Hansard — Monday, March 3, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tributes		10133
	Dempsey Collinson
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		10133

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10134
	Colorectal cancer
	A. Dix
	International Women's Week
	M. Polak
	Nile Creek Enhancement Society
	S. Fraser
	Festival du Bois
	H. Bloy
	Kootenay Lake ferry initiative
	C. Evans
	Coalmining in East Kootenays
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		10137
	Forest industry jobs in B.C.
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	C. Evans
	Forest land sales in Kamloops area
	K. Conroy
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Government support for forest workers
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Haisla First Nation and B.C. Utilities Commission decision-making process
	R. Austin
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	S. Fraser
	J. Horgan
	Private resort in Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen

Petitions		10142
	S. Fraser
	G. Coons
	J. Horgan

Tabling Documents		10142
	Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending of March 31, 2007

Budget Debate (continued)		10142
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	S. Hammell
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	R. Lee
	C. Evans
	Hon. C. Taylor

Hon. G. Campbell: Today it's with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of Dempsey Collinson, a hereditary chief of the Haida First Nation, Chief Skidegate. Dempsey was 78 years old. He lost his life in the waters off the Queen Charlotte Islands while preparing to go by boat to the ghow fishery this past weekend.

For all of us who know the Haida, he was a strong and a passionate defender of their culture and their people. He was one of the elders who went dressed in Haida garb to New York City to retrieve and reclaim Haida human remains that were there. At that time he said: "Now we have all of them home, and I'm happy they're all here."

I know, for all of us, our thoughts go to the Haida First Nation, who are wrestling with this loss. I would ask that the House send their condolences to the first nation and to the members of the family of Chief Skidegate.

G. Gentner: It is a pleasure to introduce to the House today a long-term friend of mine, Gwen Swecter and her husband Norman. Gwen and I go back to the heritage days. She took a more lofty position and stayed with heritage, and I got involved with politics. Gwen has been a known historian, well-renowned in her work with women's histories. She's rewritten histories of Ladner and many other stories in Delta, and of course, she's a strong advocate of heritage.

Her husband is a world-famous helicopter pilot. He takes us around and shows us what's going on in Burns Bog once in a while. Could the House please give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased today to recognize here in the precincts the recipients of the first Premier's awards for teaching excellence: Margaret Penny from Strawberry Vale Elementary School in Victoria, Elaine Jaltema from Confederation Park Elementary in Burnaby, Deborah Koehn from Glenview Elementary in Prince George, Sandra Santarossa from Cleveland Elementary in North Vancouver, Elizabeth Blake from Winston Churchill Secondary in Vancouver, Lyn Daniels from Burnaby Mountain Secondary in Burnaby, Nellie Dionne from David Hoy Elementary in Fort St. James, John Harris from the Lochiel U-Connect Education Centre in Langley, Denise Milne of the EBUS Academy in Vanderhoof, Maye Davis from the Lake Trail Middle School in Courtenay.

There's Jennifer Murdie from Irwin Park Elementary in West Vancouver, Linda Firbank from Howe Sound Secondary in Squamish, Gary Wall from Sardis Secondary in Chilliwack, Joanne De Guevara from Sensisyusten House of Learning in Westbank, Jeffery Weaver from Central Middle School in Victoria, Dale Kerr from Tatla Elementary–Junior Secondary in Tatla Lake, Nader Mirhady from Vancouver Technical Secondary School in Vancouver, Russell Stasiuk from Penticton Secondary in Penticton and Peter Vogel from Notre Dame Regional Secondary in Vancouver.

They are joined by the members of the selection committee, who are in attendance today: Geoff Jopson, the president of the B.C. school superintendents; Doug Lauson, the president of the Federation of Independent Schools; Kim Howland, the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; and Sabine Lague, who is a student representative.

They are also joined by someone who is not a member of the selection committee, Les Dukowski, who is the president of B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. I hope the House will make them all welcome and give them our thanks.

R. Chouhan: Today we have Job Pozos-Avila in the gallery. Job has been working since January as an intern at the Washington State Senate. He's a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia. He's a great supporter of the cause of farmworkers. He's travelling today with the other 15 interns from Washington State. Please join me in welcoming him and the others.

Hon. S. Bond: Two things today. Joining us in the gallery are two students from the Vancouver Island North school district. They are here in Victoria to attend our Interactive Innovations conference. We want to give a warm welcome to Shawn Cowan from Sointula and Kerry Anne Stouffer from Alert Bay. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly today.

September 21, a historic day in Prince George, was when northern residents opened the Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre at UNBC. There were thousands of people in that building for the opening.

On Saturday, March 1, more than 2,000 of us packed the sports centre to cheer on the UNBC women's basketball team, our Timberwolves. I want you to know that we are delighted. That building has been open for less than six months, but we already have our first championship banner. It was an exciting game.

On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, I want to congratulate tournament MVP Laurel Wallace and tournament all-star Jaclyn Nazareno. They're both fourth-year arts major students at UNBC. But special congratulations to coach Loralyn Murdoch. She's been involved in the UNBC women's program since 1997. Our first banner, with many more to come. Congratulations, UNBC Timberwolves.

C. Wyse: Today I would ask the House to join with me to make welcome John Kerr, along with my wife,

Sheila Wyse, who have joined us here today, partly in celebration and recognition of Dale Kerr's award, which the Premier has already referred to. At times I think that they may be here to check to make sure that I'm still doing my job. I would ask the House to join me in making them both welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to say today that we have 40 students visiting us from University Hill Secondary School, a place where I spent six years of my life. It is in my constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey.

They're grade 11 students travelling with some parents and their teacher, Mr. Louis. They're here to experience the history of the buildings and to see what really happens in the Legislature. I hope we'll all make them feel welcome, because I'm sure many of them are going to want to sit here someday themselves.

D. Routley: Six years in high school is pretty impressive, I must say. [Laughter.] My apologies.

I'm hoping that the House, after that remark, will help me welcome a friend of mine, a constituent, Harry Brerbreyer. Harry is a library technician devoted to lifelong learning and a terrific guy. We all hope that people will be engaged in our communities. Harry is one who shows up at all the community meetings and has a very good point of view to offer. He's very engaged, and I celebrate any constituent who participates the way Harry does.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know you're all pleased to have me here today. I wanted to explain, though, to the member opposite that actually when I went to school, it wasn't just 50 miles uphill both to school and home from school, but secondary school went from grade 7 to grade 12.

Hon. L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome Iain MacDonald today. Iain is my work experience student this week. He'll be in this building with us Monday to Friday. He's from Gulf Islands Secondary School on Saltspring Island, a constituent of my hon. colleague. His teacher is Carol Arnold, and the work experience coordinator is Maggie Allison. I would ask the House and the members particularly, when you see him in the halls, to give him a very warm welcome.

…is Gerald Rotering. Gerald was the mayor of Nelson in 1982. You'll remember that the sawmill went broke, the plywood plant closed, the university closed, the town fell apart. Gerald as mayor invented the heritage program and mortgaged the town's electrical system to work with the business community and the province to build the heritage theme that has made the town so successful today that I don't think Gerald can afford to buy a home there.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are the parents of my ministerial assistant in Health, Joanna Richards. They are Bonnie and Stuart Ellis, and they are visiting here from Port McNeill. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce Mike De Guevara. Mike is a councillor with the Westbank First Nation, and he's here to celebrate with Joanne. Welcome to the House.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today are 22 Washington State legislative interns, and they are here to learn more about our system of government in British Columbia. We told them that question period was a very important part of governance in British Columbia. They had meetings today with yourself, Mr. Speaker, with the Deputy Premier, with the Minister of Environment and with me. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

J. Rustad: Today I'm also very pleased, along with Denise Milne from the EBUS program who was introduced earlier…. Her husband Gordon Milne has travelled down and is with us here today. Recently he retired from his position as the superintendent of school district 91. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Not to be outdone by my colleague, I guess I should also be introducing Kim Koehn, who is husband to Deb Koehn, who is down visiting us today as part of the teacher awards. Welcome, Kim.

A. Dix: March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. I think members of the House will know, because many people have come and advocated to many of us in recent times on the subject — that an estimated 1,100 British Columbians will die of colorectal cancer this year. It's the second leading cause of cancer death among men, and the third leading cause among women.

I wanted to pay tribute today to some of the people I've met. I know that the advocates I've met — I know that the Minister of Health would agree with this — do an extraordinary job in bringing this issue to government's attention and to the public's attention. I think of

Ruth Tremblay of Vancouver, who says: "Early detection" — because 90 percent of colorectal cancer deaths are preventable — "would have saved me 14 months of surgery, tests, radiation, surgical complications and chemotherapy."

Lynn Newbury from New Hazelton talked movingly to me about her 50 percent chance of survival, and yet she is spending so much of that time talking to other people, helping them to take the prevention steps they need to take to prevent colorectal cancer.

Ten years ago last week my mom was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Through a combination of really good primary health care and advocacy, through surgery, and through good luck, she survived. Now ten years later, at 72, she's putting in a longer day at work than I am. I know there's a lot of talk about the costs of health care, but how I feel about it…. The savings to me, to the family, to her clients, to people in her network, and the fact that she survived, are incalculable.

To everyone in the House, particularly those people over 50: get tested. Take the FOBT test now. Get it done. To all of us as legislators: listen to advocates for colon cancer, and put in place, if we can do it collectively, a provincewide program that will help eliminate, or limit, anyway, the number of deaths from colorectal cancer in British Columbia. This is a great month to do it. It's Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and I ask all members of the House to take the opportunity to get this done now.

M. Polak: In its early days the women's movement, with its focus on female suffrage, sought to advance the role of women in society as a means of strengthening communities and the world at large. Women who engaged in those early struggles did so because they believed the world would be a better place if women were given a voice. While embracing their roles as caregivers, homemakers, mothers and wives, these women recognized that the world needed to hear the voice of women in work, in government, as entrepreneurs and as leaders.

As we recognize International Women's Week, I think of my daughter's generation. To them, women's rights are simply human rights. They see women and men working together to ensure that families around the world can have the same opportunities as those fortunate enough to live in a developed western democracy.

As women in British Columbia, we are fortunate indeed. Since 2001, 43 percent of the new jobs created in B.C. have been filled by women, and 76 percent of those jobs are full-time. The number of women working in B.C. is at its highest level ever, and B.C. boasts the highest percentage of women entrepreneurs in the west.

Yet for many women around the world, the opportunities we take for granted are only a dream. International Women's Week is a time to reflect on the many positive changes that have improved the lives of women and girls in North America and around the world. It is also a time to remember that by continuing to advance the role of women, we are building a brighter future for ourselves, men and women alike. Strong women make a strong world.

S. Fraser: The Nile Creek Enhancement Society in my constituency has the right formula. Founded by Rod Allan and currently led by the acclaimed artist Ken Kirkby, the Nile Creek Enhancement Society took charge to rehabilitate their own local watercourse.

I should mention that Mr. Kirkby is the recipient of the Governor General's Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Confederation, and this was due to his nation-building work in the Arctic. He has taken on his newer role with the same zeal, and we should all be happy for that.

Nile Creek was once a hyperabundant salmon stream but was essentially killed by human activity. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society took the bull by the horns — the salmon by the gills, I guess, would be more appropriate — and boldly restored Nile Creek to its former glory. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society is continuing with the restoration of other streams and the restoration of kelp beds along the inner coast of Vancouver Island. As Ken explained to me, it's about having the wisdom and the will.

We in this province are often fixated on two mighty rivers, the mighty Fraser and the mighty Skeena. They are vital, of course. However, the great fishery that sustained our entire economy relies also on a multitude of smaller streams.

The Nile Creek Enhancement Society have offered their vision and experience to train others and to involve students in their exciting rehabilitation work. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society has partnered with Trout Unlimited in a five-year project to ensure a vibrant future for pink salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout, the precursor to all salmon that remains the ultimate indicator species. Ken describes this cutthroat trout as the holy grail of fish.

The Nile Creek Enhancement Society has won the prestigious Canadian environmental stewardship award. Through their restoration projects, they are in the business of manufacturing hope for future sustainable generations, and we all owe them our congratulations and our support.

H. Bloy: Bonjour, hon. Speaker. It is a great privilege to speak in the House today and at an event I attended this past weekend in Coquitlam. It was the Festival du Bois, put on every year by the Société francophone de Maillardville. I have always enjoyed attending this event. It is a great opportunity for families across the Tri-Cities and all of British Columbia to enjoy good music and good food.

This year was different. We were able to support the festival with a provincial grant of $50,000 to the city

of Coquitlam and the Festival du Bois organizers. I am so pleased with this government's ongoing support for francophone programs and for events like the festival, which exhibits our province's unique francophone heritage. The festival is a special event unlike many others in B.C. At the Festival du Bois you can taste a variety of new and different foods, like I did, and listen to some of the best folk music in British Columbia.

Once again at the festival, francophone Scouts put on an incredible display of history, as they've done for many years. This year they built a boat, they had period costumes for fairgoers to dress in, and they were taking pictures. Also, the francophone Scouts built a geographical map of British Columbia, complete with water running down the Fraser. It was very competitive, and I entered the boat race and lost to Monique Powers. I can tell you, the display was so impressive that the Burnaby heritage museum wants the display so that they can use it in their facilities.

I am very proud of my community's Franco-Columbian heritage. In case the House isn't familiar with the "Franco-Columbian" term, let me explain. Franco-Columbian is a unique term which describes French speakers in British Columbia. British Columbia's vibrant and dynamic French Canadian presence is proudly represented in Maillardville.

The French community at Maillardville and events like the Festival du Bois only further show how varied and multicultural we are in British Columbia. Please join me in congratulating them for a great event.

C. Evans: I rise to inform the House of a wonderful initiative in my constituency, an initiative to reduce atmospheric carbon by 800 tonnes a year and at the same time benefit business and citizens and public transportation.

The story begins over a year ago, when workers — from deckhands to engineers to captains — on the Kootenay Lake ferry began to think about how they might reduce their carbon output in keeping with the province's reduction targets. The workers experimented with various engine speeds, and they calculated that they could cut their fuel consumption by 23 percent and fuel costs by $340,000 a year by marginally reducing their operational speed.

The crew's proposal, essentially, would slow down a crossing of Kootenay Lake so that instead of every 50 minutes it would leave every hour. The operational hours would be extended every day so that the ferry made the same number of crossings, just at a lesser speed.

The proposals met with massive public support. Environmental groups love it because of the reduction in greenhouse gas production. Loggers and commuters love it because it gets them to work earlier in the morning. Chambers of commerce like the hourly schedule because every hour on the hour is something tourists can actually understand and remember. Regional district directors like the plan because their citizens like the proposed schedule and love the green outcome. All in all, I have yet to find a single citizen who does not endorse this environmental initiative.

We in the region, though, can't build a complete business case for the changes without help to determine total environmental, social and fiscal costs and benefits. So we request assistance and/or support from all members and ministers to advance our community's carbon-reduction objectives.

B. Bennett: The previous member talks about a very good idea. I'm pretty sure in the East Kootenay we would have thought of that quite a while ago.

Today I'm talking about something here that I've talked about many times before, but not recently, and that is coal and coalmining. Although coalmining in B.C. is currently a bit like that crazy uncle in the attic that we don't like to talk about, I'm actually proud to speak about it here today. We wouldn't have our hybrid cars or our low-fat lattes or our laptops, for that matter, if it weren't for metallurgical coal. B.C. has been receiving benefits from coalmining in the East Kootenay for over a hundred years. Today the coal industry up there pumps over a billion dollars a year into the B.C. economy.

Today Elk Valley Coal accounts for one-half a percent of Canada's total GDP. It directly employs 2,800 people at an average salary of $94,000. It accounts for 32 percent of rail traffic in B.C. and 30 percent of B.C.'s total port activity. Elk Valley Coal is the world's second-largest exporter of metallurgical coal, which is a low-sulphur coal. It's metallurgical coal. It's not used for generating electricity.

I've said all this in this House before, Mr. Speaker, so why am I talking about it today? Well, I'm glad that you asked. Last Thursday in Cranbrook the Mining Association of B.C. presented Elk Valley Coal's Fording River mine with the annual sustainable mining award. Fording River mine is the second-largest met coalmine in the world. It makes a huge effort to ensure the surrounding water and land are separate from the mining operation, and they do pull that off.

The coal industry in the southeast does a superb job of reclaiming the land that is mined. Fording River mine has its own greenhouse and its own tree nursery for planting the reclaimed slopes that support large populations of elk, deer, grizzly bear, moose and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. I've been there. I can attest to that.

The Fording River, which runs right through the mine site, supports a healthy population of Westslope cutthroat trout. The Fording River mine and their employees take great pride in how environmentally responsible the operation is. Coal is washed with water. It's not washed with the challenging chemicals that are often used in the refining of minerals.

I've got more. I see the red light on. It's always a pleasure to stand up and talk about a great industry in the southeastern part of this province.

C. James: Ten thousand — that's the number of jobs that have been lost or scaled back in B.C.'s forest industry in just this past year. One year, 10,000 jobs. And we know there are thousands more jobs at stake in communities across this province who are losing their mills. From the south coast to the interior to the north, families and communities are suffering. What was the response from this government and this Premier? No plan, just a round table that hasn't met.

My question is to the Premier: when is he going to admit that he's failed B.C.'s forest-dependent communities and that his only plan is to stand by and watch as more mills go down and more jobs are lost?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows, and we all know, that right now B.C.'s forest industry is facing one of the most difficult times probably in the history of our province. Prices are at 1991 levels. The dollar is at par with the United States. The market in the United States has collapsed.

The reality, hon. Member, is that I guess you can get up and politicize this, but what we're doing with forest communities is trying to find long-term solutions with them today. We've put together the $129 million fund for transition and bridging to pension and working with communities day to day. It's an ongoing, 24-hour-a-day relationship that's going on between communities and us every single day to try and find solutions.

Sitting down with industry executives and companies and unions in the last couple of weeks…. They all know one thing. They know we can't control the marketplace. If you wish to think that we can, all you do is undersell the hopes and the future of B.C.'s forest sector and the workers.

