Hansard — Thursday, February 28, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		10073

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		10073

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10074
	Frederick James George
	D. MacKay
	Bridges for Women Society
	C. James
	ACT Foundation high school CPR program
	B. Lekstrom
	Kersley Musical Theatre
	B. Simpson
	Raise-a-Reader campaign in Nanaimo
	R. Cantelon
	Victoria High School demonstration electric vehicle
	R. Fleming

Oral Questions		10076
	Call for independent investigation into ICBC vehicle sales
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	H. Lali
	M. Farnworth
	S. Simpson
	Regulation of new home pre-sale agreements
	D. Thorne
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Kwan
	Staffing levels at Mount Cartier Court
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Status of Sunshine Lodge
	C. Trevena
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Cleaning services at health care facilities
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott

Budget Debate (continued)		10081
	R. Hawes
	J. Kwan
	L. Mayencourt
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. T. Christensen
	D. Routley
	Hon. J. Les
	K. Conroy
	R. Cantelon

Royal Assent to Bills		10114
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)
	Supply Act, 2007-2008 (Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)

Hon. R. Coleman: It's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman who is a colleague, a friend and a member of this Legislature from 2001 to 2005 who served the North Coast riding with distinction. Would the House please make welcome Bill Belsey, who sat on the floor today.

Hon. L. Reid: I have two sets of introductions today. First, constituents visiting from Richmond East are celebrating their 28th wedding anniversary. I'd ask the House to please make welcome Yogesh and Parveen Arora.

My second introduction is Per and Karen Androvic, senior consultants from the Swedish Reggio Emilia Institute. The Androvics are keynote speakers at the REACH — research in early childhood care, education and health — seminar at the University of Victoria. We'll be sitting down together this afternoon to discuss early childhood development. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

V. Roddick: I would like to introduce Kate Rennie from Aberdeen, Scotland. Kate comes from a fascinating political background. Her maternal grandfather, James Emery Cross, was a Florida State Senator. Her paternal grandfather was Captain L.P.S. Orr, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and her great-uncle is Lord Ian Roberts, whose many decisions have shaped policy and legislation in Scotland.

Kate is visiting her political family here in Victoria. She is the niece of one of our former colleagues, the MLA that represented Victoria-Hillside, Sheila Orr. Would the House please make Kate very welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased today and feel privileged to introduce a group of 46 grade 11 students from G.P. Vanier Secondary School in the Comox Valley. Accompanying them are some teachers and parents. We have Mr. Dave Neill, Ms. Eileen Yeoman, Mr. Greyson Pettigrew and Mr. Mike Hucksome. Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a former colleague of mine for many years, Ray Hornby, and his wife Chris, who have joined us in the gallery here today.

I. Black: A moment or two ago the member for Richmond East introduced guests who are having a wedding anniversary today, and I think we in this House would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge another one.

He's our former Speaker. He's the current Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. He and his wife Pat hit a milestone today that is worthy of a tip of the hat and a round of applause — their 50th wedding anniversary. Our congratulations to them.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance wish to respond? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Monday, February 25, the member for Nanaimo raised a point of privilege in which he put forward his contention that this House should find that the Premier has misled this House and that he be directed by the House to apologize. His complaint arose out of comments made by the Premier in response to questions posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition during Committee of Supply debate on estimates of the Office of the Premier in May 2007.

In particular, the member's argument focuses on statements made by the Premier regarding the involvement of the government officials with respect to the release of documents related to the case Regina v. Basi, Virk and Basi.

In his submission the member for Nanaimo argued that the information recently brought to his attention established that the staff from the Office of the Premier had in fact been involved with the review of documents from 2004 to early 2007. The member therefore concluded that the Premier had knowingly misled the House in 2007 with respect to his office's involvement in the process of reviewing documents. Accordingly, he contended that a prima facie case of privilege should proceed.

In his submission the member for Nanaimo presented supporting documents, including various reports from 2004, which he claimed had first been brought to his attention on Monday, February 18, 2008. The member also explained that additional information came to light through a media column on Friday, February 22, and again reserved his right to raise a point of privilege on the morning of February 25. Both reservations were covered in the member's statement later that day.

In his submission on this matter the Government House Leader submitted that at no time did the Premier ever mislead the House. In referencing more extensive comments from Hansard transcript of May 28, 2007, he described how the Premier explained the role of the Deputy Attorney General with respect to the review and release of relevant cabinet documents. The Government House Leader described how the Premier stressed repeatedly in that debate that he would not personally intervene or politically interfere with the process, which had been delegated to the Deputy Attorney General.

In support of these comments the Government House Leader tabled a letter from the Deputy Attorney General to the member for Nanaimo in which he describes his role reviewing documents for cabinet confidentiality in the matter identical to that described by the Premier during debate. The Deputy Attorney General also noted in the letter that as of the date of this letter, there were no documents that had not been disclosed based on any assertion of cabinet privilege.

I appreciate the submissions and supporting written documentation provided by both members, which assisted me greatly in my decision with respect to this matter. I reviewed the evidence put forward by both sides as well as the transcript of additional Hansard debate on May 19, 2004. Like 2007 — Hansard's transcript referenced earlier — the 2004 transcripts also focus on the debate in Committee of Supply on the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

In response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition Joy MacPhail about the government's role reviewing relevant court documents regarding cabinet confidentiality, the Premier responded: "I understand that there is a package of information which is effectively being reviewed by the deputy cabinet secretary, the special prosecutor and the judge. The judge is now reviewing that information and deciding what the judge believes should be released."

The articles cited by the member indicate that in 2004, pursuant to the protocol presented in court by the special prosecutor, documents which had been seized by the RCMP were being examined to see whether they involved cabinet privilege. The Premier's comments at the time accurately described the process.

It is clear from the Deputy Attorney General's letter of February 26, 2008, that the process he was involved in during 2007 was related to the disclosure of information to counsel, a completely different process from the process being carried out in 2004. The Premier's comments in 2007 are consistent with the letter of the Deputy Attorney General.

I can see no relationship between the Premier's comments in 2007 and the process in 2004. I can find no evidence of deliberate misleading of the House either during the May 2004 estimates process or during the similar debate which took place three years later. While the process of reviewing relevant government documents may have changed during this period, the Premier's comments to the House appear to be an accurate account on both occasions.

I'm also compelled to comment on one other important issue with respect to this matter. In order for the member to be successful in presenting a matter of privilege, a number of stringent requirements must be met. The necessity for raising the matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity is examined in detail in a decision of Speaker Schroeder reported in the B.C. Journals, November 25-26, 1982.

In this decision Speaker Schroeder cites Standing Order 26, which reads: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." He referenced a number of decisions from the British Parliament at Westminster in which matters concerning newspaper reports published in preceding weeks were refused precedence because they were not brought to the prompt attention of the House.

Speaker Schroeder correctly noted: "Because a motion based on privilege is given precedence over prearranged program for public business, strict compliance with the rules has invariably been required."

Although the member for Nanaimo makes reference to the recent media report dated February 22, 2008, in fact much of the substantive information presented in this column relates to information publicly available through court records and reports almost four years ago in other media articles which he submitted.

The member explained that 2004 media reports, including an article in The Vancouver Sun and in the parliamentary journal, were not brought to his attention until February 18. However, it seems to the Chair, based on the existing authorities, that his argument is based on information that has been in the public domain for almost four years. Therefore, the matter clearly appears to have failed the earliest-opportunity requirement.

It is the opinion of the Chair that the Premier did not mislead the House, and therefore, no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out.

D. MacKay: On February 17, 2008, Frederick James George passed away in Smithers at the age of 89 years. He was born on June 22, 1918, at Trout Lake, which is located just south of Houston, B.C.

At the age of 21 years he enlisted as a volunteer to fight in World War II. He completed his training at Vernon, B.C., and was part of the first Canadian Army Service Corps. He was trained as an ammunitions truck driver and mechanic. He served in France, Belgium, England, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Holland. He also fought on Juno Beach in Normandy. After the war he remained in Holland to help with reconstruction and relief.

When Fred returned to Canada, he was denied the benefits that were granted by the government to returning officers, such as land and a pension. Fred had served with pride and distinction alongside other Canadian soldiers. Fred was denied land and a pension, which had been offered to other returning soldiers, because of the fact that he was a native Indian. Fred did not even have the right to vote. He fought for aboriginal veterans' pensions and benefits in the early 1970s. He started receiving a disability pension in the mid-'90s due to his loss of hearing during the war.

I marched with Fred and other veterans with pride during the November 11 parades from the Royal Canadian Legion in Smithers to the cenotaph for the past 26 years. During the last couple of years, due to failing health, Fred was brought to the cenotaph in a wheelchair by his family members.

Fred will be missed by his family and those of us who joined him every year to remember the many veterans who fought for this great country called Canada. Thank you, Fred, for your contribution. You will be remembered.

C. James: Since 1988 the Bridges for Women Society has been a Canadian pioneer, providing unique employability and training programs for women with histories of abuse. Programs of Bridges are built around two main objectives: to provide women survivors of abuse with education, training and other supportive programs which help them break the cycle of abuse, and to share information with groups, organizations and the public on the needs of women who have a history of abuse.

Meeting those objectives requires an ongoing dedication of a team of professionals and volunteers who are committed to improving the lives of women. Bridges offers a wide array of programs from job and technical training to life skill advice and support. Every program is delivered in a safe, caring and non-judgmental environment built around the woman's personal needs and her experiences.

Bridges has earned widespread acclaim for its approach and long-term success for students. Over 800 women from Victoria, Saanich and Western Communities have completed the program. Because of Bridges' initiative, there are now 12 bridging programs throughout B.C.

As an MLA for Victoria, I've seen firsthand the incredible success and impact this organization has had on women's lives. On February 29, Bridges for Women Society celebrates its 20th anniversary at a Tribute to the Divas celebration at the Empress Hotel here in Victoria.

I ask all MLAs to congratulate Bridges on 20 years of proud service to women in this community and many, many more years ahead.

B. Lekstrom: As we all know, February is Heart Month, and I would like to speak about an amazing program for the students of this great province.

The Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation, the British Columbia Ambulance Service and the ambulance paramedics union are helping schools across British Columbia to launch the ACT high school CPR program through which paramedic instructors volunteer to train teachers who, in turn, teach CPR to their students.

To date, some 400 teachers in 100 schools throughout the province have received the skills needed to empower and teach approximately 20,000 high school students each year the life-saving skill of CPR. The program goal is to have all B.C. secondary schools set up with mannequins and materials and running the program by 2010, training approximately 50,000 students annually.

Through the ACT high school CPR program, students bring the knowledge of heart disease, prevention and a healthy heart lifestyle to their current and future families. They also learn how to react in an emergency situation by calling 911 and administering CPR and, hopefully, saving a life. The training they receive provides a lasting impact on their lives and the lives of others.

In the spirit of Heart Month, I want to ask all members to join me in acknowledging and praising the efforts of the B.C. Ambulance Service, the ACT Foundation, the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia and all the volunteer paramedics, teachers and students involved in the high school CPR program, which will benefit all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: Since I was last home, my son has shaved his head, lost an arm and walks with a limp and says "arrr" a lot. I've heard that my daughter can play a mean riff on the tom-toms, has dyed her hair jet black, and her skin has a reddish tint to it. My wife is apparently wearing the most outlandish costumes and has taken to parading around, alternatively pretending she's an old fairy or a bird of paradise. I guess when the MLA is away, the family gets to play.

To quote Shakespeare: "The play is the thing." In this case, it's Kersley Musical Theatre's production of Peter Pan, which opened last night.

Around this time, for the past seven years, Kersley community hall has been transformed into a magical place where people from the Quesnel area have experienced community theatre at its very best. The reputation of Kersley Musical Theatre for putting on professional performances has grown so much over the years that tickets are grabbed up as soon as they're available. Everybody knows that they will be treated to an experience which will transport them out of the wintry Cariboo and into a world of music and a story well told by a wide range of local talent.

The group has become a testament not only to the innate talent in all of us but to the power of family. Entire families have participated in this theatre group from the inception, including my own. This has created a huge extended family made up of people of all ages and backgrounds — a family with only one purpose: to give people an opportunity to laugh and cry, to sing and dance and to escape for a few hours the trials and tribulations of our own hectic lives in the long Cariboo winter.

I ask the House to join me in thanking the director Janice Butler, the producer Cathy Heinzelman and the amazing cast and crew of Kersley Musical Theatre for their continued and dedicated service to the mental and spiritual health of the people of the Cariboo.

R. Cantelon: "Extra, extra. Read all about it." Those are the words that rang out in Nanaimo recently during the Raise-a-Reader program as hundreds of volunteers, including yours truly, took to the streets to hawk newspapers on behalf of Literacy Nanaimo.

It was a great day. It was a lot of fun, and it was great to get out there on the street and meet people and talk to them face to face about literacy. It's all part of CanWest Global's now nationwide program to support literacy.

I think both sides of this House understand what a challenge it is, what an unseen barrier and quiet prejudice it is, for those who can't read and can't fill out job applications.

It was great to take part in this event. I want to particularly salute CanWest and the Nanaimo Daily News, who supported the event with their resources. They supplied us with newspaper outfits and change, and away we went. It was very well organized and very well run, and I certainly compliment Curt Duddy and his staff for supporting us.

Of course, like all of these things, it requires more than just the organization of the day. I want to particularly acknowledge the support of the Rotary Club Downtown and the Rotary Club North. These service clubs, like many other service clubs throughout our province, continually support these important events with their hard work.

In this case, they went out and were very successful with a book sale program to raise $12,000 with the downtown Rotary and another $5,000 with the Rotary North. We were happy to hand over a cheque, because the province generously matched the $19,000 that they raised, for $40,000.

We had great hopes of doing better than most of the other cities. I modestly would say we did outdo other major cities, perhaps, like Kelowna and Prince George. But I have to look across and say that I don't know what they did in Port Alberni, but they smoked us, and good on them.

Let's all congratulate those who participated in these efforts to eradicate illiteracy in our province and make it the best-educated jurisdiction in the country.

R. Fleming: I'm very pleased to say a few words today about students and teachers at Victoria High School who are raising awareness and taking action on global warming. The school's environment club and the auto mechanics are taking the lead at Vic High under the guidance and support of their mechanics teacher, Mr. Mike Grew. Right now students are converting a gas-guzzling GMC truck to a 100 percent emission-free electric vehicle that runs on perhaps $100 of electricity per year.

The training and specialized skills to do these conversions are rare, and students are fortunate to be on the leading edge in gaining experience. Marie Shuman is the president of Vic High's environment club and an auto mechanic student. She said that at first it was tough to get the mostly male students in the class excited about the project. But after the blue GMC S15 was hoisted and work began, more and more students got involved.

Last semester students stripped the engine block out of the vehicle. This term a new group of students is installing a 24-battery-cell power source. The project has also spurred awareness in other areas of the school. Screenings of films such as An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? have been held in support of this program.

Electric vehicles aren't new technology, but they represent promising technology that was never popularized by the big three automobile makers on this continent. Here on the Island, though, there is now a burgeoning conversion market. Mr. Randy Holmquist runs Canadian Electric Vehicles out of his three-bay shop near Parksville. It was basically a hobby for him up until 1995, when he incorporated. Up until this year he sold a kit per year. This year he has already sold a dozen, and his most recent orders are for 50 electric-powered jet-refuelling trucks for airports in Australia and Dubai.

I know the Premier has been approached for support, and pending what I'm sure will be a positive reception from his office, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and I are pleased to be supporting the grass-roots fundraising efforts of the students with their bottle drive this weekend to help fund this demonstration vehicle. The students are aiming to have the vehicle ready for the May 24 Victoria Day Parade, where tens of thousands of people will see this demonstration project.

C. James: On February 13, ICBC launched an internal investigation into the sale of repaired write-offs. The concern is that ICBC knowingly repaired write-offs and sold them without disclosing that they were rebuilt. ICBC has temporarily shut down the facility in question while the investigation is underway.

But the minister in charge is the Solicitor General. British Columbians know all too well that he has no ability to deliver an independent investigation. So my question is to the Solicitor General. Given his record of flip-flops, his record of failures, will he launch an independent investigation…

Hon. J. Les: That's an interesting assertion coming from the member opposite, who hasn't had a consistent position on anything for months in this House.

Hon. J. Les: This matter at the facility that the member has referenced is actively under investigation. As usual, what I think is important here is to ensure

that we allow that investigation to proceed, and we will deal with the conclusions.

C. James: "As usual" is the key phrase from the Solicitor General, because as usual, nothing happens with this Solicitor General.

Let's actually take a look at his record. The Solicitor General told British Columbians that everything was fine with child death reviews. We discovered that hundreds and hundreds of files were missing and lost. He denied any problems with the B.C. Lottery Corporation until the Ombudsman delivered a scathing report.

His response to gang violence was to actually attack the West Vancouver police chief. Then he flip-flopped around amalgamation. This Solicitor General said no to a public inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's Taser death until he was actually contradicted by his own Premier.

Now we know that ICBC has been caught allegedly selling repaired write-offs without disclosure. Again to the Solicitor General…. His assurances mean absolutely nothing to the public. He has no credibility left. Will he launch an independent investigation into this issue?

Hon. J. Les: I can assure the member and all members of this House that this matter, which was surfaced by ICBC recently, will be properly and independently investigated and that we will deal with the conclusions properly.

If the opposition leader wants to look at our record, I'm pleased to review our record in terms of policing — for example, the $60 million a year that is being made available to municipalities from traffic fine revenue; the $66 million a year that is being made available for integrated police services, mostly in the lower mainland of British Columbia; the $40 million that we have invested in a state-of-the-art information management system for police in British Columbia. I could go on for quite some time to list our accomplishments.

C. James: It's incredible. How can the Solicitor General stand here and say it's an independent investigation when ICBC is investigating itself? That's the problem with this Solicitor General. He doesn't understand "independent investigation." That's what's critical.

This is a very serious matter. As many as 174 write-offs were repaired and were sold to unsuspecting buyers. The CEO of ICBC, Paul Taylor, said that it's just an issue of documentation and disclosure. Well, it's much more than that. It's about safety, and it's about the public being ripped off.

Again to the Solicitor General: will he admit that this is a much bigger problem than simply documentation, and will he today commit to launch an independent investigation from ICBC?

Hon. J. Les: As always, the Leader of the Opposition's idea of a review is to jump to conclusions before an investigation is complete.

Hon. J. Les: Anyone who has purchased a vehicle that came out of this program is being contacted — in fact, at this point, will already have been contacted — by ICBC. We think it's important to protect public safety. We are doing that, and we are going to deal properly with any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

H. Lali: We know that we can't trust the Solicitor General. He was wrong about the child death review scandal that took place, and he was also wrong about the B.C. Lottery scandal that also took place. Now he wants us to actually believe that he can deliver an independent investigation into ICBC's alleged chop shop.

Under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it is an offence for a supplier to "engage in a deceptive act or practice in respect of a consumer transaction." My question is to the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. Have they launched an investigation into whether ICBC has broken the law?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, we should all understand, is frequently confused. He was railing on a few weeks ago about the increases of ICBC rates and the cash grab, as he described it, only to know that his own constituents actually are seeing decreases in their premiums.

I have said and will say again that this matter will be properly investigated, and it will be properly followed up with the appropriate actions as necessary.

H. Lali: You know the minister doesn't have an answer when he has to shift on to something totally unrelated to the question at hand. The legislation is clear.

H. Lali: It is an offence to engage in an act of deception. But then again, these Liberals are no strangers to deception. That's the history of the last seven years.

H. Lali: ICBC has been caught allegedly selling written-off cars to unsuspecting consumers, and we're

supposed to trust the Solicitor General that ICBC will investigate itself — whether they have broken the law. We know that whenever the Liberals try to investigate themselves, all we get is cover-up after cover-up.

Again to the Solicitor General: will he finally agree to launch an independent investigation that includes determining if ICBC broke the law or not?

