Hansard — Wednesday, February 27, 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


Statements		10017
	Anti-Bullying Day
	Hon. G. Campbell

Tributes		10017
	Grant Roberge
	Hon. G. Abbott

Introductions by Members		10017

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10017
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10018
	Bullying
	C. James
	L. Mayencourt
	Campbell River community dialogue on inclusion
	C. Trevena
	Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce career fair at UVic
	H. Bloy
	Kaylanna Erica Lipinski
	M. Sather
	Electronic stability control in vehicles
	J. Rustad

Oral Questions		10019
	Koksilah Elementary School closing
	D. Routley
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Horgan
	Hon. G. Campbell
	S. Fraser
	M. Farnworth
	A. Dix
	Funding for Evergreen line
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Chudnovsky
	Disclosure of documents in B.C. Rail court case
	L. Krog
	Heli-skiing in Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen

Reports from Committees		10025
	Special Committee of Selection, report
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		10025
	V. Roddick
	M. Sather
	R. Sultan
	N. Macdonald
	J. Nuraney
	D. Chudnovsky
	H. Bloy
	C. Trevena
	J. McIntyre

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today has been declared Anti-Bullying Day in the province of British Columbia. It highlights our province's commitment to safe and inclusive neighbourhoods.

I want to thank all the members of the opposition who joined with MLAs on the government side to say that all of us want to stop bullying now in British Columbia. We want to stop the aggressive behaviours such as bullying, harassment and intimidation that are unacceptable in safe, caring and orderly societies — whether they're our schools, our workplaces, our communities or the province generally.

It is important, I think, for us to recognize that there are things that are above any political disagreement. This is one of them. Our anti-bullying activities, the things that we do as individuals, are important to all British Columbians.

Again, I'd like to say thanks to the opposition and the government members for standing up to say we're going to stop bullying here.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is with much regret that I rise to advise the House of the passing of Mr. Grant Roberge, our executive director of Chilliwack Health Services since 2005. Mr. Roberge had been seriously ill of late and passed away Tuesday night.

Throughout his career Mr. Roberge has contributed greatly to health care across the province, working on Vancouver Island and at Vancouver General Hospital prior to taking up his position in Chilliwack. Mr. Roberge will be missed by everyone who has worked with him, and his contribution to this province will be forever appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, if you would, on behalf of all members of the House, please extend to Mr. Roberge's family our condolences.

Hon. M. de Jong: If he were just a Cariboo media baron, I would feel no particular compulsion to introduce him to the House, but he is also the mayor of Williams Lake and a young man whose leadership and enthusiasm for public service I have admired for some time. I hope all members will welcome and extend greetings to Mayor Scott Nelson.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of welcoming to this chamber Alanna Hendren, who is executive director of the Developmental Disabilities Association and who does wonderful work. She's joined by Bruce Sandy, who is the provincial advocate on behalf of the B.C. Association of Child Development and Intervention. Both of them do amazing work on behalf of special needs youngsters and adults with developmental disabilities. I'd ask this House to please make them very welcome.

K. Whittred: Each year the public education and outreach division of this organization sponsors a parliamentary procedure workshop. The first workshop is being held today, and the participants are in the gallery. I would ask all members of this House to welcome them and, of course, wish them well as they learn how to be experts in parliamentary procedure.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that five years ago today as we travelled back to our ridings, my journey was diverted to the north shore of Vancouver, and our family was blessed with the arrival of our grandson. Today is Eben's fifth birthday, and I would ask the House to please join Papa in wishing Eben a very happy fifth birthday.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008, provides for an increase in the amount of operating expenses for the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Forests and Range, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

The additional amounts for the Ministers of Advanced Education, Environment, Finance, Health, and Tourism, Sport and the Arts were included in the supplementary estimates that have been debated and, I'm happy to say, passed unanimously in this Legislature.

Additional amounts for the Minister of Forests and Range and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General are to account for statutory costs related to forest fire fighting under the Wildfire Act and flood costs and disaster relief under the Emergency Program Act, respectively.

I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day…. We should first put the question on first reading, I expect.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

C. James: Today all members of the Legislature joined together with people across this province in a campaign to end bullying. It's a campaign that's very close to my heart as a parent and as a former school trustee.

The Wear Pink campaign began last year in Nova Scotia after two exceptional students took a stand. They came to school wearing pink after a fellow student was harassed and bullied for wearing pink. The bullies used homophobic slurs to taunt and to hurt their victim.

Unfortunately, that kind of bullying happens far too often in our schools and in our communities. Any steps we can take to put an end to that hurtful behaviour are steps that we must take.

That's why I was so proud when the opposition introduced amendments to the government's safe school legislation, amendments that were designed to protect students from discrimination and harassment based on the B.C. Human Rights Code, including sexual orientation. I was pleased to see the government adopt those amendments in October. It was a welcome and necessary step, especially for students in our schools who are facing sexual discrimination.

Any kind of bullying is wrong. It has significant impacts on the victims, on their families and on our communities. By taking a stand together in this Legislature and in our communities, we're sending a very clear message. It's time now to end bullying and harassment.

L. Mayencourt: I couldn't agree more. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising the Safe Schools Act and all of the work that has happened as a result of members on both sides of this House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, today there is so much pink in this room I can almost see it reflected in your own skin tone. You're looking really healthy today.

The students that actually started this campaign are David Shepherd and Travis Price. They took a stand in Nova Scotia. They said to their classmates, "Let's wear pink to school tomorrow," and everybody did. That sent a signal that was much, much better received than if it had come from any adult.

I want to tell you I'm very proud that our province has adopted the elements of the Safe Schools Act, and I want to thank especially the Premier and the Minister of Education for their leadership on this issue. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the other members of the Safe Schools Task Force, MLAs Wendy McMahon and Brenda Locke, and the Education Minister at that time, Christy Clark.

I also want to thank two very, very wonderful women, Nasima Nastoh and Cindy Wesley, who have given their lives and their time to make sure that schools in British Columbia will always be safer.

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about an event in Campbell River, a community dialogue on building an inclusive, diverse and welcoming Campbell River for all.

In a packed community centre on a sunny Saturday, people came together to listen to one another — people from different backgrounds, different cultures and different countries. The issue they talked about, around tables and in panel situations, was inclusion: how to make a community inclusive for everyone — for young people and seniors, for first nations, for people of colour, for people with disabilities, for people who are gay or lesbian.

There was music, poetry, art, drumming and a celebration of diversity. There were also tears as people were jolted out of their complacency that everything is okay in the community. The questions posed seemed simple: what does inclusion mean to you, and when have you felt genuinely included? The answers were not always that clear-cut.

People opened up about growing up gay in the city, about being aboriginal, about being disabled, and people listened. The community dialogue came together after five months of planning, coordinated by the Campbell River and Area Multicultural and Immigrant Services Association and funded by the Ministry of Attorney General. It was part of SFU's continuing studies dialogue program.

The dialogue encourages people to give and take in the mutual search for meaning. It encourages listening and sharing stories rather than opinions. The people who attended Saturday's event learned a lot about themselves, about their community, and embraced difficult questions. But as with so many such events, the feeling at the end of the day was that the community would benefit with more opportunities for people to come together in the true spirit of dialogue.

H. Bloy: I rise today to take this opportunity to bring attention to a unique job fair at the University of Victoria taking place this weekend. The Japan-Canada

Chamber of Commerce is organizing this worthwhile event to provide valuable information about the Canadian and Japanese job markets.

As MLA for Burquitlam, I recognize that many of us straddle two cultures. I have the pleasure to speak at the Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce job fair and highlight many of the programs available to students wanting to enter the B.C. job market.

Our Skills Connect program is of particular interest to many students, and our provincial nominee program where almost 4,000 skilled workers have entered the workforce since 2001.

I want to thank Atsuko Umeki for spearheading the event and organizing what I know will be a certain success. I also want to thank these students from the University of Victoria, who helped organize it, and I hope I pronounce their names correctly: Sei Ishii, Hideyuki Imaizumi, Shotaro Fukuhara, Yamagami Takao, Asami Mori and Eiichiro Yanagimura. These young Japanese students have great role models to look up to: Kazuko Komatsu, Angela Nakamura-Holinger, Laura Saimoto and Sy Saimoto.

Our estimates show that we need to attract 3,000 workers with specific skills from outside British Columbia each year. This job fair is helping students fulfil those needs. Please join me in wishing the Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce great success this Saturday at their job fair.

M. Sather: Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, more common in younger children, is a cancer of the connective tissues attached to muscle tissue wrapped around organs, the head or the neck. The cells resemble those of a six-to-eight-week-old embryo, thus the name embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma. Treatment for embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma consists of chemotherapy, radiation therapy and sometimes surgery.

In my community Kaylanna Erica Lipinski, four years old, is suffering from this rare cancer. It is attacking her stomach and liver. She has endured 38 chemotherapy sessions and 20 blood transfusions since her diagnosis last year. On December 29, 2007, Kaylanna, along with her mother Meranne Steves and grandmother Patty Schultz, left for Boston to receive special radiation treatments not available in Canada. Kaylanna is scheduled to be there into March, and I have some more updates on that.

As one can imagine, the financial burden placed on Kaylanna's family is heavy. Although medical treatment is covered, food, lodging and travel for her mother and grandmother are not. Months of driving back and forth to Children's Hospital will continue when they return as well. The family has gone into debt in an effort to save the life of this precious child.

I have spent time with Kaylanna. She is bright and happy. Even though she has lost her hair and suffered a great deal, nothing gets her down. She remains an engaging presence when you meet her.

I received news from Boston this morning telling me that Kaylanna is in remission and returns home on Tuesday. I ask this House to join me in sending our prayers and good wishes to Kaylanna for a full, happy and long life.

J. Rustad: I rise today to talk about a life-saving innovation that could also provide significant financial savings for our province. If I told you that you could make a small investment in your vehicle that could potentially reduce your risk of being in an accident by 25 to 40 percent, would you be interested?

Electronic stability control, or ESC, is just such an investment. Science shows that ESC provides outstanding improvements towards helping drivers avoid accidents. Some countries in Europe have recognized these benefits and are now making it mandatory that all new vehicles have this life-saving device. The U.S. is also making it mandatory, but unfortunately not for another decade or so.

ESC works by measuring the direction of the vehicle and comparing it to the direction the driver is steering. If there's a difference, it automatically applies a brake to the appropriate wheel to help the driver gain control of the car. This fantastic device comes as standard equipment on higher-end vehicles, but manufacturers have been resisting equipping all vehicles with the device.

The cost of an accident to individuals and families is beyond measure. But for the province, it's estimated that accidents account for 15 percent of our total health budget, and in northern B.C. it's as much as 20 percent of NHA's budget. Just imagine what 25 to 40 percent savings of that cost could be if everyone was driving vehicles equipped with ESC — not to mention the insurance, legal costs and other related savings.

Sadly, most people aren't aware of the potential life-saving benefits that electronic stability control can provide. Most people haven't heard about it, and even some people that own vehicles equipped with ESC don't know what it is.

Please join me in helping to raise the level of awareness of the benefits of ESC and also engaging the federal government to consider stepping up efforts towards making it mandatory for all new vehicles.

D. Routley: On the very same week that Prince George is considering an aboriginal school of choice elementary school, an aboriginal school that serves my community may be forced to close because of this government's policies. Over 95 percent of the students at Koksilah Elementary School are aboriginal. The school has been developing groundbreaking language and cultural programs for many years. Enrolment is increasing. But they're being forced to close their doors.

What will this minister do today to save the first aboriginal elementary school, Koksilah, from closing down?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the most disappointing part of this question is that the member opposite knows full well that the locally elected school trustees are making difficult decisions based on the fact they've had significant declining enrolment. This is not in any way about ending the program or the excellent services, but on this side of the House, we're actually going to pay attention to what locally elected school trustees are saying to us. In fact, they're grappling with this decision as we speak.

D. Routley: In fact, those very trustees just last night, in a meeting with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and myself, pleaded to us to help them bring some sense to this government and have them turn around from this decision and this funding formula which is forcing these things to happen.

In fact, enrolment numbers in this school are up. There are 140 students. That's up 40 percent. There are ten on a waiting list, and they are being told there's no room. Yet the board, because of the policies of this ministry, are forced to consider closing this excellent school. If the minister really cared about closing the education gap for first nations students, she would not be allowing this school to close, and neither would this Premier.

So again I ask the minister what she will do now to help the people of Koksilah and the Cowichan Nation who are served by that school to keep that school open.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps what we need to do is put some facts on the record for the member opposite. It's not an easy discussion to have in a school district where they're grappling with declining enrolment and a number of things. I want to reiterate for the member opposite that it is not about offering those services to students in that district.

But let's look at the facts. Enrolment in that school district has decreased by 15 percent since 2000. In fact, per-pupil funding in that district is $1,588 higher than it was in 2000 and 2001. In fact, the district is receiving more money this year — $630,000 more this year — than it received last year. It's grappling with difficult issues, and we're going to be supportive of locally elected school trustees.

D. Routley: In fact, I should inform the minister that elders from the Cowichan Tribes and the PAC chair of Koksilah are here, and I'm sure they'd like to meet with the minister after question period to have her explain exactly how she's going to support that school.

In fact, in Cowichan school district, we've already closed close to 25 percent of the schools. There are eight schools out of the 30-odd schools targeted in the past five years by policies forced on our board by this government. So it does no good to offer us these pat and standard answers. The answers of the minister go nowhere near the question.

The question remains: what will she do to protect these valuable cultural programs that bring truth to the language of reconciliation and fly in the face of the actions of this government?

Hon. S. Bond: I am always amazed by the fact that somehow it seems negative that we have the highest level of funding in education that the province of British Columbia has ever had. I'm not certain how that is negative.

What's really disappointing about this discussion is that this problem, in terms of the change in demographics in British Columbia, didn't start yesterday. In fact, it started in the 1990s. This is the tenth year in a row that we've seen decline. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, as a respected locally elected school trustee, knows full well that that's true. The only difficulty with that is what has happened since she's become the Leader of the Opposition.

Let's look at the comments by the Leader of the Opposition. "There are some schools that have been closing because of dropping enrolment, and you're always going to see that in this province." There were schools that were closed under the New Democrats because of declining enrolment. What's changed?

J. Horgan: For the minister's benefit, the problem for first nations learners in this province began about 150 years ago. We are on the brink now in the Cowichan Valley of restoring some reconciliation and of creating a new relationship that the Premier speaks so eloquently about, but that eloquence falls on deaf ears in the Cowichan Valley.

Tonight there will be a large public meeting in Duncan to discuss another round of school closures as a result of inadequate funding from this government.

My question specifically is to the Premier. How does closing a 98 percent first nations school, eliminating the spectre for elders of residential schools in this province…? How do we reconcile and create a new relationship by closing the only school south of the Cowichan River that teaches aboriginal languages?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: having a successful program for aboriginal children in British Columbia is not determined by the building that they're in. What it's determined by is a conscious effort by school districts and educational leaders to make a difference for aboriginal children.

Under the leadership of this government, in fact, we've seen aboriginal completion rates in British Columbia rise from 42 percent to 48 percent. That's the highest they've ever been. We've made no secret of the fact that that is completely unacceptable, but we are working closely with first nations leadership. We are providing record levels of funding, and we are committed to making a difference for first nations children in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: The Premier will be joining us in the Cowichan Valley this summer for the North American Indigenous Games where we will be celebrating athleticism, culture and language just months after a school district is forced, because of an inadequate funding formula, to close a first nations school.

Again my question is to the Premier. When you come to the Cowichan Valley for the photo opportunity, when you come to the Cowichan Valley to bask in the Cowichan culture, what will you say to the students and parents at Koksilah Elementary when their children are dispersed to other schools in the district?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think we all know that there's nothing more important than education for young people across this province, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. The fact of the matter is that our province has established the first-ever educational agreement. It was done with first nations. It provides for first nations to take control over the education of their kids in keeping with the standards that we've set across the province of British Columbia.

We've signed 36 aboriginal enhancement agreements across the province to encourage aboriginal funding. We've increased funding for aboriginal language preservation. But there's one other thing that we do; and that is, we respect the responsibilities of locally elected school boards. We're not pretending these are easy decisions to make, but we have increased funding in education to the highest level in the history of British Columbia. Per-student funding is at the highest level ever in the history of the province.

We are working with aboriginal communities to focus on their needs and the needs of their children. We are developing aboriginal curricula. We are developing aboriginal languages. We are working to protect aboriginal languages. And we will continue to work with school boards across this province to protect and preserve the kinds of quality aboriginal educational programs that are critically essential to the long-term future of the province.

S. Fraser: Well, these answers from the minister and the Premier are somewhat evasive, and I think it explains why first nations leadership recently had to propose their own legislation to this Premier to fill a complete vacuum in leadership on this file.

The question was about the Koksilah school and its shutting down — so a great answer to a different question. Maybe the minister and the Premier should dust off their copy of The New Relationship. The first goal says: "To restore, revitalize and strengthen first nations and their communities and families to eliminate the gap in standards of living with other British Columbians, and substantially improve the circumstance of first nations people in areas which include education…."

There's a waiting list for this school. To the minister responsible: ducking the issue makes a mockery of the new relationship. Will she respect the spirit and intent of the new relationship, and will the Premier respect the spirit and intent of the new relationship and maybe go to the meeting tonight and actually consult with the elders?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure what part of the answer that the member opposite actually missed. This is not about a building, and locally elected school trustees have made it clear that the services and programs that are excellent for these students will continue. They will continue to excel and to do well in the school district.

I'm just really disappointed that the members opposite continue to, in fact, not pay attention to the important decisions that school trustees are making in British Columbia. We're not prepared to ignore the role that locally elected school trustees have in this province.

S. Fraser: The minister's response again makes a mockery of the Premier's new relationship. Goal No. 4 is, "To revitalize and preserve first nations cultures and languages and restore literacy and fluency in first nations languages to ensure that no first nation language becomes extinct" — and to make B.C., of course, the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent. Remember that slogan, Minister?

Will the minister agree to meet with the members from the Cowichan Tribes here today and/or go to the meeting tonight and actually consult? The minister said she's working closely with first nations. Well, they're here, and they'll be here tonight. Put some meat on the bones of those words.

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, I appreciate the fact that members of the opposition have discovered the importance of the new relationship that we're trying to build with first nations. That member should remember this: you voted against expanding the first languages program in British Columbia. We voted to put it in place and to enhance it.

That opposition has been a roadblock in the way of building the new relationship ever since they were elected. The fact of the matter is we're expanding educational agreements. We're expanding opportunities to keep living languages of first nations languages across the province. We've got a new relationship trust, which is $100 million, to help first nations themselves decide what's best for them in the province.

All of that is building, and it's successfully working towards closing the gaps and transforming the lives of first nations across this province.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to remind the Premier that it was the Premier, when he was opposition leader, who voted against the introduction of first language skills and first language education for aboriginal people in this province. I'd like to remind the Premier that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this table, to this province and to this Legislature to advance

aboriginal issues in this province. It was that opposition leader who voted against the Nisga'a agreement.

The question — what we have been dealing with here today — is about the Cowichan. It's about this government's educational policies and how they're impacting on a Cowichan school, the first aboriginal school in this province that teaches aboriginal languages. This government's policies are resulting in that school being closed. At the same time, there's a school that will teach aboriginal languages opening up in Prince George.

The question is simple: how does closing Koksilah advance the preservation of aboriginal culture and aboriginal languages in British Columbia, and why won't the Premier act to protect it?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite can characterize this however he chooses, but the fact of the matter is that services will continue for aboriginal children in that school district. They will continue to excel at what they do. This government has made a commitment to close the gap that was absolutely unprecedented, and these members opposite supported not one of those initiatives, on the other side of the House.

