Hansard — Tuesday, February 26, 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


Tributes		9981
	Lena Jacobs
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		9981

Tributes		9981
	Chicago Bains
	D. Routley

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9981
	Squamish Reads
	J. McIntyre
	Alberni Valley Visitor Centre
	S. Fraser
	Youth risk awareness program in Langley
	M. Polak
	Bolivar Heights community crime prevention strategy
	B. Ralston
	Crime prevention
	D. Hayer
	Esquimalt Military Family Resource Centre
	M. Karagianis

Oral Questions		9984
	Services for children and youth
	C. James
	Hon. T. Christensen
	N. Simons
	Community Living B.C. eligibility criteria
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	A. Dix
	Special education funding
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Community Living B.C. eligibility criteria
	D. Routley
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Federal community stability funding
	B. Simpson
	Hon. C. Hansen
	CN Rail service in Cariboo
	C. Wyse
	Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of Supply		9988
	Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Health
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology
	Hon. M. Coell
	G. Robertson

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10007
	Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)
	Hon. C. Taylor

Second Reading of Bills		10007
	Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)
	Hon. C. Taylor

Committee of the Whole House		10007
	Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10007
	Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10007
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)
	Hon. C. Taylor

Second Reading of Bills		10008
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston

Committee of the Whole House		10008
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10009
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)

Budget Debate (continued)		10009
	G. Coons

Point of Privilege (continued)		10013
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		10014
	V. Roddick

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sad to report the passing of Lena Jacobs. Lena Jacobs was 98 years old, born in 1910 in North Vancouver. She was the oldest Squamish First Nation elder, a true matriarch of the entire Squamish First Nation, last of the few fluent speakers of the Squamish language. She leaves behind 107 children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, and her legacy will clearly live through her teachings of language, the teachings of the values of the culture of the Squamish First Nation.

I would ask the House to send their condolences to the Jacobs family and the Squamish First Nation.

M. Polak: Today in the gallery we're joined by some students from Langley Christian School. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: We're joined in the House today by Michael Steele. Michael Steele is a teaching colleague of my mom. I've known Michael Steele for many years. He's a very dedicated educational professional, and he's also a dedicated former foster parent.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am pleased to introduce Laura Jones, a vice-president from western Canada; Brian Bonney, the director of provincial affairs for British Columbia; and Kelly Crombie, the district manager for Kelowna. All three guests represent the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

G. Gentner: It's a pleasure to introduce to the House a longtime constituent of mine in North Delta, a graduate from Simon Fraser University, Sanjeet Hayer. She speaks five languages, and I'm also happy to say she has joined my staff in my constituency as my new CA. Could the House please make her warmly welcome.

R. Cantelon: In the gallery today visiting us for the third time — however, this is the first time that I've been on my toes enough to introduce her — is my lovely wife, Shelley. I would hope that the gallery will help me make amends for that oversight.

Also with her today is my daughter Abigail. Abigail is in the seventh grade on a pro-D day today. Abigail has aspirations to be a politician. She tells me that it's not fair that women are paid less for the same work as men. I invite you all to please welcome them.

Hon. P. Bell: I have two introductions to do today. First of all, I'd like to welcome 47 staff from the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands business risk management, who will be with us here a little later on today. The main office for the business risk management programming is in Kelowna, but we also have staff in Abbotsford, Kamloops, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. The business risk management program provides tremendous services to our agricultural community around the province, and they have just done an absolutely fabulous job over the last year — including winning a Premier's bronze award most recently. So I would ask that the House please make them very welcome.

In addition, I see in the gallery two individuals I had an opportunity to meet with yesterday: Mike Duncan, who is from the Alma Mater Society at UBC, and also Lewis van Dyk, who is from the University College of the Fraser Valley. I wanted to mention that in our discussions, Lewis had indicated to me his interest in becoming a future Agriculture Minister.

Lewis, I hope you find that wonderful chair some day, and I hope I pass it on to you in great shape.

D. Routley: I'd like to just make a quick mention of a young woman from my constituency, Chicago Bains. Chicago is only nine years old, and she has just vaulted herself into the B.C. Games, coming second overall in Vancouver Island Zone Trials for gymnastics. She competes for the Lion's Pride Gymnastics club in Victoria — young Chicago Bains, nine years old. Everyone in the Cowichan Valley is very proud of her accomplishments. I'd like the House to help me congratulate her.

J. McIntyre: I am very pleased to stand before the House today to pay tribute to the district of Squamish for its first-ever literacy promotion, entitled Squamish Reads. It proved to be a tremendous success, and I feel privileged to have played a small part.

This achievement was a direct result of a collaborative effort from the Squamish Chief newspaper, Capilano College and the Squamish Public Library. Their success underscores the importance of taking the first step of raising awareness throughout local communities in an effort to improve literacy.

On January 25 all proceeds from every copy sold of the Squamish Chief, save the home delivery, went towards literacy initiatives in the community with

the assistance of Capilano College and the Squamish library. On this brisk morning I joined Casey Dorin, the dean of Capilano College's Squamish campus, in selling newspapers at the busy morning coffee shops. Residents were very generous, some even paying $20 for a good cause. The objective was to engage the community and encourage them to take part, as literacy is a fundamental building block in a developed, caring society.

Literacy is the foundation on which an individual can grow and continue to excel throughout life. Literacy enables people to participate and become more active in their social surroundings, whether it's within their family life, their local community or the workplace. Literacy simply opens up more doors, generates greater opportunities and can grant individuals infinite possibilities.

That's why I'm proud to stand and relay the accomplishment of Squamish and its inaugural promotion. Not only did we raise money for a great cause, but the provincial government agreed to match our funds. In fact, the total match since the government program began in 2004 is $2.4 million.

I'd like to congratulate Tim Shoults, publisher of the Squamish Chief, Casey Dorin, dean of Capilano College's campus, and Michelle Lebeau, the regional literacy coordinator in Squamish. Their partnership to raise awareness and support community literacy initiatives helps B.C. further the goal to become the most literate jurisdiction on the continent. And it's the right thing to do.

S. Fraser: Inspired by the city council, the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce was tasked to develop a tourism strategy for the valley to address the economic needs and the diversification initiative — which was sponsored, I might add, by the Alberni Valley industrial review.

The Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce wisely adopted a three-prong approach: (1) create a community destination marketing organization not funded by the municipal taxation system, and that has largely been accomplished; (2) create an ambassadors program, which is going just beautifully right now; and (3) replace the aging visitors centre with a high-profile building which will attract a greater percentage of the nearly one million travellers passing through each year.

The first two are largely underway, and I want to congratulate the chamber for that. I will concentrate on No. 3, the building. The proposed infocentre will be a fusion construction of logs and cedar shingles, and first nations carvings will adorn all of the support poles. This is Nuu-chah-nulth territory. Mount Arrowsmith will be showcased in the picture windows, which is a magnificent site.

The new centre will create both short- and long-term employment opportunities and serve to improve the local economy. There will be and there has been tremendous community support.

The chamber is well on its way, with over $100,000 invested so far. The property has also been purchased. The surveying is complete. All construction and engineering plans are in place and complete. Funding commitments total nearly $400,000, with significant in-kind contributions from Island Timberlands and from Discovery College.

All that is needed is confirmation that the Canada-B.C. municipal infrastructure fund, which has been under review for nearly a year now, gets an okay.

Now, it's been almost a year, but I am confident that the province will release the funds and become a true partner in what is destined to be a cornerstone in a metamorphosis to a strong economy in the Alberni Valley. Well done, Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce.

M. Polak: Helping young people to understand the dangers of risky behaviour is a huge challenge. It's difficult to break through the teenage mindset of invincibility to convince them to make smart choices and avoid potentially dangerous situations. I am pleased today to tell the House about an exciting new program that aims to do just that.

Through a partnership with the township of Langley fire department, the RCMP, the B.C. Ambulance Service, the Langley school district and health professionals at Langley Memorial Hospital, Fraser Health is launching the PARTY program. PARTY, which stands for prevent alcohol and risk-related trauma in youth, is a dynamic, interactive injury prevention and health promotion program for teenagers, which has demonstrated success across the country, including Alberta, Ontario and many communities in British Columbia.

As part of their planning 10 class, Langley area students will get a healthy dose of reality that will see them spend five hours at Langley Memorial Hospital learning about the consequences of risky behaviour.

During this one-day program, students will follow the painful journey of a trauma patient from the moment paramedics arrive through to the rehabilitation efforts of occupational therapists. Through the use of braces, students will experience firsthand what it's like for patients with brain or spinal cord injuries to perform acts as simple as eating. They will also meet a survivor and hear about the very real impacts of injury on the life of the survivor and that of their friends and family.

Too often when young people engage in risky behaviour, the result is tragic injury and sometimes death. Through the PARTY program, Fraser Health is going beyond education to show teenagers the real-life consequences of their decisions.

B. Ralston: I rise this afternoon to speak about a neighbourhood in my constituency of Surrey-Whalley, Bolivar Heights. A year ago the community was experiencing a rash of break and enters. Frustrated residents convened a meeting to express their concerns

Anxiety was high. Many said they had given up reporting even minor thefts. People spoke of staying in their houses, locking their doors and worrying about what the police might do. Colleen Staresina, the crime prevention program coordinator of Surrey RCMP district 1, quickly got involved to help. She encouraged the neighbours to report even minor occurrences — a vehicle driving slowly through the area or a person walking in and out of yards.

Leaders in the neighbourhood encouraged others to get involved in an expanded Block Watch. Those leaders include Wayne and Renee Beggs; Pat and Wendy Wilson; Sabina and Christopher Ball; Ann Cassidy-McDougall; Ursula Seigler; Bob Priddy and Penny Priddy, who is also the Member of Parliament for Surrey North; Jim Barbour; Tanya and John Michelle; Margo and Norm Elliot; Donna and Marden Chidlow; and Lynn and Phil Gallie.

More police work and analysis discovered that one of the homes had a security camera videotape of the perpetrator. All police officers were advised, and a short time later the suspect was caught red-handed. He was quickly dealt with by the courts and received a federal penitentiary sentence.

This victory motivated the neighbourhood. They formed and created officially Bolivar Heights Community Association. In addition to crime prevention, the work of the association has grown to include a community website and community public forums about other concerns such as graffiti, new road construction and lighting.

Significantly, no break and enter has been reported since. The community has experienced a renaissance of involvement and a growing sense of security. I ask all members of the House to join me in acknowledging the achievements of the residents of Bolivar Heights and the example their experience offers to others.

D. Hayer: It is rare that a day goes by without a constituent of mine expressing concern about violent crime and gang activity. Our government is taking this issue seriously and investing $10 million a year in the Integrated Gang Task Force, IGTF. Through the IGTF, we are making strides towards a safer neighbourhood, including deployment of the Civil Forfeiture Act, which allows government to seize property and assets acquired through criminal activities.

We have passed legislation allowing police to get information from B.C. Hydro about unusually high power consumption to locate grow ops. But much more must be done. The federal government must also ensure that our courts give out sentences that act as a deterrent.

Our courts need to understand that the rights of the victim, the rights of the families and the rights of the law-abiding society are more important than the rights of criminals. We have to close the revolving door that sees the repeat offenders getting little more than a slap on the wrist, which discourages our police forces and disgusts our honest neighbours and people.

We must send a clear message that gangs and gang violence and violent crimes are completely unacceptable, and participation in these crimes must mean long jail time. British Columbia, due to an investment of more than $66 million a year, now has more integrated and joint police force operations per capita than anywhere else in Canada. We have the Youth Against Violence line, a toll-free multilingual phone line available to youth 24-7 to report crime or ask for help.

We are also providing $150,000 a year to crime prevention initiatives through safer streets and safer school programs. But with all of us working together and with our courts' help through increased sentencing for those involved in the gangs, we can and will beat this cancer.

M. Karagianis: It's a pleasure to stand in the House today and share the story of the Esquimalt Military Resource Centre. The centre offers a warm place of welcome and support from its locations at Work Point and Signal Hill in Esquimalt and at the Colwood Pacific Activity Centre and in Belmont Park.

The agency is part of a family of 43 such centres in Canada and abroad. For military families, sometimes the only constant is change. As a one-step source for information and referrals to base and civilian resources, the centre's trained staff and volunteers help connect military families with the resources they need, especially in times of change.

Programs cover a wide range of support services, including deployment support, short-term intervention and crisis support, child care programs, and support for families with special needs and responsibilities.

Deployment is one of the most stressful challenges of military life, both for the people going away and for those remaining behind. The Military Family Resource Centre knows firsthand the physical and emotional demands placed on partners, children and extended family as the result of deployment or extended duty.

Deployment support doesn't just happen when a member leaves, and it doesn't end when a member returns. It is ongoing. Support is provided through workshops that help partners, children and loved ones adjust to the changes and challenges of having a loved one away, and through events that connect families so they can share the deployment experience.

The Esquimalt Military Family Resource Centre is guided by an enormously dedicated staff and volunteers who generously donate their time to help others. The people who help out others are in fact the heart and soul of the centre. The centre's motto is "The strength behind the uniform," and that says it all.

I hope that members will join me in acknowledging the exceptional efforts of the Esquimalt Military Family Resource Centre and other centres like that in Canada.

C. James: The highest child poverty rate in Canada, here in British Columbia four years in a row. A child welfare system that has been severely damaged by years of B.C. Liberal cuts and neglect. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on fancy ministry boardrooms. Kids at risk, ignored. Now the children's representative has released a report detailing the mess created by the B.C. Liberals for children and youth with special needs.

My question is to the minister responsible. Why did the B.C. Liberals continue to fail children in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: We certainly welcome the report that the child and youth representative has issued this morning in respect of children and youth with special needs. In fact, the report acknowledges that a number of steps around coordination of services could use improvement and that we are on the right track.

The representative comments positively around the work we're doing with key workers in FASD — leading-edge work across the country — and around the framework under development between the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health to ensure that services for children and youth with special needs across government are better coordinated. While there is always room for improvement and we want to ensure that we are strengthening services, the child and youth representative has acknowledged that in many ways we're on the right track.

C. James: It's only this government that could see report after report after report and say that we're on the right track for children and youth at risk. This government is in complete denial. We saw it yesterday from the Health Minister; we see it today from the Children and Families Minister — pretending that everything is fine. Well, the children's representative is condemning the model that the B.C. Liberals pushed through to provide services for children and youth with special needs.

Again, my question to the minister: when will the B.C. Liberals take the fingers out of their ears, actually listen to the criticisms and do something to protect children and youth at risk in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's a bit interesting to listen to this Leader of the Opposition and this opposition generally when it comes to services for children and youth with special needs. Today the Ministry of Children and Family Development, together with CLBC, serves approximately 20,000 children and youth with special needs. That's double what it was in the year 2000.

Let's consider the circumstances of a family dealing with a child with autism today versus when those members formed government in this province. There were a few hundred children with autism receiving services in the late 1990s and the early part of this century. Today it's close to 5,000. We've seen the budget for autism treatment and intervention grow 12-fold since we have been in government — from a point when we had a government in this province, the NDP government, that paid no attention to those children and youth with autism.

C. James: It was only three years ago that we actually heard this Premier say that he was going to provide the best support to special needs children anywhere in North America. We've seen report after report, from the hon. Ted Hughes onward, saying anything but.

This government should be ashamed of what they've done for the most vulnerable children in this province. The lack of supports and the lack of services in this province, when we see the kinds of surpluses in our budget, is simply wrong.

