Hansard — Monday, February 25, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		9925

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9926
	Reservists' Guaranteed Leave Act, 2008 (Bill M201)
	C. Puchmayr

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9926
	Lydia Shum
	J. Kwan
	R. Lee
	Guru Ravidass
	R. Chouhan
	B.C. Winter Games in East Kootenays
	B. Bennett
	Motown High
	R. Fleming
	Danielle Walker
	J. Rustad

Oral Questions		9928
	Cleaning services at health care facilities
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	Staffing at Joseph Creek residential care facility
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Call for seniors representative
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Health care services in Princeton
	H. Lali
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Funding for special needs students
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Women's ski jumping at 2010 Olympics
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Regulation of new home pre-sale agreements
	D. Thorne
	Hon. C. Taylor

Point of Privilege		9933
	L. Krog
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		9934
	Hon. L. Reid
	C. Wyse
	B. Bennett

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9947
	Reservists' Guaranteed Leave Act, 2008 (Bill M201) (continued)
	C. Puchmayr

Budget Debate (continued)		9947
	H. Lali
	Hon. P. Bell
	J. Brar
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. Coell: In the gallery today are a number of post-secondary student groups from throughout the province. From the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia, Matthew Naylor, Michael Duncan, Steph Ratjen, Tahara Bhate and Nathan Lapper are with us.

From the Student Union Society of the University College of the Fraser Valley are Mario Miniaci and Lewis Van Dyk. From Kwantlen University College Student Association are Nathan Griffiths and Ashley Fehr, and from the Langara College Student Union is Chris Vincent. They're here to meet with members on both sides of the House. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery, under the leadership of Mr. Bill Basra, president of Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha in Burnaby, we have a delegation of 32 community leaders joining us to celebrate the 630th birthday of Guru Ravidass and the 25th anniversary of the sabha. Please join me to welcome them.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have two special guests in the gallery today. Joining us from Science World in Vancouver is Paul Geyer, chair of the board of governors, and Bryan Tisdall, president and CEO. As we all know, part of Science World's mandate is to educate young minds about the wonders of science, both in Vancouver and around the province. Paul and Bryan are in Victoria today to talk to MLAs about these regional science programs. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to introduce Chanchal Mall. She's visiting from Golden and is my former neighbour. I'd just like to welcome her and have you join me in welcoming her.

D. Hayer: It is also my pleasure to welcome Bill Basra, president of Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha in Vancouver. His society promotes the teaching of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji, the visionary from 15th-century India who taught the philosophy of universal love that led to religious revival in India. Today we join Mr. Basra in celebrating the 630th anniversary of Guru Ravidass, as well as the 25th anniversary of the Vancouver sabha.

Please also join me in welcoming the delegation of 32 — which my colleague from Burnaby also said — representatives from sabha and its sister organization, Chetna Association of Canada and Shri 108 Sant Sarwan Dass Charitable Trust. Mr. Jai Birdi and Chandra Bodalia and many other community leaders are also here today. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Karagianis: In the precinct today — and I expect they will join us partway through question period — are 15 grade 11 students from Esquimalt High School. They're here with their teacher Mr. Chris Chapman and a number of adults. I expect they'll join us probably when the action starts in here. Would we all please make them very welcome.

R. Hawes: In addition to the students that were introduced earlier by the Minister of Advanced Education, we have from the UBC Alma Mater Society and the Graduate Student Society of UBC Margaret Orlowski, Stephanie Ryan, Colin Simkus, Jason Penner, Natalie Swift and Emily Griffiths. In addition, I'd like to extend a special welcome to Mario Miniaci, who is from my own community and is here with the University College of the Fraser Valley. Could the House please make them all welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are 15 parents and a number of children from École Mill Bay in my constituency. The parent group is led by Sarah Malerby and Naomi Barkley. They're here to visit with members on both sides of the House to talk about the tremendous single-track French immersion program at École Mill Bay. Would the members please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the group from Ravidass Sabha. Among the members are Chandra Bodalia, a photographer par excellence. We have Jai Birdi and Bill Basra, who are all here. I look forward to joining with them in the celebration in the weeks ahead. Welcome to the Legislature. I ask all members to please make them feel welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to join with the Minister of Advanced Education in recognizing a number of students who are also with us on the trek to the Legislature, representing a number of student unions, including the Student Union Society of the University College of the Fraser Valley, Langara Students Union, Kwantlen Student Association, the Graduate Student Society of UBC and the Alma Mater Society of UBC.

The part of the delegation that hasn't been introduced, which I'll add to the minister, is…. We're joined by Sarah Lamagna, Jessica Allen, Deedee Lapper, Alex Lougheed, Jessica Jia, Melanie Boyd, Chris Diplock, Patrick Meehan, Tristan Markle, Dana Schindel, Darren Peets, Nathan Crompton, Lisa Cheng, Blake Frederick, Brittney Tyson and Auneet Johal. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Cubberley: In the precincts today — indeed, in the gallery opposite me — is a group of teachers, staff and parents who are here from the Langley school district to present the Langley special education inquiry report to members of the Legislature. I had an opportunity to have a very informative meeting with them earlier, along with colleagues, and I look forward to further interactions.

Joining us here today are Laurence Greeff, Mina Sangha, Terry Todd, Kelly Dussen, Linda Cadieux, Jill May, Linda Braun, Cecilia Ricci, Donna Gilbert, Bev Funk, Nancy Goldstone-Hall, Susan Seminuk, Bob Bowles, Tracy Wright, Donna Mason, Gail Chaddick-Costello, Susan Fonseca and Kevin Augren. Would the members of the House please join me in making them welcome here today.

D. Routley: I would like the members of the House to help me welcome Kirpal Sandhu. He's a constituent of mine and a very dear friend. Kirpal is a man of grace and integrity, a person I respect very much. He was a former agriculture inspector in India, part of an original green revolution 30 years ago, where they applied new technologies and brought new species to a changing ecology there.

From my constituency are Heather Bosch and Julie Nygaard, two parents of children who struggle with the challenges of autism. These parents, along with others in my constituency, are forming an advocacy group. They're here to join us.

D. Chudnovsky: I, too, would like to welcome the group from the Langley school district and in particular two old — well, mature — and dear friends of mine, both of them longtime teacher activists committed to advocating for students and for teachers and for public education. Please welcome Susan Fonseca and Laurence Greeff.

R. Fleming: I have another group I'd like to introduce, who are with us today as well — five teachers from the Greater Victoria Teachers Association special education local specialist association. We have Donna Thompson, who is with Spectrum School, and Miila Pullan from Frank Hobbs Elementary. Debra Swain is also here. She's the president of the Greater Victoria Teachers Association and hails from Sundance Elementary. Leanne McCartney from Oak Bay high school and Tanya Brain from Hillcrest School.

With them are a number of other GVTA members. Their first vice-president, Diane McNally, is here. She's a special education teacher. Margie Ransford, who is the second vice-president of the association, is also here, and she teaches at Cedar middle school. Tara Arac is a teacher on call in the district.

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of the bill intituled Reservists' Guaranteed Leave Act, 2008, for first reading.

C. Puchmayr: This enactment amends the Employment Standards Act to provide job protection for reservists in British Columbia. The amendments provide for an entitlement of leave of absence from an employment for members in the reserve force who take part in certain military activities or operations inside or outside of Canada.

The amendments provide reservists in British Columbia with the right to return to their position at the end of the leave of absence that they take in relationship to their duties as a reservist or in relation to treatment, recovery or rehabilitation they undergo in respect of physical or mental health problems that result from their service as reservists.

The reservists' leave provisions apply to employers regardless of the size covered by the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Reservists must provide reasonable notice to their employers in writing before beginning and ending of leave.

With this act, British Columbia joins Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia in protecting reservists' jobs.

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

Bill M201, Reservists' Guaranteed Leave Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: I rise today to celebrate the life of a woman who brought joy and laughter to the homes of many in the Asian community. Lydia Shum was born in Shanghai but was brought up in Hong Kong and became a renowned entertainer there. She was often referred to as Fei-fei, or Sister Fei.

Lydia had tremendous presence. Her laughter was vibrant and contagious. As everything about her seemed to radiate happiness, the Asian community called her Happy Fruit. Shum had been an actress, TV host, emcee and singer for more than 40 years. Many of her most memorable performances were on Hong Kong TVB's long-running variety show Enjoy Yourself Tonight, which was launched in 1967 and ran for an amazing 27 years.

Both rich and poor watched the show regularly. Many of us grew up watching her. I certainly recall many fond memories as a child when my family gathered together to watch this humorous and entertaining family show.

Lydia Shum was and is a legend in her own right and remains very much part of the Asian community's memory and our province's heritage. Lydia will be remembered by more than her signature hairstyle, eyeglasses, her vibrant laughter and her countless TV and movie appearances in the past four decades. She will be remembered by her many contributions to our community.

In the 1980s, when Shum emigrated to Metro Vancouver where she got married and gave birth to her daughter Joyce, like so many new immigrants, she began to settle and find ways to contribute to the community. I've had the privilege to witness Lydia's charisma in some of our local charitable events — in particular, SUCCESS's annual gala fundraiser.

Although the community was aware that Lydia was battling illness in the past two years, it is with deep regret that we learn of her passing. I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Lydia's family and friends and to express our gratitude to a woman who had brought so much happiness and joy to the hearts of so many.

R. Lee: I, too, would like to take a moment to recognize the life and achievements of popular Hong Kong actress and comedian, Lydia Shum Din-Ha. Very sadly, Lydia succumbed to liver cancer last week. She considered Vancouver and British Columbia to be her home, having moved here in the 1980s. In accordance with her wishes, she will be buried in our province.

I would like to personally express to her family, friends and associates my deepest sympathies. I often saw Lydia at fundraising events held by SUCCESS. I was always touched by her professionalism and her enthusiasm for helping others.

She had strong connections to the Vancouver area, and her death will be felt among the Chinese community. Lydia's passing leaves a gulf but also a legacy in the Chinese acting community. Her contributions to the realm of film and television, which spanned the last 40 years, have reached all four corners of the earth, transcending cultural and ethnic boundaries.

Her great sense of humour endears her to all, including her fans in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In a society such as ours where we value the rich multicultural diversity we enjoy, Lydia's influence becomes that much more important and apparent. I say with confidence and pride that the positive example Lydia set will continue to inspire and encourage us all.

Today my condolences go out to her family. I join my constituents and all British Columbians in acknowledging the loss of a great woman, a fine actress and a friend to many. I would like the House to join me for a moment of silence in tribute to Lydia Shum Din-Ha.

R. Chouhan: It's a great honour to rise today and talk about a great guru. Guru Ravidass was a revolutionary saint born in 1377 in India in a community that was known as the untouchables. He spent his life speaking against the practice of segregation and inequality and proved to be a role model for communities who were victims of the caste system.

He had a vision of Begumpura, a city without any sorrows or grief where everyone had their basic needs met. He inspired and touched the lives of rich and poor, religious and secular individuals.

The first Sikh guru, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, met with him and was inspired by his philosophy. After this meeting, Guru Nanak brought some of the scriptures of Guru Ravidass. These scriptures are now included in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book for Sikhs.

Many followers of Guru Ravidass now take guidance from Guru Granth Sahib. Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha, also known as the Gilley Temple in Burnaby, is celebrating the life of Guru Ravidass from March 14 to 16 and is expecting thousands of people, including people from all over Canada, U.S.A. and the U.K. and of course from Victoria and other parts of B.C., to join in those celebrations. Everyone is welcome.

At the same time, Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha is celebrating its 25th anniversary. It is a multifaith organization that provides a safe place for many members of the Ravidass community here. It also provides a place for people of all religious and cultural backgrounds to worship, socialize and exchange information on community resources and activities.

Last Christmas the organization organized a Christmas celebration at the community centre symbolizing the importance of celebrating all religions and cultures. In 2006 sabha hosted a centennial celebration to celebrate its heritage.

B. Bennett: This past weekend the B.C. Winter Games were held in Cranbrook and Kimberley. I don't know if my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke will give a statement on the games. He was there on Thursday and Friday. I'm going to refer to the games as the Cranbrook-Kimberley winter games; he may refer to them as the Kimberley-Cranbrook winter games. That's up to him.

I want to congratulate all of the athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers. I had no idea what kind of undertaking this was. Kelly Mann, who is the CEO of the B.C. Games Society, was there with five staff. They were supported by 3,200 volunteers from the communities of Kimberley, Cranbrook and a few from Fernie and Sparwood.

An amazing undertaking. I couldn't help but think that it must have been a bit like the Allied army as it moved across Europe. You've got 1,500 young athletes. They've got to have someplace to eat. They have to have somewhere to shower. They have to have somewhere to go to the bathroom. They've got these buses running all over the place in all these different

communities, taking them from venues back to where they sleep. It was quite an enterprise. Just the food itself for that many people — the 3,000 volunteers and the 1,500 athletes and the 200 or 300 officials and coaches…. It was quite amazing.

Our community supported the event. We had higher participation in terms of attendance than I think any time before. Over at the Marysville arena there was a boxing venue. They had to double the number of seats that they had there for attendance.

There was a biathlon competition. In the Kootenays when you combine guns with skis, we're perfect. We're happy. That particular event was extremely popular. You had to get to the event by snowmobile, and there were literally hundreds of people lining up to go in the snowmobile to look at the biathlon event.

The Premier and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts were there to open the event on Thursday night. I had the pleasure of…. Not really the pleasure. It was kind of sad to extinguish the flame at the end of the games.

R. Fleming: Earlier this month film-makers, producers and others in the international film industry attended the 14th annual Victoria Film Festival. This festival has developed a great reputation in the industry as an unpretentious and professional venue for those to premiere some of the best international films and Canadian and B.C. productions.

I'd like to take this opportunity today to recognize in particular one of the festival's films from this year. It's a truly unique made-in-Victoria production, entitled Motown High, about Victoria High School, a school that boasts programs and students with incredible musical talent. Victoria High School's renowned band program is brought to life in this documentary film that is directed by Barb Hager.

This outstanding film documents the band's growth, the key personalities of its leading singers and musicians, and follows the school students on an incredible journey to Detroit to visit the birthplace of Motown sound, where they meet and record with legendary artist Martha Reeves and her own Motown student musicians.

The film conveys very well the power that music has to bring together people of totally different backgrounds and disparate geographies. The Vic High band has built their remarkable relationship with Martha Reeves from that 2005 trip to Detroit, and it was reciprocated the following year when she visited Victoria for a show at the Royal Theatre and invited Vic High's R&B band to back her performance.

This specialized music program has a 15-year history at Vic High. In 1992 the school's musical director, Eric Emde, began to develop the concept of an R&B band for inclusion in the Victoria High School music curriculum to replace the standard stage band program that had been around for 25 years. It's been a remarkable success. Over 500 students have participated in this extracurricular school band program.

The band has performed widely and even internationally. Several students have now notably gone on to successful careers in the music industry, and they credit Vic High and the Vic High R&B band program for providing them with the discipline, the training and the onstage experience to make it as musicians and recording artists.

Would the House please congratulate the film festival and the Motown High production.

J. Rustad: It's my honour today to rise and continue a story that I brought to this House almost two years ago. It's a moving story about the courageous and selfless actions undertaken by a young woman whose incredible act of bravery saved her father's life.

Caroll Walker and his daughter Danielle, who was 16 at the time, were checking on their cows in a pasture. One of the bulls required treatment, and when they approached, the bull went into a rage and charged. Caroll tried to get out of the way but was run down by the bull, which slammed him into the ground. The bull stomped on Caroll, picked him up by the horns and flipped him into the air like a rag doll, and then used his massive head as a battering ram into Caroll's chest.

The chances of surviving a bull attack are very small, and Caroll knew that the end was at hand. That's when Danielle Walker stepped up and rescued her father. This remarkable young lady charged the bull, yelling and punching the bull in the nose. She managed to distract the bull long enough for her father to crawl away to safety. This selfless act of bravery, with no thought for her own personal safety, saved her father's life.

I am pleased to inform the House that on this coming Friday, Danielle Walker will be in Ottawa receiving the Governor General's Medal of Bravery for her courageous action. I ask this House — through you, Mr. Speaker — to write Danielle Walker a letter of congratulations and recognition for her action. I also ask the House to please join me in recognizing and congratulating Danielle Walker, a true northern hero.

C. James: Last week British Columbians learned another disturbing legacy of Bill 29 and this government. Not only did the B.C. Liberals privatize hospital cleaning, but they cut back on the hours. Documents obtained through freedom of information show the B.C. Liberals reduced cleaning hours by over 150,000 hours per year. That's simply in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. It wasn't until the freedom-of-information commissioner ordered the information

released that British Columbians actually learned about what this government was really doing — putting patients at risk.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why did he keep this information hidden, and why did his government put patient safety at risk by cutting back on cleaning hours?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the opposition leader is wrong. That is the short answer. She's absolutely wrong. The information in respect of cleaning is available on the websites of both Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal, the authorities that the opposition leader has mentioned. The information with respect to the 2006 audit has been available on line since 2006.

What I'm concerned about here, though, is that we are seeing another repetition of what we saw last Wednesday, when we saw that opposition leader and that opposition Health critic get up, denigrate, criticize and condemn 11 facilities in this province for the sin of not being open yet.

Their shoddy, reprehensible homework results in them criticizing hard-working men and women who get up each and every day of the week to do the very best job they can for a great health care system in British Columbia. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

C. James: The men and women who work in our health care system do an extraordinary job, and this minister should be ashamed because it's his government who has provided no support to those people who work every single day. It's the government who has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

We all know that cleanliness is critical to infection control and to patient safety, and by cutting back on hours, the government lowered standards and put patients at risk. British Columbians are concerned. We see people come forward with stories about hospitals and cleanliness. Now we know why they have those concerns, because this government cut back 150,000 hours each year in Vancouver alone — a deliberate decision by this government to cut costs.

Again, my question is to the minister. How does a 15 percent cut in cleaning hours possibly improve things for patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely wrong. Her information is entirely flawed, as it was last Wednesday when they said what they did. Our government, through the health authorities and with the Ministry of Health, has been undertaking regular audits of cleanliness in hospitals across this province since we took office. In most instances those levels of cleanliness meet benchmarks.

Now, I'd like to be able to say that we will compare that to the record in the 1990s. But not one single audit was done by the NDP in the 1990s. They may be concerned about cleanliness, because they throw mud. They condemn facilities for the sin of not being open. In fact, they condemned Ty Watson House in Port Alberni for the sin of not being open yet.

C. James: The FOI is very clear. In the middle of the bidding process put out for the cleaning contracts, the government actually cut service levels to drive the costs down. The government actually cut the service levels in order to ensure that they got a cheaper bid. The B.C. Liberals couldn't get the same service for less, so they decided to settle for less service and put patient safety at risk.

Again, my question to the Minister of Health: will he finally admit that it was his government that decided to cut costs by making sure there was less cleanliness for patients and their families?

Hon. G. Abbott: Absolute nonsense. We have undertaken, every year and every month, comprehensive internal and external audits in respect to the cleanliness of facilities — unlike the 1990s when not a single audit was done in this area — and we are pleased with the results of those audits.

Whenever we see an occasion where there is a problem, we step in, and the health authorities address it promptly and thoroughly — unlike that former government. But again, let's go to the question of just how good they are about throwing money about.

Hon. G. Abbott: Last Wednesday they came out with a list of 106 alleged infractions. Do you know what? They duplicated 45 of those; 45 of those were duplicates. That gives you an idea of just how careless, how shoddy…. How little this opposition cares about the truth.

A. Dix: Well, these FOIs, this information shows the truth of that. For five years this minister, this group over there, claimed that cleaning standards hadn't been cut. These documents showed in that Vancouver Coastal alone, they were cut by 150 hours. The B.C. Liberals weren't telling the truth. They've been caught, and the minister is blustering today.

But I'm going to be fair to the minister. He has one defender: the private firm hired to conduct cleanliness audits. What does he say in defence of the minister's position? He says there is no correlation between cleanliness and the spread of infection. That's the government's position. That's why they cut 150,000 hours.

I want to ask the minister if he agrees with the president of Westech and if he can explain specifically why his government deliberately and with great care cut cleaning standards in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we have made no such cuts. That is a bunch of absolute nonsense coming from the same Health critic who last week disparaged facilities for not yet being open. He condemned them for not yet being open. He said there were 106 cases when, in fact, in his own little way he had managed to duplicate 45 of those. That is typical of the kind of homework that we get from the opposition Health critic.

All of the health authorities do regular internal and external housekeeping audits. For example, Vancouver Coastal….

Hon. G. Abbott: If one goes to their website currently, one will see that in 29 out of 30 cases the hospital facilities met the benchmark standard of 85 points out of 100. Do we want to improve that? Yes, we do. We want to see continuous improvement. Will we do it by duplicating what the NDP did in the 1990s of no audits at all? No, we will not.

A. Dix: The minister apparently agrees. It is astonishing when the government's position is crystallized so clearly here — and the minister seems to agree — that there is no correlation between cleanliness and the spread of infection. "Oh, throw out those 30 evidence-based studies. Throw out everything we learned from our moms and dads. This government knows better. Dirty is good for this government." That's their position. That's their policy.

It's 150,000 hours in one health authority alone. You do less cleaning; things are less clean. How can the minister justify, first of all, cutting those 150,000 hours in hospitals that need to be clean for public safety? How can he justify that? And then how can he justify covering it up for the last five years?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always richly ironic to hear from this member, who was the chief adviser to the NDP government in the 1990s that didn't care enough to even audit cleanliness in the 1990s. They didn't care enough to even audit. If the member wants to know….