From our perspective we're going to continue to work with locally elected school trustees. We're going to ensure that aboriginal children have the opportunity to take courses that are designed to meet their needs. In fact, we are the government that created "First Peoples 12" for the first time in this province, which is seeing outstanding outcomes for aboriginal children.

M. Farnworth: Up until the religion of the reconciliation was discovered in the last couple of years, this government, when they were in opposition, did nothing but create division in this province around aboriginal issues. For the minister now to stand and somehow say that they are responsible for everything that's great in this province happening for aboriginal people is outrageous.

What is outrageous is that this minister stands here and says that somehow their programs are working. Well, they will only work when you have aboriginal students together, not dispersed throughout a school district. You need critical mass. You need aboriginal students learning with aboriginal students and elders able to impart that wisdom.

My question, again to the minister: how is shutting down a 98 percent aboriginal student body school going to help to protect culture and aboriginal heritage in the Cowichan Valley in British Columbia, and when will this minister wake up and smell the coffee and realize that she needs to make changes to ensure that we are protecting, not hurting, aboriginal culture?

Hon. S. Bond: I hope the member opposite will take the time to review his transcript, because I think he suggested that the only way in British Columbia that aboriginal students will be successful is if they are in a separate school of their own. That is not what British Columbia's principle is about.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that well may be an option that is chosen and selected after much consultation and thought by some school districts in British Columbia, in consultation with first nations people, but in British Columbia we stand on the principle of inclusion, and we also want to look at choice. There isn't a one-size-fits-all model for any child in British Columbia.

A. Dix: Directly to the Premier. The elders are here today. They're having a public meeting tonight. The school is closing, if he doesn't step in and take some action here.

So it's directly to the Premier. It's not about rhetoric. It's not about calling out the opposition. This is about students and teachers and parents and a community. Will he intervene to keep Koksilah school open? Will he do that today? Will he commit to that today?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we regularly meet with groups and parents and people who are concerned. It would have been incredibly important if the members opposite would simply have, even yesterday, let us know that it might be something they would like us to have done. Doing it here on the floor of the Legislature is probably not the most effective way to do that.

Let's be clear. Perhaps the method of operation by the members opposite, despite the fact they have a Leader of the Opposition who was once a school trustee, is to tell locally elected school trustees how to do their job. We're not going to do that on this side of the House.

In fact, I understand the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca was at the meeting. That's what one of the members opposite said. Perhaps he should go back to his quote in The Vancouver Sun on September 24: "I support local autonomy for school boards — absolutely." What happened?

M. Karagianis: We've listened in the House while the Minister of Transportation has bragged repeatedly

about the influence he has at the federal level and about how they were going to deliver $400 million for the Evergreen line. Yesterday we actually saw the budget come down. Despite the minister's brag that "I'm actually very confident that the federal government will ultimately be there," in fact the federal government has announced just $67 million for the Evergreen line, a fraction of what the minister said he was going to be getting. Hon. Speaker, $67 million will build about 522 metres of the Evergreen line.

My question, then, to the minister is: will he stand up and admit today that he has failed to deliver for the Evergreen line?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have to say that even in this House it comes as a shock when we get $67 million from the federal government and the NDP find a way to figure out that that's somehow a negative for the people of the Tri-Cities and the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, what you will find….

I would encourage the member, even with the shoddy research department they have, that if they go back and look at the previous projects we've been involved with, you will hear a common theme. The common theme from the NDP is exactly what they're saying today: "Oh, it's never enough money. They don't have enough. It will never get done."

Let me just check the record. They said that on Kicking Horse Canyon. It's getting built. In fact, the member opposite from Columbia constantly shows up and praises that project, even though the whole time they said it would never get done. Canada line. They opposed that project, even though it's now getting done. Gateway program. They said it would never have enough money, even though it's well on its way. Convention centre, same thing.

M. Karagianis: I'm sorry you shut him down before he could mention the convention centre and the $400 million overrun on that.

Hon. Speaker, the Evergreen line was pushed off the table by this government for their P3 Canada line, and the Tri-Cities have been waiting ever since for something to happen on the Evergreen line. Let's be realistic about what the minister says here about $67 million. That's over two years. That's $33½ million a year. That will actually build 275 metres a year, 11 kilometres. Let's see: 44 years for the Tri-Cities to be waiting for the Evergreen line to be built.

Is that what he's saying to us today — that it's going to take 44 years for him to deliver this line to the Tri-Cities?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is so typical of the NDP — negative, destructive, pessimistic and wrong. I'll tell you this. Just as they opposed the Canada line and said it should never get done and we shouldn't build it…. Guess what. It's under construction, on schedule and on budget. It's getting built to the benefit of British Columbians.

I'll also say this. The member, as usual, has not done her homework. If the member looked at federal budgets, you would know that the federal budget also includes something called the Building Canada Fund. It also includes something called the national P3 fund. We will be getting the balance of the dollars from those funds working in cooperation with the federal government, something that that opposition does not understand, and we will get the Evergreen line built to the benefit of the Tri-Cities by 2014.

D. Chudnovsky: For all the bluster, after all these years the minister has still failed to put into place the resources necessary to build the Evergreen line, which has been promised to the people of the Tri-Cities. The federal commitment is wholly inadequate. The provincial commitment is hundreds of millions of dollars short.

The Evergreen line was planned in the 20th century. It was the first priority of the GVRD. It was postponed in the 21st century because of this government. Are the people of the Tri-Cities going to have to wait until the 22nd century for the Evergreen line?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, one can only shake their head. First of all, the member should understand that TransLink made the decision to build the Canada line and decided that it was a priority. The member ought to understand at least how things operate.

The second thing the member needs to know is that unlike the members opposite, who had not just a failed record of trying to get cooperation or dollars out of the federal government but a disastrous record…. They not only were not able to repatriate any dollars back into British Columbia, but they actually lost money. The federal government in Ottawa so did not want to do business with them that they actually pulled money out of British Columbia — Nanoose Bay, for example, comes to mind — because of their disastrous dealing with the federal government.

I would put our record of delivering federal government dollars into projects for the benefit of British Columbia against their record any day of the week.

I will say this to the member opposite: you are wrong on Canada line. You were wrong on the Kicking Horse Canyon. You were wrong on the Gateway program, and you're wrong again on the Evergreen line.

L. Krog: The B.C. Rail corruption trial continues to be mired in scandal. The Premier refuses to be held accountable to the Legislature, but he is more than happy to talk with the Vancouver Province editorial board, with columnist Mike Smyth and with the Deputy Attorney General about the case.

Now, the Deputy Attorney General, Allan Seckel, has confirmed that there has been more than one process for vetting documents related to the B.C. Rail corruption trial. Mr. Seckel says he cannot tell us how many documents are being withheld due to parliamentary privilege. Will the Attorney General tell this House how many documents are currently being held…?

Mr. Speaker: Member, could I remind you that this is before the Speaker at this present time. The question is before the Speaker. You have made a presentation. The Government House Leader has made a submission, and it's under advisement by myself.

L. Krog: The Attorney General has advised this House many times that he doesn't wish to answer questions on this, but we know that for at least three years it was senior staff in the Premier's office that decided to keep evidence in the B.C. Rail trial secret. Last May the Premier told this House that Allan Seckel….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you're going along the same lines. It's the same question on a decision that I haven't made yet. It is under advisement with the Speaker.

N. Macdonald: I particularly appreciate the opportunity. A very straightforward question to the minister responsible: will the minister confirm that the government is negotiating with a heli-ski operation to have them exchange their existing heli-ski tenure in the Purcells for a tenure in the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park?

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are Chuck Seymour, the first nations education assistant, an elder and traditional speaker for Koksilah Elementary School, as well as Hannah Seymour, the PAC chair of Koksilah Elementary. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: In the House today is Mr. Mike Shandalla, who is one of my constituents and a very good supporter, and I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to ask the House to help make welcome two elders from Cowichan Tribes who have come to visit us today. They are very special people to the Cowichan people, and I'd like us to give them a special welcome. They are William Seymour and Albie Charlie.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, can I adjourn the debate on the budget in order to make the committee of selection report to the House regarding committees?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Special Committee of Selection has met and has come to agreement on the appointment of members to the various select standing committees. That report includes the following:

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: Mr. Mayencourt, Convener; Mr. Horning; Mr. MacKay; Ms. McIntyre; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred; Mr. Coons; Mr. Lali; Mr. Fraser; Mr. Chudnovsky.

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth: Mr. Cantelon, Convener; Mr. Rustad; Mr. MacKay; Mr. Bennett; Ms. Polak; Ms. Roddick; Mr. Krog; Ms. Karagianis; Mr. Brar; Mr. Simons.

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations: Mr. Rustad, Convener; Mr. Cantelon; Ms. McIntyre; Mr. Yap; Mr. MacKay; Mr. Black; Mr. Evans; Mr. Horgan; Mr. Lali; Mr. Simpson.

Select Standing Committee on Education: Mr. Nuraney, Convener; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Lee; Mr. Mayencourt; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Routley; Mr. Fleming; Mr. Cubberley; Mr. Macdonald.

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services: Mr. Bennett, Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Lee; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Black; Mr. Ralston; Mr. Austin; Mr. Horgan; Ms. Thorne.

Select Standing Committee on Health: Mr. Sultan, Convener; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Nuraney; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred, Mr. Dix; Mr. Gentner; Mr. Chudnovsky; Mr. Chouhan.

Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives: Mr. Horning, Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Sultan; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Mayencourt; Mr. Farnworth; Mr. Simpson; Ms. Conroy; Ms. Kwan.

For the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills: Mr. Horning, Convener; Mr. Bloy, Mr. Hawes; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Mayencourt; Ms Roddick; Mr. Farnworth; Mr. Dix; Ms. Kwan; Ms. Conroy.

Lastly, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Mr. Fleming, Convener; Ms. McIntyre; Mr. Black; Mr. Hawes; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Sultan; Mr. Yap; Mr. Bains; Mr. Ralston; Mr. Simpson; and Ms. Trevena.

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

V. Roddick: Other exciting steps that we are putting forward in putting the patient first is that we are expanding the roles of nurses, pharmacists, paramedics, midwives and naturopaths. This is great news for both my constituents in Delta and all British Columbians and will provide more choice for patients.

A new British Columbia agriculture plan was introduced on February 15 — another milestone for British Columbia to add to the mining plan, the transportation plan and the energy plan. As Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning and chair of the of Agricultural Planning Committee I was delighted to take part in the building and release of this plan, titled Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families. This plan provides a strong foundation to ensure that farming continues to have a bright future in our province. Its strategies focus on meeting and benefiting from environmental and climate changes and ensuring innovations drive a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.

To help reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020, the budget includes a revenue-neutral carbon tax, providing $440 million for a one-time climate action dividend of $100 to every resident and over $1 billion for a broad range of climate action programs and tax incentives to help encourage the adoption of greener lifestyles.

This budget also allocates $25 million to establish a bioenergy network to encourage research and investments in such areas as wood waste; co-generation; biofuels from wood, agriculture or waste biomass; anaerobic digesters; and wood pellet production.

With this budget we are also providing $30 million for B.C. green ports initiative, which will reduce emissions from commercial truck and ship traffic — extremely important for Delta South. Furthermore, $33 million is allocated to provide tax relief for the purchase of conventional fuel-efficient vehicles and to meet the fuel efficiency criteria set out in the federal government's ecoAuto rebate program. We're providing PST exemptions that include Energy Star–qualified residential large appliances — freezers, fridges, dryers, etc.

Comprehensive air and water stewardship strategies will be released this spring as new steps are taken to combat global warming. With its ports, roads, railways and ferry terminal, Delta South will certainly be interested in these strategies.

A big step that has been taken recently in Delta South is new signs on Highway 17: "Trucks use right lane only." I have been consistently lobbying — I think the Ministry of Transportation would refer to this as

nagging — since 2000 for this particular issue. Now we need to make sure it is strictly enforced.

New investments will be made in plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles, hydrogen-powered buses, clean retrofit of dirty diesel trucks and the electrification of truck stops. An example of zero-emission electric vehicles can be seen at ferry terminals. Currently, at Tsawwassen terminal the GEM e6 electric vehicle, a six-passenger shuttle, is being used as a passenger shuttle between the long-term parking and departure.

The B.C. government is moving forward with a pilot project to enable the broader use of zero-emission electric vehicles across B.C. Delta South would be the perfect place to try out this pilot project because of the many commutes between, in and around the communities of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

A new "brown fields to green fields" redevelopment strategy will target existing dirty sites for the creation of well-treed, green, livable communities. Delta is troubled by many land-filled brown fields, so this redevelopment strategy is most welcome. In fact, the Delta millennium committee, of which I was a member, has a tree project that was started in the year 1999-2000, and the municipality is carrying this project forward.

This government has also shown dedication in expanding the PST exemption on bicycles, including electric-assisted, two- and three-wheel cycles and non-motorized adult tricycles. It has added $15 million and will expand and refine the Scrap-It program provincewide to get older, less efficient vehicles off the road. This is particularly important to our air quality in the lower mainland, Delta — in fact, the entire Fraser Valley.

The budget of 2008 includes $3 million for a new food miles initiative, which will increase public awareness of the distance food products are transported, to encourage the purchase of local agricultural products. We need to bridge the urban agricultural divide and continue to produce the best, safest, most nutritious products available. Buy local, Mr. Speaker, because we all still have to eat to live.

This budget provides PST exemptions for farmers on purchases of qualifying all-terrain vehicles used solely for farm purposes. Delta South farmers will benefit from the implementation of allowing all licensed vehicles to use coloured fuel when travelling for farm purposes or on the highway. This is huge for farming provincewide.

Prime farmland, hundreds of thousands of people plus extensive service industries are on our floodplain. This budget is dedicating $30 million as part of a ten-year $100 million program for flood protection and planning. Sustainable planning and this flood protection are imperative for our communities and our food supply.

Mr. Speaker, $438 million over four years on programs and services will be available to strengthen social services. This funding will support persons with developmental disabilities as well as children and youth at risk and with special needs. Delta South is a destination community due to its marvellous amenities. This provincial funding will also be most welcome.

We believe in people, in families. Budget 2008 provides an additional $104 million over four years to implement new and expanding measures to help break the cycle of homelessness, including emergency shelters, homeless outreach services, homeless rent supplements, predevelopment costs. For opposition members to say we don't care and aren't doing anything about this issue is factually incorrect.

School boards are working tirelessly to deliver solutions in an era of terrific challenges and changes. Education is more important than ever in this era of technological revolution. Therefore, we are increasing K-to-12 funding by 2 percent, even though enrolment is expected to decline by an average of 1 percent per year.

Budget 2008 increases our investment in StrongStart early learning centres in communities throughout B.C. This excellent program has grown from a pilot project started in Delta, where I attended a very exciting opening.

With the booming art community in Delta, my constituents will be happy to hear about $24 million generated from the $150 million endowment for the B.C. 150th birthday cultural fund to support new arts and culture activities across the province.

Members, we all know tax rates affect us. We strongly believe in leaving more money in taxpayers' pockets. By 2009 every taxpayer in B.C. will see their personal provincial income taxes reduced by 5 percent on the first $70,000 earnings. By 2009, B.C. will pay the lowest personal tax in all of Canada for individuals earning up to $111,000.

British Columbians will see an increase in the homeowner's grant threshold to $1.05 million in assessed property value, up from $950,000. This ensures that more than 95 percent of B.C. homeowners continue to be eligible for the full value of their grant. This certainly helps the price-challenged housing in areas like Delta South.

In addition, to help ease pressure faced by first-time homebuyers, Budget 2008 increases the first-time-homebuyers exemption to $425,000 from $375,000. This can save up to $6,500 in property transfer tax.

A strong economy is required to enable us to pay for necessary social services. The general corporate income tax rate will be reduced to 11 percent from 12 percent, with a future reduction planned to 10 percent by 2011. This will make B.C. on par with the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada.

Small business tax rates will be reduced to 3.5 percent from 4.5 percent, with further reductions to 2.5 percent by 2011. Coming from a small family business background, I know how valuable these reductions are. It's great, it's encouraging, it's entrepreneurial, and it's common sense.

B.C. is the gateway to Asia. Together we can positively and sensibly develop it so that everyone can benefit, especially communities like Delta South, who are on the front lines.

I've been listening for the last couple of weeks to members of the opposition stating that we're not doing anything for health care, seniors, the issue of homelessness, people in need. From where I stand, this is just not the case. There is a list as long as your arm of initiatives, whether it be agriculture, first nations, our children and families, health care, education or the environment. This is British Columbia's time to lead.

Where do the opposition members stand on important issues? This year's balanced budget asks and, most importantly, answers the question: what kind of legacy do we want to leave for future generations? The NDP's answers are inconsistent, negative and regressive. I am proud to be part of a government that is making the right decisions for the future generation of British Columbians.

We have the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years, the highest average wage, and we are working to deliver for children and families. How can the NDP vote against this budget and throne speech?

Opposition benches, join with us. We all need to be optimistic and positive, and have confidence in our province and our people. We will act with speed and purpose because we're confident in our endeavours. We are definitely the government to lead the province into this exciting time.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to respond to the budget. Before I begin, though, I wanted to thank my staff, who have done such a capable job for me over these almost three years now.

In my constituency office there's Sheryl Seale, who is the foundation of our crew there. Sheryl is exceedingly organized — a very political person doing a wonderful job. Donann Kinar has been with me almost since the beginning and provides a really inviting atmosphere for constituents that come in, and that's a great thing. Carly O'Rourke is a young woman that I've just hired recently. She's a graduate from SFU and has a great and bright future ahead of her.

Here in the Legislature, Brian Kowalski, my legislative assistant, does a great job of keeping me going technologically and organizing things for me. Brian is a real outdoor guy too, which I really like. Cara McGregor is my communications officer, and Cara is always bright, helpful and willing to provide the communications information that I need. Paula Gunn is my research officer. I can only hope that all the members opposite, including the Transportation Minister, have such a capable research person as Paula.

We've heard the budget. We've heard the Premier provide us with what is hailed as a green budget, complete with the Finance Minister wearing the green shoes and what have you. There are things in the budget that we approve of and that I approve of. We approve of a carbon tax. I think that's a move that we have to go toward. I certainly have some difficulties with the way that it's unbalanced with regard to big oil and big banks.

What I want to see, and what I want to talk about today, is if the green rhetoric really matches the on-the-ground reality of being green. One of the areas that the government talks about is providing green energy.

I want to talk about an area that's near and dear to me — and to many British Columbians, the more they know about it — and that's the Upper Pitt River area at the north end of Pitt Lake. The other day I heard the member for East Kootenay talk about Fernie being the most beautiful place in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to go to Fernie not long ago, and it is a truly spectacular viewpoint from Fernie. But it's rivalled equally, I can tell you, by going up to Pitt Lake and looking up that valley on a beautiful day with the snow-clad mountains of Garibaldi. It's a tunnel that is absolutely spectacular on all sides. It's a fantastic area.

Although it's only 50 kilometres from Vancouver, to get there is difficult. You have to fly in, or you have to take the long boat ride up Pitt Lake. Having visited last year again during the summer, I renewed my acquaintance with it and just how spectacular it is. The area has been logged, but trees are growing back. It's an ongoing operation there, but the wilderness feel of the place is very tangible, very real.

Back in the '90s this river, due to a gravel operation that was proposed there, was actually on the list of B.C.'s most endangered rivers. I'm hoping that's not going to happen again. I'm hoping that the government is going to look long and hard at what's happening in the Upper Pitt with regard to the so-called run-of-the-river operations that are being worked on there.