C. James: If playing politics means standing up for the forest industry and for jobs and for communities, then the people on this side are going to continue to play politics with this issue.

A round table is no plan. A round table isn't going to stop mills from closing. It isn't going to help workers get their jobs back. The round table is simply a knee-jerk reaction from a Premier who was attending the conference and didn't have anything to say about this industry.

It's been seven weeks since that announcement was made, and so far, we have no terms of reference, we have no membership, and we have no meetings. Their first report is due out in a few weeks. Meanwhile, the industry is facing the worst crisis in our province's history — 10,000 jobs in one year.

My question, again, is to the Premier: if the round table is something more than a knee-jerk reaction, then why won't he put out the terms of reference, the membership, and when they're going to meet?

Hon. R. Coleman: The people that let down the forest sector in British Columbia with bad forest policy were the NDP in the 1990s. You put a billion dollars of additional cost on our industry during that time with all your forest practice and code. You had a phony jobs and timber accord promising 21,000 jobs that it never delivered. And you went out and did a number of other silly things with regards to our sector.

We actually modernized this in 2003, and today we're the only competitive forest sector in Canada — in British Columbia.

With regards to the round table, the terms of reference are done, and the phone calls are actually being made to ask the people to serve right now. By the end of this week, the members of that round table will be announced.

C. James: That really shows the urgency that the other side takes about the forest industry. Forty-six days and they're starting to make the phone calls now. What happened to urgency? What happened to actually doing something for those communities? The minister says that everything's fine.

Well, let's take a look: 34 mills down, 23 with scaled-back operations. Prince George, Mackenzie, Terrace, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Kamloops, Midway, Castlegar and Cranbrook. Those are just some of the communities that are hurting, some of the communities that have faced huge job losses, and all the Premier is doing is making those communities wait while he's making phone calls for a round table. Seven weeks and nothing has happened.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Will he stand up and admit that his stalled round table is an admission of failure and that he has no plan to help B.C.'s forest-dependent communities and workers?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nonsense. You know what? When you have over a hundred people who actually submit their names because they have an interest in the future of the forest sector, you owe them the courtesy to vet them in order to see who can be at the round table — who might have time, whose resumé might fit with certain skill sets you might want to have at the round table, and do the work so that the round table works for the future of the forest in British Columbia.

I know you don't like it, and I know you're going to sit there and say that the 10,000 jobs out there are the fault of a government, which is absolutely wrong.

The fact of the matter is there were 2.1 million housing starts in the United States a year ago. It's expected to be between 700,000 and 900,000 housing starts in the U.S. in 2008. Do you think we can make them build more houses in the United States? Do you understand that 85 percent of your forest products in B.C. are shipped to the United States?

Hon. R. Coleman: Do you understand the market? I suspect you don't, and you don't care about forest sector workers, because you simply ignore them when it comes to us working with communities.

C. Evans: I would imagine that it is the easiest job in the world to be in charge of something which you don't actually have to do anything about, because no matter what happens, you blame it on events in a previous century. There is no moment of accountability. There's no moment of responsibility. There's no moment where you actually have to take charge, because no matter what happens, no matter who loses their job, you blame it on a previous century.

When the loggers in my community were going bust, I asked the minister to take charge and come and see them, and he didn't go. When the workers in Midway were losing their jobs, the member for West Kootenay–Boundary said: "Could you come?" And he didn't go. When it was out here in Sooke, the member from Sooke — whatever you call that — got up and said: "Would you come and talk to my people?" He didn't go. It's my understanding that when Canfor calls or West Fraser calls, he goes.

My question is: what is the matrix by which the minister actually does his job? How does he pick those communities or corporations that he will show up and assist and those that are written off and on their own and go down?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sure this answer will send the member for Nelson-Creston into even more high-flying rhetoric in a second. Last fall he was demanding that we take back a forest licence before it could be sold to a company that wanted to continue to open and operate two mills in the Kootenays.

If I followed his advice at that time, Interfor would not have bought the company, would not have saved the jobs. The mayors of the communities affected actually phoned me and asked me not to listen to the member for Nelson-Creston, because they wanted an opportunity for Interfor to actually make an investment in the Kootenay for the future, for the forestry of the Kootenays.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, is "balderdash" parliamentary? How about "horse puckey"? Everything the minister just said isn't true.

C. Evans: What the minister said about my position six months ago is confused, hon. Speaker. What I actually said is: "Would the minister stop the sale of private land out of tree farm licence 23?" I actually said: "Would the minister see to it that the TFL didn't transfer until the loggers who put the wood in the lake got paid?" If that's wrong, then I don't know how to do my job.

Is there anybody that works here that's not here to stand up for the people who live in their constituency — who do work, get up in the morning, put the wood in the water? Is there anybody who wouldn't say: "Why not pay the workers before the corporation?"

It is my understanding that when the minister won't come and talk to the workers who live in Nakusp, he will go to visit the owners of Canfor and West Fraser and change their stumpage. Hon. Speaker, you know, because you live in Boundary, that when he changes their stumpage, it goes up everywhere else. We call that the waterbed.

C. Evans: Will the minister please explain, so everyone will understand, how the waterbed works and how, when he meets with a corporation that's in his favour, it assists to bankrupt all the other, littler companies that everybody in this room represents?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear, hon. Members. Who was it that intervened in the courts on behalf of the contractors in the Kootenays in the issue with the CCAA with regards to Pope and Talbot? The government of British Columbia intervened, hon. Member. The courts ruled against it. The courts….

Hon. R. Coleman: You haven't even got the right sync, my friend. But that's okay. Recently they looked at the contractors. We intervened on behalf of the contractors. The courts ruled no — not us. We had no control of it. It's federal statute, as you know, not under our control.

But we've been there in the Kootenays working with the company and trying to find solutions so that…. You know what? The mill in Grand Forks will still operate. The mill in Castlegar would still operate. The chips would still be there for the pulp mill in the future, because you know what? You still need forestry in the Kootenays. We're hoping, quite frankly, that the arrangements are being made and that the company that has purchased is going to commit to that area so that you'll have a sustainable forest sector in that area of the province.

K. Conroy: Those mills in the West Kootenay are still struggling today and are not opening. I'd love to talk about that, but I want to talk about another part of the province.

Of the 10,000 forestry jobs that have been lost, 200 of them were lost in Kamloops when Weyerhaeuser announced the permanent closure of its mill there.

However, in this case, the company also announced that they sold their public forest licences to West Fraser who then turned around and sold them to Interfor. The people of Kamloops and especially the Shuswap First Nation were not consulted prior to the sale, and West Fraser won't reveal the terms of the sale to the public.

To the Minister of Forests: when did public forest lands become private holdings that can be bought and sold behind closed doors with no requirement to consult with impacted communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: That sale has not been approved as yet. As a matter of fact, I have to take into consideration the log supply, the markets, the competitive nature…. And if there's a subdivision, it also has to go to first nations consultation and accommodation. None of that has taken place; none of that has been completed yet. So you're precluding a decision that the minister has not made as yet.

K. Conroy: With the track record in the Kootenays, when we look at the CCAA on the website, all those lands…. There are millions of dollars that say they've been sold. People have put out big money to buy land, so they're all assuming it's going to be approved. So I think these people are just assuming that it's also going to be approved because you don't put out millions and millions of dollars to buy land if you don't think you're going to get approval.

These are public lands, and one of the roles of the Minister of Forests is supposed to be to protect public lands, protect the public interest. Yet when asked what he will do, he's been told that his hands were tied. He said he was hamstrung. That's simply proof that this government and this Premier have privatized B.C.'s forests.

If I'm wrong, will the Minister of Forests commit today that he will make the terms of the deal with West Fraser public, and will he commit to conduct full public hearings so that the people of Kamloops and the first nations groups can come and put in their two cents' worth and be heard?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first nations get consulted. That process is going to be ongoing. It has not come to me as yet. The measurements will be in a number of areas, and I'm actually in discussions with the companies that could be affected by chip supplier logs right now. They're making submissions to the minister, and we'll deal with that in due course.

B. Simpson: We're talking about 10,000 workers who have been impacted. The spinoff of that on any calculation is about 40,000 B.C. workers who have been impacted by this fundamental restructuring in the forest sector.

These are real workers. I met with a millwright on the weekend who was in tears. He's having to leave the community that he grew up in and wants his kids to grow up in, to move down to Vancouver, because he cannot sustain the uncertainty right now in the industry. That's bad for the company that he's leaving, because he's a skilled worker, and it's not good for his family, because they don't want to go.

I talked to a young logging contractor who has $10,000-plus in equipment payments per month and cannot work. He has five young children, and he's quickly becoming a very angry young man.

My question to the minister is very simple. Where's the website that I can direct them to, to apply for support from this government to get them through this tough time?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite is well aware that the $129 million that he alleged has already arrived in the province has not. He knows that we're working on an MOU with the federal government on the program. We've identified the people in government and how we're going to deliver that, and we would expect within the next couple weeks to have that entire program in place.

B. Simpson: Well, the minister talks about phony programs in one of his first answers today and said in that same answer — and I think he should go check the Hansard — that this program has already been defined, that there's going to be pension bridging and that there's going to be retraining and all of that. Now he's telling us that he's still working on it. He's still working on the memorandum of understanding.

What is it? All we get from this government is a round table, which is an excuse not to act. We get ad

hoc forest policy from this minister that impacts other areas of the province, that causes this structural change to go deeper than it has to because he doesn't do his homework before he makes the changes, and we get this bombast in here when we're talking about real people and real communities.

A year and a half this restructuring has been going on. Two months we've known that this money is on its way. By the way, where's the provincial money? These are provincial people. These are people of the province of British Columbia, citizens that have paid their taxes here. Where is that money?

So again to the minister: where is this program, and why after two months do you not have something that we can give as answers to these people that are losing their jobs today?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member would read Hansard, I did say pension bridging. I did say retraining. I did say those things because that's the intent of the plan. That's the work we've done internal to government. We're just finalizing the MOU for the transfer of the funds. Maybe you can't put the two together, but I certainly can.

Through to the members opposite, though, it's not about…. I mean, the members are getting up and saying: "It's your fault, your fault, your fault." I get the fact that you don't like the fact that the market has gone in the tank, and the dollar is up and all of those things. I've sat down with industry over the last number of months, and you know what they say to me? They tell me…. The member opposite who actually claims to have some knowledge of the forest sector should know where the markets are, where the price is, when you can operate and when you can't operate.

When you're down around $200 a thousand, you know darn well that you've got to take some product out of the marketplace because the market isn't buying your product at a price you can make a profit at. This means you do have to actually have some layoff and adjustments. And I don't like it. It's not fun being the Minister of Forests and having to deal with situations that affect people. But know full well that everything we can do, we are doing to protect the long-term form of forestry in the province of British Columbia.

R. Austin: Last December Chief Steve Wilson of the Haisla First Nation wrote to the Premier. Chief Wilson states in his letter: "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what it has promised me."

So my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. What did he promise to Chief Wilson?

R. Austin: This letter contains serious allegations, allegations that were made not by an enemy of the government but by one of their friends.

Chief Wilson states, and I'll continue to quote from the letter: "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what it has promised me." He goes on to say: "That includes what B.C. Hydro has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the electricity purchase agreement at the British Columbia Utilities Commission oral hearings."

My question to the minister is: why did the minister and this government try to subvert the B.C. Utilities Commission process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If anybody tried to subvert the BCUC it was the NDP when they were in power, when they removed B.C. Hydro from its responsibility. We have never interfered with the BCUC process. In fact, we strengthened the BCUC process many times in this House to make sure they were back in charge of B.C. Hydro.

As far as the Haisla is concerned, we've worked with Chief Wilson a lot. I worked with Chief Wilson to make sure the LNG project actually happened on their reserve so that they received the taxation for it. This government has done a lot of things with Chief Wilson to make things happen for that band as we move forward and as we will continue to do. We have never done anything to subvert the BCUC's decisions.

S. Fraser: Well, I think bluster understates it, so I'm going to go with the bombast term also.

The minister didn't answer the question. The quote is specific. "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what it has promised me. That includes what B.C. Hydro has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the EPA at the BCUC oral hearings."

The question again — it's very specific: what did the minister promise Chief Wilson so that he would support the government and Alcan in their position at the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think the members should actually start being a little careful here with accusations that they're making about this government and the B.C. Utilities Commission.

We have worked with the first nations across the province. We've worked with Chief Wilson closely. Chief Wilson has an opinion. He's quite welcome to that opinion, but at no time did this government — like the previous government, the NDP — subvert any decision from the B.C. Utilities Commission on any decision that the B.C. Utilities Commission has made at all. We will not do that.

We have said we won't do that. We'll empower the BCUC. We continue to empower the BCUC, and they will make their decisions on merit and what's based in the Utilities Commission Act for the best result for all British Columbians, regardless of who they are.

S. Fraser: I do. I want to read another quote. I have the letter right here. "In particular, Minister Neufeld has not been helpful to move B.C. Hydro where they need to go. I thought that when I went out of my way to support the province by travelling to Alaska we made progress, but that is definitely not the case."

Now, there's consistency here. This is a bit of an omen. The minister isn't being helpful right now either. The question: what exactly did the minister promise Chief Wilson?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know how many times I have to tell the member opposite that we have committed to work with Chief Wilson closely on a number of issues. One was the LNG project, which we have. One is the energy corridor, which he came to government with, which we have. There are other issues, I'm sure, that MARR has worked with Chief Wilson on, on many occasions.

Chief Wilson is a leader in his own right in the northwest. We appreciate that, and we understand that. That's great. But at no time — and I'll say it again so this person, this MLA, gets it if he can — did this government have intention to, or did before or will in the future, subvert any decision that the B.C. Utilities Commission makes on behalf of British Columbians for the betterment of all British Columbians.

J. Horgan: Well, Chief Wilson's letter was addressed to the Premier, and we've heard the quotes. I'll read it again for the record. "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what it has promised me." This is a letter from a senior first nations representative in the northwest of British Columbia to the Premier of this province. The Alcan deal has been contentious. It was overturned once by the Utilities Commission and not a second time, as Mr. Wilson points out in his correspondence.

My question is to the Premier. If these allegations are false, will he stand in this place and say so today? Did this happen, or did it not?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know, Chief Wilson can have opinions of his own, as I said before, and should have opinions of his own and should state his opinions of his own when he writes to the Premier or to a minister or anyone else from the Crown about issues that he or his band feel should happen.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …to working with them on the energy corridor through the northwest part of the province of British Columbia. We have done many other things. But in no way have we ever…. And the accusation — it's actually just a little bit hard for me to take, coming from these members across the way, about the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Never have we ever subverted any decision made by the B.C. Utilities Commission, whether it was the Alcan agreement or anything. We actually depend on the B.C. Utilities Commission to make decisions for us — all of us, regardless of who we are in the British Columbia — for the best interests of everyone in the province. We will continue that. We have empowered the BCUC to do that, and they will continue that process.

J. Horgan: It says here — delivered by hand: "Dear Gordon." It goes on to say: "That includes what B.C. Hydro has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the energy purchase agreement at the B.C. Utilities Commission oral hearings."

Again, a very straightforward question. If this was delivered by hand to the Premier, what is the Premier's response? Will he tell this House now? Will he protect the integrity of the Utilities Commission and flatly deny these allegations from Chief Wilson? Will he do that right now?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I know the member has a problem listening. He has a problem understanding some of these things, but we have worked with first nations. You know, we're the first government that decided we'd work with first nations for the positive outcomes of first nations in the province of British Columbia. It was this Premier that actually put out the first nations trust. A hundred million dollars….

Hon. R. Neufeld: The $100 million to recognize first nations across the province of British Columbia, to help them with capacity-building — we have done that. We've worked with many first nations. I know my ministry has personally worked with an awful lot of first nations across the province of British Columbia.

You know what? We're darn proud of it. That was one thing that that government never did, but we will not subvert any decision made or influence any decision made by the BCUC in regards to anything in favour of anyone.

N. Macdonald: I only get one question, and it'll be this. I asked the Minister of Tourism five days ago whether a ski operation was moving into the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park. If that's the case — and I believe it is the case — then there are big problems

with that. The people of the Columbia Valley have been clear. They do not support the Jumbo project.

The reason this would be moved is to move ahead on the Jumbo project. So I have three questions. The minister rarely answers one of them, so I'll give him three not to answer. And if any one of them….

Does this minister intend to ignore the wishes of the people of the area, who voted 79 percent against this project? Does the government intend to break their word of October 4, 2004, and remove locals from decision-making? Does the government intend to contravene the master plan for a Kootenay treasure, the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park?

N. Macdonald: …if any one of those are yes, then you have a fight on your hands.

S. Fraser: I have petitions from hundreds of residents of British Columbia asking for support on the safe antifreeze bill.

G. Coons: It's a petition from close to a thousand businesses and residents on Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii, expressing concerns about dramatic increases to ferry fares and requesting a moratorium against fares until a committee is enacted to review the Coastal Ferry Act.

J. Horgan: I have a petition here signed by 182 members of the community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca calling on the provincial government to amend the education funding formula and ensure that Glenlake Elementary School remains open.

Hon. I. Chong: I have the honour to present the annual report of the business done pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year-end of March 31, 2007.

C. Evans: Everybody heard me introduce Gerald Rotering and tell you how cool he was and everything he ever did for Nelson. Now he's actually sitting there.

G. Robertson: I rise today to respond to the budget speech as put forward from the government. I would like to start by recognizing that we're on the traditional territory of the Songhees First Nation and by giving respect to the first nations of B.C. for welcoming us all to their traditional territory.

I just want to start by a warm thanks to all the people that make it possible for me to represent Vancouver-Fairview, starting with my family — my wife Amy and my kids Johanna, Satchel, Terra and Jinagh and the rest of my family — who has been great support for me over these past years.

I want to really send a sincere thanks out to my staff in Vancouver-Fairview, Maria Dobrinskaya and Joni Sherman, working hard for the community in Vancouver-Fairview; and here in Victoria, Anne Paxton, Jeff Dean and Cara McGregor. Great support for me in the job that I do.