Hon. G. Abbott: Ours is a government that has not cut cleaning hours. That is a lot of nonsense. Anytime the member pulls up an FOI, he assumes that it must have been something that was enacted. They sometimes confuse proposals with reality. But in terms of infection control, our government has done more around infection control than was ever done in the 1990s.

If the member wants to get advice around infection control, he should engage the health professional that we engaged. Dr. Doug Cochrane, one of the leading neurosurgeons in this province, led our provincial infection control network work.

We are making progress on infection control, notwithstanding what these members over here say in their usual unconstructive manner.

N. Macdonald: Jacquie Clinton and Lori Drew had parents at Joseph Creek, which is a residential care facility in Cranbrook. They recognized that the staff work hard to care for people at the facility, but what they have said is that there is a consistently low level of staffing and that the low level of staffing creates problems that would be unacceptable to anyone here who witnessed them. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The minister has told this House that the existing system of inspecting and reporting on residential care facilities is, he says, excellent. Does the minister think that the situation at Joseph Creek represents an excellent standard of care? Or is the minister's excellent inspection and reporting system leaving seniors in this province at risk?

Hon. G. Abbott: One thing I have never suggested is that…. In a system which is operated by human beings for human beings, occasionally mistakes might be made. That having been said, if it comes down to me depending on the information I receive from that opposition or the information I receive from a licensing officer, I'm going to go with the licensing officers every time.

The licensing officers don't duplicate 45 times records that were supposed to show and condemn the residential care system in the province. The licensing officers don't rush to conclusions without looking at the evidence, unlike this opposition over here as well.

One of the problems with throwing dirt all the time is that sometimes you get it on yourself, and that's what has happened with this opposition. They created an issue last week. Their homework was faulty. They should get up and apologize for it.

N. Macdonald: Okay, part of the problem with this system is that every time something is raised and put in front of this minister, we get that sort of answer. It is dismissive. It is arrogant. It gives no satisfaction to the people who raise issues.

The part of the problem that Jacquie and Lori have been faced with is that there is no effective way in this province to bring problems forward. It is the reason why local government in the East Kootenay — and that's Golden, Fernie, Revelstoke, Elkford and Kimberley — has endorsed the opposition's idea of a seniors representative, because people know that they cannot bring issues forward and have them dealt with in an acceptable way.

The minister has recently agreed, on Wednesday, to releasing inspection reports on the safety of seniors care homes. That's something we've been pushing for, and I will get those tomorrow and see if the minister's words here match with those inspection reports.

Will he agree to support the idea of an independent seniors representative so that people like Jacquie Clinton and Lori Drew have access to an effective and fair complaint process, something they should automatically have in this province and do not?

Hon. G. Abbott: Joseph Creek is a great new facility for the East Kootenay. It is a very, very fine facility. I had the opportunity to visit that facility when it was being constructed and understand that it is a splendid facility.

Now, I suppose that creates a problem, because when you open a new facility, you need to find staff to work there. I know this wasn't a problem for the NDP in the 1990s. They didn't open any great new facilities. We have opened thousands of units of residential care and assisted living in this province, and it is the finest residential care and assisted living.

This member and virtually every other member of this opposition caucus have taken the occasion to come into my office to raise issues with me. On every occasion I have welcomed that member and every other member of the opposition into my office. If the member wants to raise an issue, he should bring it to me. I will ensure that we follow up duly and appropriately with it.

H. Lali: Why is the Minister of Health trying to close the emergency room at the Princeton Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not. That is absolute nonsense. The member knows full well that the challenge for Princeton right now is ensuring that we have a sufficient number of physicians in order to have 24-7 care at the Princeton Hospital.

H. Lali: From Princeton, the other nearest hospitals…. Merritt is over an hour way. Penticton general is an hour and 15. Hope is almost another hour and a half away. So I would like to point out to the minister that….

According to the Similkameen Spotlight on January 31: "On a recent trip to Penticton for blood work and MRI scans a young 16-year-old girl was met in the emergency room at Penticton Regional Hospital. The waiting room was spilling over with patients, causing at least a two-hour wait to see a physician, even with a booked appointment. With the backup in that ER, any Princeton resident with a major emergency would face the possibility of a long wait time, being turned away or, worse, death."

Again, I would ask the Minister of Health: why is it that the Minister of Health is abandoning the health care needs of rural British Columbians, and will he commit today that he will not allow the emergency room at the Princeton Hospital to close?

Hon. G. Abbott: While it is refreshing to see the opposition use a research source other than The Vancouver Sun in order to ask a question here in question period, nevertheless, the suggestion which the member has made is absolutely false. It is absolutely false.

The mayor of Princeton knows full well how hard we are working as a government to find new physicians for his community. I think the mayor of Princeton was delighted with the initiatives that were outlined in the throne speech, which aim at attracting more family and other physicians to communities like Princeton. That is the core of the problem.

We are each and every day working hard, and I hope members of the opposition might even support this. I hope they will support all of the efforts we are undertaking to bring more physicians to the province of British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: Another year, another budget that does nothing to help children with special needs. Consider the reality of many families across B.C. fighting for supports for their kids at local schools.

Here's how one Langley family puts it: unfair, undemocratic, traumatizing. That's a description of a family's experience.

Under this government, things are going downhill. There's a lack of services that are required. There's a

lack of individual attention for students. There's a lack of special ed assistance, and teachers are suffering from burnout from unbearable workloads.

Will the minister acknowledge…? I know she's seen the Langley special ed report; she's had a chance to digest it. Will she acknowledge today the crisis in special education, and will she agree to take action immediately to begin fixing the problems?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to just begin by clarifying one thing for the record. Education funding in the province of British Columbia is at….

Hon. S. Bond: You know, the members opposite may not want to hear this because, in fact, they voted against every single budget increase to education since we were here.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: in fact, you have an opportunity to change that, because in the budget recently tabled we see that over the next three years we will see an increase of $792 million as we look across the education funding.

D. Cubberley: Well, what I saw in the budget was an increase in funding for private schools, but I didn't see anything for special ed that was new.

D. Cubberley: You're not expanding funding for private schools? I believe you are.

This minister controls the purse strings, and she's failed to make special needs a priority in this province. It's special needs students and their families that are paying the price.

Talk to the families. According to the special ed report, which I hope members will read, there's a historic funding shortfall that was made dramatically worse by funding cuts in '02 and '03, and it's never been recovered.

Will the minister acknowledge that the conditions for special ed are deteriorating across B.C. and commit here and now, today, to provide adequate funding so that every special needs kid in the province gets the attention they deserve?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's be clear about one thing — and perfectly clear. The members on this side of the House actually support choice in education, and of course we believe in the role of independent schools in British Columbia. They provide an important option for families across this province.

Once again, NDP math. How in the world could anyone describe a $122 million increase alone to school districts in this budget year as a cut? In fact, last year $116 million — and the members opposite voted against it. And the year before, the highest single increase ever in education funding — $470 million — and they voted against it.

H. Bains: The IOC has made a decision not to include women's ski jumping in the 2010 games. The minister surely knows that this is a discriminatory decision. If not overturned, it will leave a black mark on our image as a nation that believes in inequality, and it'll tarnish our games in 2010.

So my question to the minister is this. When will he take some concrete actions — insist that the IOC meet with him, insist that we as a host nation expect that the ski jumping team will be included in 2010?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find the member's comments both in this House and outside of this House to be quite distressing. I'll tell you why. He knows darn well that we have fully supported the women's ski jumping team in Canada. His desire to turn this into some kind of political issue, a political slagging match, is reprehensible.

We have been fully in support of the women's ski jumping team. We have made that known, and we have urged the IOC to reconsider their decision.

H. Bains: This is not a political issue. This goes to the bottom of our core values as a nation — that we believe in equality. What have you done so far?

H. Bains: These venues were built and paid for by the taxpayers of this province, and over 50 percent of them happen to be women. The minister can't, on one hand, tell British Columbians that these are our games and then not allow women to participate in these games.

I ask this minister one more time: how can the minister and his government take money from women and allow the IOC to put a "No women allowed" sign on their facility?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, if political opportunism was an Olympic sport, they'd be getting a gold medal.

Hon. C. Hansen: If the Leader of the Opposition had her way, there wouldn't be any women competing in the Olympic Games in British Columbia in 2010. She opposed it from day one. She didn't want it. She's out of sync with the rest of British Columbians.

We are actually putting on a first-class Winter Games in 2010 in spite of the negativity that's coming from the NDP.

D. Thorne: People were shocked over the weekend to find that the developer of their prepurchased homes at the Sophia condominiums in Vancouver has gone into receivership. They may never be able to move in.

I have a simple question for the minister responsible for consumer protection in British Columbia, the Solicitor General. My question is: when will this government finally step in to protect consumers who prepurchase their homes?

Hon. C. Taylor: This situation did reveal itself this weekend. The superintendent of real estate is looking into it. A receiver has been appointed in this particular situation, and the receiver has asked the superintendent of real estate not to, at this point, make any cease-and-desist orders, but to wait in fact until March 10, which is when the receiver will release his report.

D. Thorne: I think I got the same answer about a year ago when I questioned the Riverbend development, which was the first one of this kind — a pre-sale financial fiasco — to really hit the press.

We've heard it all from this government before. This is just the very last financial episode in a long, long line of condominium pre-sale agreements. I think it's time for this government to step in. The people who purchased their homes in the Sophia condominium development need help now. They don't want to hear any more rhetoric from this government. They brought in some namby-pamby disclosure efforts, policy statements a year ago, and they've done nothing to help the situation.

This is turning into a crisis. When will this government step in and help these homeowners? Will they do it today?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, this government has brought in new rules that ensure that the deposits that those individuals have placed are held in trust and are protected. At this point the receiver will do a risk analysis assessment.

We don't know exactly what will happen with this particular development, but when that report comes out, we will look at it carefully to see if there are specific suggestions for what government can do. It is a balance that I'm sure the members opposite must be thinking about, in terms of how you can build in consumer protection but, at the same time, not completely ban pre-sales.

Our efforts have included requiring developers, from last fall forward…. This, of course, was started in 2005, so it was before this. From this fall forward, these developers will be required to give a ten-year history of all the developments that they have done, if there have been any problems with them, if there have been any bankruptcies or receiverships or any issues that have come before the courts.

As well, instead of being at the back pages talking about what a pre-sale actually means and what the vulnerabilities are, the superintendent has required that this be put up front in bold so that everyone does understand what a pre-sale is all about.

L. Krog: I rise to speak to my point of privilege first raised in this House on Monday, February 18, 2008, and then again reserved this morning. I wish to outline the factual support for my contention that this House should find that the Premier has misled this House and that he be directed by the House to apologize.

The matters which consolidated this point of privilege were brought to my attention on Monday, February 18, 2008, and so I rose in the House on that day to register my point of privilege. In addition, new matters came to light on Friday, February 22, 2008, which raise an additional point of privilege, which I will also address in my remarks. I rose this morning at first opportunity to reserve my right to speak to this point of privilege.

The following outlines the factual basis for my points of privilege. During Committee of Supply, spring session 2007, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier questions about the process regarding the disclosure of documents in Regina v. Dave Basi, Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi. The Premier responded on numerous occasions that the Premier's office was not consulted nor involved in the determination of which documents should be disclosed.

I quote the Premier: "There is a special prosecutor involved in this. The Premier's office does not have a direct input into that, certainly not with this government." That's Hansard, May 28, 2007, afternoon sitting.

The Premier again: "I can tell you this right now, hon. Chair. This Premier's office is not involved directly in that." Hansard, May 28, 2007, afternoon sitting.

Again the Premier: "The Deputy Attorney General will determine who in fact and what kind of documen-

tation will be made available within the confines of the law as it currently exists, and he will not consult with the Premier's office with regard to that." Again, Hansard, May 28, 2007.

Last week it came to my attention that an entirely different protocol was developed and implemented in January 2004. According to an article authored by a Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and published in the Parliamentarian, after consultation with the Speaker in December 2003 the government developed a five-stage protocol to handle these potentially sensitive cabinet documents.

That's contained in "The execution of search warrants in the British Columbia Parliament Buildings," Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Parliamentarian, 2004, issue 2, page 158.

According to the article, four of the five stages were: (1) a lawyer selected by the government must sever any documents that contain deliberations of the province's executive council; (2) the associate chief justice reviews these documents and decides if they are relevant to the police investigation; (3) if confidential cabinet documents were found to be relevant to the criminal investigation, those documents would be sent to the deputy cabinet secretary to confirm that the material is to remain confidential; (4) if the documents in question are considered to be confidential, the associate chief justice asks the special prosecutor and other prosecutors to argue in closed court whether the information is to remain confidential in law. That's at page 160.

Further to this, I located an article dated January 15, 2004, in The Vancouver Sun, which describes a fifth step that would take place after the documents were sent to the deputy cabinet secretary, who was at that time Ms. Joy Illington: "If Illington requires the assistance of the executive council, she must appear before Dohm in a closed courtroom and ask permission to discuss the confidential matter with the executive council." "Charges expected soon in drug probe," Lori Culbert and Jim Beatty, The Vancouver Sun, January 15, 2004, page A01.

The authors of the story summed up the situation in this way: "The documents considered privileged will go through a longer vetting process that can involve the provincial government's executive council."

In addition, in December 2007 the government counsel George Copley advised the court that he did not begin to receive advice from the Deputy Attorney General on matters of privilege until July 2007. "Basi-Virk defence alleges solicitor-client privilege claim instructions in case came from B.C. cabinet," Bill Tieleman, December 14, 2007 — Tieleman blogspot, etc.

Finally, on February 22, 2008, The Province columnist Michael Smyth reported on an interview with Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel. Smyth noted: "In the immediate aftermath of the raid, the government established a protocol for reviewing internal records to see if they should be released or deemed privileged and kept under wraps. Two bureaucrats from Campbell's office" — that's the way the quote reads — "Joy Illington and, later, Elizabeth MacMillan, were assigned the task, but that changed last year over concerns that the process looked too cozy." "Premier should stay clear of B.C. Rail," Michael Smyth, The Province, February 22, 2008, page A04.

Michael Smyth then quoted Allan Seckel as saying: "There was a concern, as this appeared to be getting a political life to it, that it would be prudent to not have the Premier's office involved in any way in these decisions."

Therefore, I have raised my matters of privilege, reserved on two occasions, in that the Premier knowingly misled the House on May 28, 2007, by stating that the Premier's office was not involved in the review of documents when he knew that a process that included the Premier's office was in place since 2004 and continued until at least 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to the member for the submissions. I reserve the right to respond more fully in due course.

Hon. L. Reid: It is my honour to rise today and respond to Balanced Budget 2008. I want to begin by extending a heartfelt thank-you to my staff, Christine Lewis and Jonathan Barry here in Victoria and Kelly Rietveld in the constituency office; to all constituents in Richmond East at whose pleasure I serve; to the staff in the child care branch, who seem to have boundless energy for working on the issues that matter to B.C. families; and to Loreen O'Byrne who heads up the early years team and is a sensational support to me.

I am grateful to all of them for their insight. My sincere thanks for the work they do to contribute to making British Columbia the best place to raise a family.

Richmond East is an enormously successful riding in terms of the kinds of community supports that individuals put in place as they go forward. Richmond Family Place, under the very dedicated leadership of Maureen McDermid, has just recently found a home in DeBeck House. They had outgrown their previous premises, and they indeed are doing a wonderful job of supporting families in British Columbia as they go forward.

Richmond Farmers Institute is a group of very dedicated farmers who continue to farm. Frankly, urban farmers continue to farm in east Richmond, ten minutes from the city of Vancouver — with a myriad of issues around individuals who reside in the riding, around buffer zones, around viability of farmland — and continue to do an amazing job. On behalf of the

citizens who frankly…. In the words of our hon. colleague from Delta, you need to eat to live.

Developmental Disabilities Association, a group that continues to provide supports and is headquartered in Richmond, provides supports for individuals with disabilities across British Columbia in terms of how they go forward. It's my pleasure to be involved with them as they continue to do some very fine work across the province of British Columbia.

On March 8 Richmond Chinatown Lions Club will host an event in support of the food bank. It's hugely important that we stand together to look out for others in community. That's under the dedicated leadership of Thurman So, who is a member of the Richmond Chinatown Lions Club.

The chamber of commerce continues to provide supports to businesses who daily open up new premises in Richmond and continue to go forward. My accolades to the city of Richmond for their recent Richmond Winter Festival and certainly to the Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House, which continues to ensure that Richmondites and folks from lower mainland families have a place where their very loved family member can pass from this earth with dignity and respect — hugely important.

I rise today in support of Budget 2008. This government is committed to keeping our children safe, secure and healthy. It is about encouraging children to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy, and about preparing them to be effective learners. There is no question that access to good-quality child care makes a significant difference to a child's success in school and in life.

The child care sector in British Columbia is complex. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is one of the many contributors to B.C.'s early learning and child care system, acknowledging that parents are hugely vital to the success, the self-reliance, the resilience and the emotional and social development of a child.

How we support parents to be the best parents they can possibly be is equally important. The province's strategy for the delivery of child care includes leadership and support for new and existing child care partnerships. Hon. Speaker, you will know that we are a government of partnership. We continue to bring individuals into partnership with us to deliver services and opportunities for the greater good. We are certainly committed to increasing the number of high-quality child care spaces in British Columbia.

I am delighted to say that there are 86,000 funded, licensed, child care spaces in the province of British Columbia — an enormous achievement. I can tell you that I do tremendous research when it comes to what transpired on behalf of the opposition during the '90s, and there is very little paper to suggest child care construction. There is very little paper.

There is one piece that talks about 157 spaces. I'd be delighted to have individuals opposite confirm the creation of child care spaces around the province during those ten years. It was pretty much absent on the landscape, and the members opposite who are looking intrigued by that notion, I trust, will be able to find me that paper as we go forward.

Ongoing support for vulnerable children and their families — hugely important.

Professional recruitment and retention and development. Members in this chamber will know that the government has recently launched retention strategies and certainly ways to incent individuals to come back into the sector. I'll speak more about that as we go through.

Providing families with easily accessible child care information resources and working with our partners in the Ministries of Education and Health on development and implementation of a long-term, early-years strategy for British Columbia — always a work-in-progress, always new children to come into this sector and always ways for the province to respond.

We have been making substantial investments in the child care sector in the past several years despite significant challenges with the federal-provincial funding relationship in support of child care over the past year or so. British Columbia, as you will know, suffered a three-year net loss of $356 million to child care and early learning funding.

Clearly, this loss has had an impact. We have needed to refocus our resources and examine our priorities. Under the new federal child care spaces funding established in 2007-08, British Columbia received approximately $33 million and will receive the same amount in each of the ensuing five years to support child care.

In the face of this change to federal funding, we have made thoughtful decisions to protect provincial child care programs and enhancements we made to programs that serve our most vulnerable children and families. The child care overall budget in this year is $289.8 million — $290 million. The careful targeting of provincial investments in quality child care programs and services expands access and helps child-centred programs reach more British Columbia communities.

The province has allocated $290 million for child care programs and services this year. I am glad of this opportunity to lay out to members all these dollars linked to our priorities and what they mean for children and families.

Operating funding: $64 million. I want to start with the direct funding to support the sustainability of child care spaces, child care operating. Today provincial operating funds are supporting more than 4,600 child care facilities across British Columbia. We're talking about more than 86,000 spaces. Operating funding for the year ahead has been pegged at just over $64 million, up from $62 million in '07-08.

Although the federal enhancements to B.C.'s child care operating funding were eliminated, we have ensured that the provincial portion of the operating funding rate structure remains intact. We also took a number of steps to cushion the impact of the loss of federal dollars. Effective July 1, 2007, the province increased the provincial per-day, per-space funding rate for licensed child care providers for children under

three — hugely important, because that is a category of care that, frankly, is the most expensive.

In 2007-2008 the province committed $40 million for government-funded licensed providers for investments in professional development and training, minor capital improvements, equipment and supplies — particularly in the area of learning resources. So $20 million has already been distributed by the ministry. Again, the next $10 million is due out in February-March of this year, and the last $10 million in February-March of 2009.

The council has been tasked with administering these grants in a way which is open, transparent and accountable to child care providers, governments and all British Columbians. Again, that is the B.C. Council for the Family.

Capital funding — a key way in which this government is helping create new child care spaces. Since 2001 provincial capital funding has created more than 3,300 new child care spaces, 1,443 of them through a major capital investment in '05-06 alone.

Now, in the current fiscal year we put another $12.5 million on the table in terms of supporting the creation of new licensed spaces across British Columbia. We did this with the goal of creating an additional 2,000 spaces over the next two years. I'm absolutely delighted to inform the members that meeting that goal is already within arm's reach. We had tremendous interest in the latest major capital funding round, and I think that bodes well for the child care sector in British Columbia.

I'd like to note that variety and flexibility in child care are as crucial as accessibility. One size does not fit all. Parents need to be able to choose from a range of services and programs and find arrangements suitable for their children. That's one of the reasons we expanded the major capital program to include both private and public applicants and why we're providing additional incentives to create new child care spaces in high-need areas and unused public space and for organizations to co-locate service to create community hubs.

A particular passion has been around co-located integrated service because it's the kindest to families. Anyone who has families in their constituency will know that if there are two or three or four children under the age of five, oftentimes that family will go to two or three or four different places on the way to work or school in the morning. That is not the best way for those families to receive service. Any time that agencies, governments, partnerships, can come together to allow families to receive service in co-located areas makes much more sense for that family. At the end of the day, it is about the families of British Columbia. It is about the babies of British Columbia.