Hon. J. Les: A question, again, full of innuendo and full of jumping to conclusions that are completely inappropriate at this point. I can assure the member opposite — and I'll try this one more time — that this is being properly, thoroughly investigated.

There are independent legal and forensic auditors working on this case. All vehicle owners, as I have already said, will be contacted, and their vehicles will be reinspected. We are going to make sure that everyone is protected and that any wrongdoing, if there was any, will be properly prosecuted.

M. Farnworth: What we're trying to get from this minister is a commitment to independence, because the track record of this minister is plain for everyone to see. He more often than not has to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing the right thing. We saw it in lotteries. We saw it in Children and Families. We've seen it when it comes to policing on a host of issues.

The allegations around ICBC and chop shop allegations are very serious, and the public wants to have confidence. The minister, in his first answer, said that it would be independently investigated. Can the minister tell this House: who is the independent person who is doing the investigation?

Hon. J. Les: That is the same question that's been asked several times today, and the answer is exactly the same. There are independent legal and forensic auditors working on this particular case, and they will come to the appropriate conclusions. They will let ICBC and government know what has happened here, and we will deal properly with that information.

M. Farnworth: My question to the Solicitor General is this: will he table in this House who those independent individuals are, who those independent auditors are, and will he table their terms of reference in this House so that we can see whether they are outside of ICBC and independent or whether it is a case of ICBC investigating itself?

Hon. J. Les: It is my objective that this entire investigation be properly done, transparently done. I have no issue with making all of the information available to members opposite.

S. Simpson: The questions to the Solicitor General are clear and straightforward. Will the Solicitor General commit to releasing the information on who is doing this investigation, who's paying for the investigation and that the reports will be public? Will he commit to that today, or is it going to be another sham?

Hon. J. Les: It would appear that members opposite are deaf. For any other questions like that, I would suggest that they refer themselves to Hansard and read the answer again.

D. Thorne: The developer for two more prepurchased condominium projects in Vancouver and Richmond has gone into receivership. These collapses also came as a shock to those people that were expecting to move into their homes in June. This latest incident, the second in a week, demonstrates that this is a growing trend, with likely more to come for people currently in prepurchase agreements.

My question is for the minister responsible for consumer protection. When will he step in to protect people who risk losing their life savings and their homes — stand up for these people instead of just talking?

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, there has been another situation this past week that has come to our attention. There are two condominium developments, in this case, that have now been put into the hands of a receiver. The receiver has been making a couple of public statements on this, and he apparently has said that he believes that there's enough money there to actually finish the construction and that the original buyers would be able to receive their units.

But he did say something else that I hadn't seen before. He said that it has come to his attention that, allegedly, some of the units may have been sold to insiders at reduced prices. He has said that he will look at that. So what we need to do now is wait for his complete report, and we'll know exactly what the situation is.

D. Thorne: This answer is not good enough for British Columbians who are uncertain if they will ever move into the homes that they have prepurchased. This is a growing trend in an increasingly unaffordable housing market. So far all this government has done is asked developers to disclose a bit of their past history, then left homeowners with nothing but a message of buyer beware.

I ask again: will the minister responsible for consumer protection sit back, allow this trend to continue, or will he finally stand up for prepurchase buyers in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a new situation for British Columbia, with a very hot housing market and a strong economy. We're all grateful for the strong economy, but it has made the pre-sale situation different from anything we've seen before.

As a result of some of the situations that we saw last fall, the superintendent of real estate, who has the responsibility in this area, made two specific moves that we believe will help future buyers of pre-sales. The units we're talking about today, of course, happened before these measures came into play.

The first is that now the developer is required to do a full disclosure of their own background, which includes anything in the past ten years that relates to a court order or difficulties with any buildings they've had or any problems with the courts. That is now a requirement, and — because I have also been asked this question — it doesn't matter if the developer was working in another province or not. That information has to be part of the disclosure statement.

The second takes the small print at the end of the document that talks about the risks of pre-sales and puts it up front so that everyone knows immediately what the situation is with pre-sales, what the circumstances would be if a developer went into bankruptcy and how that would be handled.

J. Kwan: The disclosure requirements that the minister talks about actually bring little protection for the consumers. The fact is that the enforcement mechanisms are weak. The real penalties are not really there. Where there are violations, the only recourse that's left for the consumers is the courts. If the developer goes into receivership or goes into bankruptcy, there is nothing that the consumers can get.

My question to the minister is this: what is the real recourse for consumer protection in her measures, to ensure that pre-sale purchases are not leaving homebuyers out in the cold?

Hon. C. Taylor: One of the measures that is in place is to guarantee the deposits of anyone who became involved in these pre-sale agreements, and that has been done. We are trying to strike a balance where pre-sales can continue to happen in the British Columbia market but where we can ensure protection or understanding with our consumers as well.

I invite the members opposite, if they have some ideas of how this could be accomplished…. I've said it to the industry as well. If they have ideas of further measures that can be taken that continue to keep this balance so that we do develop pre-sale developments, then we'd be glad to hear them. I'm sure the superintendent of real estate would like to. I know he's been speaking to many people in the industry.

What we don't want to have happen is to make it impossible to have pre-sales. I think everyone on the opposite side would be quite shocked at the number of developments that would all of a sudden close down and at the consumers who wouldn't have a chance of buying into future apartment units.

N. Macdonald: Another question regarding seniors care in the Kootenays. Tina Horsthuis's husband stays at Mount Cartier Court, which is a residential care facility in Revelstoke. She has been clear with me and clear with Interior Health that staffing levels are too low and that residents' current concerns go unaddressed. The impacts on residents are shocking. There are no reasonable people that would think that this is an acceptable level of care.

Seniors are at risk in Revelstoke. That is not an overstatement. What action is the minister taking to give our seniors the care they deserve in Mount Cartier Court?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of issues at Mount Cartier Court, I am well familiar with those. There was a high-risk report that was assigned to the facility, as the members may now know. The first was assigned prior to the facility ever being opened, part of the default high risk. There was another three months later.

If the member would take the time — unlike what he did with the facility at Cranbrook — to actually talk to IH, talk to the facility operators and so on, he might understand that it was very, very small issues that dealt with the second risk report that came with Mount Cartier.

In fairness to the members, they as a government never had any experience with opening any new residential care or assisted-living facilities in the interior of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: Small issues to this minister, and that is the problem with this province.

Let's get the full story on this. High risk, the report that the minister saw…. This is how it worked. The individual goes to the newspaper — has to go to the newspaper. The newspaper carries a story that is critical of the shortages at Mount Cartier Court. In the newspaper the Interior Health says that things are fine. The day afterwards the inspection takes place. The day afterwards we get the list.

It's exactly what the resident is saying — exactly what was said again and again — and what Interior Health ignored. What does it say? It says that the facility is without a manager. The facility is charged with numerous ongoing contraventions of adult care regulations. The facility has water leaking through the roof. You can't get out some of the doors. Again and again and again.

How does it come out? It comes out through complaints. When it comes out, the minister denies and protects and trivializes every single time. That is the flaw with this system. This is unacceptable. Revelstoke deserves better.

I want this minister to stand up and tell people in Revelstoke that we are going to get acceptable care at Mount Cartier Court. Stand up, and do that now.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, this is the same opposition speaker that a week ago had to pull off of their website a press release about 106 infractions on Vancouver Island because they…

Hon. G. Abbott: …had duplicated 45 of them. They condemned 11 facilities for the sin of not being opened yet. In this case, this member is criticizing Mount Cartier Court for the sin of moving from a multi-bed ward facility to private rooms.

There was a reinvestment made in Mount Cartier facility. There were some minor problems in terms of the transition. Those are being corrected.

I know this group over here would like to leave everything as it was in 1998. I don't believe that. We've come a long way in adding new residential care and assisted-living capacity to this province, and we're proud of it.

C. Trevena: Sunshine Lodge in Campbell River is due to close very shortly, and residents will start to move to a new facility in a couple of weeks. In fact, the new facility….

C. Trevena: It would help if they listened to the question. It really would help if they listened to the question.

While there is going to be a new facility, the staff and the families have only recently been told. They heard reports in the media that there is going to be a new facility, but they never got official notification. So they spent weeks asking about what's happening, and nobody would tell them. Nobody would tell them what's happening to their family members.

It was only yesterday, three days before staff are going to start getting trained in this new facility, that they got a letter from VIHA informing them that there was going to be a change and effectively saying in that letter: "Give us a call. We'll let you know what's happening."

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health why it's taken this long. Why were the staff and family members left to the last minute to be told what's happening?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I thank the member for raising the issue of Sunshine Lodge. When we came into office in 2001, there were 127 long-term care units in Campbell River. Today, thanks to the addition of new facilities, there are 216.

As the member referenced, the good news doesn't stop there. With the New Horizons facility that'll be opening soon, we will have 272 long-term care beds in Campbell River. That is a 114 percent increase in the number, and the quality has enormously increased as well. Further, I guarantee that for anyone who's looking for employment in Campbell River in the long-term care sector, there are bountiful opportunities.

A. Dix: On Monday we learned that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority cut 150,000 hours of cleaning work every year. That decision put patient safety at risk and hospitals got dirtier. That's what happened.

Now we learn, through an internal memo from Ridge Meadows Hospital, that they are experiencing serious cleaning problems of their own. What does the memo say? This comes, hon. Minister, from the Fraser Health contract manager. It cites inconsistent service — perhaps we'll hear cheers — understaffing, poor training and days without service.

When will the minister acknowledge that hospitals are getting dirtier and that it's time the government took action to deal with its failed privatization scheme?

Hon. G. Abbott: I told this opposition Health critic the other day that he was wrong, and he remains wrong today. There has not been any cut of 150,000 hours from cleaning schedules in Vancouver Coastal Health. That is wrong. It was wrong a week ago. It's wrong today. He remains wrong.

Now, I know that this member always has an agenda in asking questions in accordance with the people who provide him with campaign contributions every election. But the fact of the matter is that we are doing…. In the 2000s, after our election, we've been doing every year comprehensive external audits on cleanliness in our hospitals. Further, the health authorities, on a monthly basis, do audits in our hospitals. When….

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll complete my answer on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Nothing is more disrespectful from this government than when they talk about people who do the hard work in our hospitals. Their contempt has been cited not just by me, not just by patients, not just by doctors and nurses and people in British Columbia; that contempt has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada.

My question is very simple. This memo doesn't come from me. It comes from the person in charge of the contract.…

A. Dix: There are patients today at that hospital who have to deal with a dirty hospital, and the members laugh over there. It's a serious issue. It's a serious issue that the contract manager, Shaun Taylor, has to deal with every day.

So my question is very simple, to the minister. He doesn't have to believe me. He doesn't have to believe patients. He doesn't have to believe the people who work in the field. But his own contract manager is contradicting him here. When will he take steps to deal with the crisis that has been caused by the privatization policies of his government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll provide the information the member wants, and I'll follow up with a memo, if that's necessary.

But he should go on the Vancouver Coastal Health site and have a look at the most recent audits that were done by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. In 29 out of 30 hospitals, those hospitals achieved the benchmark rating of 85 out of 100.

Now, I know that the member opposes the cleaning contract that went to Aramark, but I can tell the member that before that contract went to Aramark, the level that was being achieved at that time was 75 out of 100.

We have seen continuous improvement in cleaning. We're going to continue to audit. We're going to continue to drive continuous improvement in this area as we do in every other area of health care.

R. Hawes: Before lunch I was starting to talk about what the power of a strong economy can do for us in British Columbia. I think we should be noting and celebrating the fact that last year, 2007, Standard and Poor's upgraded B.C.'s credit rating to triple-A.

The year before, October of 2006, Moody's bond-rating service increased us to a triple-A, which is the best credit rating that you can get. That's after years and years of decline under the previous government, where our credit rating continued to slip as our economy languished in the doldrums.

The Conference Board of Canada — I mentioned them this morning — has noted that the upward trend in B.C.'s economy is translating into higher income. On a per-capita basis, personal disposable incomes in B.C. surged 6.2 percent in 2006 following back-to-back increases of 4 percent in 2004 and 2005. As a result, the personal income after tax in British Columbia is 15 percent higher — that is, in 2006 — than it was three years previously.

They also note here that the unemployment rate in B.C. fell to an all-time low in March of this year to 3.9 percent. What we have is higher incomes and more employment.

As I mentioned this morning, if you want to talk about child poverty, the way to build a program to end child poverty is to build an economy and put people to work in good, high-paying jobs. That's precisely what's happening through the fiscal management policies that we have implemented since 2001.

I want to touch briefly, in the remaining time I have, on what I have heard the members opposite say day after day in here about the carbon tax. Day after day they talk about how, in their belief, there's going to be tremendous burden put particularly on those who have lower incomes. They don't seem to get that the carbon tax is in fact revenue-neutral.

Perhaps the members could benefit from going to the Finance Minister for a private briefing if they don't quite grasp what's out there and what has been said over and over, and that is a total explanation of even how much money is projected to be collected and where it's going to be expended.

Just to clarify, it is anticipated that the carbon tax will generate about $1.849 billion over the next three years. That money is going to be returned — all of it — to businesses and individuals, with lower-income families receiving $395 million. Plus, there will be an income tax return to personal income taxes of over $780 million.

When you add it all up, the money that we collect in the carbon tax will be redistributed. Those with lower incomes are going to see a benefit. They will actually be further ahead. They are, generally speaking, the people who are lower carbon users.

These NDP can talk day after day about people who are on low incomes and how they'll be affected by a carbon tax. Generally speaking, the people who are very low incomes — some of them — don't have cars. They are struggling, but I can tell you that the carbon tax is not something that's going to cause them a big burden.

But there is, within the budget documents…. It has been calculated, and that's available. The opposition have that, yet they choose to completely ignore it or misstate it. It does show a whole host of examples. A seniors couple with $30,000 income who drive an older car up to, say, 7,000 kilometres a year — which would not be out of line for a seniors couple — will actually, after factoring in the increase in fuel prices and oil for their furnace, see an extra $110 in their pocket with the tax reductions.

For the lowest-income families there is a carbon dividend of $100 per adult and $30 per child, which helps offset this tax. This tax is not going to be borne on the backs of people who have low incomes. We have made sure that they are protected.

This is a very, very cleverly calculated tax. It has been said that it's been done with genius — and it has — because it does begin to address the problem of climate change. It does focus people's attention on it, and it does it in a way that will not harm the economy nor put a burden on the backs of those who cannot afford it.

I think the members of the opposition should be standing up and applauding the Finance Minister for this budget. Instead, day after day they denigrate this budget that has been lauded nationally by pretty much every environmental group out there.

It's with shame that I have to tell the opposition members that they are wrong. They're misleading the public as they talk about the way that this carbon tax is going to affect people. This carbon tax is actually widely supported by those who do understand it. As people begin to understand it, they will understand just how reckless the opposition has been in the statements they're making.

J. Kwan: The member suggested that the opposition misled the public. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I would ask the member to retract those words unreservedly.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Speaker, the context in which the member used the expression, I think, is entirely appropriate, but we would be glad to be guided by your advice on this.

I am going to rule that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead, and I would caution all members to be careful of the language that is used in this House.

R. Hawes: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than saying "mislead," I think what I should say, then, is that they appear not to have read the documents. I would strongly suggest they read the documents so that when they do convey the intent and what is actually going to happen, they are accurate in the portrayal of the events that will follow from this tax. They have not been accurate to date.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to get up and actually follow the member right after his comments. I've just been advised that the word "misled" is not unparliamentary.

Let me just begin my comments with this. This government misled the public with their budget by calling it a green budget, and there's nothing but green in this budget. Let's just be clear, then.

I rise to respond to Budget '08. I would, first of all, getting back to the point, like to welcome the new Lieutenant-Governor. I want to thank him for a most enjoyable evening at Government House. It was entertaining.

I wish to bring to the attention of the member that it is a long tradition in this House that to deliberately mislead is unparliamentary. To use the word "mislead" is not in that category. I have ruled on this matter, and we will continue.

J. Kwan: Excellent. As I said, this government misled the public by suggesting that the budget is green and that by printing the budget on green paper,

somehow it is green. I would suggest that that is actually misleading the public.

I have more to say about this budget, but I do want to take a moment, though, to welcome and thank the Lieutenant-Governor for a most enjoyable evening, for providing entertainment, really, to all members of this House at Government House where he recounted his story of how he came to be the Lieutenant-Governor in British Columbia and also where he shared his hopes and dreams for our community.

I also want to say that this budget is the last budget of this Minister of Finance. Let's just take a moment to review the budgets that this minister has delivered to British Columbians to date. As the representative for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the poorest neighbourhood in all of Canada, it is with regret that the legacy of the Finance Minister and her government has been underwhelming, at best, in its treatment of those living on the margins of our society. There has been an unprecedented attack on civil society in British Columbia, an unprecedented attack on the homeless and those living in poverty.

This government has increased the divide and created a social rupture that will take years to bridge. This government has left rural B.C. behind. The Premier has forged public policy like a series of personal fads, faded ambitions, while being aided and abetted by an acquiescent and compliant back bench. Like army pants, mullet hairstyles and butterfly collars, fads don't always last. The people of B.C. want substance, seriousness and purpose behind the policies of government.

As Olympic costs have skyrocketed and security budgets are being drawn out of thin air, employment opportunities have not been extended into the inner city in a comprehensive way. The inner-city inclusive commitment statement has been a whitewash. This budget, like the first three budgets this Minister of Finance introduced, is big on PR but fails to deliver in reality and in substance.

The minister's first budget, which she called the children's budget…. Well, three years later, how's it going? B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada for four years in a row, and that is despite a booming provincial economy. The proportion of children living in poverty in B.C. was 20.9 percent, well above the national child poverty average of 16.8 percent.

There were an estimated 174,000 poor children in B.C. in 2005. That was more than the combined populations of the cities of Victoria, Nanaimo and Comox. According to the Pivot Legal Society report released February 20, specific government policies have contributed to the problems of child poverty, including cuts to social assistance, cuts to women's centres, inadequate income assistance rates, lack of safe and affordable housing, costly public transit, lack of addiction and mental health treatment beds, and inaccessible child care.

The main conclusion from that report is that the current child protection practices under this government "violate the guiding and service delivery principles that are set out in law."

The report notes that apprehension of children is rarely for sexual abuse by parents, less than 1 percent, or even physical harm, less than 10 percent, but instead is "generally the result of a parent's struggle with poverty, addiction, mental health issues or family violence."

The report goes on to state: "The government's lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to take a preventative approach to child protection issues."

That's a recent report that just came out this month. Is that not an indictment on the government's children's budget, on this minister's children's budget? Three years later there is chaos in the ministry. Children who are in great need are not getting the assistance that they need. Most recently we just learned again that this government is thumbing their nose at a court decision to provide support to children and adults with an IQ that does not reach the minimal threshold that the government has set out.

Just because you turn 19, you're going to be cut out of services. The government ignores the court decision and continues on, business as usual. That is the legacy of this government. That is the legacy of this Minister of Finance. The government has done nothing to address the true issues that the community faces.

The next year the Minister of Finance came out with the seniors budget. Let's just take a look at the seniors budget. Seniors continue to suffer from lack of support and services. Seniors are being evicted from SRO housing units without protections. Tied with Quebec on the highest rate of seniors poverty in this country. The city of Vancouver's homelessness action plan shows that the amount of seniors homelessness is actually increasing and not decreasing.

Privatization of long-term care facilities is hurting families and the quality of care for seniors. Seniors are being separated. In spite of the fact that they've been together for a long, long time, they're being torn apart

because they cannot get the services they deserve. People worry about the expansion of privatization of the health care system, and they're getting pickpocketed day by day with more fees and increased costs and premiums from this government. That's the legacy of the seniors budget.

