, with people leaving the province, jobs leaving the province and investments virtually nil. Where would we be? We would have a credit rating that was still being downgraded on a fairly consistent basis. We would have a debt-to-GDP ratio that was in the 20 percentile as opposed to now in the 14 or 15 percentile.

           That is a huge, huge advantage we have in this province — to have our credit rating agencies believe in this province and to consistently allow us to have a lower credit rating so we don't pay as much interest in debt servicing.

[1705]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I have spoken to constituents in my area, and they are pleased with what they're seeing. They're not saying that there aren't challenges out there, but they're pleased to know that we have a government that is able to adjust to the opportunities that are there when those challenges present themselves as well.

           We have looked at our health care system. Through the Conversation on Health, we know that we are going to have to allow people more choice. We're also going to have to ensure that accessibility and sustainability in our health care system are maintained.

           On the environmental front, as well, sustainability has always been a priority with our government. Again, with this revenue-neutral carbon tax, that can be achieved. Now, I've heard members opposite disparage this revenue-neutral carbon tax, throwing out examples, if you will, of how it may or may not help families. But if you take a look at the budget documents, if you actually go into them, we have given examples where people may not make those choices. They will still, in some cases, either break even or, in fact, have a return because of the tax reductions they're going to see.

           The $100-per-person, one-time climate action dividend — do you know what that means in my area, in the Greater Victoria area? We have about 360,000 people who live in the capital region. At $100 per person, that is $36 million that we will see in this area alone. That's $36 million in people's pockets, which if they choose to put aside to deal with the carbon tax, fine. But if not, if even half of that is returned to our economy, that's $18 million in our local economy. That is an important part of choice.

           Interjection.

           Hon. I. Chong: I hear voices, as I expect will happen during this debate regarding the carbon tax. I guess it comes down to this. If you don't understand it, I guess you're going to have to be negative about it. The opposition was calling for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. They wanted it to be broad-based. They wanted it to be fair. They wanted it to be equitable. Well, if you take a look at the documents, that's what it is. Others who have reviewed it have spoken about it, have written about it and have agreed that's what it is. Perhaps the only argument they can make is to disagree with that.

           We are in a state, now, where we do have a strong economy, where we are able to have that power of a strong economy give us the choices that we need. We're able to focus our attention not just for today, next week, next month or even next year. It is absolutely about the next generation that will follow, the legacy we want to leave for our children, the legacy we want to leave for our grandchildren. This budget will be that path that gets us there.

           It's pretty amazing to stop and have a look at where we have come from. I was first elected to this Legislature in 1996 with a few of my colleagues that I see are still here. I recall in 1996…. I know members don't like to hear that it was a dismal decade, but I can tell you that when I saw young families — friends of mine, in fact — packing their bags and leaving because there was no opportunity in this province for those young families — and sometimes husbands leaving their wives and children behind — it was pretty sad.

           That is not where I want to take this province back to. But every time I hear the members opposite speak about how they would like to change things, it seems they want to change it back to the '90s, back to the way it used to be. I, for one, will do everything possible to not let that happen.

           It is important to contrast where we are and where we have come from. We've turned the economy around. We were in last place in Canada. Now we're in first place. We were a have-not province. We are now a have province. We had constant credit downgrades. We have the highest credit rating now, a triple-A credit rating, for the first time in 20 years.

[1710]Jump to this time in the webcast

           These are just small items perhaps, but it makes a huge difference to how this province is perceived. Our government has restored our status. We have seen 400,000 jobs created since December 2001. We have seen record investments. We have seen more people returning to British Columbia, and as the saying goes, there are more jobs than there are people. Most importantly, I do believe and I do see the optimism and a sense of hope that wasn't there in the 1990s.

           Balanced Budget 2008, as the Minister of Finance outlined, is one that is focused on climate change for this year. But if we go back to how she has presented her budgets in the past…. I think it's important to reflect on the importance of how she has presented those budgets.

           The first budget that she presented provided enhanced supports for seniors, and the next one was for children. The next one, which was last year — and an important one; I heard all members speak about it — was a budget that left a legacy for housing. This year, again, is about climate change. This is about having a greener, healthier future for our province, our communities and our people.

           In addition, this year we are going to be celebrating our 150th birthday — our sesquicentennial. It is so important to be able to do it at a time when our economy is in fact robust. We can embrace our diversity that we have. We can celebrate all that our communities have achieved, and we have achieved much in our communities. As the Minister of Finance pointed out, it is a perfect point of reflection.

[ Page 9897 ]

           It is a time to celebrate how far we've come, to now look closely at some of the new challenges we face, and in so facing those new challenges, to take the steps necessary to build a better future for generations to come. It is about making our communities even better places to live and making the best place on earth an even better place.

           All of us have to make choices. All of us can do our part to ensure that our communities are sustainable. The choices that we make together as a province, as community members, as families, and as individuals are important. We may not think so on an individual basis, but collectively, they will add up to much.

           Now, I want to believe that the members opposite are truly concerned about the environment. I know they talk about it, but the signals they're giving and the signals they're casting about really leave me a little bit in doubt. I'm really still not sure whether they support the key feature of this budget: our revenue-neutral carbon tax. I still don't know.

           I have seen some quotes from some of the members where they said that a carbon tax could work because it's simple and predictable. They've also said that the NDP won't repeal the carbon tax. So it sounds as if they support it. But then they go on to think: "Well, the difficulty I have with a carbon tax is that I think it's punitive." There's another member saying that. So I don't know.

           You better have a good caucus meeting one night, because I think there's half of you who believe the carbon tax is a good initiative and the other half doesn't. But at the end of the day, you are going to have to vote. You are going to have to make a decision. I know that's very tough for the members opposite, but it's going to have to happen. That's why you're a caucus.