All of the opposition caucus staff here in Victoria do a phenomenal job in supporting us and helping us hold this government accountable, despite the challenges we have with resources and the challenges that we have in looking over the vast detail of business that this government looks after. We have incredible support from our staff here in Victoria and in our constituency offices, and here's a big shout-out to all those people that make it possible.

I also want to say thanks to my constituents in Vancouver, who have for almost three years now flooded me with their ideas, input and critiques by e-mail, phone, town hall meetings — never hesitant to contribute and support me in my work and ensure that I'm hearing the voices of the community. I do appreciate that and take my responsibilities as their representative very seriously and couldn't do my job without that.

With regards to this budget, government at its core must be dedicated to sustainability, which means

balancing social, environmental and economic needs. A balanced budget should be balancing these needs, and this budget is not. Despite the merit in a few of the initiatives in this budget, I cannot support a budget that doesn't deliver on balance and sustainability.

I want to address the nickname of this budget, the so-called green budget. As with previous budgets we've seen in these recent years, the names given to the budgets have been a lot more about spin than about substance. With regards to this budget, the so-called green budget, I just want to start by addressing the green that supposedly pervades this budget, starting with the cover and materials. Once you crack that open, you see one step forward on green measures and two steps back.

We have the beginnings of a carbon tax. It's a fuel tax. It is a good step, but it'll have minimal impact on the emissions that we so desperately need to reduce here in B.C. Part of this is the fact that it's starting out so small — a very small increment of what we already charge as a provincial fuel tax of about 30 cents a litre. Partly, its failure is resulting from failing to tax emissions. It's taxing fuel consumption, not emissions. This is a fuel tax. It shouldn't be confused with a true emissions or carbon tax.

The other sources of emissions that are not affected by a fuel tax — and what this government hopes will be a reduction in the consumption of fuel — are getting off scot-free. The big emitters, big industry, that are pumping emissions into the atmosphere from smokestacks…. I'm talking about the oil and gas plants, the pulp and paper plants, aluminum, cement industry. They don't pay. They will continue to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground.

This tax, the so-called tax, only applies to fuels as a gas tax. A billion dollars is forecast in this budget each year for the three years. That's just about a billion dollars in the fuel tax forecast. That's revenue flowing from the 30-cent fuel tax.

There's no decline built into this budget for the revenues flowing from that fuel tax. Therefore, we can put a fuel tax in place at 2.4 cents a litre to start with. Clearly, the government doesn't believe it's going to do any good. It's not going to reduce the revenues that flow from the consumption of fuel. Go figure.

If we look at what is necessary here, the big question is: where are the programs to reduce emissions dramatically? Both sides of the House agree in setting significant and challenging targets to reduce our emissions — 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent of 2007 emissions by 2050. But this carbon tax or fuel tax is only projected to reduce emissions by three million tonnes at best. That's about 14 percent of the way to the goal, to the big goal.

It's an insignificant investment in environmental measures that would actually dramatically reduce emissions. That's the problem here. There is no significant investment in measures that will reduce emissions.

So what does this tax achieve? This tax achieves a transfer of funds into the pockets of British Columbia without any support, as the Finance Minister had said, on the education side or on the incentive side to actually target that funding into measures that will reduce emissions. We may even see increases in emissions resulting from the hundred-dollar climate action dividend. That won't be doing anything to achieve the goals that we're setting out for ourselves.

More details that are challenging here. Revenue-neutral. We on this side of the House agree in principle with revenue-neutral. We've stated that. But since this proposal has come forward in the budget, we're hearing from the people of B.C. saying: "Revenue-neutral. We need to take on these emissions. We need programs. We need incentives. We need some help reducing our emissions. We don't just want some cash coming back in a so-called revenue-neutral transfer. We want help reducing our emissions and minimizing our impact on the environment." The budget doesn't deliver on that help.

Beyond the revenue-neutral issue, we see this gas tax unfairly punishing residents in rural B.C. who have no alternative, in many cases — whether they're in business, in the resource industry or in agriculture. At this point they rely on fuel to do their work, to live their lives the way they're living them. The gas tax, in the absence of measures that would help people reduce their emissions and their impact, is effectively punishing people in rural B.C. who rely on fuel for their livelihoods. They don't have choices, and that's a big failing within this budget.

An additional challenge here — and this affects all the people in the province — is the fact that this whole process for over a year now has been shrouded in secrecy. The people of B.C. have this so-called carbon tax thrust upon them. They've heard lots of promises. They've seen legislation come through to set targets. But where's the buy-in? Where's the inclusion? Where's the process that actually brings the people of B.C. to the table in a meaningful way to talk about what impact this will have on their lives and how they can make the changes they need to make?

That's not happening from this government. It's not happening within this budget. There are no measures laid out in this budget to take the process public and make sure that people are heard from and that people understand and embrace the changes we need to make. That's a failing within this budget as well.

Two steps back. The contradictions in this budget are massive. The contradictions of $327 million in subsidies to the oil and gas industry — almost a billion dollars in subsidy to the oil and gas industry over the next three years. At the same time, no responsibility for whatever increase in emissions results from the oil and gas accelerating in terms of extraction.

If we put that much money in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, one would expect they'll increase their output. One would expect that when they increase their output, they will increase their emissions. How does that jibe with a 33 percent reduction over the next 13 years?

It doesn't jibe. Here's the massive contradiction. Add to that a billion dollars in the sale of shale gas

leases last year, and we see…. I can't wait to see the next result from the Minister of Energy here and can't wait to see how significant these sales continue to be in the early part of this year.

There's effectively a shale gas rush happening in B.C. Do we know what it's worth? Do we know what the impact on climate change is going to be? Do we know what the impact on our emissions is going to be? Are we comfortable taking no responsibility for the emissions from our fossil fuel extraction for the rest of the planet? They don't count? They don't go into the balance of this budget? Apparently not.

We'll do everything we can to sell that stuff off at whatever price we can get for it today. That seems to be the strategy that really punctuates the contradiction of this budget. How can you say one thing out of one side of your mouth and then deny it with actions — with a billion dollars in taxpayers' money over the next three years — to undo the goals that are being set?

There are a lot of other environmental measures to complement this budget that are missing — the so-called green budget. We're not seeing significant funding for community transition. What are these great communities going to do when the oil and gas, the shale gas, is gone? What are they going to do next, once their source of revenue and their economies are on the line?

What are we going to do about the fish-farming industry? This Legislature had a special committee to look at the future of fish farming and sustainable aquaculture in this province. A thorough report was made with massive input from the coastal communities of B.C. We've seen no action on it. We've seen no funding flowing for closed-containment projects, for really helping to transition the aquaculture industry into sustainability.

What do we see for wilderness protection? Minimal. In contradiction to what is there, we see huge impacts from the small hydro projects all around the province — power plants, roads, transmission lines — that are going to carve up wilderness around this province, and impacts on the fish and all those creeks and small rivers from the over 500 that have been leased out now and sold off. The impact on the fish and wildlife and those rivers is not taken into consideration here.

Species at risk. Well, there's a pretty short list. Some good movement on caribou in this last year. What about the rest of the roster? We've got species at risk not being factored into this budget in a meaningful way.

B.C. parks — the proudest legacy that we have in protected areas in B.C. What do we see to support parks in this so-called green budget? Pretty much zilch. It's a thin gruel for the legacy of B.C. parks.

I'm disappointed that the green is splashed all over in the promotional materials and the spin. Really, it is effectively greenwashing. This was a huge opportunity to do more — to be holistic, comprehensive and visionary on the environment. Compared to the early years of this B.C. Liberal administration where they were bashing Kyoto and denying climate change, there has been progress here. We'll give you some credit for that, but much more is needed, and this budget falls short.

In terms of balance, I want to move to talking about the social side of this budget. We have a brutal record as a province when compared to the rest of our country. We're among the worst in Canada on many of the metrics on social condition. This budget somehow, shockingly, when you're in last place on a number of fronts….

To ignore it for another year is atrocious, and that starts with child poverty. It starts with the kids in general. How can you ignore a problem as critical as the highest child poverty rate in the country? There are no meaningful steps here, from child supports to addressing welfare rates and increasing minimum wage.

Beyond this unbelievable failing on child poverty, we see our education system continue to be strained, especially for kids with special needs, with English-as-a-second-language needs. Seismic upgrading is stalled out, moving slowly. Kids are not safe in many schools of this province. School boards are under enormous budgetary pressure, and this government continues to play games with the school boards and their funding.

Child care is grossly underfunded. The province has failed to take serious steps to address the federal dollars shortfall. Clearly, child care is not even on the radar. It is not a priority of this government and certainly doesn't show up in this budget as a priority.

Kids are worth the investment. It astounds me that any government in this day and age can take an approach that actually undervalues, undercuts and undermines our kids. Our kids are our future. From child care to education to eradicating child poverty, we need to significantly improve the prospects and potential for our kids, and this budget does not do that.

Tragically, this budget ignores the homelessness crisis. Some $39 million is labelled in this budget for homelessness, dropping to $31 million next year. You compare that to $38.5 billion in revenues coming into this treasury. That's Z\z/// of a percent; Z\z/// of the revenues are being dedicated to deal with homelessness. When we have, by best estimates, well over 10,000 citizens in this province without a home — thousands of them are in my city alone…. These people need permanent housing.

They don't need a tiny dollop of funding to address emergency shelter funding. It does not address the problem. It is absolutely disrespectful of what's happening on the streets and in the towns around this province. It's a band-aid — a band-aid that ain't going to stick for long. I understand that in the city of Vancouver, the minister has had challenges working with the city of Vancouver, and it's very disappointing that the city is not cooperating on identifying sites as readily as they might.

It is an administration — and perhaps there are others around the province — that is not wholly committed to ending homelessness. Clearly, there needs to be a stronger commitment from both the city and the province to achieve the goal of ending homelessness.

Affordable housing is a big piece of that, and the province is not coming to the table with anything significant to address affordable housing. The social housing programs cancelled by this government in 2002 have failed to re-emerge despite the crisis in housing and affordability.

The $375-a-month shelter allowance doesn't cut it, doesn't even begin to cut it in a city like Vancouver. Rent supplements, while they're a piece of the puzzle, don't cut it either. They don't help when the vacancy rate is almost zero in the city of Vancouver.

Rents continue to skyrocket. People continue to get pushed out. The bottom line is that to end homelessness and deal with the affordable housing crisis, we need housing — bricks and mortar — and this budget does not deliver.

Keeping in the frame of social bottom lines here, I can't not address the challenges that we're seeing in health care. My riding is home to Vancouver General Hospital, Children's and Women's hospital, and many of the exceptional organizations and services that provide health care to the people of British Columbia. People come from all over the province to Vancouver-Fairview for health care and support. Given the unbelievable strains on the system that I see in my community and that I hear echoed by others here in this House, it's very disappointing that there isn't more in this budget to support our health care system.

The staff that work in our health care system have an unreasonable workload and have incredible stress on them to keep the system going. The inadequate funding and the government's management of our health care system clearly isn't working. Clearly, there's huge room for improvement. The public is forced to deal with unreasonable wait times, backups in emergency rooms, inadequate home care and long-term care. Clearly, much more needs to be done.

Given the stories that we hear every day and that the members bring into this House on a regular basis, why doesn't this budget address health care in a meaningful way? It's like a footnote in this budget.

Moving to the economy and the third piece within what should be a balanced budget, again we see in small business some very minimal steps. Small business, I think everyone in this House will acknowledge, is the foundation of our economy with a majority of the jobs and a significant contribution to GDP. Over 95 percent of the businesses in this province are small business. There are minimal steps here.

Again, there's been some movement. At last the small business tax rate is being reduced. It's taken seven years for this government to step up and give small business a break in terms of tax. But if you contrast the tax break — $255 million over three years to small business — with the $415 million to big business and the corporate income tax, you see…. How does small business end up getting the short straw again?

I mean, small business is dominant in this province and deserves a lot more support from this government. Basically this government gets lip service for small business, and we'd like to see a lot more support on this side of the House flowing to small business. The budget doesn't deliver on that.

The forest sector in this province, the biggest sector of our economy, now in turmoil as we heard again today in question period — there's no action coming from this government. There's no uptake of a very well-designed plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. There's no uptake there, and there's nothing in the budget to address an unbelievable challenge that the forest industry faces right now.

I could say the similar gap occurs here with agriculture — the lowest funding per capita in Canada here in B.C. It's a huge piece for the agriculture sector to adapt to climate change, to reduce emissions, to continue to grow more food locally and make a difference in terms of our carbon footprint as a province. It's a crucial sector for our economy. This budget doesn't answer for the agriculture industry and does not really deliver anything in a meaningful way to help the agricultural sector transform and continue to contribute in a bigger way to the province's economy.

So if you contrast going AWOL on forestry, going AWOL on agriculture, short-changing small business with, as I mentioned before, massive subsidies to the oil and gas sector and shale gas sales — like, blow it out with fossil fuels, give away the fixed assets at an unbelievable rate right now — it doesn't add up. Is this the vision for our economy — take it from the balance sheet, blow it out the income statement in one year and forget about all the industries that are renewable year after year? They grow product. Every year, if they're managed carefully and sustainably, they will continue to deliver, and they will continue to contribute to our economy.

Green energy — again, another missed opportunity on the economic side here. The government is relentlessly pursuing privatized power. We're not seeing wind turbines. It's 2008 now, and we don't have a wind turbine in the province of British Columbia. Yeah, they're coming; they're coming. We see it in the power call, but we do not have one. It is an international embarrassment. This government has had seven years to deliver on wind power, and where is it? It doesn't exist.

Run of the river. Look at the impact on the over 500 rivers sold for a song. Look at the impact. Due to Bill 30 that this government rammed through, local communities have no input on what energy is developed in their jurisdictions. It's been slow motion — slow motion on renewable energy more broadly. We've got little bits and little bites here and there, but we're not seeing a massive shift into renewable energy — one that could readily be funded by the huge flow of royalties from non-renewable resources.

More broadly on the economy, where is the significant investment in the knowledge-based economy? We all recognize that resources, particularly non-renewable ones, have a limited ability to contribute to our economy here. We have to be investing in the knowledge-based economy. That is the future of this province; it's the future of this world.

We're not seeing a significant investment to incubate, to cultivate, to grow rapidly our knowledge-based economy in B.C. We contrast the investment in the knowledge-based economy to the oil and gas sector. Again, are we putting a billion dollars in the next three years into the knowledge-based economy? Not according to this budget.

We're seeing $220 million going into the banks, the financial institutions. Is this more critical than child poverty? As an economic measure, who's going to contribute more to the future of B.C. — the banks and financial institutions or the kids of this next generation? Again, it's a failing in terms of big picture for this government on the economy.

Post-secondary education. It's shoved to the side again. In this budget there's no significant deliverable on post-secondary. Despite the funding that was invested in Campus 2020 and a new look at where post-secondary education is headed in this province, and despite huge workforce needs and big challenges in the system, with the highest student debt in the country and accessibility very limited for people on low incomes and from low-income families, post-secondary education is clearly not a priority for this government.

Extend that into the broader sphere of literacy. Literacy, which was a pet project of the Premier, doesn't even show up here. It's critical to economic growth. There's demonstrable proof that literacy rates are directly tied to economic growth. Another botched priority in this budget for the economy of B.C.

Clearly, this government with this budget is not focused on the fundamentals of our economic health and the future of B.C.'s economy. This budget is based on a big sell-off of hard assets, of non-renewable resources with an inadequate focus on the key drivers of our current economy and the key steps required to build our knowledge-based economy.

The big question is: what does this budget mean to Vancouver-Fairview? As the representative for Fairview, we have a real crunch here in housing in Vancouver. Affordability is an issue. I spoke about homelessness and housing and the lack of support in this budget for it. It will continue to be a problem for my constituents in Fairview.

There's nothing in this budget to address the unbelievable impact of the Canada line on the small businesses along the Cambie corridor. Again, we have over 60 businesses now closed along that corridor. There's nothing in the budget here to address it.

There are big expectations that this government has put forward in their transit plan to run a rapid transit line out Broadway to UBC. A huge budget is being built into that for tunnelling, saying that it won't have any impact on those small businesses in the Broadway corridor. The Broadway corridor is the second biggest so-called downtown in the province, and there are thousands of businesses along the Broadway corridor that could be affected here.

I don't think the businesses on Broadway are going to take it too lightly when promises were broken on Cambie, no compensation has been delivered and now this government is proposing: "Oh, don't worry. We'll run it your way, but it won't even affect you." There's no way to not affect the small businesses along a megaproject corridor. Something needs to be delivered on Cambie. The budget doesn't do that, and clearly, there have to be significant consultations and a mitigation plan in place for Broadway.

Transit needs continue to be high in my riding. Service is not keeping up with the demand. We need to have U-passes for students at Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design, for VCC, for the other campuses in Vancouver. Affordability is a really critical issue, and this budget is not strong on that.

In closing, we're living in very tumultuous times. We live in great affluence and, at the same time, with intolerable poverty. We have a growing gap between rich and poor that undermines us as a province. We have unsustainable consumption and emissions to deal with — ecosystems under siege, extinctions spiking, erosion, loss of forest cover, an epic challenge of climate change — and a significant transformation of our economy that's needed.

This budget doesn't address the colossal challenges that are facing us. For every positive step, there are two backward steps, with the contradictions and with no resolve to address the social, environmental and economic needs. In the big picture, this is not a balanced budget. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Hon. O. Ilich: I have a friend in the gallery who has just joined us. He's from Richmond. His name is Peter Raju. Peter is president of the Rotary Club. This next month he's putting on a tribute to seniors in Richmond. He's very active in our community and is a great asset to our community. He is joined today by Len da Silva and Susan Stein from YVR, who I used to work with many years ago. So please make them feel welcome today.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I take my place in the House to speak to what I think is a great budget. Again, a budget which, contrary to what the last member talked about — not being balanced — is fully balanced. In fact, three years hence, we'll be balanced every year. We have a law in British Columbia that says we must balance the budgets.