Then just this year, in this throne speech, the minister and the government say, the Premier says: "Oh, it's okay, seniors. Here's a solution for you. Here's what I'm going to say. We haven't delivered on the 5,000 long-term care beds that we have promised you as far back as the 2001 election. Never mind that. Don't worry about it, because this is what we're now going to consider, seniors. We're now going to say to you that we'll give you a tax shelter. Actually, while you're paying taxes all your life, right now what you should really do, families, is put that money aside sort of like an RRSP but use that money when you get old for seniors care.

Code, Madam Speaker? What that really means is that seniors services will no longer be provided by the government. This is irrespective of the fact that seniors have paid taxes all their lives, and they deserve so much better and so much more than what this government is offering them in their golden years.

So the budget after that — what do we have? Well, remember the housing budget? Homelessness has more than doubled since this government took office — without resources, I might add. According to accounts from my colleague from Kensington, who actually had a volunteer phone up municipalities to get their homelessness count in their communities, he came up with a figure of over 10,000 people across British Columbia. That is a figure that has just been released based on volunteer work with no resources, phoning municipalities and regional districts for that information.

Recently the UN housing rapporteur visited Vancouver. Here's what he had to say:

That is an indictment from an independent third party on this government's performance on dealing with the homelessness crisis in our communities. The homelessness count will be happening again in a few weeks for Metro Vancouver, and everyone expects that there will be an increase again.

How's it going since the government delivered the housing budget? Homelessness is on the rise. People are being evicted left, right and centre, and the government is ignoring the commitments they had made in order to win the Olympics. How's that for a legacy?

Rather than listening to communities and civil societies and the opposition, this government stuck its head in the sand and refused to even acknowledge the depths of the problem for several years. We have a society today where the affordability crunch is forcing families to put their groceries on their Visa cards.

Just this week hard-working British Columbians are being cheated out of their life savings through prepurchases. This week we had Sophia Street in Vancouver, where prepurchase homebuyers are now going to be out of their life savings, and they're just waiting with bated breath to see what the court report is going to say to see whether or not they can even recover their damage deposit.

We just heard later on this week of two other projects. H+H in the Yaletown community has gone into receivership. Again, prepurchase homebuyers are also going to be stuck in a situation over there. Another project actually in Richmond, Garden City, is also in a similar situation.

We just heard today from the Minister of Finance, who says: "Don't worry. All is good. Chances are they will be able to continue to buy because they'll get another developer to come in." Let me tell you this too, Madam Speaker, because I also talked to the receiver in this case. What he told me was: "Yeah, that might happen, and they will have to evaluate the viability of the project, but chances are those prepurchase homebuyers will have to pay more than what they expect to, to get those homes."

For the minister to take comfort and say: "Well, gee, they'll get their deposits back." Let us just be clear. There is no guarantee that those prepurchase homebuyers will actually get their full deposits back. There is something that we should be worried about in terms of what the government is doing to ensure that there's protection for the prepurchase homebuyers.

This is escalating. It's not an isolated incident anymore. There's the middleman, who sometimes goes in and actually makes a deal with the original developer and gets a couple of units and then later on flips them. Then where are the requirements for disclosure for the middleman? Where are the enforcement requirements for both the developer and the middleman in this case? How do you enforce this?

The only recourse that's really available for these homebuyers is the courts. I have to say good luck to those homebuyers, because the reality is this. The developer has gone into receivership. They may well have gone into bankruptcy, and they have to go to court to make sure they have abided by some disclosure statements that, frankly, are meaningless to the home purchasers in this scenario. Well, how is that for consumer protection?

We have a Premier who has now turned fashionably green, as he moves away from such innovative policy breakthroughs as the Waste Buster website, the racist referendum on aboriginal rights, cutting red tape by one-third and having open cabinet meetings. Remember those commitments?

He's now continuing with this embarrassing faddish tenure. This year we got a green budget that is really a sorry excuse to give their corporate friends bonuses. Yes, in this budget the winners are the banks and the oil and gas companies.

Banks get a $220 million corporate tax cut while they're making record profits. Oil and gas companies will get a $327 million subsidy this year and a $358 million subsidy next year. And guess what. They're exempt from the carbon tax. The big greenhouse gas emitters in B.C., the oil and gas industry, who release some 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, got the Liberal government's exemption to pay the carbon tax.

Apparently, the "everybody" that the government refers to is the average Joe on the streets, and it doesn't include the government's business friends. These are companies who made record profits, but the Liberal government still wants to contribute to this enormous subsidy to them.

The oil and gas industry is not the only sector that got the special Liberal treatment or that got the giveaways from the Liberal government. The aluminum industry also got exemptions not to pay the carbon tax. How's that for fairness? How's that for fairness for British Columbians, and how do you like a green budget that targets the little guys for carbon emissions while exempting the big polluters?

I have been elected in office for a long time myself, and it is not theoretical. This is not just theoretical. There must be meaning behind these gestures and photo ops for the government. The people of British Columbia will know that the emperor has no clothes. Like the wizard of Oz, there's just a man behind the curtain. You can print the budget on green paper all you want. You can market it however you want to.

The government is planning to spend $30 million, by the way, of taxpayers' money to go and spin you to tell you that their budget is all about a green budget. That's at least $30 million of your hard-earned taxpayers' money that they're going to spin to the public. That's what they're intending to do.

No matter how you disguise it, this is not a green budget. So let's just face the facts. What's worse, the budget does not actually give British Columbians an alternative to get out of their cars. The transit investments, frankly, are pitiful in this budget. Sure, the government touts a $14 billion transit plan, they say. And guess what. The budget only provides for some $300 million for transit infrastructure.

Well, at this rate, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I won't be around to take that bus across the street to take my daughter to school or to get to work. So that's a realistic plan for you. There's a $14 billion plan, and this budget gives you $300 million to get started. Woo hoo. Let's just wait, and let's just sit back. I'll say this, folks. Don't take it to the bank because it ain't coming.

What about those folks outside of the lower mainland? Quite frankly, we actually have it easier in the lower mainland. At least the weather is not minus 40 outside, and we don't have piles and piles of snow.

What about those communities where you have the distance to deal with, road conditions to deal with and the weather to contemplate? The government says: "Get out of your car." In the meantime, the local school has closed. The government has closed some 130 local schools across British Columbia in their tenure. It is only minus 40 outside, and you're supposed to take transit to work, and then you're supposed to take transit to take your kid to school.

But wait. There's only one catch. There's no transit in your region. How about that? There's no bus or transit resources that you could take. In some communities there's only one cab that you can order to actually get to and fro, from one location to another. There's the solution. The minister says: "Well, there's the hundred bucks that you get. You get a hundred dollars in rebate."

The Finance Minister says she's going to buy a pair of runners so she can get out of her car and do some more walking instead, and that's really good for the environment. Well, that may work for the Finance Minister, who just jets into a community for a meeting in the boardroom. But I've got to tell you that I will challenge her to do that in Castlegar, in Fort St. John, in Williams Lake — in any of those communities where there is snow on a day-in and day-out basis. See how those runners are going to get her from one location to another when she has to walk more than from the cab into the boardroom.

Working families are falling behind. Entire forestry towns are being abandoned by the Liberal government — 16 closures in four months in places like Kamloops, Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Campbell River, Elk Falls and New Westminster. Quesnel is losing a mill, and three more Tolko mills in Williams Lake…. Without a paycheque, how will people pay their mortgages, help their kids get through university and colleges, care for their loved ones?

What is this government going to do? Well, in this budget those communities get a round table. They don't get $327 million in subsidies. They don't actually get any money for reinvestment for economic development in those communities. They get a round table.

I ask you this question: will the Minister of Forests take charge? So far, we have seen him take no action but report after report after recycled report. I guess that's green. At least it's recycled.

What about the Premier? Will the Premier step up and take charge? We haven't seen any action to date. It's kind of like an Abbott and Costello act. Someone's going: "Hey, who's on first? Nobody's on first. Who's on second? Nobody's on first." Then you say: "Who's on third? I don't really know." That's what's happening with this government with respect to how they're dealing with the rural communities and the challenges they face with forestry health.

If our entire economy is built on game theory because it fits with the government's ideology, who will stand up for communities facing hardships? The rich history of rural enterprise in B.C…. Who will contribute to the culture and identity of the province — the idea of reciprocating the public good, the idea that we have a sense of responsibility for each other? Who will

actually step up to ensure that there is leadership shown so that these communities do not fall by the wayside?

Margaret Thatcher didn't believe in the concept called society, and this government just pays lip service to it. In B.C. we have to take leadership on our economic and geographic challenges by having responsibility for each other, not by leaving people behind or only thinking about ourselves. Even when entire communities are unravelling and civil society is breaking down, this government won't intervene because it doesn't fit their narrow ideology.

As they give away tree farm licences and roadways and sell off public assets, entire communities of people who have contributed to the cultural, social and economic life of our province are being told that they don't matter. They're not relevant to this government's agenda, this Premier's agenda and this Finance Minister's agenda.

What happened to the heartlands strategy? Was it abandoned like the Premier's plaid shirt and guitar? As this government paints itself green so it can play its PR politics, big polluters get a pass on climate change. People die in the streets because homeless people try to stay warm with Coleman stoves in the alley, and somehow that's okay. The oil and gas company gets big breaks and banks get $220 million in tax cuts, while families in small towns are left behind. Higher transit fares, higher tuition fees, a new gas tax but no reality check on how we're going to reach our emission targets.

At the end of January everyone got evicted from the Dominion Hotel, and tomorrow everyone will get evicted from 334 Carroll Street. Community groups are desperately trying to help relocate those who are being evicted. As of today, there are four residents still in grave need of a home.

What is this government going to do about it? I got a letter from the Minister for Housing basically saying that there's nothing he could do. The Premier was a city councillor and a mayor as he watched hundreds of people get evicted during Expo 86. Well, it's déjà vu all over again. The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions came out with guidelines on housing policy in pre-Olympic environments back in June of 2007. Will the government act on those policy recommendations, or will they do nothing?

The transit system in Vancouver continues to be in terrible shape. The Main Street, Fraser Street, and Victoria bus lines are amongst the heaviest used, but people still have to stand, and there's still no room to get on the bus. Buses still pass them by as they wait to try to get on the bus.

A nice new transit plan for the lower mainland but no plan on how to get there and how to ensure that British Columbians could afford it. A closed-door transit board without transparency gets a 500 percent pay raise. For one meeting, they make 1,200 bucks. That's more than what some of my constituents make a month. Somehow this government is okay with that.

The Premier made decisions in the back room when he was the mayor of Vancouver, and he continues to do so. As families face higher mortgage rates and higher rents, and while their wages stay stagnant, the Premier is putting families on the hamster wheel of economic survival and making them work harder. Families who pay for oil and gas and hydro will be hit hard by this Finance Minister's budget. B.C. has the highest child poverty rate and seniors poverty rate in the country.

B.C. continues to have no poverty reduction strategy. Even Newfoundland has the wherewithal to come up with a strategy but not this province, not when the government can sit there and say: "Hey, our economy's performing great." But they cannot have the wherewithal to find the time or the political will to actually come forward with a poverty reduction strategy.

This government refused to give minimum-wage earners a lift. How many years has it been — five years, six years — since they actually got a wage increase? This government will stand by and see their transit board members — the friends, the hacks that they've appointed to the board — actually get a 500 percent increase. But they will not see the lowest earners of this province get an increase in terms of the minimum wage.

B.C. doesn't even carry a homelessness count. Though we are clearly having a crisis in this province, the government has not taken a proactive approach in even understanding the issue in a considered way. Despite the government's purchase of hotels, more low-income residents continue to be evicted in the downtown east side due to provincial government loopholes. Will the government take a preventative or precautionary approach, or will they just continue to do nothing as seniors and low-income people get thrown out onto the street?

Is that the story the government wants the rest of the world to know as the Olympics arrive in Vancouver in less than two years? There is nothing to address the affordability crisis in post-secondary education. A lost generation is encumbered by debt, due to the devastating public policy choices of this government. There's another cut in student aid, and the average student debt after four years is now some $27,000.

There's no new direction for child care, a system working families can't even afford. There are no plans to address women in poverty, no plans to address aboriginal poverty and socio-economic status, no plan to address the urban aboriginal issues in my constituency. A legacy of misguided policies and arrogant decision is what we got. There's no plan to address the skyrocketing ferry fares, B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC rates and transit fares.

I have great pride and immense privilege in representing the constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Before I entered public life I was a community advocate in the downtown east side, and I'm honoured to be here in this Legislature to carry out the responsibility and legacy of a century's worth of protests and dissenting behaviour that brought action and social change. That is the hallmark of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I will continue to work my hardest to ensure that those voices of our community are not lost in this government.

We always believe in standing up for our community. We're a community forged together in a history of dissent, trauma and compassion. I ask all members of the House to reflect on these issues and to reflect on the place of every community and on the challenges that they face. I challenge the government to come forward with a budget that actually deals with all of these issues and to show that everybody does matter in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to stand in the House today to respond to Budget 2008-2009. I don't think it will come as a surprise to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that I'm going to be voting in favour of a budget that supplies each and every British Columbian with a cheque for $100 to help them start saving money and to start them on a path to reducing the carbon footprint that they and their family have in British Columbia.

I was very interested to see the way the member came forward and started off her talk about government misleading. Someone in the chamber here was misleading the people of British Columbia. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The misleading portion of that speech really came from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was a minister in the previous NDP government. She was a minister responsible for things like housing and social services, and she failed miserably at that.

Since 2001 our housing budget has gone from $120 million to $360 million, a significant increase, something that has made a huge difference in the lives of literally thousands of British Columbians.

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that the member opposite does not recognize the contribution that B.C. Housing has made to her neighbourhood. As a matter of fact, she could even take a look at what's happening in her own household. You see, her husband works for the Portland Hotel Society, which has a hundred new units going up at the Woodward's building, 70 new units at the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I was sitting here contemplating that we just had the discussion about the use of the word "misleading," so I do ask you to be cautious of your parliamentary language. I also wish to remind you that your most recent remarks are personal. So please continue with those cautions in mind.

As I said, it's very important that we come into this House and talk about what we believe in, and this is what I believe in. I believe that the policies of this government have resulted in hundreds of people getting housing, that thousands and thousands of British Columbians are not paying taxes.

The changes to the taxes for this personal year…. She just talked about people in poverty. There are 250,000 people in British Columbia that, as a result of this budget, will not be paying provincial taxes. That's something that really makes a difference in the lives of people in British Columbia.

They are people that are also able to get Fair Pharmacare at a reduced rate, to be able to have MSP premiums reduced, to be able to access things like Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters or our rent supplement program.

There's an old myth that flutters over on that side of the House that the NDP owns the word "compassion." Well, they don't. The fact of the matter is that governments come and go, and that government was unable to meet the needs of their homeless in British Columbia in their term. This government has steadily increased the amount of funding each and every year, to the point that it is three times higher than it ever was before. The increase in the budget means a big difference to people in British Columbia, and it makes a big difference in the member's riding as well.

For example, I can recall last year when she was speaking about the need to preserve single-room-occupancy hotels. We heard her voice. We went out, and we bought ten of those SROs. Why? We wanted to make sure that we were preserving that form of housing stock in British Columbia. We were very glad to do that. In fact, we now have about a thousand extra units of single-room-occupancy hotels that we did not have before.

I also mentioned the Portland Hotel Society, which is something that is very…. You know, it's right in the middle of her riding, and it is an agency that has received over and over again….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Can I please remind you that the conversation in this House is through the Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Would you please avoid personal reference to members opposite.

L. Mayencourt: Well, that's going to be very, very difficult, because I was just witness to a personal attack from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I am not to respond?

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are debating the budget. We are not embarking on personal attacks across the floor of this House.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, really, you cannot be serious. You cannot be serious.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, I'm here listening in the chamber to people say things in debate. I think my job is to respond to that debate. I think it's very, very important that if someone casts aspersions on my Premier, I stand up and defend him. Today I heard people saying that the Premier was in a conflict of

We heard the member talking about the B.C. Liberal government misleading British Columbians. That's unparliamentary, and yet nothing was done there. So I must say that I am very, very serious about the fact that I am going to stand up and defend my government's record each and every day that I'm in this chamber.

It is really important that there be some fairness and some balance in this chamber, that the voice of what we are trying to accomplish in this province gets heard around this province. That's what the purpose of this chamber is. This chamber is a place where truth should reign. This is a place where we should be able to know that British Columbia puts more into health care than any other province, anywhere in its history.

And yet we have an opposition that can stand in this House and talk about the fact that we've made cuts to health care when our budget has gone from $8 billion to $13 billion. They can't add, they can't subtract, and they can't divide. What can they do?

I'll tell you something. They can't stand in this House and seriously say that we are not doing everything in our power to ensure that the poor, the vulnerable and the weak are looked after. I want to tell you something. That government over on that side, when it was their turn to run this, was in such disarray that there were people who were not getting access to welfare, not getting access to services — no health care, no mental health services and nothing in the way of addictions services.

That's not a personal attack. That belongs to all of them. It is time that British Columbians understand that that side of the House didn't do its job properly. As a result of that, we have been left with people stumbling from corner to corner in the downtown east side, with people that have no idea of how to lift themselves out of poverty.

So our government's done some stuff. Our government has introduced rent supplements. A family earning under $28,000 can get about a $500 subsidy cheque to pay their rent. You know what? They don't even have to tell their neighbour that they got the cheque. It just goes into their bank account, so we don't have to stigmatize them. We don't have to degrade them in the way that they have in many other cases in this province.

In my riding in 2002 I started doing an outreach program. I went out in the middle of the day and I talked to people that were homeless. I took them to welfare offices. I got them on welfare, and I found them a place to live.

That program was expanded in 2004 with the city of Vancouver. It was expanded around this province just recently. In 2004 we helped 65 people. In 2007 we helped 2,000 people access welfare, a place to live, medical services, addiction services and mental health services — things they could not get from that group over on that side.

I think what we have here is a group of people that just don't want to admit…. We have a group of members over on that side that just do not want to admit that this government is doing more than they did — much, much more. We have a group of individuals over there that really can't talk too much about opening housing projects because they've never done it.

I've worked in the social services side of things for many, many years, and what I know is that those guys talk it…

L. Mayencourt: …and we do it. There's a big difference between talking and doing.

L. Mayencourt: In 2001 the housing budget was $120 million. In 2007 it is $360 million. By 2008 it will be $380 million. That is an increase. That is three times what the NDP did in their time in office. Our homeless outreach program….

D. Routley: I rise on a point of privilege regarding the member's remarks. Point of order.

D. Routley: The member asserts that the previous government opened no social housing. We contest the factual account the member shared with the House.

Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, Member. It is a dispute of fact between two members.

L. Mayencourt: Our homeless outreach program, of which I am very, very proud, last year connected 2,500 people to supports and housing, and 80 percent of those people are still in housing. That's in 40 communities across British Columbia. I'm proud of that, because that program actually works for people.

There were a lot of people in our province that weren't accessing those kinds of supports. We went out on the streets, we went to them, and we said: "Can we help you?" We took them to a place where we could help them. And that's something wonderful.

Our rental assistance program last year helped 4,400 families. Those are families that live below $28,000. And, as of this budget, I think it's — what? — $36,000 annual….

L. Mayencourt: It's $35,000, which is a low income for a family. They are eligible for a rent supplement. That's something that provides housing security. But they're also available for MSP premium assistance. They're also available….

L. Mayencourt: I can't believe it. The members across this way voted against those things. Madam Speaker, what is it that they don't like about it? Was it wrong that we went out and reached out to the homeless in an unprecedented way and said: "Look, let's help you out. Can we help you? Can we get you a place to live? Can we make sure you have a safe, clean, affordable place to live? Can we make sure your kids have lunch at school?" So these guys over here have voted against it and that's as simple as that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair, please. Your conversation is through the Chair.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, absolutely, Madam Speaker. I thought I referred to you, and I apologize if I missed something there.