           I challenge them to come clean. Maybe over the weekend they can think about it. But even if the Leader of the Opposition would come out and say whether their caucus supports it or not…. I know we had to wait a long time to hear whether they supported the treaty. I know we had to wait a while before we knew what they felt about the Port Mann Bridge. I know we'll have to wait for them on the carbon tax, but we're prepared to wait, just as long as they tell us where they stand.

           I think British Columbians want to know where they stand. I think British Columbians would like to know, finally, where they stand on that. So I'll challenge them. They have the weekend — maybe even the next week, because I don't know when the vote will be taken. They have up until then to really tell us whether they support the revenue-neutral carbon tax and whether they support all the measures in this budget — all the additional services that are being provided in their communities.

           As I mentioned earlier, one of the key features of the budget is our revenue-neutral carbon tax. I for one believe it will make a tremendous difference, because it is about people having choices and also about deciding whether they're going to act on that choice, whether they're going to change their attitudes about how they conduct their lives and how they decide to use the resources that we have in our province.

[1715]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Right across this country, as I say, political leaders, community leaders, environmental leaders are all noting that this is the right step to take.

           So how this initiative will continue to play out in our communities…. I'm sure the members will bring forward some of the negative stories they hear. They won't bring forward the positive stories, and I know there will be plenty. I know that there is a win-win in this initiative.

           We've set targets that we're going to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2020. That's a positive. Are they telling me that they don't believe we should cut our greenhouse gas emissions? Is that what the NDP are saying: "No, let's leave the greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise"? If that's what they're saying, they should say so, because that's not what we're saying. We are going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by one third by 2020. That's a win for our planet. That's a win for our people.

           Consumers, business people, industry — $1.8 billion in tax relief coming back. Incentives to make cleaner, greener choices. That's a win. But I don't know. Members opposite will have to think about whether it's a win or not.

           Most importantly, though, the win goes to the whole new next generation of British Columbians who will be following after us — and the one even after that — and who will know that the sustainable choices we make today will leave them with a better place, which they will inherit.

           What is also great that I see about this particular initiative is that it really does give people choices about their actions. It's a choice about how they want to live, a choice about the changes they're willing to make to support a better tomorrow. If people choose not to take that choice, that's fine too. They will have to pay the price.

           As the minister responsible for community services for local governments, I can tell you that I see local governments are, in fact, making a choice. Local governments are coming forward with ideas to be greener, ideas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their communities. While many of them have signed on to our climate action charter…. It was evidenced at the UBCM last year. Representative after representative came on stage and presented their climate action charter to the Premier and said that they wanted to be a part of it.

           They know that they are decision-makers, they know that they are community leaders, and they know they have a responsibility to the citizens who elected them to make their communities greener. While they are not required to be carbon-neutral as a local government until 2012, some of them have already decided that they're going to set their target much sooner. That's because they know that this is their choice. They're willing to do it, and the sooner they get there, the better it is for their citizens.

           I was very pleased to know that as many as 80 members, I believe it was, had signed their charters last

[ Page 9898 ]

year. We are up to close to 100 communities now that have signed the B.C. climate action charter. I know that that number will continue to grow.

           I have watched over the course of the last year, as I say, the incredible leadership of many of those local government leaders. They have shaped their green initiatives. They're sharing them with each other. As they bring them forward at the next UBCM, we will see some of the best ideas and some of the brightest initiatives. Those that are the best are going to be rewarded, and we will see the second annual Green City Awards presented to those local governments.

           I am proud to be involved in the ministry that I am — a response for the ministry for local governments — because I have the opportunity to advance our green cities program. Our green cities program offers a variety of initiatives to help our communities become greener, healthier, more livable communities.

           Our LocalMotion program that was introduced in 2006 — where we were investing $40 million over four years to build bike paths, walkways and trails — provides options for British Columbians to not only burn calories but to not burn fossil fuels on their way to work, to school, or shopping. I heard members opposite — in fact, the member for Saanich South — talk about how important it was to have pathways and walkways. Well, he should support our initiative. He should support our program.

           Our $20 million Spirit Squares program, again, to celebrate our 150th birthday — but not just that. It's about bringing the community together year after year, beyond 2008, where they can celebrate their civic pride, their community spirit, and have an outdoor atmosphere to do that.

[1720]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Our Towns for Tomorrow program — $21 million over three years — is helping our smallest communities, our municipalities with populations under 5,000, to be cleaner, greener, more energy-efficient and more sustainable. Many of these are our rural and remote communities. When I hear members opposite saying we're neglecting them, well, half of our municipalities are populations of under 5,000, and this was a program specifically designed for them. I didn't see the NDP bring in a new program specifically for our rural-remote communities.

           In addition to that, they know that we doubled our small community protection grants and regional district grants. Again, they had an opportunity to do that. The NDP had an opportunity to do that when they were in government. They didn't do it. The majority of those dollars, again, are going to our small communities, which are mostly rural and remote.

           So I have to wonder, when they rise and talk about their small communities, who are they talking about? Because they had forgotten them when it came to providing them with extra resources. Every step of the way, these initiatives, these programs, these services that help our local government — they voted against them. I don't recall them voting for them. They voted against them.

           Communities throughout the province have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars — in fact, millions of dollars — into local infrastructure. We have partnered with them to do that. We have seen that, cumulatively, millions of dollars have been invested into cleaner water and better parks, trails, community centres and recreation.

           I can say to you, Madam Speaker, that is how you build communities. That is how you support communities. That is how you make them more sustainable. That is how you ensure investment continues to flow in those communities so that they can be sustainable, so that they can look at diversifying and not be dependent on one resource in those communities.

           At the end of the day, the NDP voted against all these initiatives to help our local communities.

           Interjection.

           Hon. I. Chong: It is a shame.