I know the member opposite probably wouldn't recognize a balanced budget if it landed in his lap in front of him, but that's to be expected. They never had

the benefit of having a balanced budget for ten years while they were in opposition. All they were able to do was drive up expenses.

I'm proud to stand up and support a budget, again, that's got an estimated 1.8 percent growth annually, each year forward. We have revenue of $38.5 billion this year, with expenditures at $37.7 billion. I think, in anybody's arithmetic, that that would add up to a balanced budget, one with some surplus.

Before I go too far, I want to take the opportunity to thank the people in Peace River North for electing me to this fourth term here in this Legislature. When one looks around the Legislature and the work that is entailed in the Legislature, one has to be in awe when you sit in this particular room thinking that you're one of the people that can actually help make changes, help those people in need, help those people that need jobs and to actually help the province become self-sufficient and self-supporting again. We are proud of that.

We have a strong economy. We inherited an economy that was at the bottom of the basket in jurisdictions across Canada and in this year, this budget, finally bring — or have brought, for a number of years now — a balanced budget and an economy that's second to none across Canada.

When you look at 400,000 jobs, I believe, created in British Columbia — with 85 percent of those being full-time, permanent jobs — it's remarkable. In fact, that's better than any other jurisdiction around. If the member chooses to vote against it, he can do that. I would vote for it, and so would the people that actually have jobs in this economy we have.

The expenditures are prudent. Our Finance Minister since 2001 has brought us to a place with a triple-A credit rating. That is much better than the credit rating we got when we were elected in 2001 — and what a difference from the 1990s. Having been elected here since 1991, I sat in those ten miserable years, that decade of decline in the province while we went downhill. In jurisdictions around us their economies were rising and they were moving forward. Alberta was moving forward at a pace where we were as fast going downhill as they were going uphill.

It's not a matter of just British Columbia. It was, in fact, a matter of the government and the policies of the day that drove us there. But I would much rather have this budget today, this expected growth, than what we received in the 1990s. This is a bold move on the climate. It's a bold move, because this province has moved ahead under the leadership of our Premier to deal with greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. Someone had to do it, and when you look around across Canada or even in the Pacific Northwest, the states that we trade with a lot will tell you the same thing. It is a bold move, and we're leading. They will be following in many ways as we move forward.

We have to think of not just today, not just a few months out and not just a few years out. We need to think about our children and our grandchildren, those that are not yet here. I remember clearly that when we released the energy plan in February 2007 — and I went back and took a clip of what I said, just one small short piece — I said: "Climate change is real. What effect human activity is having is, I believe, in part real. We need to do our part for those yet to come."

I think those are serious words. Those are words that we have to actually embrace in British Columbia. I understand the member for Vancouver-Fairview doesn't want to embrace climate change. He talks about it all the time. He doesn't want to embrace ideas about how we can deal with climate change in the province. He would rather have business as usual, and I mean business as usual as it was in the 1990s. If you don't have enough money, just go out and borrow it and create more programs. Who cares?

That's what they were very good at, and that's what I would assume the member for Vancouver-Fairview was talking about when he said he couldn't support a budget that actually deals with climate change and the economy, that deals with those that need a hand up, that deals with health care and education. He clearly said, as many of them on that side of the House have said, that he's opposed to it.

It's interesting; they all approved the supplementary estimates. You know, when the vote came, when those in favour were called and there was a division, who stood? Everyone that was in the House, including the NDP. But the next day all they could do was badmouth it, just like today. He can't support it. So it's understandable that they're not sure what they can support and what they can't support. That shouldn't surprise us at all.

When we look at the leadership on that side of the House, one has to wonder, because one day the leadership says, "I support climate change; I would actually not do things much different; I would not change the cost of it," and then comes in the House and talks about how terrible it is. You just never know what they're going to be in favour of or what they're going to be opposed to.

I just want to read a few things from the backgrounder. It was pretty easy reading, even for those people across the way in opposition. If they don't have good research, they could actually remove those documents and have a look at it. We'll just go through a few of them, and I'll remind everyone that the people who say they don't want to support the budget, they're opposed to these things.

I know we are in support of a billion dollars in operating and capital expenditures over four years to support a comprehensive approach to reducing B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions. We're for it. They're against it.

We heard a member just talk a while ago about how we should be doing it. Well, we're for doing it. They're against it.

An estimated $1.8 billion in personal and business tax reductions over three years to return revenue generated by a carbon tax. That's revenue-neutral. We're for it. They're against it.

They stood before the budget was even laid down before the House. They said: "We want a revenue-neutral carbon tax if it's going to come." We brought it. Now they're against it.

An additional $2.9 billion — $2.9 billion additional — for enhancing health care, for a total funding increase of $4.9 billion or 19 percent over three years and an additional $543 million in capital spending over four years to be provided for major health facilities expansion. I'm for it. They're against it.

In that number is a new hospital plan for Fort St. John, a new seniors care complex. I'm for it. This government's for it. They're against it. Absolutely unbelievable.

Now, $144 million over three years for K-to-12 education funding and StrongStart centres. This side of the House, we're for it. That side of the House, they're against funding for schools.

And $346 million over four years for new investments in the economy and communities. We're for that. They're against it.

An additional tax reduction of $481 million over three years. We're for it. We have the lowest personal income taxes for below $110,000 earnings of any jurisdiction in Canada. We're for it. They're against it.

I could — in fact, I am going to — go on with a number of other things: $1 billion for climate action; $98 million for a new LiveSmart B.C. efficiency incentive program and other initiatives to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy-efficient choices in their homes, businesses and vehicles — $98 million. We're for it. They're against it.

Now, $370 million for capital and operating expenses to improve and expand public transportation in British Columbia. We're for it. They're against it.

And $57 million for bioenergy and alternative energy solutions such as establishing a bioenergy network, introducing a biodiesel production incentive, expanding solar thermal energy systems and supporting the innovative clean energy fund. We're for it. They're against it.

Ten million dollars over three years for incentives to actually build a biodiesel plant likely will happen in the Peace. It was brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forests and myself, by this government of British Columbia. Again, they don't want a hospital built in the northeast. They don't want a biodiesel plant built in the northeast. They don't want an ethanol plant in British Columbia, but they all want to talk green.

The only thing green about them is that they don't understand anything about how you actually get an economy to be green. You have to invest some dollars in that economy to make sure it happens. We're investing in spades. We're for it. They're against it.

Then I listened to the Wizard of Oz over there talk — the fellow that's planning to move over to lead Vancouver. Vancouver-Fairview — I forgot his constituency name. I'm sorry; I had to use another acronym. The member for Vancouver-Fairview who talks about…. The small business guru of that group — he never came forward with a solid suggestion yet. Nothing, nothing but complaints. He can't support a balanced budget, can't support health spending, can't support looking at how you actually make an economy green and will look at keeping economic competitiveness. You need that.

So $112 million to enhance the basic and regional film tax credits to support B.C.'s film industry. That means giving credits out in the rural part of B.C. to actually encourage filming in the rural part of B.C., not just Vancouver. We're for it. They're against it.

Twelve million dollars for Geoscience B.C. for oil, gas and mineral exploration and to further develop geoscience data to support the mineral exploration, I should say, in the mountain pine beetle–affected regions. That's something that has been a standard around British Columbia. In fact, when they were in office, although they cut down the geoscientists' funding dramatically… That's something that's kin to all of us.

Anybody that knows anything about minerals, or oil and gas…. You actually have to do some in-ground work. This helps. This is mainly going in the Nechako and the Bowser basin and those areas hard hit by pine beetle to actually create jobs, wealth and investment in the province of British Columbia rather than some other place. We're for it. They're against it.

They're against jobs in their communities that they represent by saying no to this kind of investment — each and every one of them. Now, I can see the folks in Vancouver Island saying no, but I cannot see the people in the Cariboo and those regions saying no to this. I would expect the two members from Cariboo are going to stand up and vote for this budget just for that $12 million in their region.

The list goes on and on of great benefits for the province, regardless of where you live. Some $30 million to endow the Terry Fox research centre to be headquartered in B.C. for transitional research to help the fight against cancer. What's the matter with that? You're against it. You'll vote against it. We're for it. We're for more research into cancer. We're for those kinds of things in health care. The NDP is completely opposed.

In fact, the other day the member for North Island said she was elected to oppose everything. I was astounded at that statement. There must be some things that she can find in her little, old heart that she could actually support for some of the people she represents on Vancouver Island. You would think there would be a few things that she could find in her heart to say: "My goodness, I think that's not bad for the people I represent. I ought to be there to support that so I can have jobs and economic activity happening in my area."

I'm disillusioned and disappointed at how some of these members actually rail against the budget, when it's probably one of the better budgets we've had for all across British Columbia.

Let's also look at some of the things that are coming around now in regards to…. I want to deal with electricity, IPPs, rates, oil and gas, some of the mainstays of the province, some of the things that we would like to actually keep operating, and I guess I can only

I read the newspapers, and I see members opposite, from the NDP, talking about the rate increases that took place. I won't go into the rate increases, but I'm going to go around them a little bit, because those rate increases are right now before the B.C. Utilities Commission for their decision. But to say they're attributable only to independent power producers or purchases is entirely incorrect.

There is an awful lot of work going around in British Columbia. B.C. Hydro is working on its own systems to upgrade a system that was left to die on a vine for ten years so it could return money to the NDP so that they could come in here and expand it. Or, heaven forbid….

They built a couple of plants — one of them was in Pakistan — when we needed electricity in British Columbia. But I guess that's NDP logic. It's a way to go. They're still trying to figure out the undersea cables to get it over to Vancouver Island. We'll let them continue to figure that out.

Do you know what's sad? During the ten years that the NDP were here, with the increase in consumption in British Columbia, the new electricity…. They did create some new electricity. They were in favour of IPPs at one time. It was when they were doing it, though. No one else can do it, because only they can do it. For the growth in consumption of Hydro customers in the province, the NDP managed to build just 11 percent of that new consumption.

Is it any wonder that we have to go out now and build an awful lot of electricity generation in British Columbia, when you take ten years that they didn't build enough generation to look after only 11 percent of the growth? We have to build that today, and we have to build it for a thriving economy.

They had a lousy economy, driven by them — not by anyone else, by them. I remember that Ralph Klein, when he was the Premier of Alberta, used to say, and I'd read it quite often in the newspaper: "I don't need an economic development ministry at all. I just have to keep the NDP in power in British Columbia, and they'll drive all the investment over to me."

That's all that was built. What we're doing is embarking on getting British Columbia back to being self-sufficient, as we once proudly were and as we will proudly be again.

I'm just going to read a number of the things that are happening in the…. When Hydro put out the press release about asking for a rate increase. They said, "Here are some of the things that we're doing in the province to upgrade the public system," which was driven into the ground during the 1990s.

What they're doing at Revelstoke generating station unit No. 5 is installing a new unit. It's a $280 million to $350 million investment in the province. You know, that money has to be retrieved some way, and that's through rate increases. The people, the ratepayers, actually have to pay for that.

Peace Canyon generating station, $141 million. That means upgrading so that it can actually generate more electricity in British Columbia. Gordon M. Shrum generating station, the largest one we have in the province, is receiving $100 million in upgrades — $91 million, to be exact — to redo the stators so that it can actually generate more electricity in an economy that grows daily, weekly, monthly and yearly in British Columbia. It's so good to my ears, compared to an economy in the 1990s that went down, down, down and down. What a difference.

Mica generating station, another $97 million. Aberfield generating station, $95 million. Coquitlam dam seismic improvement project, $66 million. Interior lower mainland transmission project, $600 million. Vancouver Island transmission reinforcement, $287 million.

The new control centre for BCTC is state of the art. It's something that the world would love to have, and we should be proud of that. That technology was developed here in British Columbia for the benefit of British Columbians. It's another $130 million. The project is on time and on budget and we ought to be darn proud of those kinds of things.

They're against it, and we're for it. We think we need it. We need to upgrade the systems. B.C. Hydro agrees with us. The BCUC agrees with it. An independent, quasi-judicial body says: "Yes, you should upgrade those facilities for the benefit of all the people in the province." We're for it; they're against it.

IPPs. It's a great philosophical debate. I just want to clarify a few things. I mean, it depends what day of the week, what afternoon, what evening, or where you're at when you hear some of the quotes come from some of the NDP members opposite about IPPs.

There are now a total of 43 — not thousands, just 43. A few of those were built while the NDP were here. In fact, the largest natural gas–fired generating plant in British Columbia was built by the NDP. Actually, not by the NDP. As much as they rail against the private sector, they had an American company — a good American company, nothing wrong with that — come to British Columbia and build that on Vancouver Island. It's 250 megawatts.

Then they said: "You know what? We're so good at this." You know, the fuel cost, natural gas, is probably the most volatile thing in that project. What did they say? They said: "Oh, you're from a big company from the U.S. We can't expect you to take that kind of risk. You know what? We'll make Fred and Martha, the ratepayers in British Columbia, take on the largest risk in that plant, which is buying the natural gas to keep it fired up."

That's how much they cared about greenhouse gases. That's how much they understood about business. It's a sad legacy for them, for me to even sit here and listen to them talk about IPPs in the province.

A while ago they talked about wind generators. Well, nobody was even talking about wind generators in the province when that sorry group was here, because they were all leaving for Alberta. Like I said earlier, Mr. Klein had them coming across the border steady, and they built them all over the southern part of Alberta — wind towers all over.

Well, we have some wind towers happening in British Columbia, in the Peace River country. They're being commissioned and built now. We will have some wind energy for the first time in the province — renewable green power — and that group opposed it. When I read in the paper when they talked about it…. In fact, my critic said we shouldn't be doing it because they're not environmentally sensitive. Then you hear the member for Vancouver-Fairview say: "We don't have any yet; we should have some."

Is it any wonder the public is confused? Is it any wonder that anybody would be confused with that kind of an attitude? Depends what day, what time. The critic for Environment from the other side is exactly the same. One day he's in support of green projects. The next day he says that we shouldn't have them in British Columbia and that we don't need any renewable power.

When you look at IPPs across the province, the ones that have been built — 43 of them…. The investment is about $2 billion. It's created 4,000 person-years of construction employment since 1990. Is there anything wrong with that? I guess it was okay in the 1990s, even though they picked the largest gas-fired plant in the province. I guess it's okay. People were employed. Investment was made, and there we are. But there's nothing wrong with IPPs.

In fact, I believe 34 of those plants are built on small rivers, small run-of-the-river projects. If you listen to the members opposite or read the newspaper, you would see the numbers go by hundreds. Some of them even talk about thousands and talk about how terrible they are. Well, I can tell you that at one time they were okay. Here's my critic, and he says: "We should pay a premium for renewables." Now, does that mean he's in favour of IPPs, or is he opposed?

So it's a little bit grey. So is he. Not his hair. He's a little bit grey once in a while when he speaks. Here's another quote. On some radio programs he's opposed to the same thing, and he's for the same thing. No wonder people are confused. Here he says on CKNW in November of '06: "Well, certainly there is a role for IPPs in B.C. Hydro's energy mix."

One day they're for it. One day they're against it. I can tell you they ought to take the position: "We're for energy generated in British Columbia. We're for jobs created in British Columbia. We're for energy self-sufficiency in British Columbia." All of those members are totally against it. They're totally against it, and it's bloody shameful that that's what has happened in the province.

Last year I was proud that Hydro was able to sign some contracts with people for 36 projects across the province. They will be 29 hydro, three wind, two biomass and two waste heat. What's the matter with that? That's all renewable electricity, if you believe what the member said earlier about renewable electricity.

Let's read them again. On October 5 of '07: "There are IPP proposals, and I think the Toba Inlet one is a reasonably good example of where you would want to buy from the private sector." That's the same member who will say — and I'll quote him a few times here later on — that he's totally against them. So you hear him, on the same programs, talk about how he's for it and then how he's against.

Here's one. One has to wonder. This is a quote. This is from CKNW in November of '06. My critic says: "I went to visit a little place just outside of Squamish called Furry Creek. It's a fantastic project, ideal for the private sector, but Hydro could have done it for half the price." Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous? It's unbelievable.

Here's another one. This is the same member. Let's see. It's the same show. He was for it on the same show and against it on the same show. He said: "It is responsible for distribution but not the billing component of distribution" — he's talking about BCTC — "and now it is just a clearinghouse for private power on the marketplace, which is going at a rate of almost twice what they could do it if they went for a project such as Site C in the Peace country." Interesting.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "We haven't made a decision on Site C." So one day he wants Site C; one day he doesn't want Site C. One day he wants an IPP; one day he doesn't want an IPP.

The next thing you hear from the member across the way is that there's no wind power generation. Actually, you know, for ten years it's a wonder that they got anything done, with that kind of agreement on that side of the House.

But I want to go back in history a little bit too, because they talk about how water rates were slashed for IPPs.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House and give, on behalf of my constituents, a response to the budget. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the three people who have worked hard with me this year: Shirley-Anne Williams here in Victoria and Kimberly Arab and Heather Bould in the Surrey constituency office. Most of us, when we get up to do our speeches, acknowledge the hard work our staff does on our behalf at home, especially when we're here in the House.

I know that work is very complex and complicated. They deal with three levels of government, often school boards. They deal with an ever-changing calendar. They deal with policy issues as well as providing information on casework to constituents who have come in with serious problems. So I'd like to join those who have, at the top of their speech, talked about those people who are so important to us in being able to do our job effectively.

I also, like many other members have done, want to acknowledge the deep debt of gratitude that I do feel towards the constituents of Surrey–Green Timbers for sending me here. When I think about being one of 854 people who have ever had the honour to sit in this Legislature…. It makes you pause.

I was just trying to think of it the other day — how many people have lived in this province and participated in elections. To be part of that small number who've come here to represent their constituency is truly an honour.

I often say when I'm talking to the students who come to Victoria that we as a community, we as a society, have a form of government that chooses its leaders from their friends, their neighbours and their family. We don't have a government that is of a military nature, nor do we have a government that is based on some kind of royalty or lineage that's passed down from one to another. We in fact come here on behalf of our neighbours, people who are like us, and we are here to be their voice and to be sure that their concerns are heard in this House.