The SAFER program is the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, and that's a very important program. It's something that my own father even applied for when he was still alive. What that's for is to help seniors that are frail or elderly who are at risk of becoming…. They have less options with their ability to buy food and all that sort of stuff.

Our Finance Minister said: "Look, that's a really great program, but it needs to be expanded. It needs to affect more people." So since 2001, 3,000 other seniors have had access to that service. In 2001 the housing with supports was 1,300 units. Today it is 3,579 units, plus 895 that are under construction, plus 389 SRO room purchases this year. There are 700….

We have actually doubled the number of shelter beds in British Columbia, because we know that there's a critical problem with housing affordability. We're trying to address it. We have to make sure that those folks are there and looked after, so we've expanded that. They've doubled it so that there are 1,400 expanded shelter beds available. We've included that to be a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week thing.

We've also been reaching out to aboriginal communities. In 2001 there were 430 units of aboriginal housing in British Columbia. Today there are over 3,500. That's a very significant increase. Today in British Columbia over 84,000 people have been helped through our rental assistance programs — any of the ones I've mentioned. In the last year 10,000 new people….

We have an opportunity here in British Columbia to lead, and last year our Premier decided — and the caucus supported him — to move towards a green agenda. It was something that was really important to us. We're not just talking about our own lives; we're talking about the world that we're going to leave behind for other people. Those people are our kids, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

We've advanced on a green agenda. The opposition members called for a carbon tax. Their leader called for a carbon tax as late as two weeks ago. Yet today we heard from the member for North Island that that wasn't the thing that was needed. The carbon tax was not something that was needed.

Well, I know for a fact that taxes that change people's behaviour are taxes that work for the people. You know, we started taxing the heck out of cigarettes and that means less people are smoking. We taxed the heck out of a variety other things, and that is a way for us to move and change people's behaviour.

By having a carbon tax, we're telling people to get out of their cars. We're telling people to start using other forms of transportation. We're making them pay for that service. I think one of the most important things we can be doing is protecting our environment.

We've talked a lot about things that are going on in the first nations community. I can remember back in 2001 how we were portrayed by members opposite. Where are we today? We are leading the country in relationships with aboriginal communities and aboriginal leaders. I'm very proud of the work the Premier has done on that.

The progress that we've made has resulted in treaties being signed, something that is very important if you're actually going to have some certainty in British Columbia. I was very, very happy to see the signing of a couple of treaties in the past year. I think it was really wonderful that we were able to accomplish that, and the government deserves full credit for it. So I'm very happy about that as well.

There are many things that we've been able to do over the past several years, and it has been a pleasure to be here. I want to thank all the members that have sat on this side of the House and voted with us on the successive budgets that have been brought forward by this government. Those budgets have resulted in people in British Columbia paying less tax, having more money in their pockets to make decisions that they and their families deserve to have choice on.

There are many voices on the other side there that think they have a better idea of what to do with the people's money. Well, we don't. We believe that the person that should be making the decision on how they spend the money is the person that earns that money. That's a very important distinction for us.

We have also been moving very much on the areas of mental health and addictions. I must say that the government is making moves that should have been made many, many years ago. We are now for the first time taking a look at what we can do in terms of Riverview. We recognize that successive governments since 1980 onwards have slowly deinstitutionalized a whole lot of people from Riverview and other care facilities

across this province that really should not have been left to fend for themselves on the street.

It does break my heart. Every once in a while I get to see some people out there that really need our help — people that will not ordinarily accept that help. It's very, very important that we reach those people, that we take our responsibilities and look after people that cannot care for themselves.

I have seen much of that in the downtown east side, but it's also been in my neighbourhood. It's a very important thing we do today when we talk about Riverview and we talk about the possibility of having institutional care brought back to British Columbia — not the stuff from the 1950s but a new way of doing things — to provide a humane way of operating.

It's important that we have a good debate. I understand that I may have offended the Chair, and I do apologize for doing that, Madam Speaker. I am very, very passionate about the things that we are working on. I believe that we need to speak about those things, but if I offended you or the previous Chair, I do offer my full apology to you.

We're doing some pretty good work all around this province. I'm very, very happy about the things that are brought forward in this budget. I am excited that we have an opportunity to make a difference in British Columbia for those children. I look forward to further debate.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place on the budget and offer a few comments, some thoughts and some ideas on this budget which the government side is proclaiming as: "The bells are ringing, hallelujah, hallelujah. It's all here. Repent, and ye shall be saved." I see the minister opposite giving two thumbs up.

I think what's important is that we get beyond the hype and the rhetoric and the bell ringing and the chest thumping and look at what it means for regular people — the people of my constituency, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — and their priorities and the issues that they're concerned about. It starts to tell a little different story.

There are a number of things that aren't quite what the government says, and I think that we need to talk about them. That, I think, would be a really good idea. So I want to address this budget from the perspective of the citizens of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

I'll start on education because that is a top of mind issue. What we see is a budget that the Minister of Education constantly likes to trumpet as saying: "We're spending more money on education now than we've ever spent before." Well, duh — it's called inflation. The fact is the increase is not funding the needs of districts such as school district 43.

School districts are still in the position of having to make cuts that are closing schools. Lincoln Elementary was one of those, and there's nothing in this budget that deals with those types of issues.

We are still significantly behind on the issue of seismic upgrading. There's not a lot in this budget that's going to see a significant increase on the number of schools that are seismically upgraded. That's something that this government was trumpeting a few years ago, as: "We are getting the schools in this province seismically upgraded."

The fact is that we are falling further and further behind on seismically upgrading schools and ensuring our children are protected in those schools than ever before. Nothing in this budget fixes that.

We're able to find $200 million in a tax cut for banks, but we're not able to put additional resources, the resources that are needed, to bring the seismic upgrading program to where it should be today. That's a serious flaw with this budget. That's an issue of serious concern to my constituents. It's a serious flaw in this budget, and there is nothing the Minister of Education can say to contradict that or counteract that, because, clearly, at the cabinet table she failed to make the case for increasing the number of schools that are going to be seismically upgraded. That's a serious flaw in this budget from the view of my constituents.

Health care. Again, the lift in this budget at first blush may look to be significant, but as we know, over the course of the year it doesn't….

M. Farnworth: The minister says: "More than first blush." Well, when you start to peel away at the budget documents, you really see the issues start to come to the fore, and you really see the problems with this budget, and the pressures it is going to place on health care facilities and on the delivery of health care services. We are still going to be facing some of the same challenges we have been facing, whether it's around wait-lists, around service levels or around issues such as long-term care facilities.

One of the things this government likes to trumpet when it comes to health care is: "Oh, we're doing more. We're doing more. We built more long-term care beds. We built more assisted living. Assisted living, assisted living, assisted living." They hang their hat on assisted-living beds. But assisted-living beds aren't long-term care beds. There's a significant difference, and the government and the government members don't want to acknowledge that they're different. They don't want to acknowledge that they are very different from the beds that many seniors require. That's where this budget falls down, and that's where the government has been falling down.

The government and the government members and the member for Vancouver-Burrard have been talking about people making choices and putting more money back in the pockets of people to make their own choices. Trouble is that they don't have any choice. They don't have any choice when it comes to increasing drug costs. They don't have any choice when it comes to the increasing cost of heating their homes. They don't have any choice when it comes to the increasing cost of their ICBC insurance. They don't have any

choice when it comes to the increasing costs of their day-to-day expenses, on fees and licences and permits.

The nickel-and-diming to death of people by this government more than offsets any one-time $100 bonus that individuals are getting. It more than offsets.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Why did you vote for it?" Well, I'm happy to vote for putting some money back in people's pockets. What I'm opposed to, hon. Member, is the duplicity of that member and other members who say that people….

M. Farnworth: I would remind the member that if he wants to heckle me — and I do enjoy his heckles — at least do it from your own seat.

But it is the duplicity saying that this hundred dollars gives people a choice. It doesn't. What they're doing is paying out in higher hydro fees; they're paying it in higher ICBC rates; they're paying it in higher transit fares. They're paying it in higher cost of living day to day, more often than not brought on by decisions of this government — in essence, a downloading of costs onto everyday taxpayers.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Nelson-Creston is saying: "What's that about?" That's what a lot of my constituents are saying: "What's that about? Wait a second. We've got a homeless crisis here in the Tri-Cities."

We've got a homelessness crisis. We have one of the highest rates of homelessness outside of Vancouver. Yet there's still no shelter, the number of homeless has increased, we have the highest rates of child poverty in this province — in the entire country. Yet there's nothing that really, substantively, makes any change to those conditions flowing in this budget.

M. Farnworth: Well, hon. Member, they're already a shelter for a lot of money.

But that $220 million would have provided a lot of assistance, would have built a number of shelters. Even more important than providing shelters, we could have started to do other things, such as building and making an even greater impact on things such as detox centres — a lot more than what we're doing and a lot more than what we're seeing in this budget.

M. Farnworth: I hear the baritone bellows of the member from Fort Langley–Aldergrove, and I'd just like to say that I am not against those people he mentions. What I am against is his inability and reluctance to assist and to help all those other people who need it. The fact is that we are making barely a dent in this problem. That's what this minister doesn't get, and that's what that government doesn't get. They don't get that they can trot out that where….

M. Farnworth: …or a saxophone or — judging from the increase to his ministry at the cabinet table — perhaps a castrato….

M. Farnworth: If the member wants to talk about those individuals whom he's helping, he also needs to recognize those whom he is not helping. The fact is that we have seen significant rates of homelessness in the Tri-Cities, and what's….

M. Farnworth: I love the heckles from the Minister of Forests and homelessness.

He talks about buying SROs, but the fact is that there's still an SRO. There's no new net increase. The fact is that we're not seeing the net increases that we used to see. We're not seeing the building taking place that used to take place in this province, and that's what people want to see.

M. Farnworth: The minister, again, is making his comments from across the way. We will explore that, hon. Minister, in the estimates debate, and we'll go to them in detail. But the fact is that homelessness rates have doubled.

Members, you genuinely cannot hear, despite the baritone and tenor dulcet tones.

M. Farnworth: On issues around homelessness, we're not seeing it. What we're getting is more questions from my constituents. They read in the paper that one day it's 7,000 units that the minister wants to put on the Riverview site — "I'm thinking big," was the phrase I think the minister used — and then the next, we're getting told: "No, no. It could be significantly higher than that — 25,000."

But it's not addressing the root cause, which is that ordinary people are being made homeless and don't have a place to go to — not enough shelters — and the fact that homelessness has doubled under this government, and the steps that are being taken are minuscule and not solving the problem.

The other area this budget does not really address is those who can't afford or who are working on the edge. They're working on the edge. They make too much for social assistance but not enough to save for a home, and in many cases, to not be able to pay the rent. There's no mention, for example, of the minimum wage in this budget — raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

M. Farnworth: My colleagues say that they gave it to the banks. That $220 million could have done so much in making a dent in some of those areas.

Other areas, for example, that my constituents are very much concerned about, and that this budget didn't address, are transit and transportation.

I want to deal with the issue of the term "carbon tax" from this government. My constituents, when they look at the budget and the government's trumpeting it as a green budget — saying that the carbon tax will change behaviour, that the carbon tax is revolutionary, that the carbon tax will advance British Columbia in areas of global warming…. They're looking and going: "How will this change my behaviour? If it doesn't change my behaviour, then it's only a tax grab."

It's only a tax grab. Without the additional buses that they can take, without the additional transit that's required to the Tri-Cities — and I'm thinking specifically here of rapid transit, SkyTrain, Evergreen line, however you call it — to the Tri-Cities, to Coquitlam Centre, to Douglas College…. Without that in place, people don't have those alternatives to switch to, no matter how much they want to.

This government has been in place now since 2001, and we still don't have rapid transit SkyTrain to the Tri-Cities. That is shameful. I see members on the other side hanging their heads in shame, as they should. I see the member from Chilliwack scratching his head and does a heckle and nodding, and well he should. I will remind him that his government has had — what? — seven years, not quite seven years, in power.

What's been accomplished? Not much. I know that in my first term as a government backbencher we put in place commuter rail, West Coast Express, out to Port Coquitlam and out to Mission. Hugely successful.

M. Farnworth: Actually, the Solicitor General laughs mockingly and says that it was a real success. Well, I can tell you, hon. Minister, if that's your attitude, you really do need to get out of Victoria more often. You do need to come to the north side of the Fraser, because by the time you get to Coquitlam Centre, you cannot find a seat on that train.

Many of his constituents, in fact, rather than fight traffic, will go over the Abbotsford Bridge to Mission and take the train. It was an NDP government that put that train in place. It is so successful that they need more cars. By the time it gets to Coquitlam Centre, it's standing room only. You can't get a seat. It's been extremely successful.

Yet this government has not provided any additional funding in this budget to assist in getting new cars for West Coast Express. They have provided no additional funding to get additional trains running on West Coast Express — nothing. That train was put in, in my first term as a member in this place, in '91. By the time of '96 that train was running.

In the second term, '96 to 2001, we started on the SkyTrain line that would have gone to Coquitlam Centre. The Millennium line. It got to Lougheed Mall. It was a long-promised, long-fought-for transit improvement in our area. It's a huge…

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's a convention that we don't recognize the members who are absent or present in the House.

Deputy Speaker: You don't recognize the members, whether they are absent or present.

The member who I work with, the Liberal member who represents Port Moody, made comments about Port Moody not getting anything. And he's absolutely

right. They didn't get anything, and why didn't they get anything? Because this government cancelled a decision to take it to Coquitlam Centre. They cancelled it and sent it to Richmond instead and made the RAV line the priority. They made the RAV line the priority and not service to the Tri-Cities.

That is the great failure of this government — that even seven years on, they have still not brought transit, rapid transit, SkyTrain to the Tri-Cities. Richmond got first-class service, and we didn't even get second class. We got pushed under the bus for the last seven years.

I still, despite all the good words of the government…. "Oh, Evergreen line to the Tri-Cities…." Well, they've said they want to build it, but they've said that they expect matching funds from the federal government. Well, in the budget that came down on Tuesday, we saw $67 million. Now, I'm happy that we're getting the $67 million. I'm just wondering where the other some $330-some-odd million is going to come from.

They said that they wanted $410 million — they were expecting that — and we got $67 million. So I'm just wondering where the rest is going to come from, because we can't afford to wait too long out our way for rapid transit to the Tri-Cities. We cannot afford to wait, if we are to take the growth that we are projected to take, for rapid transit to come out to our area.

That's another significant failure of this budget. It doesn't address the transportation and rapid transit needs of the residents of my constituency. That's why they're skeptical. They are skeptical when they say: "Oh, it's a carbon tax." Until those alternatives are in place, they view it as a gas tax. Until those additional buses are in place, they view it as a gas tax. Until the additional West Coast Express cars are in place, they view it as a gas tax.

That's a real problem for the government if they want to genuinely ensure, if they want to genuinely convince people, that the carbon tax in this budget will do what it says and is the right direction to go. If they're not seeing the alternatives, they're not going to buy it. They're going to remain extremely skeptical.

So that's on transportation. What about other areas in this budget that my constituents are concerned about? Well, public safety is something they're extremely concerned about. They were looking to this budget to see that we'd have some significant increase to ensure that our streets are safer — that there would be significant increases to provide additional resources to fight gangs. Clearly, the government didn't listen. When you look at this budget, there are no additional resources to fight gang violence.

I guess that at the cabinet table, in the opinion of the Attorney General, who said that we do need more resources, and the opinion of the Solicitor General, who said that we don't need more resources when asked in this House, the opinion of the Solicitor General won out, and we don't have the additional resources in this provincial budget to get serious to do more on areas of gang violence.

I think that's really unfortunate. I can tell you that my constituents are not impressed by that. They are not happy with that one little bit. They were expecting action in this area from the government, and it has failed to deliver.

I know that today the Solicitor General was out making an announcement of about $500,000 from proceeds in crime, and that we're going to…. [Applause.]

I hear the applauding from members on the other side. You know what? It's really nice. Frankly, illegal proceeds from crime obtained from criminals should go back to fight crime. It should go back to ensure that our streets are safer. The trouble is that it's a drop in the bucket for what is actually required. This minister failed, and it's pretty clear he wasn't a baritone at the cabinet table. He was clearly a castrato at the cabinet table.

M. Farnworth: My hon. colleague asked what a castrato is. I would ask the member to think about the root word. It was — I will elucidate for the hon. member — a procedure that was done on.…

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, if he wants to use the term "ministers…." To ensure that their voice would never become a deep and powerful voice, that it would stay high-pitched forever…. So I guess if you want to use the term about ministers, you can do that. Clearly, he did not have a baritone voice at the cabinet table.

The point is that people in my community were looking for a significant substantial increase in the fight against crime in my community and communities right across the province, and they're not seeing it. The fact that the minister was out today trumpeting $500,000 tells me that this government knows this budget is weak in this area. This government knows that they failed to pass the test of public expectation when it came to fighting crime and public safety in this budget.

There is nothing in this budget that deals with the issues raised by those RCMP memos that were released last week that said there were serious problems in the ICE team — the integrated child exploitation team — and the ISPOT team.

The minister stated that yes, those programs will not end and they will stay in place. But nothing in this budget deals with the underlying issues around burnout of resources and the ability to do the job as effectively as it should be, as that program was set up to be. Nothing in this budget will resolve those issues, and that is a significant, fatal flaw in this budget.

It doesn't matter whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether it's transportation. It doesn’t matter if it's public safety. This budget fails to live up to the hype and hyperbole of the government. Instead, it fails to deliver, because it doesn't deal with the choices that everyday people have to face in this province.

As I said earlier, $220 million would provide a lot of shelter beds, a lot of affordable housing, a lot more social housing. They could do a lot more in our health

care system, and $220 million could do a tremendous amount more in the area of public safety, in dealing with gang violence. It could do a lot more to ensure we have resources for prosecutors in this province. It could have done a lot more in terms of courthouses. It could have done a lot more in terms of correctional facilities.

The Solicitor General wants to create more beds so that we can house people who shouldn't be out on the street and make our streets safer. But there's a problem, again, when it comes to human resources. There are significant recruitment and retention problems of correctional facilities, of sheriffs. The $220 million could have done a lot to address all of that, but it didn't.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to say in my closing remarks that this budget fails my constituents. It fails my critic area. It fails the province of British Columbia. It does not live up to the hype and the hyperbole. That is why I will be standing and voting against this budget when it comes up for a vote in this Legislature.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's an honour to have an opportunity to stand in the House and speak in favour of Budget 2008, a budget that has been receiving accolades across this country and around the continent since the Finance Minister presented the budget last week. It is the first budget in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax, a major step forward in the battle against climate change. It is being recognized as such by leading advocates in the fight against climate change as well as leading policy experts in what is necessary to move forward in addressing the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It's a budget that sees income tax reductions for lower-income-earning British Columbians. It's a budget that includes a climate action dividend that puts money back in the pockets of all British Columbians very soon.

We were subjected to a rather unique experience this week in the House in the debate of the supplementary estimates, which actually included the ability to pay that climate action dividend. We had a unanimous vote in this House. Members on this side voted in favour of the climate action dividend payment, and members across the floor voted in favour of it, notwithstanding that we've heard speaker after speaker from the opposition say they don't like it. Yet when the opportunity came, they stood and voted in favour of it.

It was interesting. The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who just spoke, says that he doesn't mind voting to put money back in the pockets of British Columbians. It actually comes as a surprise to me, hearing that from that member. For the decade that they were in government, and certainly the budgets since we've been in government, they have consistently voted against putting money back into the pockets of British Columbians. It's one of the things that's a defining difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

When given the opportunity, we are always going to look for those opportunities where we can put money back into the pockets of British Columbians. We fundamentally believe that they're in the best position to decide how those hard-earned dollars should be spent, not government.

This budget also sees record investments in health care, in education and in social services right across the spectrum.