           I just want to share with you some of the projects in this area that have been supported. They're all around this region. They're not in one particular electoral area. Recently $2 million went to the Gordon Head Recreation Centre — yes, that's in my riding — and $800,000 went to the Cordova Bay Community Place in the member for Saanich South's riding.

           In Langford, $1.4 million for the city centre park project — member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. In the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin's riding, $2 million to the Esquimalt-Craigflower road. At the University of Victoria, which we all benefit from, $94.5 million for the Pacific institute for climate solutions.

           Another $1.3 million was invested for two additional gamma cameras at the Royal Jubilee and Victoria hospital. These are hospitals that all of us in the capital region depend upon. Also, $18.8 million to the state-of-the-art emergency department expansion at Victoria General. I can tell you that the doctors and the health care providers there were ecstatic that finally their emergency room and emergency department was being expanded and being made more functional.

           Of course, one of the largest projects in this area, one that I think has been long overdue — I know I've spoken about it, and my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands has advocated for it — is the $182 million towards the over-$300-million project, Royal Jubilee Hospital. A project that has been long overdue: a new patient tower.

           It's pretty important that that particular project, that health capital spending, takes place. If any one of us in this building…. There have been a few who have, unfortunately, taken ill and have been needing medical attention. That's the hospital we will go to, which is finally going to be upgraded.

           In terms of public transit.…. This is what I find appalling — that members opposite have said there are no dollars for public transit. Well, 18 new double-decker buses for Victoria — a $5.6 million investment.

[1725]Jump to this time in the webcast

[ Page 9899 ]

           I think you can see that there have been dollars spent around every community in this region to ensure that there is an opportunity for people to be cleaner and greener. I know in particular…. I was on Saltspring on behalf of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Minister for Advanced Education, and they were ecstatic that they received two community buses in their area. They were glad that, finally, these smaller buses — not the large buses — would come to their region.

           Most interesting, of course, is that these buses are community buses that don't even require bus stops. They just flag the bus driver over. That's how that community has reacted to those community buses.

           I know my time is getting short. It's all too often that we find our time short, but when the budget is so full of so much good news, it's hard to concentrate on only the very smallest of areas.

           I do want to reiterate how important it is to support this budget where we have real dollars going into all of our communities — where the local governments, in addition to our community leaders, are looking forward to what we can do in terms of moving their communities forward.

           At the end of the day, I think it's pretty clear. On this side of the House, we support lower taxes. I'm not sure about that side of the House. On this side of the House, we want a strong economy for more jobs. I'm not sure on the other side of the House because they keep voting against it. This side of the House wants to see us continue to go forward and be leaders in every way possible, but not according to that side of the House.

           We see in Balanced Budget 2008 supports for British Columbians most in need, as well as $438 million over four years on programs and services to strengthen social services. I'm looking forward to seeing how those will evolve, because I know that the ministers responsible have worked with their community providers to ensure that that takes shape. I'm also excited about the additional dollars I see in our ministry and that we're able to ensure that infrastructure continues to take place.

           We are reaching a time where we have unprecedented population aging that will happen. I know our seniors are a very important part of that. They will continue to be an important part of our society. I'm glad that the work I have for myself, with Aging Well in place, will continue.

           H. Bains: It is my privilege and honour actually to stand here and talk about the vision that is needed in this province. Every government comes in, and every year they try to put their vision through the budget and through the throne speech. Let's examine whether we have some of the vision and the planning that is needed for the ordinary working families in this province.

           [H. Bloy in the chair.]

           Since the budget was delivered, I have spoken to a number of my constituents. Their reaction is: another year, another budget, another big disappointment for the ordinary families and the working people.

           Every year around this time people right across this province wait in anticipation that there will be something in this budget that will provide them the relief they need in their daily lives. Every year they hope that perhaps this is the budget that will set the stage for them — the ordinary working people who work hard to help their families.

           Every day they spend in the economy and pay their taxes. Every day they play their part and make a difference in their communities. Every day they live in their neighbourhoods as outstanding exemplary citizens to get ahead in their lives.

           Every year for the last seven years, they're delivered bad news by this government — every year. News of no relief for them. Instead, economic elites get the tax breaks. Multinational corporations are again given tax subsidies and get a free hand to take the resources that belong to the public right out of this province — to other countries — instead of reinvesting into the communities where those resources came from.

[1730]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Right under the nose of the ministers and of this government…. Nothing is done to stop those logs that are leaving our province to produce jobs in other countries rather than producing here. That is shameful. That is a disappointment. As a result, year after year ordinary working families continue to fall behind. There's no wonder that the children living in poverty in this province is the highest in Canada.

           Interjection.

           H. Bains: I'm not making that up. Those are the statistics of the government.

           Every year the highest number of people living in poverty is here in this province. The number continues to increase, and as a result, we have the highest numbers. There is nothing in the budget for them to deal with those issues.

           The ordinary working people are asking: is it too much to ask of their government that they will get the required resources to make their communities healthy and safe? Is it too much to ask that they could go to sleep at nighttime, put their kids in bed without having a fear of having a break-in or hooligans and drug deals in their neighbourhood and noises at two o'clock in the morning?

           Is it too much that they get health care services in their communities when they need it, where they need it? Is it too much to ask? That's exactly what was promised. Is it too much to ask that when one of their loved ones has to go and visit the local emergency ward, they will not have to wait six, seven, eight hours in pain and agony?

           Is it too much for ordinary working people to ask of their government that to travel to and from their workplace, their travel is made easier and affordable? Is it too much to ask of this government that the health and safety is improved and enhanced at their workplaces?

[ Page 9900 ]

           Is it too much to ask that their children will be able to afford post-secondary education without getting into further and further debt loads? Is it too much for moms and dads who have to both work these days — to put food on the table and buy the basic necessities in their lives — to have quality child care where they can leave their children when they're at work?