There's a plan there by Run of River Power Inc., through their subsidiary Northwest Cascade Power, to dam and divert eight streams in the Upper Pitt. On the west side of the Pitt you have Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and Bucklin Creek, and then on the other side, the east side, Corbold Creek, ZZ Creek and then Shale Creek north of that.

Now, it's not that I think all of these kinds of projects are bad. I don't. I haven't had a chance to look at all of them by any means, but I understand the one at Furry Creek, for example — off the Sea to Sky Highway — is a good operation and not environmentally damaging. That certainly can't be said for the Upper Pitt.

One of the problems with this whole process around these dam-and-divert projects that are going on is that there has been no reasonable access to the public in terms of decision-making around this. It's not only Bill 30, which has been talked about — how local government decision-making has been pushed aside — but the fact that the land use planning process that we used to have with the local resource management plans is not there. There's no way for the public to have a say in the formative parts of any project like this.

When it comes to the environmental assessment office, they form working groups. Non-profits that want to find out can't even find out who's on those working groups. So it's extremely difficult for the public to feel involved in this, and that is one of the reasons

The Upper Pitt is an absolutely spectacular fishery as well. Not only is the scenery magnificent, but we have all five species of Pacific salmon there — the sockeye, the pinks, the chinooks, the coho and the chum. In addition, we have a species of trout there as well.

The largest population of coho in the lower Fraser Valley is there in the Upper Pitt. The coho salmon is a fishery that's very much under duress. There's a recent report from the department of Fisheries and Oceans last October that said: "The conservation of Georgia Basin coho has been an issue since at least 1989, and a major concern in the decline of coho is the loss and degradation of freshwater habitat due to increasing economic and development pressures in the Strait of Georgia."

That's exactly what we're concerned about here — the environmental pressures that these projects are going to put on the coho and other salmon there, other fisheries there.

The coho in the Upper Pitt are also threatened. They're at their lowest levels ever. We get information there…. I get it from talking to folks who live there, particularly Dan Gerak and his wife, who run the Pitt River Lodge up there. It's an excellent facility.

We have, as well, the cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, bull trout and steelhead. Steelhead, of course, are a highly prized fishery. I think the member opposite is a steelhead fisherman and has spoken in the House about that. They, again, are under duress. Dan Gerak tells me they may get as few as 50 steelhead returning this year, so that's of great concern.

I want to talk a little bit about what is the problem specifically with the dam-and-divert projects for the fish — looking at an 80 to 95 percent reduction in the flow of these streams, and it's over a long area as well. In the Upper Pitt, those eight streams would be dammed from 3.2 up to 4.6 kilometres.

The salmon and the trout in that system depend on these streams for both spawning and rearing. It's extremely important habitat. The river itself is glacial. It's very cold, and as such, it's not that productive in terms of the food that the salmon and trout eat. So the streams are kind of the lifeblood of the whole system there.

The reduced flows in these streams that are going to result mean that the wetted width of these streams is reduced. Some of that wetted width is not very deep, so you're losing the productivity of the aquatic invertebrates upon which those fish depend.

These are kind of the basic nuts and bolts of how a fishery works, how fish survive. I think we all, on both sides of the House, want to ensure that our salmon are not put in further jeopardy. When you reduce the flow on a stream as well, to that extent in particular, the water is more shallow, and it warms to temperatures that are often fatal to fish.

A stream is also a living entity in terms of its habitat. You need to have a constant recruitment, as they call it, of boulders, gravel and rocks as well as the woody debris. The rocks are brought down, and they provide shade for the fish when it's hot. The gravel of course provides substrate for spawning. That material, the woody material as well, provides not only organic nutrients to the stream but also some of that cover I already mentioned with regard to the rocks.

When we get this kind of a reduction in flow, you're making the river sterile. That's of great concern to everyone who is familiar with that situation.

The time of year when that material gets washed down is in the spring, during the spring freshet. But that, unfortunately, is also the time when the run-of-river projects are in operation because they depend on that heavy flow in the spring. So that's the time of year when the diversion of the water is going to have the greatest negative impact.

There will also be increased risk, and I'm certain there will be additional siltation, from landslides due to the work that will be done to lay all these pipes and to make the dam. I know that when I looked at the Ashlu up in Squamish, I saw heavy equipment right in the stream.

There's no doubt that the detrimental effects are considerable. We can get complete failure of the technology, as well, in terms of letting the water through the creek. That happened in Miller Creek near Whistler not long ago.

Sometimes I hear government members or proponents of these systems say: "Well, don't worry about it, because all the water is going back into the stream." But there are a couple of problems. One of the things is that the fish, certainly in this system, are above where the water goes back into the stream. They're affected directly by the negative aspects of the reduced water.

So we have coho, chinook, steelhead, cutthroat and rainbow trout spawning and/or rearing above the generator site — that's where the water goes back into the river — in Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and Bucklin creeks. Boise Creek has fish-bearing waters not only to the fish barrier above it but all the way up.

The threat, however, is not confined simply to the area above the intake because, as I mentioned, with the recruitment of debris and rocks, that's a problem below the intake as well.

All eight streams, with the possible exception of Shale, are fish-bearing streams, and 3,000 sockeye have been observed spawning in Boise Creek. Boise contains about 1,500 rare Dolly Varden, a bull trout cross which…. Apparently, they're above the fish barrier. It's interesting. It's thought that they've been there and developed a separate strain since the last ice age.

In Homer Creek 5,000 sockeye have been observed spawning, and up to 40,000 sockeye returned to Corbold Creek. Coho and pink salmon also spawn in the lower reaches of Corbold Creek. The sockeye in the Upper Pitt are unique in being on a six-year return cycle. They return every six years to their spawning beds — or redds, as they're called — which in the normal cycle is four or five years for sockeye. As in other areas, salmon and trout in the Upper Pitt are threatened, so the threat is throughout.

Steelhead and bull trout. Another species at risk. Coho — I already mentioned their precarious situation. Populations in the Upper Pitt are at their lowest levels ever known.

I also wanted to talk for a few minutes about the precedent-setting application that's now in place to sever the Pinecone Burke Park to put the transmission line through. This will be precedent-setting if it should happen; I certainly hope it doesn't. There was another additional line put through Mount Robson, but it was in an area where there was already a right-of-way beside a railway and highway, so it's quite different. This line would go up Steve Creek, over a pass, by a wetland and down into the creek on the other side, going down into the Mamquam River.

There are at least five species at risk in the study area, one of which is the grizzly, which is a blue-listed species of concern. I mentioned the wetland in Steve Creek, and it's one of two significant grizzly areas in the Upper Pitt. The draft management plan and the background report for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park noted that subalpine wetland habitats in Steve and Pinecone Creek watersheds provide valuable spring/summer forage for grizzly bears and that spring/summer forage is a limiting factor for grizzly bear conservation in the Pitt River watershed.

What they're saying, in fact, is that this is critical habitat, the destruction or disturbance of which could limit the viability of the grizzly population there. It's a serious issue. Documents on the integrated land management bureau site show that the intake on Steve Creek and the dam that will be built there are very close to that wetland. This may very well flood the wetland. But even without flooding, the construction of the dam, the transmission line and the ongoing maintenance threaten the ability of grizzlies to use this habitat. They're very sensitive to human disturbance.

It's disturbing to me to read the consultant's reports downplaying the negative impact that this could have on grizzlies. In fact, it's downplaying whether or not grizzlies even are there. The consultant says in the reports: "They did not locate any critical wildlife habitat." Yet what else is this wetland if not critical wildlife habitat? It's hard to understand how they could say that.

The study area that the consultants looked at falls within the Garibaldi Pitt grizzly population unit, which is considered threatened by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, with an estimated population of 18. Wildlife habitat for grizzlies to the east of Pinecone Burke is "based on habitat suitability and not on evidence of grizzlies," they said.

Yet Dan Gerak from Pitt River Lodge told me that he saw tracks of grizzlies in Blue Creek just three kilometres from Steve Creek, the study area. He showed that to the consultant's biologist, yet they say there is no evidence of grizzlies in the area. It really brings into question the integrity of the work that's been done up there, and certainly they're trying to minimize the negative effect on a vulnerable species, the grizzly bear. That's of great concern.

Marbled murrelets are another species at risk in the area. In this case a red-listed species has been documented in the Upper Pitt. The northern spotted owl is a critically imperilled species that's likely found in the Upper Pitt — or it was before the government allowed a lot of logging of their habitat.

We know there is an active nest-site ten kilometres northeast of the study area. The consultant's report admits there is a potential that dispersing juveniles may use Crawford Creek–Steve Pass to move between the watersheds. So there is a very real possibility that they will run into power lines and be killed. Other species at risk in the area are coastal tailed frogs and red-legged frogs.

So the access to this area is a huge issue. The proponent suggests that they're going to use helicopters to build the transmission line, but what kind of access is that going to open up to increased fishing and hunting? A reputable source from one of the fishing organizations in British Columbia said to me that opening that up to access would essentially kill that fishery within ten years.

There is a newly developing predator-prey system in the Upper Pitt with the Roosevelt elk that have been transplanted there and the wolves that have moved into the area. It was on the front page of The Vancouver Sun not long ago. They're at risk from increased access.

This whole project also puts in jeopardy the tourism values of the area. There are going to be power lines all over the place. As Dan Gerak said, his clients would not be particularly interested, unfortunately, in going up there if the values are degraded in that manner.

This development, along with that of the related Pamawed Resources development on Crawford Creek, which is a related company to Run of River, would bring driveable roads 6.5 kilometres closer on the Pinecone Burke Park side and on the west side eight kilometres closer. So they're going to bring the access a lot closer. That's of great concern.

Putting up the power line through there might keep hikers out, but it's not going to keep out folks on snowmobiles, and it's not going to keep out people on ATVs — the all-terrain vehicles. The proponents' consultants themselves say it would be desirable to have snowmobile access in there, so we are really concerned. A lot of folks are really concerned.

I hope the government will look at this carefully and recognize that there may be appropriate places for these projects, but the Upper Pitt is definitely not one of those places. The proponents' consultants also say that road improvements associated with the construction of the proposed hydropower project at Crawford Creek will re-establish culverts at stream crossings and improve access to upper Crawford Creek. So they are admitting they are improving the access there, but it's not improving for the wildlife, and it's not improving for the fish.

I haven't had the opportunity to be there in person, but looking at a topographical map, where the intake for the power development on Crawford Creek would

be is pretty flat wide-open country. So it would be very difficult, if they put the road up there to the intake, to not allow increased access to the Upper Pitt.

What about the dam that would be built with road access along Steve Creek? They're going to push that road in there another nine kilometres into the wilderness. I don't think they're going to be constructing and bringing all that heavy equipment in there by helicopter. I doubt it very much.

The proponent says: "Well, don't worry about all this potential destruction to a pristine area. We'll give you compensation. We'll add a piece onto the Pinecone Burke Park on the east side of the park." I don't get it. This is Crown land. It's not theirs to give. I don't quite understand how that would be compensation on their part.

What about the hazards that exist up there in the Upper Pitt with regard to snow and landslides? Looking at the consultant's report, they have hazard ratings that are moderate to high in many areas along where that power line would go through. I don't see anywhere any assessment of the dangers of rock and mudslides. Those are just the hazards on Steve Creek, where they've done some of the work around this park severance adjustment application that's before the government now.

I understand that the Environment Minister…. I have it on good authority that he feels strongly about wilderness, that he is a proponent for wilderness and that he is a proponent for maintaining those kinds of values. So I can't fathom how he could possibly be in favour of this project. I'm fearful, however, that he is. I'm hopeful that he's not and that he's prevailing upon his colleagues to say: "Let's look at this through the lens…."

You know, it's supposed to be a green budget, a green time that we're operating in now. Let's make sure that we truly are looking at these projects through an environmental lens. If we are, there's no way that the Upper Pitt projects that are on the books right now could be approved. I'm really hopeful that this government will have a hard look at that and will turn it down.

Just in the time I have remaining, I want to make a few comments about agriculture and the agriculture plan that the Minister of Agriculture talked about the other day. He talked about the hundred-mile diet and that it was a key fundamental principle on which this plan was written — about eating locally.

Well, those are good ideas, ones that I support. However, I want to see that the government is actually acting to protect the land itself. Without the land, we can't be eating locally because we won't have any land on which to grow the food. The member for Delta South is always talking about how we have to eat to live, but we also have to have land to produce the food which we eat to live.

When I look at what's happening with transportation, for example, I see the South Fraser perimeter road taking 500 acres or 300 acres — a large number of acres — out of the agricultural land reserve, and there's another route possible. I see in my constituency the Abernethy connector that has gone through two heritage farms and an organic farm.

The minister doesn't seem to have any concern about that and says that's TransLink's problem. Now I see another road being proposed through agricultural land in my community. Gateway tells me that it's not their project, but they're providing all the data on what would be the effect of this road in terms of traffic.

It's not very convincing data, by the way, but that's supposed to be the rationale for this road. Also, the district of Pitt Meadows say that if they build this road, they're going to have to get funding from the province.

I look at an order-in-council that this government passed recently, making it easier to get land out of the green zone. All our agricultural land in Maple Ridge is in the green zone. So this simply is a way to make it easier to develop agricultural land.

Where does the government come down on that? On the one side they're saying they're green, but on the other side the Agriculture Minister says they've got a great agricultural plan. But when you look at the protection for the land base, it's simply not there. What we see is erosion of the land base, and that's of great concern to me and to my constituents.

Finally, some points on the fees in B.C. parks. Fees are between $9 and $50. They introduced the parking fees for day use — very unpopular — and as of April 1, they're going to increase again by a dollar per night.

R. Sultan: I wanted to just respond for a moment to the remarks by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, because he said the magic word, to my ears — steelhead. He immediately grabbed my attention with his, I think, sensitive, passionate and thoughtful remarks about the beleaguered species of fish, including steelhead, in our local watersheds.

I must say I would want to associate myself with many of his concerns, because those concerns are broadly felt, I think, in the environmental community and also among the thousands of other British Columbians who treasure the steelhead, our salmon, the bull trout, the cutthroat and all the other species which are part of our tradition. There's no question that the impact of humanity in its many forms is not friendly to the future of many of these species.

About 200 feet from my office, in the Capilano River — for which my riding is named — I have a living pilot test of the impact of dam building, of urbanization, of lack of recruitment. As the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows pointed out, the lack of addition to gravel and sand over the years, the change in the very contour of the watershed affecting the beaches we have in West Vancouver–Capilano…. The effects of mankind over a century of development are not always very friendly to the steelhead, not to mention many other species. So I share many of his concerns.

In the same breath, I would hasten to add my support of the independent power producer industry. I think this is among the many energy production alternatives, one of our friendliest sources of electricity for the future. But I do agree that it must be done with great care. I intend to take a greater interest in the

Upper Pitt project that he described, because I must confess that I'm quite ignorant on that subject.

The budget itself addresses one of the other major factors that scientists suggest to us is causing distress to, among many other things, fish populations. I refer to climate change. I wanted to quote the remarks of Dr. Andrew Weaver on what I guess many would call, justifiably, the central theme of this budget that we are debating today.

Dr. Weaver is a professor and Canada research chair in atmospheric science at the University of Victoria. His contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won him the Nobel peace prize in 2007. Just a mile or so away from these chambers, one of our UVic scientists won the Nobel prize. I wasn't really aware of that.

So we have a local expert on atmospheric science holding forth. He said on the Bill Good Show, our very popular CKNW commentator that many of us listen to frequently…. It's always on as background in our office in West Vancouver–Capilano. I guess I could attribute that to one of the former producers of an NW show who works for me, Patti Hamilton.

Here's what he said to Bill Good the other day, on February 26: "Frankly, why I like it" — referring to the Finance Minister's budget — "is that it puts more money into the pockets of British Columbians to allow them to make choices in more energy-efficient ways. That's the way to deal with it. Use the marketplace to find solutions. Don't tell the marketplace what the solutions are. Give people the money to actually assist the market in making those moves."

Later in the interview with Bill Good, Dr. Weaver went on to say: "Success will be measured by emissions reductions. There is no other means of success. That is why it's being introduced. It's not being introduced as a tax grab. It's being introduced to guide society towards carbon reductions. So there's your measure of success."

Here's a final comment and quotation from Dr. Andrew Weaver to Bill Good on February 26: "I don't buy the argument that this is going to put people into poverty. I think you see in the budget that there's all sorts of tax relief specifically aimed at low-income people."

So that's Dr. Weaver, and he speaks to some of the comments I have heard. Adjectives that have been used to describe this budget are "sophisticated," "deft" — not daft, but deft with an "e" — "smart" and "surprising."

I would admit that it caught me off guard because I was speculating, along with many, that what we were going to see was a carbon tax, but the revenue was going to be spent on buses or mass transit or something else. It was, in fact, a Quebec-style — and having lived there for a decade, I think the government in Quebec is very good at this — tax grab to be used under the banner of some noble cause just to raise government revenues for some other purpose.

Of course, the members, I think — private members certainly on this side of the House and I suspect many, many members on the other side of the House — were surprised to see that in fact it was as the Finance critic in the opposition said: taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. That was his very graphic description of a tax-neutral program, and that is in fact what the Finance Minister delivered to our pleasure and to our surprise.

We have seen on display once again a very intelligent, motivating, tax-cutting, friendly-to-low-income-people, business-friendly, friendly-to-children, conservative, not-in-deficit, debt-reducing budget applauded by the credit agencies. That's a tough act to follow. Will we ever see again in this House a budget that accomplishes so many things on so many dimensions? My compliments to the Finance Minister and to the government who carefully crafted these measures.

But what I wanted to talk about in the main was another dimension of the budget — namely, its impact and ramification in the forest industry. A significant proportion of government revenues in the budget derives from the forest industry. It is, after all, our largest British Columbia industry. Members on the benches opposite have denounced the government for creating hard times in this industry.

About two weeks ago, on February 7, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking to the Western Silviculture Association, accused the government of ceding government control of this resource — I'm using her words — tearing up the Forest Act and gutting the social contract. Those are her words. The leader conveniently overlooked the ruinous policies imposed on this industry by her own party when it constituted the government of this province during a quite disastrous experiment in central planning and socialism during the 1990s.

The NDP philosophy vis-à-vis forestry was brought home to me vividly when I attended the Truck Loggers Association convention in the early '90s shortly after they came to power. I was accompanied by my brother-in-law, Pete Holmquist. I mention him because he's struggling in hospital right now, and I hope he recovers. He was one of our notable fallers on the coast — I worked with him as a faller's helper one summer, a wonderful and in many ways scary experience — and a North American hand-bucking champion. Now, that's an accomplishment.

With Peter, we went there with the truck loggers and the place was bustling with athletic loggers like my brother-in-law, chainsaw salesmen, massive equipment and so on. The NDP government of the day had erected a giant tent in the centre floor of the Canada Place convention centre. In the tent, handbooks and panels on the wall explained how loggers must conduct themselves in the future.

Now, to illustrate, I hold in my hand a sharply pointed yellow pencil, a Dixon Ticonderoga 1388-2HB pencil, and it's identical to the one that you all have on your desks in front of you. The government of the day, in that tent with the truck loggers, specified the brand, the stocking number, the lead weight and the hue of the various coloured pencils which the truck loggers were ordered to use when cross-hatching their harvesting maps prior to submitting them to the government for approval.

Let's say a cherry red Dixon Ticonderoga 1469-3H or whatever, for areas to be cut to a certain specification; another specification for the apple green, to be applied to another cutblock of a different type, and so on up the mountain and down the gullies, in all colours of the rainbow. Now, I ask: was there a run on coloured pencils of the specified brand at the local art stores? I don't think so, because I was the only person brushing up on the crayoning rules in that tent.