It's been interesting to listen to some of the debate in the House and some of the positioning, in particular, taken by members of the opposition. The members of the opposition — not all but certainly most — try to portray themselves as the protectors of low-income British Columbians, that the NDP is the party who cares about low-income British Columbians. Let's look at the facts, Madam Speaker. Let's look at the changes over the last number of years.

For somebody earning $15,000 of annual income — something that all of us in this House would agree is a low income that it would be very difficult to get by on…. The NDP felt that with $15,000 of annual income, you can pay provincial income tax. We disagreed. We said that if you're earning up to $15,000 a year, you shouldn't pay any income tax. The opposition voted against that in previous budgets.

MSP premium assistance. A dramatic higher number of British Columbians qualify for MSP premium assistance today because this government said: "Do you know what? Lower-income British Columbians shouldn't have to pay MSP premiums. We'll raise the threshold, and we will ensure that more British Columbians get full relief through MSP premium assistance."

Fair Pharmacare. We hear consistently the challenge of drug costs with new and improved drugs from the research that's done these days and always coming on the market. This is a government that said: "Regardless of income, we should have a Pharmacare program that provides assistance in purchasing pharmaceuticals for people, regardless of their age, across the province." That's a change that was made by this government. It was something that was voted against by the opposition.

Child care subsidies. People earning up to $38,000 a year qualify for a child care subsidy today. You know what it used to be? It was $21,000. That's a dramatic difference in terms of assistance with child care costs for the citizens of British Columbia, a dramatic improvement implemented by this government.

Let's look at shelter costs. This is a government that said, "We get that there are some affordability challenges in terms of housing," and we looked at where there was some success in terms of a successful program. We saw that the SAFER program, which provides rental assistance for elderly renters, actually was helping many senior British Columbians in this province. So what did we do? We expanded the eligibility for that program, but we did one better. We said that we shouldn't have a program that limits rental assistance only to seniors, because there are many families around the province that struggle with their rental costs.

This government introduced a rental assistance program so that lower-income British Columbians can choose where they wish to live in terms of particular location, but they can receive rental assistance from government to help them with those shelter costs.

This budget increases that threshold from $28,000 annual income to $35,000 annual income. I know the members of the opposition voted against the program when it was first implemented at a $28,000 threshold, but now that it's at $35,000 and going to help that many more British Columbians in all communities around this province, perhaps the members opposite can see fit to vote in favour of that benefit to British Columbians.

When we look at the challenges of low income broadly, there's one thing that often doesn't get mentioned. It really is the cornerstone of assisting people in moving away from low income, and that is the opportunity for employment.

Let's just look at what's happened in this province over the course of the last seven or eight years on employment. Madam Speaker, 400,000 new jobs in industries all around this province are providing new opportunities for people to get jobs, get steady employment and be able to provide for their own futures. That's the type of structure you need if you truly are going to move forward in benefiting lower-income British Columbians. That's the strategy that this government has adopted. It's a strategy that is providing much greater benefit to those with the lowest incomes than certainly was here in the decade of the 1990s.

Budget 2008 commits $438 million over four years on programs and services to strengthen social services. It is funding that will support persons with developmental disabilities and children and youth at risk and with special needs. It will help strengthen aboriginal child and family services. It will enhance services to victims of crime and trauma, reduce homelessness and provide supplements for people on income assistance. It is funding that will also establish a provincial 211 service to offer one-stop access to a wide range of community and social services.

Budget 2008 builds on the successes of Budget 2007 and includes $104 million over four years to implement new and expanded measures to help break the cycle of homelessness. That has assisted this government in purchasing single-room occupancy hotels in Vancouver and around the province to ensure that those facilities remain available for people. It has allowed this government to expand emergency shelters to be open 24-7.

Back in the 1990s the government of the day felt that fine, there will be some shelters, but at seven or eight o'clock in the morning, everybody has to go. The shelter is not open anymore. That makes it really difficult to actually work with the people who are requiring that shelter and to hook them into additional services that may be available to them to try and break the cycle of homelessness.

So this government said: "You know what? If we open shelters 24 hours a day, that actually gives an ability for people who are in the shelter to be worked with during the day, to connect into the services that can be available to help them break that cycle of homelessness." And to go one better — implement outreach teams in communities around the province who will go out on the street, deal with people who are struggling with homelessness and connect them into the services that are available so that, again, that cycle can be broken. That is bringing real results to people who truly are vulnerable on our streets over the last couple of years.

In addition, more than $3 billion over four years will enhance health care as a consequence of this budget. That includes significant new investments in research: $25 million to support research and to explore new treatments for illnesses and injuries affecting the brain, and $2 million to expand research on preventing and treating childhood cancer. Those are the types of investments that are necessary to ensure that we have the knowledge and that we're developing the tools to treat current illnesses and provide for a healthier population.

When we look at the investments made in health care over the course of the last seven years, the growth in health care spending is quite startling. But that is spending that's allowed us to expand dramatically the number of doctors being trained in British Columbia. That training was ignored for the whole decade of the 1990s when in fact the number of doctor-training spaces was reduced, believe it or not.

Similarly, with nurses we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of nurse-training spaces. You know what? If you want nurses to work in your hospitals, you actually have to provide the spaces to train them in your colleges and universities. That seems to be common sense, but for a decade, through the 1990s, we actually saw a reduction in the number of nurse-training spaces. We've reversed that trend. We're training more nurses so that we'll have the professionals required to provide effective health care in communities around the province.

We are seeing unprecedented capital investments in health care facilities right across British Columbia. In my own community of Vernon, finally after years of waiting where Vernon Jubilee Hospital was simply ignored, we're getting a new diagnostic tower and treatment tower — an over $80 million investment. We'll see shovels in the ground very soon. That builds on an expansion of the emergency ward last year.

We're also seeing investments in operating funds for the health authorities, which is going to allow a doubling of the palliative care beds that are funded at Vernon Hospice House, a community-built facility that ensures incredible end-of-life care for patients and support for their families in my community.

When we look specifically at the Ministry of Children and Family Development budget for this year, Budget 2008 brings the ministry's total budget to nearly $2 billion. It builds on and strengthens strategic programs and service enhancements announced in Budgets 2005, 2006 and 2007. These core program enhancements support the ministry's continued shift toward a more holistic strength-based approach to serving vulnerable children, youth, adults and families.

This year's budgeting is an increase of nearly 7 percent over last year's budget. It will fully support the comprehensive process of change that is taking place within the ministry, including the move to regionalized

programs, services and decision-making. At the same time, funding is targeted to improve programs and services and enhance quality assurance as supported by the Hughes report.

Most importantly, by building on successful programs, services and initiatives, Budget 2008 will move us forward toward our continued goal of better outcomes for children, youth and families around British Columbia.

Of MCFD's $2 billion budget this year, about $1.3 billion goes to the ministry's operations, which is an increase of $87½ million. It's a 7.2 percent increase over last year and over a 23 percent increase since three years ago. By 2010-11 it's anticipated that the ministry's overall budget, including CLBC, will rise by $206 million. That three-year funding boost will go towards programs and services that do support our province's most vulnerable adults, children, youth and their families.

When we look at Community Living British Columbia, of this year's $128½ million increase, a little over $41 million goes to CLBC, again supporting some of our province's most vulnerable children, youth and adults. That funding is a 6½ percent increase over last year, and it brings the total budget for CLBC to more than $680 million for this coming year. That's an 18 percent increase since 2005-06, and it's something that we plan to build on even further over the next three years. In fact, over the next three years, by 2010-11, CLBC's budget will rise a further $83 million, an additional 13 percent over the current fiscal year.

For this coming year the increases to CLBC's budget mean more funding to address the increased numbers of adults with developmental disabilities that require access to residential and day support services. It means increased rates for family care providers, and it means additional funding to build on services for children and youth with special needs, to help ensure they are healthy and safe.

When we talk about building a brighter future for British Columbians, we all recognize that we must ensure that future is bright for all children, including the approximately 52,000 British Columbia children with significant special needs. The MCFD budget to serve children and youth with special needs and their families is almost $155 million this year, an increase of $10 million over last year. That also represents a $60 million increase, or 63 percent more funding, since 2004-05. In addition, CLBC's children and youth special needs funding for this coming year totals more than $61 million.

We need to recognize clearly that MCFD and CLBC don't work in isolation to support vulnerable special needs children and youth. We have partners within the Ministries of Health and Education, and together with them, the province provides more than 90 programs and invests more than half a billion dollars annually to assist children and youth with special needs.

While there are many excellent services in place to support children and youth, we have heard from families that accessing these services in a timely manner can be confusing and a challenge. That's why, together with our partner ministries, MCFD has led the development of a cross-ministry framework for action for children and youth with special needs with a goal of providing an integrated, easily accessible continuum of services to support children and youth with special needs and their families, from birth right through to adulthood. In a phrase, it really is about getting the right services at the right time.

I'm very excited about the opportunity that this plan presents. I do think it's going to help relieve the stress on parents and allow them to focus a little less on researching and coordinating the care and support that their children need and really have a little more time to just spend with their kids.

I had the opportunity recently to present the framework to the B.C. Association of Child Development and Intervention and then, a day later, to the B.C. school district superintendents and directors of special education. I'm very pleased to say, and was pleased to find, that they endorsed the plan fully and the direction that the ministries together are going in.

Our commitment to children and youth with special needs includes continued efforts to ensure that children and youth along the autism spectrum have more opportunities to build positive relationships and experience meaningful participation at home, at school and in their communities. Today in British Columbia we're serving over 5,000 children and youth diagnosed with ASD and their families. That compares to only a few hundred being served prior to 2000.

We've seen over the past seven years tremendous growth in British Columbia's autism funding as well as information and services for children, youth and their families. The budget for autism treatment and funding programs has increased 12-fold since 1999-2000. That budget will be an estimated $45 million this year, which is even a 46 percent increase over the last four years.

I'm proud to say that this funding has supported some real improvements in this area. We know that five years ago, children were waiting about a year and a half just to get a diagnosis. Today diagnosis is occurring on average within five months, and intervention funding is immediately available thereafter.

What that means in human terms is that children get diagnosed faster and, importantly, at a younger age, so that intensive intervention can take place earlier. That means more opportunity to develop social skills, life skills and school-readiness skills, and more opportunity to help each child reach his or her full potential.

B.C. is also emerging as a leader in autism research. Most recently the province teamed up with Health Canada to establish a national chair in autism intervention and research at Simon Fraser University. We're also supporting ongoing studies at UBC and, as outlined in the throne speech, intend to add even further research in autism as we go forward.

So when combined with better diagnostic services, it means that children are receiving more effective services and in the future will receive even more effective services earlier in life.

Speaking of specific conditions that require supports, in September 2003, B.C. became the first province in Canada to create a comprehensive provincial strategy on FASD. As many of us know, FASD is one of the most common forms of preventable brain damage. That is something that we have to consistently remember and speak about — the fact that FASD is preventable.

Ensuring that children and youth with FASD and their families have access to early assessment and diagnosis and an ongoing network of cross-ministry support is what the strategic plan was about.

In 2006 we provided $10 million for an FASD action fund to promote prevention, to increase public education and to provide training for parents and caregivers. More than 40 projects around the province have been supported through that action fund since that time. That's allowed for strong partnerships to be forged at the community, provincial and federal levels. MCFD is leading work on a cross-ministry plan to build on the success of the past four years and carry us into the future.

There are some good examples of initiatives under the FASD action plan that are bringing results. One of the most promising new initiatives is the key worker and parent support approaches developed in B.C. for families with children with FASD and similar conditions.

This is a program that's been developed based on the most current research and has seen a budget increase over the past three years. It's innovative in supporting families to navigate the service system, and it's also helping families to better understand what FASD is and how best to meet the needs of their child.

It is a new program, and it's been developed in collaboration with the Ministries of Health and Education over the past three years, with a significant investment in training and evaluation. That external evaluation will allow us to continually improve the key worker program to ensure that it serves the needs of children and their families in the very best way possible. I'm certainly happy to report that the response to date to that program has been very encouraging and indicates that we are very much on the right track.

Our government has also made it a priority to build an improved system of mental health and addiction services across the province. The total child and youth mental health budget for this coming year is more than $87 million, an increase of 120 percent over the last four years and $17 million in the last year alone.

In 2003 cabinet endorsed a five-year plan to improve outcomes for children and youth coping with the challenges of mental illness — the child and youth mental health plan. This was the first plan of its kind in Canada, and in this final year of the plan's implementation it's clear that the landscape has changed dramatically since five years ago. Almost 20,000 children and youth currently receive MCFD out-patient community mental health services annually, almost double those that received services when the plan was first implemented.

There's no question that mental illness is a serious issue, particularly for young people, but the good news is that we know the majority of children with mental health problems can be helped early and effectively. It's why we introduced the Friends program, a classroom-based anxiety prevention program in elementary schools. It's a program that has been introduced, I understand, first in British Columbia, and it helps kids get the tools they need to help cope and to learn how to manage anxiety and depression early on, for both now and later in life.

Those are skills that literally can mean the difference between a successful, healthy, productive life and one fraught with hardship and disability. The Friends program is now provided in 90 percent of school districts throughout the province.

In the past five years we've seen a shift in how children's mental health is approached, with a greater focus on prevention, on early intervention and a real strengthening of family and community support. It's an approach that is receiving accolades from across the country and one that is being noticed as other provinces look to what they can be better doing to serve children and youth with mental health.

We've also focused very much our resources on the ground, with more than 300 FTEs added for child and youth mental health, to ensure that we have the resources in communities across the province to meet the needs of children and youth who may be struggling with mental health challenges. As we near the end of the original five-year plan, we will be evaluating our work over the past five years and, together with our cross-ministry partners, establishing a new plan to build on our successes, address any challenges that remain and carry us forward.

One of the challenges that is no secret, in terms of child and family services, to any member of this House and to most British Columbians is that our child welfare system has not worked well historically for aboriginal British Columbians. While aboriginal children represent only 9 percent of our province's child population, they make up half of the total number of children in care today.

We are committed to changing that. We're committed to changing it through an improved and stronger and collaborative relationship with our first peoples. It's a key focus of our work at the ministry and one where we are making progress.

To that end, over the last six years we've dedicated $22 million in preparation for aboriginal governance. We've seen the establishment of two interim aboriginal authorities in the Fraser and Vancouver Island regions, and we hope to be able to move forward with further authorities later this year.

The funding has been used to build much-needed capacity in the aboriginal community to prepare for taking on services. We've also created an Elders Advisory Council, from which we seek guidance on ways to make our programs and services more culturally sensitive and significant.

We'll build on those investments with $17 million allocated over the next three years to continue to

support the delivery of services for aboriginal children in care and to provide funding aimed at further building capacity within the aboriginal community for child and family services.

There are some indicators that we are making great progress. Last Friday I had the opportunity to attend a celebration for the delegation to Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, which is becoming British Columbia's first urban aboriginal agency to assume authority over the full spectrum of child and family services. I think I can speak for all of those who had the privilege of attending that ceremony in saying that it was a profoundly moving experience.

It is one thing to say on paper that we value the input of aboriginal peoples in determining how services are best provided to their children. It's one thing to enter into the agreements that enable that to happen. But it is another and much more moving experience, after so many years of perseverance and leadership on the part of aboriginal peoples, to actually see the process moving towards fruition.

It was similar in many ways to a ceremony that I was able to attend with the Cowichan Tribes about a month ago, where they were taking on the authority and jurisdiction for adoption. Again, a ceremony that was incredibly moving — to see a first nation regain that jurisdiction over adoption of their children.

We've also been recognized in the northern region, where — in collaboration with first nations family services agencies, the University of Northern B.C. and the B.C. Public Service Agency — we've initiated a significant expansion of the number of aboriginal social workers in the north. Earlier this month the 12-person team in the north was honoured with the gold Premier's Award in recognition of their success in doubling the number of aboriginal social workers in the north by building on mentoring and practicum field placements.

There's much more that I would like to comment on in terms of the work that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing with foster parents to better serve children that are in care, but I see that my time is rapidly running out.

We've made concerted efforts over the last number of years to add additional staff. We've gone from 3,743 FTEs in this ministry three years ago to over 4,500 in the coming year, which is an 18 percent increase, one that will make a significant impact on our ability to meet the needs of children and families around the province. The work of the many people in the Ministry of Children and Family Development will proceed, and the children and families of this province will be served well.

D. Routley: I am sitting here waiting to speak, and it's amazing how acutely aware you can be of time when you're about to speak and how thoroughly you can forget that the minute you stand up. I hope I can make it through everything I had planned to say, for once in this House.

It also points to something else — that concept of awareness. This government and all the members of the government who have spoken on this budget have dispensed with an awareness of the past that they are responsible for. The legacy of cuts that this government brought to this province disabled the people, the environment and many of our industries, most particularly our forest industry.

Let's go back a bit. Let's go back to old budgets. Let's go back to the core review that this government started with, a core review which required a 30 percent cut from all of the ministries, including the Ministry of Children and Family Development. How could a ministry so devoted to need over budget — at least that's the assumption I think most British Columbians would make — possibly be directed to arbitrarily cut 30 percent? The devastation from those decisions in the lives of children and families we are still feeling to this very day.

This speech will be about awareness. It will be about a reality check. It will be about reminding the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who pronounced that this province was the worst place…. Imagine a member of this House who could say that this place was the worst place, regardless of what year. Imagine the insult to British Columbians. Imagine the memory of those British Columbians….

To all members of the House: no comment can be made if you're not in your assigned seating, and if everyone would please respect the person that has the floor. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

D. Routley: Imagine the pain of those who suffered through the days of the Asian decline. But I suppose the member would make the NDP responsible for the Japanese currency correction, the loss of Asian markets and the fact that copper was 80 cents a pound instead of $2.60 a pound.

I guess that was our problem, as I guess they'll take credit for the fact that there was an unprecedented building boom in the United States for the first four years of their term — which they frittered away and allowed, through poor forest policies, the closure of mill after mill at a time when markets had never been better. That led to the continued and increased export of raw logs, 200 truckloads per day from my constituency, as we lose our mills. During an unprecedented housing boom in the United States, this government and its policies drove the closure of over 40 sawmills. It's over 50 now. But there's no excuse for this.

The members need to be reminded, because I think they've become convinced by their own spin that spins straw into golden goals. Themes — merely labels to justify giveaways and tax breaks for their contributors and their cronies.

A defiance of reality is reflected in the last speaker's remarks around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the service this government gives to those who suffer from it. Only two days ago the media and this House were presented with the truth of this government's service to those with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder when Michael Steele, a foster parent who struggles to support his son, came to this House with his story of neglect and abandonment by this government.

Another client of Community Living B.C called my office the day of the budget. I called him back, and he had this wonderment. He asked: "How could there be no mention of me?" This man is a quadriplegic. "How could there be no mention of me?"

It was a simple question and one I couldn't answer, except to say that this government is engaged in a defiance of reality, still claiming the grand support of our aboriginal neighbours despite the boycott of the throne speech and the budget speech we experienced by aboriginal leaders — all defiance of reality and a commitment to continued wrong choices.

Those were the only explanations that I could give to this man because a government that began with that core review; that began with slashing from the most vulnerable people in this province, cutting tens of thousands of people off of assistance; that began by abolishing the Environment Ministry…. Now, like an arsonist showing up at the scene of the fire with a pail of water, it wants credit for a green budget that is no more green than…. The greenest aspect of the budget is the paper that it's printed on.

It is about awareness, and the people of B.C. should be aware of the economic management of this government, its record deficits through its first years in government, its debt increase at 5.2 percent currently per year despite the advertisement of surplus. It's like someone who took an advance on a credit card to increase their chequing account. This is all in defiance of reality.

The triple-Ps — their public-private partnerships — that have led to Enron-style accounting. Over $9 billion of off-balance-sheet accounting, off-balance-sheet budgeting. The long-term commitments….

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that his misunderstanding is well known.