           Is it too much for them to ask that our younger people that are getting into the workforce will be able to buy a house to live in and to raise their children? Instead, when they're leaving their education institutions to get into the workforce, our students are the heaviest in debt load. They carry the heaviest debt load in the country, about $27,000.

           Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat for one moment.

           D. Hayer: I ask for leave to make an introduction.

           Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

           D. Hayer: I would like to introduce Tom Jones, president and CEO of Teal-Jones Group, and John Pichugin, manager of engineering and forestry from Teal-Jones Group. They are both from a sawmill in my constituency — very good business people and very good constituents who create over 1,000 jobs in my constituency, good friends and community leaders in British Columbia.

           They're always helping everybody, including the Tynehead Hall, which is more than 100 years old and which I had talked about. They are the ones who used the sawmill in that area in Surrey before, and they helped with the construction of the Tynehead Hall. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1735]Jump to this time in the webcast

Debate Continued

           H. Bains: As I was saying, people all across this province in resource communities wait in anticipation that their resource-based communities will get the support that they need to have their communities flourish and have those workers who live in those communities have family-supporting jobs, who are actually leaving those communities right now.

           Is it too much that our young people coming out of high schools, who are trying to get into the workforce, get the required skills through apprenticeship programs so that they can get into a trade category, into a skill category — so that they can be ready for this new economy and so that they are competitive with the rest of the world?

           That's not too much to ask. Those are the basic, fundamental needs of every society, and this government has failed them, in every one of those items that I mentioned, again this year in this budget.

           Now, let's examine each one of those areas that I talked about. I'll talk about health care. I live in a city and in a constituency that for the last seven years…. They're asking this government for help in their health care service at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Every year they are given a promise that, yes, we will expand the emergency ward. Yes, we will build another ambulatory unit in Surrey to help those patients who are waiting in the lineups in the emergency wards for six, seven, eight hours, every day.

           As we speak, probably that's what's happening out there. Every year they are disappointed. Again in this budget they're hardly…. If you go to the Surrey Memorial Hospital right now, look around. The minister, the Premier and all of the other government-side MLAs go there with huge fanfare to make announcement after announcement. Not a shovel has gone into the ground yet. No activity to construct any of the expansion — none whatsoever. Seven years have gone by. In the meantime people continue to hurt, continue to wait, continue to see if their loved ones can be looked after in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

           This is an example of how arrogant and how uncaring this government has become. In last year's estimates I asked the Minister of Health: "My understanding is that the construction schedule for those promises that they made — for expansion of the emergency ward and for building of the ambulatory unit — have been delayed. Can you explain why? Why do people in that region have to suffer longer?"

           You know what, Mr. Speaker? The minister's response was: "Oh well. What's the big deal about a few months of delay?" What's the big deal about a few months' delay? I asked the Premier, I asked the minister, and I asked every member, especially those members who live in that region, to talk to the mother who took her child to emergency.

           The doctors are overloaded. The staff is overloaded. They're trying to see as many patients as possible. They don't have time to spend enough time with patients to diagnose them properly.

           Guess what. The child, 18 months, was sent home without proper diagnosis. Two days later the child died. Tell that to the mother — that a few months' delay doesn't matter.

           Tell that to the family that I just visited a few weeks ago. They took their father to Surrey Memorial Hospital. The kind of lack of treatment and the disappointment that they received…. Today they told me in their living room: "If we had not taken our father to Surrey Memorial Hospital, our father probably would have been alive today."

           This is the feeling that has been created in that region because of lack of caring and lack of attention by this government. I say: shame on this government. Shame on that minister who said: "Who cares about a few months of delay?"

[1740]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Talk to this young man who came to my office the other day, who took his grandmother…. It took them nine hours to diagnose. The mother was suffering from a stroke. The family believes that if proper care was given in due time, they probably would have

[ Page 9901 ]

prevented the seriousness of the condition. Go talk to them.

           I don't understand how those members who live in Surrey-Tynehead, in Langley, in Cloverdale can't stand up to the minister, stand up to the Premier and say: "Look, we need those services, and we need them now."

           The community has done everything, because they know what they need in that community. The community raised over half a million dollars in one day through a radiothon. Radio FM did this — one day, over half a million dollars.

           The staff and the workers at Surrey Memorial Hospital are doing everything they can. Despite all of their efforts, this government is showing arrogance. This government is dismissive of the needs of Surrey. Have they delivered in this budget on the needs of Surrey for health care services when they're needed, where they're needed? They've got a big huge F from Surrey on health care.

           There's another issue. We could talk about the health care problems in that hospital and right across this province until morning. We still won't have enough time to cover everything, but there are other important issues that those families expected this government to deal with.

           There is a huge problem of crime in our neighbourhoods. Instead of investing more money, this budget has cut the budget for the police force. For policing, the budget has gone down this year.

           I would like the ministers on that side…. Maybe then they could understand what we're going through in our communities. I've had over half a dozen neighbourhood meetings in Surrey-Newton alone, and I can tell you that it's right across Surrey. At every meeting that I held, it was the same theme — that we are prisoners in our own homes.

           There are people in their neighbourhoods, in their neighbourhood parks, in their schools up till two o'clock, three o'clock in the morning every day of the week — broken glass, noise, vandalism. These are the people that need to get up in the morning to go to work. These are the people who need to take their kids to school in the morning. They are disrupted every night, every day of the week.

           If you really don't believe it, here are some of the stats. The city of Surrey talked to the population. This is what they said. Eighty percent of the citizens believe that over the past five years crime in their community has increased. Eighty percent said that. What does this government do? Cuts the budget for policing.

           They were asked: "Do you believe the justice system adequately deals with crime?" Ninety-six percent said no, and 91 percent of the residents said that their federal politicians, their provincial politicians and their municipal politicians are not doing enough to deal with crime in their neighbourhood. That says a lot about this government. It says a lot about how they are dealing with crime in the neighbourhoods — according to the residents out there, not whatsoever.