Under that previous government's rule in the '90s, petty rule-making and government interference ramped up aggressively. The forest industry reacted by cutting back on its investment spending and hunkering down, hoping for a change in government, which eventually happened. In the meantime our global competitors had been given another window of opportunity to leapfrog ahead of us.

Now fast-forward 15 years to now. Once again, the NDP has busied itself with plans and proposals for the forest industry. A fundamental fact of life for all of us is the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States. On February 7 in that same speech, the Leader of the Opposition repeated a characterization of the softwood lumber agreement as being "a serious mistake" which must be "renegotiated or dumped." Her suggestion was for the federal and provincial government to take this agreement to hearings to determine what steps should be taken, up to and including abrogation.

By prescribing such policies, I am sad to say — and I'm genuinely sad to make this observation, because these are fine people on the opposite bench — Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has again demonstrated that seven years in the political wilderness have not yet qualified them to be trusted again with the governance of this province or the stewardship of this industry. That's really my considered view, and I say that with some regret.

To be fair, the Leader of the Opposition would merely start with a review of the treaty. But in the current environment and given the opposition's clearly stated intention if returned to power, one must conclude that their review of that treaty would inevitably lead to their attempt to withdraw from the agreement, even though British Columbia is hardly in any position to exit unilaterally from an international agreement entered into by the federal government.

Let's look at a few of the other pesky details. This agreement between two nations, Canada and the United States, runs for a minimum of 18 months, from October 2006 until April 2008 — only a couple of months away. Then the parties can give six months' notice of their desire to get out, which would carry us forward to October 2008.

Under the terms of the agreement, if the United States terminates, there's a standstill agreement. If the U.S. gives six months' notice in April, there would be one year of free trade, and I put free trade, again, in quotation marks. On the other hand, if it was Canada which abrogated, as happened in the period 1986-87 through 1991, we could conceive again the possibility of the Americans levying a border tax which could be multiples higher than the current 15 percent.

Let us simply say that if Canada abrogated, Washington might not be amused, but the American softwood industry might be delighted. Draw your own conclusions.

Under free trade conditions, since lumber prices have nosedived 60 percent off their high, there's little doubt that our American friends would cry "dumping," and we would be into a litigation scenario. Pick your own countervail percentage. It seems unlikely to be modest.

Under litigation, there would be no cap on the maximum duty payable by the Canadians, unlike under the current agreement. If you think the current U.S. presidential contest is spilling over with the milk of free trade kindness, you haven't been paying attention.

We should not overlook that the last litigation period helped fatten the wallets of the lawyers, not to mention armies of economists, lobbyists and travel agents on both sides of the border. Legal bills on the Canadian side of the border alone are estimated to have been in the $200 million range, of which British Columbians paid about half. There's no reason to believe that American legal bills were significantly lower. It's my personal observation that the American bar tends to live rather handsomely.

Therefore, under the NDP's abrogation scenario, B.C. mill netbacks, already insufferably low, would in all likelihood be further reduced by American duties. Indeed, I would say it's anybody's guess whether there would be any netback at all.

But if somehow we carried on exporting regardless, we should keep in mind that last time under somewhat parallel conditions, the Americans sequestered $4 billion U.S. — equivalent to about $5 billion Canadian at the exchange rate of the day — of which ultimately, and only after strenuous hard bargaining, about half was returned to B.C. shippers. It was no sure thing that we would ever see a single red cent.

To sum up, therefore, the Leader of the Opposition's proposed adventure in international diplomacy would impose huge costs on our forestry companies and huge penalties on our forest communities.

The Canadian industry back east is already in arbitration over alleged Quebec and Ontario subsidies to their forest industries. The Leader of the Opposition would have us join Quebec and Ontario in that process — more Bay Street lawyers, more bar bills at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

In truth, the solution to our current industry dilemma is to get unwanted lumber, which is pushing prices down to unheard-of levels, off the market so that more sustainable pricing can be restored. In this regard, the interests of the Canadian softwood industry and the interests of the American softwood industry should dovetail neatly.

We are already seeing additional mill closures in B.C., and our industry is being restructured with a

vengeance — inevitable, of course, but of absolutely no comfort at all to the millworkers pushed into the street.

What is overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition is the growing appetite of American lumber producers to reduce supply on their market, as they view it, by virtually halting Canadian exports at the border. So if you think things are tough now for forestry workers in Port Alberni or Williams Lake, just contemplate that NDP scenario.

The wood industry on both sides of the border is being pummelled by the combined forces of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage mess, declining U.S. home prices, a 50 percent collapse in U.S. house construction and the consequent oversupply of softwood lumber. In a conference call with analysts on February 21, Hank Ketcham of West Fraser Timber Co. described it as "a bloodbath out there." We have not even gotten around to mentioning the beetles.

The Canadian industry is also being penalized by the unprecedented strength of the Canadian dollar climbing to levels not seen in 35 years. The U.S. dollar weakness is driven by American profligacy in things fiscal and monetary, and in that regard Canadian virtue becomes our penalty.

Until stamina returns to the U.S. housing market, until certainty returns to the U.S. mortgage market, until there is some further restructuring of those packages of IOUs — bundled, sold, rebundled and resold by those clever mathematical chaps in red suspenders from the University of Chicago business school who we used to admire for being so smart — and until the U.S. dollar shows some sort of recovery, which may depend on the presidential election, it's hard to foresee any quick recovery for Canadian softwood lumber.

We could perhaps take some comfort from the United States history of responding to their mistakes: diagnose the problem, take the awful-tasting medicine quickly, don't spend too much time in bed, and bounce back quickly. Let's hope American history repeats itself.

Meanwhile, the situation of our B.C. forest industry, for reasons beyond our control, is not pretty. Let us, therefore, thank ourselves that the opposition party in this province does not have its hands on the policy levers. Surely they would, in short order, make a tough situation in our forest industry much, much worse.

N. Macdonald: As always, it's a pleasure to speak and to respond to the budget speech on behalf of the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I'll begin by saying that some odd things happened yesterday — two things. One was that we had unanimous agreement in this House on an issue, and it was to do with spending. That is not something that happens very often. There was a supplementary bill that came in. It was for $1.2 billion or in that neighbourhood. The interesting part of it is that it was tacked onto the previous, or this year's, budget even though they were items that were talked about in the throne speech and, in fact, even talked about in the budget speech. So it was a bit of an odd thing that way.

We voted for it, and I was happy to do that for one reason in particular. There was within that supplementary budget $262 million for an endowment for the arts. That is something that is, I hope, going to be administered in a way that is going to be very beneficial for something that is important to me, which is the arts, the arts councils and heritage. That's something in there that I'm really happy about.

Like I say, there were two things that were kind of odd, and the other part of it is the $1.2 billion that the general public is going to imagine is from this year's budget. It properly should be in the budget that we are debating now. I did not hear any minister explain why it would be taken from last year's budget other than what is the obvious answer — that they didn't want it to show up in the 2008-2009 budget.

In fact, the budget that we are looking at and the one that I'm now going to turn my attention to is a budget that forecasts a $50 million surplus. But if you put in that $1.2 billion worth of spending, it really would not have been a surplus. So we can call this the not-quite-balanced budget 2008 — a bit of smoke and mirrors with it.

In fact, the other claims that are made about this budget — of it being a green budget — are the same sort of smoke and mirrors. There's very little in here that you could look at and say is going to be effective in what the Premier has said is the intention of government, which is to deal effectively with climate change. I think there are some fundamental weaknesses in the approach that show up even in a budget that deals with the issue in such a small, small way.

I have had the opportunity since the budget came through to travel through the riding. I was in Cranbrook and Kimberley and had the opportunity over the weekend to travel all the way through — had meetings in Golden — to Revelstoke and back. So I was through most of the community and had an opportunity to get some reaction to the budget.

There is no question that this budget ignores rural issues. The things that people were talking about in our community meetings were not addressed here in this budget. It should not be a surprise that they would be ignored, because it is a government that consistently depends upon sloganeering without the substance to make a real difference in people's lives. Anybody who has looked back at that heartlands strategy and seen how empty it turned out to be would understand that reality.

This is not a budget that addresses the things that are important to rural British Columbians, and it unfairly targets rural residents in the first attempt at dealing with greenhouse gases. People in Columbia River–Revelstoke do not have an option of public transport, nor do they have the option to use smaller vehicles. The gas tax is going to hit them harder.

Now, when I see ministers come and visit Golden or Revelstoke, they do not come in a Smart car. They come in an SUV. That's what they rent because, reasonably, you need to do that. So we don't have an option as to whether we drive or not. We are not able to make those decisions.

If you are going to move forward with greenhouse gas legislation, what you would reasonably do is consider all parts of the province and make sure that you come up with ideas that work for everyone in the province. But to do that, you would have to listen to people. You would have to include them in the conversation.

What I would point to is a fundamental weakness in the approach that the government has taken on a very important issue. Let's be really clear. All British Columbians want greenhouse gas climate change initiatives to work. They want them to work, but if they're going to work, then people need to be engaged and participate.

What is a common trend in this government, consistent in this government, is the move to secrecy — the move to keep things in secret. We see it with this climate change initiative. Huge amounts of money are being spent, perhaps properly. We don't know. It's secret. We are not participating in any open way. We cannot even get information on who is meeting with this secretariat. What's clear is that rural people weren't invited, because we would have given them ideas about how to move forward with a proper carbon tax.

But who does meet with them? We can get an idea from who is exempted — cement industry, aluminum industry, gas and oil industry. Their carbon emissions are not dealt with in this budget. They are not sharing the load with people who are going to be driving and who need to heat their homes. We're going to be paying more in rural areas, and those that seem to have access to government are not going to be included.

The part that confuses people, as well, and makes them think there is something less than genuine about the attempt to deal with climate change is the $360 million subsidy to oil and gas. It seems incongruous with the speeches that are made by the Premier about dealing seriously with climate change, but what the Premier says and what happens…. There's often a gap there. It's easy to recognize, but it's not something that people in rural areas accept.

If we are going to move forward in climate change, then that secrecy has to be taken away. We have to make sure that we engage all people in British Columbia. We need to make sure that when we come forward with measures, they are not just a simple gas tax — a gas tax that punishes rural areas — and that some consideration is given to people who do not have the choices that the Minister of Finance says we should have and the opportunity to make choices that she says we should be making.

There was a hundred dollars that was put back. It's going to go to each citizen. That was from last year's budget, apparently, and that is going to be sent out to individuals.

In the grocery store, people were coming up to me. They didn't like the gas tax, and they see the hundred dollars for what it is: a pre-election gift of their own money. It's not something that is anything other than that. To give that gift to every person — that pre-election little gift of a hundred dollars — costs the government $10 million. So $10 million is going to be wasted with that effort, and it's not the only waste that we see.

We fight for small amounts of money that would make a difference in people's lives, and we can't get it. Very often we can't get it. Yet we see gimmicks like this hundred dollars per person costing $10 million to administer, and you think that's wasted money. But it's nowhere near the wasted money that you see for advertising and how much money is spent on advertising — government advertising that gives the government spin on one thing after another.

This is a Premier that came in promising not to do that sort of thing. Well, times have changed, and they have changed pretty quickly. Tens of millions wasted on government advertising.

Let's move on to some things that the people in rural communities talk about but that don't show up in this budget at all, and the first one would be forestry. Forestry is going to be hit hard by that gas tax. They will not have options about the vehicles they use. They will not have options about where they have to move personnel or how they move logs, and they will not be able to pass along the costs.

So a community that is dependent on forestry is going to find out that forestry, in a time of crisis…. They're going to have their challenges increased with this gas tax. What consideration was given to that?

You look at the things that weren't there and that forestry communities need. We have spoken a number of times in this House about the need for community transition. Rural areas produce the wealth of much of this province. There is no question. From my riding we light two million homes in the lower mainland. My riding gave $20 billion from Kimberley mine — $20 billion.

You look at the billions and billions that have come in, in forestry. But when those communities need help from the rest of the province, with this government there is no attempt for transition. Those communities are left on their own, and that should in no way be acceptable. There's no community transition plan, even though mill after mill is going down.

What is the government going to do? Nothing. This budget makes it clear. Is there any attempt to keep the industry a vital part of our future? It seems self-evident to me that you would be doing everything you possibly could to keep the industry healthy so that when it picks up…. And it will, because it can be an incredibly efficient and productive industry, but you've got to get it through the tough times.

The Social Credit used to do that; the NDP did that. It's cyclical. It will come out, and it can be strong in the future. But it cannot be strong if you allow the industry to disappear and if you do not think of new ways of doing things. I'm happy that on our side, we've put forward new ideas. But what we've seen in this budget is a complete absence of ideas and a complete absence of anything to do with forestry. It is not there. Count the sentences. You find one or two sentences. That's it.

What about poverty? In my area people do not accept the fact that we have the highest child poverty in all of Canada, and we have had that for the past four years. We have a growing divide between rich and poor. All of those things in a small community, we do not accept. In our communities we look after those that are at their weakest, those that are the poorest, and people accept that as normal. I think that's the standard British Columbians would say they accept.

We do not accept that our children should be living in poverty. From a moral point of view, it's wrong. From a practical point of view, it is wrong. They are our future. It is wasting the potential that they have if we leave them in poverty. It should have been addressed. It should have been a priority. Yet it is not even mentioned in this budget.

There is an acceptance by this government that poverty, child poverty and family poverty are things that should be accepted and that there is nothing this government intends to do to improve their lives. That's a problem. That certainly does not sit with the values that you would find in the Kootenays.

There are things that can be done. It would be simple to change the minimum wage. That was not done.

Another issue came up again and again. It came up in meetings in Revelstoke. It came up in meetings in Kimberley. They are dealing with it in Invermere. They are dealing with it in Golden. It is the problem of affordable, attainable housing. It is simply not possible to leave local government on its own to deal effectively with this problem. There should be the province at the table; there should be the federal government at the table. Again with this budget, there is nothing to deal with the housing crisis.

It is a crisis in the East Kootenay, in Columbia River–Revelstoke. You speak to people in those communities, and they will tell you that there needs to be something from the province. Legislatively, they have made the situation worse. They have allowed things to be done to the mobile home parks which are destructive and cause a problem. They have allowed changes to apartments, turning them essentially into condominiums. It's a problem. So legislatively, there is a problem that this government helped to exacerbate.

There is a need for resources, and there's a need for some leadership. That lack of housing, of course, comes with the purchase of second homes out of Alberta. We have housing, but we do not have it so that it is affordable for permanent residents.

Well, the complication that creates is: how do you attract people to the community to live? You have a shortage of workers. You have a shortage of people who are able to take the jobs that are there in the community. You cannot be paid $8 and $9 an hour and live in a place like Invermere. It is impossible. Yet if you are a business person, how do you run a motel, a hotel or a golf course without that pool of labour?

Those are jobs that people would take and would enjoy. I've done jobs like that, but when I worked in Invermere — in a restaurant, at a golf course — I had housing that was affordable to me. It was reasonable. It does not exist now, and yet the government ignores that even though local governments have told them again and again that they have to be in there actively, as part of a solution. But this budget does nothing for it.

What else are people talking about? Child care. It's not just people involved in child care who say we have to get organized here. It's people that are on the chamber of commerce. In fact, it's anybody who is dealing with children. There's a realization, a recognition, that we have to figure out how to do child care properly. Yet we have a federal government and a provincial government that consistently fail us on that issue.

We've made a commitment that in 2009 we will put forward a child care plan that is available to others. It will be something that people can afford, and it will be of high quality. That is something that the government that sits here, for the past seven years, should have done long ago. There should be a child care plan. In our area it is self-evident. You don't talk to anyone who doesn't see the need for a proper child care system, yet nothing is done.

There are a host of women's issues that need to be addressed, and yet again, that is not in this budget at all. It is not a priority of this government.

You have a host of needs in education. As everyone knows, rural schools are being closed to this day. In my area we lost eight schools. There is a problem with the funding formula. There is a problem with the resources that are given to special needs. Again and again you have the minister stand up in question period and throw out numbers, but there is a reality on the ground that nobody can deny.

It is problematic to have schools in rural areas run with the sorts of funding formulas that we have. Schools need to be a priority. It's what people talk about. It makes complete sense that you would make that a priority for this province. Any government that is in power should make that a priority.

Let's talk about another issue that is of importance. It's rural highway maintenance. It is a complicated place to maintain highways. It always has been; it always will be. But there is also a consistent concern about the quality of highway maintenance in my part of the province.

There has been a lot of snow this year. There was a lot last year, but that is always the way it has been. It is an area that is challenging, but it's a place where we have to get road maintenance right. People's lives depend upon it — visitors to our area. There are incredible numbers each day on the Trans-Canada, but also residents who depend on that highway, who have no choice but to use our roads each and every day to move our children, to go to work, to visit others, to visit our neighbours. That's an area that should have been addressed in the budget as well.

There is no question that we are going to pay more for transportation. There is no question that we are going to pay more in rural areas for our heating. There is no question that the tax breaks of $200 million for the

banks…. Our banking industry is not going to help individuals in my area. Is that all that we're going to end up paying more for?

I'd like to talk for a minute about another concern, and that's the fact that we're also going to be paying more for electricity. We are going to pay more for electricity, and we are going to have that happen because of this government's policy on private power producers. We are going to be paying more for electricity needlessly.

In fact, as people come to fully understand…. I understand the member for West Vancouver–Capilano said that he's going to start to look into one of the power projects. I would invite all people, all members of the public, to have a close look at these projects. There are some that make sense. There are some that are small and what you would imagine them to be, hearing the government propaganda.

But there are many that do not match in any way the words that this government uses to describe them. They are not necessary. They are not in any way benign. I think if the member looks at the project that was identified to him, he would have serious concerns environmentally and would have serious concerns economically, because we are going to pay more to get our electricity unnecessarily.

If we took care of B.C. Hydro, if we allowed B.C. Hydro to operate in the public interest, we would all be better served, but that is not what is happening with this energy plan. This energy plan, and this move to private producers, is a move that will benefit a very small number of people that are very connected to the government. It will be seen by those who look at what is taking place as one of the biggest giveaways in the history of this province.

There is no question that as people start to look at what is taking place on our public lands, they are going to question more and more who possibly would be allowing this to happen. Who would be giving away the advantages that B.C. Hydro has provided to this province, and why?

Let's just talk about how the private power producers work. First, there are sites that were identified. We'll use one type of private power development. We'll talk about the so-called run-of-the-river projects. B.C. Hydro used public money to identify those sites. So we paid; we paid to identify the sites. Then in 2002 the sites that we paid for were given away for $5,000 to $10,000 to private interests. They were given to private interests, and they got the rights to those sites that we identified.

Those sites were on public land, our land, and those sites were going to use public water — our water. So we pay, we pay, and we pay. Then B.C. Hydro's Liberal-appointed board required B.C. Hydro assets to be used to enter into a contract, secret contracts for the most part, with these private power developers.

We do know one thing. We do know they are going to be paid such a huge amount of money that they're pretty well able to go to the bank with that contract and get their project financed. So in essence, we build the project. We find the site for them, we identify the site, we then give them our land, we give them public water, and then we essentially pay for them to be built. Then when they finish the 15-to-40-year contract, they get to sell the power anywhere they want.

This power we're buying at many, many times the cost we should be paying, and at the end we don't own that facility. It is owned by a private developer. Many questions, when they start to read about it or understand it: who would do that, and who are these people?

What I would ask people to do is have a look at who is benefiting from those private power developments. Who are they, and who are they connected to? Once people start to look at that, they will understand that this is the biggest giveaway — one of the biggest giveaways — in the history of this province, and we will pay.