Can I please remind all members to allow the person having the floor to continue to make their presentation. Everybody will have an opportunity in which to make their own presentation.

D. Routley: Yes, Enron-style accounting with off-balance-sheet budgeting. Long-term commitments to triple-P service agreements that are off the debt and that should be included in the debt of this province. That's what they've left us with.

They privatized our ferry system. We have seen over 100 percent increases in the small runs. The run that serves the constituents I serve on Kuper Island…. The Penelakut people were removed against their will from the foreshore of Chemainus. That's the heritage of it. Now despite the grand energy applied by those people….

Their young chief Lisa Shaver, who is an entrepreneur, a goal setter and is striving to uplift her people, is met on that path to economic development by this Transportation Minister's grotesque increases in ferry fares that the minister takes no responsibility for. He says, "Next wicket," and points to the ferry corporation.

User fees. I think it was in the second year of this government that I had to renew my driver's licence, my wife had to renew her driver's licence, and my daughter got her L and her N. In total that year I spent $375 on licence fees. Only two years before it would have cost me under $80.

This is the kind of inflation, the kind of downloading of costs, the kind of imposition of deficit on the people so that this government could advertise a surplus in the face of tripling homelessness, in the face of the fact that we lead this country for the fourth year running — rather, we follow in last place — in terms of child poverty.

We are also No. 1 — No. 10, I would say — because we have the most seniors living in poverty. How does this government equate that with all the good-news pronouncements? How does this government respond to my constituents who come through my door after the failed and broken promises that this government made to them, promising them 5,000 long-term care beds?

Now they find themselves inappropriately placed in assisted-living buildings that cannot meet their needs. If their needs increase, the Housing Minister's Bill 27 provides plenty of reason and plenty of excuse for their eviction.

It's all about how you use public policy. Are you going to use it to uplift the people of B.C., or are you going to use it to push them down and reward your friends, your insiders, your donators, your cronies? That is exactly what has happened. You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can use a hammer to tear it down. The Education Minister with her funding formula — another hammer used to tear the House down rather than build it.

We also heard the recent speaker talk about a meeting with the Cowichan Tribes. He was so proud to see them take over the adoption services. Well, I'll tell you that just yesterday we had the elders, we had a traditional speaker, the chair of PAC at Koksilah Elementary School — the truly first aboriginal school in this province that has for three years been delivering a program of aboriginal studies, language training and cultural programs that were developed over a 30-year period….

Yet the Education Minister has the gall to call the school in Prince George, from where she comes, the first aboriginal school in B.C. You know what? Do you

know what they're doing to Koksilah, the school that is truly the first aboriginal-choice school in this province? The school board is being bullied into a corner by the policies of this minister to a place where they have no choice but to close schools, cut programs, cut staff, cut services, and still they will be in deficit.

That is the legacy this government needs to stand to account for. They need to look to their rearview-mirror and be accountable, but their rearview-mirror is blind to anything that isn't more than seven years old. We have to go back to the legacy of the original cuts.

Now, the government will have us all congratulate them as they spin more straw to gold. Here they are. They are our friends. They put eight rocks in our shoes over the last five, six years, and now they're here to take out four. We should give them a reward. Well, that reward may be coming.

This government frittered away the biggest building boom in the history of the United States at a time when our forest industry was being crippled by their policies. They promised they would fix our industry, and it is broken. They have had seven years…

D. Routley: …and they have done nothing but contribute to the loss of our number one industry.

That is so sad because now this government paints itself forest green. After denuding the slopes in my constituency, damaging our watersheds, putting workers at risk — all of these things lay bare the hypocrisy between word and deed of the B.C. Liberal government.

This is a manufactured reality that this government lives in, in defiance of reality, in defiance of the conditions and experiences of British Columbians. I may be naive, but I grew up with this notion that this beautiful and wonderful province would always work to our benefit as British Columbians. We would steward it and protect it.

But this green government was the government that abolished the Environment Ministry as one of its first acts. This green government is the government that allowed the absolute loss of standard in our forest industry, an industry which is our most renewable, most replenishable and indeed, our most green industry, as those trees produce oxygen and consume carbon if they live.

The B.C. Liberal policies have driven us to treat our trees like a brewery treats beer bottles. More — sell more. Sell more logs — less value, always less value. Their friends have demanded it, because their contributors are owed it. Their contributors are the very companies who have benefited from the policies that have allowed the export of our logs, our jobs and all of the social supports that depended upon them.

That manufactured reality makes them, again, sound a little George Bush–like. This best place/worst place, this total exaggeration of the past and total embellishment of the present in defiance of the tripling of homelessness, in defiance of the poverty figures that many members on this side have pointed to. In this House we are responsible for people.

I once went to an event where the radio talk show host Rafe Mair was in attendance. My purpose was to thank him for getting me elected, because indeed, his argument to save the fish when it came to the Kemano 2 completion project was the argument I used to become elected.

He said that if there's a one in 5,000 chance of killing all those fish, it's like Russian roulette. The gun may have 5,000 chambers, but eventually you'll find the bullet. He said that probability is certainty unproven. He said that if we are warned of these problems, we cannot hide behind unintended consequence as an excuse for our outcomes.

This government knew that when it dislocated forest workers, when it dislocated the poor, when it cut women off of legal aid unless they first experienced violence, all of those things they knew — by probability — would lead to suicide, family breakup and community loss. They should stand up and be accountable for it if they had the hard heart to impose those policies in the first place.

We have had mill closures and raw log exports. Now we see the end of the forest industry spelled out for us on southern Vancouver Island by the despicable and improper removal of the private lands of Western Forest Products, which were formerly under TFL control.

The minister has stood in this House and claimed his reasons for doing that. But we know differently, and he will soon. This province will soon know the reasons for that removal, and they will know how wrong it was that they could do such a thing without any conversation with the people of Vancouver Island, particularly the first nations people.

In my critic area, trades and skills training, we suffered a huge loss of ground with the decimation of ITAC. In 1996-97 we had the highest number of completions of Red Seal apprenticeships. It is only this year that we have come close to — not quite up to but close to — that number after seven years of chaos, after thousands of apprentices were abandoned and left without support. Now, spinning more straw into gold, they tell us that there are 35,000 registrants. What they don't tell you is that most of those registrants are high school students and that only under 25 percent of them continue in their training.

They have disabled our ability to look out strategically at what our workforce needs are. They pushed the stakeholders from the table, not allowing labour to the table when it comes to apprenticeships and skills training. They ignored all the warnings they were given when they imposed this model, imported from New Zealand but applied with only 30 percent resources that it was applied with there. That's what left people on their own.

Now, with a couple of ribbon-cutting events, this government feels again that they should get a

congratulatory pat on the back for that pail of water they carried to the fire they lit. Well, it's not good enough. It's not good enough in any way.

The number one roadblock to women in the trades and skills training is child care. This government has failed to stand up for child care, failed to replace the money that was cut by the federal government — the only province that did. We are one of the provinces that suffers most from the demographic effects of this skills shortage. In Quebec they have the highest participation of women in the skilled trades, and that has been, by independent study, directly linked to the supports that are given to women for child care. That is a failure of this government that cannot be countenanced.

It is never going to be forgotten by women, and it will never be forgotten by workers — just like the other policies that have hurt them, just like the other policies that have put workers at risk. The coroner in Duncan, in the inquest into the death of faller Ted Gramlich, pointed directly at the policy decisions by this government that severed the links in the chain of responsibility for safety, and people paid for that with their lives. People paid for that with their lives. That can't be forgotten.

So in a budget, now, that's printed on green paper…. It takes a gas tax applied to all of us, calls it a carbon tax and then transfers the benefit of that to corporate income tax cuts. When it comes to revenue-neutrality, it's not revenue-neutral to the people of B.C. who can't afford to upgrade their homes, their windows, their appliances, their cars. It's not revenue-neutral to the trucking industry — $1,000 per long truck this year, $3,000 in '09, $6,000 in 2012. It's an industry that is already pressed for survival and has nowhere to pass those costs on to. Some 85 percent of the trucking companies in this province are one- or two-truck ma-and-pa operations, and they're the ones paying. They're the ones paying.

It's a sad reality that we see that a government could come to power in a province as rich as this and begin doing nothing but set about an auctioneering of the common wealth.

D. Routley: Do you know what? We look at the cost that this government exacted in their shoddy deal to sell our railway, less than $1 billion, and now we look at the Evergreen Line cost. The SkyTrain projects are at — what? — $4.3 billion. Does that not put in contrast…? Does that not frame just exactly how poor a deal this government got for our railway or just how good a deal they gave to their friends?

I'm sorry, but I expect more. As I said, I grew up in a naive sort of fashion where I expected that the government that represented us — there's been fewer than 900 of us ever to sit in this building — would still be committed to the people; that the common wealth would be invested in us; that my daughter, who will vote for the first time in '09, will vote to control the future of our forests, our water, our ferries, our railway, on and on and on, the auctioning of the common wealth.

We've seen the massive land grab by the Education Ministry as they force our districts to sell their properties, policies that have driven them to a corner, per-student funding that has penalized rural districts and that now penalizes my district.

I was at a meeting last night with over 150 people who were appealing to our district not to close their schools. There was not one speaker who agreed with the policy. Every single speaker pleaded not to do it. The elders pleaded not to be hurt again. They pleaded not to have their children taken again. That is the reality of the effect of the policies of the B.C. Liberal government on the lives of my constituents. That is the reality.

No. A tool can be used to build a house or to tear it down, and the B.C. Liberals have used public policy to tear down the house of B.C. We have had to sell off our property. We have been abandoned in rural B.C.

D. Routley: The truth hurts a government who can't face it. The truth hurts a government that has never been forced to stand to account for the deeds it has brought to this province.

D. Routley: Last time I spoke, the Transportation Minister answered the concerns of my constituents by saying: "Boo hoo." This time he goes, "Oh," and shudders.

We demand a responsible government. We demand a government that will stand to account for what it has done to this province. This government has taken our number one industry and ruined it after they paid back all of their friends with the policies that they needed to shut down their manufacturing….

Would all members please allow the speaker on the floor to have the floor so that we can all hear him. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak towards the budget or the throne speech.

D. Routley: That moment gave me a moment to remind myself of another education deficit in my constituency.

Well, we're having to move our students from mouldy school to mouldy school, because of course, when I was a trustee, one of the first things we had to give up was proper maintenance in order to keep up with the cutbacks that this minister downloaded upon

us and gave to us through downloaded costs, restricted funding and a funding formula that, in a cynical way, was designed to force districts into a position where they had no choice but to close their small and rural schools.

How can this green government force rural communities into a position — like Lake Cowichan, like Youbou — where they have to close schools and then bus kids many, many kilometres from their homes? Then the minister says she wants parental involvement, yet she closes neighbourhood schools.

You know, one of the first schools that closed in our district was at Honeymoon Bay. It's only a couple of years old. It's a beautiful building, but we were forced to close it because of this minister's policies. The parents were told: "Don't worry. All your kids will be bused — even your kindergarten kids for their afternoon changeover. Even in the middle of the day, we'll bus your kids."

Do you know what? Before they even moved those kids, we were forced to cut afternoon busing. Now that we're being forced to close more schools, the next item on the chopping block is transportation. All of this lays bare the hypocrisy between word and deed of the B.C. Liberal government.

We need a government that spends its time doing more than busying itself with spinning that straw into gold. This province needs a real commitment to seniors, not one that is simply a label on the budget, that's followed by the grim reality of B.C. leading the country in seniors living in poverty, that sees seniors as the fastest-growing group among the homeless. No.

This province needs a real commitment to children, not a labelled children's budget that's followed by four consecutive years of us leading the country in child poverty. How can that be possible? Well, it's possible in a Liberal world where straw is spun into gold.

The number one industry in this province: forestry. My constituency is very poorly affected by these policies. I've been asking my constituents this basic question: "Why Ikea? Why not 'BCea'?"

Why can we not do better with our resources? I'll tell you. Because this government has sold off our public control over those resources. They have given away the benefit of those resources to people outside of this province. No government in B.C.'s history has ever made such a terrible, terrible choice. No government of any stripe has ever made such a terrible, terrible bargain with the future.

This province needs a real commitment to climate change that doesn't just form an excuse to give its friends benefits, its insiders benefits, and that downloads all of the costs of that action onto the people they serve. It doesn't need a government that exempts the heaviest polluters at the same time that it transfers $325 million this year to oil and gas companies. How does that square with the government's purported commitment?

The real climate change that this province needs is a climate change that brings truth to government; that takes us from a climate of fear for those who live in care, be they seniors or children; that takes us from a climate where women who suffer abuse can get help; that takes us from a climate where children in this province lead this country in child poverty. That's the climate change this province needs. We need a changing government that will allow the people of B.C. to be put first.

In summing up, I'll make one promise to my daughter, which is that I will continue to hold this government to account as long as my constituents allow me to stand in this House and that her vote will again mean something in British Columbia after '09.

Hon. J. Les: It's an honour for me to be able to rise in my place this afternoon and discuss the budget that was delivered last week by the Minister of Finance. It's an honour for me to be able to do this every year. Frankly, I'm delighted, as always, to highlight the differences between the approach that we have taken as a government and the approach that is constantly being espoused by the members opposite.

As I was listening to the remarks from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and the remarks from the member from the Tri-Cities, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, clearly there are differences in terms of how we approach public policy in British Columbia.

If I listen to the members opposite, I guess they would have us believe that everything was wonderful in the '90s and that, indeed, everything has fallen apart since. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The 1990s…. Many of us watched this happen from the various perspectives in which we lived in British Columbia at the time. Many of us watched the economy unfold and unravel during the 1990s.

People were actually leaving British Columbia to find work in the '90s. In the middle of that decade of NDP administration, people could not find work in British Columbia. Young people, recently educated people, had to leave the province to find work.

It was a decade in which British Columbia became known as a have-not province — to the utter shame of those of us who were born in this province, who grew up in this province, who enjoyed many years of prosperity….

Hon. J. Les: I know that the socialists opposite find it difficult to listen to a recounting of the decade of the '90s, when this province really went into an economic swoon. It surprises and amazes me sometimes how quickly, with some intelligent economic policy that started on the fifth of June, 2001, the province has turned around.

When I say that, I want to give, first of all, the credit to British Columbians. Governments get to set policy — social policy, economic policy, education policy — but it is the people who respond. When people are properly incented, they certainly do respond. We certainly have seen that in the last seven years in British Columbia.

British Columbians have risen to the occasion. British Columbians have taken advantage of the incentives that have been laid before them by this government. They have, again, supported and driven an economy that is now the envy of Canada and is probably the envy of the entire North American continent.

I would say that our province has again become a beacon of prosperity in the North American continent. We've sent a clear signal to the country, to the continent, indeed to the world, that British Columbia is once again a prime place to do business — a prime place to come and work, to come and prosecute your future.

I know that this is a place where there's often a lot of rhetoric. The members of the NDP opposite…. Of course it is their job to oppose, but some days the rhetoric that you hear is so divorced from reality that I think we do have to set the record straight.

In the context of setting the record straight, I was literally astounded last week when…. I think it was the member for North Coast who was going on about the tax reductions in the budget and suggesting that those tax reductions — which British Columbians, frankly, so much appreciate — actually should be reversed, and we should have tax increases.

He said: "Tax them. They will come anyway." If anything underlined for me the fundamental difference between the philosophy of the government — the philosophy of members on this side of the House — and the philosophy of the members opposite, I think that one clause said it all.

There are two broad areas that I'd like to spend a few minutes focusing on this afternoon. The first, obviously, is again the significant reduction in taxation that we see in this budget, particularly taxation on productivity. I think it's important to spend a minute thinking about that. Then I want to also talk about policing and public safety, as I'm extremely proud of the progress that we've made over the last seven years in those areas as well.

As I said, we clearly see a significant reduction in productivity taxes in this particular budget, as well as other measures. There's the $112 million tax credit, for example, that is accorded to the film industry to stimulate more film production, not only in the lower mainland area where this has traditionally been carried on, but with further measures in place to ensure that the film industry spreads to other areas of British Columbia.

There was the $220 million capital tax levied on financial institutions, which was a complete disincentive for financial institutions from around the world to become vested in British Columbia. It has been phased out and replaced with a minimum tax. Every enlightened jurisdiction in the world is doing this, because a capital tax, as we know, is an extremely destructive instrument. We know that from the measure we took in June of 2001, where capital taxes were erased in this province. We saw almost an immediate surge of investment in the business infrastructure of this province.

There's a $60 million reduction in the school tax rate for major industrial properties in British Columbia reflected in this budget. Clearly, when some of the major industrial players in this province are experiencing difficult times, again, I think this is something that is very salutary indeed.

By July 1 of this year the general corporate income tax will be reduced from 12 percent to 11 percent. By 2011 that rate will go down to 10 percent, matching the lowest such rate in Canada — again, I think, critically important. If we want businesses to come to British Columbia, businesses that employ British Columbians and that come here to pay tax, we have to provide the appropriate fiscal environment.

Personal taxes were cut in this budget as well. By 2009 every taxpayer in this province will see their personal B.C. income tax rates reduced by a further 5 percent on the first $70,000 of earnings. What that means is that a family of four, where both parents are working and earning a combined $70,000 per year, will now save $2,000 a year compared to what they had to pay in 2001. Mr. Speaker, $2,000 a year is a significant saving for hard-working British Columbians.

Those on the lower end of the income scale have very substantially benefited from our fiscal policies as well. A person working part-time and earning perhaps $20,000 a year has seen a 75 percent reduction in the amount of income tax that they pay. An additional one-quarter of a million British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax whatsoever. By 2009, next year, British Columbians will pay the lowest personal income tax in all of Canada for individuals earning under $111,000 a year.

I think these things are important. We have lightened the taxation burden on hard-working British Columbians. We have allowed them to keep more money in their pockets for them to decide where they wish to spend that money.

The member opposite from North Island was heard in her remarks to say that government was actually the best agency to decide how money should be spent. If we had extra money, we shouldn't give it back to people in the form of the rebate that we're talking about, the dividend that all British Columbians will be getting in June, but we should actually be inventing new government programs. That is the typically socialist position as espoused by the member for North Island.

Hon. J. Les: Yes, she did say that money is better left in government coffers to design new programs, rather than giving it back to the hard-working people that had to hand it over to government in the first place.

In addition to all of those measures, there's a further $33 million of tax relief provided for in this budget to enable British Columbians to buy fuel-efficient vehicles and PST exemptions so that people can more readily acquire things like refrigerators and clothes washers and freezers and residential gas-fired hot water heaters and other appliances like that, which are lower in terms of their energy consumption. We're helping British Columbians to do that, and also, by classifying biodiesel and ethanol as alternative motor fuels for all purposes.

It's about putting more money in people's pockets but, at the same time, giving people more choices, giving people the freedom to choose with their own money.

I also, as I said at the outset, want to spend a bit of time discussing public safety. But I just want to return for a minute to my riding, because obviously the vastly improved financial and economic environment that we see in British Columbia today certainly shows up there as well.

We see new schools. We see vast investment in new businesses and new industries, and huge increases in personal property values so that people actually have equity in their property again, as opposed to being almost under water in terms of personal equity in their homes and their businesses.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent and I a couple of weeks ago presided at the opening of the new technical and trades facility that was recently developed by the University College of the Fraser Valley on their new 85-acre campus that they are developing in Chilliwack. These are the kinds of measures that are going to provide so much of that training that we're going to need in the future.

This trades facility in Chilliwack is 110,000 square feet. It is a western Canadian model. The students that are being educated there have access to the very latest in technology. As that campus evolves, it is going to be a real flagship for the Fraser Valley.

Immediately next to that, I should say, is the Pacific Region Training Centre of the RCMP, on approximately 60 acres of land. That has been developed around what initially was the core facility of the officer candidate training school of the Department of National Defence, which, as we all know, was vacated in the mid '90s.