I want to point out that by forging partnerships with agencies such as B.C. Housing, school districts and neighbourhood associations, government capital funding is creating more spaces than ever before — hugely important.

The subsidy program in British Columbia. The child care subsidy — $131 million, almost $132 million — I believe is another success story for the sector. The subsidy program supports an average of 24,000 children from low- and middle-income families each month. An enormous number of youngsters receive support. In September of 2006 this government committed to maintaining the child care subsidy program on an ongoing basis. This preserved a program which supports our most vulnerable children, despite the loss of significant federal funding.

Moreover, this government exempted the $100-a-month universal child care benefit that parents received from the federal government from the income test for subsidy — again, a significant decision. We did not allow that $100 to be included in the determination around eligibility for subsidy — hugely important. Had we not taken that decision, many families today would not be eligible.

Since those tough decisions of 2006 and early '07, we've been able to move forward with reframed priorities and new initiatives designed to reflect pressures in the child care sector. As of December 1, 2007, the province decided to extend subsidy rates to families with children in kindergarten who have their sixth birthday between January and June of their kindergarten year. Previous rates were reduced once the child turned six — hugely problematic for families. All their child did was actually have a birthday, and their level of support dropped dramatically if that child was still in kindergarten while they had their sixth birthday.

The reality is that January to June…. The majority of children in the kindergarten year have their birthdays in that six-month period, and to disenfranchise those families was never considered prudent. We heard the concern raised, and frankly, we responded as a government, and I'm very proud of that piece of public policy.

As of September 1, 2007, the child care subsidy rate for children receiving care surrounding the school day increased for both licensed and unlicensed care types. This has benefited an estimated 10,000 B.C. families. So significant public policy shifts that benefit thousands upon thousands of British Columbia families.

I might add that these enhancements follow significant expansion of the subsidy program that took place in 2005 when subsidy rates were increased, and the subsidy threshold rose from $21,000 to $38,000 for children six and under — a significant lift, capturing thousands more British Columbia families. Those October 2005 enhancements made subsidy available to approximately 6,500 additional children, while an additional 6,000 saw an increase in their existing subsidy.

In terms of supported child development, supporting vulnerable families and those in need of extra supports is important to us. Supported child development is the component of B.C.'s child care system which provides consultation and support for children with special needs and their families to allow their inclusion in regular child care settings.

In January of '07, and despite the loss of federal ELCC funding, this government committed to maintaining an annual investment of $54 million in the supported child development program. That's a huge

support to families in British Columbia and a huge support to those who work in the early childhood education development sector. Those youngsters oftentimes would not be welcome in child care centres without that level of support, would not necessarily be successful in child care centres without that level of support. So a hugely important contribution, a hugely important priority of government.

This portion of the budget is rising to $57 million in the coming year to maintain continuity for the care of about 5,800 special needs children. That program is absolutely designed to support youngsters in community. Hugely important, not just in preschools and child care centres but in community, where the family needs support at the swimming pool, where the family needs support to take the child into a community activity for the very first time. How is it we support parents to support their youngsters as they go forward?

Child care resource and referral centres — an annual expenditure of $9 million, lifting to $9.3 million. The provincial share of the budget for child care resource and referral centres has been protected. The centres offer information to assist parents to make quality child care choices in 41 B.C. communities. The centres also support child care providers by offering toy and equipment lending libraries, professional development opportunities, information and resources in communities across the province.

Provincial funding for CCRR centres is now up to $9.3 million annually to reflect increased operating costs and will be maintained on an ongoing basis.

In the first three-quarters of 2007-2008 more than 23,000 families were provided consultations; 458 workshops and 137 courses were delivered. In fact, it is important that we carry forward around regional professional development. Thirteen different regional conferences were held, with the goal being professional development opportunities in local communities as a kindness to early childhood educators.

There has often been glorious professional development, but frankly, folks couldn't attend. They didn't have supports in their communities. They often weren't able to leave their families overnight. Taking the training closer to home is what the current initiative is all about, and I am pleased to tell you that 13 different communities across the regions of British Columbia rose to the challenge and are delivering spectacular professional development.

Just to give you an example, the Early Years Conference was hosted in Smithers. They had the Brain Gym in Prince Rupert; Safe Spaces in Prince George; Caring for Children Age Six to 12: the In-Between Years, in Campbell River and Langford; Caring for Children Birth to Three, the Beginning Years, in Duncan; Exploring and Discovery, child care and parenting issues, held on the Sunshine Coast; To Learn, To Wonder, held in North Vancouver; the early childhood conference, held in Richmond; Communities Nurturing Children, in Rossland; Children in the Media, in Rock Creek; and Partnerships with Parents, in Kelowna.

Those are just the most recent 13 conferences held and a lovely cross-section — opportunities for early childhood educators to improve their skill sets, to maintain their practice and, frankly, to deliver some of the best programs available anywhere in British Columbia.

In terms of supporting early childhood educators, we recognize the importance of recruiting early childhood educators to support the availability of quality child care spaces. To address the shortage of ECEs in the province, MCFD has launched an ECE incentive grant program. This will provide early childhood educators who have not worked in a licensed child care facility for at least two years with a grant to encourage them to return to the sector.

Very important that we're getting some nice dialogue around this issue because often early childhood educators have left the delivery of the service to have their own children. Can we entice them back after an absence of two years? We trust that we can, and we're trusting that they will indeed come back and deliver some excellent early childhood education to our youngest citizens.

The province is also piloting a student loan assistance program for new early childhood educators. The reason for the pilot: if we don't get the result we're looking for, we're absolutely prepared to make some changes as we go forward. The loan assistance program will provide up to $2,500 toward new graduates' outstanding student loans. In some instances, that will be 40 percent of the costs of acquiring that certification. Those who graduate in 2007 or will graduate in 2008 will be eligible for loan assistance of up to $1,250 after each of the first and second years of employment in the licensed child care sector. This initiative is in collaboration with the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Enhancing professional development opportunities in the child care sector is also a priority. The Vancity Community Foundation partnered with Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia to improve professional development options. The two organizations are now working together to deliver the early childhood educator bursary program, a program that started in this fiscal year and to which the province contributed $1.5 million. The program is now available to support students currently enrolled in an approved ECE training program with the cost of tuition. There's lots of interest. There are lots of applications. There's lots of movement in that program, and we're delighted to see individuals taking that training.

There are in excess of 10,000 licensed early childhood educators in the province of today; 350 to 400 graduate each year. Those folks will be welcomed to deliver their services in British Columbia.

In terms of early childhood development and research, copious research makes it clear that quality child care and preschool experiences enhance early learning, school experience and school readiness. Targeted investments started in the '06-07 fiscal year are continuing to benefit children. MCFD funding in '06-07 helped to support the Ministry of Education's

StrongStart early years action plan through funding for StrongStart centres, early learning and innovation grants and the early learning framework.

We have to acknowledge that we share the same children in the province of British Columbia — 42,000 babies born each year. How we support them across government is the important piece.

In addition, MCFD provided funding for the physical activity and skill development of young children, public awareness campaigns and early language and culture development opportunities for young aboriginal children as well. The ministry has provided the B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society with funding to update their child care administration manuals for centre-based child care and to offer first nations family child care training — all things that were requested, and this government has indeed listened and delivered.

The province has dedicated over $7 million to support 43 aboriginal early childhood development initiatives — up from 37, so six additional programs — in urban and rural on- and off-reserve communities throughout British Columbia.

The ministry's approach to early childhood development is to complement services already available in communities and, certainly, to integrate and co-locate as we go forward. MCFD also provides significant funding for a number of other initiatives, including Success By 6, Children First, the early development instrument and community asset mapping. It's all work that has been vitally important in terms of how we place programs, how we structure funding. Whether it's Ready, Set, Learn or it's ongoing evaluations of programs in schools, the work of the early development indicator has been very helpful to us.

Last year the ministry committed an additional $5 million to support Success By 6. This latest funding brings the ministry's overall contribution to Success By 6 to $18 million. Those of you who had the privilege of visiting these programs, operational across British Columbia, will know that they're collections of concerned, committed individuals — consortiums, if you will — who have banded together.

They're not just the traditional folk who normally attend early childhood development meetings but a cross-section of community — chambers of commerce, business leaders, all kinds of folks — who have said that the quality of the experience that a child receives birth to six is important to the future of our business, is important to the future of our community, is important to the success of that youngster as an educated citizen. Hugely important. We welcome all players to come to the table to acknowledge that the survival of communities, the health and safety of communities is based on the care that young children receive.

We are strengthening community in the province by strengthening family. Success By 6 supports and strengthens existing community services and helps establish new ECD programs, providing children with support they need to be physically, socially and emotionally ready to start school.

Over the past five years this provincial partnership has grown from two initiatives to 20 which reach out to more than 200 communities across British Columbia — a very expansive framework doing some amazing work in terms of honouring partnership in terms of how we go forward.

The Children First initiative across British Columbia. Children First began in the year 2000 with three early learning sites. MCFD regions currently provide funding for 45 distinct Children First initiatives across British Columbia. Children First initiatives are community-based coalitions that support communities in identifying and developing an integrated, comprehensive model of early childhood development service delivery for children birth to six and their families, fully acknowledging that children reside in families in British Columbia and that children receive service in a family context.

To understand that piece of work means that we better understand secure attachment, the relationships the parent has with a child and then the relationships that that child has with his or her community — hugely important.

With this year's budget we will realize the creation of hundreds of new licensed child care spaces across the province, and we will see the operating funding in child care subsidy enhancements needed to support those new child care spaces. We will continue to fund what we build — hugely important.

In the year ahead we will be working with our partners in the Ministry of Education to examine new options for families of young children. That work will look at the feasibility of a full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds, the option of full-day kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and the possibility of full-day services for three-year-olds by 2012. Many families have told us that they want more options. Those options will be play-based. They will understand and honour the work of early childhood development as a sector as we go forward.

We have a tremendous opportunity to be informed by the best thinkers today in early childhood development anywhere in the land. Frankly, we have often had conversations across the globe in terms of the best programs that are available for youngsters that honour their learning needs, their learning desires, their learning styles — again, acknowledging that one size does not fit all. The work we will do in the coming months is about being responsive in exploring those options.

The B.C. government recognizes that investment in a child's early years is critical to their success. Many families have told us that they want more options. We are exploring that conversation on a daily basis. Certainly I spend a great deal of my time travelling the province, meeting directly with families and care providers in terms of what they believe the system needs to do in terms of responding to families as they go forward.

Many families have difficulties in terms of the kindergarten year. Many difficulties are experienced by families in terms of the length of day for children. Many children leave a program of five, six or seven

hours and end up in a program of two or two and a half hours. That's problematic for parents who are in the workforce. Their children have difficulties making some of those adjustments.

How we go forward is hugely important. How we fold families into that discussion, into that partnership, into that problem-solving is hugely important. Early learning opportunities — huge. Learning happens from the moment of conception. Learning readiness is a lifelong endeavour. Certainly there are formative years — birth to six. They're our shared responsibility. Government is happy to play its part as we go forward. The notion that learning doesn't begin until a child enters school — nothing could be more foreign from the thinkers on early childhood development today.

Learning begins at the moment of conception and takes us through the life course. How we respond to that collectively as a government, as a Legislature, as a community, as a province, will determine the level of educated citizen we have in British Columbia as we go forward.

I too want to explore every possible option, every possible opportunity — whether or not that includes full-day kindergarten, full-day four-year-old programming or full-day three-year-old programming. The challenge will be to ensure that that is play-based, experiential learning based on problem-solving as we go forward.

The new agency will look at whether or not this is feasible and whether it's a choice parents want for their children. A report on the feasibility of full-day kindergarten is expected within the year. Certainly, there are all kinds of studies, Vancouver Board of Trade and others, that have talked about how important that investment is in terms of the return we have.

I'm happy to share with the House that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon and Nunavut already have full-day kindergarten. We can learn from those jurisdictions as we go forward. Ontario has half-day kindergarten and also funds half-day K for four-year-olds. They are phasing in a full-day kindergarten program for all four- and five-year-olds by 2010.

We can benefit from that research they're using to guide their policy shift. Prince Edward Island funds kindergarteners that follow the provincial standards and curriculum run by communities.

There are lots of good examples: England, full-day kindergarten for all five-year-olds; Finland and Sweden, well-known for the universal preschools for children four to six. In New Zealand, families can access up to 20 hours per week of free kindergarten for three-to five-year-olds.

So there are many examples across the globe and many responses to that level of care and service across the globe. Certainly, we will continue to have those discussions. We invite the dialogue, and I can assure members that the dialogue has begun. Many individuals have made contact with us and will continue to involve themselves in this discussion as we go forward.

We provide funding for a number of initiatives — certainly very, very important. I'm happy to share with the House the province's commitment to the children of our province who suffer from autism. We've allocated over $47 million in assessment diagnosis, intervention and support this year — a more than tenfold increase since the year 2000.

Currently, there are about 4,700 children and youth on the autism spectrum receiving services from MCFD. Only a few hundred children were being served prior to the year 2000. Again, an enormously important contribution for families who are raising very challenging children. How we support them to be the best parents they can be — hugely important.

Many members of this House will know I have a personal passion around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, care and prevention. How it is we care for those currently afflicted, how it is we pull together as community, as a province, to ensure we reduce the number of babies born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder — hugely important.

In 2005-06 we were spending $2.7 million. That is lifting to $5.4 million with this budget. It is hugely important that we continue to support the key workers we have in place and that we continue to support families as they parent some of the most challenging children as we go forward.

From the throne speech, we heard about the new LiveSmart B.C. initiative that will address urban sprawl and reward developments that create more affordable housing, more green spaces and more people-friendly neighbourhoods. All of that is part and parcel of this discussion.

Can we create the neighbourhoods we'd wish to live in and that we would wish to raise our children in? Hugely important. Certainly, there is work to be done as we go forward in terms of what the future looks like.

I've had the absolute privilege to visit StrongStart centres across British Columbia and to be involved in the opening of many of them. The welcome that families receive, the welcome they feel…. Whether they have a brand-new baby or a four-year-old, they're anticipating creating opportunities to ensure their child becomes familiar with that school setting. They're wonderful programs.

The evaluation has certainly been very, very positive as we've gone forward. We have said that as a government, we will institute programs that are measurable, where there's evidence to support their continuation. With StrongStart British Columbia, that evidence is abundantly clear that the programs are very, very important to all as we go forward. There are 84 centres today, 116 anticipated, an additional 200 anticipated in the final year. Hugely important that families feel a sense of welcome in schools.

Many of you will know that families and parents have oftentimes had an unsatisfactory school experience themselves. How they are able to put that aside and create a positive environment to bring their child into the school system means that they're beginning a relationship with that child and that school that's going to extend for 12 years. Hugely important that we

Everyone who has a child knows the joy of seeing them grow, of having the privilege to bear witness to their growth and their activity. I have two young souls in my life — frankly, both of them almost born in this building as we go forward. My little daughter is eight years old; my son is three. The notion that I would wish for them what I wish for every child in the province of British Columbia — heartfelt. I absolutely want us to have opportunities, that we learn as we go forward how to care not just for our own children but for the children of our neighbours.

A dear mentor of mine, Dan Offord, said: "We will only ever become a civilized society if we learn to care for children other than our own." That means we do have responsibility for the children of our neighbours and communities. The fact that many councils, mayors, school districts are stepping up and paying attention to the issues as we go forward — hugely important, because we are absolutely a government of partnership. I look forward to this partnership evolving across British Columbia.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up here today on behalf of the riding that I have the privilege to represent, Cariboo South, to analyze the budget as the budget has affected Cariboo South, an interior rural riding. I want to acknowledge my colleague opposite the member for Richmond East, who has given me a very great opportunity to actually introduce my riding to the House by describing the effects of the child care decisions that have been made in this House across the geographical area.

The Chilcotin, for example, which had served out of the Williams Lake office with five first nations groups in it, as a result of funding cuts had to reduce the first nations programs, with their child care, out in that part of the area affecting those five communities as well as the communities of Bella Coola and Bella Bella, which are beyond my riding. So I am not speaking on behalf of the effect of that part.

Then, when I go down to the south end of my riding, which I'm equally proud to represent, with Savona, Cache Creek, Clinton and Ashcroft in it…. They were served out of the Kamloops office. With funding cuts that happened to them, the limited service they received in child care likewise had to be retracted and pulled back in. When I go up to the other part of my riding, the 100 Mile area, which I am also equally responsible for looking after the interests of the budget and the effect upon it…. The service area around greater 100 Mile for child care likewise has been retracted.

When I have looked through the budget and the throne speech, I have looked upon that particular document as it has effect upon my riding. I look forward to discussing with you the effect of that budget upon my riding and the service that is delivered to it.

One of the overriding factors that I would ask all the colleagues here in the House…. In my analysis, I had a budget cut of $220 million that was extended to the oil companies, and I had $328 million of tax that was extended to the oil and gas companies. That's in this year, contained within the budget. That's somewhere in excess of half a billion dollars — $550 million in closer round figures — of service funds that would have been available for the provision of services, all in Cariboo South, if I was doing my job on behalf of that area.

However, in returning to the budget, there is somewhat of an urban focus in it with many of its announcements. Once more, discussions around the expansion of public transit for the lower mainland — good for that. The new Port Mann Bridge again has been mentioned. We've had many previous budgets and announcements around the Olympics that again, from the rural part of the province, we hold no hardships to. However, we do wonder about overruns on convention centres in the hundreds of millions of dollars and whether those funds could not have come back and provided some services in our area.

Now, any particular document that is literally tens to hundreds of pages long contains things in it that are worth mentioning and recognizing, and I do wish to start in that area with two or three things that did catch my eye.

One is Jordan's principle. Jordan's principle says that the interests of aboriginal children must always be paramount and that no child on or off reserve should be put at risk due to jurisdictional disputes. I wish to acknowledge and recognize the significance of the government for pursuing that principle. I encourage the government not to talk about it but to actually get on and implement it, to put it in place.

As I have mentioned, I have many first nations communities in my riding that have suffered the effect not only of Jordan's principle but of other reductions in services. So implement the policy. I do recognize the government for bringing it forward. Please get on and implement it.

Likewise, I want to acknowledge the government for dealing with the issue of trans fat by 2010. It's something, for example, that the federal NDP have been attempting to do for a number of years. Good on the government.

Likewise, I recognize the expansion of the responsibility of some health care providers by giving them more tasks to be able to do. That in itself is laudable, but where I'm from, we're dealing with shortages. So giving people more jobs to do when their days are already full begs that side of the argument. But again, recognizing the efforts.

Now, to return to a theme that I have mentioned within the budget: the taxation to banks — credits — and millions of dollars to the oil and gas companies. Cariboo South has two industries that it's quite dependent upon: forestry and agriculture. When I look through the budget, I do not find an awful lot of support for the industries, the communities and the affected workers.

In bringing this forward, this point also needs to be put in context when I'm talking about forestry, because there have been some decisions made by the govern-

ment over the last several years that have worsened the situation in forestry. A situation that affects many, many families in Cariboo South.

We had the removal of appurtenancy, which tied the fibre to the area where it was milled. We had the removal of cut control. We've had tenure becoming a tradeable commodity. We've had the removal of the requirement for mill closure review or the 5 percent takeback of tenure and changes in corporate ownership, and the replacement of the Forest Practices Code with the self-policing FRPA. The 20 percent of the annual allowable cut was taken back, and huge compensation was paid to the companies. Log exports have increased.

At the end of that day, with all of those policy changes, where have we ended up? We've ended up with a forest industry that is concentrated corporately in a few dimension lumber producers who are more dependent on the U.S. market.

Last year I was in touch with some communities, with locally elected people, to see what their reaction was to announced mill closures in their area and what assistance they were receiving to have their communities deal with that transition. I spoke, for example, with people from Burns Lake, Okanagan Falls, Fort St. James and Kamloops. There was limited to no support available for these communities going through transition.

Once more, there is limited support for transition for those communities, and they are increasing. In Cariboo South we have had announcements of mill closures on a short-term basis and no assurances on when the mills will reopen. But at least there are some assurances that they will be reopened — not like some of these other communities that I've mentioned, where the closure is of a permanent nature.

The budget is silent in this area. It's silent upon an industry that is crucial to the interior of the province and crucial to the Island, and it has been overlooked. When a budget is produced, it is the responsibility to ensure that services are provided across the entire province — geographically, demographically and socially.

As I go through the budget, I will be drawing attention to some of those areas where the budget in actual fact, in my evaluation, falls short.

In the forest industry, what was promised? Trees for Tomorrow. Go into the various communities that are being subjected to these mill closures, where their families are being subjected to that loss, and try and explain to them that what I have to bring back from here in Victoria are Trees for Tomorrow. That leaves me short in defending Balanced Budget 2008.

I've also been advised that the shortage of railcars in my riding being provided — more accurately put, not being provided — by CN is further threatening the closure of other mills that exist here in Cariboo South.

West Chilcotin Forest Products can remain in operation if there is transportation available for them. CN is not providing them cars. They have had three cars provided for their reload this month. Those mills will be shut down. There was no due diligence done when B.C. Rail was sold to ensure that the interests of the communities along the track were looked after.

When we get into an economic situation…. Where normally in forestry there are the steep ups and downs, with these policy changes they have become dramatically steeper, and survival becomes more difficult. But enough on forestry.

I would like to move to agriculture — ranching and farming — which also is a key industry in my area, and talk here in the House of what Balanced Budget 2008 promised them. What was the agriculture industry promised in the budget? Not much. Not much at all. As a matter of fact, when you go through it, you'd almost think that it didn't exist.