The constituency that I live in is a suburban community and one that is very, very multicultural in nature. I have a very strong contingent of people from the Sikh community in my constituency, and I have made the attempt to learn a little of the language, however difficult that has been. I have a few phrases down pat. We also have a huge number of people from the Asian community as well as people from Africa and, of course, the sprinkling of people from northern and eastern Europe.

When I come here, I try to think of the things that are important to them and how they would want me to speak on their behalf. When I do that, I think of the Thind family, this magnificent Indo-Canadian extended family that works hard, contributes to our community and wants me to be here making sure that health care and education are a priority for government.

I also think of Janice and Ross, two constituents of mine who have raised two children who are now in post-secondary institutions in the province — one in UBC and one at BCIT. I know they have worked hard to ensure that their kids have the opportunity to go on with their education and go to a post-secondary institution. I know that when we talk about the cost of post-secondary and that when I speak, I speak on their behalf. I think of Nenang, a woman who is now participating in an international business after losing her livelihood in the health care industry.

These are very ordinary people. They come from around the globe, like many of the people in our province. They are hard-working people who have found a place in our country, where they want to prosper.

Before I leave the kind of people that are in my constituency, I just want to acknowledge one person that we lost last year. His name was Bill Buchanan. To me, he is symbolic of the people that I represent.

He was a strong, hard-working man. He loved work and always had a project on the go. We all knew where to find Bill. If he wasn't at work, he was in his shop doing something. He was creative in many ways. He would make you anything you wanted with some steel and the right tools. He loved his hobbies. He would make stained glass pieces and share them with his family and community. The last two years Bill was enjoying retirement, and if there ever was a guy who deserved to be off, it was him. For 35 years Bill worked at Lafarge cement. He drove a truck and poured cement and loved it.

Hon. Speaker, I take that moment because I just want people to understand the nature of the person or the type of person that I represent. They are average working people. They do not have a great sense of entitlement but do want a government that is on their side and understands their needs. They do not want to be marginalized and the needs of their family dismissed. They know they must work hard and contribute to a society they live in, and they want to support a public health care system that does not bankrupt them in time of need. They want to support an education system that allows their children to participate, to grow and to learn without burdening their future with a staggering amount of debt.

They want to know that the future of this province has a place for them and for their family, a place that values their economic contribution and hard work. They are an incredible group of people, which I am very honoured to represent.

I was born in Vancouver and grew up on Sea Island within walking distance of the Fraser River. The mighty Fraser at the bottom of the subdivision was always a negative and a positive presence. We as a family caught oolichans when they ran in the river, and they were so plentiful at that time that we caught them in buckets.

But the river was also feared, deeply feared, for the river, especially at low tide, ran fast and had a very powerful undertow. It was the undertow that frightened us kids most, and our parents were always warning us of its danger.

The undertow could not be seen and lurked somewhere beneath the surface of the water, waiting for an unsuspecting paddler or swimmer to be caught in its grip. Then the power of the water could pull you down despite how hard you struggled. We were taught to fear the undertow.

I feel that many members and families in my community of Surrey–Green Timbers are feeling the power of that undertow. They and their families are being pulled down economically by something they cannot see and do not have the power as individuals to fight.

Everything they need and must buy daily or weekly or yearly for their family is increasing in cost, and their wage package has not expanded in kind. There is an undercurrent of deep concern and desperation from members of my community and sometimes deep frustration.

As I read this budget, I am not sure that the constituents of Surrey–Green Timbers are on the government's radar at all. This budget fails to recognize the

economic pressures facing the families of Surrey–Green Timbers and fails to provide relief.

It is average families that are struggling today and see a difficult future for their families. Rents are increasing. Housing prices are being driven out of reach. Hydro prices are increasing. Transit prices have just increased. Ferry prices are increasing, as is ICBC, and they are now faced by a government-imposed gas tax.

The question to ask is: are ordinary people better off today than they were a few years ago? Not if you measure their wages, which have not increased for a decade. The government steadily refuses to raise the minimum wage.

I know the government will claim the credit for the low unemployment rate, and that is to be expected. But the government did not magically wave a wand or with political will drive the prices of commodities to a record high. I think it had more to do with the emerging economies of India and China than it did with political expertise.

The members across the way may also have realized that this phenomenon of high job demand and low unemployment occurred across the country. But really, who am I to question? But then, I have to assume that if you're responsible for the upturn, you're also responsible for the downturn. I have to conclude, therefore, that the collapse of the forest industry is also a consequence of the government's prowess in economic management.

Clearly, they have some responsibility for the bad times if they lay credit for the good times. Unfortunately, it is the workers who have suffered the loss of jobs and the wages that keep their families secure. Unfortunately, the wages of the average worker have not increased. In fact, over the last decade, wages have experienced virtually no change or growth for the average worker.

A recent Statistics Canada study found that the hourly earnings in B.C. rose by only 3 percent between 1997 and 2007, compared to the national average of 6 percent over the same decade. They found in the study that in B.C., most workers' average real wage had literally no change while the average real wage of those in managerial occupations rose by 15 percent.

Many of the members of Surrey–Green Timbers have lost their jobs as a consequence of the collapse of the forest industry and the government's decision to view this collapse of one of our major industries as merely a spectator sport. The budget does nothing to address the crisis in our forest industry. There have been 16 mill closures announced in the last four months in communities like Kamloops, Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Campbell River and New Westminster, with little or no action by this government.

I'd just like to talk a few more minutes about this undertow that I've been describing, and I'd like to start with the basics.

Shelter. According to an article I read recently, the cost of buying a home in the lower mainland increased $21,000 last year — to purchase a home in our city, an average increase of $21,000 year over end. Wow — good grief. So on average, the home you looked at a year ago is now $21,000 more. Other than those of us in this hallowed hall, who else got a wage increase of $21,000 last year?

Let me be clear. There may be the odd person in my constituency who hit the jackpot, won a lottery, flipped a property and tucked that kind of increase into their back pocket, but believe me, they were very few and far between.

Clearly, there are those who have not been caught in the undertow — those in managerial occupations and those of us who own property. We're the winners, and I count myself in that crowd twofold. But my daughter will never own a house without my help. She works hard and contributes to this society, but you must have an income or combined income of significantly over $100,000 to qualify for a mortgage. Even then, you'll be paying more over a longer period of time.

Property prices are increasing, with a following spinoff into the rental market and the inevitable spinoff into the working poor onto the streets and the consequences of that tough life.

I made my case a year ago, and it is worth reiterating. The difference between now and years ago, when we did not have the number of people on the streets, is the political will of senior governments. Through the '50s, '60s, '70s and into the '80s, the federal government and the provincial governments engaged in social housing. But not only social housing, they also engaged in low-market housing.

You could get an AHOP house in the '70s, and there were many AHOPs made available to low-income families in Surrey during the '70s. The governments of the day were engaged in housing in the marketplace. In 1993 the federal government abandoned the field, and in 2001 the provincial government did likewise.

The consequences are clear. We have a huge problem with housing, and it's not getting better. This budget will not solve the problem of housing.

We have to find solutions to housing affordability, and I think sitting on the sidelines again, as a spectator, doesn't cut it. Increasing the forgiveness of the property tax to the purchase of a new home is a good move, but not one that will fix the problem. We must stop that downward pull. The cost of housing has gone beyond the reach of our next generation, and that is unacceptable.

This government should be capable of some solutions. If we as a society do not want people on the streets, and we believe that people who work hard and contribute to our world should have a reasonable home and not be paying, in many cases, over 60 percent of their income on keeping a roof over their head, then we should become a significant leader in a solution to this problem.

I want to slip to transportation for a minute. Now, the people in my community are going to pay a new gas tax of seven cents, while the oil and gas sector gets an additional $225 million in tax relief. The price of gas at the pump, which is set by the oil companies, is going up, to boot. Not bad — a subsidy and an increase for the product. One of the oil companies — I can't remember which one; I was trying to remember — had

profits of over $30 billion last year, profits pretty close to the total provincial budget.

Where does that put the average person who is faced with the high cost of housing, the increasing cost of food — because we know there is pressure on the food supply, especially wheat, as we look at biofuel instead of fossil fuel — and increased costs of transportation not only in transit but in gas? And there are more increases coming in hydro and ICBC. Where does that put the average person trying to make ends meet?

I agree that we must do everything we can to fight climate change, but there is no logic in a gas tax and an increase in transit fares and further subsidies to the oil and gas companies. If you want people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by driving less, provide cost-effective alternatives, reduce the cost of transit and increase service.

Average people should not bear the burden of climate change. It should be shared with all of us who are affected by the problem. Big industry — those who produce oil and gas, aluminum and other commodities — will not be subject to this new tax. The only conclusion is that it is not something that is targeted and should be embraced by ordinary people.

Hon. Speaker, before I close, because I'm very aware that I have to replace you shortly, I would like to mention health care. First off, I want to talk a little bit from a bit of a more broad perspective. I look at health care as a way that we as a community have decided to pool our resources. We have put them in the hands, through taxes, of our government. Therefore, we have the peace of mind to know that if a medical catastrophe hit anyone in our family, we would be covered.

My husband has had cancer, and precisely that worked. Precisely what we want for everyone worked. He was treated very, very well. He has come out at the end of that treatment free of cancer, and our medical system did precisely what we wanted it to do.

In Surrey we have had a particularly difficult problem. Surrey Memorial Hospital is situated in the constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers, and this hospital did feature rather predominantly in the last election.

There was significant difficulty with a flood as well as some issues around the care as the hospital was straining to deliver the health care needed for its catchment area. The hospital needed further funding and expansion of the emergency ward, and it needed additional acute care and long-term care beds. The newly expanded emergency ward remains a promise with a done date moving further and further into the future.

The government's attention for their capital expenditures is not on the delivery of facilities where it's needed, but more on the bells and whistles for the Olympic Games, including a crab-like roof over Robson Square.

There are still not enough emergency beds, acute care beds or long-term beds in the South Fraser region. After seven years in office, almost two terms, the health care south of the Fraser is not a testament to the competence of this provincial government.

The number one concern of the constituents in my community, as seen through the front door of my constituency office, is the health care system and the lack of services south of the Fraser. We need action, not rhetoric. We need solutions now, not in the next two, four or ten years.

Noting the time, I will conclude just by saying this budget does spend money, but not where I believe the priorities of the people of this province are. I believe….

S. Hammell: What I think the people of my constituency — and I certainly am not going to speak for anybody else's constituency…. They do not want the priorities of the budget that they see from this budget.

What I believe the people in my constituency want is to see less poverty and fewer children in poverty. They want to see shorter hospital waiting lists and fewer homeless. They do not want to see their police spending significant amounts of time dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill instead of the significant gang violence that is claiming innocent lives. In my constituency in the last four to five months, seven people have been killed — two of them innocently.

Governments, in my world, are the instruments of the people. They can be effective tools in creating a just society. This government's budget does not address the incredible economic pressure on average people and instead adds to their burden. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the budget.

Hon. G. Abbott: So that we can put the suspense aside, I am going to support the budget. I am delighted to do so. It's another excellent budget, and I think that through the budgets we have seen since 2001, we've seen a lot of the promise of British Columbia realized. We have a great province, and every year it gets to be a greater province. I believe the role of the budget is to help that process along, and I'm entirely confident that that is what we will see.

I want to begin today by thanking my constituents in Shuswap for their continuing support of my leadership for them in this Legislature. It is a great honour to represent the constituency of Shuswap. People have been remarkably supportive of me, and I do thank them for that.

I've now had the honour to be the MLA for Shuswap for 12 years and had the honour some years before that — it's now getting close to 16 years — to have the opportunity to be involved in local government in the Shuswap as well. So that's a great honour to have had the opportunity to serve as long as I have.

I also want to begin by thanking two people up in the Shuswap who do a lot of extra work on my behalf and on behalf of the constituents of the Shuswap. As Minister of Health for the province of British Columbia, I have a pretty hectic schedule that I try to meet. As

a consequence, I know that my constituency assistants Roxena Goodine and Holly Cowan bear a disproportionate demand on their time. They work very, very hard and effectively to assist me in ensuring that the needs of my constituents in the Shuswap are met.

The Shuswap is an area that has responded well to the government and the budgets we've had in British Columbia since 2001. Like many areas of the province, we have a booming economy and very low unemployment rates — or very high employment rates, the highest that I can certainly ever remember in the Shuswap. It wasn't uncommon a decade or a decade and a half ago to see double-digit unemployment. Now there's a huge demand for workers in a range of areas in the Shuswap. So it's delightful to be on that side of an economic boom, and the Shuswap enjoys that.

One of the reasons why I think things are going very well is the very wise and strategic investments that the provincial government has made in the constituency, sometimes in partnership with the federal government, sometimes the provincial government alone. We are seeing literally tens of millions of transportation projects, whether it is on the Trans-Canada Highway as it makes its way from Chase through to Revelstoke or the very difficult areas along Highway 97 that demand improvement as well.

Again, I'm just delighted that after years of relative neglect we are seeing major transportation projects through the Shuswap, and that is making it a far safer area to travel than ever before. So we do appreciate that.

We've also seen strategic and appropriate investments in health care. Some $20 million is currently being utilized in a long-overdue renovation and expansion of the Shuswap Lake General Hospital. That $20 million will make a definite, substantive improvement in patient care in the Shuswap, and I'm very appreciative of that.

Next door in Vernon, which also serves as both a community and tertiary facility for the North Okanagan portion of the Shuswap constituency, we are seeing about $100 million invested in Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Again, it's a huge project — an ambulatory tower which will allow for expansion of acute care beds. It will allow for additional expansion of operating space and emergency department capacity. So that's a great project for the Shuswap constituency as well.

In terms of tertiary services in the interior, I have known more than a few constituents who have been waiting in hospitals either in Salmon Arm, Kamloops, Vernon or Kelowna for the opportunity to get cardiac procedures done. We have recently announced, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the addition of cardiac services to Kelowna General Hospital.

That will make an enormous difference to residents all over the interior of British Columbia with those new cardiac services — something that I think had been promised since about the 1980s for Kelowna and the interior but never realized, and now that investment has been confirmed.

We also have a huge ambulatory tower project that will be underway at Kelowna General Hospital as these pieces fold out logistically. We are going to be seeing a quadrupling of the emergency department at Kelowna General Hospital, which is currently, again, one of the busiest regional hospital emergency departments in the province.

We are going to see the addition at Kelowna, as well, of the UBC Okanagan medical school, though that is a great step ahead too. What we have seen since 2001 is a doubling of the medical school class at UBC, now extended to the University of Victoria, the University of Northern British Columbia and very soon to UBC Okanagan as well.

When we took office back in 2001, there were 128 students enrolled in the intake class at UBC. Last fall the Minister of Advanced Education and I attended a very happy event at UBC which celebrated the doubling of that number to 256 students now enrolled in the UBC medical school. That is tremendously important in terms of meeting the future demands in the health care system, as is the expansion of nursing programs, literally across the province, including at Okanagan College, at UBC Okanagan. In virtually every college or university in our province we have seen a huge addition of nursing spaces.

Again, it's hard to believe that from the start of the 1990s to the end of the 1990s, we actually saw a decline in the number of nurses that were graduating from universities and colleges in British Columbia. We've reversed that. There are now, I believe, 83 percent more nurses being educated in British Columbia than there was in 2001 — 3,383 additional nursing spaces now in British Columbia. I think that is something that we should be remarkably proud of. We have reversed that diminution of health professionals that was occurring. And it's absolutely the right thing to do.

We have been making huge investments, as you know, since 2001. We make investments in the range of $700 million annually. Among those investments — and we certainly celebrate them all — we particularly celebrate the $355 million Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. That was, again, promised for a decade, and now it is being realized. I think we're looking forward this summer to what, I'm sure, will be a grand opening of the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre, a long-overdue replacement of the MSA Hospital at Abbotsford.

The Gordon and Leslie Diamond ambulatory centre at Vancouver General Hospital — a $95 million P3 project, just as Abbotsford is a P3 project. Again, on time, on budget and a beautiful, beautiful centre that I know is much appreciated by those who use it from Vancouver Coastal and, I'm sure, other health authorities across the province.

Northern cancer. I know the members from Prince George always get very excited when I talk about this one. We will be putting in a full-service cancer care

centre in Prince George. That is a huge project for Northern Health, for the Provincial Health Services Authority and for the provincial government. As we see that continuum of cancer care services built in the north, the crowning piece will be radiation therapy, possible now for residents of northern B.C. They won't have to travel across the province to either Kelowna or Vancouver or Victoria to get those cancer services.

We are investing over $300 million in Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria — again, a long-overdue project. Royal Jubilee has some challenges which are only going to be met with replacement of that facility, and government has stepped up to the plate and invested over $300 million for that purpose. Of course, I know, as you spoke previously….

You made a rapid reincarnation into Deputy Speaker here, Madam Chair, just like that. It would seem very quick. But I couldn't help but note your comments about Surrey as you were delivering your budget speech. I am delighted that we're going to see a huge expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital, with the largest outpatient hospital — certainly in British Columbia and probably in western Canada — 384,000 square feet, as I recall, of new outpatient hospital.

Of course, I'm sure that you delighted, as I'm sure all members of the House delighted, Madam Chair, in hearing that B.C.'s Children's Hospital — B.C. women's and children's hospital — will be a priority in the coming years for expansion and improvement as well. That's also a great step ahead.

There's no end to projects, and I don't want to take my full time here running through the project list, because there are many, many wonderful projects ongoing across the province. All of those projects are possible because our government has ensured, through that sound fiscal management, that we had the fiscal capacity to add very large and very ambitious projects like the Surrey Memorial Hospital improvements, including the emergency department. I believe we'll be seeing a tripling of the emergency department as well as an expansion of acute care at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

One area where I believe that sensible, sound investments have made a huge difference, as well, in people's lives is in the area of residential care and assisted living. Today in British Columbia we are getting very close to 4,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units across the province, and it would not be accurate to call these "4,000 beds." In fact, these are 4,000 homes for 4,000 people. These are beautiful homes for 4,000 people. Those 4,000 represent a 14 percent increase since 2001 in the number of residential care and assisted-living units that are available.