           You know what? When you really read some of the e-mails that they sent when they were participating in these surveys, it is heart-wrenching, scary.

           Here's what one of them said: "Police in general do a good job and do care but only do what they can with what they have. They just do not have the manpower to attend to even a crime in progress many times." This is what one of them said.

           What do they do in this budget to deal with that? Nothing, because everything is fine, according to this government. Health care is fine, according to the minister, and it's the opposition and the citizens out there fearmongering.

[1745]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Here's another one, who said: "I do not go out at night by myself. I am very aware of who is around me."

           Another one:

           "More community policing is needed for prevention by focusing on the social and physical milieus that contribute to the crime occurrences. Identify the situations giving rise to crime. Nip the problem while still in the bud, as an old adage goes.

           "We have had everything from grow ops, drive-bys and people overdosing on our front lawn to being locked in our own home because the police are searching for someone. We have run the full range of criminal activity in our neighbourhood. We have a child in high school and in elementary. We have people, including our mailman, telling us to move."

           Has this budget dealt with this problem? Not even touched it. It even made it worse by cutting the budget for policing.

           I could go on. There's e-mail after e-mail about crime in the neighbourhood. I'll read the last one. "The RCMP do a decent job but do not have enough people, and there is not enough punishment in the court system. It seems to be in and out of the door." This says a lot about how this government deals with the crime in our neighbourhoods, in our communities, in this province.

           Let's move to another area. There seems to be a huge thing for this government with the gas tax and transit. Well, let's examine what we were getting in Surrey in that region. The big thing was: "Well, we want to move people out of their cars." Noble idea, but I think it's another catchy slogan.

           Did they do anything about that? Let's examine that. They added a gas tax of 7 cents to 8 cents per litre and — you know what? — at the same time raised the transit fare, at an even higher percentage than that. It takes $10 for someone to go to Vancouver from Surrey and come back. How does that work? You raise the cost of driving a car, but there's no alternative.

           M. Karagianis: Because you raised the cost of transit.

           H. Bains: You raised the cost of transit. Where are they going to go? Like I said, catchy slogan, but they're not serious about dealing with climate change. They're not serious about dealing with people to get them out of their cars and change their habits. Not whatsoever. It's all to do with politics, I guess. Maybe that's what they are here for, but at least they should admit that.

           How are we doing in that area? Let's talk to a truck driver. I was on a radio show one day when this announcement was made. He said: "I spend about $40,000

[ Page 9902 ]

a year on my truck." He's the owner-operator. It will cost him over $3,000 more per year — $3,000 more. He has no alternative. He has to have the truck to make a living.

           M. Karagianis: He's going to get a hundred bucks.

           H. Bains: Yeah, he's going to get a hundred dollars. Boo hoo, as the minister over there will say. It will cost the truck driver $3,000 a year. You are driving people out of their jobs with this tax, not getting people out of their cars. You're driving them out of their jobs.

           Let's talk about changing habits. In the last four years the gas price has doubled. It used to be about 55 cents a litre; now it's $1.10. Every year, Minister, we've seen more cars on the road because there's no alternative for them to take.

[1750]Jump to this time in the webcast

           How do you expect a construction worker to go to work? How do you expect a taxi driver, for whom you just raised his or her cost of driving that taxi, to tell a passenger: "Well, wait a minute. I'm going to park my car. I'll take you by bus." But there's no bus out there anyway.

           Let's be serious about what you're doing. Government, you're not. You can't fool people for too long. People know out there what you're up to. You're basically going into their pockets to take more money out. You're out to get more money out of their pockets, especially from the working people, the poor.

           But the economically elite are thanking you today. The banks are thanking you today. Oil companies are thanking you today.

           I. Black: Like Vancity.

           H. Bains: Yes, Vancity is thanking you today. All banks are thanking you today.

           But let's talk about the working people, the taxi driver and the truck driver that I talked about today. You know what? They're worried about their jobs. They're worried. Are they going to continue to have the work that they need to put food on the family table?

           If the government was serious in dealing with this problem in transit, the half a billion dollars that they gave to the gas company and the banks…. Guess what they could have done? They could have bought 500 buses that we need in Surrey now with that money — 500 buses. Deal with the problem about transit right now in Surrey. Or they could easily have put a number of rapid buses from Surrey-Newton to King George and all across the lower mainland. They could have used that money.

           Or they could actually have replaced the Pattullo Bridge — a dilapidated, old, dangerous bridge. Is there anything in the budget? None whatsoever. People are getting killed every day. The top cop has been asked time and again to do something about that bridge, and the top cop, this government, the Minister of Transportation throw their hands in the air. "It's not our responsibility."

           But whose responsibility is it to stop the killing on the Pattullo Bridge, if it's not yours? Whose is it? Let's talk about the Pattullo Bridge.

           Interjection.

           H. Bains: We'll talk about the Port Mann Bridge. Let's talk about the Pattullo Bridge. That bridge needs to be replaced now. Where's the money in the budget? Nowhere to be seen. The minister is asleep. The top cop is asleep.

           The banks and the oil companies are the only ones who are saying: "Thank you, Minister" — the only ones.

           Again, you are failing the people of this province, especially in my constituency, about the transit needs that they need. All political rhetoric. There's nothing in it for them to deal with that issue.

           Let's talk about some of the other local issues. My time is about to run out. There are a lot of issues to talk about.

           We are becoming and we have become, for good reason, a diverse society all across the province. We go out, and we ask people with skills to come and work, because we are telling them that we need those skills. But as soon as they land at the airport, we are telling them: "Your credentials are no good." No wonder doctors are driving taxis — when we have a shortage of doctors and we could use those skills.

           Has government done anything about it? Yeah, there's $5 million, I guess, in there. You need to take some bold steps to deal with that issue if you're really serious about that.