I've had meetings with ranchers in my riding. They are turning out by the tens, and they are telling me to bring this back to the House — that the situation in ranching and in other farm-producing areas has never been this serious. It has never been this challenged.

We have herds being reduced by 30 percent in order to try and maintain a cash flow. We have meat regulations that are challenging the small-herd raisers — the raisers of lambs, the raisers of poultry — to try and stay alive. There are no places for them in Cariboo South relatively close to be able to take their product in order for them to stay alive — take their product and convert it into the market. The prices are low.

We had my colleagues opposite tour the province for months and put together a report for the agriculture industry that contains some beautiful words. But it contains limited to no support for what matters, and the budget contains no support.

Therefore, we have our neighbours right next door in Alberta, which is in actual fact providing cash support on an interim basis to the ranching industry to try and keep them afloat. I can't tell them that that is coming. It is exceptionally limited, what I am able to tell them is coming, but I would like to share with the House a motion from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association that they have under consideration just so that my colleagues are aware of it.

It says, in paraphrasing it, that the government of B.C. spends approximately 5 percent of the GNP on the support of the agriculture industry. The rest of the province here in British Columbia spends closer to 16 percent. What the agriculture industry is asking me to convey to this House is that support be provided to the agriculture industry at a time of their great need.

Before I leave the agriculture industry with the list of concerns, the aspect of predator and foraging animal control…. The number of conservation officers has been reduced drastically. The issues of predators are of great concern in the Cariboo and the Chilcotin. When they phone to see how to have this problem addressed, personnel is not available. Security of range leases, the pine beetle and the electricity costs are also all having an effect.

Having raised those issues around forestry, the third point in Cariboo South I wish to talk about that is having an effect is first nations and the new relation-

ship. The Auditor General has warned the House about concentrating upon few tables. To be on the record, issues in the area of mining and its development in Cariboo South require not the words of the new relationship. It requires moving from the words of the new relationship, which in practice is dealing with the old relationship.

In the Chilcotin area there's potential for mining, oil and gas development. But until those issues are in actual fact addressed around first nations and we move beyond the words, the first nations communities say it is not going to happen.

In the area of forestry there needs to be translation from the words of the new relationship into actual practice, moving away from the old relationship, which is still what is being felt in Cariboo South.

Finally, an issue that connects Cariboo South with the lower mainland, and that is solid waste — the dump, the sanitary landfill in Cache Creek. As members of this House are aware, discussions around the possible interior sites being considered for solid waste extensions were removed because first nations would not step forward and say that the issues they have around their sites had in actual fact been addressed in a satisfactory manner. So Metro Vancouver has implemented something else, another plan.

In going through the budget, I come back around and have a look at $220 million given to the banks. I look at $328 million being given to oil and gas. When I see what's going on in Cariboo South, I see other decisions that could have been made and should have been made.

When I look at seniors, the promise of long-term care beds and the fact that it's still not in place…. In my area the oversight for the care for seniors needs to be put into place so that my office is not continually needed to look into providing for that care.

What I did find in the throne speech was: save for your own. We will look into that. We will look for the equivalent of an RRSP plan. So for your care, your home support, save for it so that it will be there should you need it. That leaves lacking those individuals who are not in a financial situation in order to be able to save and be prepared. Nor does it look after our seniors who are already at that point in their life and already require that type of support.

When I looked through the budget, I could not find anything that deals with the issue around minimum wage. Again, when I looked back, there were many examples contained in Balanced Budget 2008 where large corporations were given tax benefits to tens, to hundreds of millions of dollars. But nowhere in the budget could I find money or reference to dealing with issues with the working poor, such as with minimum wage.

Likewise, as I've mentioned in this House on a number of occasions, the provision of paramedics in the rural areas, particularly those with a remote designation, continues to remain understaffed. I continue to get inquiries and reports brought into my office. The effect upon a family that an ambulance was not available in an area covered by a remote because there were not paramedics available for the ambulance to go out….

Everyone here in the House knows that when the ambulance arrives at the scene with the two paramedics in it, that situation is a better hospital than you will find in many countries in the world. For a few million dollars…. The training is not in place so that we have the trained paramedics necessary in rural British Columbia to be there in order to take that ambulance out to answer the call.

Again, I compare that to Balanced Budget 2008 with hundreds of millions of dollars going to the banks, going to the oil and gas industry, and I see this shortfall.

In the budget the heavy lifting for the carbon tax has been left to the ordinary Joe and Josephine taxpayers. That is who the heavy lifting has been left to.

Hon. B. Penner: Seventy percent will be paid by business — 30 percent by the individual, 70 percent by business.

C. Wyse: My colleague opposite makes my point. The individual corporations and industries have been given taxation benefits in other parts contained in Budget 2008. I do not disagree with those points, but the heavy lifting is on the backs of those that are financially less able to do such. When you get to the interior of the province, you also find that the options that are available to those individuals for choice within transit and other types of items do not exist.

This budget in 2008 has got aspects contained in it that are of importance to rural British Columbia. They are important to interior British Columbia. Balanced Budget 2008 has got gaping holes in it. I guess you'd use the old expression: "You could drive a truck through it."

However, we don't want to mix up a carbon tax with an effective environmental policy. When I go to Budget 2008, I find on page 13 that there are some exemptions to the carbon tax. What do I find? I find oil and gas and I find aluminum as some examples.

The point about the budget is the discrepancy. As I mentioned earlier, a budget, a government, has the responsibility to provide for the entire demographic of the province. It has the responsibility to look after all of the communities contained in it. Budget 2008 is selective, in my judgment. It drives further wedges between British Columbia. It drives further discrepancies of the availability of services being available.

It raises a question. When I look at policies…. It's an item that I will be looking at further in discussion and debate: what possible effect the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement may have upon our ability here in British Columbia to implement a true environment program that is fair to all and actually gets the job done.

There are organizations that are in actual fact concerned. They are legal organizations — for example, the environmental law society with the University of Victoria, and Ecojustice. Only two examples, but they raise the concerns that government — underneath the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — in actual fact has lost the ability to implement policies that would effect a true climate change here in British Columbia. Further debate is necessary on that. But I do mention that on page 13 there are industries that are given an exemption. It raises the question of whether that exemption was philosophically driven or whether it was TILMA-hindered. Further debate will help us determine that.

As I have mentioned, there are parts contained within this budget, where I started off from, that I recognized and gave credit for. But an overlying principle of hundreds of millions of dollars being granted to industry and oil and gas, and with the banks…. It left a large number of issues here in Cariboo South that go wanting — services that would be well appreciated.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your time, for listening to me. I now eagerly look forward to hear my colleagues on the other side jump up and tell me how much they are in agreement with me.

B. Bennett: Although I maybe didn't jump up, I'm certainly happy to be on my feet in support of the 2008-2009 budget. For the life of me, I can't understand how anybody would be against a budget that increases health care funding, that increases education funding, that increases social services funding, that puts a price on carbon and that reduces taxes for people and businesses. That sounds like almost a perfect budget to me. It's unfortunate that the member who just spoke left, but perhaps he'll have his radio on in his office.

B. Bennett: I apologize for that. I forgot that I'm not supposed to do that.

The fact that this budget does seem to cover all of the bases. In fact, I described it in my local media as the Premier and the Finance Minister pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It is an amazingly successful and intelligent budget.

That may explain why the opposition didn't ask any questions on it the next day at question period. It was probably a first, I would have to think, in this House — as long as this Legislative Assembly has been here — for the opposition to not even ask a question on the budget in question period the day after. That certainly must be a sign of something.

This was the sixth consecutive balanced budget. Although the members opposite don't seem to care very much whether budgets are balanced or whether governments are fiscally prudent or not, this side of the House does care about that sort of thing.

I'll tell you why we care about that. I'll tell you why we care whether budgets are balanced or not and why we're proud of the fact that this is our sixth consecutive balanced budget: because we have children. The other side has children as well. But they're really not thinking about their children or their grandchildren.

When they added $20 billion to the provincial debt in their ten years of mismanagement….

B. Bennett: Their kids and their grandkids are going to have to pay that debt off. They don't like talking about it. You can hear them from the other side. That really bothers them to hear that because, deep down, they know it's true. They know they blew it for ten years. We're proud that we've been able to balance the budget after a lot of work between 2001 and 2003 by British Columbians. Now it's six years in a row.

We're also proud of the fact that this budget is fiscally responsible. You look around the world, and British Columbia is a beautiful place. It is the best place on earth. That's something I think members on both sides of the House can agree on. But we're a relatively small jurisdiction, and we are subject to the ebbs and flows of what happens elsewhere in the world.

Of course, you look south of the border and you see what's happening in the U.S. You've got the sub-prime mortgage market — the worst housing market probably in a hundred years in the U.S. There are signs that they're perhaps going into recession, and there's always an impact on Canada.

In this particular budget our Finance Minister and our Premier did the right thing. They planned for a rainy day. Again, that's not something that members on the other side of the House are particularly familiar with. They don't really plan for a rainy day. They're the kind of government that, you know, whatever cash happens to be in their pocket, it's gone, just like that. But not us. We don't operate that way.

We think about the future, because we know that the economy can change. It goes in cycles. So in this budget there's a forecast allowance of $750 million and a contingency fund of $375 million. That's the way that you should budget.

I think the people of British Columbia are very, very pleased with this government for the way we manage the economy. If the economy happens to take a dip, like it does from time to time, we're going to be okay in this province. We're not going to slide into a deficit the way they did in the 1990s. We're going to be all right. We'll get through it, because we're planning. We're being prudent. We're actually being responsible.

I want to address the climate action portion of the budget. It is groundbreaking, without a doubt. I want to start off by just making a comment in relation to what the member before me said about…. I'm not sure if I can quote him, but I can paraphrase him. I think he said something to the effect that rural British Columbians, somehow or other, are going to be hurt more by the 2.4 cents per litre in carbon tax than folks in the lower mainland.

What I would say in response to that, for that member's benefit, is that he's obviously forgotten that

our constituents in rural British Columbia…. Of course, I'm a rural British Columbian, the same as that member for Cariboo South is. Our folks, including us, already pay six cents per litre less for gasoline than the people in the lower mainland do.

I think it's important. I hear some of my colleagues from the lower mainland complaining about that, but I think that's only fair, because we do drive more. We have larger vehicles. We need those larger vehicles. We need the big trucks, and we've got larger distances to go. So I think that's the right thing.

Now, in terms of this revenue-neutral carbon tax and the climate action…. When the legislative Committee on Finance and Government Services travelled the province, we went to 14 different communities. We heard a variety of submissions from people who thought we absolutely had to have a carbon tax in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We heard from people that said: "No, we don't need a carbon tax."

But there were some commonalities. There were some things we heard that most people said. One of the things that we heard that came from most people was: "If you are going to levy a carbon tax, try and make it revenue-neutral. Try and make it so that no one sector, whether it be individuals or companies, is penalized more than any other sector. Try and make it revenue-neutral."

Of course, we all know now that this carbon tax is in fact revenue-neutral. I'm very proud of that fact, and I laud the Finance Minister and the Premier for that part of it.

The other thing that we heard in the Finance Committee's travels was to look for other ways to discourage people from activities that cause the emission of greenhouse gases before you levy a carbon tax.

I should say that this government first announced our goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases a year ago, in the throne speech from 2007. Over the course of this past year our government has looked very, very closely at what the best way is to encourage British Columbians, to incent British Columbians to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Frankly, after a year of looking at that and talking to some people that know a lot more about it than I do, the choice was to levy this relatively modest carbon tax but to make it revenue-neutral. So I'm very, very pleased about that, and I support it completely.

Health. We've raised the budget for health seven years in a row — seven budgets in a row. I consistently hear from the other side of this House the word "cuts." I know the Health Minister must get awfully tired of hearing this kind of nonsense from the other side in question period. We've raised the budget for Health seven years in a row.

In fact, this year we're putting $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion, of new funding over the next three years on top of $5 billion of new health funding that was already there. Two-thirds of all the new spending in British Columbia by this government will be for Health. That's pretty amazing.

I think the people of British Columbia generally, when they come into contact with the health care system…. If they have surgery or if they have a family member that gets involved with the health care system in this province, in the vast, vast majority of cases I think every member of this House knows they get excellent service and excellent care.

But that does lead to a question. If you're going to put two-thirds of all of the new revenue into health care over the next three years and you're already spending — I don't know if I know the percentage exactly — 44 or 45 percent of our total provincial budget on health care…. If you're going to do that and you're going to keep adding money to the health care budget every year, as we have for seven years in a row, what's that going to lead to?

You have the cost of pharmaceuticals, which is just going through the roof. It seems like every week there's a brand-new drug that is invented somewhere that shows promise of helping people. There isn't a member here that wouldn't want to have that drug listed. Very, very expensive. Sometimes some of these drugs cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for one patient.

Technology. Technology is doing all kinds of marvellous things. Whoever thought that a place the size of Cranbrook would have an MRI, the size of Trail would have access to an MRI? But we do. It's amazing. We have a travelling MRI that we get at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital about three or four months of the year. Whoever would have ever thought that? It's wonderful, but it's expensive.

We never had it at all, of course, during the 1990s. We didn't have much. In fact, the so-called regional hospital located in Cranbrook was actually an embarrassment. If the members on the other side knew how bad health care services were in the East Kootenay during the 1990s, they would be embarrassed.

I remember when I first got elected, and I took a tour of the hospital in Cranbrook. The first place they took me was down into the basement where they have the heating, the air-conditioning, the air circulation, the wiring and that sort of thing. The fellow who was taking me around said that it hadn't been changed — nothing had been updated or modernized — for about 20 years.

Frankly, they didn't even have a standby generator that would be able to run the equipment in the hospital. If they had a power outage in this hospital that the former government was calling a regional hospital, they actually wouldn't have had enough electricity to operate the hospital.

The first thing that our government did right off the bat was put $8 million into, basically, the basement of the hospital in Cranbrook just so we could keep the doors open — so they would have electricity and have air-conditioning and just the very basics. There are a lot of stories like that about how badly our health infrastructure had deteriorated in the 1990s.

Back to the sustainability issue. No government has really wanted to take on the issue of how you make a health care system sustainable. It's fraught with political time bombs, minefields.

I know that the minute we start to talk about the need to have a sustainable health care system, which means that we want a health care system that we can afford today and a health care system that our children can afford and our grandchildren will be able to afford…. The minute that we start to talk about sustainability, the other side of the House will start shouting out things like: "Oh, that's privatization. That's a terrible thing. It's privatization, and we can't talk about that. We just have to keep plowing more and more new money in there."

They don't care whether that's going to bankrupt their kids. They don't care whether their kids are going to be able to afford that or not.

In this budget we put $300 million into a transformation fund. We've listened to people through the….

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, I have been extremely patient, acknowledging that a certain degree of banter is part of the culture of this institution. However, each member deserves the right to have his remarks heard and listened to by all other members in the House.

B. Bennett: You know, when I was a kid, there was always a kid on the playground that liked to push you around, liked to poke you, liked to crack jokes about you and all that sort of thing. But often those kids couldn't take it if you pushed back. They couldn't take it if you maybe played a little joke on them. I'm afraid, Madam Speaker, there's a certain amount of that mentality on the other side of this House. They really don't like hearing the truth about their record.

We're headed into an election. It's not that far off. I'll tell you, for one, I'm really looking forward to it. I can hardly wait. It's going to be a good election. I'm going to fight hard, and we're going to win.

I think the people of the province want to know what it would be like…. And dare I say this on the record, in Hansard? I'll probably be struck down. Dare I say it? What would happen if the opposition was elected to government?

Well, I think the best way to determine what that would be like would be to look at their history, to look at their record. How did they do in the 1990s? So occasionally people like myself will stand up, and other members, other colleagues on this side will stand up and we'll refer back to the record of the NDP in the 1990s.

I know they don't like it, and I really don't mean to be personal. I really don't. I like several of the members on the other side. It's not personal. But, you know, I worry about the people of the province. I worry about the kids, and I worry about the future of this province. We can't let people forget just how badly they mismanaged this province for ten years.

Now, the previous speaker from Cariboo South mentioned forestry. I think he said something about "nothing in the budget for forestry." I would remind that member and other members on the other side of the House that this government has invested an awful lot of money in rural areas of the province that do depend on forestry.

In my region, Southern interior trust — $50 million out there is being spent in our local communities. The north coast trust has $50 million. They're doing the same thing there. The Northern Trust — $185 million that they're investing in communities in the north, exactly in the centre of the pine beetle.

Geoscience B.C. got another $12 million in this budget that we're debating here today. That will be added….

B. Bennett: Another member just reminded me that the new $12 million that's going into Geoscience B.C. will be focused on the pine beetle area in the province, and that runs right through the Cariboo region and up towards and past Prince George. So the member for Cariboo South should take some hope, I think, from that. If indeed he supports mining, mining will definitely be able to supply some new jobs, good jobs for people in his region in the future.

In this budget we also reduced the school tax rate, which will make a big difference for pulp mills. It will make a big difference for sawmills and for some mines.

The Premier and the Forests Minister have also created the working round table on forestry.

You know, actually about a week ago, I think, we debated in this House whether or not the softwood agreement should be terminated. The NDP has suggested that they might like to terminate the softwood agreement.

With all due respect, forest-dependent communities right now are suffering from a triple whammy. They've got the highest Canadian dollar we've had in decades and decades. They've got the worst housing market in the U.S., which is our largest traditional customer for softwood lumber — a terrible housing market in the U.S. Then, of course, they've got this 15 percent duty under the softwood agreement.

The NDP seems to be suggesting…. Perhaps I don't understand their point here, but they seem to be suggesting that we should terminate that softwood agreement and go back to 30 percent duty.

So we would terminate the agreement that was negotiated by Canada, because of course, this is a national treaty. We'd terminate that, based on what the opposition is suggesting, and go from a 15 percent duty to a 30 percent duty. I just can't for the life of me understand how that's going to help communities like Cranbrook and Mackenzie and other forest-dependent communities.

The member for Cariboo South also mentioned agriculture. I want, particularly for that member…. I know he's very sincere, and I know that he has a lot of agriculture in his riding. So for his benefit and the benefit of anyone else who has agriculture in their

riding, the ministry under the leadership of the member for Prince George North has an agricultural plan that has a wildlife mitigation and compensation program.

This government is putting $4 million of provincial public money into that wildlife mitigation and compensation program, and that's going to be leveraged up to $10 million by federal money. Apparently the member for Cariboo South wasn't aware of that.

There's another $10 million that's going into the development of B.C. biodiesel, which is a very exciting development, I think, for rural British Columbia.

Then thirdly, the B.C. government is going to put up 40 percent of the 60-40 split with the federal government for a per-head payment. That incentive will be going to all of the ranchers in the province. Perhaps the member for Cariboo South wasn't familiar with that either. But that's good news.

I understand from what I've heard so far in the debate that the opposition plans to vote against this budget, so I thought I would just take a minute and take a look at some of the tax reduction measures that they're going to vote against.

The first tax reduction measure that I want to talk about just a little bit, because it's been mentioned in this House, is the corporate capital tax. That always seems to elicit a certain amount of shrieking from the other side. They always seem to think that we're doing this so that we can help big banks and so forth. It's kind of interesting over the past few days.

I live in Cranbrook. There are about 20,000 people there. It's not a big place. It's a beautiful place, a great place to live. I was up there on the weekend, of course, and the manager of the Kootenay credit union came up to me unsolicited. He just came up to me at the B.C. Winter Games, and he said: "I want to thank you and your government for what you did about eliminating the corporate capital tax on financial institutions."

This is not a big bank. This is the credit union that's based in Cranbrook and has offices in places like Elkford and Sparwood and Fernie and Kimberley. Eliminating the corporate capital tax for that particular financial institution is going to free up about $100,000 each year, which they will then reinvest in their community.

In addition to that, instead of being penalized for building their asset base, they're actually now going to be encouraged to build up their asset base. The opposition may not understand this, but the corporate capital tax isn't a tax on profit. It's a tax on assets. It's a tax on investment.

These financial institutions, like the East Kootenay Community Credit Union, have been discouraged over the decades from investing in their communities. They've been discouraged from building their asset base, but now they're going to be encouraged to build on their asset base. So I think that that particular tax reduction measure is a particularly good one for rural B.C.

Another one that the opposition is going to vote against is the 5 percent personal income tax cut on the first $70,000 of income, and there will be additional reductions to personal income tax. That's 5 more percent. I think we've reduced personal income taxes by roughly 40 percent since we were elected in 2001.

I understand that the opposition is going to vote against that. I really don't understand that, because they claim to be the party that represents low-income British Columbians. We're reducing the tax for low-income British Columbians, and they're going to vote against it. Interesting.

The small business tax rate is going to be lowered to 3½ percent from 4½ percent, down to 2½ percent by 2011. The members on the other side claim that they represent the little guy — you know, the small business guy, the ma-and-pa, the grocery store, the kind of business that probably my wife and I had for many years. We're going to reduce their small business tax rate, but the opposition is going to vote against that as well.

We're going to reduce corporate income tax down to 11 percent, and then by 2011 to 10 percent. That was a recommendation that was made to our Finance Committee, as we travelled around the province, to be competitive with Alberta, our next door neighbour. We have to keep our corporate taxes down generally in their range.

That budget also included the expansion of regional tax credits for film-making, which at first blush…. You know, when I saw that, I thought: what's that going to do for rural B.C.? Actually, what it's going to do is encourage film companies to go to places like Fernie, one of the most beautiful places on the face of the earth, and they're going to invest in film-making in Fernie.

B. Bennett: You know, they may go to Yale-Lillooet and make films there. If they do, it'll be because in this budget we expanded the regional tax credit. I appreciate the support that I'm now hearing from some members.