We saw it again in the report today. We saw case after case after case of special needs children who have fallen through the cracks.

My question again is to the minister. Will he actually listen to the concerns of children, of families, of social workers, of people in the system? What is he going to do about the children who are paying the price of this government's neglect over the last seven years?

Hon. T. Christensen: This is a government that has been listening to children and families across this province and to social workers. This is a government that, as a result of that listening, has increased the funding for autism services 12-fold, serving hundreds — thousands — more children than were served when the NDP was government.

This is a government that has introduced key workers and leads the country in services for children suffering from FASD. This is a government that has invested significantly over the last three years in infant development programs, in supported child development programs — investments that were not made when the NDP was in government in this province. This is a government that has introduced universal screening for hearing and vision for young children in this province to ensure that we can intervene early.

This is a government that is working across government — between Health, Education and the Ministry of Children and Family Development — to ensure that we have a framework for services that ensures that children and families don't fall through the cracks.

N. Simons: In case members on the government side haven't had a chance to read the report, let me summarize the findings so as to disabuse them of the notion that things are fine. "The system is confusing and fragmented. Eligibility isn't based on need. Wait times are problematic. Families need support in

accessing services. The role of providers is confusing. The ministry and CLBC are badly coordinated, and there is no accountability in the system."

What part of that, I ask the member opposite, is evidence that the system is working? What will the minister do today to make the system better and meet the needs of families across this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: I am confident that the system is better today, certainly, than it was in the NDP days because we're serving twice as many kids.

Hon. T. Christensen: We have seen significant additional investment in services across the province. We've seen improvement in services. That's not to say there don't remain challenges, that we don't need to continue to strengthen those services, that we don't need to continue to look at how we can work more effectively across ministries — together between MCFD and CLBC — to ensure that children get the services they require in a timely manner.

That's the work we are committed to doing, but I am very confident that we are miles ahead of where we would be if those members were in government, given the track record that those members had when they were here in the 1990s.

N. Simons: Really, the families and the service providers in this province and most British Columbians would say that we should be supporting families and children with developmental disabilities in this province. This government is failing, despite his claims to be investing funding in it. If that's the case, how is it that the system is in such pathetic shape as reported by the Representative for Children and Youth?

Today, one issue in particular. The government continues to rely on an arbitrary IQ to determine eligibility for services, which has been seen to be contrary to the law. How is the minister going to address that fact? Will he do what is right and eliminate that artificial barrier?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member and I will agree on one thing, I am sure, and that is that all British Columbians want to ensure we are doing our best to ensure that services are available to children and youth with special needs, to support their families so that those children can grow up healthy. The difference is that when those members were in government, they didn't do anything about it.

Hon. T. Christensen: …we've doubled the number of children and youth with special needs that are receiving services. We've increased dramatically supports to children with autism and their families. We've increased dramatically supports in respect of children with FASD. We've increased dramatically support to the infant development program, to supported child development.

We've introduced universal hearing and vision screening to ensure that we can discover challenges early on and be intervening early on, and we're working effectively across government to ensure we have a framework to move forward with strength.

A. Dix: Well, I think we've reached a new level of arrogance and contempt — a new level of arrogance and contempt.

A. Dix: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast asked the minister a question. The Supreme Court of British Columbia said that that rule was illegal. The government decided to continue the fight against a boy who had fought the system and had won in court. They went to the B.C. Court of Appeal. What did the B.C. Court of Appeal say? They said that the government's actions are illegal. That's what the B.C. Court of Appeal said. It wasn't me. It was the B.C. Court of Appeal.

What did we hear from the child representative today? Despite Faulman, the previous eligibility policy continues. That's the government's position. And why does it continue? Because it's a matter of the government's strategic policy direction.

Specifically to the minister: when is he going to get rid of this illegal IQ test?

Hon. T. Christensen: I hope the member will forgive me if I don't take my legal advice from him.

Hon. T. Christensen: CLBC's eligibility criteria are consistent with criteria of jurisdictions around the world in determining who should be eligible for community living services.

Hon. T. Christensen: We are in the process of reviewing those criteria with CLBC in follow-up to the Faulman decision. But let's not pretend that this is a simple case of reaction and the criteria are all clear. We're consistent with other jurisdictions. We're looking for criteria that will ensure that we don't have people who are vulnerable and require services fall through the cracks. We're going to take our time in doing that work effectively to ensure that we end up with the best system of supports in the country.

A. Dix: Well, you know, just because you're Minister of Children and Families doesn't mean you can stiff-arm the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of British Columbia. They ruled that this was illegal. They ruled it in January 2007.

We had a session in spring 2007. The minister did nothing. He didn't have the jam to do anything. We had a session in the fall of 2007. He didn't do anything then. He didn't do anything then, hon Speaker. So here we are in 2008. He is refusing to accept a ruling of the court.

What I'm asking the minister is: when are we going to expect some action? When are the children and adults who are affected by this unfair and illegal rule…? It's not me that says it. It's the Court of Appeal that says it. When are those children and those adults going to get services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. T. Christensen: Perhaps I should remind the members opposite that the eligibility criteria for community living services in the province are no different today with CLBC than it was for the many years that they formed government in this province.

Hon. T. Christensen: To be clear, IQ is not the sole determinant of eligibility for community living services. It is complex, to ensure that we have the flexibility and criteria to ensure that vulnerable adults who require community living services get those services.

We are going to continue with that work so that we get it right, unlike the NDP when they were in government, when they simply responded to the last headline, implemented something and then found that it didn't work. We're going to do it right.

D. Cubberley: Yesterday the Minister of Education failed to address concerns that our schools are failing our special needs kids due to underfunding — despite a drop of 25 percent in special ed teachers, despite a dramatic increase in the number of high-intensity special needs kids, despite teacher caseloads being up as much as 60 percent. Diagnoses are being delayed, front-line services are eroding, teachers are burning out, and parents are becoming demoralized.

This minister holds the purse strings, and year after year there's no new money for special education to stop the hemorrhaging. My question is: how can this government, this minister, claim to be committed to building the best system of supports for persons with disabilities when year after year your priorities breed neglect of special ed students?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the member opposite should do his homework. Year after year after year this side of the House has actually added significant dollars to education funding, and the members opposite, as we reminded them yesterday, voted against every single increase in this Legislature. As we look at funding for children with special needs in this province, today we fund, for the needs of those children, more than half a billion dollars in British Columbia.

We're continuing to add to that with each and every budget. Perhaps the member opposite would like to put his action where his words are and vote in support of the budget.

D. Cubberley: This minister is not listening to parents. She's not listening to school trustees on this issue. She won't listen to teachers, and she refuses to respond to a community that is aching for answers.

Will she listen? Will she read the report and listen to the Representative for Children and Youth, who documents a child with ADHD and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder who is denied services by CLCB using the IQ cutoff and who, by default, arrives at the local school looking for service? And what does that child get in the wonderful new world of the best system of supports?

That child gets two hours of teacher's aide assistance a week — not a day; a week. Disgraceful. And that's how bad it is in British Columbia today. My question is: when is this minister going to come out of denial? When is she going to stop ducking her responsibility? When is she going to fund the supports she's obligated to provide under her government's own policies?

Hon. S. Bond: When is the member opposite actually going to spend some time doing some homework

and look at what exactly is happening in British Columbia? In fact, the last time….

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted to say that on this side of the House, we actually value the role of parents in education and in fact have made the effort to visit every single school district in British Columbia — never done by members on the opposite side of the House.

D. Routley: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. A young man in my constituency recently passed his 19th birthday. He suffers from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. He was offered no local options for placement in a facility or group home.

The young man ended up homeless, living in a shack. He stayed there until he was threatened. He then walked 20 kilometres to his former foster parents' home and arrived on their doorstep. They took him in, but they can't cope with the needs of this young man. The family is appealing daily for help from CLBC and from this minister, but to no avail. This is exactly the type of situation that the child and youth representative is referring to.

Will the minister act on the recommendations in Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's report and provide this young man with the services he needs?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member knows that I'm not able to comment on specific cases here in the House, but I can advise members that in a situation like this, funding would be made available through CLBC to help meet an individual's disability-related needs. In some cases, that may mean in excess of $40,000 annually for a particular individual.

CLBC explores different residential options that may be available. But it's also important to note that when we're speaking of an adult, CLBC cannot compel the individual to accept a particular service.

If the member wishes to discuss the circumstances of this individual case with me further, I am happy to do that. The member would need to provide me with a consent form so that we can share information with him.

D. Routley: Eventually the minister will have to accept this responsibility. This young man is representative of hundreds of others like him. The minister has been directly appealed to by the family, by this member and by the critic, and there has been no response. There have been vague promises that don't come anywhere near the level that the minister has just described.

In fact, the family is left on its own, and they can't cope. I know them. They're good people. They're teachers. They have the capacity, but it's stretched beyond the limit. This government and this minister are letting this young man and others like him down. The child and youth representative's report is clear. The minister is failing people like Michael Steele, the foster father, and others like him. This is intolerable.

Again to the minister: will he admit that his ministry is failing to meet the needs of these vulnerable British Columbians, and when will he commit to taking real action to help them?

Hon. T. Christensen: Day in and day out, staff within CLBC and within the Ministry of Children and Family Development in offices around the province deal with some of our most vulnerable citizens. They work very hard to identify the needs of those citizens and look for the supports that will enable them to live independently.

They cannot compel individuals to accept particular supports, but we remain willing in every single case to be working with individuals, to be working with their families to ensure that they obtain the supports they require to live independently.

B. Simpson: Since October 2007, 20 mill closures have been announced in this province. Thousands of B.C. forest workers and their families face an increasingly uncertain future. By all accounts, we are going to see more of those announcements over the next few days and weeks.

In January the federal government stepped up and announced a billion dollar community stability fund, and they passed the legislation in February.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. The federal government has transferred B.C.'s portion of that fund to British Columbia. How much did B.C. get? Where did the money go, and what will it be used for?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are working closely with the federal government to make sure that those funds are used to benefit communities throughout British Columbia. The Minister of Forests has been working very actively on that file, and we know that it will be put to the best use in communities around the province.

B. Simpson: Well, this crisis in the sector has been going on for a year and a half. We've had mill closure announcement after mill closure announcement for a year and a half.

The federal government informed us a month and a half ago that they're going to flow money to this province. Yet the minister stands up and says that they're

working on it. Well, that's not good enough for the forest workers and their families who are now facing the uncertainty that they're facing today and have been for the last year and a half.

So my question to the minister, since he's standing up on this one, is: when will the first forest worker get the first dollar? Where are the plans and programs to assist our forest-dependent communities and forest workers in this province today?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, unlike what we saw in the 1990s under the NDP government when they came out with the jobs for timber accord, which was supposed to create 25,000 new jobs…. You know how many new jobs that created? None. It was negative. We saw employment in the forest sector go down as a result of the efforts of the NDP government. What we have seen since….

What we saw in the 1990s under the NDP government was something called the jobs for timber accord, which was supposed to create — and I'll repeat it — 25,000 new jobs. It created none. We saw a demise at that period of time.

What we have seen in British Columbia since 2001 is a net increase of the number of people employed in this province by over 100,000.

C. Wyse: The Premier promised the people of B.C. that he wouldn't sell B.C. Rail. He did. When he sold it, he promised that service levels and costs would improve, providing security for workers in communities. But CN Rail has continually failed to deliver the required cars in a timely fashion, and the company has increased costs of transportation — another broken promise that is now leading to more mill closures and job losses than would have been necessary in these tough times.

Will the Premier demand that CN Rail immediately start providing the railcars necessary to keep mills open along the former B.C. Rail line?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, 1,500 new railcars, a new line operational from the new Port of Prince Rupert, a $30 million investment in an intermodal facility in Prince George. What part of the good news can this member not understand?

This is tiresome in the extreme. We attend an event at the Port of Prince Rupert. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of excited residents from the northwestern part of this province, and I see the NDP members flitting around trying to pretend they were in support of this from the beginning — when they never were. Every time we have an opening and everyone is there and excited, talking about the bright future, they're all trying to crowd onto the stage to take credit for something they opposed every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, I'll say this. The investments that CN has made have been over $150 million to open up the northwest of this province to the benefit of every British Columbian in this province.

C. Wyse: In spite of the bombast, next week 1,100 workers in the Cariboo will be put out of work for at least two weeks, if not longer. However, other operations in the Cariboo can continue to run if they get railcars. West Chilcotin Forest Products, Jackpine lumber, Lakeside Reload and others can continue to employ hundreds of people if they get the railcars.

My question again to the Premier: will he intervene and ensure that CN Rail provides the cars in a timely fashion so that the people of the interior can continue to work?

Hon. K. Falcon: One thing we know for sure — and I think this question exemplifies it — is that the one thing the NDP opposition are never used to is an economy that is so strong that there are challenges because the economy is growing so quickly and there's so much demand in airports, in rail, in trucking and in employment. This is the kind of thing that the members opposite have never had to experience, so I can understand their shock and amazement at the challenges that a growing economy truly places upon all the transportation sectors.

But I will tell you this. The addition of over 1,500 new railcars and the investment of over $150 million in the economy of northern British Columbia is a good investment for British Columbians and the country.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply for ongoing debate on the supplementary estimates.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE
FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP
AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
(continued)

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I did have, potentially, a couple of other transit questions, but we'll postpone those until the Transportation staff can get back.

I wanted to move to the question of bioenergy. There's $25 million allocated in this year's budget out of the $252 million of new money. Under supplementary estimates for '07-08, $25 million of that is for bioenergy. Could the minister tell us what that $25 million in bioenergy is going to be spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: As noted, the $25 million is intended to support the bioenergy network in the development of bioenergy projects, technology and related research. The objectives of this initiative are to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve local air quality; to help capture value from the mountain pine beetle–killed timber and other underutilized forest, agricultural and municipal biomass resources; and to help diversify the forestry and agricultural sectors.

It will attract federal, international and private sector investment; increase training opportunities in the bioenergy technology sector and build academic and research expertise in bioenergy; aid in bioenergy, biofuels and biorefining technology development; help position British Columbia as a world leader in bioenergy; and create economic opportunities for communities and first nations throughout British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what the status is of that initiative now, in terms of where it is — in planning, in startup or in implementation?

Hon. B. Penner: I know I'm not supposed to use props, so I won't hold this up. But the member will know that on January 31 the government released the B.C. bioenergy strategy that put forward the government's vision and a number of goals we hope to achieve in assisting with some of the difficult transitions occurring in forest-dependent communities around British Columbia.

As part of that, there are ongoing discussions taking place with industry and academic institutions, as well as with the federal government, in the development of this $25 million funding commitment to the bioenergy network — assuming that the Legislature approves it.

I didn't mention this at the outset, but we believe there is significant opportunity that with this $25 million, we can attract and lever additional funding from the private sector as well as from the federal government in terms of attracting additional funds towards this objective of developing a bioenergy sector in British Columbia that will be leading not just in Canada but perhaps our international counterparts as well.

S. Simpson: As we spoke earlier about the two prior initiatives, the minister told us that the Pacific institute for climate change…. His rationale for the funding going into the '07-08 year was that the universities and institutions had to have some certainty about the money because their charters wouldn't allow them to spend money that didn't exist or that they didn't already have. I think that's a bit of a suspect answer, but let's just set that aside for a moment.

A similar answer was provided around the transit question in terms of needing to ensure that dollars were available to TransLink, etc., for them to proceed with initiatives that sometime in the next few years will move forward.