We will pay, starting right away with higher hydro costs. Not only that, these are isolated sites. How do you move the electricity from those isolated sites to the grid? Well, who's going to pay for that? Yeah, we will. There is a requirement the government made that B.C. Hydro or B.C. Transmission Corp. is going to pay to connect for these companies. You cannot lose money on these deals.

What is the public good? We are going to end up paying more. We are going to end up paying more. The argument is made that there is an energy shortage, and there are energy challenges. But much of the shortage is created by numbers, and I'll give you an example. We buy electricity from Alberta — coal, thermal-generated electricity. But we do that for economic reasons.

Because we have rivers that are dammed, we are able to store up water and potential energy. We can generate that energy when we want. We store it up, and we generate it at times of high demand. So when I'm in Revelstoke, if I'm there at five in the afternoon, the river below Revelstoke dam that flows right past Revelstoke will be flowing full out as we, with our publicly owned company, generate lots of power to light and to heat and to help people in the lower mainland cook. That is power that we can provide to people cheaply.

At two in the morning there's very little demand for power, so we store up water, and the river in front of Revelstoke is very, very low. It doesn't flow with very much power. In Alberta the coal-generated plants cannot be put down or brought up that quickly. They remain producing the same amount of power all the time. So we buy it from Alberta at pennies on the dollar. That makes good business sense. It is how B.C. Hydro works in the public interest to keep costs down.

B.C. Hydro should always be working in the public interest, but what has happened is that you have decisions being made that have nothing to do with the public interest. You have a misrepresentation purposely by this government about the energy situation. It's misrepresented with claims like: "We're being forced to import power from Alberta."

Well, we're not forced to. We do it because it makes good sense to, and hopefully, we would always be doing it because it just makes good sense at certain

times to be buying power cheaply. That is something that I would say people really need to watch carefully.

Another thing people were saying is that there is so much focus on the lower mainland that it's easy to feel left out. That's something we simply don't accept as a reasonable outcome. It would be interesting to go through this budget and just look at the costs of projects in the lower mainland, in Vancouver. The convention centre. I think that in this budget there's — what? — $300 million more for the convention centre and counting. There is….

N. Macdonald: The member brings up the Kicking Horse project shared by the federal government and the provincial government, and the member knows…. I think he mentioned it in question period today. You got my title wrong. You were talking about the Kicking Horse project. The one bridge has been something we've worked for a long time to get, and the minister knows that it's something that I support.

N. Macdonald: The minister points out the cost of that bridge. What I would point out to the minister is that we have, from the border to Kamloops, a need for infrastructure. We need that whole section done. If you're telling me that the federal government needs to be at the table, I would agree with you. We've had that conversation before.

That whole section needs to be done. The last stage of that project needs to be completed. As it stands, the highway moves and comes to a 40-kilometre-an-hour corner. We move from four lanes to two lanes at a 40-kilometre-an-hour corner. As yet, the project sits uncompleted.

With that, I would like to thank, as always, the House for the opportunity to speak. I want to be clear that this is a budget that does not address the needs of rural British Columbians. I want to be clear that it is a budget that does not meet the basic needs for British Columbians in terms of the things that most should be concerned about.

By ignoring forestry, by ignoring child care and by ignoring poverty issues, they have really done a disservice. As well, they have ignored the needs of seniors, and that is something that I will continue to address in this House.

J. Nuraney: I want to commence my remarks by saying that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke began his remarks by saying that he did support the supplementary budgets that were presented before this House and voted in favour. I am very pleased to see and hear that all of them across the floor supported the budget that this government presented before them on the supplementary estimates.

How can any reasonable man not support a budget that is good for all British Columbians? I hope that as time and days go by, when we come to voting for the budget, the members opposite will understand the real purpose and the real intention behind this budget, which is to improve the lives of all British Columbians. I look forward to the day when the vote is presented in the House and we once again see a complete consensus and unanimity.

I would like to begin my remarks today with the acknowledgment of the people who make my work easier in this House. They are Clarke Housley and Chris Chan in Burnaby, who work in my office there, and Cayley Brown, who works and assists me here in Victoria. I want to thank them today for the excellent jobs that they do, not only for me but in making the constituents in my riding much happier. People can get the attention that they're looking for. I want once again to thank the people who are working with me.

I rise today in support of the budget that was brought down on the 19th of February. Once again we, as the government, have delivered a balanced budget. This is a budget that is not simply about finances; it is about encouraging the citizens of British Columbia to be aware of and address the threat of climate change.

Climate change and its effects are no longer a matter of debate. There is a clear consensus that environmental impacts are directly related to human activities. The world has come to realize that we need to do something to arrest and reverse this trend. Our government has not only advocated for action but has taken the leadership and has had the courage to put measures in place whereby people can now begin to take part in effecting a change.

A former critic of this government, Mr. Mark Jaccard, a professor of Simon Fraser University, said recently at an address before the B.C. Chamber of Commerce: "I take my hat off to the B.C. government for what I think is amazing leadership." His remarks also contained words like "brilliant," "farsighted" and "having the honesty and courage to get things done." These remarks, coming from a former critic and a leading adviser to the NDP government, are a true testimony to the integrity and the tenacity of this government.

This budget has brought forward steps whereby the government, in partnership with the people of British Columbia, will begin to reduce our footprint on the environment. The carbon tax that has been imposed is a tax which is revenue-neutral. This means that every dollar raised by this tax will be returned to the people in the form of tax reductions and other incentives. Not a penny of this tax will go to the government treasury. This is a first of its kind.

I would say that this is not only a good budget; it is a smart budget. To change the behaviour of people is a major undertaking and a big challenge. We are basically creatures of habit, and any change in the way we

live can only happen if we are made to understand the inevitable danger if we do nothing. We need to change.

We need to change the way we live and to implement some very basic measures: drive less, take public transportation whenever possible, control your heating, control the temperatures in your homes, reduce temperatures in the night, use energy-saving appliances and light bulbs, turn off your computers and other electronic appliances when not in use, replace plastic bags with biodegradable materials, recycle your waste, have your cars well tuned and make sure that the tire pressures are properly checked. These are simple changes to adopt but will make a great difference when you see the cumulative impact.

Each person will receive a cheque under this budget of $100 to offset the increased cost in the first year. Families with an income under $35,000 will continue to receive $100 for adults and $30 for children each year to assist them through this change. In other words, there will be no hardship imposed on anyone as they go through adopting changes that will help our environment.

The budget also deals with tax breaks. This government has stayed on the course of easing the burden of taxes on the citizens. For individuals, there will be a reduction of 5 percent in their income tax on the first $70,000. For businesses, effective July 1, 2008, there will be a reduction of 11 percent in their corporate income tax, with a further reduction of 2½ percent by the year 2011.

Burnaby has become the centre of film studios and productions. There will be further relief given to this industry to maintain competitiveness with other jurisdictions. This industry now contributes over a billion dollars in economic activity. This will be of great value to increasing TV and film productions. There are also other incentives, like tax relief for energy-efficient vehicles and PST exemptions on biodiesel fuel and on energy-efficient residential gas-fired water filters and heaters.

There are also targeted investments by this government to encourage development. There will be $12 million given to geoscience in British Columbia, $30 million to enhance engagement with first nations, $21 million to assist with environmental assessment and resource permitting demands, $6 million to staff and manage the 125 new parks and protected areas, $60 million to support research and innovation through Genome B.C. and to upgrade and expand Science World, $30 million to endow the Terry Fox research centre, $25 million for a brain research centre at UBC, $15 million to the Li Ka Shing Foundation for cancer research and care, $10 million to advance research in such areas as hip health and osteoporosis and $2 million to expand research on preventing and treating childhood cancer.

There'll be $40 million to strengthen and expand economic and cultural links between British Columbia and Asia-Pacific nations. This investment is very critical as we promote and encourage our business linkages with these two giants that are waking up in the Far East, particularly China and India.

On the health care scene, health care continues to offer challenges. Based on feedback gained through the Conversation on Health, we are implementing a broad scope of changes to improve health care for the long term, with a new emphasis on healthy lifestyles, prevention and accountability.

It is a decision of this government to devote two-thirds of all new spending over the next three years to health care. This is a very important decision. Nearly 3 billion additional dollars will be put into health budgets. That is on top of more than $2 billion worth of increases that we have already announced in previous budgets, for a total of $5 billion in health funding in the next three years.

This is an average annual increase of 6 percent for our hospital, long-term care facilities and community health services. And $555 million will go towards Ministry of Health programs, including Pharmacare, medical services programs and emergency health services such as B.C. Ambulance Service. A new $300 million transformation fund will be set up in the Health Ministry to help drive change in our technology, procurement, information and service delivery systems.

The Ministry of Health will spend almost $1.2 billion for new construction and upgrades to health facilities over the next three years, including the B.C. Children's Hospital, which is used extensively by families in my riding and across the province. This important facility will be upgraded and expanded to meet the growing demands of its specialized services.

Budget 2008 allocates $543 million of new capital funding for major health facilities expansion. Combined with the funding from hospital districts and foundations, total capital funding for the health sector will reach approximately $2.7 billion over the next three years. These investments, coupled with the initiatives like fast-tracking the credentials for foreign-trained doctors and shortening the nursing degree course, will help improve the delivery of service in this very important area.

On the education side, the education system continues to exhibit improvements. Part of the solution of breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness is ensuring that we provide the best education system possible, whether that be at our preschool, K-to-12 or post-secondary institutions.

I am proud of the progress this government has made in the public education system. Despite continued declining enrolment throughout the province, Budget 2008 commits $144 million over three years in increased funding for K-to-12 education. This brings the funding in education to the highest level ever in British Columbia. Budget 2008 continues the government's commitment to put students first when it comes to education funding, and per-student funding will increase in each of the next three years to the highest level.

Budget 2008 also increases our investment in StrongStart early learning centres in communities throughout British Columbia. This excellent program is currently offered in 84 elementary schools, and an additional 116 will be funded in the coming year, with another 200 centres opening the following year.

I have witnessed the success of this program in my area of Burnaby, where every smart start school that

has a StrongStart program that has been instituted in the school has had tremendous success. The times that I visited these programs, I have noticed not only the young children with their parents. They also come with their grandparents, and most of them are of immigrant communities.

It is not just helping the little children with their literacy efforts. It is also helping the grandparents, who have difficulties speaking English, learn — through pictures, through books and reading programs — and improve their literacy abilities. I think this program extends far beyond just the children's literacy.

The province is also expanding access to post-secondary institutions by boosting support for research and increasing opportunities for skills training. This budget supports $493 million over three years in post-secondary funding above the 2007-base budget level. By 2010-11 the provincial budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education will have increased 30 percent over the 2004-05 funding. This will have an impact on all regions of the province.

All these investments are an extension of initiatives and efforts that the government has got in place already over the past years.

I now turn to the issue of homelessness, which in its present state, in my humble opinion, is not acceptable. The increase in the numbers of homeless people has its beginning in the 1990s.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an advisory arm to the NDP, said in the 1990s an interesting quote: "The 1990s were a difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the province. There was an increase in poverty in British Columbia by any measure. The depth of poverty was also higher and more visible on the street — in the rise of homelessness, panhandling and food banks. Life for the poor is more difficult and precarious than it has been in several decades." This is a quote from, as I said, the report made by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in the 1990s.

Under the NDP the number of people on welfare in British Columbia grew to 10 percent of B.C.'s population. Welfare recipients made up to 6.6 percent of B.C.'s population in 1990. By 1995, it had grown to 10.1 percent. At that time, 374,000 British Columbians were collecting welfare, an increase of 73 percent.

This is a quote from the Auditor General's report of 1994-95. "Welfare costs skyrocketed under the NDP in the early 1990s. Expenditures increased from $888 million in 1990 to $1.8 billion in 1995." This was quoted in The Vancouver Sun on the 12th of January, 1996.

In the last years of their office the NDP let over 800 people from Riverview Hospital…. These were people with severe mental illness who were promised housing and support. In 1998 the NDP government of the day announced $125 million for a seven-year health plan. Two years later the then Health Minister, Penny Priddy, admitted and is quoted to have said: "While it was announced, it was never in a budget. There wasn't budget approval."

Some may say that this is deceit. I say that this is outrageously dishonest. A good many of these people who were let go from the Riverview facility ended up on the streets of Vancouver. You hear frequently from members opposite talking about homelessness and accusing this government for not paying attention. They quickly forget that they were principally responsible for causing this human tragedy.

I am proud to say that what this government has done in the past five years to address this unfortunate situation is commendable. Let me outline some of our achievements and strategy. Madam Speaker, $25 million has been set aside for the 24-7 emergency shelters. This will allow 500 shelter beds to stay open 24 hours, seven days a week.

Some $3.9 million for the homelessness outreach program. Now, listen up. There are some interesting things coming up. The $3.9 million for the homeless outreach program — this has helped more than 1,600 people on the streets to be placed in homes. This outreach program has benefited Burnaby as well, where over 100 homeless people were placed in stable housing.

Madam Speaker, $10 million has been set aside to work with the city of Vancouver on the development of supportive housing on city-owned sites. It is most unfortunate that the municipality and the municipal council of Burnaby are not responsive to our offer to create this supportive housing.

Since 2001 the government has committed to creating more than 13,500 new units of subsidized housing. We have done this through a wide range of new and expanded housing programs through our provincial housing strategy called Housing Matters in British Columbia.

This includes a commitment to more than 4,000 new and upgraded supportive housing units and shelter beds under the provincial homelessness initiative through the ongoing work of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions. In total, there are now 3,500 supportive housing units across the province, compared to 1,300 in 2001.

On top of this, we have purchased 18 single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria, totalling 1,012 rooms, helping to preserve this important affordable housing stock for those who need it the most — with funding of almost $67 million. We are spending approximately $30 million to begin renovating these units this year, and the non-profit operators will provide support services to help people break the cycle of homelessness.

We have also preserved additional affordable housing stock with purchases of apartment buildings and townhouses in Kamloops, Burnaby and Victoria, totalling nearly a $12 million investment for 114 housing units. That is 1,126 affordable housing units in 23 buildings that we have preserved, for approximately $78 million within the last year.

Other subsidized housing programs include $50 million to create safe, secure housing options for youth, for women, for elders, for people with alcohol and drug addictions and for aboriginal people.

For low-income working families, to allow them assistance in renting in the private market, the rental assistance program helps more than 4,400 households with direct monthly cash assistance to help pay the rent, with an average payment of $162 per family each month. By April the maximum income eligibility threshold will be raised from $28,000 to $35,000 as a result of this budget.

Seniors benefit with rent assistance in the private market with the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program. More than 15,000 senior households receive an average monthly payment of about $160. That's 3,000 more households since 2001.

Seniors in existing subsidized housing have more opportunities to live independently as a result of the seniors supportive housing program; $45 million is being provided to upgrade and convert about 800 social housing units to enhance accessibility and improve safety systems. It also introduces support services, such as 24-hour emergency response, light housekeeping, meals, and social and recreational activities.

For seniors who need more help to continue to live independently, we have committed to create more than 4,000 assisted-living apartments through the Independent Living B.C. program. The budget for affordable housing and shelter is at $360 million in 2007-08, three times what it was in 2001.

Budget 2008 provides an additional $104 million over four years to implement new and expanded measures to help break the cycle of homelessness through the provincial housing strategy. Recently our Premier, in the company of the Minister for Housing and the Minister of Health, announced the opening of the Burnaby centre for mental health and addictions in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon.

There is also consideration being given to establishing a second such centre in Riverview. We are well on our way to addressing this problem through a comprehensive strategy to eliminate poverty and homelessness. This stain on our society will certainly be addressed and, I hope, greatly mitigated in years to come.

As we prepare for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and as we build our new relationship with first nations, we are also celebrating 150 years of our history. A cultural revival is taking place in every region of the province. This budget provides $105 million for arts and cultural projects, including $3 million to support a new aboriginal art gallery and the world women's history museum.

There are all these good things that are outlined in the budget, a budget that once again I say is not only a good budget, but a smart budget. This government over the past seven years has become a leader in the nation on different fronts: economic growth, health, research and development, first nations issues and now the environment.

I am proud to be a member of this government, which has a vision of where it wants to take British Columbia in the next 20 years and still continues to make it work as the best place on earth to live, work and play. I will definitely be supporting this budget.

D. Chudnovsky: My task today is to respond to the budget, and I do so with a feeling of responsibility and a feeling of seriousness. I think that we face a number of very, very serious problems in our province and communities today, and I think that, for the most part, the budget did not deal with those problems. I'm going to speak to a couple of them in some detail as I move along.

I wanted to share with you my experience from last week, because I didn't have the pleasure of being in the House last week when the budget was tabled. I was in the Kootenays, and I was doing some work carrying on some of my responsibilities as the critic for the opposition with respect to homelessness and mental health. I'm going to speak to that in some detail in a few minutes, but I wanted to talk about how I found out about the budget and what my experience was as I found out about some of the highlights — or you might call them lowlights — in the budget.

As I said, I was in the Kootenays, and I turned on the TV because I was interested in hearing what government had chosen to put in the budget. The first thing I saw was that there was a $220 million gift for the banks. I checked the channel. I thought I'd got The Daily Show by accident — that this was a joke that the British Columbia government was providing $220 million of the taxpayers' money to the banks in 2008. I thought to myself that it can't be true; it's got to be a joke.

Then it became clear, and I thought maybe I'd missed something. Maybe the banks are having a rough time and that I'd missed that news somewhere. That there had been a crisis of liquidity and profitability in the banks. I looked around to see maybe…. I checked out the Globe and Mail and even the National Post. That's where you'd expect to hear the troubles of the banks, and there wasn't any.

It isn't a joke. It isn't a joke that $220 million of the people's money in British Columbia is going as a gift to the banks. It isn't a joke. As I've become more accustomed to this role and to this job, whenever I hear of an initiative by government or a policy by government, and somebody tells me that I'm to laud that or to be impressed with that policy, I've learned to ask the question: compared to what?

So I asked the question: $220 million for the banks — who somebody thinks need money…. Billions of dollars of profits, but somebody thinks they need a quarter of a billion dollars, care of the people of British Columbia. Compared to what? Compared to the thousands of our neighbours in British Columbia who have nowhere to live. I think that's a relevant comparison.

I think it's relevant to compare the quarter of a billion dollars that's being provided by the people of British Columbia to the banks, as compared…. I'm looking at the budget documents, and I see $39 million for the people of British Columbia — our neighbours who have nowhere to live. In a minute or two I'm going to begin to unpack that $39 million, because it's really,

really important for us to understand what it is that the money is being spent on.

The previous speaker provided for us a lot of statistics. I don't think we're talking about statistics here. I think we're talking about people. I think that we need to unpack those statistics and understand what they really mean. I'm going to do that in a couple of minutes.

I thought I would begin by talking about my own experience, because I think we all act out of our own commitments and our own principles and our own experiences. I need to tell you that in the fall, in September, the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I would take on responsibility in our caucus for being the critic for homelessness and mental health issues.

I was very flattered that my leader, whose concern for the less privileged of our province is well known, would ask me to take on this tremendously important responsibility. I was very flattered. I take that responsibility incredibly seriously.

One of the first things I did was write to the minister responsible for homelessness, and I asked him a simple question. It seemed to me a pretty simple question anyway. I wrote to the minister, and I said: "How many homeless people are there in British Columbia?" Seems a simple question to ask the minister who is responsible for homelessness. I need to tell you that the minister has yet to return my letter. I haven't received any response from him.

I think it's important…. One of my hobbies is to listen to the minister, and my responsibility, I guess, is to listen to the minister and watch him and follow his comments. More recently the minister has, as he's been asked more and more by the media and by residents of the province… "Yeah, you know, Minister, you actually should know. You are responsible for the area of homelessness in the province. A good idea if you know how many people there are…."