This budget included $33 million in tax relief for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. Apparently, the opposition's going to vote against that. PST exemption on biodiesel fuel. They're going to vote against that. PST exemption on Energy Star–qualified fridges, washers and freezers. They're going to vote against that. A PST exemption on gas-fired water heaters. They're going to vote against that. PST exemption for insulation of water heaters, pipes and ductwork. They're going to vote against that too. PST exemption for making commercial tractor-trailers aerodynamic. They'll vote against that as well.

A PST exemption for diesel vehicle emission control devices. They're going to vote against that. All farm vehicles will now be allowed to use coloured fuel on the highway if they're out there for farm purposes. I'm having some difficulty squaring what the member for Cariboo South said about agriculture and how the budget doesn't do anything for agriculture. I'm going to wait to see if the member votes for this measure or doesn't. I think he's going to vote against it. That's my suspicion. In any case, it will be interesting to see how he votes on that.

We all know — or the member for Cariboo South knows, I know and anybody who's in rural B.C. knows — that ranchers, in particular, are struggling because of the price of beef. This measure would actually help them out.

Education. Again, more money per student. We've raised the funding per student every year since we've been in government. It's a great record. It's one that I think we're all proud of on this side of the House.

I did want to mention the new StrongStart centres that the Minister of Education's going to be putting into play this coming year. I've opened a few of them — some in my riding, and we've actually put some into places like Creston. They're a wonderful way to use a school that is empty, where you've had declining enrolment and you've got a school that's sitting there. It's a good way to put it to use. They bring in child care services. They bring in opportunities for kids and their parents to come in during the day and get some exercise and play with other children. We're going to add, as I understand it, $38 million to the budget for StrongStart communities, and I am very pleased about that as well.

The true test of a budget, I think, in this place and probably any provincial Legislature, has to be how the people at home feel about it. How do the people in the East Kootenay feel about it, the people that I'm accountable to? Are their lives better than they were a few years ago? Is this budget going to help them?

I think that's a good question to ask. I want to be as fair as I can be. I know that there are issues out there. I know that there are issues around mental health. There are issues around addictions. There are issues with children. There's early childhood development. There are always issues around education and health care. There always have been. There always will be.

Our government has put more money into every single one of those areas. Despite what the opposition would have the public believe, the people in my region, where I come from, have more choices and better service today — way better service — than they had in 2001. I don't know what other barometer of success there is than that.

Today during question period, one of the members from the other side referred to a seniors facility in my riding and asked a question of the Health Minister. There is some considerable irony to the member raising that particular facility. It's called Joseph Creek Village.

When I was first elected in 2001 — and that isn't that many years ago — do you know how many assisted-living units we had in Cranbrook? Wait a minute. Do you know how many assisted-living units we had in the East Kootenay — all the communities in the East Kootenay? There are quite a few of them. Do you know how many we had? Zero. Zero assisted-living units in all of the East Kootenay. That's what we had.

When I was first elected, and the folks started coming into my office, it was a challenge. It was interesting for somebody that had never been elected to anything before. They were coming into the office, and they were saying: "My father is 90 years old. He has waited for almost two years, and he hasn't been able to get into long-term residential care in Cranbrook." Or they had to ship him out to somewhere hundreds of miles away.

Today in the East Kootenay, compared to the way it was in 2001, seniors are waiting on average about two months for long-term residential care. Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that that is more evidence that things are working, that this budget is going to help British Columbians more than we've already helped them up to this point.

I just want to say very quickly that our highways are better, our hospitals are better and our seniors facilities are better. Unemployment in the Kootenays is…. Employment is stronger than it has ever been. It just seems to get better and better and better. You can't hire a tradesperson. The kids are all able to stay home and get a good job in Cranbrook or Fernie or Kimberley or wherever they come from — unlike the 1990s, when they had to go to Alberta.

I think, despite what we've heard from some of the members opposite, B.C. is in pretty good shape compared to the way it used to be in this province. I think this side of the House has a positive vision for the future, and you can see it in this Budget 2008-2009.

C. Puchmayr: Earlier today I inadvertently rose to introduce a bill intituled Reservists' Guaranteed Leave Act, 2008, without having previously given notice, for which I apologize.

I would now ask indulgence of this House for leave to be granted to suspend the rules for this proceeding to be regularized and the bill be permitted and placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

H. Lali: I'd like to state to the hon. members opposite that I haven't even started speaking yet, and already I'm getting heckled.

H. Lali: I could give that advice to the hon. member at any time he wishes to seek that advice, and it won't even cost him anything for fashion advice.

I just want to start off by saying that I know a number of members across the way, as they stood up to speak in favour of the budget, have spoken about choices and that this budget is about choices. I agree with the hon. members across the way. Our folks on this side of the House agree that yes, it is about choices.

Unfortunately, the Liberals across the way have made the wrong choices. They've continued to do that for the last seven years now. It's all about choices, but it's the wrong choices. They're always looking after their friends and the insiders. They're always looking after those folks who are financing their election campaigns. They're always looking at those big donators — the banks and the oil companies. That's the kind of choices that they make, but they hardly ever stand up on behalf of average British Columbians and folks who live out in rural British Columbia, in communities like Merritt and Kamloops and other communities.

Really what this budget is all about is winners and losers, because that's how the Liberals have always seen things. It's about winners and losers. It's never about doing the best that you possibly can for all British Columbians. That's not how they look at the world. They look at winners, and then they look at losers. I'm going to expose the Liberals in terms of who are the winners and who are the losers, because that's how the world according to Garp, the world according to the Liberals is. There are winners, and there are losers. That's how they like to divide society.

I'll give you a couple of little stories. There's a legend in the country where I was born — in India, obviously — the legend of an individual named Sultana Daku. Daku actually means robber. Sultana is more benevolent. He was a benevolent robber.

He looked at society, and he thought: all of the big land barons own all the land, and all the serfs, the folks, are not getting their dues. What he did was robbed the rich to give to the poor, sort of like the other story about Robin Hood in England. You've heard that story as well, hon. Speaker, where the rich were just basically taking so much advantage — the folks who had all the power and the influence.

I want to point out also that this budget that the Liberals have done is actually Robin Hood in reverse. They just continue to take from the people who are disadvantaged, continue to take from the people who are trying to make ends meet, whether you're talking about single mothers or seniors or students and a whole number of other people that I'll get to — all of those folks who are just trying to make ends meet or put food on their table. They continue to take away from those people who are the least able to fend for themselves, and then they turn around and actually give it to their friends.

We've heard the Liberals talk about how this is such a revenue-neutral budget — that's the word they used. I know that the Finance Minister used that terminology several times when she got up to give her budget speech. Well, this budget is anything but revenue-neutral. It's all about revenue gouging.

They're gouging revenues from your average British Columbians. They're gouging from all of those lower- and middle-income earners in this province, they're gouging from the people of rural British Columbia, and they're gouging from my constituents. All we've had for the last seven years under this Liberal regime is this gouging of revenue after gouging of revenue.

With all the imposition of all these fees and licences…. Do you know what? Did you know that the Liberals, since coming to office, have had over 700 fee and licence increases? If that's not revenue gouging, I don't know what is. But they continue to do that in every field, whether it's health or education or recreation or environment or you want to go on a picnic — whatever. They gouge and gouge and gouge. That's what this budget is all about. This is not a revenue-neutral budget. This is a revenue-gouging budget.

I briefly mentioned how they continue to take from the poor and give to the rich — Robin Hood in reverse. They keep robbing the poor to give to those who least need it. Like I mentioned a few minutes ago, for the Liberals, it's all about creating winners and creating losers.

Here are the people who are losing out as a result of this budget. It doesn't talk about them. It's actually hurting these people by taking money out of their pockets. I want to talk about who some of these people are who are not getting any benefit.

The average British Columbian is going to pay more for their power. They're going to pay more to heat their homes. If you happen to be somebody who lives in an older home and you're a senior and you live somewhere in the interior or in northern British Columbia, you're going to pay more for your heating fuel. Your heating oil or your oil and gas are going to cost you more. You're going to be paying for the utilization of your power.

In terms of B.C. Hydro rates, they were frozen under an NDP government for five years in a row. We froze B.C. Hydro rates and actually gave back a rebate at the time. They were the lowest hydro rates in the entire country, with the exception at that time of Quebec. That's where our hydro rates were.

But this government has continued to gouge money out of the pockets of people. The hydro rates have risen by 8.45 percent since 2001, and they're planning another 25 percent increase in hydro rates.

H. Lali: That hon. member for Peace River South, who's got hydroelectric dams in his riding….

People who suffer in the winter and heat their homes, a lot of them through B.C. Hydro — they're going to pay 25 percent more. This is on top of the 8.75 percent increase that the Liberals have already done. They're going to pay more for their hydro power. They're going to pay more.

You know, the member living in rural British Columbia in Peace River South…. Somebody with an

older home is going to pay through the nose. What's the Liberals' answer to this? "Insulate your home. Put some more mouldings on there. Put some more sealants on your door. Double up the window panes." That's what they're saying to those folks. They're putting the responsibility back in their laps.

When we talk about education, students are losing. In the 1990s — they talk about the '90s, but they don't want to talk about these sorts of things — the tuition fees that students paid were frozen for six years in a row. These guys, these Liberals, have increased tuition fees 100 percent, on average. There are some schools that are paying a 200, a 300 to almost a 400 percent increase in their tuition fees as a result of the actions of these Liberals. That's what they're doing. They're hurting students.

There's no relief in this budget for students. There's absolutely no relief for students in my constituency — all of those students who are attending the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt or happen to be going to TRU, Thompson Rivers University, in Kamloops or some other places. I mean, there's the burden on them already of actually having to live away from home, go to a bigger centre, pay higher rents and all of that, but their tuition fees have more than doubled, and they're being hurt.

While we're talking about education…. These Liberals have closed — and they don't want to talk about it in the budget — almost 140 schools, a number of them in my constituency. They just closed one. Of all of the Minister of Education's talk about putting more money into education, they closed the only elementary school in the community of Hedley. So those students are now going to be bused an average of two hours a day — to and from, from Hedley to Cawston. That's a real shame that the education is actually being taken away from them, out of their communities.

For lower-income folks MSP premiums under this Liberal government have increased over the number of years as well. You know, the medicare premiums have increased by 50 percent since 2002. A single person will pay $54 a month compared to the current $36. They're increasing it. The family will pay $108 compared to $72. Right now B.C. has the highest medicare premiums in all of Canada. We go from the lowest in all of Canada in 2001, when they took office. It is now the highest in terms of medicare premiums.

Seniors are also paying more, because those who do not qualify for premium assistance are now charged $25 per prescription, up to $275 per year more, by this government. Seniors who do qualify for premium assistance are now charged $10 per prescription up to $200 a year more. This budget doesn't help them. It's hurting them. These guys are punishing them — these Liberals.

If you look at single moms who are looking for work and they've got a couple of kids…. Child care. This budget doesn't even talk about child care. They've announced a plan to actually cut…. They cut the Child Care Operating Funding by 27 percent in 2007. Did they put it back? You'd be hard-pressed to find that in the budget. Then they talk about looking after child care, while they're making cuts.

While we're at it, while talking about children, there's nothing…. There isn't even a word in the throne speech or in the budget by the Finance Minister on how to get rid of child poverty. Our child poverty rates in British Columbia under the Liberals are the highest in the country.

They talk about British Columbia being the best place on earth. Well, I'd like to say to the hon. members that it has always been the best place on earth, right from time immemorial. It hasn't ever changed. What are they bragging about?

As one of my colleagues in one of the speeches earlier said: "They're bragging about British Columbia being the best place on earth right now for child poverty." That's what they're talking about, and it should be a real shame. This budget doesn't do anything to eradicate child poverty or homelessness. Homelessness has more than doubled — in some areas it's tripled — since the Liberals came into office.

They turned around and took all these people that were on social assistance and threw them out on the street, for one thing, and instead of providing some services for people with mental health problems, despite all of….

The Premier, when he was a member of the opposition — as the opposition leader — and members across the way got up one at a time: "When we form government, we're going to solve all the mental health problems." What did they do? They cut all the supports for people for mental health and just shoved them out on the street is what they did. Then what you've got is the rate of the homeless, especially in the downtown east side in Vancouver — it's gone up.

We never had a homeless problem in the communities of Merritt or Hope or Princeton — all of these small communities. Since the Liberals have come into office, we have homeless people, and it's record numbers. In Kamloops, as well, the number for homelessness has never been that high. Since the Liberals came into office, it has been. It's a real shame.

Who else is paying? Let's talk about who else is paying. Ferry rates. The opposition critic for ferries is sitting next to me, and he knows about B.C. Ferries really well, living on the north coast where so many of his constituents are dependent on B.C. Ferries — people on Vancouver Island and all the tourists that come in and all the individuals who live on those small islands in the Strait of Georgia.

What has happened for ferry rates is that since 2001, since this Liberal government took office, ferry fares have risen in B.C. by 35 percent on the major routes and up to 75 percent on minor routes. It's a real shame that they have hiked up the ferry rates so much.

There's no relief in the budget for people who depend for their livelihoods, who actually use the B.C. ferry system to go to work or go to school on all of the small islands. What's happening with them? They're not getting any relief.

Like I've said already, student fees have already gone up. All the tuition fees have gone up. There's the

added burden for all of those folks who are having to go to work or to access educational opportunity having to pay more because the Liberals have jacked up the ferry rates.

You know, if you're a driver in this province, you're going to be hit in a big way. If you're a taxi driver, a truck driver or a family with two or three cars — because you've got kids going to college or university or living out of town or working — you're going to be paying through your nose because of the gas tax that the Liberals have put on there. They like to call it a carbon tax, and I'll talk more about it. It's nothing but just a gas tax. It's hitting them in a big way. They're all paying more — every one of them. They're going to be paying more.

ICBC rates. The most shameful thing under the Liberals is that we've had increase after increase after increase for ICBC rates. And while the corporation makes record profits, they're not being shared with the people who pay the insurance premiums. They're being shared with upper management as bonuses and incentives, but there's no incentive for drivers. There's no incentive for safe drivers. Rates aren't going down. They're going up.

They allowed ICBC to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission to apply for what? Another up to 6 percent increase. So all of those communities that form the ring around the lower mainland…. If you look at the communities of Hope and the canyon — yeah, Hope's in my riding — Maple Ridge, up in the Pemberton and Whistler area, that whole ring around the lower mainland and Surrey and those communities and Chilliwack…. They're all going to be paying up to 6 percent more for their insurance premiums for ICBC.

I know that the hon. members don't want to hear this, because the truth hurts them. They're not going to tell their constituents, but they're being hit hard, and they're being hit hard over and over again by this uncaring Liberal government that punishes good drivers. Instead of giving those benefits to those drivers, because those profits are being made by ICBC, they're giving them to the people that they put in place, those card-carrying Liberals who they have put in place in upper management at ICBC. That's who's getting all of those profits, not those drivers. It's a real shame.

That is a common theme with the Liberals. They support their friends; they support their insiders. They support card-carrying Liberals — all of those people that they have put into place. That's who they're supporting, and they continue to do that while they hurt average British Columbians.

You know that now they've got a secretive board for transit that has jacked up the fares and given themselves up to — what? — a 500 percent increase in wages. Shame, a real shame. They don't even do their business open to the public any more.

This is supposed to be — what? — a green budget. This is what they said was a green budget.

Well, how do you get people out of cars and into transit? Oh, the Liberals have an answer for that, and that's called jacking up the transit fares. That's their answer, not lowering it and making it easier or less costly for people to actually get out of their cars and get into transit. Their answer is to actually increase the fares. That's how they're going to get people out of their cars. Increase the fares on the one side and impose a gas tax on them as well. It just doesn't make sense.

Forestry workers. That's another one. There was — what? — one line for forestry in the throne speech. That's it. It's our largest industry in this province. All of the money that is generated from the forest industry and the resource sector, as well, comes into Victoria to pay for all the health and education and all the other ministries that require funding. And there was one line on forestry. One line. That's it. They basically have had a complete abandonment.

They've continued to abandon rural B.C. The pine beetle infestation is still being allowed to get out of control by the Liberals. They've done nothing. They won't even match the funds that the feds are supplying to British Columbia to fight the pine beetle epidemic. It just goes on and on.

When you look at rural B.C. since the Liberals took power seven years ago, we have seen cuts. We've seen women's centres and community-based rape crisis lines with cuts to funding since then. We've had 24 courthouses that have actually been closed, mostly in rural B.C. Legal aid offices were closed by this government. They've done nothing to reinstate those. They closed over 28 local social services offices, as well, in a lot of those communities. Local child care resource and referral centres were actually forced to close because of the cutbacks in funding by the Liberals. In August of 2002 that budget cut the native courtworkers program by 300,000 bucks.

You know, it's just one cut after another, and it was with the promise that when they balanced the budget — that's after they unbalanced it — they were going to put those back. Well, they haven't. They have just broken their promises over and over again. They just won't listen to average British Columbians.

Then we had the Premier announcing a $14 billion transit plan. They said it was the biggest and the best transit plan in all of Canada and that it's going to all British Columbians. There's one catch to it. There was nothing for those communities outside of Greater Vancouver, Greater Victoria and Kelowna. Yes, maybe Vernon, Prince George, Kamloops and Penticton might get the odd bus to replace some of the aging fleet that there is in British Columbia. Other than that, there was nothing even for those communities.

But for the rest of rural British Columbia, north and east of Hope, B.C. and north of the CRD district here on Vancouver Island, there's nothing. Not one penny of that $14 billion is going to the rest of British Columbia. It's all going to be spent basically in those three areas: the Okanagan — specifically Kelowna — Victoria and Vancouver. It seems as if they've just forgotten that there is a province outside of those particular areas.

You know, if all of those folks that I've already outlined have lost in this budget, who's actually won? Who's actually won? Well, we know that as a part of this revenue-gouging budget, the big winners are the big banks — as if they really needed some more money. As if the big banks were starving. As if all of those big honchos making millions and millions of dollars running the big banks needed some more money, because somehow their lifestyles were being trampled upon — as if they were suffering.

Folks are told that we're going to put this so-called carbon tax on you, and you're going to pay through the nose, but you get a hundred bucks back. What do big banks get? They get $220 million — $220 million in this budget. If you look at CIBC, hon. Speaker, do you know what their profit was last year? Their net profit was $3.3 billion. Take a share of that. What is B.C.'s population — about 12 percent? What's 12 percent of $3.3 billion to the hon. member — about 400 million bucks or close to it, 300 million or 400 million bucks? That was their profit, and they're going to share in the $220 million, as if they needed more.

Toronto Dominion — a $3.9 billion profit, and they're getting more. RBC, the Royal Bank. Get a load of this one. This is the biggest hog on this whole trough, I guess. A $5.5 billion profit in Canada last year — $5.5 billion. They're getting more. I guess they were starving to death. They're getting more from this Liberal government.

But it doesn't end there. It just doesn't end there. It goes on. Usually when you bring in a carbon tax, you're going to do something where…. If you're going to tax one area, where it's polluters, then you're going to give the tax back in an area where it actually helps the environment. I'll get into that in a minute.

When you look at the oil and gas companies, the biggest polluters in the land, they get a whopping $327 million from this government. Petro-Canada last year had $2.8 billion in profits. Net profits of $2.8 billion, and they're getting more.

Here's another one. Imperial Oil — $3.2 billion, and it just goes on. You charge the money to average British Columbians, and then you give it to the biggest polluters in the land, the oil and gas companies. What a shame. It just doesn't end.

I wonder how many of these companies gave money to the B.C. Liberal Party to fight an election. I just wonder how much. It's like: he who pays the piper calls the tunes. That's what is happening.

When you look at the Liberals across the way, they want to take credit for supposedly turning the economy around. They stand up here one at a time, and everybody takes credit. Yet not a single one of them has ever stood up and even recalled one initiative they actually did that was responsible for helping to turn the economy around. But that's just the way it is. They just won't.

I'll tell you one thing. If something goes wrong, if there's something negative, if there's a part of the economy that is suffering, "Oh no" the Liberals say. "It's not our fault," these Liberals say. "It's somebody else's fault." They'll blame — what? — the Canadian dollar.

When you look at the forest industry, they don't want to take responsibility for that. They want to pass the buck on to somebody else. These Liberals don't take responsibility. They blame it on the Americans. "Oh, it's the housing slump in the United States." "Oh, it's the Canadian dollar." But they've got no problem trying to take credit for the economy and say: "Oh, it's really good. We're responsible." But when something goes wrong: "Oh, I'm sorry. We're going to wash our hands of that. It's somebody else's fault." That's how they like to pass the buck, and that's what this revenue-gouging budget is all about.

When it comes to health care and the environment, they're passing the buck again. They're shifting the responsibility onto British Columbians. They're trying to blame British Columbians and say: "It's your fault that health costs are spiralling up. It's your fault that the environment is being polluted, so it's your responsibility to clean it all up." The government is not going to take any responsibility.

When it comes to health care, especially rural health care, they've given up. They've washed their hands. They've given up. They made this promise of building 5,000 long-term care beds in this province — what, five or six years ago? — and every year since then they made that announcement.

They also eliminated almost 3,000 long-term care beds while they were in office. They talk about these long-term care beds. They're still not built. You would think we would have an additional 5,000 long-term beds. You're already almost 3,000 behind. They've given up on that. We don't hear them talking about that now.

Then we'll talk about the dirty hospitals that are taking place and the rates of infection that have gone up. They don't want to take responsibility for that. They go out there and hire some firm to do some audit — and we still don't know what the terms of the audit were — who comes back and says that there is no correlation between dirty hospitals and infections. Unbelievable — this shifting responsibility and passing the buck. That's what it's all about.