The RCMP have established their in-service training facility there, employing hundreds of people and giving in-service training to not only RCMP officers but also corrections officers, Canadian Border Services Agency personnel, Department of Fisheries and Oceans personnel and many others. That is a very exciting new entity in our community as well.

Many new employers have come into the Fraser Valley. We've seen very significant growth at the Abbotsford Airport. It is becoming a very significant transportation hub and will increasingly become so in the future.

In the few minutes that I have left, I want to talk about public safety. First of all, I could perhaps talk about what we're doing in the area of flood mitigation. As we all know, we were significantly challenged last year with a very heavy spring freshet. It was the leading approach of this government, putting up significant funding and making sure that we were ready not only with infrastructure like dikes and sandbags and all of those things but that communities had the organizational structures on the ground ready to respond when necessary.

Thankfully, in the event, the water didn't rise to the levels that were feared at the onset. But certainly in some parts of the province — in communities like Terrace, Smithers, Telkwa and Houston, to name just a few — the water levels were very, very high.

We were able to do a lot in a preventative way in several of those communities. That saved an amazing amount of infrastructure that otherwise definitely would have been swept away. In this regard, I particularly want to pay tribute to the staff, not only in my ministry but in a number of other ministries as well, who worked very closely with us in dealing with that high water.

More recently in the city of Prince George we had an unusual situation with ice jams this winter. Again, a lot of agencies pulling together and a lot of assistance being provided through the provincial emergency program has, I think, very effectively responded to that situation. My officials are now in that community, going through on a house-by-house basis to assess the damage that was caused, and making sure that we look after people and help them get their lives back on track as quickly as possible.

I notice the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain had some comments in terms of policing. I just want to make sure that I set the record straight.

I think it is in the area of policing where we have made some significant strides over the last seven years. In the last five years, for example, we see 950 additional police officers on the streets of the province of British Columbia. That is the largest expansion of police officers in that period of time in the history of this province, and that doesn't just happen. Somebody has to put up the funding to allow that to happen.

Of course, that happens in two significant ways. There is the addition of members of the provincial force. In British Columbia's case, that is the RCMP, directly paid for by the province. Then there are those additional officers that are being hired by the municipalities. In that particular case, the municipalities are being very much assisted in hiring additional police officers by the $60 million a year that they now get from traffic fine revenue. Some $60 million a year now flows to municipalities in British Columbia from traffic fine revenue.

Hon. J. Les: Yes, Coquitlam too. Port Coquitlam, Nanaimo, all of these communities benefit from this significant infusion of funding.

I remember in the '90s, when I spent quite a number of years as mayor in my community, it annoyed me to no end that the very activities of the police, which were hired and paid for mostly by the community…. When that generated revenue, it went straight to Victoria. We suggested back then that it was inequitable that that funding should flow to Victoria and not to the municipalities.

It was with that in mind that we made a commitment when we ran in 2001 that that money should go back to municipalities. We fulfilled that commitment, and today $60 million a year goes back to municipalities.

Another thing. The members opposite sometimes would like to leave the impression that they did great things for policing in the 1990s. Well, here's another little escapade that they carried out in the '90s.

In the 1980s it was a Social Credit government that looked at the 12 municipal police departments of the province, and they said: "You know, there's an inequity there." Those municipal police departments have to pay 100 percent of all of the costs, not 90 percent, as in the case of the RCMP-policed communities.

So the '90s came along, and as history will show, we unfortunately elected an NDP government in this province, and their Finance Minister was Glen Clark. The thing that he used to be very fond of saying was that there was tax room at the local government level. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway might recall that.

Hon. J. Les: Yes. I was talking about the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and his influence on government policy of that day.

So what did the NDP do then at that time? They took away that equalization grant for policing from those independently policed communities. It was absolutely outrageous. They took $6 million away from those municipalities.

Now, they stand here today as if they're actually interested in tackling violent crime, doing something about it and funding it properly, when the record shows that when they were in government, they took money away from municipalities that was being used for policing.

I just used the phrase "tackling violent crime." That reminds me of something else. The members opposite would have us believe that they are now tough on crime. They get it now. Well, the members opposite — every one of the 33 of them — are all members of the federal New Democratic Party. [Applause.] And they're very proud of it, obviously. They're clapping.

Here's what happened just a couple of weeks ago. The federal government proposed a motion in Parliament suggesting that the Senate hurry up and pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act. The government said that this is important. We agree. That is an important piece of legislation. It cracks down on gun crime, for example, and a few other things that are pretty important to us all.

What did the NDP do? They voted against it. They did. They voted against it. When they had an opportunity to stand up and be counted on an issue of serious consequence to public safety across all of our communities, they voted against it.

I think that in spite of the rhetoric we hear from time to time from the members opposite, their actions actually betray them. In our case, given what we've accomplished…. Speaking of accomplishments, just a few more things in the few minutes that I have left.

Actually, the intelligence-led and evidence-based policing that police forces across our province have been carrying out in the last several years is actually starting to show some very significant results. Let me just share a few of them with you.

I'm talking now about break and enter offences from 2004 to 2007. In the community of North Vancouver we saw a 36 percent reduction in break-and-enter offences. In the community of Burnaby we have seen a 28 percent reduction. In the community of Coquitlam we have seen a 22 percent reduction. In the community of Surrey we have seen a 15 percent reduction in break and enter.

There are other areas where we have made important progress. We have passed legislation that allows B.C. Hydro to share power consumption information with municipalities where there is deemed to be a risk because of that extremely high power consumption. The city of Surrey now estimates that using that information to crack down on marijuana grow ops has seen a 40 percent reduction in grow ops in the city of Surrey alone. So we're putting the run on that kind of criminal activity in our communities.

Again, another piece of important legislation that we have passed is the Civil Forfeiture Act. That act has now been in use in British Columbia for the last two years. We have already to date seized $3.5 million of ill-gotten gains from unlawful activity. We have a further $5 million worth of assets under restraints. We have about a hundred active files. This is really starting to get some traction.

I was delighted this morning, in conjunction with several of my colleagues, to be able to announce that we are making a further half a million dollars of civil forfeiture proceeds available for victims of crime and for crime prevention programs in communities. That's in addition to the half million dollars that we gave back to residents who had been scammed in the Okanagan recently. We were able to retrieve about 30 percent of their money and give it directly back to them.

In the future, as more civil forfeiture funds become available, we will ensure that those who have suffered

from crime have first dibs in terms of access to that money. That is no more than right. It's another example of where we have provided another option for police and law enforcement agencies to help communities crack down on unlawful activity and ensure that those who are engaged in that unlawful activity cannot benefit from it.

We're going to continue to work very closely with police agencies, whether it's the RCMP or independent policing agencies across British Columbia. Over the last five years we have put together a lot of integrated crime-fighting units: the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, the organized motorcycle group, the integrated Internet child exploitation team and the sexual predator observation team. There are several others.

We will continue to look for ways to further integrate those units and add more resources to them, because it is clear that in an era when criminals know no boundaries, when people move back and forth very readily, when we have Internet technology that enables people to communicate at lightning speed across the globe, police forces, too, have to be very nimble and adaptable. With the tools that we have given them they certainly are going to be able to respond and be proactive in dealing with the criminal element.

One of the important tools that we have provided is a technology called PRIME. The police records information management environment is a very important contribution to information management for the police. The province of British Columbia has invested $40 million in putting this technology together. It is absolutely leading North America in enabling police across British Columbia, regardless of which police department they serve, to share all of the information they have.

I have accompanied police officers in their police cars and have seen how this technology works, enabling them to retrieve the very latest information on individuals that they might be interested in and also inputting information on a real-time basis for access by other officers across the province.

Another important acquisition was the police helicopter that is now operative across the lower mainland. In its first year of operation it was involved in about 300 files, some of them very serious files. Again, I have accompanied officers on that helicopter, watching how they do their work. Clearly, that is a major contribution and a major assist to police on the ground.

It looks like my time is about done for today. I look forward to upcoming debate in this House on estimates and on the various pieces of legislation that we will be bringing forward. But just let me say that, speaking generally, there is no debate at all in my mind but that British Columbia today is a far better place for us all to live, work and play compared to the situation that we found ourselves in at the turn of the century.

K. Conroy: Before I begin my response to the budget, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the many incredible people who live in the communities located within the West Kootenay–Boundary constituency. From Big White and Bridesville through the Boundary country to the greater Trail area, the Beaver Valley and the Castlegar area, our region is made up of a diverse and talented population that I am proud and humbled to represent.

I also want to recognize the incredibly competent staff I have: Elaine Whitehead, Edena Brown and Sheren Spilker in the constituency office in Castlegar and Amber Nash here in Victoria. Together they make a team that not only serves the needs of our constituency but deals with the wonderful experiences that are associated with being the caucus Whip. To all four of you: thank you for your patience and dedication. I couldn't do this without you.

In the three years that I have sat in this House I have listened with interest and hope to what the budget had to offer for the province or, somewhat more selfishly, what it had to offer to the interior or, more specifically, to the constituents of West Kootenay–Boundary. I have yet to be surprised or placated by anything I have heard.

As was the case when I was first elected, this government and this Premier continue to ignore the interior. They continue to put their corporate friends first when it comes to handing out the resources of this province. Our resources — our water, our land and even the air we breathe — are at risk by this government's corporate handouts.

This so-called green budget that came out last week puts all the pressure of tackling climate change on working families and, in particular, on those who live in the interior and rural areas. The new so-called carbon tax will raise the price of gas starting this July. Is this a carbon tax? I think not. This is a gas tax, and it will hurt working families in the interior the hardest. This new gas tax is particularly hard on our area, as we don't even have a transit system in place that could effectively move people in our region.

When the government announced a new transit plan last month, the Minister of Transportation was quoted as saying that this area — our area, the West Kootenays — would not get any new buses like the Okanagan and the lower mainland, as our ridership was too low. He was heard to say in this chamber, "Boo hoo," when he heard about the travel needs of rural B.C. being previously raised in this House. This certainly doesn't show a great deal of understanding for the trials and tribulations of commuters in rural B.C.

I would suggest that we do not have a lot of people using transit in this area because we don't have enough buses. In fact, we have two in Castlegar, a regular bus and the handyDART, and that's it. If you're lucky enough to get on the schedule where you can catch it, it's rare, if not very rare. I don't know too many people who take it, because it is so hard to catch.

More than 80 percent of my constituents can't take a transit bus to my office. So by implementing this tax,

we are penalized twice — first, with no transit funding to increase transit options, and second, by increasing the taxes on the only form of transportation we have. Scooters, bikes and walking all work in our area, and people do utilize these methods. However, for half of the year and sometimes more these methods are unusable because of our weather.

Another part of this new tax includes the resources that heat your homes. There is no fairness in taxing something that is an absolute necessity. I'm not sure when the last time was that the Minister of Finance spent any time in the interior in the winter, but it is a rather cold place, as I'm sure members from her own caucus would admit.

I don't know too many people who can live without heat. To additionally tax something as basic as heating your home means that the government has not thought through this tax and realized how it will affect families that live outside of the lower mainland and the southern part of this province.

A few years ago we decided, as many families in our area are doing, that we needed to examine our own habits and see what we could do personally about the climate change issues. We did make a few changes. We got rid of our old oil furnace and installed a more technologically efficient electric furnace. We bought an energy-efficient wood stove and got more serious about recycling everything that could possibly be recycled, with considerable help from our very recycling-conscious grandchildren. As we have a farm and need a truck, we traded in our old gas truck for a newer, but still older, diesel model.

At the time, we were both employed and we could afford to undertake the changes we needed to make in our life, some far more expensive than others. Can everyone in our area do the same? Not a chance. The senior who has lived in his home for 50 years can't afford to change his oil furnace to electric, or even to natural gas. I think I need to point out to the minister responsible for this that you can't even access natural gas in a large portion of our constituency.

Or can they upgrade their wood stove to a more energy-efficient variety? Well, many would love to be able to do it. On a fixed income, it just isn't possible. Will that $100 help? A hundred dollars a year for ten years might start to put a dent in things, but like one senior said to me: "I don't think I'll last that long." Never mind being able to afford to pay with the money up front.

The question is: will this gas tax make people change their habits in the interior? That is what I was told by a supporter of this tax. I was told: "You people in the interior need to change your habits." Well, as far as I'm concerned, staying warm in the winter and being able to get to work or school, go shopping to buy food or go to medical appointments is not a habit. It is a necessity.

Instead of penalizing rural B.C., the government should have looked at ways to help families with the expense of becoming carbon-neutral. A hundred dollars a year just doesn't do it. In fact, my daughter said to me: "A hundred dollars a year. Maybe I can upgrade our recycling bins, but I surely can't upgrade my car, upgrade my heating, get new windows." She said: "What am I supposed to do?" She said: "We're just going to pay some bills off, maybe, with the hundred dollars — whatever that will pay."

Grants for new furnaces — that would help. Better transit — that would help. A respect that we have a very diverse province would have been a step in the right direction.

This budget puts a lot of emphasis on climate change but ignores the other challenges facing our province, like the crisis in the forest industry. Rural British Columbia is suffering under the worst forestry crisis our province has ever seen, but this budget offers these communities nothing. The Minister of Finance says it's just a bump in the economy. Well, tell that to the hundreds of forest workers who are being laid off because their mills are being shut down.

What did we get in this budget? We've got Trees for Tomorrow, a wonderful-sounding slogan. But what about trees for today — trees in the interior of our province that would sustain forestry jobs; trees that would sustain people to stay in our communities; trees that will support a vibrant, economically sound forest industry; and trees that will replace the thousands of hectares that have been removed due to beetle kill.

Instead, this government, this budget, is bringing in a temporary — temporary, mind you — round table to discuss the issues. As one pundit put it so succinctly, the only benefit to the industry will be if the table is made of wood.

There are numerous issues in this industry that the government should have dealt with in this budget and didn't. Last week the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggested that laid-off millworkers could go find jobs in casinos. He told the Kamloops media that 50 jobs at the B.C. Lottery Corporation would help offset the loss of 200 well-paying jobs from the announced closure of the warehouse operation there — another example of a failure to develop a real plan for our struggling forest industry.

Which will be the next mill shipped to China? As we speak, the former Squamish pulp mill is in the process of being dismantled and shipped to China. How do the people who live in Squamish and who used to work at that mill feel when they hear their very own MLA spouting the rhetoric of how wonderful things are? Perhaps they, too, can get jobs in casinos somewhere.

There are other concerns in this budget that I also need to address, especially as they affect the residents of the West Kootenay–Boundary. The shortfall in funding to the health authorities will result in serious issues across our region. Let's talk about the confusion with the health care budgets alone.

Last Friday the CEO of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, admitted that it would be hard to balance the budget this year if the required funding wasn't made available. Mr. Ramsden said that the 6

percent would just cover all their contractual arrangements. He then said he expected to hear from the ministry about what the budget would be within the next two weeks. Well, much to Mr. Ramsden's surprise, it was a matter of hours later, not weeks, as the minister had said. It was in a matter of hours that the minister released the health budget.

Was it what the authority asked for? Was it what the authority needed to make ends meet? No. In fact, it wasn't. The IHA received a budget lift of only 5.3 percent for this coming fiscal year. If the IHA was to receive an 8 percent lift, which is our understanding of what they asked for — although with the secrecy rules around the IHA and this ministry, you can't find those out for sure…. As far as we understand, they asked for an 8 percent lift.

With that 8 percent lift, they could make ends meet — not increase any services, not deal with any issues. Make ends meet.

How will they balance the budget now? Well, I think we really need to ask the question: where will the cuts be made? Where will the IHA look to make those cuts, to make ends meet? This is a huge concern for us in the interior, who are already dealing with very difficult service issues.

Let's take a look at the wait times. The region has some of the longest wait times for an MRI in the Interior Health Authority. At the Kootenay Boundary Hospital, our local regional hospital, the wait is as high as 196 days, 166 days longer than recommended. At Kelowna Hospital, our overall referral hospital for our region, it is as high as 245 days, 210 days longer than the recommended maximum. This is just unacceptable and can't possibly be rectified by the lack of funding announced for the health authorities. For patients waiting for an essential diagnosis this is just unacceptable.

I could go on about the health care needs in our region. I could talk about the ambulance service cuts that have been cut from throughout our region — cuts to rural B.C. again. I could talk about the cuts to the home support — the seniors who are coming to our office, the families who are crying for home support needs, families who want to keep their seniors in their homes but can't because of the lack of home support. Will this budget help them? No.

What did we get in this budget? What did we actually get for health care? We got another fund for innovation. Again, not ongoing operating funds, not funds to deal with wait lists, not funds to deal with seniors issues. We get funding for innovation which takes the health authorities more personnel to try to figure out what kind of proposal they're going to put forward to the ministry. How does that help ongoing, everyday issues within the health care authority? Well, it doesn't, and for that, this budget is a sham.

There's also no mention of, or help with, the fact that B.C. has the highest rate of child poverty in this country. You don't see that stat on all the glossy ads saying B.C. is "the best place…." B.C., the best place — unless you're a child living in poverty.

There was no funding for child care or for children with special needs in the education system. Where are the supports for children? Studies have shown — and they've shown them year after year; I think the studies have been done for 30, 40 years — that good quality child care is the best form of support to a family where parents are working or going to school. Children thrive in good quality early childhood settings, and parents are comforted in the knowledge that their children are being well cared for.

It is difficult today for families to make ends meet with one job. We see parents working odd shifts in order to try to deal with their child care needs, and that is complicated even more when you're a single parent in this province. It is time to acknowledge the significant benefits of these programs now with a comprehensive child care system to ensure that all children and their families get the supports in the early years.

The StrongStart programs are a good concept, but they do not meet the needs of today's families. For those children who are fortunate enough to have a parent or a caregiver who can take them to the program and stay with them and participate, it is quite beneficial. But what about the thousands of children who won't get that opportunity?

An all-day kindergarten for three-year-olds? I raised four kids and five grandchildren, and at three years of age, the last thing that those kids wanted was an educational structure like you see in a school system. Three-year-olds want to play and eat and rest and play some more. They learn by playing, interacting with their peers and playing some more.

This is what a good quality child care program is and does. It respects the developmental and cognitive abilities of preschoolers and plans programs accordingly. This government should be looking at investing those very dollars potentially being spent in the school system into the early childhood system. Ensure we have good quality programs throughout this province for all children and their families in the preschool years.

From preschool to young adults, we see the lack of support from this government. This week we met with students from the alma mater society at UBC and other institutions from across B.C. They talked about the profound disappointment in the lack of support from this budget. They are dealing with huge debt loads when they graduate, or they are taking longer to graduate because they end up having to go to school part-time in order to work and not end up with a crippling debt load.

I spoke to some amazingly bright young people who talked with passion about their chosen fields, everything from physics to philosophy, pharmacology to soil science. I heard their frustrations about trying to become educated in a society that doesn't support them. We talked about other countries and provinces where there is significant support to students to earn their degrees without it being financially crippling.

These young people are our future. They are the people who will teach our grandchildren, dispense our medications, ensure our soil is still able to contain the

necessary qualities to in fact grow the food to sustain us and be part of research projects that will indeed make this a more environmentally friendly world. This budget should have provided support to these young people, and it didn't.

In fact, there is a real concern that the amount the universities and colleges will receive is inadequate to meet their budgets, which will mean financial hardship for these institutions, and this, in turn, will impact students. There is even a cut in the amount of student aid available, which will not help the labour shortage situation facing our region.

A recent study completed by the regional innovation chair in rural economic development showed some disturbing trends.

The out-migration from our area started about five years ago. Young people have been leaving the Kootenays to go to Alberta, to go other places — primarily Alberta — to work, where they get support for their apprentices, where they get support in the universities and where they get decent, well-paying jobs. Are they coming back home? No. They're staying there. So as far as the Kootenays are concerned, that migration started in this decade, and it is one that we are going to be dealing with for years to come.

Mr. Penfold goes on to talk about the problems with accommodation in our region.