           In Ontario a Liberal government, not an NDP government, saw the necessity — that this issue needed to be dealt with. They brought in Bill 124 to deal with this issue. I put in a motion in this House to deal with this issue. Nothing has been done. Those folks continue to struggle, because they're not able to utilize their skills to the fullest of their potential. We as a province are losing because we're not using those skills. Our people are losing because they're not getting their services. Once again, they failed in this budget.

[1755]Jump to this time in the webcast

           In my constituency there's another serious issue about manufactured homes. This government basically told them, and this minister basically told them: "You're on your own, because we're going to help the developers. We're on their side." They used to get a moving expense. Now they get the 12-month equivalent of their rent. What a joke. What an insult to the homeowners of manufactured homes in this province. Time after time, they've been asking this government for support. Time after time, this government has failed them. No mention again by the minister or by this government to deal with this issue.

           Private colleges are opening up all over the place. Maybe the minister of post-secondary education can pay attention to this. Guess what. I have in my constituency dozens of those students who end up holding the bag and a debt. The money that this government sent directly to the college, and the college went under. The minister told me it's under RCMP investigation,

[ Page 9903 ]

but guess what. Those students are getting the letter from this government to pay that debt — the money that they never saw. Now they are demanding that that money be paid back.

           I tell you, a good friend of mine, Iqbal Cheema, is a community leader in my area. He says that 119 of his people — men and women who came to this country with great aspirations that they will be able to use those skills and upgrade those skills — are being robbed by this government. That's what his statement is. Everywhere I go, that's what he says.

           The forest industry is another area. Many of the residents in my constituency work in the forest industry. This forest industry used to be a thriving industry. It used to be the economic engine. How many thousands have lost their jobs in the last few years? Over 13,000 direct job losses. Over 50 sawmills have been shut down.

           What's in this budget about those workers and their families? Nothing. The minister says everything is fine in the forest industry. Everyone on that side says: "We can't do anything about it. Everything is fine." But talk to those workers and their families who are losing their jobs on a daily basis.

           We need to deal with the population that is as diverse as this province. Sometimes they end up in hospital. They don't get the food that is appropriate for their cultures. There's nothing that this government has done about that.

           I want to talk about the convention centre and the Olympics. What's in there for the women's ski-jumping team? Has anybody over there done anything about that? No — other than lip service — nothing. Has anyone written a letter to the IOC? Has anyone forced the IOC to come to the table to deal with this issue?

           Has the Premier told the Prime Minister: "Let's get the IOC and tell them that we have some basic values and principles of equality and inclusivity in this province that the IOC must agree with"? Again, lip service — nothing for those ski-jumping teams of our women.

           I think my time ran out.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Once again, it's a pleasure to rise in the House today as the member for Okanagan-Westside representing the communities of Summerland, Peachland, the district of Westside and all the residents and communities up Westside Road.

           On February 12 this House heard a throne speech that was big, bold and visionary. It presented a very far-reaching vision for British Columbia in the areas of health care, climate action, education, public safety and measures to ensure limitless opportunities for our children and our grandchildren. This vision is lofty, and it is entirely attainable because of the solid economic foundation we have in British Columbia here today.

[1800]Jump to this time in the webcast

           On this past Tuesday our government built on that solid throne speech with the introduction of Balanced Budget 2008, an economic plan that is big, bold and visionary and that complements the throne speech. It's a budget which debunks the NDP myth that a healthy, clean environment and economic prosperity for all can coexist. And it will, right here in British Columbia.

           It is a budget unprecedented in North America, and it sets a standard for progressive governments all over the western world. It's a budget about individuals, families, communities and the environment. It's about opportunity and choice.

           It's a budget made possible because of our government's steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility and to economic growth, allowing for significant, unprecedented investments in public services like health care, education, early learning, livable communities and public safety.

           You know, it's amazing that we have such a difference of opinion in this House. There are those on that side of the House that see everything in British Columbia as negative. On this side of the House we see the positive opportunities, the blueness in the sky and the great opportunity in every region of British Columbia.

           How did we achieve that? How in seven short years have all British Columbians achieved that? By working together, that's how we did it — unprecedented economic growth and opportunity. In the throne speech…. I mentioned that since we formed government — on all levels of taxation — British Columbians, small businesses and other organizations have $11 billion more in their pockets today than they had when these folks were in government.

           The member for Vancouver-Fairview — I think he sort of sums it up from an NDP perspective. You can't increase spending and not increase taxes. Ladies and gentlemen of British Columbia and small businesses of British Columbia know one thing for sure: should they ever, which we hope they never will…. That $11 billion that British Columbians enjoy today — they are coming after it. But we will work together to build opportunity in British Columbia.

           It's important that we look at our youth in British Columbia. Only a few years ago, in the year 1999-2000, unemployment for youth in British Columbia was at 14.5 percent. What is it today? It's 7.3 percent — creating opportunities for the youth of British Columbia in every region of the province. What has happened with employment opportunities and growth? Some 411,000 new jobs created in British Columbia since December 2001. The unemployment rate is at an all-time low of 4.1 percent here in British Columbia.

           The choices are clear. High youth unemployment and large welfare rolls — vote for the NDP. Economic growth, low youth unemployment and opportunity around the province — vote for the government side.

           You know, I don't like to get so worked up about this stuff, but I am passionate about British Columbia. This 2008 budget continues our commitment, led by our Premier, to put more money into the pockets of British Columbians. You know what? They know best what to do with their money. They're the ones that get up every day and go to work. They should have the right to make the choices, not big government.

[1805]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Small businesses. As Minister of Small Business, I travel extensively around the province seeing opportunities, meeting with people, working with small

[ Page 9904 ]

businesses, seeing the challenges they have and how we can work to streamline and simplify so they can continue to grow their businesses.