It's the same thing on the environment. It's blaming average persons, blaming individuals. That's what it's all about.

I just want to say that this carbon tax is nothing but a disguise, nothing but a facade. It is a shameless tax grab. That's all it is. They're not giving a corresponding reduction on the side to actually put some money into research and development that is going to create clean, green technologies. It's not helping in the areas where those industries or those activities lessen the amount of pollution that is created in this province.

That's what a real revenue-neutral tax is. If you tax on the one side on the polluters, then on the non-polluters — the beneficial side for the environment — you give the tax break. This hasn't happened here. It is nothing but a shameless tax grab by putting more tax on the fuel that you consume in your cars.

This is not a revenue-neutral budget. This is a revenue-gouging budget. I don't know what those Liberals across the way are so proud of, because they

have not done anything to alleviate the problems of poverty and homelessness or to lower the tuition fees for students or even to arrest the pine beetle problem….

H. Lali: I'll be standing up to vote against this budget when it comes up for voting.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a good thing for the member opposite that the carbon tax doesn't come into play until July 1. After that speech, that member would owe probably $100, based on a $10-a-tonne carbon dioxide emissions tax. There was so much hot air coming out of that member opposite, it was just unbelievable.

In fact, the member reminds me a bit of a saying about the back label on a wine bottle. In the wine industry they say you can put whatever you want on the back label of a wine bottle, even if it is true. The nonsense that that member just spewed certainly represents that.

I want to get on to more important things as they relate specifically to the budget speech. I think there is very much good news for my constituents in Prince George North and for agriculture in B.C.

But, as usual, I'd like to start out by thanking people who helped me service my constituents in the Prince George and Mackenzie regions. Charlotte Groot and Judy Jackson in Mackenzie just do a fabulous job for me in terms of providing the services that are meaningful to people in the Prince George area.

Rita Francis in Mackenzie. Very difficult time in the Mackenzie region right now. We've had a number of sawmill closures as a result of the very low housing starts in the U.S., of course, and the elevated Canadian dollar. But Rita has really worked through those challenges. She's dealing with constituents on a local basis, looking for economic development opportunities in the region and has really worked through those challenges. She's dealing with constituents on a local basis looking for economic development opportunities in the region and really providing great services.

Here in Victoria, of course, I have great staff — Jeremy Walden, my ministerial assistant, and T.J. Parhar, my executive assistant. Christine Willows and Kim Birk, my two admin coordinators and admin assistants, service all of the MLAs in this House and work hard to ensure that we're responsive as a ministry, that we react to those little constituent issues that are always challenging — regardless of whether it's a member of the opposition or a member of the government bench — to really deliver for British Columbians on all of the issues that we face.

When I listened to the throne speech, when I looked at the budget, I really thought there was a question that needed to be asked. That question is: is it time? Is it time for our generation to take responsibility for our actions? Is it time for our generation to think about our children? Is it time for our generation to think about our grandchildren when they come? I would submit to you that the answer to that question is: yes, it is time.

I'll share with you a couple of specific examples that have impacted my riding and my region, which I believe are directly related to the climate change issue. Let's start out with mountain pine beetle. When I first moved to Prince George in 1988, it was not uncommon for us to have minus-40 weather. Mountain pine beetle has two primary enemies, those being cold and fire. We've been very, very good at controlling fire historically over the years, but cold temperature has been our friend when it comes to the control of mountain pine beetle.

We have a forest that has a tremendous amount of mature timber. It is literally a feast for mountain pine beetle, and they've had the opportunity, because of the lack of cold weather, to work through those forests. There were a lot of people that said: "We'll just wait for the temperature to get colder." They said, "Let's wait," all the way through the 1990s, and it didn't come. The temperatures didn't drop. We've seen that ongoing warming in the climate that we have in the Prince George region.

Now when you look through the community, it no longer looks like it did when I first moved there in 1988, when there was just a huge forest. It was the largest urban forest in North America in Prince George, and those trees are largely gone today as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestation, which was a directly related impact of climate change and global warming.

This last year we've been faced with significant floods in the Prince George region as a result of increased water in the Nechako River. Just think about this for a second, Mr. Speaker. Pine trees consume about 50 litres of water per day. There are 1.8 billion dead pine trees that no longer consume that in the Nechako basin, the area that feeds the Nechako River.

You do the math in there, and there's a huge amount of water that has had to flow into the Nechako River. It has come down through the system and has resulted in the flooding impacting my riding. Now there are probably ten or 15 homes in my riding that will never be occupied again as a result of this flood. The 200-year floodplain was exceeded significantly on a number of occasions through this flooding period, where the flood was larger than we had ever seen in 200 years — a significant flooding event.

The flooding event in the Fraser Valley last year. We came very close to a very serious event in the Fraser Valley, as well, last year. That increased water coming into the system is not just this year; it's next year, the year after and the year after. We're likely to see this ongoing flooding for out into the 20-to-25-year window. That's a direct impact of climate change.

The spruce beetle, as well, is working its way through our forests. Again, spruce beetle is impacted by cold temperature and by fire. We control fire. Cold temperature is our only natural ally right now. We need to do a tremendous amount of work to make sure that we address the spruce beetle circumstances.

Based on the clear evidence that is out there, I think the only responsible thing to do as adults in today's society is to say: "Yes, it is time to take our role." It is time to make a significant change. It is time to think

about our future and how we can effectively manage that through an agenda that speaks to limiting our impact on this earth.

I think this budget is largely about that, but this budget has another component. The countries that are the most environmentally friendly and that can afford to pay the price that is necessary in order to have that environmentally friendly environment have to have strong economies. This budget has a significant component focused on building the economies of British Columbia.

The tax model that the member opposite, the member for Yale-Lillooet, earlier on suggested was not revenue-neutral is in fact revenue-neutral, and it will be there by law. It will say in legislation that every dollar that comes out of people's pockets in a carbon tax will have to go back into people's pockets, either through personal income tax reductions or small business or corporate income tax reductions — by law.

It's going to be interesting for me, when that legislation is tabled and as we debate that legislation in the House, where the members of the opposition really stand on this issue. Are they for us taking our role, our responsibility and our time in history and really saying that we need to be proactive in dealing with the climate change agenda? Or are they going to be in denial?

I suspect there will be many individuals on the opposite side that will be conflicted by that choice, because I know there are individuals on that side of the House who are very concerned about the impact on the environment in the long term. I know they know that carbon taxes are an appropriate way of managing and dealing with that.

I do think it's important for them to have the opportunity to have a free vote in this House, to make a conscious decision on whether or not that is an appropriate thing to do. Do we want to be there for our children, going into the future, or not? Clearly, I think the answer to that question is yes.

The balancing of priorities — removing taxes from productivity taxes, which are always on income. When you tax income, you're taxing productivity. Any economist in the world, regardless of who it is…. Even the wonderful left-wing think tanks will tell you that when you're taxing productivity, you are restricting the economy. When you move it to consumptive taxes where people have choices and make decisions, that is a far better model. That's exactly what this tax does.

It is truly revenue-neutral. I did some math the other day on this particular issue. For the average family of four that will get a $400 rebate in June of this year, if they were to apply that $400 rebate on the 2.4-cents-per-litre fuel tax that will kick in as of July 1…. If you were driving a pickup — which I'm not, but if you were — and that pickup only got 15 miles to the gallon, you would have to drive 88,000 kilometres just to get back to neutral, and that is not including the tax reductions that you would be getting as a result of it.

The Ministry of Finance put together a very good package that I would strongly encourage people to look up. You can go to the government website www.gov.bc.ca and take a look at this package. It truly does break out the revenue neutrality.

For a family of four with $90,000 in income consuming fuel by driving 20,000 kilometres a year in a minivan, say — in a sedan, another 15,000 kilometres a year for a total of 35,000 kilometres a year — adding in the hot water and everything else, it's $75 net that they are ahead.

It ranges throughout all of the varying levels of income. A single parent with $30,000 a year in income has a net benefit of $165. So there is no level that is not at a revenue-neutral achievement as a result of this.

The other key initiative we're looking at throughout northern British Columbia that I think is extremely important is the Geoscience B.C. incremental funding of $12 million. I know I have heard members opposite, over the last few days, talking about how there's nothing in this for rural B.C. They clearly have not done their homework, or they are like the back of a wine bottle label, where they don't necessarily have to be completely honest in their comments. Absolutely, there are lots of key initiatives in here to ensure that rural British Columbia is successful and can be financially independent.

Three years ago, when we introduced Geoscience B.C. and funded it with $25 million when I was Minister of State for Mining, we heard very clearly that it was important to have that geoscience spending — to see on-the-ground spending for exploration around the province.

What happened this last year? We had a record year — $416 million in exploration spending in the province, far exceeding anything that was ever achieved before. When we came to office in 2001, in fact, there was only $29 million in spending in exploration around the province. This past year, $416 million. That's a direct result of initiatives like Geoscience B.C. and the growing wealth of geoscience information that we're bringing. So this $12 million, I think, is a significant driver and has great potential to see direct economic benefit.

I worked in the forest industry for about eight or nine years. I was a logger. I've had that experience, and I think the initiatives around bioenergy are probably the biggest single opportunities for the forest industry in the 21st century. The opportunity to diversify their businesses, to look at this new opportunity, to sell electricity into the grid, to fully utilize the wood waste material that's left on the forest floor, to really start thinking about how you grow that wood in a more productive way, how we manage our forest tenures, how we grow our silviculture businesses is an exceptional opportunity.

I think little communities around northern British Columbia like Mackenzie, Fort St. James, Quesnel, Williams Lake and larger communities like Prince George are going to see unprecedented economic growth as a result of this bioenergy initiative that we have out there — $25 million in new money to build the research necessary to ensure that we have an industry that is sustainable in the long term.

But what is this going to do? It's going to put loggers back to work in the bush. For every person that's working in the mill, there's at least one or two individuals working out in the bush, which is where I used to work actually harvesting that material and bringing it in to the mills.

So there's a huge economic opportunity here that will evolve, and it's an environmentally friendly opportunity. That's the really neat thing about this, because it's a huge win-win for everyone. There's no one that loses in this initiative. The environment wins in it, the loggers win in it, and the forest industry is a big winner as a result of this as well. It will drive rural economies. It will make a significant difference in terms of the productivity of those economies.

Unlike the member opposite who spoke before me, I don't believe it's necessary to raise your voice in this chamber. I think that we can all be heard in a respectful way. It appeared as if the member opposite earlier on….

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, you'll all have an opportunity to speak. Surrey–Panorama Ridge will be up next, I believe, so we'll all get a chance. Please allow the speaker to have the floor.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite clearly thought that volume was the only answer to trying to make what were completely, of course, inaccurate statements.

I want to talk a little bit about our agriculture plan, which we introduced just about two weeks ago now. This is a plan for the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning, who is a key player in terms of delivering this plan.

I've heard members opposite, including the member for Cariboo North and the member for Cariboo South, talking about how there was nothing in the budget, that there was no support for the agriculture industry and for the agriculture plan. They either haven't taken the time to read it or are not being honest — one of the two — because, clearly, this agriculture plan is the way forward into the 21st century.

It was very interesting to me. The critic for agriculture released a news release early in the morning the day that we were releasing the agriculture plan, and he suggested that we needed to turn our minds more to things like the hundred-mile diet. He was already crying about how none of that work had been done.

Yet in fact, that's exactly where we've taken the agriculture plan. The notion around people wanting to eat local — people wanting to know how far their food had to travel in order to get to the grocery store, in order to get to their plate — is the key fundamental principle on which this agriculture plan has been built.

It has been received extremely well. I've had calls from individuals all across Canada on this agriculture plan. People are turning their minds to this in all provinces — as to how they can build an industry that is fundamentally built on the principles that we've articulated in this plan.

There are five key themes in this ag plan. The first one is the notion of eating locally. James Mackinnon and Alisa Smith, when they wrote the book The 100-Mile Diet, probably had more impact on agriculture than any other young couple, and yet they knew nothing about it when they started writing that book.

When they started living the life of the hundred-mile diet, they didn't have any idea what agriculture was about. Yet I think they taught us as a province, taught us as a nation and taught us as a world population that the principles behind eating locally are absolutely the right ones. I'm very proud to say that we, I think, have accurately reflected many of the principles that they talked about.

They talked about how challenging it is to find product that is grown locally. We have a whole variety of initiatives within the agriculture plan that speak to providing that information to the consumer so that the consumer understands the distance that product has travelled and can make logical choices. It's not a choice that we're making for them. We're allowing them to make that decision and providing that information for them on an ongoing basis.

The second key initiative is building the issues around the climate change agenda into the ag plan. I think that agriculture is changing significantly in terms of the potential to really benefit from environmental goods and services that they provide to the general population.

You know, for a long time consumers in British Columbia have taken for granted the green space, the good things that agriculture does for the environment. They've been unwilling or didn't understand that that was a key component of agriculture. The ag plan builds into it the principles of ensuring that our farmers really benefit from the ecological goods and services that they provide to society.

Agriculture produces about 4 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the province of British Columbia. I believe there's a very real opportunity for us to be net-neutral in greenhouse gases in the ag industry. I don't think that's a tough thing for us to accomplish at all. Whether it's biodigestion to remove methane gas from manure, whether it's using canola to produce biodiesel or whether it's using low-till techniques — increased carbon sequestration — there is a broad variety of initiatives available to our agriculture industry that I think are going to deliver very, very positive results for our farmers in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and benefiting from this agenda.

The third key principle in the agriculture plan is the concept of the family farm and sustaining the family farm through profitable mechanisms. B.C. is very unique in that it really is the last home of the family farm across Canada, across North America. Much of the rest of Canada and North America has shifted to a far larger corporate farming model, but because of the nature of our business, we've been able to maintain the integrity of the small family farm.

There's much that we need to do to ensure that family farms remain viable, that they be profitable and

that they can be transitioned to younger members of the family going forward. We've got key initiatives, key strategies, based on that principle. I am proud to say that I think the family farm will be doing very well in the future as a result of this.

The fourth key theme is building first nations agricultural capacity — again, I think, a key opportunity. Many of our first nations communities live in very rural areas, and they don't necessarily receive high-quality food on a regular basis through the normal means of transport. So we've started working on community gardens, on strategies around engaging first nations in agriculture, and I think there's a huge opportunity for us.

I'm really pleased that my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has provided and is providing additional programming to ensure that we can transfer knowledge and education to our first nations community in agriculture. This ag plan was about partnership. There are no fewer than six ministries that have commitments, and they're coming to the table to deliver this agriculture plan. That's why it's going to be successful.

Finally, I think more than anything else with this ag plan is the notion that this is built really on those partnerships, that we really make sure that we combine urban British Columbia and rural, agricultural British Columbia in a way that allows it to thrive. We all know the pressures that are on our agricultural land base. Certainly they're extreme. We're constantly hearing about challenges that agriculture faces on a day-to-day basis on its land base as urban British Columbia encroaches on the family farm.

We need to make sure that we provide our farmers with the tools that are necessary but also that we make sure the public is aware of the necessary practices that our farmers have to participate in, in order to be profitable and really protect the nature of their crops. Bridging the urban agriculture divide is the fifth key theme.

All together, there are 23 strategies, 69 action items and significant fiscal resources — a $10 million strategy just around compensating for wildlife damage in the ranching industry. That's something that the member for Peace River South has been advocating for, for a long, long time, and I am pleased to say that we were able to deliver that to his constituents. I know it was a huge issue for them.

I'd also encourage the members for Cariboo North and Cariboo South to be honest here. If they haven't heard from the ranching industry in their regions that the number one priority for them was a wildlife compensation program, then clearly they've not been listening. I have, and that's what I've been hearing from those individuals up and down the Cariboo. It's been an extremely important part of the package.

The food miles program — an additional $3 million there. The bioenergy strategy to convert canola to biodiesel — an additional $10 million there. We're reprofiling $15 million in other areas and strategies. There are significant resources targeted at this.

One of the things that disturbs me is that the NDP seems to want to measure success by how many dollars you spend on something, not the results that you get. Well, I can tell you, on this side of the House we measure our success by the results that we achieve, not the dollars that we spent. I think that's extremely important.

I want to move on to another side of my ministry that is extremely important, and that is the Lands side of the ministry. We've been working aggressively in this province to establish land and resource management plans in partnership with first nations, and I think we've got some great stories to tell here.

The north coast–central coast land use plan. The Great Bear rain forest. We worked hard for several years to develop a true government-to-government relationship where we had a joint land use plan, and we achieved that two years ago. But what happened this last year I think was even more significant, because we came together and established a new system of eco-based management for the region, which has a very light footprint for forestry.

We did it in a unique way, because first nations and the province of British Columbia developed the objectives that were necessary for the delivery of ecosystem-based management. That is an entirely new model. That is the spirit of the new relationship. It is about joint decision-making. It was very much done in a way that represented the traditional knowledge and values of first nations up and down the coast.

I can speak specifically about the Nanwakolas council of first nations, a group of eight or nine first nations, Turning Point's first nations, the Tsimshian…. All have all signed on to the strategic land use planning agreements that very specifically identify the management rules and how we're going to look at our forests going forward on the Great Bear rain forest.

Just a few months ago now, in December, the Premier and I had the opportunity to go and sign an agreement with the Council of the Haida Nation on the land use agreement for Haida Gwaii. This is, again, I think, an exceptional opportunity and really demonstrates the spirit of the new relationship.

This happened in very short order. It did not take a long time at all. In fact, from the time we started on the process until we signed the agreement was only 13 or 14 months — a very short period of time. The strategic land use plan for Haida Gwaii is, I think, an innovative approach. It speaks to protecting the forestry values on the islands. It speaks to protecting the potential interest in mining opportunities, in energy opportunities. It really builds a government-to-government relationship with the Council of the Haida Nation, where we will, again, jointly develop things like objectives for ecosystem-based management on the islands.

Really, we've torn down the old systems where governments made arbitrary decisions on their own, and we've really developed that new relationship that has allowed us to step forward. The Premier and I were on the islands right at the end of January, and at the end of January we officially signed the agreement again, I guess, or celebrated the agreement with the Council of the Haida Nation.

The celebration that we had was really significant. It was different than anything I'd ever been to, because I think the sense that I had there….

B. Simpson: The member opposite has made a number of what I believe are disparaging comments about myself and the member for Cariboo South. He made a number of references to the fact that we were being dishonest in this House in our representation of our position with respect to the agricultural plan and with respect to our response to the budget.

Now, my understanding of the order of this House is that the member can make general comments, but when he names two members of this House and suggests we're being dishonest, I think that's inappropriate, and I don't think it's parliamentary.

Deputy Speaker: If I could remind all members of the House to be courteous and respectful when referring to other members.

Hon. P. Bell: I am reasonably confident that the record will show that I suggested that either the member opposite had not read the ag plan or was being dishonest. It would be one of those two options.

Hon. P. Bell: Moving on. I was referring to the opportunities around Haida Gwaii. I think there is a whole new economic potential in that region for development over the coming decade. There really is truly a spirit of cooperation on the islands, a sense of everyone pulling together in the same direction, really looking for long-term economic advantages that they can expand upon and develop. In the new agenda that is very much focused on climate change and on the realities of what were faced with out there, I think the future is very, very bright.

Another initiative I want to point to — because I think this is particularly relevant — is the mountain caribou recovery strategy that this government initiated several years ago and that we announced last fall. The mountain caribou recovery strategy really brought together a broad range of individuals who traditionally have not been supportive of the various approaches of each other — the environmental community working with the forest industry, working with first nations, working with government. Yet working through a cooperative, consensus-based approach — an approach that really looked to creating a long-term, sustainable regime for recovering mountain caribou — we were able to cooperatively develop a model that I think will stand the test of time and will truly demonstrate our commitment to the recovery of mountain caribou.

We've clearly articulated the principle around the recovery strategy; 95 percent of the high-value habitat will be protected for mountain caribou. The herds across the range will be augmented or protected to ensure their long-term longevity. I think that in very short order we're going to start seeing increases in populations throughout the range.

I speak about mountain caribou as a recovery strategy because I really do think it's a good example of how, when people work together, when people really work in a way that they put their differences aside and try and find a consensus position, it is remarkable what can be achieved. My time is short, and so I need to wrap up this point.

For me, this budget really hits on all the key issues and key points. It is a strong budget from an economic perspective. It ensures that communities in my riding, throughout rural British Columbia will remain strong going into the future. It will build on past economic strategies, but it is also, very importantly, focused on protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring that we leave behind a province, a world that we can be proud of for our children.

I'm very happy to be supportive of this budget. I think it is a budget for the future. It will go down as being, I think, one of the most important budgets for the history of British Columbia and, in fact, for all of Canada.

J. Brar: It's always a real honour to stand up in this House and speak to the budget speech, but before I do that, I would like to thank the people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge for giving me the opportunity to stand up in this House and speak on the issues which are important to them.

I also would like to say thanks to my staff members, who assist me on a day-to-day basis to be a productive member of this House. In the Surrey office I would like to say thanks from the bottom of my heart to Murray Bilada for his extraordinary work and commitment to serving the community of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. I also want to say thanks from the bottom of my heart to Ruby Bhandal for her deep commitment and passion for serving the community of Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

In the Victoria office I would like to say thanks to Gurbrinder Kang for her able support and meaningful assistance to me from time to time. Last but not least, I would like to say thanks to the communication team and the research team for their support on a day-to-day basis.

I have been listening to the members on both sides, and what we hear is: it's all about choices. I don't think we dispute that. We agree on that point — that it's all about choices. But what kind of choices you make — that's the issue.