I can guarantee that when we have this discussion next year we will have achieved the 5,000 incremental homes for 5,000 vulnerable British Columbians, and that will be a very proud moment as well. Additional to those 4,000 units, it should be said, are also several thousand units that were remediated during those first years that we had in office from 2001 to 2005. Very close to 6,000 units were remediated.

For example, the James Bay Care Centre, just a few blocks from here, was one of those with multi-bed wards. It had something like 210 patients in them at that time. That project was remediated. There are fewer people living there now — I think about 110 or 120 — but it's private rooms now. It's not multi-bed wards. We have made a huge transition in these years from what was, I think, facilities that were not appropriate to the dignity of the vulnerable elders that we serve.

I recall, actually, as a little kid, back about 1958, visiting my grandmother in what was then called an old folks' home. While I remember most of it, what I remember most — in addition to my grandmother accepting cookies from me with great relish — was that she was in a room with, as I recall, five other women. There was a total of six beds in that multi-bed ward.

This is a huge contrast to what we see in place today. Recently opened in Salmon Arm, the Piccadilly Care Centre added — and I don't think it's even included in our numbers yet — 61 new residential care spaces to Salmon Arm and the Shuswap and the North Okanagan. Piccadilly Care Centre is not multi-bed wards. These are beautiful, spacious, private rooms. They are gorgeous, and the folks that are living there love it. These are very much state of the art, leading edge, and people very much are loving that experience.

In fact — and I guess this speaks to British Columbians and how long and how healthy they can live — there were three ladies at the Piccadilly Care Centre who were turning 101 in the year 2008. I thought that was quite remarkable. I'd never seen that before.

British Columbians do live longer pretty much than anybody else on the face of the earth. British Columbia's men now live over 80 years on average. We have recently eclipsed Japanese men as the longest living on the face of the earth. That's a good thing. British Columbia's men are smoking less than Japanese men, and as a consequence, they're living longer.

But this is the really happy part. Even though British Columbia's men are living longer, British Columbia's women still live four and a half years longer. So even though we're living longer, we're still giving you, Madam Chair, approximately four and a half years of peace at the end of your lives. So I think on an aggregated basis that is a very positive thing as well.

The fact that we live long and live healthy is a wonderful thing, but we also have some very considerable challenges that we are going to be seeing over the next ten to 40 years. Some of that is related to the demographics — i.e., my generation. The post–World War II baby-boomers, generally born 1945 to 1965, are a huge, huge part of the demographic bulge. We're going to see that play out in terms of the baby-boomers now getting into their 60s and in ten years into their 70s and so on. This is going to have a decided impact on demands for health care.

The other issue that is of considerable concern to those in the health care delivery business is the prevalence of chronic diseases. Those chronic diseases, particularly type 2 diabetes, continue to grow in pre-

ponderance, and that is a huge concern for us as well. Some of the chronic diseases are related to aging; some are not. Some are related to a multitude of factors, things like hypertension and so on — a leading cause of stroke. It can be very, very concerning.

Over the next ten, 20, 30, 40 years we are going to have to be utilizing everything we can to ensure that we have an efficient, effective, innovative, flexible and focused health care system, because the demand side is going to be enormous. We are going to have to ensure that we make the maximum use of every taxpayer dollar that is devoted in the budget to health.

As this most recent budget clearly points out, this government is very much committed to ensuring that health is well funded in this province. That is underlined by the fact that in the most recent budget, we saw that a full 68 percent, almost 70 percent, of all new government spending over the next three years will be for health care — almost 70 percent. Imagine that. Almost 70 percent of all new spending in this province is going to be in the area of health.

So $2.9 billion is going to be added to health care delivery over the next three years. That is, again, a huge commitment and a huge investment on the part of the government.

We will see the level of the provincial budget which is occupied by health care moving from between 43 and 44 percent of the provincial budget to, at the third year of this three-year budget plan, between 47 and 48 percent of the provincial budget. That is a huge commitment by this government for health care.

I think it states far more expressively than any words could just how committed we are to ensuring that we provide the resources necessary to have that effective, efficient health care system that we need in the province of British Columbia. The budget in 2001 was $8.3 billion when we took office. Today it's about $13.8 billion, and by the end of this fiscal plan, $15.6 billion — a huge, huge investment across this province.

There are many ways, I believe, that the health care system in British Columbia can be improved. We talked about the investment that has been made in residential care. I have to tell you that we have been making huge investments in addictions beds and mental health beds as well.

If we look, for example, at the numbers in 2001 for mental health beds — 4,940 — that was dramatically increased over the last several years to 7,111. In addictions beds, there were 874; today, 2,102 addictions beds across British Columbia. Those are investments that make a difference, whether it's residential care and the expansion of 4,000 there, whether it is addictions beds and almost a tripling of those, the huge expansion in mental health beds, the increase in MRIs in this province.

One occasionally hears lamentations from the other side about MRIs. The fact is there were nine MRIs when we took office; today there are 19. So we've more than doubled the number of MRI machines in this province. Today hospitals like Prince George have an MRI, where they had none and no access to one in 2001.

In a number of other areas in the province we now have MRI machines where there weren't before. The number of MRI procedures — more than doubled since 2001. If you look at CAT scans — similar story. If you look at the range of diagnostics — similar story. Government has made huge investments across all of these areas that have made a huge difference in people's lives.

Moving forward in the next year, two years, three years is going to be challenging. We had a remarkable process that began in the fall of 2006 and ended in the fall of 2007 called the Conversation on Health, where we went around the province and engaged British Columbians on what their views were on how to improve the health care system in British Columbia.

I heard no end of disparagement of that process from the opposition, and that's unfortunate. I think it was a great process, and we see many, many great ideas that came out of that Conversation on Health, which will help to guide the formulation of health policy, health legislation and health regulation in the years ahead.

It was excellent. Thousands and thousands of British Columbians engaged on this important issue. It was by far the most inclusive process ever undertaken in Canada around health reform anywhere, anytime.

It was a remarkable process. I was very pleased with the outcome of that, and of course, in the throne speech as well as the budget speech, we have numerous references to initiatives which were sponsored, either in whole or in part, by the ideas that were expressed in the Conversation on Health.

There are three elements that I think are key in having a successful health care system, and all three of these were very well articulated in the Conversation on Health. Those three elements are people, as in health human resources or health professionals; programs that are put in place to help ensure that we are delivering efficiently and effectively; and facilities. I think those are the three elements.

Now, I've spoken extensively about the facilities. I'm proud of that and of what we've done. I think that's great. I think the people and the programs now are what I want to talk a little bit about, because we have in British Columbia a very good health care system. If one looks, for example, at the Conference Board of Canada report, which was the most exhaustive report to this date about health care delivery systems in the provinces, British Columbia, by some considerable distance, was determined by the Conference Board of Canada to have the very best health care delivery system in the nation. We're proud of that. It helps, also, to further our determination to do even more.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition says we're number one. The Canadian Cancer Society, in terms of drugs and so on — again, the best. So we know we can work with partners in the Healthy Living Alliance and elsewhere to ensure that we keep building the programs that will see British Columbians have a very good and, I hope, excellent health care system.

We're also going to be working with the B.C. Medical Association, the B.C. Nurses Union and others to ensure that we see all health professionals working to their full scope of practice and to ensure that we get the very best from those health professionals.

I know the nurses are very excited about the three-year nursing degree, as we are. I think that's going to be a huge step ahead. We are going to be ensuring that foreign-trained health professionals have the kind of access to British Columbia that they should have. We have made lots of progress in that area in the last few years, but I believe the programs that were enunciated in the throne and the budget speeches are ones we can build on to ensure that we make maximum use of foreign-trained professionals and to ensure that we can continue to be the very friendliest destination for foreign-trained professionals.

Whether it is moving on smoking in cars or banning trans fats, which I know the opposition Health critic dismissed as gimmicky…. Nevertheless, these are important steps forward. We look forward to working with British Columbians, to working with the great ideas that were expressed in the Conversation on Health, to working with the very capable cabinet we have in British Columbia to ensure we have a great province and a great health care system in British Columbia.

A. Dix: The minister appeared confused there at the end of the speech. It's the largest cabinet in British Columbia history and the most expensive cabinet in British Columbia history. It's a bigger cabinet than in the United Kingdom, although they've created all kinds of jobs and positions for backbenchers and so on. It's very impressive, but I understand that he thinks highly of his colleagues.

It's an honour to rise in this budget debate. It's a real privilege for me to represent the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. It's a riding that — and this humbles me — has had extraordinary representation in the past, particularly by socialists, by CCF and by NDP members of the Legislature. I think of people at both the federal and provincial levels, such as Grace MacInnis and Glen Clark, Bob Williams and Dave Barrett. To be able to speak and rise and represent Vancouver-Kingsway is humbling because, obviously, my constituents often do this. You know, they've said, "Well, we've had all those guys," and they say: "What are we doing now? How are we doing now?"

All you can do is what they did, which is — with their enormous talent and commitment to our neighbourhood and our constituents — to do the best they could. What they've done and what people like that did was change our province in fundamental ways, in ways that I think we take for granted today: the rights of constituents to vote, the rights to participate in our democracy, basic human rights that all of those people defended and advanced.

So I'm greatly honoured to be here today. You know, part of the history of our constituency was touched by a bit of tragedy yesterday. Carleton School, which is a very old school…. I think it's the oldest school in Vancouver that's standing. The kindergarten, one of the old buildings, had a fire. I think what happens when that happens in a community shows what's great about our community.

Jackie McHugh played a really critical role. There's a number of buildings on the Carleton site, but Jackie played a critical role in saving that heritage site. It's an extraordinary old school at Kingsway and Joyce in Vancouver. She played an extraordinary role. She went up to the school, of course, and other people went up to the school. The firefighters of Vancouver worked for, I think, 11 hours to ensure that things were saved. The whole community got involved. That school represents the best of our community. The whole community got involved to save it.

Extraordinary things happen every day at that school. Teachers and students work together to learn and to make the life of the community better. That's what it is. Also, I think that it's essential, absolutely essential — what happens at that school for all of our prosperity and hopes for the future — that people get a good education and participate.

So I think of that school and what went on in that school and the response of the community and the response of government, of course, to get involved. That's what firefighters are part of. They're paid for out of tax dollars. We've heard lots of disparagement of that, and we always hear lots of disparagement of people paying their fair share of taxes, be they banks or others. But that's what you get. You get the opportunity for people in society to live out their dreams, no matter what or where they come from.

That's what Carleton School is all about. It's an extraordinarily diverse place. I invite all members of the House to come there with me to see what goes on at that school. In some respects I think it represents the best of our society and what we can do together.

I think of Gladstone School, which is another school in my constituency. Gladstone School is enormously diverse. I think 57 languages are spoken at home — an incredibly diverse school. I think it was in January — I'm meeting with the students later this week — when two teams of engineering and electronics students from Gladstone School in Vancouver-Kingsway, an incredibly diverse and dynamic group of people….

They're going to travel soon to Atlanta, Georgia, to compete in the world robotics championship. They've just won the right to participate by successfully winning the preliminary event in Seattle, Washington.

This is Gladstone School in the heart of Vancouver-Kingsway — not a school beloved by the Fraser Institute. It's a school disparaged by the Fraser Institute, based on completely irrelevant analysis essentially of FSA results. But it's a school where extraordinary things take place every day because students and teachers spending extra time helping students have done this. They are trying to raise money to cover the cost of the trip to Atlanta.

My friend from Nelson-Creston can talk about what he's done in his constituency to help students.

I've been involved in the campaign to allow them to do it, so they can go from Gladstone School in my constitutency, a school that the Fraser Institute doesn't think is very good, but it's an extraordinary place.

I invite the Fraser Institute to come to that place and see it. How does that work? People volunteer. Students give enormous amounts of themselves. Teachers participate. We all pay taxes to support that school. Class sizes are going up. The number of special needs students in every class is going up. But these things still take place. It's extraordinary. It's the best of our society. It's the best of what we can hope to achieve. That's going on at Gladstone School today.

There are tough things going on as well. In the last two weeks I've met with four constituents, all four of them seniors. All four of them have adult children with serious mental health issues. They can't get access to housing. They can't get the support. They've been surfing on their parents' and others' couches for years. One of those constituents regularly visits our office, sometimes almost as a safe house. They come to our office because they feel threatened by their own children.

Yet all of these parents, amidst these difficult circumstances, are taking responsibility, helping their children, helping them try and live and get past these terrible issues in their lives. It is heartbreaking to talk to them. We need to do better in this area.

The Minister of Health spoke, and in his thing he talked about the 2 percent lift that Vancouver Coastal Health got in this budget. He describes it as a wonderful thing. Two percent over last year — that's not going to pay even for the status quo, never mind the mental health services that the citizens of Vancouver need.

It's not just me that says it; it's the Vancouver police department that says it. But let's not talk about them for a moment. Let's talk about these parents and how throughout the course of their lives, they continue to support their children in difficult times. They deserve our support. They deserve our assistance. They deserve our help.

I think of other parents that I've met with recently. This is the subject of great interest to me. It's the issue of the community living sector and of senior parents whose children, in fact, maybe in different times wouldn't have lived very long. If you go to Woodlands, there's this extraordinary memorial at Woodlands in New Westminster. You go there, and I really recommend to members of the House that they go. It says something about our past and the way that we previously dealt with issues of people with developmental disabilities.

Just take one month of one year. They list off all the people that died on the Woodlands site. Take one month of one year, April 1927, and you see this long list — of children, mostly — who died. They died in that month at that institution.

Now circumstances have changed, and in many respects things are better. But one of the things that is really new, I think, is that we now have seniors who have looked after their developmentally disabled children all their lives. It's always been there, but more so now, partly because of improvements in medicine and partly because of the fact that we do better now on those issues than we did in the past, notwithstanding the fact that we can still do more.

Those parents come to you and say: "I don't know what to do." They've been taking care of their adult children for 50 years. They are 75. They're worried about their own health. I remember meeting one father whose wife had died. They were in one of those marriages where they'd been together for 50 years. They'd looked after their son for 50 years, and his wife had died. He had gone out and made the money, and he'd come back and supported his wife at night. His wife had supported this child and had cooked and done everything for that child.

Now there's nothing. Not universality of service. No service. There's never been the kind of universality of service we need in that sector, and the consequences of that for those children and those parents can potentially be the worst possible consequences. They can be death sentences.

You are talking about people who receive 24-7 care all their lives. Suddenly their parents, who gave that care, can't provide it any longer, and there are no services for them. Those are the people I think of in talking about this budget.

There is enormous desire. We raise this issue in the community. I'm telling you, there is enormous support. If the government would tap into that enormous support to build those networks, I believe there would be an enormous positive public response.

That's why it's so disappointing, when we think of those people doing what they do every day in my community and in communities all around British Columbia, to have a budget so focused on special interests. It is so disappointing when you think of these great issues of climate change that are talked about in this House.

We all know, because we live in communities, that if you're going to resolve great problems, everybody has to be involved. Everybody has to contribute; everybody has to take part. But this government doesn't think that's the case. They're more than prepared to impose a gas tax of seven cents — it's building up to seven cents a litre — on regular people. But they are not prepared to say to other people, to the major polluters and others: "You can take part." And people see through this elitist hogwash. They see through it.

You cannot address these problems, these fundamental environmental problems, if everyone isn't involved. You can't address them piecemeal. Let's consider their record — $330 million in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It's grown, in a climate change budget.

They stay silent. They go to federal-provincial conferences putatively to talk about the environment. They stay silent about the tar sands. Nothing to say about the tar sands. Nothing to say about them.

We're in the process of liquidating our forests and our forest industry. That's their record. They have decided to develop offshore oil and gas. George W. Bush

doesn't agree with expanding and developing offshore oil and gas, but our Premier does. The green Premier, the climate change Premier — less progressive on these issues than George W. Bush.

Salmon aquaculture. The government said that in this Legislature, they were serious about changing things. We had a parliamentary committee go around and make recommendations on salmon aquaculture, which is critical to our coast and its environment.

What have they done? What have they done in the green budget? Nothing. They did nothing.

My colleague from Nelson-Creston will speak about this in a moment, so I will not dwell on it. But this government's commitment to protecting agricultural land…. Its lack of support for the protection of agricultural land is well known. Its actions, I think, have been unfortunate. It shows, taken together, agricultural land, dramatically expanding roads and bridges — this is their policy — exempting oil and gas, staying silent on the tar sands, liquidating our forests, developing offshore oil and gas, abandoning our coasts on the aquaculture question.

On the one hand, those are the sacrifices, or lack of them, that they want some people to make. Then on the other hand, for constituents of ours it's seven cents a litre. For most people in my region — and it's true of people in rural B.C. as well — you can't afford to live, necessarily, where you work. You've got to travel from there to here, and if there are no options, you've got to drive. They're going to have to pay, but the oil and gas industry doesn't have to pay. All these other people don't have to pay. They don't have to pay. It's only those people. And it's worse than that.

Transit. It's $1 million in the budget. They announce a huge transit plan — $14 billion, lots of bells and whistles. The balloons come down — $1 million in the budget. Nothing in the budget. The only part of the transit plan implemented is the fare increase on my constituents. They delivered that. They delivered it in a big way.

This is in the green budget. They decided to punish…. And that's what it is. When this government took office, you know how much it was? One zone, $1.50; now $2.50. It's a dollar increase. That's 67 percent. You don't just take the bus once if you don't have a car. You take it every day. You take it twice, and you take it three times, and you take it four times.

That is what this so-called green budget is about. This is not a green budget. It would be a green budget if everyone wanted to join in. It would be a green budget if they targeted the big polluters. It would be a green budget if they encouraged people to take transit. They did the opposite of those things. This is not a green budget.

I would say, further, that we talked earlier about what it takes and what communities need to do to make progress, to improve the lives of communities. It involves everybody. It involves people coming together in a school, which always involves students, parents and teachers. I think that when we have to approach these very difficult changes in society, everybody has to come together.