           This budget is all about putting money into people's pockets so they can make their choices. In this House we will have choices. This budget says that the bottom two personal income tax brackets will see a 2 percent reduction in their taxes this year and 5 percent in 2009. On this side we will vote for that. What will that side do over there? Will they vote for individuals? Time will tell, but it's about choices.

           Since we formed government in 2001 a family of four making $70,000 has had a 44 percent reduction in their annual income tax. It wasn't that many years ago that that side, which says they care so much for people, was actually taxing people who made $15,000. We made a choice on this side of the House, and they pay zero now. Some 250,000 British Columbians pay no taxes in British Columbia. Individuals making $20,000 pay 75 percent less. This side of the House made the choice to lower their taxes; that side over there voted against it. That's the way it is.

           Those making $30,000 have seen their taxes go down 40 percent by this side of the House voting in favour of those reductions. The side over there represented by the NDP voted against tax reductions for people making $40,000. I simply cannot believe it.

           This budget over three years puts $784 million more in their pockets so they can make choices. These tax reductions build on the 25 percent tax reduction we made in 2001. By 2009 all those British Columbians making $111,000 or less will actually have the lowest personal income taxes in all of Canada. Again, that's about choice.

           I believe that this side of the House — I know where I'll be voting — will be voting to put the money back in British Columbians' pockets. I see that side over there, all the things they have to see…. I think they'll be voting against hard-working families in rural and urban British Columbia. The NDP will be voting against them. Shame on you, Members.

           Let me talk about small business here for a second. Small business — unbelievable growth in British Columbia. This budget puts $255 million over three years into the pockets of small businesses.

           Interjection.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Now, this side will vote for it. Perhaps the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will vote against it. Stand up and be counted, Member.

           We will also be reducing corporate income taxes. Contrary to what members on that side of the House say, they actually create jobs. The evidence is there. Lower taxes create investment. Result: 411,000 new jobs in British Columbia.

           We hear the rhetoric from that side of the House. One day they're against tax credits. Then they stand up, and their leader — I think she may have taken a position — says that she is going to support tax credits for the film industry. Why isn't that good for all industries in British Columbia? This side of the House thinks it is, but we're going one step further. We're expanding the film tax credits to every region so that every part of the province can participate — $112 million to grow the film and TV industry across British Columbia. Now, they said they were for it, but how do you think they're going to vote?

[1810]Jump to this time in the webcast

           It's about choices. You're right; it's about choices. You know, we are also going to put an additional $15 million in for equity tax credits so that we can have more venture capital in British Columbia, assisting the brightest and the most creative ideas so that they can grow — and also $7.5 million for clean technology businesses and $9 million, as a result of the efforts of the staff and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue as they conducted the second phase of the sales tax review program.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           I want to just take a second here to say thank you to the employees, the staff at the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, who work diligently every day and who have led numerous reviews in government, including this PST review and the results of that.

           You know, some members over there heckle about these things, and that's fine. But there was a small business in Kelowna that a year and a half ago had an idea with respect to safety equipment and why certain things were taxable or not. We actually listened. We have now acted, and we have streamlined to ensure that safety equipment is tax-exempt in British Columbia.

           As we know, it's all about choices. I hear members over there talk about rural British Columbia, and I'm surprised some of them even know where it is. If they're really concerned about rural British Columbia, maybe they'll vote to give the farming community some PST review. Maybe they will.

           Maybe they will agree that the PST on all-terrain vehicles used solely for farming and aquaculture purposes will be tax-exempt. Maybe those rural NDP MLAs will stand up and support it. I know what they'll be doing on this side. They'll be standing up and saying: "Yes, we support the farmers of British Columbia."

           We will also, as a result of working with the Ag Council of British Columbia…. I have to acknowledge them because that is a great organization. Their executive director, Steve Thomson, does a wonderful job. They worked very closely with us on our streamlining process, and we're going to continue. They came forward, and they had a concern, as did some members of this House, about coloured fuel. So now all vehicles licensed as farm vehicles to use coloured fuel when travelling for farm purposes are sales tax–exempt.

           These changes build on the $120 million that was reduced in the last budget. But we look at new funding. We look at $33 million for transportation initiatives to reduce emissions from commercial truck and ship traffic at B.C. ports and, in technology, to reduce idling at truck stop and weigh-scale locations.

[ Page 9905 ]

           Now, we hear that the NDP care about that. But will they actually vote for it? I don't know. But it's an interesting scenario they have themselves in, because the member for Surrey-Whalley said on February 20: "The NDP won't repeal carbon tax." So that must mean they're for it. Will they stand in this House and vote for it or vote against it? We'll be voting for the environment on this side of the House.

           What did the Leader of the Opposition have to say? Well, I guess it depends on which day, but let me just quote this from last year, February 20: "I can't promise you that, if I were the Premier, reducing greenhouse gases won't cost you. It will." Now, that's not the same tune we've been hearing in here the last couple of days. So what is it? When is that leader going to take a position? That's what people here want to know. That's what this House wants to know. That's what British Columbians want to know.

           Let me just quote from a February 14 Voice of the Province by the Leader of the Opposition: "I think a revenue-neutral carbon tax that really looks at supporting low- and middle-income families, that is actually phased in so people can manage, that provides them with options to make changes…."

[1815]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition is now going to vote for this budget, because what did this budget do? First of all, low income. Those couples making $35,000 — what are they going to be able to get? A couple and two kids — $260 a year.

           But you know what? We understand on this side of the House that folks may have some cash issues from time to time. We all face that problem sometimes. That's why our government is going to put $440 million in the hands of British Columbians by June — $100 for every man, woman and individual over 18 years of age. It's called a climate action dividend. That's more good news for British Columbians.