Could the minister tell us what the rationale is for why this $25 million for bioenergy is in the '07-08 budget and not in the '08-09 budget?

Hon. B. Penner: We canvassed this at some length — and the Finance critic did as well — in terms of discussions around the $440 million climate change dividend that British Columbians will hopefully be receiving, if the Legislature approves this supplementary estimate that's before the House.

We have a surplus this year. That's thanks, in large measure, to prudent fiscal planning on our part and not budgeting more expenses than we had revenue. In addition, we have a strong economy. We like to think that a number of the policies that we've put in place over the last seven years have had a significant contribution towards the strong economy and, therefore, the strong fiscal results that the provincial treasury has experienced this year.

As a result, we think there are opportunities to accelerate a number of government priorities, including the development of a bioenergy network, as I said, to assist communities that are in transition now where there's a downturn in the forest industry, particularly in those communities hard hit by the mountain pine beetle, which in itself is a manifestation of climate change.

We think that climate change is a priority. We think that helping rural communities is a priority. We have the dollars available to make this expenditure in the current year due to the strong surplus that's resulted from our healthy economy. It is, frankly, a choice that we think is worth supporting, so we're bringing it forward here to the House.

I should note that if the member is going to start asking me more accounting questions, the answer will be the same. If the government expenses the money in fiscal '07-08, my understanding from the accountants is that that's the year in which it is booked. It's booked in the same year in which it's expensed — that is, in the year that the money leaves government.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on the minister's answer where he said that we had a strong economy in '07-08, so the government is able to book here. If you add the estimates that come under his ministry with others — some billion dollars' worth of expenses into '07-08 that rightfully belong in '08-09, but this government won't acknowledge that — then is the minister suggesting that the economy was strong in '07-08 but

there is a concern that these expenditures wouldn't fit in '08-09 without creating a challenge for the economy? Is that the problem?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've said previously and as did the Finance Minister, we find ourselves in a situation where we have a strong surplus in fiscal '07-08. I know the members opposite weren't familiar with that experience when they were in government. I certainly recall sitting on that side of the House when I was in opposition and the NDP government was in office during the 1990s, and I can tell you that they almost never had that situation of experiencing a strong surplus and having the opportunity to spend extra dollars without going into a deficit.

We do. There is a distinct difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. We budget prudently. We don't make wild projections about anticipated revenues only on a hope or a whim. We're being very conservative in our fiscal forecast, so in fiscal '07-08 it looks like we're on track for a strong surplus.

Just last year the NDP was complaining that we weren't spending the surplus. Here they are expressing a criticism about plans to expense the surplus on certain key priority areas, like helping rural communities hard hit by the mountain pine beetle or by the downturn in the forest industry to transition to other economic opportunities such as the development of a bioenergy sector.

Frankly, it almost sounds to me like the NDP doesn't want us to do that. That's fine. That's their choice. But I think it's the wrong choice. We're here because we think it's important to advance these expenditures in a timely way. We have a surplus that allows us to do that and to support the development of a new bioenergy sector here in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Well, I would suggest to the minister that he might want to look at the budget and look at the total abdication of responsibility around our forest communities in this budget, essentially, before he starts claiming what this government is or isn't doing for our forest-dependent communities. We know that "slim and none" would be the answer in terms of what's actually being done.

I want to move to the $65 million item right now, which the minister referenced in his opening comments. Other initiatives, I believe, is what he called them. In the $252 million, could the minister tell us: what are those other initiatives?

Hon. B. Penner: Included in the $65 million number that the member references is $19 million for a forest health and growth initiative to maximize forest sequestration of CO2, including strategies that improve adaptability to climate change and to reduce wildfire risks; $15 million for reduction of public servant travel. This is allocated to the development of advanced communication and collaboration tools, including desktop video conferencing, to reduce the need for public servant travel.

Pulp and paper industry emissions — $10 million is allocated here in funding to assist British Columbia's pulp and paper industry to develop new technologies to further reduce GHG emissions during the processing of wood chips into pulp. There's $9 million for the Pacific carbon trust. This is startup funding for the development of a B.C. Crown corporation mandated to invest in GHG-reducing projects here in British Columbia and to assist the government in meeting its carbon-neutral target by 2010 by purchasing low-cost, credible carbon offsets here in the province.

There's $5 million for solar energy. This would be funding to support the expansion and uptake of solar thermal energy systems here in British Columbia, something that I think we have significant opportunity to do.

There's $4 million for clean energy to support remote first nations and other communities currently reliant on diesel-generated power plants to switch to clean sources of electricity such as run-of-the-river small hydro projects and improve the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses. Then there's $3 million for carbon capture initiatives, funding to research technology options for the capture and permanent underground storage of CO2 from oil and gas production.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll talk a little bit about some of these projects. With the Pacific carbon trust, I believe…. If I read the note that comes with the supplementary estimates, it says that it will be a new Crown corporation, Pacific Carbon Trust Inc. Has that Crown corporation been set up, or is it to be set up in the next year?

Hon. B. Penner: Work is underway to set up the B.C. carbon trust. That work is being led by the Ministry of Finance, and it's my understanding that the Crown corporation will be set up under the Ministry of Finance's supervision.

S. Simpson: I'm just going to diverge a little bit, because I've been thinking about this whole package as we proceeded along. There's a question that's kind of been gnawing at me a little bit. I assume that the provincial transit plan will be under the Ministry of Transportation as it plays itself out; the bioenergy plan under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and the carbon trust under the Ministry of Finance.

So my question is: why has the government determined that it would take what is a ministry that had a $220 million total budget — $222 million of expenditures — and then increase that by more than 100 percent in the supplementary estimates to capture a whole lot of things that, in fact, appropriately belong with other ministries and that will presumably be directed by other ministries?

Could the minister explain why those supplementary estimates aren't being advanced by the ministers who actually have responsibility for those things?

Hon. B. Penner: All of the initiatives that we're talking about here and that we're putting forward to

the Legislature for contemplation do touch in some way on climate change, either on the mitigation side or the adaptation side. As the Ministry of Environment has lead responsibility for the climate change file within government, it was deemed appropriate that the Ministry of Environment take forward this funding request to the Legislature and speak to the proposal for the $252 million.

S. Simpson: I understand that response, but I need to say…. I'll just reference back to when we were talking about the Pacific institute for climate change a little bit earlier. The minister made references to initiatives that the Ministry of Advanced Education would be taking forward. And that minister and that ministry…. That makes sense in that they would understand that.

It actually creates a problem, in some ways, for us to be able to get the information that we would like to get about these supplementary estimates, because the ministers who actually have responsibility for these files aren't here and responding to that.

Ultimately, I'm assuming that when we get to talking about a number of these initiatives…. I fully expect that this minister and others will be directing us to be going and talking to the appropriate ministers about some of these matters when they come forward in estimates. Or if we want to discuss these matters in the estimates process that will come up based on the budget, we're going to end up going and talking to other ministers about that.

So it seems a little circumspect to me that the decision would be made that this minister would, in fact, bring all of these things forward. I guess the reality is that if we actually wanted to take the position that it's the person responsible for climate change who would be responding to this, it would be the Premier who would be sitting over there answering these questions and not the Minister of Environment.

With the $19 million that's for forest health, could the minister tell us: is that the extent of support that will be provided to the forest communities over the beetle?

Hon. B. Penner: I wonder if the member could just repeat the final couple of words in his question. I couldn't quite hear exactly what he said. I think the question was whether the $19 million represented the full amount of money allocated towards, I think he said, beetle. But I wasn't sure what that last word was.

S. Simpson: When I look at the numbers that we were given, which the minister just provided under "Other initiatives," and then when I look back at the budget for climate action in the fiscal plan — it lays out '07-08 numbers as well — it has a $29 million number for managing B.C.'s forests and changing climate. I'm assuming — and I'm happy to be corrected — that's in fact the $19 million for forest health, plus the $10 million for pulp and paper and new technology put together to make the $29 million.

S. Simpson: Page 27, green pages. It then goes on to say that we will spend a total of $600,000 a year on our forests and climate change every year after that. So we get $29 million in '07-08 money, which is this, and then over the next three years, a total of $2 million in its entirety. As we know, that $2 million over three years isn't going to buy a lot of forest health.

My question is: is this in fact all of the money that's going to forest health as it relates to climate change? Is that it, and then we see only $600,000 a year after that?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that since 2005-2006, the province has spent in excess of $200 million on issues related to the mountain pine beetle and responding to that. In addition, the Forests for Tomorrow program, as you know, has a goal of reforesting areas that are not expected to come back naturally after forest fires and the mountain pine beetle outbreak.

In '08-09 the program will increase to an ongoing level of $63 million per year. This does not represent the sum total of all spending related to the mountain pine beetle or climate change but rather represents an acceleration and some additional funding in that regard.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that. Could the minister tell us: what exactly does the $19 million for forest health actually do?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member has noted, there are a number of initiatives and ideas under that $19 million umbrella.

Included under that umbrella is funding to the UBCM for fuel management — part of our strategy of reducing the interface fire risk; additional funding to purchase seedlings for the Forests for Tomorrow program that I referenced earlier — so this is an acceleration of that program; additional funding to look at long-term research to improve forest resilience, for climate change purposes; additional purchases of fertilizer to accelerate the replanting and the regrowth of our forests; as well, funding for pursuing biological control agents to stop defoliation caused by the western spruce budworm.

S. Simpson: I notice just one other matter under the "Other initiatives" area the minister referenced. There's $15 million to deal with government travel, video conferencing, etc., and the $9 million, then, for the creation of the trust — which, of course, is to assist in achieving those carbon-neutral targets.

Are either of these funds or portions of either of these funds projected to include some of the $25 a

tonne that the government is going to pay, or does that come out of '08-09 budgets or subsequent budgets — the money to go into the trust as offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: The $25 per tonne that the government has committed to, to offset the emissions caused by government-related travel, is in addition to the dollars that are being sought here. The $9 million contribution that we're seeking approval for from the Legislature would be the initial startup funding that would go to the new Pacific carbon trust to get them started with a number of investments. The $15 million for video conferencing and that type of thing would be to reduce the need for public servants to travel.

I can provide the member with a little bit more information in that regard. This is something that I've been quite interested in personally — to try and save the need to travel as much.

I'm advised that the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services has been pursuing some technological solutions here, including the purchase of software to be used on computers to facilitate desktop- and portable-computer-based conferencing. This includes real-time viewing and creation of documents and presentations without the need for participants to travel or to be in a meeting room. This would also involve instant messaging, which allows staff to better contact each other and have real-time discussions.

Currently my computer is not equipped to allow me to take part in real-time or video conferencing, but in the future it's possible that within government we'll start to see small video cameras, for example, attached to the top of your terminal so that you can take part, see what the other person is doing and have a sense that you have actually met with the person. This is something that we are exploring in an effort to reduce the need for government travel.

S. Simpson: One of the items — again, in the "Other initiatives" — is $5 million for solar energy. I know there have been indications that the government is looking at accelerating a program around solar panels and that.

Could the minister tell us what this $5 million actually will pay for in terms of a strategy around solar panels or other solar energy initiatives?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will know that in the 2007 energy plan the province made a commitment to encourage alternative electricity sources and energy efficiency measures.

Again, I'm a pretty strong advocate for the potential for solar power. Although many British Columbians may think that we're too cloudy a jurisdiction to have much opportunity in terms of solar energy, I think that in fact we do. In terms of our latitude and in terms of our hours of daylight, we compare quite favourably with Germany, which has already made extensive use of solar energy for heating purposes and to some extent for electrical generation.

We think that there are tremendous opportunities here. We have been partnering with the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association on an initiative to encourage the development of solar heating, particularly for hot water purposes, not just for electricity. Quite often people think it has to be for electrical production. Although that's an opportunity, I think in the nearer future we have greater potential in terms of just using it for heating purposes, especially for hot water.

We are working with the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association. They will be managing these funds on behalf of our government. As well, the federal funding from something called the eco-energy renewable heat incentive program has also been allocated towards this initiative, and I'm advised that it has an additional amount of $6 million. By making this contribution, we're able to lever additional dollars that are being made available through the federal eco-energy renewable heat incentive program.

S. Simpson: The other two items on there…. I believe $4 million for clean energy and $3 million for carbon capture were two of the items that the minister mentioned. Certainly, I want the minister to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe he said that would mostly be for research, that kind of work, around clean energy strategies and carbon capture strategies.

Is that accurate — that the expectation is that these are research dollars or science dollars that that's being spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the answer to the member's question is yes and no, which isn't particularly helpful. But it is, and as I get into the details…. In terms of the carbon capture allotment, the $3 million that's targeted there is essentially for research in terms of technology options for the capture and permanent underground storage of CO2 from oil and gas production. We are interested in looking at specific site locations that would be feasible, particularly around saline aquifers and that which could hold the CO2 and capture that and hold it for the indefinite future.

In terms of the clean energy initiative and the funding available there, that would be for more tangible projects, actually putting turbines in place or removing the need for diesel generation, where possible, for remote communities. One example I could give the member — and I think we might have talked about it last year — was immediately following the sinking of the Queen of the North and that tragic incident. I had an opportunity to visit the village of Hartley Bay.

As soon as you walk up the dock upon arrival at that community, you walk by, I think, two different sheds, each with a broken-down diesel generator in it, and that's what welcomes visitors to the community. The community members expressed some frustration with that. They would like to have a better welcome for their visitors than that.

Then when I was inside the community and walked up the plankways through the town, you could hear a loud roaring sound in the distance. In fact, that's the sound of a rushing river above the village coming down a waterfall. I asked: "Has anybody ever consid-

ered trying to replace your diesel generator by capturing some of that kinetic energy in the form of that falling water from the side of the mountain?" The answer was: "Yes, but we're looking for funding opportunities to do that. We don't have the economic resources ourselves to actually go ahead and do this on our own. We're looking for someone to help us do it."

It had been a vision for community leaders in Hartley Bay, I believe, for some time, to see if they could harness that falling water right on the outskirts of their community, which you could hear in the centre of their community, and put that to clean energy use and wean themselves off the need of this diesel-electric generation.

Those are the types of projects that I'm advised this kind of funding would go for — specific things where we already know we have the kind of technology that could work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make rural communities more pleasant places to stay. You don't have to listen to the noisy diesel generator running 24 hours a day — even at night when you're trying to sleep — and then have to constantly worry about refuelling it at a time when oil prices are going higher. Then the ongoing cost of maintenance, which is pretty significant, I'm advised, for diesel generators….

S. Simpson: Well, a question on that clean energy initiative. We know, of course — and we've had this debate a number of times, and we'll have it again — that there are a number of commercial ventures, the private power, run-of-the-river, etc. It seems to me that this is a slightly different kind of initiative in that it's a community-based initiative, where a community like Hartley Bay, for example, is deciding to advance to create its own power sources to meet its own needs.

Is that accurate? Would the government then be saying: "We're going to support a community like Hartley Bay that's putting together an initiative to change its energy sources to be cleaner, to be more reliable, etc."? Or is this something where potentially the government is encouraging a commercial venture? I'm just trying to determine: is it a public service venture that the people of Hartley Bay want to move forward as an initiative that we support? Or is it, potentially: "Here comes Plutonic or Ledcor, and we're going to throw some money at them"?

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, along with B.C. Hydro, have had a program for a number of years now where they're working with rural and remote communities on community-based energy planning and clean energy development. The goal is to achieve what I was talking about earlier, which was expressed to me by the band leaders in Hartley Bay, which is to find themselves a cleaner, more consistent, more reliable and ultimately less expensive source of electricity for their communities.