This budget speech delivered last week was the eighth budget speech, and if you look back, almost every British Columbian has seen, one by one, their name on the title page of the budget speech: seniors, first nations, patients, children…. The list goes on. The

Once upon a time we heard the slogan of "heartland." Soon after, it became the "hurtlands."

Once upon a time we heard the slogan of "Health care when you need it." Soon after it became: "You never know when."

Once upon a time we heard the slogan of "The best education so that no child is left behind." Soon after, we learned this "best education" means closing 115 schools in the province of British Columbia.

Once upon a time we heard the slogan of building "5,000 long-term care beds for seniors." Soon after, it became more public consultation to find out what people need.

Those are a few examples. The history of slogans for the people of British Columbia goes on and on.

Coming to the current budget, I've been listening to both sides — members making very passionate speeches on that side of the House and this side of the House. I have also spoken to many people in Surrey and other parts of the province and have also listened to a lot of radio programs and read a lot of newspaper stories.

One can think about how one can best summarize the green budget. I've tried to summarize the way people have spoken to me. The first attempt I would like to make…. The green budget is a big tax break to big banks and a new tax for the average family; a big subsidy to the oil and gas sector, and a hundred dollars to the rest of you. It's a $225 million tax break to big banks and a 7½-cents-per-litre gas tax for an average family.

A $327 million subsidy to the oil and gas sector and just a hundred dollars to the rest of you just one time. This is the second gas tax on working families and the third big tax break for B.C. Liberals' friends. The key message of this green budget is that the responsibility for tackling climate change is only the responsibility of working families, while big polluters get a free pass.

As a member of this House, I get the opportunity to go out and attend different events and meet a lot of people. During my discussion with people of Surrey and other parts of the province, I have heard a lot of stories from the people which relate to the budget, and I would like to share those stories and convey my message about the budget.

The first story is: "We can't wait any longer." In 2001 B.C. Liberals promised to provide the best health care when you need it and where you need it. In fact, they did the opposite. Since they closed hospitals, the promise "where you need it" became "You don't need it everywhere." Since the health care wait-lists have gone up significantly under the B.C. Liberals, the promise "When you need it" became "You never know when."

In 2005 the Premier came up with a new dream. The dream was to make health care more sustainable. This slogan sounded very good, as it did the first time: "When you need it and where you need it."

But as soon as people found out that the term "sustainable" stands for privatization as per the B.C. Liberals' dictionary, the honeymoon was not sustainable but over.

The story of Surrey Memorial Hospital is a prime example of those broken promises. Surrey Memorial Hospital was built in 1959, when the population of Surrey was just 50,000 people. Since that time Surrey has experienced significant growth in the community. Surrey is now the fastest-growing community in the province. Surrey welcomes almost 1,000 people every month — in other words, two 747s land in the middle of Surrey every month — and that has been happening for the last many years. As a result of that population growth, the grand population of the city at this point in time is over 400,000 residents.

As a result, Surrey Memorial Hospital has now become the second-largest hospital in the province of British Columbia by volume of patients. It is home to the busiest emergency room in the province, with up to 75,000 visits per year. The real capacity of the hospital is just providing quality care to 50,000 people. In other words, it's almost 40 percent over capacity.

Clearly, Surrey needed a fitting expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital, or probably a new hospital, to accommodate the health care needs of the people of Surrey. Yet B.C. Liberals didn't care at all to pay any attention to Surrey Memorial Hospital during their first full term.

That day came finally when the Premier finally spent some time to understand the health care crisis at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That day came after four years, and it came during the last election, during the middle of the election campaign, when the Premier went to Surrey for a photo op to make an announcement to fast-track plans to meet Surrey health care needs.

The Fraser Health Authority officials did their homework and submitted the report to the Premier on time, on October 31. The report was called Building for the Future. Two key recommendations made in that report were…. The first recommendation was to build a new state-of-the-art emergency room. The construction was to start in 2008 with completion in 2009. I'm going to repeat: the construction was to start in 2008 with completion in 2010.

The second recommendation in that report was to build a new out-patient hospital to provide out-patient care. Construction was to start in 2007 and completion in 2009. Again, construction was to start in 2007 with completion in 2009. So 2007 has gone, and B.C. Liberals have failed to start the construction of the ER or the out-patient hospital in Surrey. In fact, they have delayed the completion of both projects to 2010 and 2011.

It is because of these delays that the people of Surrey say we can't wait any longer. It is because of these delays that the people of Surrey don't trust B.C. Liberals anymore. Seven years have passed. The Premier failed to tell us even the start date of those two projects, which are very, very important to the people of Surrey.

People were waiting for some actions by the Liberals on that file, but in fact, in this budget what people got from the Premier was the second big gas tax on working families and the third big tax break to rich

people of the province. How can the Premier justify a $220 million tax break to big banks, on one hand, and on the other hand, a new gas tax for working families and small businesses? How can the Premier justify a $327 million subsidy to the oil and gas industry on one hand and, on the other hand, a new gas tax of 7½ cents per litre on working families and small businesses?

My second story is about: who cares about us? A few days ago I went to visit the Surrey Food Bank. I saw a huge lineup of people of all ages waiting to receive their hampers. I saw seniors who had spent their entire life building this beautiful province, the best place to live, waiting to receive their hampers. I saw workers who work for a minimum wage waiting to receive their hampers. It's because the cost of living has gone up significantly during the last seven years. A minimum wage of $8 does not make any sense anymore for them and for their kids. I also saw families with kids standing and waiting to receive their hampers. I was frozen by the moment.

I was frozen because I felt challenged, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, to stand up and fight for those people — especially the kids, the future of this beautiful province — who certainly don't believe for a moment that B.C. is the best place on earth for them to live in.

Child poverty has grown in every community in the province since the B.C. Liberals took over in 2001. The B.C. Liberals have attacked the social safety net in British Columbia by making public policy changes to attack the most vulnerable people and by not having the vision and the political will to address the issue of growing poverty.

B.C. has been blessed with a good economy for the last few years, but the B.C. Liberals have failed to make it a successful economy so that everyone in British Columbia can benefit from the good economy. The growing poverty in B.C. is a clear indication that the B.C. Liberals don't care about the poor and the most vulnerable people in the province. That is a shame.

In a province as rich as B.C. we have the worst child poverty rate — a shameful title that B.C. has now held in each of the last four years. In 2004 the B.C. child poverty rate was 23.5 percent. In other words, nearly one in every four kids lived in poverty. Every month over 24,000 children in B.C. used the food bank.

What these numbers tell us is that for a quarter of our kids, B.C. is definitely not the best place on earth to grow up in. The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2004 was 196,000. That is almost the same as the entire population of Burnaby or the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Williams Lake combined.

British Columbia also has the worst income gap between the rich and the poor among the other provinces. The poor only earn 6 percent of what the rich earn in British Columbia.

The number of homeless in the province is growing as well. According to a recent report by health professionals at UBC, SFU and the University of Calgary, the number of homeless people in British Columbia may be triple the estimate given by the Minister of Housing. In B.C. there may be over 15,000 people with severe addictions or mental illnesses who are homeless. This budget offers no hope to those people in the province.

The questions we need to ask are: at a time when B.C. has a record surplus, why is the number of children and families living in poverty growing? At a time when B.C. has a record surplus, why is the number of homeless people going up? With the record surplus, why do the B.C. Liberals fail to address the growing problem of child poverty? Why is everyone in B.C. not benefiting from the economy under the Liberals?

The simple answer to all those questions is that the B.C. Liberals just don't care about the poor working families.

There has been a lot of discussion in this House from the members on both sides. We talk about choices and opportunities. Let us look at what choices this government has made.

On one hand, what we see is that the B.C. Liberals gave a $225 million tax break to big banks under this budget. The B.C. Liberals gave away a $327 million subsidy to the oil and gas sector. The B.C. Liberals gave a third tax break to their corporate friends.

On the other hand, they are forcing working families and small businesses to pay a new gas tax of 7½ cents per litre under this new budget. They have created a new class of working poor by introducing a $6-an-hour training wage. They have refused to raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour. Ontario has done it. Why not B.C.? The B.C. Liberals are the only government in the country that eliminated earning exemptions for people on income assistance — a very important incentive to enable people to make a transition from welfare to work.

The B.C. Liberals have destroyed the social safety net bit by bit, introducing their mean-spirited policy — for example, introducing three weeks and setting two in five years for income assistance. They just don't care about the average families in British Columbia.

It is very clear: everyone is not benefiting under the B.C. Liberals. The time has come to start building one British Columbia for all British Columbians, where all people can have dreams and opportunities — including the kids of this province.

My next story is about a school we have in Surrey. The title of the story is "Save our School." Once upon a time the B.C. Liberals made a promise to provide the best education system so that no child is left behind. But, in fact, they did the opposite. During their first term they closed 115 schools in the province. The rationale to close those schools was that the enrolment is going down.

Now we learn that ten other schools are being closed as well. One of those schools is a school in the city of Surrey — Fleetwood Elementary School. The city of Surrey, as I said before, is the fastest-growing community in British Columbia, and Surrey-Tynehead constituency, the location of the school, is the fastest-growing constituency in the city of Surrey. Therefore, the enrolment, in fact, is growing in the community. And the Fleetwood Elementary School is being closed.

The rationale of declining enrolment does not work for this school. The only factor contributing to the closure of Fleetwood Elementary School is the change of the funding formula by the B.C. Liberals in the middle of the financial year. As a result of that change, it is estimated that the Surrey school district received over $6 million less last fiscal year.

The parents fought to save the school. The students of this school fought to save the school. The opposition MLAs joined the parents and the students. The only people who remained silent in Surrey were the local Liberal MLAs. This budget and the local Liberal MLAs provide no hope to the students of Fleetwood Elementary School.

Because of the wrong priorities of this government, Fleetwood Elementary School will become a bedtime story. The bedtime story will be like this: "Once upon a time there was a school named Fleetwood Elementary School. The school was closed by the B.C. Liberals when the enrolment in the area was growing and when B.C. had the biggest surplus." That is another example of the good economy under the B.C. Liberals not benefiting all British Columbians.

My next story is that life has become too costly. Under the B.C. Liberals, we continue to see costs rising for average families. The transit fares have gone up. It now costs almost $10 to take a return trip from Surrey to Vancouver. The gas price has gone up significantly. Tuition fees have gone up over 100 percent and are the second highest in Canada. The cost of MSP has doubled. The cost of insurance has gone up. The cost of a driving licence has gone up significantly as well. And now we hear that B.C. Hydro has said it is looking at jacking up rates by 25 percent for hydro costs.

The gas tax in this budget does not offer any hope and this budget does not offer any hope to working families and small business people. This budget actually adds more gas tax to working families, who are already struggling with their day-to-day life.

Climate change is big on the agenda in this budget. When I look at that plan and when you think about that, the first question you ask yourself is: what is the purpose of the climate change in this budget? You think right away about the gas tax. If the purpose of the gas tax is to make sure that fewer and fewer people use cars and more and more people use public transit, then when I look through my city's perspective, which is the city of Surrey, which is behind almost 500 buses, this is not pragmatic. This is not practical, because people have no choice to use public transit.

The second thing that I have heard from the members on the other side is that this is revenue-neutral. I have heard stories from small business people, who have told me that according to their business, according to their perspective, this may be revenue-neutral to the treasury of British Columbia, but not to their business.

I will give you an example of taxi drivers. According to their estimation, the 7½-cent gas tax is going to cost them close to $1,500 to $2,000 per year, and they're not going to get it back under this budget taxation.

Similarly, I have heard stories from truck drivers. According to one truck driver, this is going to cost them up to $7,000 when it goes to a 7½-cent-per-litre gas tax. So this also is not going to be revenue-neutral for them.

The question, when we ask about the climate change action plan…. Again, I said before that on one side, B.C. Liberals have introduced a green budget with the hope that fewer and fewer people will drive cars and more and more people will use buses. But they have done absolutely nothing to add more buses for the city of Surrey, while the city of Surrey's population has grown significantly during the last seven years since they have been in power.

The other thing is that on one side, they have introduced a new gas tax. On the other side, they have just recently raised the transit fares and made it very, very costly for people to go from Surrey to Vancouver. A return ticket is almost $10. People are being hit from both sides, on the gas tax side as well as from the public transit fare side.

Now we talk about the choices. As I said before, there has been a nice debate, a wonderful debate for the last few days, and there is a clear difference between the members of this side and the members of that side.

The members on the other side believe that it's okay to give a $225 million tax break to big banks and just $100 for the people of British Columbia. I don't think it's okay.

The members on the other side believe that it's okay to give a $325 million subsidy to the oil and gas sector and to force average families to pay additional gas tax for climate change. I don't think it's okay.

The members on the other side believe that it's okay to give a free pass to the oil and gas sector, responsible for 21 percent of oil emissions in B.C., and to tax only average families and small businesses for climate change. I don't think it's okay.

The members on the other side believe that the responsibility for tackling climate change is the responsibility of working families alone, while big polluters should get a free pass. I don't think it's okay.

So there is a clear difference between what we think and what they think. There's a clear difference about choices, which the member has been talking about. Our choice is to support working families, average families and small business people. They chose to support their own friends — the big people, the rich people — and to give them tax breaks a third time under this budget. They never asked for the tax, and they don't need it.

With these factors I just said, I would like to make it very clear that because of the difference between us on this side of the House and the other side of the House, I would oppose this budget when it comes to a vote.

Hon. S. Bond: It certainly is a pleasure to rise in the House today as the MLA for Prince George–Mount

Robson. I, in contrast to the member previous to me, will be voting, obviously, in support of Balanced Budget 2008.

I always want to take the opportunity, when I have the chance to stand in the Legislature, to pay an incredible debt of gratitude to those people who have elected me as their representative in Prince George–Mount Robson. It is an honour, in fact, to be in this place and to bring to Victoria the concerns of people who live in rural British Columbia. I represent a beautiful riding. It is a combination of urban and rural communities, and the people there are an incredible group of people that I am deeply honoured to represent.

I think the budget that we tabled in this Legislature not many days ago is very clear that we want to move aggressively to continue to build on the platform of success that we've seen over the last number of years. We've seen British Columbia begin to be restored to its place in this country, where it deserves to be, and our budget and the throne speech actually reflect and build on the framework that we've put in place.

I want to, first of all, say a sincere thank-you to the people who work to support the work that we do. Many members on both sides of the House have stood up and said thank you to the people who are parts of their team, and I want to do that as well.

To the great team of people I have in Prince George–Mount Robson that work every day to support the constituents we represent — and it is a team approach…. I want to say thank you to Dorothy Titchener, Becky Blixrud and Dusty Hall for the fantastic work they do every day. And to an energetic, dedicated group of people in the Ministry of Education office here in Victoria — Lisa Dominato, Chris Steinbach, Lynette Harris, Nicole Normand and Gail Hamilton — a sincere thank-you for always working hard on behalf of students in British Columbia.

I want to include in that, obviously, my team in the Ministry of Education, an extraordinary group of dedicated professionals, led throughout the year by our previous deputy minister, Emery Dosdall, and now by a new deputy minister, James Gorman, who is doing a tremendous job as well. So thank you to that group of people who make such a difference in the province. We don't say often enough what a great job they do.

I want to recognize our municipal leaders in Prince George–Mount Robson as well, in particular the mayors that I get the pleasure of working with every day. They are extraordinarily hard-working — Mayors Kinsley, Frazier and Townsend. And those communities that have mayors and their councils, thank you for caring enough to take on a role in leadership, in public office. We all know what people give up to do that, and I'm so thankful for the very positive working relationship that we have.

Specifically, today I want to recognize the efforts and the tenacity of the residents and those who have been elected locally, thousands of volunteers, and the great relationship we've had with the province in dealing with our ice jam this winter. It has been an unprecedented event. I have lived in the north my entire life, and I can honestly say that we've not seen anything that compares to this.

What has been the overlying message, I think, that we've seen is how difficult circumstances bring people to work much closer together. I want to say thank you to the emergency teams that worked so hard, to the firefighters, to all of those people at city hall, the people that worked literally 24 hours a day for weeks and weeks and weeks.

The ice jam is still causing challenges for us as we look at how we reroute traffic and do all of those kinds of things. To the great team that was led by His Worship Mayor Kinsley, all of the people at city hall, the PEP teams: thank you so much for helping us work our way through what was an extraordinarily unique and very difficult set of circumstances.

Also, in recognition of B.C.'s 150th year as a province, I want to mention, as well, a well-known member of my constituency and pioneer in British Columbia who passed away recently. His name was reflected on the list in the throne speech. But on a personal note, I want to say how deeply we will miss W.D. West. He was known to us as Wally West.

He did an amazing job of chronicling the history of Prince George and of our province for over 60 years. He accumulated more than 56,000 photographs of every important ceremony and event in Prince George and in our area since 1946. The city of Prince George has graciously purchased Wally West's collection and is displaying it at Exploration Place, our incredible museum, and on line for everyone to enjoy.

From a personal perspective, we've known the West family for a long time, and we have been lifelong family friends. So it is with a great deal of sadness that we had Wally pass from us. But he has left his legacy, and we so appreciate that.

Before I talk about the Ministry of Education, I did want to just recognize a few of the many constituents who really have made their mark during the course of the last year, since we last spoke with a throne or budget response. In particular, I want to highlight a group of students, the D.P. Todd leadership class, who are truly amazing leaders in our school and our community and are becoming that kind of group in the province as well.

This last year they played an important role in organizing the RBC Royal Bank Cup and brought an amazing classroom program to that particular tournament. It is unprecedented in the country, and I know they've set the bar very high for future organizing committees.

They also organized the fourth annual Prince George Leadership Conference. It's coming up to bring young leaders from across northern B.C. together, and they will be helping me with the Student Congress. I wanted to recognize them for the incredible job they've done. Every time I have the opportunity to work with these students and other students across the province, I have enormous confidence in the future of British Columbia, because young people like this will be leading our province, and we will be in great hands.

I also want to say that Prince George has another amazing statistic about it. It has the highest rate of volunteering and charitable donations in the province. I know that organizations like Volunteer Prince George and my generous constituents will continue to play an incredibly important role in our community. They do an amazing job of bringing together volunteers and opportunities. I think it speaks volumes about people who live in northern British Columbia, and it's a title that I am extremely proud of.

There are countless groups of people in our constituency who are promoting healthy living in our communities. In fact, there's a group recently started in one of my communities, in Valemount, called Active Living Valemount. They're working very hard to establish a fitness centre in our community there and one that is housed in a green building.

One of the most exciting things that's happened in our constituency in terms of health care this past year was our commitment as a government to build the northern cancer centre in Prince George. The business plan, I am pleased to say, has been completed. It has been sent to the province, and we are responding in Budget 2008 by committing the preliminary funding to begin building that absolutely essential cancer centre.

I want to give thanks here to Dr. Charles Jago and Jeff Burghardt, who put together that report for government to actually look at whether or not it was feasible. We're excited in the north to say that it is long overdue and are delighted that Budget 2008 recognizes that.

When you take that and couple it with the outstanding results at the medical school that we have in place now at the University of Northern British Columbia, we're going to make sure that we educate, train and retain health care professionals in Prince George and in northern B.C. I'm very pleased to say that this year we will see the first graduates of the medical program at the University of Northern British Columbia.

Not many years ago it was a large rally in Prince George that actually brought literally thousands of people together to say in the beginning of 2000 that we had a health care crisis in northern B.C. We are now about to graduate our very own home-trained northern doctors, and we're very excited about seeing that come to be in the next number of months.

The budget recently announced a record $1.2 billion for new construction and upgrades to health care facilities over the next three years. Part of those dollars will actually go to constructing the gateway residential care facility in Prince George. It's a state-of-the-art facility, one that we're looking forward to. We watch it being built and the work being done every day. One of the things that's most critical about that facility is that it will certainly help to deal with the needs of Alzheimer and dementia patients. We know that that is of critical proportion, and we need to be paying attention to that.

We want to make sure we're giving seniors the choices they're asking for. One of the things we can do is build leading-edge facilities for their health care needs and also offer them the option of staying in their homes and closer to their families during those very difficult times.

Something we're really happy to have seen happen in the budget is $112 million to enhance the basic and regional film tax credits. When you couple this with what we did in 2007…. We announced the first fine arts degree program in the north, to be offered at the University of Northern British Columbia, in partnership with the Emily Carr Institute of Design. That's been very well received. We have a thriving arts community, and we know that the budget provides benefits to the arts and culture sector as well.

When we look at municipalities, we see that Budget 2008 provides $187 million over the next three years for municipal infrastructure. Something critical in the north is the $10 million in one-time grants to help rehabilitate roads damaged by increased logging truck traffic in pine beetle–infested areas.

I know that my colleague the member for Prince George North spoke of this recently, but I can tell you that there is an incredible sense of anticipation around the bioenergy network and the $25 million that was set aside for that. We know that government has made it clear that it sees Prince George as the natural centre of this particular work. We know that we will capitalize on the opportunities to use bioenergy in a very aggressive way in the north.

One of the things that we've heard a lot about is the importance of the economy and making sure that we have and maintain a strong and growing economy in British Columbia. One of the things that's very, very critical to that is recognizing that the greatest tool we can give people to actually combat poverty is employment.

When you look at the numbers for Prince George, they're quite staggering, in fact. We've actually cut the unemployment rate in half since the year 2000. Job creation was up 6.7 percent for Prince George in 2007, and the really important piece around the job numbers is that they are sustainable jobs and jobs for the future.

This budget — and, certainly, our throne speech — is about the future. It's about the future of British Columbia, and we want to be looking at all of the kinds of jobs that we think will be important, not just today but moving into the future.