What did we see in this budget? A $220 million giveaway to the financial institutions, to the banks — $220 million.

Now let's be clear, because people will say: "You're not being fair to the banks." People will say that being against the banks is too left-wing.

So I want to ask, because my colleague from Nelson-Creston knows a great deal about these things, if he remembers: who was the author of this tax on the banks? Who was the author of it? Who put it in place? What socialist put this idea in place that said that the banks should contribute to the good of the province — not just people who use transit in my constituency, who might be earning $10 an hour and are taking transit to work in Surrey and have to spend $10 for the trip. That's who they want to pay.

A. Dix: Who came up with it? I have some guesses over there. The member from North Vancouver is talking about Tommy Douglas. No, it wasn't. It was, in fact, Bill Bennett.

I think the member from Kamloops…. Now, as you know, we'll call him William Richards Bennett, just to make sure that we're not offending anyone in the House. They're naming a bridge after this guy. He had the good sense to say that in British Columbia, the banks should contribute to the common good.

We have a Premier today who said all of those things that we can think of. All of those people — those people who need mental health services; those people who have done extraordinary things and want to go to Atlanta and have to raise the money; those people who are suffering in classrooms with too many students…. This Premier that we have today in British Columbia said: "No, that $220 million shouldn't go to deal with the lack of mental health services or community living services or dealing with the issues of crime in our community or to transit." He decided. He's the decider — $220 million, he decided, should go to the banks.

It is a staggering decision. I don't believe there was anyone, any regular person, when we went around with the Finance Committee, who said: "Let's cut taxes for the banks." There was no public call for this. There's been no public justification for this. What it says to me is that this is a government that is actually committed to favouring special interests, because this is a special interest proposal.

When you add the $220 million to the banks to the $330 million subsidy in the oil and gas industry, in what they call the climate change budget…. That's $550 million burned away. They decided that's where the priorities are. That's where the money should go. That's who we support — those interests.

Never mind that I think that the banks, who make huge profits in this province, should pay their fair share. They don't think that. They have decided —

more radical than Bill Bennett. They think that Bill Bennett is a faded lefty. That's what they think. They think he's too extreme. They think he's a socialist.

They may be building a bridge, but they think he was way too far to the left because he had this funny idea. He thought that the banks, who benefit from the dynamism of our society and from the fact that we have roads and bridges and schools and hospitals that are the lifeblood of a successful society…. The banks that have benefited from that shouldn't contribute to it. We disagree. We disagree fundamentally.

It would be funny, if this was the government's priority, if the needs weren't so great. It would be funny if the needs weren't so great. But we are sitting in a jurisdiction today that has the highest child poverty rate in Canada — the highest, not according to me. You just need to read the Premier's Progress Board report. According to Statistics Canada, according to the Progress Board — on that indicator, the worst in Canada, a crisis that you would think would prompt action. There should surely be a poverty budget. Worst in Canada.

The member for Surrey-Whalley, in his brilliant response to the budget, pointed out that there are other jurisdictions that have taken a different approach, and it's not simply a partisan thing. The Conservative Premier of Newfoundland has shown leadership on this question. The Liberal Premier of Quebec has shown leadership on this question. The Liberal Premier of Ontario has shown leadership on this question. The NDP Premier of Manitoba has shown leadership on this question. But not here in British Columbia.

You ask the cabinet in question period about issues of poverty — tenth in Canada, worst in Canada — and they try and pretend. They argue the numbers. They actually stand up and argue the numbers. Forget what our Progress Board has to say.

What does our Progress Board have to say? They say that low income matters for two reasons. "First, equality of opportunity is an important goal in B.C. All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province, and there is compelling evidence that children from low-income families are at greater risk."

That's what they have to say, yet you can clearly see it in this budget. The lack of mention of this problem, the pretending that it doesn't exist, the favouritism towards special interest friends of the government rather than the public interest is so paramount that they don't deal with it at all.

This is also the government that cut the minimum wage by 25 percent. They cut the minimum wage. The lowest you can pay someone in B.C. is $6 an hour. They cut it. They did that, nothing of it. Here's what they say: "Well, no one makes the minimum wage." That's what they pretend. You ask them a question: "No one makes the minimum wage."

According to Statistics Canada, based on last year's data, what percentage of people in B.C. make $10 an hour or less? It's 16.3 percent, one in six people in the workforce. Hundreds of thousands of people would benefit from a minimum wage increase.

It's a profound breaking of the social contract. It's a profound breaking. You work hard for a living at two jobs, and surely you should be able to support your family. They have consistently driven down wages in the low end of the wage market, and you see it in the statistics. It's not me that says it; it's Statistics Canada. They get the actual numbers. They get the income tax filing information. They see it, and what they see is that, in fact, many hundreds of thousands of people would benefit from an increase to the minimum wage that this government won't give.

They will not give an increase to the minimum wage, because they say poverty doesn't exist. Worst in Canada, according to Statistics Canada — ninth in Canada according to the Premier's own Progress Board, the dramatic statistics last week from Statistics Canada and what we see every day when we talk to people.

The minister talked about the labour shortage in health care. We need care aides in health care. They systematically slashed wages of people who care for seniors and care for people in our health care institutions. They systematically slashed them. It was only when the Supreme Court caught them and said that what they did was so brazen and outrageous that it's illegal. Action was taken, and they were forced to give a little bit back.

The reality of it is that we are facing in our province a profound crisis with respect to equality, and it affects all of us. Unless you believe, hon. Speaker, that we can depend on those children of inherited wealth for our future, we need all of our children. All of our children are going to be our teachers in the future, our entrepreneurs, our artists, our athletes. They're all going to be there.

We can't take 25 percent…. That's what it says. That's what Statistics Canada says. One in four people in our province is living in poverty, and not a word in this budget about them. No actions in this budget about them. Of course we're voting against this budget, hon. Speaker. Of course we are.

When you see that, I think it is particularly galling to people in our community to see this and then see the special interest government doing things for their special friends. Only those people who work hard for a living on those salaries…. They're the ones who have got to take all of the burden of every issue, but it's other people who are walking away with the cream. It is not right, and it is not fair. And it affects all of us.

This is not, I don't think, anything new to anyone here, but it is in our interests to invest in children. It's in our interests to eradicate child poverty. I say this to the government because they may think we only help people because we feel empathy for them or we're concerned or we have a sort of soft approach to these issues. It is not a reasonable position to write off a quarter of children and say: "You've got to live in conditions that we wouldn't accept for our children." It is not acceptable. It's not acceptable to table a budget in this period and not address that question. It is not acceptable. It's why we oppose this budget.

I want to say a few things, in concluding, about the health care budget, because I think we're approaching that moment. You've seen this over the past few years. We've heard the Minister of Health brag that he had broken a long-term care promise. He was here bragging that this is what they're reduced to. They broke it in 2005, they broke it in 2006, and they broke it in 2007. They're breaking it this year, and they brag about it.

We know the reality of that, which is that people are not getting the appropriate care that they need. Here on Vancouver Island people are in hospitals because they can't get into long-term care, and that has implications for our emergency rooms here on Vancouver Island.

In the city of Vancouver, in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority…. This is the way this government operates. Vancouver Coastal Health complained about their treatment by the health authority. The first thing they did — because that's all they could do; they had already announced the budget — is fire the chair of the health authority. They fired him. He wasn't a socialist. He was a friend of the government, and they fired him.

Then Keith Purchase of the Fraser Health Authority said the same thing — that the budget was inadequate, that it was mismanaged, that the health authority system was breaking down — so he was gone. Two other members of boards were gone.

What does Vancouver Coastal get this year? In Vancouver Coastal, people come from all over the province. They come from Columbia River–Revelstoke, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Kamloops and Peace River to go to Vancouver Coastal as well. What happens there affects everybody, you know. It's not one of those things where you point: "Oh, boy. Vancouver, they're getting stuff." Two percent — that's what they're getting this year. Not enough to pay the salary increase signed by this government, not enough to deal with population, never mind what they always talk about — the silver tsunami.

We are going to see, as a result of this budget, longer wait times. We're going to see cuts in service. We're going to see none of the services for mental health that we need in our community. These are the consequences of the budget.

We started this decade in second place in Canada in the amount that we provide for health care for every citizen — second place. We're now in seventh place. Now, we won't be able to turn that around overnight, but the consequences of that are real.

Think back to the people that I talked about in my community — what they believe in. They believe that everybody matters in our community, that everybody should contribute. There's no free ride, whether you're a banker or anyone else. They get up in the morning, they work hard, they pay their taxes, and they contribute to their communities. You see it every single day. They deserve better than this.

They deserve better than a green budget that's a sham, that imposes new costs on them and that doesn't deal with the issue of climate change. They deserve better. They deserve better than a health budget that will see a decline in service and that has us dropping amongst Canadian provinces. They deserve better. Their children deserve an education system where the law around special needs children is applied. They deserve better.

Our province deserves better. It's why we on this side of the House reject this budget, this sham green budget, this budget that will see our public services decline. Those public services are the basis of our prosperity decline.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you very much for this. We will be voting no to this budget.

R. Lee: I appreciate the chance to stand in the Legislature today and voice my support for Balanced Budget 2008. Before I go on to tell the House what I think about the budget in detail, I would like to take a moment to recognize my hard-working staff.

I would like to thank my legislative assistant Kevin Dixon, communication officer Sarah Morris, intern Gordon Hunter and ALA Kiel Giddens for helping me in the Legislature.

In the riding of Burnaby North my constituency assistants, Judy Chu and Nancy Chan, have helped me serve my constituents for the last six and a half years. I appreciate their dedication very much. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers working inside and outside my office.

I would also like to thank the voters in Burnaby North who elected me twice already to represent them in this House. It is indeed an honour for me to be given this opportunity and also for me to be able to serve the community of Burnaby North.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention my family's support of my work. My wife Anne is looking after our three children, aged 20, 15 and ten. She provides transportation for most of the family's activities. She frequently takes my eldest son Jarek to catch the SkyTrain, which takes him to the UBC bus or to downtown Vancouver to his part-time work. She takes Darek to high school, his air cadet activities, and piano and swimming lessons.

For our daughter Leanne, Anne is very busy with her school, piano, ballet, swimming and table tennis lessons. I should mention that Leanne won three medals at the B.C. Winter Games last week: gold, silver and bronze in table tennis. Yes, I'm a proud father, and I believe our next generation should be provided with the best possible environment and opportunity for them to excel.

I believe British Columbia is indeed the best place on earth. However, we need to take actions to enhance our natural environment and to continue the growth of our economy. Without a vibrant economy, we don't have the financial resources to provide opportunities for our next generation.

I am pleased to see that in this province the golden decade continues. Government revenues have consequently increased, and we are now enjoying surpluses. It's now the responsibility of our government to invest these funds wisely.

The world as we knew it decades ago is going through an enormous change. Climate change and the forces of economic globalization are an indisputable reality, and this government is taking a leadership role on both fronts.

In battling greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon tax is a noble and progressive approach. The budget's progressive revenue-neutral carbon tax will allow British Columbians to gradually adjust their fuel consumption in a fashion that will not adversely impact the economic gains that they have worked so terribly hard for over the past decade.

Speaking on behalf of my wonderful constituents in Burnaby North, I believe this is the right thing to do.

While the environment is of the utmost importance, British Columbians also care about the future position of the province in a global economy. It is on this front that I am pleased to reiterate the significant investments contained in the budget for the Asia-Pacific Initiative. The budget is a continuation of the government's strong efforts to strengthen economic and cultural links between B.C. and the Asia-Pacific region. This year's budget will help in the effort to develop strong links through expanded trade missions, business networks and marketing, solidifying B.C.'s position as North America's gateway to the Pacific.

This government is showing leadership by sending a message to the world that B.C. is heading confidently in a green direction. I am glad to support the budget that builds upon a crucial area of economic and cultural importance for our Pacific province.

The balanced budget of 2008 builds upon the large investments that we have already made into our future through the Asia-Pacific Initiative and its approximately 100 projects. For decades governments of this province have focused on continental economic markets. For example, the U.S. has been very heavily depended on by us.

However, as we blaze forward into the 21st century, it's time to consider strengthening economic partnerships that have been overlooked for too long. As Canada's Pacific province we must harness the growth that's occurring in the economies of our Asia-Pacific neighbours. We realize that our province's future economic growth can and must benefit from the economic growth that's taking place today in the Asia-Pacific region. We will build on the 70 percent increase of our B.C. exports to Asia between 2001 and 2006.

The $40 million that this budget invests towards the Asia-Pacific Initiative specifically is another important step towards strengthening our economic and cultural links with some of the fastest growing economies in the world, as we increasingly receive and send trade in goods and services to support this increased business in the Asia-Pacific.

We have the $5.8 billion investment in infrastructure, including $27 million towards airports and ports over the next fiscal year, which will ensure a prosperous economy and also the social future for B.C. With the continued support that we saw in Budget 2008, I feel confident that we will achieve our goals of creating half a million jobs and $76 billion in annual Asia-Pacific trade by 2020.

On top of the $40 million investment that this budget makes towards the Asia-Pacific Initiative, additional highlights from this year's budget will go a long way towards solidifying B.C.'s place as North America's gateway to the Pacific. Chief among these is the effort to entice highly desired immigrant workers into our province.

Among these noteworthy initiatives are, first, an increase of $7 million in funding for the provincial nominee program, the so-called PNP program, to significantly increase the number of workers and entrepreneurs with valuable skills. The second action we take will be an additional $5 million over the next year to extend the important Skills Connect for Immigrants and international qualifications programs that help connect the highly desired immigrants with B.C. employers.

While skilled workers are one piece of the puzzle, another important effort that Budget 2008 makes is to offer incentives to entice foreign business and their capital investments into B.C. In this regard the budget went a long way.

Changes made to the International Financial Activity Act will provide incentives for business-producing international firms to locate in B.C.

Some $220 million will go towards phasing out the capital tax on financial institutions so that we will be competitive with Alberta as well as Ontario, helping to make B.C. among the most competitive options in North America for foreign investors. Of course, the big banks still have to pay a minimum tax.

I am proud of many investments set forth in this budget, including the $40 million direct investment into the Asia-Pacific Initiative. The reality is that our government has been highly successful in actively promoting our Pacific status over the past year. While monetary investment is important, it's another type of investment, that of higher education, that will have the most profound impact in the hearts and minds of Asia's highly skilled business and academic leaders. In this regard our government, in tandem with our province's universities and colleges, is forging connections with our Asia-Pacific counterparts. A few highlights of this effort include four aspects.

The Ministry of Advanced Education has been actively promoting B.C. as a destination for students from strategically important Asia-Pacific countries. Also, a specialized advanced education delegation accompanied the Premier on his recent Asian trade mission, promoting B.C.'s economic institutions as destinations for bright students from the Asia-Pacific region.

On top of this, our province's post-secondary institutions have entered various agreements, research projects and MOUs with their Asian counterparts. These efforts have allowed students, faculties and researchers on both sides of the Pacific to engage in a deeper understanding of our mutual cultures that will increasingly interweave in the future.

Not only culture, we also have business interests for both regions. Furthermore, these cultural and academic partnerships are not merely temporary but rather will endure through the recently launched B.C. alumni ambassador program. Through this program our province will benefit from the large number of B.C. alumni living in Asia-Pacific countries, who will serve as ambassadors for all things British Columbian.

I would now turn my attention to the environment. Effective July 1, 2008, subject to approval by the Legislature, B.C. will introduce a fully revenue-neutral carbon tax with built-in protection for low-income British Columbians. The purpose of this carbon tax is to encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices, reducing their use of fossil fuels and related emissions.

The tax will begin at a lower rate and will increase gradually to give individuals and businesses time to adjust. It will apply to virtually all fossil fuels including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane and home heating fuel, making it among the broadest and most comprehensive in the world. This works out to be 2.41 cents a litre for gas, rising gradually to 7.24 cents a litre by 2012.

This revenue-neutral carbon tax will provide $440 million for a one-time climate action dividend and over $1 billion for a broad range of climate action programs and tax incentives. Our goal is clear. We will tax the carbon-emitting fuels to discourage their use and give the money back to the people and back to businesses so that they have control. They have the power to make their own choices about how tax affects them and how to save. This will go a long way for many of my riding's constituents to increase the incentives to use SkyTrain and other public transit.

For the lower-income earners in our province we are putting together a program of tax credits, a climate action credit that will be worth $100 for each adult and $30 for each child. For a family of four with an annual income of less than $35,000, our income credit would be $260, plus they would receive the 2 percent income tax cut and a 5 percent income tax cut next year.

If you think about this past year in British Columbia, we have had gas prices bouncing up and down 30 cents to 40 cents a litre. We have been seeing some big changes within our province on gas tax and gas costs, so this is an extra 2.4 cents. This carbon tax will help us in our goal of living in a cleaner environment. It will encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices, reducing their use of fossil fuels.

Balanced Budget 2008 addresses a whole bunch of issues important to all of my constituents in Burnaby North. Every community is built upon some form of business. I am pleased to see that the tax structure promoted in this budget will help my communities become greener, cleaner and more competitive. We will do this in a way that ensures that businesses can prosper while also providing incentives to change.

Burnaby is home to some larger companies as well, and this budget will ensure that they are competitive by reducing the general corporate income tax rate to 11 percent from 12 percent, with further reductions planned to 10 percent by 2011.

Small businesses are the foundation of my community. I'm thrilled to see that this budget will help to stimulate investment and support small business. We are reducing the small business tax rate to 3.5 percent from 4.5 percent, with even further reductions planned to 2.5 percent by 2011, which is $255 million over three years.

There will be an increase in foreign and domestic film and television production tax credits to maintain competitiveness. The Bridge Studios are in my riding. They must be happy with this tax credit and also with the reduction.

The province will invest $187 million in municipal infrastructure over the next three years, vital to every community in B.C. I'm sure that Burnaby can benefit from this investment.

Budget 2008 also provides $105 million over four years for B.C.'s arts and cultural initiatives, including the BC150 cultural fund, a new $150 million permanent endowment fund that's expected to generate about $8 million annually for new arts and culture activities in communities across the province. When I mentioned this fund to the audience at the Scandinavian Community Centre last week, they were very excited about these opportunities.