These are community-led initiatives where the community has identified this as a priority and where they work with B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I would anticipate that in most cases they would probably contract with the private sector to actually build and potentially operate those facilities so that they can take advantage of the expertise that's been developed in that particular sector.

We do have some world-leading expertise here in British Columbia that we can be proud of in this particular energy sector. It's one area where we are leaders, and we can put that to good advantage.

In other communities that are remote…. I recall from my time on the alternative energy task force that there are about 60 or so communities that have been identified in British Columbia as being remote and off the grid. It's those 60 communities that we're looking to try and assist in weaning themselves off dependence on diesel electricity generation for the greenhouse gas benefit, for the particulate benefit, for the noise reduction benefit and, ultimately, for a cost benefit.

We know that the price of diesel fuel has gone up dramatically in the last couple of years, and with a carbon tax and a carbon-constrained world, you can anticipate that the cost of fossil fuels will continue to go up. So there's a compelling case to be made that these 60 or so communities in British Columbia should be looking for ways to get off of the dependence they have on diesel electricity generation. However, not all communities will have an opportunity to do that simply on a business case.

For example, at the north end of Harrison Lake — a part of the world I'm familiar with — there are a number of first nations communities I've been working with for the last five or six years who have had a dream for 50 years or more to get rid of their diesel generators and plug into the B.C. Hydro grid that, in a very frustrating way for them, has gone right over top of their villages without bothering to interconnect with them.

No previous government and no Crown corporation ever saw fit to spend the money on a substation to connect these small villages, because there simply weren't enough people. There are several hundred people, but not enough to make an economic or business case.

That's changing without any government subsidy. Cloudworks Energy, an independent power producer, is today busy at work with about 200 people employed in that area building a network of small hydro projects that will link up through a substation, which they are paying for, and thereby move their electricity to the grid but also connect that small community to B.C. Hydro's electrical system. They'll be able to say goodbye to their noisy, expensive and sometimes unreliable diesel generators.

That's a potential for some communities where there's a business or economic case to be made, where they can get off of the diesel without this kind of funding support. But in more remote communities where there isn't that immediate access to wheel the power out and to underwrite the cost of that construction by selling the electricity to B.C. Hydro — in a remote community like Hartley Bay, which isn't connected to the grid and, I think, is some distance from it — I would anticipate that this type of program would be

utilized by the community and B.C. Hydro to make their dream a reality and say goodbye to their diesel generator.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. I think back to a discussion I had — I believe it was last year — with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands around the Great Bear initiative and the work that was done around those land use plans. I know that there's an initiative within that plan for these small, green energy projects for first nations, as the minister talked about here, being able to access support to put small run-of-the-river or whatever in that will hopefully meet totally, or at least substantially, the needs of those communities in terms of energy. I believe that the minister at that time when we talked about that….

One of the distinguishing things about those particular projects was that there was no expectation that they would sign any kind of…. Because they weren't into the grid, there would be no power purchase agreements with Hydro or anything of the like. Instead, they would be delivering almost community-based energy to meet the needs of those communities. They wouldn't necessarily have a commercial aspect to it.

Is it the expectation that some of these projects will have a commercial aspect to them? Or are they mostly looking at what the minister spoke about, which are communities like the Hartley Bays or other communities that don't have that access to hydroelectric power and would be able to find a way to create that alternate green power for themselves to meet the needs of their own communities?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the majority of these projects are for communities that are off-grid, to use that phrase which has become somewhat popular in certain countercultures. There is one project under this funding allocation that I believe does tie into a B.C. Hydro distribution line, which is a fairly small line, but that community would still benefit from the introduction of this community power system or power source.

S. Simpson: On the question of carbon capture, when he was responding to an earlier question, the minister said that this is primarily about the oil and gas sector, looking at sequestration strategies and such for that sector. There's $3 million allocated there.

What's the expectation around the investment of the industry in finding those solutions, and how does this $3 million link to what, hopefully, industry is going to invest to find those solutions?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the total expenditure anticipated for this research endeavour is about $12 million, the majority of it coming from industry and about $3 million being led by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

We do know that there are technological challenges and difficulties in perfecting carbon capture and storage technology. I'm aware of that, but we're still optimistic that there can be a technological breakthrough or application of existing technology to capture that carbon and divert it out of the emissions stream before it gets into the atmosphere.

I think there could be potentially significant benefits to whichever jurisdiction is the first to show that it can be done on a significant or commercial scale. I know other provinces are working at this as well. Alberta has received significant federal assistance in this endeavour.

We haven't yet, I'm told, received confirmation of federal contribution to our initiative, but I'm told that is a possibility and something that we're hoping for. We're certainly open to having the federal government contribute in our effort to try and find a technological solution to a very vexing problem, which is: how do you divert the greenhouse gas emissions out of the stream of other emissions that come out of the combustion of greenhouse gases?

S. Simpson: I'm going to move to a couple of questions related to the Scrap-It program. The minister has said that $15 million of this $252 million of supplementary spending will go to the Scrap-It program. It's a program I'm still learning things about. It's my understanding that this is a program to encourage pre-1993 cars, I believe it is, to get off the road by offering some support.

Could the minister maybe just briefly tell us a little bit about how this program works and, particularly, how you get the assurances that once these cars get taken off the road, they stay off the road and don't end up coming back in some form?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's question, I think, is a good one. It's an appropriate one. I think it's one that I asked some time ago when I was first briefed on this program. As much as we believe in recycling — and we're pursuing recycling — we don't believe in recycling those old vehicles back through the Scrap-It program on a multiple basis.

Instead, what happens — and this is a requirement under contract — is that the vehicles are stripped down for their recyclable parts. But the powertrain and everything else are out of commission, and you won't see that vehicle back on the road.

Of the $252 million that falls into all these categories, is any of that money anticipated to be spent in the next year coming up on advertising, marketing — any of those kinds of initiatives around promotion of programs or advertising of government initiatives in these areas? Or is it all going to be spent on more substantive aspects of these programs?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not aware of any plans to spend any of the $252 million on a specific marketing

campaign or anything of the like. However, I'm advised that it could be possible that the new Pacific institute for climate solutions and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, for example, may need to advertise for professors or to alert potential graduate students to the academic opportunity that will be available now in British Columbia to take part in world-leading research into climate change.

Similarly, the Scrap-It program is something that the member and I may be familiar with, but I bet you not every member of this Legislature has even heard about it. It's actually been, I think, one of the best-kept secrets of government. It was started, I believe, in the late 1990s, but not very many people know about it.

I don't know this, but it's possible that the Scrap-It program may decide to try and up its profile slightly by developing a brochure that might be made available at — I'm not sure — used car dealers or somewhere, just so people become more familiar with the potential to get some of the financial payback for taking their old beater off the road and parking it permanently rather than having it cause emissions.

Certainly, if we can do that, I think we could see a noticeable improvement. This is a program that was, I think, copied from California. California initiated this concept quite a number of years ago. I believe it's been reviewed fairly thoroughly from an impartial perspective and has been found to have been successful in removing pollutants from the air.

I should note that the primary focus of Scrap-It has been about reducing particulates in the air — the things we breathe that are nasty to us from a human health perspective — rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, I believe that the Scrap-It program can have a co-benefit. It can reduce those local air contaminants but can also, if we structure it properly, encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles than they otherwise would and thereby have a greenhouse gas benefit by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and also reducing local air contaminants.

I think there's some potential increase in awareness that could be valuable for the Scrap-It program, just so we can get more of those beaters off the road.

N. Macdonald: Over the time that I've been the critic and the minister has been responsible for this file, we've had, of course, many occasions to speak. A subject that came up again and again in the conversations and the discussions we had here in the House was funding for arts and heritage. It's something that I feel is very important. Certainly, when I met with arts groups, I would always tell them very clearly that I was completely confident that the minister shared that enthusiasm and that he would be working for the arts.

Now, there are two things I want to explore in the time that we have here. The first of those is to fully understand the programs that are funded with this supplemental budget. We will try to go through those in a way that's easy for the public to follow what is going on there and hopefully ask the specific questions that need to be asked on those programs.

The other thing is that I want to understand why the funds that were basically announced in the throne speech are coming from a supplementary budget at the tail end of the 2007-2008 budget year, which finishes March 31, 2008. That's the second part of what I want to explore.

For those people who are watching what is going on, basically what is taking place is that last February a budget was tabled for Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Tourism, Sport and the Arts received an operating expense budget of $129.548 million. That budget process lasted throughout the spring and was completed in May, so it was a very extensive process.

The expectation is that the planning for the budget process would have started well into the previous year. It is at this point, just as we come to the end of the fiscal year, that $228 million is added to the 2007-2008 budget so that we have a new total of $357.548 million.

To begin with, what I would like to do is go through and understand the programs that are proposed to be funded with this amount of money. The one that is referred to in the Supplementary Estimates document is the BC150 endowment.

What I would like to do, if it's possible, with the minister is go through each of the programs that have been funded, just do one at a time and then give an explanation of the program. After that, I can supplement any of the further information that I need with questions. If that would work for the minister, that would be excellent.

Hon. S. Hagen: If the question was to provide a list of the projects to be funded under the BC150 cultural fund…. Obviously, there is no list, because that's yet to be determined.

N. Macdonald: I should have been clear. I guess I'm working with a few expectations.

Let's start with the BC150 endowment. Now, I am assuming that that is not the only part of the $228 million, but I could be completely wrong. Maybe all of the money is going towards that endowment. If that's the case, then I simply misunderstood.

What I want to start with is the BC150 endowment. If that is the only thing that is being funded, then obviously that's where we'll stop. If there are other programs, then I would suggest that we will deal with them separately, after I fully understand the BC150 endowment.

To begin with, if the minister could give a full explanation of how it is structured and its purpose,

Hon. S. Hagen: The BC150 cultural fund is a $150 million endowment that will be set up. Its purpose is to fund a wide range of arts and cultural activities in large and small communities around the province.

N. Macdonald: So there are a number of initiatives that are within this $228 million, and the first of those is the BC150, which uses $150 million.

Explain to me the role that the Arts Council will play in operating that endowment fund.

Hon. S. Hagen: Obviously, the Arts Council will play a very major role in working with us to select the projects that are successful.

N. Macdonald: It's at this point that I will be looking for some precision. What I heard the Minister of Finance refer to made it sound like this is an endowment whose proceeds would be controlled and managed by the arts councils. Yet when I look at the literature, I see the term "advise." As the minister would understand, those are very different ways of running this.

Clarity on the role of the arts councils: will they be advising, or will they be controlling the funds that come from this endowment each year?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, to be as precise as I possibly can, the minister may make payments from the fund on the recommendation and for the purposes of the Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: In terms of how that works then, with the funding that the Arts Council receives presently, what is the wording around the current situation? When the minister refers to the wording he's just put forward, is that just normal wording which means that anytime there are public funds used, ultimately the permission of the minister is needed but that the normal way it would work is that, in essence, the arts councils would administer the funds? Or is this something different than would normally happen with the funding that goes towards the Arts Council?

Hon. S. Hagen: As you know, the Arts Council presently receives money each year, which they distribute to successful groups. In this case, the fund stays on the government books. However, it will be accounted for by the Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: I want to understand in terms of the decision-making on the funding. Is it decision-making that would sit with the Arts Council in terms of funding? I guess what I want to understand is: if the Arts Council makes a decision on how funds are to be distributed, how involved is the minister in that decision? Is it something that the minister signs off on, but it's simply a requirement and the minister would not normally change any of those decisions? Or is it a more direct control of the fund that the minister would have?

If you could just go into some depth so that I understand. Is this something that the Arts Council advises on, or is it very clearly that they are the group that is going to be operating or managing and administering these funds?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, we will be working in very close partnership with the Arts Council. I think the Arts Council does a great job in how they disburse the funds to the many, many groups that they deal with around the province. We look forward to working in a very close partnership with them on this fund.

N. Macdonald: I still need further clarity in my mind. Just to be very, very precise, what term…? Does the Arts Council "advise" the minister? I think the term you used was "to recommend." I just want to get a clear sense as to the minister's involvement in the projects that the Arts Council is going to work with. I really want to understand that, because right now the Arts Council gets some public money, which it distributes fairly…. You know, they really administer that amount of money.

Is this going to be exactly the same, where the Arts Council would be seen by those who are involved with it to be administering the funds? Or is there going to be a situation where it's the minister that is taking advice from the Arts Council, but the minister is going to have quite a hands-on approach to how the money is distributed?

Hon. S. Hagen: It will really be a combination of the above. There will be recommendations, and there will be advice. We'll be working in partnership with the Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: To understand this, it sounds like it is a situation that is different than currently exists with funding to arts councils. So this is a different situation. This is not going to be the same way. This is going to be a situation where the minister and the government are far more involved in making decisions about where the funding goes. Is that a correct way to characterize what the minister has said?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yeah, I think the member is accurate in saying that it will be slightly different, but the money will all be used for the mandate of the Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: Okay. So the concern that would come from that is that the money would not necessarily go to the places that the Arts Council wants it to go to and that decisions may be made around the fund that may suit the minister's interests, which could quite easily be in conflict with what the Arts Council feels the funds should be going towards.

The question I have is: why would the fund be set up in that way? Why would the fund not be the same

as traditional funding for the Arts Council, to allow that body to have the freedom to make decisions based on what is best for the arts communities throughout the province?

Hon. S. Hagen: It will be what's best for the arts communities throughout the province. If the member hasn't had a chance to read the Budget and Fiscal Plan, I'll read the sentence to him: "Spending priorities will be identified by the B.C. Arts Council."

N. Macdonald: In terms of precision, the priorities may be identified by the arts councils, but they may be accepted or not accepted by the minister. Is that a correct characterization?

Hon. S. Hagen: The ministry will be working in close partnership with the B.C. Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: Okay. That is a very careful way of wording that you may or may not agree with what the Arts Council is doing. Therefore, in a practical sense, the minister is going to control this fund in a way that is fundamentally different than the relationship that now exists with the Arts Council and their other core funding. This is going to be managed differently.

The minister will have more of a hands-on approach to how that money is distributed. He will take recommendations from the Arts Council and will decide whether to go along with that or not — which is different from how the minister has been doing it and previous ministers have been doing it. Is that a correct characterization?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have no idea where the member is going with this, and I don't know how much clearer I can be.

This is a $150 million endowment fund that has been set up for the benefit of the arts and culture community in British Columbia, in addition to the money that we give the B.C. Arts Council. It adds 50 percent to the amount that will be going to arts and cultural communities around the province.

It's set up slightly differently because the fund rests with the government. The other money gets passed over to the B.C. Arts Council. We will be working in very close partnership with the B.C. Arts Council on the distribution of these funds.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand correctly, though, there's no reason why the funds could not be handled in exactly the same way as the money that is currently given to the Arts Council. There is no reason why it couldn't be done the same way.

The minister is choosing to do it in a different way in terms of making final decisions on the funds for a very specific reason. I would just ask him to share why he would set it up differently than we have traditionally set up funding for the arts councils. Why would they not be given the complete latitude they've always had?

Why would you be doing it differently? That's the core of the question. I just want to understand that. There must have been discussion, and there must have been thought about why to do it differently. Just an explanation: why do it that way?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I want to state publicly that I have full confidence in the B.C. Arts Council and the way they distribute the funds. The budget document, which I read once into the record and which I'll read again, says: "Spending priorities will be identified by the B.C. Arts Council." I don't know how much clearer I can be.