They wondered if something could be done to curb this impending recession for the West Kootenay region. They were told…. How can we make the area recession-proof? And Penfold said that economic diversification is the key. But he's afraid it's going to be on us before we're ready.

Between 2001 and 2006 — and I'd like the members to please take note of these time frames — the population in our region dropped by 2.5 percent in the age group from which the labour force is normally drawn from, ages 15 to 64, declining by over 600 people. The population is expected to increase by 2011, but most of the increase is coming from those aged 50 to 69, not individuals who are about to become active in the labour force. So that says to me that this government's policies are not working in our area, resulting in troubling projections.

This budget should have been putting funds into economic diversification, support to regions where it is so desperately needed, instead of ensuring hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns for a project whose costs are spiralling out of control. Yes, the convention centre is such a great example of good fiscal management.

The housing issue. It's critical. If you were selling your house, it might be nice to have its value high. However, for young people who are trying to get established in our region, the message from this report and this budget is clear. In order to afford a home, you need to be a two-income family. You will get no support for child care. There are wait-lists at the local child care facility that are long, but you will get a hundred bucks a year. Let's see how far that helps you with your child care and your down payment on a house.

It has been only in the past few years that there has actually been homelessness in our region. People have always associated homelessness as an issue in major cities and communities and places like the downtown east side in Vancouver. However, this issue is alive and well in the Kootenays. It's not only an issue of not having a home, but it's an issue of not being able to afford to rent a home. And if you can even find a place…. Well, it's a difficult situation. Often the places are not something that most people would want to live in.

Now we have couch surfing, where young people go from house to house, sleeping on couches, moving on when they feel they've outstayed their welcome and looking for the next couch they can go live on for a few days. This is unacceptable also. In a province with the resources available, we must look at ways of supporting young people, not putting up barriers that prevent them from going to school, finding gainful employment, being able to have a roof over their heads and raising families in the rural part of British Columbia.

Highways are always an issue in our region, and did we hear of anything in this budget for the West Kootenays? No. Again we are struggling with winter conditions and ministry guidelines that are inappropriate for the geographical and weather situations in our area. The contractors are doing their job. They're doing their job with guidelines implemented by the Ministry of Transportation.

Those guidelines are not even as stringent as guidelines in the province of Alberta. Well, the last time I drove in Alberta there were miles and miles of straight rolling hills and roads that were often double-laned. I didn't see any major mountain passes. Some of the highest in Canada are in B.C. — the twisting, windy roads we drive on in rural B.C. — and they have much

more severe guidelines than we do here. It just doesn't make sense, but then not much this government does makes sense when dealing with rural B.C.

As to politics not making sense, well, we have seen policies implemented in our region by this government which have been extremely harmful to those involved in the agriculture business. The issue of the safe handling of the slaughtering of animals has been so badly mismanaged that it has succeeded in forcing local producers to sell their farms or to go underground when it comes to slaughtering their animals or to ship animals into Alberta or far away outside of the rural area. When you look at it, it does a lot to contribute to making sure that we have lower carbon issues. But the big trucks that are hauling the animals away from our area — what are they doing to contribute to the situation?

The policies are hurting farmers in our region, and they have to be stopped. Was there anything in the budget? I didn't see it, and I certainly didn't see it in the agricultural plan that was introduced. When I went to a meeting of ranchers and farmers in our area, they didn't see it either.

Again it begs the question: who did truly benefit from this budget? Certainly not rural B.C. One of the biggest tax cuts, though, $220 million, goes to big banks — big banks that are closing their doors in rural B.C.

There's not enough of a profit for banks in rural B.C., I guess. In providing banking services to small rural communities, they just can't make those big bucks that they need to run. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember too many banks that are on the verge of financial ruin and need a handout from this government.

In addition, the oil and gas sector, which is responsible for 21 percent of all emissions in B.C., is getting the largest subsidy ever. This year the oil and gas sector will get $327 million in government subsidies, followed by $358 million next year and over $300 million the year after.

Now that makes sense. We're going to give a hundred dollars to each individual person, but we're going to give the oil and gas industry millions and millions of dollars.

I have to tell you, Members, that my 23-year-old son phoned me the day this budget was released. He's a millwright working up in the tar sands in Alberta, and he said: "What is going on?" He said the oil and gas industry doesn't need tax cuts. "When I come home now, we all have got to pay more taxes on gas."

A 23-year-old who is surviving by working in the oil and gas sector recognizes the ridiculousness of giving that sector cuts and charging ordinary working people more money to pay for our gas. But I digress. They will get their $100. That surely will pay for a tank of gas somewhere along the line.

I would think that a hundred dollars really seems pretty insignificant in our pockets when you look at these huge, huge cuts that are given to some of the big Liberal supporters. I think at least the process of them getting their cheques will be far easier than it will be to make sure the people of B.C. get their $100 cheques, and probably cheaper too.

Now, I want to make one thing very clear. I support creating initiatives that will ensure a green, healthy province for our children and grandchildren. I hope to be as fortunate as my parents and my in-laws, who have not only seen their grandchildren grow but are now enjoying five wonderful great-grandchildren, with more to come. I believe these taxes that are going to be implemented will hurt rural B.C., and I don't think they'll do a lot in the long run to change behaviours.

I think that people in our area are already working towards the goal of living a more environmentally sound lifestyle. I don't think we should be penalized by our own government. I think initiatives should be embraced and supported.

Unfortunately, for the people of B.C. and the constituents of West Kootenay–Boundary, it looks like this won't be happening until May 2009. Then we will have a government that truly cares about rural B.C.; about the environment; about children and families; about good-paying jobs, child care and support to students and post-secondary education; and about implementing policies that ensure we will all have an environmentally sustainable province that implements a carbon tax that is distributed fairly across the province, regardless of where you live in B.C. and where your income is.

R. Cantelon: It's with great pleasure that I stand before you to speak to and endorse this budget. I'm glad to be here and reflect the views of the communities that I represent, from Nanaimo to Lantzville, Nanoose and Parksville.

These communities are very much in tune, both on a fiscal level and on a greening level. What we're doing with the budget in advancing these issues forward is very much in sympathy with their hopes and expectations.

Firstly, they expect stable, sensible, fiscally responsible government. Certainly, this budget builds on that. From the other side of the House, we've been railed at for a couple of years now — and it continues — about merciless cuts. Well, certainly choices were necessary. Choices were necessary to establish a strong fiscal footing on which we can build the services that the citizens of this province need.

Adjusting to a balanced budget wasn't some sort of ideological bent. Often we've been told that we cut for cut's sake and that the purpose is to be so parsimonious as to squeeze people to the point of suffering. No. The point of balancing the budget is to eliminate the profligate spending, the overspending, of the previous administration.

When this government took office, the spending, as measured against the taxpayer-supported debt — that is, debt that comes off the top, off the cash flow of the taxpayers — was at a ratio of 20 percent to the gross domestic product. Of course, the gross domestic product is the general measurement of the goods and

services — basically, the wealth that's created by the province and the measure of our ability to pay the bills. Back then 20 percent of our disposable income as a province, frankly, was being spent towards paying off debt, and it wasn't an attractive spiral that we were facing.

Since then, with proper fiscal management, with tax cuts that have inspired hope and inspired investment and have improved the economy of this country and of this province to a significant amount, I am proud to report that now we are going to see this ratio of taxpayer-supported debt to gross domestic product drop below 14 percent. It's an outstanding achievement in six short years.

From the other side of the House, generally speaking, I didn't hear many programs that they don't like. I think that they like most of our programs. There's one thing they don't like about them: we don't spend enough.

Given a choice of spending and restraint, there's only one choice on that side of the ledger. It's a different set of books they operate from. Most sets of books have a credit and a debit side — that is, a side where you take the income in and a side where you spend it. Philosophically, they seem to have only half of that equation, and that is the spend side.

In fact, it was interesting to listen to the debate as it unfolded. People are watching it. I think the people of my constituency will judge this.

Some of the metaphoric machinations that we heard on the other side were quite incredible. I heard one allegation to the old concept of spinning gold from straw. I think that in many ways, that was a bit of a Freudian slip. From the other side what we saw was that you can just print it. Just borrow the money and keep right on going. Provide everybody with anything they want or dream of. You know, spending more is always good. But "when in doubt, spend" seems to be the philosophy that I hear from the other side. "Even if you don't need it, a little extra money never hurt. Just do it."

That is not what I hear from my constituents. They want responsible government. They want a government to operate within its means. They want to understand that we're going to be able to balance the books, and I'm pleased to say once again that this budget presents a balanced budget — and a green budget.

Let me talk a bit about that. The population that I represent has some of the highest concentrations of seniors here. They care about the country, and they care about this province. They care about what we're leaving for our children — very much so — and for their grandchildren. I'm happy to say that recently I, too, became a grandfather, and it's a wonderful experience. My daughter's at home with young Shea, and we want to leave him a green province — the way it is, the way it should be.

We move forward with this budget. I mentioned that it's very much in sympathy with the initiatives in our community. Our community, the regional district of Nanaimo, which is the principal regional district that represents most of the communities that I serve, has been groundbreaking in many of the initiatives they've done. They've won UBCM awards for greening. They're ahead of the curve, if you will, on many issues that they're doing. They're already collecting methane gas from the landfill site and converting it into fuel, and they have methanol fuel blends. They're connecting it to diesel engines that will feed power back into the grid.

They're doing the same, as well, with solid waste disposal. They've cut the amount of material going into the landfill. Their target is now 70 percent diversion. They are now taking all the vegetable and organic material from all the restaurants, which does not go to the landfill but to a digesting system. They're experimenting with the same on a consumer level, and it's being very well received.

These are the things that the constituents that I represent want to hear. They want a balanced budget. They want fiscal responsibility. Once you balance the budget, you can then move forward to provide services that are necessary to ensure that this will continue to be a great and prosperous province. And we are, indeed.

There are many initiatives so broad that I don't know whether or not the members opposite cared to read them or jumped to their conclusions. I would say, finally, that as far as debt goes, we heard a lot of…. My constituents will look at these presentations that we've heard on both sides, coming back to fiscal responsibility for a minute, and say: are the members opposite representing the values that they wish? Do they see over there a government that will be fiscally responsible, that will manage the economy, or one that will plunge us into debt?

I think we've heard of acronyms for the New Democratic Party as negative, depressing and pessimistic. I won't repeat it again, but let me throw you a new one. I think a new acronym might be: new plunges into debt. New debt plunge — this is what we're going to have. You could put it back….

R. Cantelon: Let's just spend the money and worry about how we finance it later. Well, I can tell you….

I want to remind the members on the opposition side that there can be no participation unless you are in your seat.

R. Cantelon: I certainly anticipate any attention to my words that they give me, and I am happy if they return to their seats to do so. I think it's good to have a little liveliness in the House here.

R. Cantelon: Yes, thank you, Member opposite. Perhaps you can alert members on my side that indeed I am speaking to the budget. It would be helpful. Thank you for your enthusiasm.

There's much in this budget that speaks to the needs and the economic opportunities and aspirations of people in my constituency. The film tax credit will be very beneficial — the increase in the basic credit for production components and also the regionalized tax credit that's spread across and increased for areas outside the lower mainland and Victoria.

This is something that the Nanaimo Film Commission has been seeking for some time. We have some wonderful sites up and down the islands, some beautiful scenic sites and beautiful historic sites that undoubtedly would make terrific venues for moviegoers. With the rise in the Canadian dollar, it's certainly necessary that we compensate and adapt. This new tax credit will make it much better and give us a better edge to do that. So that's going to help us on the economic front.

The member opposite for West Kootenay–Boundary previously talked about the fact that we should be doing something for early childhood learning. Again, I just say that it was certainly in here. Perhaps they didn't cover the pages in the book quite as thoroughly as could have been done. I don't know what StrongStart is if not support for early childhood learning. It's been a terrific facility.

I assisted in the groundbreaking, or opening, of two facilities that were located in Nanaimo, both as required. I didn't question, of course, that they were needed in the member for Nanaimo's riding. He attended with me, and I'm sure he would acknowledge publicly that he was very impressed with the reception and the work that the people were doing there — a professional educator helping young parents teach their children ways to learn. Rather than sitting in front of a TV screen, they were actively working with children, learning ways that children can learn, helping the children learn, particularly reading with them.

These two facilities are very, very popular and very well received by the communities. I'm very, very pleased…. Members opposite have mentioned that there was nothing for young children. These StrongStart facilities are going to be expanded with a $38 million investment so that instead of the 84 we have it will be 400 within two years.

Throughout the province young parents will have the opportunity to come in and learn teaching skills, if you want — to read with their children, to help them advance. Because we certainly know — and it is a great concern and an emphasis — that 25 percent of the young people entering school are not ready for kindergarten. This will be a great asset in helping them move forward and learn.

We also heard the member for West Kootenay–Boundary disparagingly refer to the $100, the climate change grant, in several references. Well, why did she vote for it, I wonder, if she was so opposed to it? In fact, I don't think there was a member opposite who didn't think it was such a good idea that they were all voting for it. It was unanimous on both sides of the House. I was very pleased to see it.

Health care. A comment was made by one of the members opposite that we did nothing for health care. Nothing? Nothing except that we increased the budget by $2.9 billion over the next three years, in addition to the $2 billion that was already committed by the previous government. That is nearly $5 billion over the next three years to health care.

Certainly, I can assure you that this is a very, very important criterion of constituents in my area in judging their governments. They will be very relieved to hear, very encouraged to hear, that we're making a significant commitment to health care.

We also heard — and certainly housing is a concern — that of the $438 million to be dedicated to social issues, $104 million is targeted specifically in this coming budget for homelessness. I was particularly interested in the $10 million set aside to help communities and municipalities adapt to do zoning, to do architectural drawings, to do the lead-in work to develop housing projects.

I'm proud to represent a community, Nanaimo, where a situation developed where the builders came forward with their initiative, saying: "We'll build you six units." They worked with B.C. Housing in a very constructive and positive way, and the result was 20 needed housing units. I can assure you that Nanaimo's going to be ready to take up the challenge, to look at how they can use this $10 million fund to generate and lever new housing.

The speakers opposite also mentioned that there was nothing done for people who can't afford to buy homes, people trying to buy their first homes. Certainly, it has been a strong economy that has caused prices to rise. There's no question of that.

In response to that, a big benefit to first-time buyers will be the ceiling being lifted from the $375,000 exemption for first-time homebuyers — the property purchase tax exemption — to $425,000. This means that first-time homebuyers can get a grant of up to $6,500. In fact, there's a little bit leverage, so if you're slightly over the $425,000, you can receive further relief for the next $25,000 on a prorated basis.

One of the other big criterion that made this quite a stumbling block was the assumption that all first-time buyers would need a considerable amount of financing, which is not always the case, so the financing criterion was removed.

Property values have also impacted a lot of people in my riding. Property values have gone up in my constituency, Parksville and Nanaimo being the wonderful and beautiful places that they are. The cap on homeowner grants was raised from $950,000 to $1.050 million. This, again, will be very much welcomed by the people in my community.

There were concerns expressed that major industries are having difficulty in the current market. I've

had many discussions with Pope and Talbot and the general manager, Paul Sadler, about what can be done.

Two things are in the budget for this. One is quite significant. One is the tax reduction on the school tax. Dropping from the industrial to the commercial rate has the effect of dropping the taxation rate on the school tax component by 40 percent — a significant reduction. For Pope and Talbot, my quick guesstimate on their bill is that it will probably drop it by an average of between $300,000 and $350,000. That certainly will help, because that's a bottom-line continuing cost that goes in year in and year out.

One of the things that I certainly have been enjoying and appreciated over the last year is being the one member of the Liberal side of this House travelling around doing infrastructure announcements. We've — we being James Lunney, who is the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Alberni, and I — travelled up and down the island enabling wonderful work that the communities have begun with federal-provincial infrastructure grants. We've been in Duncan. We've been in Gold River. We've been in Nanaimo. We've been entirely all over the province responding to those infrastructure needs that are so urgent, because it's certainly a limited capacity with a limited tax base that municipalities have.

I'm certainly glad to see that this will be expanded. We'll be adding another $30 million to the fund on top of the $157 million to make the total amount $187 million, which the provincial government will be spending and committing to spend on municipalities throughout Vancouver Island. This is certainly infrastructure money that's badly needed and that responds, I think, in the most positive way to community-based needs. It's making a big change for them.

We see many, many changes, and I would return to the fact that the budget was basically founded on fiscal responsibility. I think one differentiating philosophy between our side and the opposite side of the House is on taxation. You know, I think the opposite side of the House sees the taxpayer as an infinite supplier of funding for whatever dreams they have to spend — on fast ferries, or whatever it might be.

Since 2001 we have consistently dropped the amount of taxation that individuals pay. If we took an average income earner, their B.C. tax before 2001 was around $3,700. Now it's reduced by a total amount of $1,400. It's nearly a 40 percent reduction in taxation. In making choices that we talk about, we feel that the choices are best left to the people who are earning the money. Leave the money in their pockets, and let them make the choices of how they want to spend it.

Speaking of choices, I would like to say that this is also a philosophy we extend not just to individuals but to school districts. We've continued to increase the funding to school districts. In fact, it'll be a record amount. Despite enrolment that declines, commitment on funding to schools goes up. Yes, those choices are going to be left where they should be left — in the communities and the school districts — so they can make the choices most appropriate.

Now, it might be easy to say: "Fix the problem for me, government." That's not the approach this government has chosen to take. We're providing them increased funding per student and per total, more money in every school district, and the choice then comes to the school districts to manage that money in the way that they find most effective.

R. Cantelon: I'm hearing about hospitals. I'm glad I hear that echo from across the House.

In my jurisdiction at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital they built this beautiful facility. It was built for 12 operating rooms, and it sat empty during the '90s for ten years, an empty building with nothing in it. We invested $30 million and put in the most up-to-date operating theatre you've seen, and we didn't stop there.

We added a perinatal ward that was absolutely beyond compare, to handle level 2 and level 3 cases, maternity situations. I was so inspired that although I'm already a father of five, I asked my wife, after going through this facility — I have to tell you it was a wonderful and magnificent facility — whether we should go for a sixth child. Luckily — she seemed quite encouraged and game — I have to say that I drew the line; five is certainly enough. We did that.

One of the big problems, of course, with the regional hospital was the lack of nurses. I couldn't believe it when I learned that during the '90s we didn't train nurses. What were we thinking? Well, I guess if you're not expanding hospital facilities — and they weren't in Nanaimo — what would you need nurses for? Well, we need them.

One of the most effective things that this government has done is to commit to hire every single graduate of Malaspina University College immediately into the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. This has made a tremendous difference.

It used to be that the nurses would be hired on a ward and then work. It was quite frustrating when my wife graduated. She had to apply all through the hospital, and it took six months for her to get hired. Well, that's all changed. They're all hired, they're cross-trained throughout the hospital, and they're ready to serve. They've also had a background in many, many different wards and have become much more effective. During their training, of course, they're quite helpful to the nurses that are there.

One of the most recent programs, which I'm very happy to report that the Ministry of Health has developed, is the program to encourage and actually entice doctors to practise in rural areas. In my constituency in Nanaimo they recently granted $100,000 to a new general practitioner to help him perhaps defray the expenses that he has had on student loans, but it can also help him to set up his practice. It's very effective.

Of course, it's a commitment for three years, but certainly, after three years this young man will have an

entire array of patients that will cause him to be locked into staying there. I can tell the people in Parksville that VIHA is now actively working towards hiring a doctor on the same program there as well.

To sum, then, I'd like to say that this budget, both on the green aspect and on the fiscal management aspect, is very much in tune with the constituents I represent. They're very happy with this government. Looking across, they don't see an alternative government. So I intend to enthusiastically support this budget.

Mr. Speaker: Would the members remain in their seats. The Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct, and he should be in shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor does thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to these acts.

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.