The minister's response, when he's not making up numbers of people who are homeless, is: "That's not really very important. The numbers — don't get caught up in that. It's not really very important how many homeless people there are in British Columbia."

That's what he said. He said it on Victoria radio. We've got the quotation, and we'll be reminding him of that as the weeks progress.

I think it's worthwhile for a minute to ask ourselves the question: maybe he's right? Maybe the minister's right. Maybe it isn't important to know how many homeless people live in the province of British Columbia in 2008. Maybe that's not important. I would argue, though, that the minister is wrong. It is important. It is important for us to know how many homeless people there are in our province for two reasons, at least two reasons, and the first one is this.

The first reason we need to know how many homeless people there are in the province, and the first reason the minister is wrong, is because every one of those people is a human being, and they have the right to live somewhere in this province in 2008. And unless we know how many there are, we won't know the work we have in front of us.

Every one of those people deserves the respect and the dignity to be acknowledged and noticed by their government. There's an attitude on the other side that these people are an alien species from another planet. They're not; they're us. They are us. They are our sons, our daughters, our sisters, our brothers and our neighbours. Until we understand that the homeless people of this province are us and that they deserve our respect and to be treated with dignity — and that means knowing absolutely how many homeless people there are in this province so we can commit ourselves to solving the problem — then we're in trouble.

We need to know that, and we need to know how many homeless people there are in this province. I respectfully submit that the minister is wrong again when he says it's unimportant. "Don't worry. Don't worry about the numbers. Don't bother yourself with that." He's wrong because it's his responsibility to put forward public policy that deals with the real problems we face in the province. I would submit that it's not possible for him to do that appropriately and effectively unless he knows the breadth and the depth of the problem.

When the minister either didn't know the answer and didn't respond to me when I asked him how many homeless people there are in the province…. Or he did know the answer and chose not to respond to me. One of those two things is the case. When I was faced with that situation, I decided to carry out a survey of my own because it's my responsibility. I was asked by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, whose commitment to the people in this province who are less privileged is known far and wide…. She asked me to be responsible for this area.

So through my office I decided to do a survey of homelessness in British Columbia. I made public the results of that survey and the methodology for doing that survey to the people of British Columbia through the media on November 30 of this past year. There were two results of that survey that were startling and dramatic and should give us all pause. They were these. The first result was that at a minimum, conservatively — and I'll speak to that business of conservatively in a few minutes — there were 10,580 homeless people in British Columbia, according to that survey. That is an appalling, appalling reality in the British Columbia of 2007-2008.

The second result of the survey, which is very important for all of us to know and take notice of, was that though some think the problem of homelessness in British Columbia is a Vancouver problem or a Vancouver downtown east side problem — and it is; we have a horrific situation in Vancouver and on the downtown east side of Vancouver — what the survey showed was that the problem of homelessness, the crisis of homelessness, is a British Columbia problem. In virtually every city and town across the province of British Columbia we have a dramatic issue of homelessness.

Well, why is it happening? Why is this problem of homelessness happening now? I need to take issue with my friend from across the way, because I think it's important to say…. Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition — who everybody knows is committed to dealing with the problems of the people who have been left behind in this province — has said that we're not perfect. There were mistakes that were made when we were in government.

I want to tell the member opposite that in 2001, when this party left office, we did not have the crisis of homelessness that exists on the streets of every town and city in this province that we have today. The member opposite, who gave us his statistics earlier, knows that every British Columbian with eyes can see that we face a problem of homelessness in this province that we have never seen before, at least since the Great Depression. That's on the watch of this government.

I want to say that when this government took office in 2001, there was only one province in Canada that had a social housing program — only one. It was British Columbia, and that was cancelled in 2002 by those people.

So why today do we face a crisis of homelessness like nothing we've seen in decades? Well, for one thing, the incomes of those who are less privileged in this province haven't kept up; 250,000 people earn less than $10 an hour in this province. We know — certainly, on this side, and I would hope that those on the other side know — that at $8, $9 or $10 an hour or more, for that matter, it is virtually impossible to find appropriate housing in this province. That's one reason.

The shelter allowance for single people on social assistance is $375 a month. That's $375 a month. It's impossible to find appropriate housing, if it were available, at that level. So the first problem is incomes.

There's also a tragic irony. There has been a dramatic increase in real estate prices in this province. Some people have done well, at least on paper, but the tragic irony is — and this is something that we need to think about together — that it's precisely when the value of real estate increases dramatically that homelessness increases.

Of course, in the marketplace, when the most expensive real estate increases in value, that pulls up the next level and the next level and the level of rental housing to more expensive rental housing. Those rents are pulled up. For the lowest-cost rental housing, those rents are pulled up. The people at the very bottom of the income ladder are the ones who suffer. It's a tragic irony.

One of the questions that we need to ask ourselves is: what to do? To find out and to help me understand what to do about the issue of homelessness, I've spent much of my time over the last couple of months travelling the province. I've travelled to the Island….

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for the geography lesson. We have a volunteer to be a teacher over there, which is honest work, more honest than what some do in this building.

I travelled to the Island — to Nanaimo and Courtenay and Comox — and to the Okanagan, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Trail, Nelson and Castlegar, and I spent my time talking mostly with people who are homeless. It's an extraordinary and privileged experience to speak to and learn from the people in our province who have been left behind. I'm a lucky guy to have this job and to have been given the responsibility to spend some time with the people in this province — and there are more than 10,000 of them — who are homeless. I've learned a lot from them.

For instance, I've learned from them that the strategy that this government has adopted with respect to homelessness is a strategy that doesn't deal with the problem head-on. My friend from Burnaby was speaking earlier on to some of what the government has done. We need to look at what the government has done in terms of their homelessness strategy, and we need to look at it carefully. We need to give credit where credit is due — and some little credit needs to be given — but we need to be really careful both about the strategy and about the way the numbers are used.

For instance, one of the things this government has done — one of the parts of its strategy for homelessness in this province — is purchase some low-rent hotels, mostly in Vancouver but also in a couple of other centres around the province. I've been asked many times as the critic for homelessness what I think about that.

My response is always the same: it's a pretty good idea. It's a pretty good idea to purchase those SROs, as they're called, single-room-occupancy hotels. The reason it's a good idea is because it protects some small part of the existing stock of low-rent units in the province. But it does absolutely nothing — zero — to deal with the more than 10,000 people who are homeless because, of course, it's just protecting what's already there. People live there already. Is it a good idea? Yes. Does it deal with homelessness? No.

So that's part of their strategy. The member opposite used the numbers when he talked about units of housing dealing with homelessness. He adds those in and so does the minister, and it's inappropriate and incorrect to do that. Is it a good thing? As critic I've said yes. Give credit where credit is due. Does it deal with homelessness? No.

A second part of the strategy of the government with respect to homelessness has to do with rental subsidies. I've been asked as the critic what I think about rent subsidies. Not a bad tool to use to deal with homelessness problems in some circumstances. If there is a stock of rental units available, if we don't have a 0.1 or a 0.5 vacancy level, it can be a useful tool.

But in the context of a hot real estate market, where there's a 0.1 percent or 0.5 percent or a 1 percent vacancy level, it's a gift to landlords. That's all it is. You

provide the rental subsidies, and the landlords raise the rents. I've been asked about it. I've given credit where credit is due. Not a bad tool. Not in this market.

A third strategy of the government is to provide funding for outreach workers. I've been asked about it as the critic. What do I say? I say it's a pretty good idea. Outreach workers can deal with people on an individual level. They can find out their needs, and they can find out the services that are necessary. They may have contact with units that are available, and they can put them together.

But at the end of the day you need housing. You can have the best outreach workers in the world…. They are fantastic, and they do fantastic work in this province, and I've met with many of them over the last couple of months. They're working as hard as they can. Do you know what they say to me? They say: "We're working as hard as we can, but we need places to put people. People need places to live."

At the end of the day, outreach workers…. I've been asked as a critic: "Is it a good idea?" Yep, it's a pretty good idea. You need housing. There are homeless people.

The final part of this strategy that we need to talk about, and my friend opposite brought attention to this one, is emergency shelters, where people go temporarily to stay when they have nowhere else to live. I've been asked as the critic: "What about emergency shelters? The government is opening some of them 24 hours a day and expanding some of them. What do you think about that?" I say: "Emergency shelters? Good idea. We have an emergency."

We have an emergency. Is it housing? Absolutely not. Is it a home? Absolutely not. Is it a strategy for dealing with homelessness? Absolutely not. Do we need it? Do we need emergency shelters? You're darned right we need emergency shelters, because they've created an emergency.

Last week I was in Cranbrook at the Salvation Army, sitting and talking to a group of homeless people, wonderful people who made us feel at home. Again, I'm a lucky guy to have this job, to be able to have spoken with those people.

I asked one of the fellows — a very interesting guy, a bright guy; he's not somebody else; he's us: "How are things in Cranbrook with respect to homelessness? How's it going?" The guy has lived in the Kootenays his whole life, and he said: "You know, things are a little bit better in Cranbrook this last year."

"Well, why?" I said. He said: "Well, they've opened an emergency shelter." They've opened an emergency shelter — 12 beds. I visited that shelter and talked with some of the people and the service providers there, who are working very, very hard to do their best for those people.

He said: "So that's a good thing. It's better than it was. There's an emergency shelter." He said: "The Salvation Army has put in laundry facilities and showers. So that's better than it was." That's better than it was. Then he turned and said: "But that's not a home; that's not a home."

I said to him: "What's a home?" He said to me: "Well, a home is where you have a room to live, and you have kitchen facilities, and you have a washroom, and you have some privacy. Somebody doesn't kick you out at seven or eight o'clock in the morning and let you come back in at 6:30. You decide for yourself where you want to go and what you want to do."

Madam Speaker, I submit to you that that man in Cranbrook knows more about the solution to homelessness in this province than does the minister responsible for homelessness or the Premier or this government. He understands what needs to be done, and we need to listen to him.

D. Chudnovsky: He probably wouldn't give $200 million to the banks. You're right.

Well, here's the good news. The good news is that the people of this province are miles ahead of this government when it comes to the problem of homelessness. You don't have to get very far into the conversation with people. Walk out onto the streets outside of the Legislature or in my constituency in Vancouver-Kensington or in the Kootenays, where I was last week, and you say to the first person whom you meet: "Do you think we have a crisis of homelessness in British Columbia?"

That person's going to tell you: "Yes." That person is going to say: "Yes, we do have a crisis of homelessness in British Columbia." They're way ahead of this government, which throws statistics at us and tries to tell us that things are okay, when the people of the province only have to open their eyes and know that we have a crisis of homelessness in this province.

The good news is that the people of the province are way ahead of the government on this one, and they're pushing the government and demanding of the government that they do something about the problem.

That's why, frankly, we have announcement after announcement about the same few paltry dollars that are going to the homeless folks of this province. That's why this government pretends that they are taking the lead on homelessness. But the people of the province are very, very clear. They only have to open their eyes. They only have to go for a walk in their neighbourhoods. Whether those neighbourhoods are in the big cities or the small towns, they know that the crisis of homelessness is here and that something has to happen.

The second piece of good news is that there's money. The resources are available to do the job. The resources are there; we're throwing it away. We're giving it to the banks. We're giving it away to the banks.

Those guys are in big trouble. It's in the headlines every day. "Banks in debt, not making any profit" — right? No, wrong. The banks are making billions of dollars in profits.

We don't need to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for them and for the wealthiest people of the province and for the big corporations. We

don't need to provide gifts to the corporate friends of this government. We need to take those resources and provide them and put them to work providing the homes. We're talking about homes for people who have nowhere to live.

Madam Speaker, I'm almost done. I want to say this. There are some problems that are difficult to deal with. There are some problems that we don't know how to solve. For instance, finding a cure for AIDS. That's going to take us decades. We will work together to find that cure, but it's really hard to do.

The solution to homelessness in British Columbia? Not complicated. You need homes? You need to build some homes. Some 10,500 people are homeless in British Columbia. That's the population of Williams Lake. If tomorrow the people of Williams Lake had a catastrophe, if there was a flood or a fire and every one of them lost their homes, we as a people, as British Columbians who are caring and decent people, would get together and find homes for those people. We'd build homes for those people. We'd solve their problem.

Today in British Columbia that's the crisis we have. More than the population of Williams Lake are homeless today in British Columbia. It's time for that government to take it seriously, to roll up their sleeves and to find a solution for those people.

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure for me to stand up here today. There's so much that's been said in the House in the last few minutes that I want to respond to.

But first…. I did thank my staff, and I do appreciate all the work that they do for me in my riding and over here in Victoria. I would also now like to thank my family — my wife Anita, my daughters Katie and Candice, and my son Jeremy and his wife Jen — for all the support that they give me.

On a personal note, my son and daughter-in-law are going to have a grandchild for Anita and me this April. I'm looking forward to that. Because I got on later in the day…. My dad, who is a faithful watcher of the Legislature all day and tells me about it when we get together on weekends, is having dinner right now. But I wanted to say hello to my dad, who's 94 years of age.

You know, my dad still has it all together too. He can tell me stories. He can't read as well as he once did, but he can sure tell me stories. He has a number of stories to say about the comments around the Legislature.

Earlier the member for Burnaby-Willingdon mentioned some of the work that was done by a former NDP Health Minister, Penny Priddy. I don't think it was very complimentary. But I believe Penny Priddy is the architect of destruction of the health care system in British Columbia. It's taken us seven years to start to put the health care ministry back in good shape.

Now we have the member for Vancouver-Kensington. He was going on and on about how we did surveys and how we're doing things. And oops. Sorry, that must have been a pothole I went through. I didn't know where the member was coming from because he did such a scientific survey of driving through the province, he said. What did he count — 400 potholes out of millions of miles or kilometres in British Columbia? I'm just not sure where he was going and what sort of science he had it based on.

There was a province called British Columbia that at the start of the '90s was in first place in economics. By the end of the '90s it was in last place. Now we have the member for Vancouver-Kensington talking about homelessness and saying that we've just come, given a paltry sum of $104 million….

He talked about how he had been visiting, in the last little while, different facilities around the province. I wonder: is he only doing that because he was given that job? I've been to all these facilities in my riding. I sit down and talk with people that are having hard times, that are living on the street. All the members are out there. But is this member only doing it because he was appointed to that position?

Balanced Budget 2008 is just another example of how our government is consulting with British Columbians and presenting a wide range of new measures to address climate change, promote greener choices and encourage economic investment, which will allow British Columbia to meet the challenges of the future and create a better future for generations to come.

Budget 2008 adds new momentum to the government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also includes a series of new initiatives to keep our economy strong and growing and makes new investments in key public priorities such as health care and education. To help reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020, Budget 2008 includes a revenue-neutral carbon tax which provides $440 million for a one-time climate change dividend and over $1 billion for a broad range of climate action programs and tax incentives. You heard that in the budget. It's $100 per person and child in this province.

I stand up, and I'm supporting the budget. I'm supporting the hundred dollars per person. But the NDP in the supplementary budget…. They stood there, and they spoke and spoke and spent an afternoon speaking against the dividends and the supplementary budget. But who knows where the NDP stands? Because when we called division, they all stood up and supported it. So do they support it, or don't they support it? Which word do we have to listen to?

It goes on and on. There are many examples of how they continue to talk against things and then take it all. They're lining right up there. I support jobs. The NDP is against supporting jobs.

Our province will invest $187 million in municipal infrastructure over the next three years and $40 million to strengthen economic and cultural links between British Columbia and Asia-Pacific nations through expanded trade missions, business networks and marketing.

Our Ministry of Economic Development is working on a plan for twinning cities — sister city relationships — from around the world so British Columbians can get the exposure and help their industries and their communities do business worldwide, because in the business world today there are no borders.

You know, a number of years ago in British Columbia it was easier to go south and do business in Washington State, Oregon or Idaho than in Alberta. We're starting to remove those barriers so British Columbians can work together, so communities can work and expand their business around the world.

Budget 2008 supports $493 million over three years in post-secondary funding above the $207,000 base budget level. By 2011 provincial funding for the Ministry of Advanced Education will have increased by 30 percent over 2004-05 funding. This will have an impact on all regions of the province.

I'm proud to be able to work with the Minister of Advanced Education. I'm proud that I have the greatest university in British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, in the riding of Burquitlam. We know that education is the future of the country, and we are investing in it. The NDP are against it and vote against it.

Budget 2008 provides $8 million over three years for coastal ferries to meet continuing funding pressures. This will mean that current service levels will be maintained on unregulated routes. And the social program subsidies for seniors, students and people with disabilities will continue.

Budget 2008 provides $105 million over four years for arts and culture initiatives, including $9 million for the revitalization of the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. The BC150 cultural fund is a new $150 million permanent endowment fund that will generate $8 million more each and every year to arts groups around the province. All I can say is: wow.

I know that when I sat on the Select Standing Committee on Finance, the cultural groups came all the time to every presentation we made. They usually brought out many members with them, and they were heard.

Between 2008-09 and 2010-11 the updated transportation plan will provide $2.3 billion in direct provincial investments in transportation infrastructure, plus $700 million more in investment leveraged through federal cost-sharing partnerships with private partners, local government and other agencies. This includes $438 million in provincial funding for the Gateway program, including three key projects: the North Fraser perimeter road, the South Fraser perimeter road and the widening of the Port Mann/Highway 1 project.

I hope that some of the members in this House that are close to the freeway — you know, that represent Coquitlam-Maillardville, Burnaby-Edmonds and other members — will come to realize what it means for this transportation infrastructure to keep British Columbia moving forward, to keep individual British Columbians moving forward and to keep the industry and the transportation industry moving.

It's already known that the NDP is against economic development initiatives, but this is also showing where they stand on climate change. Transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic congestion compounds the problem. Twinning the Port Mann will ease traffic congestion and allow public transit to function properly.

The Evergreen line is coming. We've committed the money. We have a new system in place to allow the money to come. The federal government will be coming to the table.

There are a few points on transportation that I would like to mention. Our transportation plan addresses congestion, improves the movement of people and goods in and through the region, improves access to key economic gateways, improves safety and reliability, improves the regional road network, improves quality of life, reduces vehicle emissions, facilitates better connections to buses, SkyTrain, cycling and pedestrian networks.

Wow, that's pretty impressive. I can tell you, I'm for that, and the NDP are against that.

Interchange improvements along the corridors, including, in Burnaby, a new overpass at Wayburne Way. I'm for it; the NDP are against it. Barrier-separated auxiliary lanes. I'm for it; the NDP are against it. Commercial vehicle priority measures. I'm for it; the NDP are against it. Burnaby road network. I'm for it; the NDP are against it. They have to get in tune with what's happening today.

As well, our Minister of Transportation has the biggest-ever dollar investment in cycling improvements in the history of British Columbia — over $50 million going into it.

We're asked many questions. But I can tell you, through our Ministry of Transportation…. Our minister will continue to meet the province's transportation needs by looking to the future and planning for growth. Without an ambitious transportation infrastructure plan, our current transportation will grind to a halt, and it's been proven.

Our plan includes many elements of LRSP in the extension of HOV lanes, transit priority lanes and queue jumpers. The Port Mann Bridge will bring many benefits to the transportation plan, moving people from the downtown core out to the municipalities.

Budget 2008 provides a $144 million increase in funding for K-to-12 education, on top of the $648 million increases allocated in previous budgets, for a total of $792 million. Over the fiscal plan the K-to-12 budget increases by an average of 2 percent a year, while our student population continues to decline by 1 percent a year.

Health care funding will rise by $2.9 billion over the next three years, representing about two-thirds of all new spending over that period. That is in addition to the $2 billion increased funding allocated in previous budgets.