The purpose of the $150 million fund, which is a foundation that will generate about $8 million a year, is to fund the arts and culture activities in all communities around the province. This increases the amount going out there by 50 percent. I'm not sure what could be better than that.

N. Macdonald: I'll ask one more time. I just want an explanation of why you would do it differently. I mean, there will be a purpose. It's not just an accident. It's something that has been thought through, and the minister will be doing it for a particular reason.

Now, the way the Arts Council normally works is that they make decisions on their own about where the funding goes. The minister is setting up this fund differently.

I've heard what the minister has said, but the question is fairly precise. There must have been some thinking and some discussion that led to setting it up in a different way. Share with the public some of that thinking. Give an explanation for why you would set it up differently.

Hon. S. Hagen: Because of the very, very strong economy that we have in British Columbia, we were able to take some of the year-end money, some of the surplus money, and put it towards the arts — a total of $228 million. It's never before happened in the province.

We're taking $150 million of that, putting it into a foundation which will generate about $8 million a year added to the roughly $13½ million that the Arts Council presently gets. We will take strong advice from the B.C. Arts Council. We will work in partnership with the Arts Council. I think they are thrilled with having that opportunity to disburse almost $22 million a year to arts and cultural groups around the province.

N. Macdonald: The minister knows that I've always admired his skill and his experience, and again, it's on display. The question was really precise. There was thought. It is not an accident that the minister has set up a structure for giving out these funds that is different than currently exists.

Just a very simple question. I know the minister understands it. I want an explanation for why the minister has chosen a different way of putting these funds out to the public. It's clear that it's fundamentally different. There must have been thought that went into

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll go through this once again. The $150 million endowment fund is an endowment fund that rests in the government. The $13½ million that the Arts Council gets each year is a grant from the government. The earnings from the 150 will be added together with the $13½ million that the arts fund distributes.

Now, because they're two separate funds, the government is going to work in very close…. The money rests in the government, so the government is going to work in close partnership with the B.C. Arts Council. I've already stated that I support fully the way the B.C. Arts Council handles their funds. But this foundation rests in the government.

N. Macdonald: The new funds that are coming — are they seen as core money for the Arts Council? Is that considered part of the core funding that is simply coming in a different way?

Hon. S. Hagen: Here's maybe another way that the member can look at this and understand it. The $150 million fund that rests in the government is paying dividends every year to arts and culture around B.C. We estimate that it will be about $8 million a year. That $8 million generated will be added to the $13½ million grant that the B.C. Arts Council gets presently. So that increases the amount of money that's going to go out to arts and cultural groups around this province to almost $22 million a year.

N. Macdonald: Just one final question, and then there's a number of other things that I wanted to explore.

So that $22 million as a whole will be worked with by the Arts Council. It will be administered in the same way as the $13 million that they had previously. It will all, as a collective, be administered in the exact same way that the Arts Council has always worked with the funds. The minister has said that it's a total of $20-odd million. So the administration will be exactly the same as the Arts Council would be used to over the past few years.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me read out of the estimates book. "This sub-account will provide support for arts and culture in British Columbia as recommended by the BC Arts Council."

N. Macdonald: Just in terms of how we move forward, to the Chair: there may be times where I'll take a little time before I stand up, so if you would give me a bit of time before you are going to call the vote.

Okay. Let's try to understand some of the other projects that you're suggesting you would fund with this $228 million. In terms of the next largest amount, what is the next program that is intended to be funded with this $228 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell by the tone of the questions that the member actually really supports what we're doing here, because I know he's a great supporter of the arts. And I know that he's going to vote in favour of the supplemental estimates, because I know the arts groups will kill him if he doesn't.

Another one of the major projects that I know is of great interest to the other side, and probably shocked them a bit, is the support that we're giving to the Vancouver East Cultural Centre — $9 million. I have visited the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. As a matter of fact, I'm going back there for a play shortly. I was there with the MLA.

I know they do a great job, which is why we're going to support them. This is for, as you know, the revitalization and restoration project and also the establishment of an endowment fund — which is what we just finished talking about — to assist with the ongoing operation of the expanded centre.

N. Macdonald: So the $9 million, which was talked about in the throne speech that we heard just recently, is for the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. It includes the revitalization as well as an endowment. What part of the fund is for the endowment?

Hon. S. Hagen: That answer will be determined by the Vancouver East Cultural Centre themselves.

N. Macdonald: That's $159 million of the $228 million. Maybe if we could just move to the next project. Similarly, if you would give an explanation of the project, that would be helpful to me.

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a list of projects that we have not attached dollars to. As the budget documents said, further initiatives will be announced before the fiscal year-end. So I'm not able to discuss specifically even the project, in some cases, because there's federal matching that we're looking at to make sure the project moves ahead, and we're still holding discussions with the groups.

N. Macdonald: Just so I understand. Properly, the year-end that you'd be talking about is March 31, 2008. So the announcements for all of the remaining funds are going to be made by March 31?

N. Macdonald: Okay. Can you give us an idea of how many projects you're talking about? What's the full figure that we're dealing with?

Hon. S. Hagen: The total amount that we're talking about is $69 million, which is obviously the difference between the 228 minus the 150 minus the nine. The total amount of money to be spread among those projects is $69 million, and the number will be determined on the negotiations that we carry out with the projects we're now working on.

N. Macdonald: You had mentioned that a number of these projects will require federal participation….

N. Macdonald: So some of the projects will require federal participation. If they do not receive federal participation, does the minister anticipate going on with the projects? Or would they only go if there was federal participation?

Hon. S. Hagen: What I can say is that we're working very closely with the proponents but also with the federal government to make sure that we're all in sync when it comes time to announce these projects.

N. Macdonald: As the minister said…. Even though elements of what he said were tongue-in-cheek, he certainly is correct in saying that there's some exciting stuff that's there, and some good stuff.

I know I've heard from the member who represents the Vancouver East Cultural Centre how pleased he was. In fact, when the throne speech was read, you could see people reacting to a number of the things that are there.

I just want to move to the issue of putting this into last year's budget. I want a clear rationale as to why this would possibly be put into a budget year that is completed. It seems to make no sense at all. The explanations that I've heard from other ministers really have not made sense to me. All of these projects are things that you would logically move through a budget process that is predictable. There is nothing new here that hasn't been heard many, many times before.

What is the rationale for putting this into last year's budget, when clearly it came in the 2008 throne speech, and it makes complete sense that it would be put properly into the budget for the upcoming year?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, this is such a great news announcement that I know the arts and culture community was surprised. I suspect that the Vancouver East Cultural Centre was pleasantly surprised, and I think they're all pleasantly surprised.

The reason we can do this is that we have an exceptionally strong economy in the province. To me, there's a lot of sense in taking some of that unexpected surplus and getting a supplementary vote passed now so that we can actually start these projects. We don't have to start them six months or nine months from now. We can actually get them going right now.

I bet you, if you ask any of the groups out there…. If you ask the Vancouver East Cultural Centre, "Would you rather have this announcement now, or would you rather wait until June or September to have this announcement?" they would say: "We're really pleased to have it now, and we really don't care what year it comes out of as long as it's money."

N. Macdonald: What I've seen so far is there's a temptation to confuse the issues. What I'm really specifically talking about is the minister putting something in a budget where it doesn't belong.

It was an interesting opportunity to go back and look at some of the legislation that was passed before I came in here, including the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Certainly, what is put forward there is a clear intent on how budget issues are going to be dealt with. What I didn't really clearly hear was a strong rationale for why this funding announcement wouldn't properly be put as part of the 2008-2009 budget.

The 2008-2009 budget, for the people who are watching, shows a projected surplus of $50 million. What we're talking about is spending by government this year of $228 million.

It raises questions about the validity of claiming that it's a balanced budget. Is it a balanced budget if you're moving money the way that you're moving it?

The question I have for you, under this Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act…. It's something that is a bit new to me. I mean, I didn't vote for it. The minister did. The question I have is that…. The minister hasn't kept to his budget. He's had to go to supplemental budgets. How much personal money will the minister have withheld from his salary because of this decision?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let there be no doubt and no confusion. This is a balanced budget. Balanced budgets are very important to me because I've got 10 percent of my wages riding on it. If I don't balance my budget, I lose the 10 percent holdback. I have 10 percent deducted on my paycheque every two weeks — okay? If I balance my budget, sometime in June or July I get that back again. So not only do I lose my 10 percent….

The Chair: Members. Members. If I can remind all members that the comments are directed through the Chair.

Hon. S. Hagen: Not only do I lose my 10 percent holdback, but my wife would probably divorce me. So it's very, very important to me.

Let there be no doubt. My budget is balanced, and everyone else's budget is balanced. This is a good way to do business, when you've got an unexpected surplus and you take some of that money and spread it back into the arts and culture community around the province. That's like Christmas coming in February, March, April, May and June.

It's the right thing to do. I'm really pleased, as the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, to have this extra money to be able to distribute through the Arts Council the grants that we do. I know that groups out there are going to be just tickled pink to get this money.

N. Macdonald: Just so that I understand. As I say, the minister would be more familiar with the Balanced

Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It's something that obviously he lives with from day to day.

Am I to understand correctly that if this supplemental budget passes, then you will have been deemed to have met your budget? This is not something that is seen as in excess of your budget?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say this. If I was to turn around and spend this $228 million without the supplemental estimates being approved, I wouldn't be balancing my budget.

N. Macdonald: I guess I was depending more upon the comments that Gary Collins had when he was introducing this. It certainly sounded like there would be a different degree of accountability in terms of if you're just bringing in an addition to the budget right at the end. It certainly isn't reflected in the comments that Gary Collins made when he brought this in.

He talks about laying things out well in advance and having them proceed in a way that was predictable. You wouldn't have at the end this sort of situation, where money that is intended for this year's use is going to show up in a budget year that has passed.

Well, with that, can the minister give some idea of the time line for the announcements that will be made with the remaining $69 million? What sort of time line are we looking at? You said that it would be before March 31, but how imminent are these different announcements?

Hon. S. Hagen: The pressure is on because the budget and fiscal plan states with regard to the $69 million that further initiatives will be announced before the fiscal year-end, meaning March 31 of '08.

N. Macdonald: With that, I'd just like to thank the minister. I look forward to the full budget's debate, which will be coming up. I have no further questions.

With that, I thank you, and I thank your staff. I didn't properly say hello to everyone again, but thank you and take care.

A. Dix: Just a couple of questions, really, for the Minister of Health. I don't think I'll be detaining him very long today. In these supplementary estimates, the minister will be aware that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is running a deficit this year.

Can the minister explain why the decision was taken not to address that deficit by supplementary estimate and — if you look at the budget of the Ministry of Health — (a) how it is that Vancouver Coastal is able to run a deficit, and (b) how the deficit numbers by Vancouver Coastal will be treated? He's clearly made the decision not to make Vancouver Coastal whole for that. It's a decision that he and the government have made.

Can he tell us how it is that they run this deficit and what happens to — I gather, from Vancouver Coastal — the $40 million that Vancouver Coastal is presently under budget for this fiscal year?

Hon. G. Abbott: If I could first introduce staff members here today. On my immediate left is Assistant Deputy Minister Andy Hazlewood. On my right is Craig Knight, assistant deputy minister. Rebecca Harvey, behind me, is executive director. George Day, also with the Ministry of Health, is joining us as well today.

In terms of these estimates, the supplemental estimates that we are dealing with today relate to the items listed on page 59 of the three-year fiscal plan which was released by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday. That, I understand, is to be the area that we debate today. If the member wishes to debate issues around Vancouver Coastal and whether they'll be having a deficit or not, I think those are matters which we can deal with appropriately in ministerial estimates later in this spring session.

A. Dix: Actually, hon. Chair, as you know, the deficit is being run in this fiscal year, not the next fiscal year. Really, my question is pretty simple. We don't have to spend a long time here. I just want to ask the minister….

It's very simple. You know what happened to Vancouver Coastal, and members of the House will understand what happened to Vancouver Coastal. The minister fired their chair of the board. He fired him.

They told them that they couldn't run a deficit, but they are running a deficit. Then they gave them, in terms of the lift in the budget for next year, which of course we can't talk about…. We have to talk about the $45 million they're in deficit for this fiscal year. It's contained, of course, under the operating expense that's contained in the supplementary estimates. That's what it's talking about, because it's the same budget, in fact. What you see is that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is in deficit this fiscal year.

The consequence of that, since they're getting the smallest lift of any health authority, is that going forward, I think you're seeing a very significant cut in service. I think it's reasonable to ask why the minister in this process — perhaps he feels the question is more appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance; and I'd be happy to do that as well — has decided not to in fact use the supplementary estimates to make the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority whole.

It's a very straightforward question about this year's budget, about the fact that they're running a deficit, which is something I understand — I have to check Hansard — that the minister said wouldn't happen this year but did happen this year. What happens to that?

As the minister will know, one option the minister could have taken was to believe the people that he

appointed to the board of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. They couldn't make it, they did every step, they took every measure they could possibly take, and they have this $40-odd-million deficit this fiscal year. He could have said to the Minister of Finance, and we could have had this in the budget: "Look, we could make you whole this year."

My question to him is very simple. Who knows when we'll be debating the other estimates? It's very simple. It's about this fiscal year. It's about the fiscal year covered by these supplementary estimates. As the minister will know if he's been listening carefully to the debate, the government feels that it should deal with these matters that are in this fiscal year in this fiscal year.

In fact, did I not hear the Minister of Tourism say, just a few minutes ago with respect to the previous estimate: "Well, we have this extra money in this fiscal year, so we should deal with these issues in this fiscal year." You have this very serious problem in Vancouver Coastal Health where they've underfunded Vancouver Coastal Health, and now they're punishing them in the next fiscal year. It's an issue that we'll be, of course, taking up with the minister during his estimates in the next fiscal year. But we have this situation where they are seriously in deficit.

I guess my question to the minister is: how will they treat that money? And why is it that in these supplementary estimates the minister has decided to continue to punish patients of Vancouver Coastal rather than making them whole? Why didn't he deal with it in these supplementary estimates? It is a fairly straightforward question. We don't have to spend all day on it. I wanted to ask the minister his view on that, and then we can move on.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm happy to provide my view on that, and that is: in the supplementary estimates that we are dealing with today, they apply to the items listed in the $43 million total that is found on page 59 of the three-year fiscal plan.

In terms of the deficit or surplus situation that any particular health authority may be in at this point in their fiscal year, that is a very interesting question. I'm sure that as we get into the estimates of the Ministry of Health in this spring session, the member may have any number of questions in respect of either Vancouver Coastal or Fraser or Interior or Northern. I'm sure there will be no end of fascinating questions related to that. But the fiscal year is not over.

As I've said outside the House and in the House, I know that Vancouver Coastal is working hard to resolve their fiscal challenges. I think the chair and the board are working very hard to ensure that they make the right decisions leading to deficit reduction, but the fiscal year is not over.

The point of these supplemental estimates is to debate those items which, when put together, comprise $43 million in supplemental estimates. That's why we're here. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that the member may have on supplemental estimates.

A. Dix: I know that it's the minister's new philosophy not to respond to questions — which will make our regular estimates, I'm sure, a very elevating experience — but I'm reading here from the Minister of Health's supplementary estimates themselves. Of course, they contain this issue, this amount, because the amount being changed here is services being delivered by partners.