When we look at some of the tax measures that the budget contains, we are giving back to people in our province and we are taking care of our most vulnerable. Immediately we look at a 5 percent tax reduction on the first $70,000 of income.

We're going to reduce corporate tax rates to 11 percent. If you look back to the 1990s under the previous government, in fact, it was 16.5 percent. What does that say about our ability to be competitive? We are also going to reduce the small business tax rate to 3.5 percent from 4.5 percent.

One of the things that's critical to us in northern British Columbia is the whole area of transportation. I can assure you that Prince George is developing as the transportation hub for the northern part of our

province. His Worship Mayor Kinsley said at one point that "transportation is our great hope for economic diversification and growth."

If you look at what's reflected in Budget 2008, you'll see that over the next three years we are investing $2.3 billion in transportation infrastructure, and Prince George and the north are benefiting. The Cameron Street Bridge project — the province is contributing the maximum allowable grant. We have the Cariboo connector underway, where the Simon Fraser Bridge twinning is underway. We're relocating the weigh scale with state-of-the-art technology to assist truckers and travellers, to make sure that not only is the technology creating safer highways but efficiency for the truckers as well, which is also a money-saving opportunity.

No one in this House can deny the fact that British Columbia has been ravaged by the pine beetle, and certainly, the area that I live in and represent is one of those areas that has been hit the hardest. So when we look at the $10 million in one-time grants that will help rehabilitate those roads, that is an important investment in northern British Columbia.

As we look at what the pine beetle has done from the negative, and there certainly is an awful lot of that, we also need to know that because of the innovation and the skill and the resiliency of people who live in northern British Columbia, they've even been able to take pine beetle — or as we know it fondly, denim-enhanced — pine, and actually take the advantage of making amazing products.

Let me give you the example of Doug Plato, who is from Prince George. He has actually crafted giftware from beetle-kill wood. He is selling his creations in gift shops and also providing them to the Olympics. When I think about the creativity and innovation, it's taking what is challenging and turning it into an opportunity. We have, literally, people living in the north who do that every single day.

The bioenergy network gives us the opportunity to turn beetle kill into energy for our province, helping our mills diversify and create new revenue and job opportunities in our rural communities and also in our first nations community. The new energy corridor from Prince Rupert to Prince George will enhance these benefits and, we hope, generate billions of dollars of investment in Prince George and in the north and, ultimately, in the province of British Columbia.

Air quality is also important to those of us who live in northern B.C. That's why so many elements of both our throne speech and our budget reflect those values that are important even if you live in resource-dependent communities. The city of Prince George has assembled a task force to submit recommendations on improving air quality.

We also have an organization called PACHA that organized recently on a minus-20 day outside. It was cold. Over 400 people decided to attend a symposium, coming and going throughout the course of that day to learn more about the challenges of air quality, to learn from experts, to talk about a collaborative approach to dealing with improved air quality — certainly a key issue in northern B.C. and one that together we need to work on over the next year.

We have said clearly in our throne speech — and our budget has supported that with resources — that we want to be leaders in North America when it comes to our environment. We've created an entirely revenue-neutral carbon tax. Every penny spent on the carbon tax will be put back in the pockets of British Columbians in the form of tax credits.

There are a number of things we're doing to ensure that that takes place. We wanted to make sure that residents of British Columbia actually had the opportunity to have the buffer up front when it comes to the carbon tax. So in essence, we will be sending our dividend of $100 to every man, woman and child in British Columbia, to make sure that even before the tax is in effect, we are providing that important assistance to families as we adjust to something that I think all of us have come to recognize is essential if we want a province that is healthy and wonderful for both our children and our grandchildren.

I am very proud to represent Prince George–Mount Robson — to represent a people who are thoughtful, who are hard-working, who have faced some significant challenges in the last decade and who now have found themselves in a place of taking what was a negative and challenging situation to a place of opportunity. It doesn't mean there is not more work ahead for us. Of course not. We have to continue to be diligent and look at ways to diversify and to support the advances we've made in the economy and especially in the area of job creation in northern B.C.

I want to take a few more minutes of my time to speak more specifically about the education agenda in British Columbia. I want to begin this section of my comments by expressing what I know, generally, most members of this Legislature, whichever side of the House you sit on, would want to express: our sincere gratitude to the people who work in the education system every single day in British Columbia.

Whether it is locally elected school trustees, superintendents, administrators, educators and teachers, or when we look at support staff workers, students and parents — all of those people who work to drive school buses and make sure that we have clean schools, all of the people who work together to make the system that we have in British Columbia so fantastic for our students — I want to begin these comments by saying thank you for the hard work you do every day.

It is an important job that you have, and it is appreciated. It doesn't mean that we always agree on the issues that are brought before us every day, but it does mean that we deeply appreciate the work that is done on behalf of students in British Columbia.

Last year the Premier and I completed a school district tour. In fact, one of us visited every school district in the province. That's not ever happened before, but it is something that was so important and so informative. As we travelled across B.C., we saw innovative school districts, teachers and students working together and having students being successful in classrooms today.

At the end of the year, when I look back and look at outcomes…. So often we look at what work has to be done. We don't often go back and celebrate. But in fact, at the end of the year our grade 4s were ranked among the best in the world in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Fondly, it's called PIRLS.

Shortly after that, the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, put 15-year-old B.C. students among the world's best in reading and science. That just doesn't happen by accident. It happens by great teams of people working together, facing those challenging days and saying: "We're going to put our emphasis on making sure that children in this province are successful. We are making progress in moving British Columbia towards its goal of making B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction."

Budget 2008 will allow us to build on this, and that says a lot. In fact, this budget lays out an increase in education funding of 3.3 percent in 2008-2009 and a planned rise from $5.494 billion today to $5.822 billion by 2010-2011. That is over $1.2 billion in educational funding since 2000-2001. More specifically, this year's budget includes a total increase of $181 million over last year. That builds toward our total of $1.2 billion in increased funding.

What does that mean for each and every student? What it means is that per-pupil funding is going to increase again this year, and that has been an increase of more than 29 percent since 2001. Budget 2008 represents another year of record funding for education in British Columbia. We are especially pleased about that when you consider the fact that this past December we delivered an all-time-high record of $4.345 billion to school districts, a $116 million increase over the past year, just as we said we would in March.

We've created an education system — all of those people working in the system — that can bring out the best in every B.C. student, and student achievement has been improving. Our StrongStart B.C. centres are the new gateway to lifelong learning. Aboriginal students are making strides in education, and we will continue to push our literacy agenda for all of our learners, including adults.

Our focus of physical fitness and healthy eating is transforming the way students think and live. As B.C.'s provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall said, physically active students learn better, achieve more and go on to live healthier, longer lives.

We've also successfully achieved the first negotiated contract with our teachers, and last but not least, our investments in green schools and programs are helping teach B.C. students environmental responsibility.

Let me focus for just a moment or two on early learning and StrongStart B.C. Prior to 2001 British Columbia had no coordinated early learning strategy. We promised in our platform that we would use underutilized school space to deliver early childhood development programs. You see, one in four students in British Columbia starts kindergarten without being developmentally ready for success. We know that by preparing our children to enter school, we can help improve the outcomes they will achieve throughout their education.

In last year's throne speech, we said we would help ensure a better start for every child by opening up 80 StrongStart B.C. centres. We've invested $5 million, and we have exceeded that commitment. At these centres qualified early childhood educators help young children develop linguistically, physically, emotionally and socially, setting them up for school and life success.

I have seen the magic at these centres — how quickly children grow and ready themselves for success in school. One parent in the Cariboo said it this way — that she's noticed her child learning to get along with others, respecting rules and instructions, being more curious and independent. As a bonus, she has even learned to print her name.

There is no cost to parents or to caregivers. It's affordable because StrongStart B.C. centres take advantage of unused space in schools, a strategy committed to in last year's throne speech. So declining enrolment is not just a challenge; it's also an opportunity. Certainly, StrongStart B.C. centres represent an opportunity for young families. I am pleased to reiterate today the throne speech that will further expand the StrongStart B.C. program to serve children, parents and their caregivers, with up to 400 centres by June of 2010. Budget 2008 includes an additional $38 million to make these centres a reality.

But we have other related efforts. We're dealing with Ready, Set, Learn; LEAP B.C.; Books for Babies; kindergarten books, including a brand-new Time to Read book award. Moving forward, we've also committed to examining the feasibility of all-day kindergarten for five-year-olds and to explore optional full-day programs for three- and four-year-olds. This government is committed to asking what parents want and providing them with choices.

We also know that aboriginal learners face significant challenges. Graduation and success rates are significantly lower than for the overall student body. This must change, and we said we would improve aboriginal achievement outcomes. We started with 42 percent high school completion rates for aboriginal students. Today the completion rate is 48 percent, and we are working with aboriginal communities to continue this improvement.

Aboriginal students are achieving high pass rates on provincially examinable courses, and more first nations learners are taking English 12, instead of communications, than five years ago, with 96 percent of those students passing English 12. We are seeing clearly that we need to change our approach, and that's what we've been doing with first nations education.

In October we took a landmark step by introducing the First Nations Education Act, historic legislation that recognizes participating first nations jurisdiction over education on first nations land in British Columbia. This legislation is the completion of years of work between this government, our partners at the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the government of Canada. It supports first nations students' achievement and lifelong learning. It is one more way

that we are building an education system that allows aboriginal learners to reach the high achievement levels we know are possible.

As I have toured school districts across B.C., I have seen numerous programs that are yielding incredibly positive results. A great example was when I visited Sir Alexander Mackenzie Secondary School in the Central Coast district. The students were carving masks and paddles, and Willis Johnson provided me with a raven dance mask that he carved. It is inspiring to see the work that he did. It's on display in my office. I'm very proud of the gift that I was given. It was his first carving.

The carving school and the cultural programs that this school district has set up with local first nations are part of the reason that this district has a 73 percent completion rate for aboriginal students, and the ministry is working to support these efforts. We also said last year in our throne speech that we would develop aboriginal-specific courses. We have done just that.

As we continue, we said that we would also make B.C. North America's most literate location. Specifically, we are planning and engaging with community and boosting literacy levels. We're doing that with ReadNow B.C. We're doing that with literacy plans in school districts. We continue to have an aggressive agenda.

We also have a major focus in the area of healthy schools. One in four B.C. school children is overweight or obese. That is not acceptable. That's why we're eliminating junk food. We're creating daily physical activity. We have 13 leader schools that are piloting a variety of innovative and effective models for helping students. In fact, we have now in Canada the most aggressive healthy schools agenda in our country.

So the question is: what is the government going to do now that it has established a record-high level of funding, record-high student achievement and a focus on the environment? The answer was in the throne speech and in the budget too.

Traditionally, the throne speech lays out the government's vision for this province, and last week we saw that vision. With Budget 2008 we have the commitments in place and the resources to make that vision a reality. We will further our efforts in all of our areas, from early learning to aboriginal education, to literacy, to healthy schools and to the environment. We are going to continue to expand on the agenda that we've set.

We know that there are few things more important than making sure that students in British Columbia have a top-notch education, and I am very proud of the work that's been done over the last number of years in partnership with the educators that work in British Columbia, with parents across this province who are concerned and who care about what happens to their children.

I can assure of you of this. We will deliver. The throne speech provided the vision. The budget provided the resources.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I rise to speak on the budget speech. This is the second time that the government has introduced a green budget. It didn't deliver last time, and certainly, this document doesn't deliver today. There is nothing truly green in this budget whatsoever.

If you look at the tax…. I know now why the Finance Minister was not willing to comment on what revenue-neutral really meant. I guess she felt a little embarrassed on commenting on that.

When you look at what revenue-neutral really is in this speech, it's taking from people in British Columbia that can least afford it and transferring it over to large oil companies and large banks. That would be akin to somebody taking your purse, robbing you, mugging you for your money, buying stocks in ExxonMobil and saying to the Attorney General: "That's not a crime. That's energy-neutral. That's revenue-neutral. That's not a crime." This is a crime.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you need to be very, very careful with your language.

The 2.4 percent was announced on Tuesday. The one thing that I noticed on Monday as I was heading over to the Legislature for this session…. The first thing I noticed was that the price of fuel went up overnight close to three cents a litre, almost 3 percent. The very next day it went up another three cents a litre. After the budget speech it went up another three cents a litre.

Here are the oil companies that are seeing what is happening in here. They're knowing that there is going to be a tax increase sometime in July, and they're increasing the price of their fuel in advance of that.

Here's how this plays out. All weekend, as I travelled throughout my community, had meetings, went to different events — I even went out to the Ladner airport and listened to people in the restaurant grumbling — not one person was blaming the oil companies for this shocking increase in oil prices that happened overnight. They were blaming the government. They were blaming the government.

So here's what the oil companies have done. They found an opportunity to gouge again the people that can least afford it. And they get rewarded by also receiving a benefit after the fact? I mean, that is shocking.

Now, in July, as we head into tourist season…. We all promote tourism here, and it seems to be the new direction of this government. Again, in anticipation of this, I guarantee you that the oil companies will take an additional gouge of the revenue. Again, hopefully, they'll feel that people will blame the government for it.

That's not revenue-neutral at all. We have people that are in the goods-movement business that are transporting goods. They have already been hit in the last week by almost a 10 percent increase in the cost of goods, while everyone is thinking that this is a tax. They've already been hit by that. That has an incredible impact on the movement of our goods in this Pacific gateway that we seem to be so proud of.

Now, the other is the people that live in remote British Columbia. They don't have access to transit. They don't have an ability to take a bus. We have some remote outposts in British Columbia where people's only choice is the motor vehicle. To take those areas that have no alternative, no other options…. They're being hit right now prior to this tax even going in, and it's certainly going to have an incredible impact on their economies. Incredible impact.

The minister talks about, you know: "People can close their doors more. They should not have their windows open as much. They can go do some weatherstripping." He talks about environmental protections that people can implement in order not to have to pay the extra cost of heating their homes.

Many people in British Columbia have already done that. Many of the seniors in my community have already done that. They're already sitting in a kitchen or in a living room with all the doors closed, wearing as much clothing as they can to try and conserve, because they cannot afford the escalating bill on their heating fuels. They are already suffering. They're already doing their best to try to mitigate this. They can't do any more.

Again, this hits those that can least afford it. It hits them, and at the same time, it hands over to oil companies and to banks another colossal windfall. That's the difference between that side and this side of the House. This is not a fair tax whatsoever.

The oil companies made some incredible profits last year. I heard the member over here stating: "Well, the oil companies deserve this tax break because they bring a lot of revenue to the province." Do you know that working people and seniors bring a lot of revenue to this province as well? They bring more revenue to the province than an oil company and a bank. Working people every day paying their PST, working people every day paying and paying all the different fees and rates that this government has continued to increase — that's a real generator of revenue for the government.

To say that aluminum companies should be exempt, and oil companies should be exempt because they contribute a lot…. Well, they can afford it. Right now, they can afford it. Oil companies are making windfall profits. I think ExxonMobil had a $29 billion profit — a 10 percent increase over 2005. This is aftertax profit. I mean, this is not a company that needs some assistance or a bailout from the government. This is a company that is making incredible profits, and they're doing so without regulation. They do so in unison. When one oil company increases the price of fuel at the pump — coincidence — four, five, ten, 20 blocks away they're all the same, in unison. They're virtually all the same.

Somehow all these independent free enterprises just happen to have this magical way of all raising the price of their fuel at the same time. Isn't that amazing? Unregulated. A cartel that's unregulated that can just at their will raise the price of fuel.

Who suffers? People that can least afford it. Seniors that need a vehicle, especially in the remote areas of British Columbia. Mothers driving their children to school are driving their children to bus stops so that they can catch a school bus, because the school in their community has been closed. It's not uncommon for people to drive extremely long distances just to get their children to a bus stop so that they can get on a bus to be taken to school and back. That child has to be picked up again after school. Those are people that can't afford those prices.

When we're trying to build complete communities and when we're trying to have communities that people may have an interest in relocating in, you certainly don't do it by creating that type of an environment. People will not be moving into those communities, and that certainly contributes to a skills shortage in those communities.

The member for East Kootenay made some comments. I know that in the newspaper he was certainly concerned about the sciences that talk about global warming, and it sounded like he was going to stand up and actually oppose this. But I was surprised at how he suddenly did a flip-flop. When you look at the fact that this is really not a green budget, I see that he found it in his heart after he heard the budget presented that this truly…. He does accept it. So he went forward and spoke in favour of supporting it. He also spoke in favour of the exemptions for large oil companies, and the exemptions for banks were mentioned as well.

You know, you look at the close to $500 million that goes to large corporations. You look at that and you think about what that would buy in British Columbia. Look at the homelessness. More people are homeless now than ever in British Columbia, and it's under the watch of the Liberal government.

We have seen an absolutely alarming increase in homelessness. We see people with mental disabilities living in the streets, becoming victimized by drug users, by drug dealers. Eventually they fall victim, and they fall into all the consequences that are related with that. That has a huge cost to our society, an absolutely huge cost — not only a social cost, if you're compassionate about it, but an incredible cost to revenue to deal with trying to rehabilitate that situation.

That $500 million, if it was invested, would have paid $3.5 billion in dividend, in alleviating that crisis. But what did they elect to do? Most of it is going to go to multinationals. Most of it isn't even going to be reinvested here. It's going to companies that really don't need a tax break. It could be provided to increase the quality of life in British Columbia.

The other thing is…. We look at the downturn in the forest industry. I remember when I was first elected here. Everything was about the government of the '90s and trying to lay blame on the '90s. All of a sudden they're becoming apologists, and they're saying: "Well, you know, we can't help that the price of lumber has gone down. It's nothing that we've done. It's the American economy. The Canadian dollar is too high."

You can't have it both ways. You can't take credit for global resource prices being as high as ever. You

can't take credit for that and say: "Well, the resource prices are so high because the Liberals did it. We had this magic wand, and we made the global prices of commodities high." You can't have it both ways.

If you're going to take credit for that, then you need to get involved when the global economy has an impact on your forestry community. You need to do something to prevent that from happening and put the safeguards in place so that we can save jobs so that families aren't being forced out of their community.

You don't judge a government by how they govern during a time of economic boom. You judge a government by how they govern in a time when the economy is low. The economy in the forest sector is at the lowest that it has ever been. Some of it, in part, is the so-called forestry revitalization agreement — another incredible oxymoron in my opinion.

It has done nothing to revitalize the forests. It has actually given licence for forest companies to bail out of British Columbia and export logs instead of providing meaningful employment in British Columbia. It has done so not only by having significant impact on communities and schools and children and families; it has also done so through a reckless deregulation that has cost lives.

I will make reference to the Auditor General of British Columbia's report from January 2008, Preventing Fatalities and Serious Injuries in B.C. Forests. Certainly our side has been bringing these issues to the forefront, and we have been bringing them up in the Legislature since we were elected.

I did once attend, with the previous Labour Minister, a session in Vancouver with most of the stakeholders at the table. It was identified then that there was a crisis with the situation of forests, with an ambiguity where re-regulation and deregulation have created such confusion in the field that people weren't understanding who was responsible for the health and safety of those workers. The impacts of that have been detrimental and absolutely devastating.

It states that forest workers are often being pushed beyond their physical limits. We heard that over and over again. With these long hours, contractors…. Some of the contractors — once workers, working by the hour — were told to buy a chainsaw and a pickup truck. "You're now a contractor. You're self-employed." They were going out there and were working on their own, and we saw people succumbing to that in the most tragic way in the forests of British Columbia. That's under this watch, and that's under that reckless deregulation of the forest industry.

Now we have a forest industry that virtually doesn't add value-added jobs any more. Logs — five million cubic metres of logs….

We hear over here about how people left B.C. in the '90s to go to Alberta. Well, show me some facts about people that left. Look at the volume of logs, the five million cubic metres of logs that are being machined, cut and turned into value-added product in the United States and China and Japan. Show me the value of that, and show me how many people would be working in meaningful employment in British Columbia. That's gone. That's gone under what was put in place.

Now there's this sort of flop to try to get back, to try to put some of the things back in place. But it should have never gotten to that. There should have been consultation with the workers of British Columbia, and there should have been consultation with the employers of British Columbia. There should have been a very intense consultation on what we do with the industry. We're asking for that consultation now, and it isn't happening.

Again, what's the resolve? Trying to put legislation back that was stripped by this government — another flip-flop. I mean, there are more flip-flops there than at a Shriners pancake breakfast. They introduce something, they go hardball, and then they go: "Wow, that didn't work. I guess we listened to the wrong people. I guess that was disastrous. We need to do something about it."

Look at the coroner's inquests. The coroner's inquests were very clear. The Sullivan mine inquest pointed directly to the government. It pointed to the lack of inspections in the field, the ambiguity on the jobsites with new labour legislation, with new labour laws.

With the Sunar investigation on the first farmworker that was killed in the crash of a van, again, the coroner's inquest recommendations were not acted on. Then we have almost the anniversary of the four fatalities, that horrific day on March 7 on Highway 1. Again, had those issues of the Sunar inquest been implemented, we probably wouldn't have had the four fatalities that happened almost a year ago today.

The Gramlich inquest, again, pointed to the ambiguity and the misunderstanding that was going on in the forests. It directed to deregulation, made recommendations to the Labour Ministry and made recommendations to the B.C. Forest Safety Council.

There needs to be action. This government was so intent on looking after their corporate friends that they forgot to really look after the people of British Columbia — the ones who need the protection and who need governments that have compassion and protection and that are able to ensure that they're going to work and are coming home to their families safely.

I will end my comments on that note. Certainly, I will not be supporting this budget.

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