Major health capital projects: construction of a new ambulatory care facility in Surrey, Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre, and provincewide e-initiatives.

Over the next three years the province will spend $438 million to strengthen social services, including $104 million to reduce homelessness. I spoke of it earlier. I don't consider $104 million a paltry sum. It's a sum that will allow our government to do meaningful work to help those people in need.

One of the reasons I originally ran was because of the despair that was in British Columbia, where people

couldn't help themselves. I'm proud to be part of a government that has brought in a tax structure that's created more employment than ever in the history of British Columbia. Bringing jobs here every day, helping people — that's what we're going to continue to do.

An important component of this year's budget is the carbon tax. On July 1, 2008, subject to approval in the Legislature, British Columbia will begin to phase in a fully revenue-neutral carbon tax with built-in protection for lower-income earners. The carbon tax starts at a rate of $10 per tonne of associated carbon.

The purpose of the carbon tax is to encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices, reducing their use of fossil fuels and related emissions. All revenue generated by the carbon tax will be returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. The carbon tax is forecasted to generate about $1.8 billion over three years, and the money will be returned. We've already started with a reduction in income taxes.

Some people say to me: "Well, you know, we really don't understand what the carbon tax is about. How can you take it out of one pocket and give it back to us?" Well, we're giving more of it back to you. For some of the people and the NDP, we'll explain.

To help people and individuals out there, if 2¼ cents doesn't work added to your fuels, how about five cents? And if that doesn't work, how about ten cents? It's about a method. When all the homes get smart metering for hydro, they'll be able to see how they use their energy and their fuels, and they'll be able to save money by using it at off-peak hours.

You know, the Balanced Budget 2008 provides an additional $1 billion over four years for operating and capital expenditures, for tax incentives to encourage environmentally responsible choices, to implement new regulatory requirements, to undertake cutting-edge research and to make needed low-carbon investments.

New climate change initiatives include — just so everybody knows where this money is going: $98 million for the new LiveSmart B.C. efficiency incentive program and other incentives to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy efficient choices for their homes, businesses and vehicles; $370 million for capital and operating expenses to improve and expand public transportation in British Columbia; $33 million for transportation initiatives to reduce gas emissions from commercial trucks and shipping traffic at B.C. ports and a technology to reduce idling at truck stop and weigh scale locations.

There's $130 million in capital and operating expenses for a carbon-neutral public sector by 2010, including energy-efficient retrofits for public buildings, establishing the Pacific carbon trust and the use of desktop video conferencing technology and new procurement procedures; $9 million for key emissions from the 2007 throne speech; $57 million for bioenergy and alternative energy solutions; $98 million for climate change research through the endowment; $111 million, including $62 million for contingencies, to develop additional climate change solutions.

There's $31 million to support the innovation of the pulp and paper industry to further reduce their carbon footprint; $49 million to improve B.C.'s ability to adapt to climate change implications; and $15 million over three years to increase the equity tax credit budget. You know, the list goes on and on about what we're doing.

We didn't talk about the carbon tax. We're actually going to make it happen. We're getting kudos from sources that would never have spoken to us before, and more and more people are coming on.

I've never had so many calls in to my office and people calling me. They like the budget. Sure, some businesses didn't like to spend the extra money, but they understand what we're doing for British Columbia. They like the budget.

Where does the NDP stand? Are they going to continue to talk against it and stand up? Nobody knows. What a big question mark they have over there in their leadership.

An important component…. New tax relief for individuals. This budget recognizes that British Columbia families that work hard and pay their taxes deserve a break. Reductions in the bottom to personal income tax for all British Columbians, resulting in a tax cut of 2 percent in 2008 and 5 percent in 2009 on the first $70,000 in earnings, with further reductions expected in 2010. That's $784 million over three years.

This tax cut builds on previous tax cuts introduced: a 25 percent tax cut in 2001, the B.C. tax reduction in 2005 and a 10 percent tax cut, introduced in Budget 2007, on the first $100,000 in income. Because of the tax cuts since 2001, a quarter of a million British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax. That's 250,000 individuals in British Columbia who do not pay any provincial income tax. I call that progress. I call that moving forward. I call that working for families in British Columbia by putting more dollars in their pockets.

By 2009 British Columbians will pay the lowest personal income tax in all of Canada for individuals earning up to $111,000. This government is committed to supporting families in British Columbia by putting money back in their pockets.

Effective July 1, 2008, the general corporate income tax will be reduced to 11 percent from 12 percent, with further reductions planned, to 10 percent, by 2011. This will make B.C. on par with the lowest corporate tax rates in the country. Effective July 1, 2008, the small business tax will be reduced to 3½ percent from 4½ percent, with further reductions planned, to 2½ percent, by 2011. This is a saving of $255 million. This is a saving for small businesses in British Columbia that will invest this money back into their business and will hire more employees. This is a positive move forward, another step for families in British Columbia.

Health care. I'm honoured that I've been able to do a lot of work with the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health — and for his vision on where to go in British Columbia and for his Conversation on Health.

We didn't do it in a vacuum. We went out and spoke with people in British Columbia. We spoke with citizens all across British Columbia. We listened, we came back, and we made a number of announcements in our throne speech. The throne speech we did was the best throne speech that we ever have, with all the Ministry of Health improvements in there.

It was my honour to work with the member for Vancouver-Burrard on a number of issues with the Association of International Medical Doctors — foreign-trained doctors. Over the last three or four years we've met with them on a regular basis and have been able to bring their causes forward. Foreign-trained doctors now will be able to practise their specialty in British Columbia without being restricted by a restrictive, elitist college of physicians, our Royal College of Physicians.

A Canadian who goes abroad and spends his own money at one of the many — 20 to 30 — universities around the world, where they graduate as a medical doctor and come back to Canada…. We wouldn't let them practise here; now they will be able to practise here. If you were licensed anywhere in Canada as a medical doctor, you will now be able to practise in British Columbia.

We've expanded the scope of practice for paramedics, for nurses, for pharmacists. We're making better use of the people that we have in the system so that they can fulfil it.

Our government will devote nearly two-thirds of all new spending to health care over the next few years. Budget 2008 provides an additional $2.9 billion for enhancing health care, on top of the $2 billion increases announced in previous budgets. That's an investment of almost $5 billion of new funding in the next three years. In addition, $543 million in capital spending over four years is provided for major health care facilities expansion in Victoria, Kelowna, Vernon and Fort St. John.

Budget 2008 also builds on B.C.'s growing reputation as a centre of excellence in health care research, with new investments, including $30 million to the Terry Fox research centre, $25 million for the Brain Research Centre, $15 million for the Li Ka Shing Foundation for cancer research and $10 million to advance musculoskeletal research in areas such as hip health.

I'm going to be voting for this budget. I support it 100 percent. I've been encouraged to support it by my constituents from the riding of Burquitlam. I know where I'm standing. I'm standing up and saying what I believe in, and I'm going to support it. I don't know where the NDP stands. They stand up and say one thing, and they vote another way — a lack of leadership.

Now we have education. Budget 2008 continues government's commitment to put students first when it comes to education funding, and per-student funding will increase in each of the next three years. Again, each year it's at the highest level ever.

Budget 2008 commits $144 million over three years for increased funding for K-to-12. Budget 2008 increases our investment in the StrongStart early learning program. I'm proud to say that I was at the opening of the first one. We have a number of them in my riding. We have them at Roy Stibbs School. We're going to continue to open these. We're going to add another 84 or a hundred schools this year and a total of 400 in the next two years.

Skills and training. How are we doing? I think we're doing pretty good. The province is expanding access to post-secondary education institutions, boosting support for research and increasing opportunities for skills training. Budget 2008 reconfirms government's commitment to increased access to post-secondary education and training to ensure that British Columbians continue to build a skilled and knowledgable workforce that will position and meet the current and future labour market needs.

Budget 2008 supports $493 million for post-secondary education over the next three years. The Ministry of Advanced Education will have risen by $549 million in funding since 2004, an increase of 30 percent. Budget 2008 provides $12 million over the next four years for initiatives to attract a skilled and knowledgable workforce.

There is lots of work our government is doing. In fact, right now we're running with an aggressive marketing plan in Ontario and Quebec to bring people out to beautiful British Columbia, the best place on earth.

We have a plan. We're working to support industry. Because every person that comes to British Columbia…. Every person has a job in British Columbia, and when they have a job they feel good about themselves. They feel good about the society and the community that they live in, and they give back to the community.

We talk about skills and training. When we came into government in 2001, I was having parents come to me saying, "My child can't get into university," because the rates were going up and the percentages to get into university were getting so high for admittance. That's because they had choked and strangled — that's the NDP I'm talking about — the advanced educational system in British Columbia to a point where it was on its knees.

It couldn't take any more students because they had frozen tuition. They weren't giving it any additional money. It was in terrible shape. These families that wanted their children to go to school in British Columbia were being forced to go to other places, because the universities had no room.

We made a commitment of 25,000 new seats at the university level. But we didn't just make the commitment to allow 25,000 more students to come in. We actually built the buildings so they had the seats to put them in. We allowed the tuition freeze to be lifted so that they were paying competitive rates. We have more students now. The average percentage has been reduced in British Columbia so that more children have an opportunity to go to school in B.C.

In fact, we made a promise that if you got a 75 percent average, you would get accepted into a college or a university, and we would have space for you. To me,

that's meaningful. To me, that's the family that's affected right in their home and the neighbourhood where they live, where they want to keep their families close at hand. They don't want to lose their children to faraway places.

I was lucky. My daughter wanted to go to Toronto. Then she got accepted at the University of Victoria, and I got elected. So for me, that was a real bonus to have her here.

We're expanding upon the provincial nominee program to attract more skilled workers and entrepreneurs to British Columbia. We're going to enhance the skills connect for immigrants and the international qualifications program to connect skilled immigrants with employment opportunities.

Supports for British Columbians in need. Budget 2008 commits $438 million over four years on programs and services to strengthen social services. This funding will support persons with developmental disabilities, children and youth at risk and with special needs; will strengthen aboriginal child and family services; and will enhance services to victims of crime and trauma. This funding will also establish a provincial 211 service to offer one-stop access to a wide range of community and service programs.

The 2008 budget is part of the government's commitment to strengthen social services. We're providing $23 million over three years for a positive aging B.C. action plan, and we'll provide a framework over the next decade.

Housing. We're working on housing. I'm concerned about public safety for my constituents. Families deserve to live in a safe community, and this government is taking steps to make it a reality. One of the steps we've taken is that all of the traffic fines that have been given to citizens for many varied reasons now go back to the individual municipality.

To solve lots of problems that may exist there, it takes a group of people to do it. It's only one taxpayer and three levels of government. We're allowing the municipalities to have more money so that they can step up to the plate.

Madam Speaker, my time has come to an end. I want to say how proud I am to be part of this government and the actions that they've taken over the years. I'm proud that I've been able to be part of it, to see the growth in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I rise to respond to the budget. The previous speaker, the member for Burquitlam…. It's quite good to be responding after he was speaking, because he was really only coherent in his arguments when he was reading the script that the public affairs bureau had written for him. I'm very grateful to the public affairs bureau, because it made the last half-hour a little less painful.

Clearly, he has no understanding of what the budget is about, from some of his comments, nor does he have any understanding of the role of the opposition. He asks what we're going to do. Well, we're the opposition. We oppose. This is one of our jobs.

I think also it's very interesting that in this budget, which has been billed by the government as a green budget and is being portrayed by the government and by environmentalists and by many people in different communities as a very green budget…. The previous member, the member for Burquitlam, just said there's an important component: the carbon tax.

I think that most people in British Columbia — and in fact, from what we're reading, across the country and through North America — say that that's not just an important component; it's an essential component and a very brave component. I think we can't ignore the fact that there is a carbon tax and that this is a huge step for British Columbia and British Columbians.

I think we will be opposing the budget, because while we support a carbon tax and have advocated for a carbon tax for a long while ourselves, we are very concerned about many, many aspects of this budget.

One of the things that we keep hearing is the argument of choice. This budget gives people choice. It gives individuals choice. It's one of the principles of the government. I raised this when I had the privilege to respond to the throne speech on behalf of my constituents. But when we talk about choice and talk about individuals having choice, we have to be very careful. We have to give them a true choice, not just a choice that is derived by the fact that nothing is being provided to them, a choice that derives to how much money they have.

Sadly, under this government's budget, under this government's philosophy and under this government's principles that is the choice that we're seeing — a choice, when we're talking about choice in health care, that really reflects on privatization of our health care.

A choice equally in schools. We see more funding, more public money going into private schools. A choice that leaves people still struggling on an $8-an-hour minimum wage — no increase in the minimum wage — and a choice which leaves one in four children living in poverty.

The other side of the House, the government side, keeps laughing at us because we keep raising this, but this is an indictment. For the fourth year running, British Columbia, one of the wealthiest provinces in the country, has one in four families — it's not one in four children — living in poverty.

The choice of this government is…. For communities, it ends with downloading. The choice is that municipal governments have no choice. They are stuck with downloading, with no ability to make decisions because they have just had everything downloaded upon them.

The choice of this government in this budget is very clear. We can quite clearly see where this choice has gone. Choice has gone into the banks. Choice has gone into having more than $200 million going to the banks. And choice in this green budget that has brought us the first carbon tax in North America — which is an impressive statement to make, to stand here and respond to a budget that has brought in the first carbon tax in North America — has also brought in more than $300

million in subsidies for the oil and gas industry. More than $300 million in subsidies for oil and gas.

Is it only on this side of the House that we see the absurdity of this, the absurdity that what is supposed to be a green budget, an environmental budget — a budget that has brought in the first carbon tax in North America — sees more than $300 million of subsidies going to the oil and gas sector? It's sad.

It's more than sad. It's really tragic that the opportunities that have been created are being squandered, that we see money being raised to pay for the carbon we use. This is a huge principle, and it's a principle that we embrace. We embrace the fact that we have to be responsible. We are using carbon. We know that climate change is an issue not just for us but for future generations.

It's not just the government that knows this; we all know this. We know this in the opposition. We know this across the province. I hope that in most places in the world we know that our carbon use is having a devastating impact on the world.

What does this government do? It gives subsidies to oil and gas. Instead of putting the benefit it is creating in raising revenue by actually putting a cost on the carbon, by giving us a tax that we are responsible for paying for our carbon use as individuals, as corporations…. Instead of using that money to invest in serious retrofitting, to invest in energy alternatives, to make serious investments in things that will change our way of life and things that will move our way of life forward, we see that we all get $100 back.

C. Trevena: What is this about? What a waste of an opportunity — $100, which could be $440 million in green initiatives.

C. Trevena: Instead, the Minister of Finance says that we get a choice. We get our $100 each, individually, a choice to buy services. I think this reflected very clearly the principles of this government and the principles we've seen since 2001 — the principles that are, sadly, devastating what is a rich and fabulous province.

I will quote from the government's green plan. As a socialist, I will quote from it, and I will question it. "None of the revenue will be used to fund government programs. As part of the revenue-recycling" — revenue-recycling? — "a refundable tax credit will help offset the tax for low-income individuals and families." None of the revenue will be used to fund government programs.

I would like someone to connect the dots here for me. One of the purposes of a government is to provide services for its people. Yet if government is raising money and not putting it into programs, what's the point? What is the point? Revenue-recycling. This has got nothing to do with the reality of what revenue neutrality is. What we're talking about here is simply taking a tax and wasting it — making a carbon tax pay for a tax cut for people.

This is so absurd when we could be putting money into health care, into the environment, into real alternatives. Putting money into where it's needed. Putting money in to deal with the disgusting fact that one in four children is living in poverty.

Members on the government bench, I have cautioned you already. I remind you once again that each member of this House deserves the right to be heard.

C. Trevena: I talked about this in my response to the throne speech on behalf of my constituents. I believe that the role of a government is more than just sitting in the Legislature talking. The role of a government is partly to provide services and to provide part of the structure for a civil society. A government that does not fund programs through a tax system is eroding that very civil society. It is allowing that society to crumble.

Government is supposed to invest in public dollars for public health care. It's supposed to invest in our infrastructure — in our roads, in our ferries, in our public power systems. This is what a government is supposed to do with our tax dollars. I think it's very, very sad that this government had the opportunity to say: "We are doing something truly revolutionary here, and we're going to make it happen." This government did not do that.

This government just wasted that opportunity, wasted the opportunity to do something good for the society which it's supposed to be governing and wasted the opportunity of doing something good for the environment.

Our system of government and our system of raising money and our system of funding programs is something that has evolved over many, many decades — the system of taxation, the system of progressive taxation. We can see changes. There are ways to change this, and introducing a carbon tax is one way to change it. Other ways of changing it are to start introducing things like tax-shifting, to give alternatives, to say that we are not just taking from you here and giving you the tax rebate but saying that we're going to be taxing in a different way. We are going to be shifting our priorities. This government hasn't done that.

Tax-shifting allows you to invest, which reflects your values. It allows you to invest in priorities for a

truly sustainable future. We could be looking at ways of having strategies for adaptation — using this money for that. Instead, it's being squandered.

This is purportedly a green budget. As I've mentioned, there are revolutionary parts in it, but they are very sadly wasted revolutionary parts. It isn't looking at a truly inclusive future, and it is neither visionary, nor is it really functional. It is not offering an alternative view. It's saying: "We're going to take money from you here, and we're going to give you a tax cut." That is not really an alternative view that we could be having. We could be using this opportunity.

We on this side of the House do have alternatives. We do have a vision. Our job is to oppose, but our job is also to provide people with a really good opposition and a really good choice. And I believe we are offering that choice.

We have a vision that does include a gas tax. It most certainly does, but our vision is much bigger. Our vision is for a truly sustainable B.C. We have the opportunity, and our party, our side of the House, has endorsed a truly sustainable vision for B.C. Our vision includes a healthy ecosystem through personal actions and through corporate actions which really will reduce our impact on the planet.

Our vision includes a diversified economy, a healthy economy which serves the needs of people and the needs of communities, not just the needs of corporations. Our vision — this is where we do very much differ, but it is a vision for us — is a vision of equity. Our vision of a sustainable B.C. is a vision of equity where our wealth — our resource wealth, our financial wealth, the wealth of our people — is shared justly and with compassion.

Our vision, as the NDP, is one of individual and community well-being which is built on mutual respect, on cooperation and on democracy. We believe that we can all share in the benefits and that we can share in the enjoyments of our wealth. That's our vision. Our vision is of a sustainable B.C. where taxes raised through progressive taxation, taxes raised through tax-shifting, taxes raised and moneys raised are spent on the public good, on society's good, on our planet's good so that we can make a difference, so that we all — all our communities — have a future.

I think the saddest thing about this budget, which, as the opposition, we will be voting against…. It's so sad to have to vote against the first carbon tax in North America. We will be voting against it because this government does not have that vision. This government is moribund. This government is completely moribund.

This budget offers very little for people in my community, offers very little for rural B.C. It doesn't see an investment in an infrastructure. It doesn't see an investment in the communities. It doesn't see an investment in our highways, our ferry system, hardly any money in there for education, for rural communities, for health care. I find it an exceedingly, exceedingly disappointing budget.

I've said before that this was a wasted opportunity. It is also a wasted opportunity in another aspect. There is money going in certain directions, but one of the areas where it says very clearly there is no provincial money…. I think the member opposite, the Minister of State for Childcare, will agree with me that one of the most disillusioning parts of this budget is that there is no money for child care. There is absolutely no money for child care.

The budget actually says that there will be an increase in child care space and subsidies — federal funding. There is no provincial money for one of the crises in our communities, when we have the opportunity to create a publicly funded community child care system. We've got a massive surplus. We are creating a carbon tax. We are finding ways of raising money. We can put money into the oil and gas industry. We can give money to the banks, but we can't put a cent towards child care — not a cent towards child care.