I think it's reasonable to ask the minister if there's a deficit. And there is a deficit. Vancouver Coastal Health has repeatedly stated there's a deficit. The minister has decided — and this is pretty clear in the documents in the budget that he tabled last week for the health authorities — to particularly punish people who are served by Vancouver Coastal. What happens is that if in fact they are $40 million over budget, that's their new base. He gave them about 2 percent on that, which I think most people — well, in every other jurisdiction in Canada — would say is a cut. That's a serious situation for people in Vancouver Coastal.

The question that I have is how in this fiscal year — because we're in this fiscal year and we're dealing specifically with services to be delivered by partners in this fiscal year — the minister intends to deal with the deficit of Vancouver Coastal Health and why he specifically didn't use the means of supplementary estimates to deal with that question.

That's the question, and it's directly related to the bill. The minister can answer it, and he'll give, I'm sure, an outstanding answer. Then we'll move on to something else.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to ask the Chair for whatever guidance is appropriate in respect of this matter. I have advised the member that, in terms of Vancouver Coastal specifically, we are monitoring their financial situation. I have advised the member that the board and the leadership at Vancouver Coastal are working hard to address their deficit situation. I have also advised the member that the fiscal year is not over. That runs through March 31 of 2008.

Mr. Chair, in my view — and please correct me if I'm wrong — we ought to be talking about those items that are a part of the $43 million in supplemental estimates. The other issues the member may well and appropriately raise during estimates for the Ministry of Health.

The Chair: I'd like to remind the member to restrict his comments to the section here in the ministry that we're discussing. It's inappropriate to talk about other subjects.

A. Dix: That's right, and that's why I'm staying and discussing. We could always read into the record the vote of appropriation description and why I'm asking whether, in fact, from that description the Minister of Health is going to deal with Vancouver Coastal Health. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

As you know, the minister has decided in his wisdom to leave Vancouver Coastal Health hanging on

this question and, in fact, not use this. So the result is, of course, the consequences for the people I represent. Not just people I represent, but the people represented by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the member for Vancouver-Langara, the members from Richmond and so on will pay a very significant price. I think we could have used this process to deal with that.

I'm very curious that the Minister of Health, who just recently was commenting on a press release put out by another health authority where they said they were running a surplus…. He had lots to say about that. He thought that was an appropriate subject to comment on, the Minister of Health did. He said, "I am going to comment on this", because this is good news. But then there's this filter that happens if it's bad news.

In the case of Vancouver Coastal Health, they're running a deficit this year. I want to be very specific. On page 19 we have not used the item line, the operating expense line, "Services delivered by partners," to deal with that. The consequences of that, of course, are…. The minister won't tell us what will happen to that — whether, in fact, they'll have to start the fiscal year $37 million down, and that will be additional in terms of the punishment that will be levied on that health authority. But he hasn't, I think, dealt with that issue, which is really a fundamental question for all of us here.

Unfortunately, we don't get an answer to these very reasonable questions. I was only going to ask the minister that question once. I had expected him just to answer promptly, and we'd move on to discuss the specific proposal with respect to funding for brain research, which I of course appreciate very much and support very much.

I'll just give the minister one more chance to answer. If he doesn't want to answer, that's fine. We'll move on to the specifics of the estimate, and we'll go from there.

A. Dix: I think the answer is that the Minister of Health…. It's not me he's leaving hanging, remember. It's not me he's leaving….

A. Dix: The minister, I think, wanted an opportunity to speak there. I missed that.

A. Dix: Well, you know, it's a fascinating situation. I think these are actually pretty serious questions for the Minister of Health. They're pretty serious questions. You know, it's my responsibility as a representative of my constituents and people in Vancouver Coastal Health to ask the questions. The minister, of course, as he often does, can refuse to answer those questions, and that's his right as well because we live in a very democratic society. So the minister can do that.

I'll just leave that subject there. The people in Vancouver Coastal Health — people who live there, people who rely on the services, the doctors and the nurses, the health care workers and the health sciences professionals — will be left hanging for a little while longer to see what plans the minister has for them.

I'll just specifically ask the minister…. He's looking forward to this question, so I'll ask the minister because it seems…. Setting aside the issue of whether the supplementary estimates are the right place to deal with these issues or whether, in fact, the budget estimates for the next fiscal year will do it, I think that issue has been pretty largely canvassed in the debate this afternoon.

I'm going to give the minister a free chance, because I think this is a very interesting and a laudable proposal, to get up and explain specifically — which he didn't do when he introduced this — the purposes of this, and then we'll move on to the next item.

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted, the contributions which comprise the $43 million are listed on page 59. I'll mention those briefly here.

The first is neuroscience research, the UBC Brain Research Centre. As I'm sure all members of the House know, Dr. Max Cynader and the team at UBC have been doing some remarkable and leading-edge work in respect of brain research at UBC. I think all British Columbians should be very proud of the work that Dr. Cynader and the team are doing.

The brain research in particular looks at issues like Alzheimer's, which is certainly a huge societal challenge for us today in British Columbia, Canada and around the world. As we see the aging demographic roll out over the next ten, 20, 30, 40 years, understanding issues like Alzheimer's and dementias is going to be very important. The work that is being done, and which will be further encouraged by the $25 million grant to brain research here, will be very, very valuable in helping us manage what will undoubtedly be a big challenge in terms of the future.

We also can look at issues like Parkinson's or stroke, which is one of the most common ways in which, of course, people either become incapacitated or, in about 20 percent of the cases, stroke can be fatal. So we want to understand better the impact of stroke on the brain, how we prevent it, how we deal with it

during an attack and how we deal with it post-stroke. There is lots of great work being done there.

Also, work in terms of the brain around issues like depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse and how those interrelate to the physiological processes in the brain — very important work. Also, work around some childhood disorders like fetal alcohol syndrome, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and autism. All of these are very important challenges in terms of child health. All of them are only poorly understood in relation to what we need to know.

Again, I think that in all of these areas UBC — and all of those partners associated with Dr. Cynader and UBC — will be doing some remarkable and leading-edge work in helping us understand those issues and helping us understand how to prevent, manage and then rehabilitate from those conditions. So that's $25 million of the $43 million.

There is also $2 million for child oncology or juvenile oncology. This will be a grant to the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation, and we'll be working with partnered organizations through the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation to deal with childhood oncology issues — again, a very important part of the work that is being done at the B.C. women's and children's hospital.

There is $10 million for musculoskeletal research, building on some of the remarkable work that has been undertaken around osteoarthritis and other degenerative disorders that occur, often producing falls and related hip fractures which is, again, in an aging society a very big challenge.

There has been some exceptional work done already at Vancouver General Hospital in partnership with UBC and other universities in the province to help us understand how we can better prevent falls and how we can protect people from falls, should they be vulnerable to them, and to assist them on rehabilitation when that work has been concluded as well.

The final one I would note is a $1 million grant to the Coast Foundation, the Courage to Come Back Awards. I think, as all members know and I'm sure take great pride in, the Coast Foundation is an organization that promotes restoring health, personal growth and a return into society for consumers of mental health services. They do that through advocacy and direct service.

Coast improves the lives of people with mental illness by providing practical and pragmatic help such as housing; jobs; community rehabilitative, social and recreational opportunities; food; clothing; and basic life skills training. The Courage to Come Back Awards have been around for about ten years now, and they do offer, every year, remarkable examples of people whose personal courage has provided an opportunity to return to broader society and make important contributions there.

We're very proud of all these along with, as well, the cardiovascular disease awareness and prevention and Legacies Now foundation. We have also a total of $5 million for that 2010 Legacies Now foundation and for cardiovascular disease and awareness prevention under that umbrella as well.

A. Dix: Just on the issue of the funding for Brain Research Centre and the work there — the minister will know, because he meets with many of the groups and individuals that I meet, of the incredible advocacy work and the daily work that people do to assist individuals who have suffered brain injuries, often brain injuries as a result of motor vehicle accidents or other impacts of falls. One of the challenges that people who live in that world deal with are really daily challenges in terms of the day-to-day supports that are needed. I know this is about research and not about supports.

I wonder if the minister thinks, since this is an opportunity to communicate to the people involved, whether the experiences of people who, on a day-to-day basis, assist people who've suffered brain injuries…. I think of someone in Victoria that the minister will know, Val Reynolds, who not only herself suffered a brain injury about 20 years ago but has had the extraordinary experience of working and supporting others who've suffered brain injuries in recent years. That side of it is less the research side that he's talking about. That side of it is the day-to-day assistance and management. Is it something in the future that the minister would consider, connected to this specific supplementary estimate, putting more resources into?

I think it's a real struggle on a day-to-day basis, not just for advocates, but particularly for people who work on a day-to-day basis to deal with those issues. I know the minister has met with some of those groups, as I have. I wonder if the minister could just take this opportunity, further to what is taking place here in the supplementary estimates, to comment both on their work, because I think it's extraordinary work, but also on supports into that kind of more day-to-day research, if you will, supporting people who have suffered brain injuries that the government might undertake.

Hon. G. Abbott: While I appreciate the focus here today in supplemental estimates is on the grants, and in particular the brain research grant, I will say this in respect of the member's question.

I think that as a government we always want to look at ways that we can add to the integrated supports that are often necessary for people who have suffered brain injuries. Of course, that may be produced by an accident, or it may be produced by an illness. Within that broad category that we would call the brain-injured, there will be a range, from those who may require the neuropsychiatric supports of the new facility now in Kamloops, or they may require housing supports. I think that's an area where we're always receptive to ideas and suggestions. Again, depending upon the severity of the injury, other additional supports may be appropriate and advisable as well.

A. Dix: Just with respect to the second set of issues, which is the issue around research for childhood cancer, can the minister advise us — because obviously there has been a lot of discussion, presumably, between the ministry and the people involved, the researchers

and others — what specific issues with respect to that that they hope the research money will advance?

Obviously, there are a number of areas that any such research could focus on, and there's enormous amount of research in this area taking place in the world. What areas, specifically, do the minister and the government hope to focus in on with this money that's contained in the supplementary estimate?

Hon. G. Abbott: The focus of that particular grant will be around the impact of pharmaceuticals and therapeutics on children with cancer and, in particular, attempting to assess whether a particular therapy or a particular pharmaceutical had a lower adverse impact or side effect than another. So the object here is to try to better understand a lot of drug and other interactions in the hopes that they're not only going to be effective but also minimize the often very challenging side effects that occur with childhood oncology.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Hon. M. Coell: I am here to discuss the supplementary estimates. We're seeking $72 million to be included in the ministry's 2007-2008 budget. There are three items for discussion: the Genome B.C., at $50 million; Science World, at $10.5 million; and Geoscience, at $11.5 million. I'd be willing to answer any questions.

G. Robertson: The minister just listed three recipients for, I assume, grants: Genome B.C., Science World and Geoscience. The description in the supplementary estimates also includes the B.C. Innovation Council as a potential grant recipient for some of this funding. Can the minister just clarify if the Innovation Council is in fact receiving funding and how much?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is referring to the $11.9 million. That money has already been disbursed, to my understanding.

G. Robertson: In terms of the description as it's read in the supplementary estimates, the entire $11.9 million from the main estimates was for the B.C. Innovation Council, and the $72 million is split between the three organizations that the minister listed. Is that right?

G. Robertson: Just starting with the $50 million to Genome B.C. Is there any breakdown in terms of how that grant is applied within Genome B.C.? Has there been a process of working with Genome B.C. to have detail on where the grant funding is applied in that organization?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member is aware, Genome B.C. was established in the year 2000. It was one of the six genome centres across Canada. The research focuses basically on key economic and social areas such as health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, bioenergy and the environment. It may be of some interest to the member that the province has provided $125 million to Genome B.C. since 2001 and has led them to be able to get funds from other sources, including the federal government.

I was just reading through the federal budget, and I believe they've allocated about $150 million to Genome Canada — and that will be, obviously, in the ability to have partnerships with the other six genome organizations throughout the country.

G. Robertson: Just a question in terms of the grant to Genome B.C. Is that grant being used to directly leverage additional funding, additional grants? The minister mentions federal moneys to Genome Canada. Was this $50 million actually coordinated to leverage grants from the federal government or from other sources?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the question. Genome are all, of course, peer-reviewed projects. They usually leverage one to three. So they would leverage this $50 million. Our hope would be it would level out at about $150 million worth of projects that they would be able to pursue in the areas I mentioned.

G. Robertson: But in this case it sounds like the grant has already been awarded, or at least there's notice that the moneys are en route. So in terms of leverage, is this funding being delivered prior to the leverage being applied for other funding? Is there any expectation that there will be follow-on grants from other organizations?

Hon. M. Coell: The competitions always require upfront money so they can go to people like the Gates Foundation. As I said, the federal government in their budget has allocated funds this year which would be, of course, able to match the peer-reviewed projects that are put forward by Genome B.C.

G. Robertson: Well, that's good to hear. We'll hope, on the opposition side, that Genome B.C. will continue to do good work with these grant moneys.

Was Genome B.C. notified of this grant in advance and able to integrate this funding into their budget for this year? Can the minister just describe how the process occurred in order for Genome B.C. to actually plan and know where to apply this funding?

Hon. M. Coell: They're aware of the funding of course, subject to approval by the House.

G. Robertson: Just for the sake of clarity around the impact that this, hopefully, has in positive terms for

Genome B.C…. The total budget for Genome B.C. Can the minister just clarify what their total budget is and how significant a grant like this is for their year ahead?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll give two numbers to the member. Their assets are approximately $81 million, and they had revenues in 2007 of $36 million.

G. Robertson: Sorry. Can the minister just go over that math again — $36 million in total budget this year?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have their total budget, as they're an independent organization. I just have their revenues and assets. I could get that information for the member.

G. Robertson: That would be helpful for the opposition to have a sense of how this fits within their budget. I'm hoping that this just isn't an overwhelming amount of funding for the organization to absorb in a short period of time. It's just a little surprising to see such a large chunk of funding moving without previous notice. We'll assume that the ministry has been working with Genome B.C. to ensure that this is easy enough for them to adapt to.

A question, just going back to where this funding…. In terms of the detailed description, it also mentions the Premier's Technology Council. Is the funding for research and innovation to the Premier's Technology Council included in that $11.9 million main estimate number, along with the Innovation Council?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the question. That is part of the $11.9 million that has already been disbursed as well.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just give a breakdown between the two — the Innovation Council's funding and the Premier's Technology Council funding — just so we have a sense of how that's split between the two?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we debated the $11.9 million in last year's estimates, so I would have to go back to those estimates and have a look at what the breakdown was. They were fully debated in the spring.

G. Robertson: I have some recollection, going back to those estimates and previous estimates, where the Innovation Council's funding, in particular, seemed to be around the $5 million to $6 million mark and had been frozen there for a number of years.

The reason I raise this and the concern that I have is that there's $72 million that has just come down the pike, and the B.C. Innovation Council, which one would think that this government would be interested in robustly supporting — with a lot of new talent on the board, with a lot of potential to add value to the innovation sector here in B.C. — would be seeing some increase now, after being frozen in terms of its funding for a number of years. But it looks as though the Innovation Council is not benefiting from any of this windfall of $72 million that's more broadly targeted to research and innovation.

Is there a rationale why the Innovation Council is not picking up any of this big windfall?

Hon. M. Coell: BCIC had an additional $4 million added to its budget in '07-08, and that will continue this year.

G. Robertson: When you say that will continue, does that mean that their budget from '07-08 to '08-09 will be the same and that none of this additional funding will be involved there?