           Of course, as I've mentioned earlier, we're reducing small business tax. We're reducing income taxes. It's about choices, and on this side of the House we support choices. On that side of the House they want the state to control everything. We're opposed to that. The carbon tax comes into effect on July 1. It's broad-based. It will be phased in. There's protection for lower-income households. It's revenue-neutral. That will be enshrined in legislation. It's an integrated approach.

           There does come a time when we have to all get out of the ways of the past and move to the future. Now, I realize that there are some folks on that side that are really, really stuck in the past. They actually want to turn the clock back. This side of the House sees the future, sees the opportunity for our youth, for our children, and for our grandchildren. That's what this is about. It's about creating a better opportunity.

           I've talked about small business. I've said many, many times that small business is the heartbeat of British Columbia, and it doesn't matter which regions you go to. In 2001 small business in British Columbia was in a freefall. But now what's happening with small business in British Columbia? Growing at three times the national average — 11 percent in the last three years. In British Columbia 98 percent of all the businesses are small business, and 57 percent of all the private sector employees are from small business. It is an unbelievable growth opportunity.

           Our women in small business exceed the national average. There are great organizations like Wired Woman and the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs that are leading Canada in development and opportunities.

           We've seen 33,000 new small businesses created since 2001 and 94,700 new jobs in small business. Over 370,000 small businesses in British Columbia. For the 18th consecutive quarter British Columbians' small businesses are more optimistic about their future than ever before.

           There are a lot of choices to be made. There are a lot of choices in this. The choice with respect to personal tax…. This side wants to put $784 million back into the pockets of individuals. Apparently, that side of the House wants to vote against it. That side of the House wants to vote against $255 million going into the pockets of small business operators. We are for that. We support small business.

           You know, this really is a great time to be in British Columbia. It's a great time to look at our future. It's a great time to look at education. I do have the opportunity, working with the Minister of Education from time to time, to visit schools. I can tell you there is no better time, when one is an elected official — I think this is one thing that all members in this House can agree on — than when we visit schools and see the brightness of young minds in our schools.

           One of the things that comes to mind is that recently I was up in Powell River opening a StrongStart — a new StrongStart right here at Powell River. I was up there, and let me tell you, the families and children in Powell River were smiling about that new opportunity for a StrongStart. I think all members should applaud the StrongStart program.

[1820]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Today in British Columbia we have 84 StrongStarts. The budget calls for 116 new StrongStarts next year and another 200 after that.

           Now, I know this side of the House is going to vote to continue to support our children in StrongStarts throughout British Columbia. The question is: will the members on the other side of the House stand up and vote for the children in StrongStarts all throughout the communities of British Columbia? That's what British Columbians want to know.

           You know, they talk about caring for our children. Let's put partisan politics aside. Let's do that. Let's talk about planning and expanding the world-class children's hospital in British Columbia. This side of the House is going to vote for it. What is that side going to do?

           Are you going to vote for it, or are you going to vote against it? Don't tell me that you're for people when you're voting against them. It's not right. It's not fair. You've got to come straight.

           We talk about those individuals in British Columbia that suffer from severe mental illness. We all care about that, but members should be very careful. They

[ Page 9906 ]

should be very, very careful, because there are folks out there who need intensive, sustained and complex medical treatment.

           You know what our government is going to do? We are going to build new…. And we're going to improve existing facilities at Willingdon and Burnaby which will be retrofitted and open by year-end. We're going to look at a new complex at Riverview. That's what this side of the House is going to do.

           This budget has been complimented across Canada, around North America, because it actually is balanced, in more than just the figures. It's balanced about providing the services that British Columbians need today, and it looks to the future. It looks to the future for opportunities where we can have new industries or where we can be the leading environmental province in the whole world.

           It looks to Asia-Pacific so that we can develop new a financial centre here in British Columbia, because we have one of only two international finance centres in Canada. It's right here in British Columbia. Why would the NDP be against that?

           The world has shifted. You know, rearview-mirrors are for cars, ladies and gentlemen; they're not for your life. Look to the future. Look ahead. Have a vision. Be bold. Be big.

           All of this has been done keeping an eye on the purse.

           J. Horgan: A hundred bucks for Jimmy Pattison.

           Hon. R. Thorpe: I'll tell you what. If Mr. Pattison were here, Malahat–Juan de Fuca would be the first person to want his picture with him. I was talking to one of the constituents from Malahat–Juan de Fuca today. Rick Kasper wanted me to tell the House what a great budget he thought this was.

           The vision will be driven by strong economic forces, diverse throughout the province. We've been able to do that as we look after the debt. It wasn't that many years ago…. Well, I guess it was a few years ago that we had a triple-A credit rating, and then it just went down and down.

           People worked hard, and British Columbians worked hard, and it turned around. It built and it built. We have the triple-A rating now. Debt-to-GDP is at 13.9 percent, compared to 21.7 percent in 2001.

[1825]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The success of British Columbia is about all of us working together. It's about us believing in the opportunities that British Columbia can take to the world. It's so that we can prosper. And with that great economic engine we will be able to provide sustainable health care, sustainable education in K-to-12, StrongStarts, advanced education. It's about building.

           This side of the House is committed to working for prosperity for British Columbians. I'm not sure about that side of the House. We are committed to working for a clean, sustainable environment. We are committed to looking and making sure that we have sustainable health care, not just for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren. That's what this side of the House stands for.

           We are concerned about making sure that our communities and all regions of the province are sustainable. So there is no doubt how I will vote on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Westside. I will vote in favour of this budget, because it's big, it's bold, it's visionary, and it's about our children and about our grandchildren and about the future of British Columbia.

           I invite you members to stand up, take a position, look to the future of British Columbia and vote in support of this. All your rhetoric says you care, but your actions show you don't. Take a stand. Vote for this budget. Vote for the future of British Columbia.

           Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of debate.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to wish all members a very pleasant weekend, and I look forward to seeing you here Monday morning. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

           Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

           The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guideBroadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175