It's very troubling that when we do see that it is just federal funding…. We saw the budget yesterday from the federal government. There is no money for child care in that. There was, of course, the $100 that every individual got with that.

I listened to the Minister of State for Childcare's response to the budget. She clearly does care about child care but is dealt a very hard card in the fact that there is no money for child care. She had to quote in her speech about the budget that there is money in the 2007-2008 budget for government-funded licensed providers.

As I understand it, we are looking here at the 2008-2009 budget rather than the 2007-2008 budget, so that was talking about this current fiscal year that we're in, not the next year. Again, there have been mentions of the benefits of money coming from the federal government — $12.5 million, and so on. Again, this is money that has come this last year, not in this year's budget.

I think the people who are providing child care and people working in child care are extremely, extremely disappointed in the fact that there is nothing here, particularly when we have a huge issue of recruitment and retention. People could be working in child care, providing spaces, if there was the money, if there was the current funding for child care workers and if there was the money there so that people could stay in the job.

I know the minister has launched a way of trying to re-recruit people who left the field. It's great to have incentives to get people back into the field. It's great to have incentives, to get students help to have their loans paid off so that they can get back in the field. But it's not enough, because when they get to work, they find that they can't afford to look after their own children. They can't really make sure that they are getting a living wage.

I think there are a few other problems that were referred to when the minister of state was referring to the budget and talking about how beneficial her government is for child care. I know she has to make it sound as good as possible, but she mentions about child care resource and referral centres having an annual expenditure of $9 million. This was actually a cut from the previous year. We had this whole issue last year that the money was cut, and it was never fully

refunded. That $9 million refers to a cut in the amount that is there for child care resource and referral centres.

I've got to also say that there is a huge emphasis going into early childhood education through StrongStarts and the potential for all-day kindergarten. What I think we all have to recognize in this is that StrongStarts, good though they may be and helpful for some families though they may be, are not child care. They are not child care. They're there for parents or child care providers who can come in on a drop-in basis and have services — great help for certain people — but they aren't child care.

Child care is a longer-term situation. It's there for families who have to go to work. Child care is there for families, that bridging gap between the end of school and the parents getting home from work. Child care is not just a drop-in; child care is longer.

The idea was also raised in the throne speech — and again, there's funding for it in the budget — of all-day kindergarten. Well, maybe that's going to be all right for five-year-olds, but we've still got the issue of what happens when the children finish school at the end of the day. We've still got the issue of what age it is appropriate for children to go for all-day kindergarten.

I am very relieved to see that the minister of state does says that these options in all-day kindergarten that may come for four- or three-year-olds will be play-based, because that is very important in early childhood development. But we also have to look at where this is going to take place. Is it going to take place in the school buildings? If so, how are they going to be adapted for three-year-olds? A school classroom isn't necessarily the right place for a three-year-old.

I also have to raise a point with the minister of state when she's talking about full-day kindergarten and the examples of other jurisdictions. I know Ontario's looking into it, and I know we have it in other areas. It's very good. We have to examine other jurisdictions when we look at this. She quotes England, in the United Kingdom, as having full-day kindergarten.

I'd like to let the minister know that it's very interesting. In England, obviously, the way that child care operates is different. The way it's administered through local authorities is different than the way we have here, because they actually have a child care system. We don't really have a child care system in the same way there is in England. The minister of state says she's looking at England, and I think it's something that we might want to examine.

In England, as another jurisdiction, their local authorities that administer child care have a duty under the Childcare Act to secure sufficient child care for all the families who need it. That's what, sadly, is missing from this government's approach. There isn't sufficient child care, and nobody has a duty to ensure that there is.

If we did have a duty to ensure there was sufficient child care, if somebody took the responsibility to ensure there was sufficient child care, I think we'd be in a much healthier position as a society and as a province. We'd have a lot more people being able to get back into the workforce, a lot more people being able to be active participants in their communities and a lot healthier way of living. Sadly, we don't have anyone taking the responsibility, and partly it's because there is no money for it. There is no money for it, and it says quite clearly in the budget: no dollars for child care, nothing for child care.

We have had research which shows that in Canada, if we had a universal child care system — which I would like to see as community-based and publicly funded — approximately 50 percent of all children under six would use a full-time space, and 50 percent would use a part-time space. Half the children would use child care. It's an extraordinary number, Madam Speaker. It would have an extraordinary impact on our communities and on our economic well-being.

For mothers with children under six in the workforce, the number actually working is estimated from about 70 percent to 75 percent. Yet in some areas there are only child care spaces for 48 percent of children under 12 or for 16 percent of children under three or four. When three-quarters of the mothers are working, only 16 percent can find child care spaces.

This leaves mothers or fathers — it's usually mothers — dealing with trying to cobble together some sort of unregulated neighbours, friends, childminders to look after the children. This isn't a healthy way to work. This is not healthy for our communities; it's not healthy for our society. And on the very basic message which I'm sure the members opposite could understand, it certainly isn't healthy for our economy.

I would hope that the members opposite have read the B.C. Chamber of Commerce 2007-2008 Policy and Position Manual. I have talked about this earlier in other speeches. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce are friends of the government, I'm sure. I'm sure they talk to them a lot. We talk to our chambers of commerce locally, but I'm sure the B.C. Chamber of Commerce talks to the Minister of Finance and to other members of the government quite regularly.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce says: "A comprehensive strategic plan for the child care system in B.C. is critical to our ability to find the workers essential to our ability to stay competitive in today's global economy."

It's as simple as that. They're not talking about reducing taxes or giving people a hundred bucks to put in their back pockets. They're saying we need a child care system.

They also go on to say: "B.C. has chosen not to prioritize child care. The cost of this decision is having an enormous negative impact on the ability of B.C. businesses to attract women, young families and skilled workers in general to the workforce."

We have a labour shortage. We have a skill shortage. Yet one simple remedy which could be funded — instead of giving money to the oil and gas industry, instead of giving money to the banks — by funding a community-based child care system is being ignored. It's being completely ignored.

This is why I think that this is a hugely disappointing budget. It's disappointing because there could have

been so much opportunity, when we're in a new century with new challenges which we all, I would hope, accept and all realize. We all see that this century is going to be very different from the last century.

We're going to have a fundamental shift in our approaches as a society. We have to have a fundamental shift if we're going to survive. We've got to address environmental problems seriously. We've got to tackle these issues together, but we've got to address these seriously. Sadly, this budget — while it has a carbon tax, which is hugely important — is not addressing the other issues seriously.

It is not looking with vision at what we can create to take us through the 21st century, giving us that real, just society where we are looking after the common good, our environment and our people and where we are investing in a life that will be good not just for us but in a life which will be good for our children and our grandchildren — not for us, not for the oil and gas companies, not for the banks, but investing in a truly just society. That's our vision. That's a sustainable B.C.

J. McIntyre: It's a great privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of my communities in West Vancouver–Garibaldi and respond to the February 2008 balanced budget, because I will be proudly supporting this financial plan. But before I get into my remarks, I have to respond to the member before me, from North Island.

I'm just sitting here in complete amazement. She talks about: "We have a vision." And I'm going: we? Who's the we? Because, of course, we haven't had a vision from her leader or her party in the seven years they've been in opposition. So then I'm going: oh, okay. Of course, as I listened more closely I realized that it's her personal vision, because it was a supreme, classic socialist treatise on socialism. All the terms were there.

It was about redistribution of wealth. It was about tax-shifting. It was all about how the NDP tax and spend. They don't want to give any dollars back to individuals, because they know better. They know how to spend the people's money. That is what distinguishes us — that side of the House, the government side of the House. We believe that individuals know better how to spend their hard-earned dollars.

Also, I still have to say that the inconsistencies were unbelievable inconsistencies. My head is spinning, literally. The member stood up. She said that the carbon tax was a huge step, but: "I'm opposed. We're opposed."

I'm just so confused. She must have political amnesia, because yesterday the member, along with her other colleagues, stood up and voted for a tax that she now says is a wrong tax — that we're squandering it. We're taking a tax and wasting it. Well, she voted for it. I'm completely confused.

Then she's talking about the fact that we are squandering and wasting this tax because we're giving it back to people. Yet her leader, two weeks ago, was talking about it and demanding that it be revenue-neutral. I'm so confused. I have no idea where she stands, at the end of that speech.

On to my own comments here. When I seconded the throne speech two weeks ago, I spoke at length about the leadership and vision exemplified by our Premier as well as about what this government is doing to improve family life in this province, "The best place on earth".

I spoke about the Premier's determination to build the necessary strong economic underpinning to accomplish our government's major goals: to transform the delivery of health care, which you will see and hear much more about in the coming weeks; to increase access and choice in education; to develop post-secondary, modern skills and training for our youth and for those going back into the labour force; to tackle housing issues in a red-hot economy; and to tackle the pressing social issues such as mental health, addiction and homelessness.

Initiatives on all these fronts are happening. For some, you might not see the results immediately, but the thinking, the consultation and the planning has happened, and bold action is taking place in this province today. We're being watched by people in all regions of this continent, who are commenting on it and, in many instances, praising the bold steps we have the courage to take here in British Columbia.

One small personal example. I got an e-mail this past weekend from a childhood friend, a successful businesswoman in Ontario who is hoping that Ontario will follow suit and put in a carbon tax. We are being watched and admired.

No, this is not pie in the sky, as our official opposition likes to portray, in their increasing desperation. Legislation is real. Guess what. It's real, even if you don't vote for it.

Nothing underscores our platform better than the many actions laid out in the budget last week. As the Minister of Finance indicated, this budget is about the legacy we want to leave for future generations. She posed the question: what are the best steps we can take today to build the kind of future we envision for our children and grandchildren?

Madam Speaker, I couldn't believe it. The other day I heard a member of the opposition, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, decry the fact that this government is forward-looking. I think he went on about: "Who cares about 2020 or 2050?" I went and looked at his comments in Hansard so that I could read them into the record. This is what the member said: "We hear the members on the other side, the revenge of the technocrats, talking about what a great place this is going to be in 2020 and 2050. Who cares? Who cares?" Well, I know. I bet his kids care.

As an aside, in the member's comments not only did he reveal shortsighted views, but he managed to insult our hard-working public servants at the same time. What an amazing talent.

Believe me. I think the public has been crying out for politicians who are brave enough to be doing the right things, even if they're for the long term or even if they're not wildly popular. It is shortsighted politicos who only want to score short-term band-aid fixes that the public is tired of and that generate cynicism,

especially among the younger generation, which needs to be engaged in dialogue about this province and what it will look like ten and, yes, 50 years from now when we're not around. I think we owe them at least this much.

I care about the future. So does this Premier. So does this Finance Minister and our government members. My question is: does the NDP opposition? I'd say apparently not.

I concur with our Finance Minister. We are at a turning point in this province's history after 150 years of growth and progress. This is a new chapter for B.C. that we're embarking on, and one of the overarching themes in this budget is that the either/or thinking about the economy and the environment is simply no longer relevant.

In today's world we can do both. We can take innovative steps to have both a strong economy and a healthy environment. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. We can introduce a gradual, phased-in carbon tax that is revenue-neutral, that starts small and is balanced off by a series of personal, small business and corporate tax cuts that allow businesses and individuals to make choices — that is, individuals to make choices — about their operations and their lifestyle — $1.8 billion raised and $1.8 billion in offsetting tax reductions. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Many of our young people and leaders in the conservation movement are asking and sometimes begging us to meet the challenges facing us with global climate change and all of its consequences, and to finally figure out a way to reduce our reliance on carbon.

At the same time, business leaders, among others, are asking us to find ways to keep our economy firing on all cylinders and to continue to attract investment to our province. In essence, this government is now seizing the opportunity to lead, to be a magnet for research and development and commercialization and new technologies, including the development of alternate energy sources.

We are meeting both objectives with this budget and the steps to follow. In short, we are building on many of the strengths we're currently so proud of in this province. For example, this past weekend I was reading Gary Mason's February 23 column in the Globe and Mail. I really want to read this into the record, because I think he makes an excellent point.

He goes on to quote the University of Victoria president, David Turpin, and I want to read this section as well. He says:

Then finally, he goes on to quote Dr. Andrew Weaver, who many of us have turned to as one of the scientists on the Nobel prize–winning panel. He says:

To me that's just one example of the myriad positive responses we're seeing from the many action items in this balanced budget.

For one moment I cannot fathom how the NDP is contemplating voting against this budget. I've heard a number of members stand up. They're on record as opposing it, even though they all stood up yesterday and voted for the supplementary estimates, which included the climate change dividend that will be sent to British Columbians in June in advance of the carbon tax. Once again, I don't get all the inconsistencies. I'm completely confused.

I was particularly pleased to see that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke voted in favour of the supplementary estimate yesterday for the $228 million that will be going to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. As art and culture critic he's been asking for more funding for the arts. Well, guess what. We delivered.

In honour the province's 150th birthday, we're looking forward to the creation of the $150 million BC150 cultural fund, an endowment estimated to spin off approximately $8 million in additional revenue that the B.C. Arts Council will help advise on, for spending in communities all around B.C. That would be rural and urban — all communities.

One of the key good-news items for people in my region on the North Shore is the government's agreement to fund the planning stage for the new national maritime centre at the foot of Lonsdale in North Vancouver that many, many constituents and people on the North Shore have been working hard on and that is supported by the North Shore MLAs.

This budget allocates millions of dollars for restoration and enhanced operating dollars for the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. Surprise. The opposition was probably pretty surprised by that, eh? They say we don't care. There are millions for targeted investments in addition to climate change in areas such as film and television, medical research and financial services.

I have to say that I do disagree with that same member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who spoke before me this afternoon, when he gave what I think could only be termed as a misguided lesson on power generation.

For those of you who may have been hearing his comments earlier, I can't imagine…. Please, please check the facts, because he accused this government of misrepresenting our reliance on imported power. He's treading on very, very thin ice. I can only conclude from his remarks that he does not support this province's goal, our government's goal, of electricity self-sufficiency. He implied that that was a myth and that we're forced to be importing energy from Alberta.

He, along with others in the opposition, does not support green energy. He stood in this House, and if I heard correctly, he said that buying Alberta coal-generated power for pennies is a good idea. I can't believe it. He says that it's fine. I can only conclude that he's in favour of increasing GHGs, while most of the globe is moving the other way.

There's been talk this afternoon from other members too — the NDP mantra that's against independent power producers. They continue to fearmonger. They continue to mislead the public about it. They said this afternoon that it's more expensive.

If B.C. Hydro was building brand-new facilities — and they may well be if Site C goes ahead — in today's dollars, yes. Guess what. It's more expensive than the electricity that's generated from aging infrastructure. As a matter of fact, you see that there's publicity now about some of the B.C. Hydro rates going up. Yes, because they're having to improve that aging infrastructure. When you're spending money in today's dollars, it is more expensive than it was 20 years ago.

Let's talk for a moment now about tax benefits to the individuals and businesses. That usually catches people's attention. It's obviously a big focus of the budget. By 2009 every taxpayer in British Columbia will see their personal tax rates reduced by 5 percent on the first $70,000 of earnings, to be followed by further deductions as the carbon tax increases. This, of course, is on top of the 25 percent in 2001 and the 10 percent last year.

That means that a family of four earning a combined $70,000 will now save $2,000 — and I'm going to repeat: $2,000 — compared to 2001 when this government took office. It's $2,000 in that family's pockets, not left in the government's hands to tax and spend as our opposition would have it.

Don't let the NDP fool you. We are supporting B.C. families right across the board. By 2009 British Columbians will pay the lowest personal income tax in all of Canada for individuals earning up to $111,000. That is night and day from the economic circumstances that we inherited in 2001.

The small business tax rate is going from 4.5 percent down to 3.5 percent and on its way to 2.5 percent by 2011. Again, you need to realize that this affects thousands of families. Small business is the backbone of this province, and this will affect people all across the province, rural and urban — all small business.

Corporate tax rate is on a very long slide downward since 2001, from 16.5 percent to 11 percent in this current budget and on its way down to 10 percent. Oh, but I forgot for a moment that of course only to the NDP would a tax reduction not be good news.

Let's also not forget the substantial increased funding for health, education and social spending. I can't believe that I sit here and listen to members of the opposition still talking about cuts and how this is all cuts. We're adding billions and billions of dollars to these programs.

It's an area that I think is very important, because there's been so much attention paid to the carbon tax and the green initiatives, but the thrust of our government spending is on health, education and social spending.

Let's start with health: almost $3 billion additional over the budget cycle. That's on top of the $2 billion increases in the previous budgets. I want to point out that in 2001 this health budget was $8 billion. At the end of this budget cycle it will be $15.4 billion — nearly double.

J. McIntyre: Yeah, so much for the cuts that the NDP keep harping about — right? It's nonsense, and it's fearmongering. Yes, we have issues, with an ever-growing demand for service as we age and as technology offers us more alternatives.

However, as announced in the throne speech, we are preparing to take steps to improve access and choice to an array of health care services as we respond to many of the issues that were raised by the public and by health care providers in the Conversation on Health. So stay tuned.

K-to-12 education: an additional 144 million new dollars over three years, bringing the recent increases to $792 million. That is over a billion dollars since 2001 — a 23 percent increase. So much for the cuts.

Let's not forget over three-quarters of a billion dollars — that would be $787 million — for social programs to further strengthen the key social services for the most vulnerable and those at risk. A 211 service supported by the United Way.

Housing: triple the budget since 2001. Homelessness: $104 million over four years in this budget alone, to help break the cycle of homelessness. Included are programs for children and adults at risk, a positive-aging action plan, and programs and reviews focused on justice and public safety.

As I pointed out in the past, one of the main themes of government during this term has been that of individual responsibility — unlike the socialists, who do

not believe in individual responsibility. We need to be much more aware of our actions as well as to start to take steps, even if they're small, to alter our path.

This government is making huge strides, tackling pressing issues once the economy was turned around and still finding ways to stimulate and drive the economy to support our future needs. I know this makes the NDP opposition very uncomfortable when the government is forging ahead on issues such as the environment and development of green power sources, first nations treaty-making, homelessness, improving health care delivery and involving all stakeholders, including parents, in education decision-making.

The NDP virtually admits that they do not know how to create wealth, as their tenure in office is a testament to their abject failings. But they will sure talk a great line about how they know best how to distribute wealth. So they must be particularly distressed to see the government doing what they were unable to do, and all within a balanced budget framework.

When they see how we're opening up the province — dealing with badly neglected infrastructure, dealing with social programs and pressing issues, providing skills and post-secondary academic training all around the province to equip the next generation — it must rankle. It must rankle when at meetings they hear experts with 20 years of experience in the energy field calling this government's steps on a carbon tax "honest, courageous and farsighted," which was what Dr. Mark Jaccard said the other evening at the B.C. Chamber's energy summit.

It must rankle when they vote against this budget, knowing full well how their constituents are going to benefit. That must not only be difficult, but it's hypocritical. I'd like to see the NDP members of the opposition stand up in this House one by one, just like they did yesterday on the supplementary estimates, and support the budget measures.

Otherwise, it will be on the record forever that we stand in favour of providing these benefits to British Columbians and they stand opposed. It speaks volumes, and it clearly shows the public the differences between these two parties in the Legislature. I can only hope that British Columbians take note of this government's real accomplishments, what we stand for and what they stand opposed to.

There could not be a clearer division if they do not have the political courage to support a budget largely being praised around the province, even by a number of their traditional supporters. I will be voting in favour of this budget. I'm very proud of it, and I'd like to see the opposition stand up and do the same.

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.