G. Robertson: I'll just move to questions regarding the $11.5 million that is targeted to develop and deliver geoscience databases and surveys to support mineral, oil and gas exploration. Can the minister outline who is receiving this funding specifically?

Hon. M. Coell: The $11.5 million is to promote economic diversity. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is focusing about half of the mineral geoscience program delivered by the B.C. geological survey on mountain pine beetle, the regions impacted by the mountain pine beetle.

They gave an additional grant of $25 million in 2005 to Geoscience B.C., which largely works in the MPB regions. In recognition of the positive results, another grant of $6 million was given in February. The new geoscience from a collaborative team of the B.C. geological survey, geological science B.C. and the Geological Survey of Canada has resulted in new mineral staking and mineral exploration in the area.

Those will be the groups that would benefit from this additional funding. The hope is that we would see additional new mines and economic support for the communities that are devastated by the pine beetle in the coming years.

G. Robertson: So I heard Geoscience B.C. mentioned there and the B.C. geological survey and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister just clarify what the recipients for the organizations are receiving, and how much out of the $11.5 million?

Hon. M. Coell: The funds will rest with Geoscience B.C. Then it will work with the other ones in developing programs.

G. Robertson: Will all of that funding be targeted at mountain pine beetle–impacted communities or regions?

Hon. M. Coell: Approximately $6 million of that would be targeted to the pine beetle, and the other would be targeted to northeast B.C.

G. Robertson: It strikes me as peculiar that this funding is being targeted to, essentially, oil and gas exploration activities that are typically supported by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Is there a rationale why this money is being carved out of Advanced Education, or at least dressed up as research and innovation funding, when it's in fact being targeted for oil and gas exploration?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the reason is that part of Advanced Education is research and technology and innovation, so it fits within our goals as a ministry.

G. Robertson: If indeed this funding does fit, as the minister says, within the research and innovation mandate of this ministry, does this ministry have additional activities and funding targeted to this end in mineral exploration and oil and gas development?

Hon. M. Coell: In fact, most of our research universities have engineering departments that do research and technology in this area. It's a growing industry, obviously, in the province and of growing interest to the university research sector.

G. Robertson: I'm aware that a number of post-secondary institutions do have activity in terms of research that may involve geoscience and mineral and oil and gas exploration.

I'm curious if the ministry actually has a whole new line item here to directly support mineral and oil and gas exploration, or if the ministry already has activity in their research and innovation portfolio where they're already doing this. Is this a whole new approach within the ministry under research and innovation?

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned before, in 2005 there was a grant made available through these organizations to do the research. It's public research. It's something that anyone can get their hands on to do research.

I think, probably from our perspective, it's helping things like the Keevil mining school at UBC. It's helping a number of the engineering graduate programs to have this sort of research going on. It applies, I think, to rural B.C. too. If we have this research, we can go out and help sell the research to the sector that would do the actual mining or use the research for oil and gas as well. I think it's a positive thing for research and technology in the province of B.C.

G. Robertson: The real question is whether it in fact should be scored as more subsidies to a very profitable industry operating here in B.C.

The oil and gas industry has been logging record profits, and this government is providing an extremely large amount of subsidy to the industry — $327 million in this year ahead. It appears that we have another little pot of money that's coming out of Advanced Ed, couched in research and innovation as a rationale, for even further support to an industry that is fully capable of supporting itself in terms of exploration, based on the bottom line that's been driven in that industry.

I'm curious. The needs are actually so great in Advanced Education, in our pure research and innovation sector and technologies that are knowledge-based, particularly in the post-secondary side of Advanced Education right now, with students not being able to access post-secondary education. When these needs are so great and another chunk, another $11½ million, is sliding off the table to record-high profitable corporations in the oil and gas sector, does the minister really believe that it is a true priority for his ministry to support the oil and gas industry over students not being able to access post-secondary education?

Hon. M. Coell: I look forward to the estimates debate. I think we have some issues that we can flesh out in more detail.

This is important. I think that we need to know what we have in the province. This is public information that can be used by all our research universities as well as the public, industry and small business alike. So I think the more we can find out about what we have as a province as resources….

This is new science. It certainly helps graduate and post-graduate students. I think that with the money invested, especially at UBC in the last few years, it allows students to actually get jobs in the private sector as they come out as well. All in all, I think this will be good for students in British Columbia.

I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 26, 2008, be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1.045 billion. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, 2007-2008, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying

the charges and expenses of the public service of this province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates).

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the bill might be distributed and we take a five-minute recess.

Hon. C. Taylor: The use of supplementary estimates is consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2007-08 fiscal year, as outlined in the supplementary estimates tabled earlier. The bill will provide the additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

In accordance with established practice, the government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the practice of this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates), introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second reading of Bill 4 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2008.

Hon. C. Taylor: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government's

programs until the government's estimates for 2008-2009 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. Bill 3 provides for interim supply, which represents the amount of anticipated government operating expenses for the first two months of the 2008-09 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2008.

Bill 3 will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. This bill seeks the amount of anticipated financing transaction requirements for prepaid capital advances, capital expenditures and loans, investments and other requirements for the first two months of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. And 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities is also included. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, in moving first reading of this bill, I wish to advise the House that we shall be proceeding by consent with all stages of the bill this day.

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House might recess for ten minutes to allow circulation of the bill.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section of the bill requests the amount of anticipated government operating expenses for the first two months of fiscal 2008-09.

This bill requests the amount of anticipated financing transaction requirements for prepaid capital advances, capital expenditures, and loans, investments and other requirements for the first two months of fiscal 2008-09. This will allow time for complete debate on these items.

The third section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities which appear in schedule F of the estimates. As these funds are collected on behalf of and flow directly to other entities, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

B. Ralston: The tabling of this bill and its eventual passage later this afternoon will trigger the beginning of the estimates process, whereby each minister will come before a committee of this Legislature and present the estimates for spending in their ministry and they will be questioned by critics on this side.

I can say that critics on this side are ready to begin the estimates process. They will be raising a number of issues in which the government has failed the people of British Columbia — whether it's the crisis in the forest industry, with layoffs and mill closures that we see adding to the numbers each week; whether it's the absence of a poverty reduction strategy and child poverty. A complete failure in the Ministry of Children and Families, as tabled by the commissioner today.

The crisis in public safety with ongoing shootings in our streets. Health care funding in the five health regions of the province — critics will be questioning that. The estimates of the Ministry of Education, whether it's school closures or an absence of funding for special needs children. In other ministries, oil and gas subsidies and the impact of the gas tax.

There is much work for our critics to do. There is much debate that will take place, and we hope to set before the people of British Columbia a very clear picture of how this budget fails the citizens of the province. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill now be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2008, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

G. Coons: What a pleasure it is. Before I give my response to the Speech from the Throne, I'd like to take a moment to thank the people of North Coast for giving me the honour of representing them in this chamber.

I never cease to be amazed by the incredible energy and the resilience of the communities I represent, from Stewart through the Nass Valley to Prince Rupert to Haida Gwaii, down through Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Klemtu, Shearwater, Hagensborg. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of those that ensure constituents on the north coast are professionally looked after and their concerns dealt with.

In my constituency office I am extremely fortunate to have Pauline Woodrow and Erika Rolston; and in Terrace I have Jennifer Jones. Mind you, not the curler Jennifer Jones, although my Jennifer Jones does sweep away a lot of problems. They work tirelessly on my behalf.

Here in the Legislature I have the privilege to work with Angela Miranda and Lucy Mears. I am indebted to both of them, and I thank them immensely.

It is widely understood that both the throne and budget speech are a chance for the government to present a unified vision for the province, an opportunity to set goals and funding priorities for the year's legislative session and a moment to reflect on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. On all of these fronts, the budget speech failed.

It was a divisive speech that pitted urban B.C. against rural and remote areas. This was an empty, gimmicky speech. Instead of delving deeply to address issues like climate change, poverty, health, education, homelessness, literacy, sustainability and even hope, it presented the people of British Columbia with a hodgepodge of flavour-of-the-month programs that will do little to make real progress on the issues that affect British Columbians.

The speech is in keeping with this government's attitude. Rural regions of the province are given a "boo hoo" for their problems, while the urban south becomes well-to-do. There is nothing in this speech to comfort the anxiety of first nations in terms of the failed new relationship and the attempt to reclaim their rights and entitlement. This was highlighted recently in the Premier's shelving and passing over of the nations recognition act, a shameful rebuff and slap in the face of first nations throughout the province.

Hon. Speaker, please allow me to elaborate on what makes it so divisive. It does nothing to address the resentment felt by the people in this province who live beyond hope. In northern B.C. we are fed up and frustrated by being beyond hope of government attention, beyond hope of a fair share of the wealth generated by our resources, beyond hope of our needs becoming a priority in the Legislature under this government.

We've spoken clearly, those of us from the north coast and in rural areas, about our priorities, but our appeals have fallen on deaf ears. We are only asking for the same treatment that urban areas take for granted. The Finance Minister's so-called green budget puts all the pressure of tackling climate change on working families, especially in rural areas already struggling to get by as big banks score a windfall and big polluters get a pass.

The new gas/carbon tax is not a climate change plan. There is no plan. It's the same old, same old, written on the back of a napkin. They're hitting working families the hardest with the new tax but letting the largest polluters off the hook and handing them more money. The real winners of Budget 2008 go to the big banks — the biggest tax cut, $220 million.

The words "record," "bank" and "profit" spend a lot of time together these days. The three have been so close so often that their ménage à trois is becoming common knowledge. Billions in profit. Almost $12 billion in 2005 for the Big Six alone. The chief executive of the TD Bank took home $14.2 million in compensation last year. I can see why this government needs to hand over multi-million-dollar taxpayer settlements to the banking industry to pay off their executives.

In addition to this government having bankers sneaking through their caucus offices, the oil and gas sector that is responsible for 21 percent of the emissions in B.C. gets the largest subsidy ever. This year the oil and gas sector will get $327 million, followed by $358 million next year.

So what does this Premier do? Hit those in rural and northern areas, where frigid temperatures linger for months and where there is no transit to work, to doctor's appointments, to the grocery stores or to visit friends. And he, the Premier, creates a bonanza for banks and big polluters.

Banks get a big tax break, and big polluters don't have to pay the carbon tax because the oil and gas, aluminum and cement industries are exempt from this Premier's scheme. He figured out a way to make ordinary people pay right off the top. But they haven't figured out a way to make big polluters pay.

Families throughout British Columbia are already struggling to get by under this government's nickel-

and-diming. Transit, B.C. Hydro, ICBC, ferry fares, costs of goods and services — it's all costing more, especially for those in the north and rural areas. All we get is this Premier sneaking up to our mailboxes, very Ralph Klein–like, and slipping in $100 bills — $440 million worth.

Think of what this $440 million could do. Well, never mind the $440 million. Think of the close to a billion dollars, if you include the bank and the oil and gas tax giveaways. Think of what this billion dollars could do for homelessness, for child poverty, for transition homes, to help those mired with mental health and addiction problems, to help seniors with home support or to implement a quality child care program.

How about some money to help the highway of tears initiatives, to help solve and stop the senseless murders of young aboriginal women in the north? But this particular vital funding initiative was once again ignored by this Premier and the Solicitor General.

This new gas tax and the senseless handouts will add to the burden of trying to make ends meet, as people pay more to fill up their tanks and heat their homes. The government had the opportunity to spread the costs more fairly. They chose not to do that. They chose big banks, big corporations and big friendly donators over average British Columbians and those in rural areas.

The British Columbia Chamber of Commerce had some comments, and they gave a guarded welcome to the new carbon tax and said that it could only be effective if used to encourage behavioral change, not as a tax grab on individuals and businesses. They expressed concern regarding the likely inequity in the application of the tax as it will be applied to rural and northern B.C. Here's a quote:

John Winter says this. Whatever happened to the Liberal heartland strategy, and where is the Premier in his charade as a champion for rural B.C.? Totally missing.

We expect a school funding formula that doesn't penalize rural school districts. We want a secure transportation network…

G. Coons: …including a paved Cranberry connector to serve as a secondary route into the region. We want a government that invests in flood prevention and mitigation for the north. We want access to the same level of telecommunications infrastructure that the urban south takes for granted. We want a government that supports a vibrant, competitive and independent port on the north coast. We want local decision-making, both local municipality and first nations, to be respected, and we want meaningful consultation about developments that will impact our region.

The throne speech and the budget speech basically promised the development of a northwest energy corridor without telling us what that meant. Any energy developments planned in the northwest must be subject to the approval of local residents and first nations in the area.

My constituents reacted to news of the so-called energy corridor with trepidation. They are concerned that this energy corridor is just another way of this government's saying that they will legislate environmentally disastrous projects into place over the wishes of local residents and first nations.

In the north the Sacred Headwaters are where the three most important northwest rivers begin. This government, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the water contamination and habitat degradation that the development of coalbed methane in this region will cause, has given this development a green light without consulting those who would be most affected.

This is the sort of thing that my constituents think of when they hear the term "energy corridor." Any development of a so-called energy corridor in the northwest must be done with the blessing of the people who live there and those nations who have a claim on the territory it would affect.

People in the northwest want a say about whether oil tankers will ply our waters and whether sensitive habitat, streams and rivers will be disrupted to push through pipelines carrying hazardous, environmentally destructive goods.

The energy corridor is somewhat of the news if we look at the transmission and getting the proper infrastructure needed for the Port of Prince Rupert and the region. But the concern is over pushing through projects that are not wanted by the local people, by those that live in the region. People in the northwest want to see the benefit to the communities before the government issues any permits. My constituents are not willing to trade their quality of life for projects that give little, if anything, back to the region.

I listened with great interest when the new B.C. bioenergy strategy for rural communities, independent power producers and our forest and agricultural industries was mentioned. Ever since 2002 — when this government arbitrarily banned B.C. Hydro, our Crown corporation, from producing any hydroelectric power and forced B.C. Hydro to purchase additional energy from private power producers, often at double the price of current market rates — there's been a massive sell-off and privatization of our public resources.

So what do we have? We have a sell-off of our public rivers, huge profits to individuals and corporations,

individual British Columbians paying double or triple the rates they should be paying, and a giveaway and privatization of our own B.C. Hydro. Life in B.C. is just fine for this government and their friends.

There's been a gold rush by private corporations seeking to develop hydroelectricity from B.C.'s creeks and rivers. Today over 500 water licences have been granted to private power producers. Locals in my region around the Skeena area are greatly concerned about a proposed private power project, a run-of-the-river water diversion project that has the potential to affect the Skeena River. This project being proposed by Synex Resources would be located just east of Port Essington and would affect both the Skeena and Khyex rivers.

The process, as it stands, around the approval of these projects is deeply flawed. Next to no information about the scope and magnitude of this project has been provided to anybody in the region. It is impossible to judge from the land disposition exactly what is being planned. Synex, in a response about public meetings, about public consultation, said: "There will be public consultation if we hold public meetings."

There are many concerns about the holes in the regulatory framework used to assess these hundreds of projects. Any water diversion projects that fall under 50 megawatts may be fast-tracked with minimal environmental review, despite the fact that the environmental footprint of hydro, and the road and transmission infrastructure which is needed to support it, is often quite substantial.

Due to a failed water diversion project in 2003 by a key Liberal donator, the Premier enacted and passed Bill 30, dealing with changes to the Utilities Commission Act. In May 2006 Bill 30 put an end to meaningful local input into the approval of these water diversion projects or to having any say in their own local community's future. Local governments across the province opposed Bill 30 at the time and requested that it be set aside, to no avail.

The provincial approval process, due to this Premier's intervention, is little more than a checklist of items putting our rivers at risk of being privatized — and sensitive ecosystems of being destroyed. Our waterways are too valuable to be sold lock, stock and barrel to private interests. I don't think anyone in this province wants to see our rivers or our B.C. Hydro privatized in any way.

This government's bioenergy strategy for rural communities, for independent power producers, is just another sell-off to private donors and corporations, with no input from local municipalities, first nations, or the public — which expects public resources to belong to the public.

British Columbians are tired of doing more with less, of turning away the homeless for lack of funds to help them. We wanted to hear a speech that announced the end of downloading onto municipalities. Instead we got responsibility for mental health passed on to communities that are already struggling to provide for their citizens — another passing the buck from this government. They pass the buck and download onto municipalities as they pass the big bucks to big oil and banks.

This is not a speech to unite our province. The only thing more galling than this speech's dismissal of the north is its lack of substance on almost any topic whatsoever. Prince Rupert's port was mentioned in the throne speech.

I was keenly optimistic when the Minister of Transportation recently realized that his approach with port development was not aggressive enough. He started to actually listen to George Stalk, a management consultant who questions whether we are up to the task on the Port of Prince Rupert or are reflecting a lack of foresight — that we could squander our chance in the containerization push.

Stalk questioned whether we were missing the five-year window of opportunity to be that alternative destination by not taking a more aggressive strategy with the Port of Prince Rupert. So with the minister actually acknowledging we are not aggressive enough, I was encouraged when the throne speech spouted that the next phase of Rupert port development will be pursued in cooperation with first nations and the federal government.

Now mind you, hon. Speaker, right now with the coastal Tsimshian, with the port, there are still problems with heritage sites and archaeology studies. There's still no agreement, to this point, on phase 1 or phase 2. "No accommodation, no consultation," the coastal Tsimshian are saying. I honestly believe that the new relationship needs to push forward with the port development, and push forward quickly.

Also, I was encouraged when the throne speech said that a new integrated Pacific port strategy will also be developed. But not a single word was in the budget speech. The government gave no indication of the direction they would take to bring more goods through the northern gateway and announced no plans to increase manufacturing capacity in our region. As long as port trade is only going one way, the northwest will not be reaping full reward from our port investment.

The Premier's budget didn't touch on ways to make the shipping industry in Prince Rupert more environmentally friendly or sustainable. The $30 million over three years for the B.C. green ports initiative, to implement emission reductions for short-haul trucks and to fund port electrification, probably won't make a difference to the Port of Prince Rupert. The Port of Prince Rupert does not need the short-haul, polluting trucks. They do not have the congestion that a great polluting Gateway plan will bring, along with its destruction of Burns Bog.

But I am optimistic that some of this funding will pour north for port plug-ins and the necessary infrastructure to do so. We all know that marine vessel emissions are a significant source of air pollution in B.C. One recent study concluded that ships are the major source of sulphur dioxide, which contributes to smog and acid rain in the greater Vancouver area.

Plug-ins for deep-sea vessels are an irreplaceable tool for the reduction of harmful, smog-causing pollut-

ants. We need action and the necessary funding for all B.C. ports if we are to meet any reductions in greenhouse gases and emissions.

There is a crisis facing us in the forest industry, that historic driver that once defined our province. Although many communities are suffering from the downturn in forestry, no action whatsoever is being taken to revitalize this vital and key sector of our economy. There's nothing on the recovery of our forest industry except round-table regulatory cuts — a round table by a bunch of square heads. Nothing on the recovery of our forest industry.

I was reading recently in the Teal-Jones monthly on-line newsletter that Joni Fraser, who is a community advocate and forester in Sandspit, sent to me. In it Jim Peterson, a forest specialist, commented:

We need to look at the forest industry differently. This government had a chance, and they failed in that. The forest industry has always been a vital, sustaining industry and has the potential to be so again with government leadership. But where is the leadership on forestry? Unfortunately, not from this government and not from this Premier.

This government betrays British Columbians. In the throne speech, only 300 words out of 6,500 address health care, despite our aging population. No mention about needed improvements to ambulance services in rural B.C. and to first nations communities. There is no mention of improving care for our seniors. Instead, it announces a savings scheme.

That ignores the need for government leadership in the creation and oversight of quality, affordable seniors care in this province. Seniors across the province are asking for an independent representative that can hold the government accountable for their treatment of seniors issues and advocate for legislative solutions. The government failed on its previous promise to build 5,000 new beds for seniors. Now the quality of seniors care is in serious decline.

It's too late to ask our seniors to save their pennies for home support now, when there are more people approaching retirement and old age than ever. The only commitment I see the government making here is a commitment to make seniors pay more to receive less, as they disburse multimillions of dollars to banks and mega–oil companies.

I notice the Premier's budget increased from 2001 to this budget by over 400 percent. In 2001 the Premier's budget was $2.7 million, and now it's at a shameful $13.77 million — as we cut care to seniors. That's shameful.

Since 2001 this B.C. government has fallen from second to sixth place among the provinces in its per-capita support for health care. In 2007 the B.C. government support for health care is forecast to increase less than any other province. It disappoints me that this government has made no guarantee to the people of communities like Bella Coola and those in rural areas that they will be given the resources to ensure that they have enough doctors to keep their hospitals open.

The lack of investment in training capacity in northern rural communities makes even this government's pathetic commitment of reasonable access to health care unattainable for communities like Haida Gwaii, Bella Coola and Stewart. The funding committed so far to the training of new health care personnel won't even cover the shortage in the Vancouver health care authority, let alone other regions of the province.

In terms of education, this government has failed all of the thousands of students, young and old, across the province who are mortgaging their lives to learn the skills that our economy desperately needs. This budget offered no respite from skyrocketing tuition fees, cuts to student grants, aid for graduate students or incentives to help with criminally high interest rates. Tuition fees have more than doubled under this government. We now have the largest average student debt in the country. This is shameful and shortsighted.

Unfortunately, this government doesn't only fail post-secondary students. It fails students in our K-to-12 system as well. Schools throughout the province are still scrambling to implement the standards of class size and composition mandated by Bill 33. I think it's important to have rules about class size and composition, but it's ludicrous to bring in rules that school districts simply cannot afford to implement.

Worst of all, there is no hope offered to special needs students or their parents, nor for ESL students. No increase in targeted funding for low-incidence, high-needs students and nothing for the students with less severe but still significant special needs. No funding at all mentioned in the budget for the specialist teachers that these students need to achieve the same rate of success as other children. Shameful.

We need a government that understands that the education of our children is the greatest gift we can leverage for the future. Currently there is a critical

shortage of child care spaces in Prince Rupert. All of the registered child care providers have huge, huge waiting lists. The end result of the government's ignoring this will be no new spaces for Prince Rupert and an explosion of illegal child care situations once again putting children at risk.

This type of Liberal neglect is one reason why British Columbia still has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, despite high commodity prices and increased government revenues. We are ranked number one for child poverty for the fourth straight year, and this government dithers and sits on its hands instead of taking a leadership role like other provinces to try to tackle the problem.

The Speech from the Throne fails to mention fisheries. The budget does not address the rhetoric of this Premier being socially responsible and having environmental concerns as far as our oceans are concerned. What's missing? Anything about the recommendations of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture.

The 55 recommendations in that report will protect wild salmon, provide opportunities for industry innovation and leadership, as well as expand economic opportunities for first nations and smaller coastal communities. The report recommends a ban on salmon farms on the north coast where communities and first nations expressed vigorous opposition. By rejecting this recommendation, once again this government is turning its back on the Premier's new relationship with first nations.

The report also recommends an achievable transition to ocean-based closed containment systems. British Columbia and this government had the opportunity to become a global leader in the development of a more sustainable and marketable product. New technologies would protect jobs and bring new investment, but they failed in that.

The report also recommends an expansion of the shellfish aquaculture industry to help many first nations and remote communities attract and drive new economic development. The other recommendations included a fallowing system to protect migrating juvenile salmon from sea lice. Government investment in commercial-scale closed containment sites were in the report, but the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has not yet adopted the recommendations which would impact our wild-fish stocks.

Right now we're even seeing the Pacific Salmon Forum, which has long defended the industry, admitting that they can't find any major flaws in the science linking fish farms to declining wild stocks. It's time for this government to do what they should have done months ago: implement the recommendations by the committee.

I must note that the recently released Ford and Myers study considers the collective ways that salmon farming impacts wild stocks, including parasites, escapees and fouling of the water. It suggests that, worldwide, fish farms are having a detrimental effect on the native stocks of many wild salmon.

This study, in conjunction with a new discovery of a previously undescribed species of parasite that infects farmed fish and produces serious disease, indicates that we need immediate action on the recommendations. If this government was truly committed to making B.C. "the best place on earth" and to leading the world in sustainable environmental management, they would be fighting to keep our salmon stocks healthy, and they would immediately act on these recommendations.

Although climate change figured in a large part of the agenda, ferries was not even mentioned. I'm concerned about the exemption of B.C. Ferries from the climate change plan. I'm also disappointed that both speeches do not mention ferry-dependent communities or offer them any relief for skyrocketing fares — fares that are going to rise for some communities by 130 percent from 2003 to 2011.

Residents and businesses feel abandoned by this government about ferries and deserve more than a boo hoo from the minister responsible. What arrogance. What disdain from the minister to do that to communities as the like.

Noticing my time, and I'm sure I will continue in estimates with some of the issues…. I do have a bit of a quote from Rafe Mair who was talking about IPPs, and he says: "This Campbell government loves making people rich at the expense of the public."

"This government loves to make people rich at the expense of the public," and that's what this government continues to do as they line the pockets of big banks and the oil companies.

Hon. M. de Jong: On that remarkably high note, I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise to provide a response to the member for Nanaimo's regrettable and, in my view, ill-conceived motion of privilege. In short, I want to, and do, submit to you that at no time did the Premier ever mislead the House. I would further submit that the member knows that. It's unfortunate but sadly predictable that the member chose not to read or reference the full transcript of Hansard from May 28, 2007, which proves the point that his allegation is utterly without foundation.

During that debate, the opposition leader repeatedly asked if the Premier would commit to releasing the documents in question without invoking privilege. The member for Nanaimo has also made that same demand. It's interesting, because essentially what they were and are demanding is that the Premier personally intervene and politically interfere on the application of privilege to the documents at issue.

In the estimates debate, the Premier repeatedly responded that he would do no such thing. He said: "My goal and the objective of the government throughout has been to proceed with an unfettered and, frankly, independent process." With respect to issues of cabinet confidentiality and decisions about privilege and the release of documents, he went on to note: "There's a special prosecutor in place, and I will not be involved in those discussions. That has been delegated to the Deputy Attorney General, and he will make those decisions as he sees fit."

The Leader of the Opposition then responded by noting that "the Premier said that that now is with the Deputy Attorney General, and they will make the decisions." She asked: "Is the Premier's office, then, not withholding any documents but handing them all over to the Deputy Attorney General so that the special prosecutor has all the documents to make the decisions?"

To which the Premier responded: "In terms of the screening of cabinet documents, all of those documents will be made available to the Deputy Attorney General. He will make the decision vis-à-vis cabinet confidentiality."

He said again: "I have delegated the responsibility for screening of cabinet documents in this particular case to the Deputy Attorney General. He will make all of those decisions. He will work directly with the special prosecutor and make those decisions without consulting me."

Over and over again the Premier explained that process about how documents would be released. Every word he said was correct then, and it's true today. That has now been borne out by the Deputy Attorney General in a letter responding to the critic, which I will table here for your consideration.

In that letter, Mr. Seckel says this: "I believe that what the Premier said to describe my role in his estimates debate in May of 2007 is completely accurate. I was given the power to decide cabinet privilege without further consultation with the Premier or anyone in the Premier's office. I have done that."

I would further observe that if the member wants to play cute with the Premier's words with regard to the process he accurately described, he should look at his own leader's words. In that same debate she said: "I certainly would expect that the Premier's office will be involved in deciding documents to go forward and not go forward." She was obviously talking about how the process should operate going forward, which the Premier accurately said had been put in the hands of the Deputy Attorney General.

The real point is this. No matter how the opposition tries to twist or misconstrue the Premier's answers in estimates, their allegation is groundless and utterly untrue. Indeed, in my view it is the member who should apologize for abusing this House and its processes.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is the member who should consider apologizing to the Deputy Attorney General for indirectly impugning his reputation in these political attacks and indirectly impugning the conduct of longtime, non-partisan public servants like Joy Illington.

Most importantly, as Mr. Seckel says in his letter, the real point is whether he, not the Premier, has "made decisions on the disclosure of government documents independent of political input." To which Mr. Seckel answers:

By trying to score some cheap political points through this baseless motion of privilege, that, I fear, is what exactly has happened. There is no evidence that the House has been misled, because the House has not been misled. In these circumstances, it is not, in my view, necessary for you to even turn your mind to the second element, which is wilfulness, for which I might add that the member provided absolutely no evidence.

If anyone should apologize, it is the member for Nanaimo, not the Premier or anyone in this government.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'll table the letter that I referred to in the submission.

V. Roddick: I truly appreciate the opportunity to stand and thank the constituents of Ladner and Tsawwassen, the incredible staff both in Delta South and here in Victoria, the riding association and, last but not least, my wonderfully unflappable husband Noel for their continued support.

It's an incredible honour to stand here today to respond to, without a doubt, the most exciting and visionary budget this province has ever had. The 2008 throne speech and budget speech are a plan for the future for the entire province, both rural and urban, young and old. The comments from the member opposite were negative and regressive socialism at their worst.

V. Roddick: The budget and throne speeches take into consideration our children, their children, my grandchildren. British Columbia truly is a leader in this new era of technological revolution. As we celebrate British Columbia's 150th birthday, we can look back with pride at our province's accomplishments.

Our throne and budget speeches lay out new measures to create safe and healthy communities, to build excellence in education, to further strengthen the new relationship with the first nations and to give British Columbians options to become personally involved in combatting climate change.

Delta South continues to face many ongoing challenges — port, railway, road, transmission line expansions and the development of the first urban treaty with the Tsawwassen people — as we move forward on our shared journey towards self-determination, prosperity, reconciliation. All of these are resulting in the loss of prime agricultural land and thereby affecting the ever-growing wildlife population of the Pacific joint flyway and seriously impacting our life-sustaining agricultural industry.

Despite these challenges, I am proud to say that certain ideas from the throne speech were actually born in Delta South, showing the commitment and resilience of its constituents. Much like the contract model created by the Delta Healthcare Association and the Fraser Health Authority, new patient care quality review boards will be established for all health regions.

The Tsawwassen-Boundary Bay Lions Wellness Park, spearheaded by our one and only Harry Caine, is the model the government will be using to establish ActNow seniors community parks throughout the province.

A 211 service in partnership with the United Way will be launched to give citizens new telephone access to information about a full range of social services offered in their communities. Live people actually will be answering the phone. This is one of the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Health.

New investments in the centre for hip health and musculoskeletal research will be undertaken — another recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Health.

This government will also launch an innovation and integration fund for the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser health authorities to help move beyond block funding towards a new provincewide patient-centred funding model. The new model will see health dollars follow patients wherever they're treated. This is an exciting step forward in putting patients first.

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.