Over the next three years the updated transportation plan will provide $2.3 billion in direct provincial investment in transportation infrastructure, plus $700 million more in investment leveraged through federal cost-sharing and partnerships with private partners, local governments and other agencies. I believe this is the boldest transportation plan British Columbia has ever taken.

Health care spending. On health care I'm glad to see that the budget integrated the feedback gleaned through the Conversation on Health. I am pleased to see that we are implementing a broad range of changes to improve health care for the long term with a holistic approach to healthier lifestyles, prevention and accountability.

Our government realizes that with a diverse population comes more than one approach to health care services. This is why it gives me great satisfaction to see that our government will give British Columbians the choice to choose alternative forms of therapeutic health care, including traditional acupuncture.

It is the decision of this government to devote two-thirds of all new spending over the next three years to health care. Nearly $3 billion additional will be put into the health care budget. This is on top of the more than $2 billion worth of increases we have announced in the previous budgets, for a total of $5 billion in new health care funding in the next three years. I will be voting for this. Will the opposition vote for this?

R. Lee: No to five billion extra dollars. So they don't like extra dollars for health care.

A new $300 million transformation fund will also be set up in the Health Ministry to help drive changes in our technology in procurement, information and service delivery systems.

The Ministry of Health will spend almost $1.2 billion for new construction and upgrades to health care facilities over the next three years, including the B.C. Children's Hospital, which is used extensively by families in my riding and from across the province. This important facility will be upgraded and expanded to meet the growing demand for their specialized services. Budget 2008 allocates $543 million in new capital funding for major health care facility expansions.

On education. Education is another area where the province is putting a lot of emphasis. Part of the solution to breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness is ensuring we provide the best education system possible, whether at our preschool, K-to-12 or post-secondary institutions. I am proud of the progress the government has made in the public education system. Despite continued declining enrolment throughout the province in K-to-12, education funding is at its highest level ever.

Budget 2008 continues government's commitment to put students first when it comes to education and per-student funding. The per-student funding will increase in each of the next three years to the highest level ever. Budget 2008 commits $144 million over three years in increased funding for K-to-12 education. Budget 2008 increases our investment in StrongStart early childhood centres in communities throughout B.C. This excellent program is currently offered in 84 elementary schools. An additional 116 will be funded in this coming year, with another 200 centres opening in the following years.

The province is expanding access to post-secondary education institutions, boosting support for research and increasing opportunities for skills training. Budget 2008 supports $493 million over three years in post-secondary funding above the 2007 base budget. That's an increase of almost half a billion dollars in three years.

By the 2010-2011 fiscal year provincial funding for the Ministry of Advanced Education will have increased 30 percent over the 2004-2005 funding. This will have an impact on many regions of the province, and it will especially have an impact on Burnaby. Burnaby is home to two of the leading post-secondary institutions in the country. The students from SFU and BCIT are supported by the government's investment in advanced education.

On housing. One of the impacts of B.C.'s economic prosperity is the rising cost of housing. Housing issues affect all British Columbians, including my constituents in Burnaby. Budget 2007 was focused on housing. Budget 2008 builds on that momentum and on initiatives introduced last year to help improve housing affordability in B.C.

As announced in January this year, the province is increasing the homeowner grant threshold to $1.050 million in assessed property value, up from $950,000. This ensures that more than 95 percent of B.C.'s homeowners are eligible for the full value of the grant. In addition, to help ease pressures faced by first-time homebuyers, Budget 2008 increases the first-time-homebuyers exemption threshold to $425,000 from $375,000, and the 70 percent financial requirement is eliminated.

Budget 2008 commits $438 million over four years to programs and services to strengthen social services. So there is additional support, not as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said. We have increased the programs and services to strengthen social services. This funding will support persons with developmental disabilities and children and youth at risk with special needs, strengthen aboriginal children and family services, and enhance services to victims of crime and traumas.

New funding of $42 million is allocated to supporting persons with developmental disabilities. This funding will also establish a provincial 211 service to offer one-stop access to a wide range of community and social services.

I'm also happy to see that Budget 2008 provides an additional $104 million over four years to implement new and expanded measures to help break the cycle of homelessness. There will be more emergency shelters, with $78 million over four years to allow emergency shelters to stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and to provide ongoing support services to link people to existing community services, including more permanent types of housing.

There will be more homeless outreach services, $13 million over four years, to expand homeless outreach services to 27 communities to connect homeless people to housing and support services, including a new aboriginal outreach component.

There will be more homeless rent supplements, $3 million over four years, to provide an additional 750 rent supplements to help homeless people find rental accommodations in private rental markets. There will be more predevelopment supports.

I don't have time to go through so many more services in the social aspect, but I would like to mention that this year is B.C.'s 150th birthday. As we prepare for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, as we build our relationship with first nations, as we celebrate 150 years of history, a cultural revival is taking place in every region of this province. This budget provides 150th birthday funding.

To finish, I would like to announce that the green budget of 2008 has my full support.

C. Evans: I rise to speak on the budget. I take my place today to speak on the budget of 2008. I'm honoured to speak on the budget here and, specifically, as to how the budget pertains to the subject of agriculture. To paraphrase Shakespeare, I come not to bury the government but not particularly to praise them either.

In the last few weeks three events came together to tell a fascinating story about farming and agriculture and governance in British Columbia. The first was the B.C. Fruit Growers convention on January 26, 2008, where they passed a motion asking government to

The second was the B.C. agriculture plan, unveiled by the minister in Abbotsford on February 15, laying out the government's vision for where farming should go in the future.

Then the third was the budget speech, just days after the agriculture plan and a week after BCFGA's convention, on February 19, identifying the actual dollar investment the government intended to put into agriculture and farming.

The confluence of these three events, coming as they do in rapid succession, tells a huge story about agriculture and about government's commitment to agriculture. It's a story of monumental disconnect between the vision of the government and their agriculture plan and their budget and of the people actually living on the land that they're talking about. It's the people actually living in the province with the most varied microclimates in Canada, able to grow the most varied number of crops in Canada, with the best protection for farmland in Canada, and then with the least support for the business of farming that takes place on the land.

Imagine that. The best support for protection of the land and the least in the country for the people who live on that land. I've never heard this contradiction articulated so beautifully, so poetically, as it was at the BCFGA when they passed their motion on January 26.

Imagine that. They identify Canada's contribution averaging — not the excellence, not the top, not aiming for the best, but average, mediocre, middle-of-the-road Canada — at 16.4 percent of GDP and British Columbia at 3 or 3½ percent.

The BCFGA cites as their source Farm Income, Financial Conditions and Government Assistance Data Book of the research and analysis directorate of the strategic policy branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, page 43.

It isn't me. It isn't us in this room. It isn't even the BCFGA that's saying we're last. It's Agriculture Canada. The last actual figures are actually for 2005-2006. It identifies B.C. at 3.9 percent of farm GDP, the average at 15.6.

And Alberta, our next door neighbour competitor…. If you live in the Peace, you're competing directly with the people right across the border. Cattlemen compete directly with the people right across the border. They're at 16.1.

We are last, out of ten. What does this mean? Does it mean we have a level playing field in Canada? It certainly doesn't. Does it mean we have a pro-business environment in British Columbia? Well, not if you're farming.

Canada, amongst the OECD nations, is third from the bottom in support for agriculture. Then British Columbia comes in at the bottom of the country that's third from the…. We compete with the world, and we are at the bottom of support for agriculture. I'm not talking subsidies here.

In the past, when we actually cared about business and farming, we supported diking and ditching. Remember that, hon. Members? We had environmental investment, helping people manage manure and the like. We had education for young people and re-education for farmers as years go by. We had land leases. We had extension programs. All over the province we had research and research farms, and we developed new categories and on and on — most of which is gone.

We also used to have staff. Remember when we had staff? Remember? The Ministry of Agriculture employed people — someone that a farmer could call and just say: "Hi, Fred. I've got a little bit of a…." There's no Fred on the other side of the line. There's no Fred to visit your farm.

In 1982, when we were being governed by Social Credit, there were 729 FTEs working on agriculture — 729 people like Fred to phone up and say: "Give me a hand." In this budget that we're debating today there are 312. That's less than half, and I can't figure out how many of them are working on fish farms. It's half, and some of those people are off working….

Comparing FTEs is one way to measure a government's priority, but it's only one way. Another way is to compare the percent of the total budget that's spent on any given ministry. When a government and cabinet members sit around and go, "We're going to build a budget here now. How much for health, education, social services and how much for agriculture?" that percentage of the total says what their priority is.

In order to see how we got to the bottom in support for farming, I went back to 1961, to trace the percent of

the total budget we invested in the Ministry of Agriculture. In 1961 it was 0.0098 or about 1 percent. In 1971 — 0.00825, just under 1 percent of the total spent on farming. In 1981 it went up to 0.01286. That's the highest in half a century — over 1 percent; 1.2 percent.

Then the crash began. In 1991 — 0.0034, or one-third of 1 percent. In 2001 — 0.0030, one-third of 1 percent. The analysis I would offer….

C. Evans: I don't think this is about personalities. This is about structural change, a decision to abandon a sector.

The budget went up in the 1970s because we had farm income assurance. Remember? We had per-tonnage payments. We had cost-of-production payments to farmers that said: "If you don't get the price of potatoes from the marketplace, we'll make it good." So it went up.

Then along came the Reagan and Mulroney and Thatcher years and the GATT and the Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA. It becomes against the law to have the old-fashioned subsidies. Canada, faster than any country in the world except two, wiped out all their subsidies. British Columbia essentially wiped out a ministry.

After the GATT, B.C. cut supports for farming faster than any other province in Canada. In 40 years we cut the support for agriculture by two-thirds. It explains why, when you go and you talk to a young farmer and they say, "My mom and dad built this place, and I can't keep it together," that young farmer thinks it's their fault.

Well, in fact, the truth is that we in this room over 40 years wiped out support for that family by two-thirds. The analysis of the BCFGA is saying in public what I think we've all hidden from for decades. We ask B.C. producers to compete, and we give them one-third the rest of Canada.

The second big event in the last few weeks leading up to this day was the agriculture plan presented in Abbotsford on February 15. Yeah, I'd encourage everybody to read it. I'd encourage you to read it, hon. Speaker. I'm not supposed to show it, am I? It says a lot of good stuff about agriculture, and it delivers nothing — zero. It says a lot of good words. It's got pictures, pretty pictures, and it delivers nothing. Let me give you three examples of the nothing: it talks about provincial branding; it talks about agricultural land protection; and it talks about healthy food.

The plan says about branding…. I'll just read it to you. Here, it's good words, eh? "All British Columbians should have access to safe, locally produced food. B.C. will enhance its market brand to profile high-quality products reflecting our province's reputation for environmental sustainability and healthy living." Well, that's good. We're going to get a market brand.

We used to have a market brand. Of course, it came in 1993. It was called Buy B.C. It went until 2001. It disappeared in 2001. Two years ago Investment Agriculture — that is, of course, the agriculture foundation that assists agriculture — figured out that they wanted a brand. They hired a consultant, and the consultant did a report. They paid whacks of money, and the consultant said: "In addition, a branding program would generate significant economic impacts."

For example, a 1996 evaluation of Buy B.C. estimated that the program had generated 1,900 jobs in three years. The consultant told Investment Agriculture, "We should be taking steps to improve the marketing of B.C. foods. It should be a high priority for the industry and for the government." They said: "There's a clearly demonstrated consumer preference for locally produced foods."

Then they asked a bunch of farmers and food distributors what they thought about Buy B.C. — the label, the brand. We'd invested $40 million. A third of that was the Crown and the rest was the private sector. The farmers themselves said…. They asked 50 of them, and 50 out of 50 said: "I want Buy B.C. back." They said: "I like the logo. It is recognized and a well-known brand among the public." They said: "The public like it." They said: "It's an effective promotion program." They said: "It should be updated." And the last one — here's the kicker — said: "There's public money already invested in it."

Then what did the consultants say? "Oh," they said, "we should think up a new brand." What did the minister say in the ag plan? The minister said: "We're going to have a brand. I can't tell you what it is because even though we did the report two years ago, and we've been talking about it for two years, I haven't decided yet." When we asked him who's going to decide, he couldn't say when it was going to be decided or who would make the deciding factor.

The second example I would use of the nothing in the ag plan is what it says about the agricultural land reserve, which of course is dear to some of our hearts. It says about agricultural land: "Preservation of agricultural land for future generations of farm and ranch families is important, and we therefore commit to reviewing the provisions of the agricultural land reserve to ensure it continues to meet our goals of improving agriculture over the longer term."

I was at some of those meetings that the government committee had, meeting farmers to hear what they had to say, and I give them full credit. They went around the province. I went to those meetings, I listened to what the farmers had to say, and it wasn't: "Please review the provisions."

In Abbotsford a guy got up, speaking to the committee, and he said: "I work for a firm that sells fertilizer and soil additives and tools to the agricultural sector. I don't farm, but the well-being of the farm community is totally necessary for my business to survive."

He said he went to a convention with others who work in his industry from the United States. When they found out that he lived where we had protected farmland, they were all jealous because those ones in Oregon and Washington and California were losing their client base as they lost their land. The gentleman was standing up, saying to the government: "Enough is enough. No more alienation of Crown land. You need

to protect the business land base. You need to protect farmers so that I have a business to participate in."

I was there when Ting Wu, the blueberry grower whose land TransLink was putting a road across, came and said to the Chair: "Will you or your committee or your minister defend me? Will somebody help me? I'm making money. I don't want a subsidy. I'm growing a crop on agricultural land. They want to bisect it and pave it. Will you help me?" He didn't say: "We're going to review the terms with the goal of preserving agriculture land." The plan is an absolute disconnect from what I heard the citizens of British Columbia say.

The third issue, I would suggest, is an absolute disconnect. It has to do with a thing that we call, in British Columbia, meat inspection. Hon. Chair, I'm going to read to you what the plan says, what the minister said. He said: "It's important to have a safe and secure food supply." Of course, that's good. I'm glad we're going to do that. He says: "For example, the recently enacted provincial meat inspection regulations will ensure that all British Columbians have the protection afforded by consistent meat safety standards no matter where in the province they live."

Does the minister really believe that? I personally don't care if we have a meat inspection bylaw or not, because I trusted the meat before we had a law, and I trust it now. But the meat inspection bylaw brought in by the Minister of Health is, I think, the most poorly implemented piece of public policy in all of Canada since the federal Liberals brought in their gun law and botched it utterly.

I know I'm not supposed to have any props, so I'm not going to show you that many letters from farmers everywhere writing to me. They're writing to the government, and they're saying that your assurance that it's going to work no matter where they live isn't working for them. It's an absolute disconnect between what the plan says and what the farmers say. It's almost as if the farmers aren't part of the process that led us to the plan.

The whole thing is so disconnected from reality. When I was a parent of young kids, a parenting teacher said to me: "Mr. Evans, you know, the way to make your children crazy is to tell them you love them and then bash them upside the head." They said to me: "The way to make them leave home at an early age is to tell them you love them and then ignore their every need." I would suggest that the agriculture plan is an example of the latter. It is saying, "I love you," and then ignoring every single thing they have to say about their daily life.

The third big event in the last few weeks was the provincial budget. Now I'm coming to what I'm actually supposed to be talking about. I thought, following on the heels of the agriculture plan, that agriculture might actually be a priority in the budget. I thought the government was going to go out and say, "We care about you," and then three days later come in here and prove it. The Minister of Finance would get up and say: "We're going to make farming work. We've got an ag plan; now we're going to fund the thing."

In the entire budget speech — this is important, farmers; this is important for you to know — the word "agriculture" was said once, and it didn't have to do with you. It had to do with the fact that they were going to change agriculture to accommodate the making of fuel from agriculture products. Not a mention of all the stuff in the ag plan. Not a mention of producing food on farmland, but we're going to be good for making fuel. That's the commitment of the budget.

I did the math. After the budget was announced, I did some arithmetic. As near as I can figure, agriculture in this budget has now dropped to below its historic low of 0.03 percent of provincial investment of the budget to less than 0.02 percent of the provincial budget. It is now Z\n of its standing in 1981 — by a government who produces an agriculture plan and says: "I love you, and I care, and I listened." Four days later we dropped it to 0.02 percent.

I think at year's end we will again be said by Stats Canada or Agriculture Canada to be at the bottom — to be the bottom province, below Newfoundland. Newfoundland is a rock out in the ocean, and the wind blows so much the trees grow 45 degrees — below Newfoundland in our support for agriculture.

In fact, in the budget…. I read the budget, and one document, the capital plan for major projects, identifies that B.C. Railway is going to be given $25.5 million for subdivision projects and $44.7 million for land acquisitions. You all know what that means, don't you? That means $67 million for paving agriculture land. We are, probably for the first time in history, going to pay more to pave agricultural land than to farm it — in a province where we claim to care.

I get it that it is not the minister's fault. I've got to say that on the record. This minister simply builds on the record of all three parties that have governed in the last three decades. I get it that we're not going back to the pre-GATT days of price supports and subsidies, and I can even argue the case against those activities. I get it that we're not going back to the ad hoc payments of the olden days or the per-acreage payments of the olden days. I don't even want to go there.

The real question for farmers, though, for farm organizations that might be listening, for every single person in this room on both sides, for the minister, for the cabinet and for governance generally…. The real question is twofold. One, how on earth did good people create this monumental contradiction of being the province with the best protection for farmland in Canada and the least support for the people who live there? What happened in history? How did we get here? How would we turn it around?

The second question is: if we did as the BCFGA suggests, and we move simply to the mediocre middle…? If we went from 3 or 4 or 5 percent of farm-gate GDP to 16 percent — that would be multiplying your budget by three times — that would be going back to the old days of Social Credit administration. If we did

that, we'd have $100 million. We'd have some FTEs. There'd be a Fred on the other side of the phone. We could afford to have programs to help people get into farming.

The question would be then: what would the programs be? What would we do that's GATT green, that contravenes no international agreements but would encourage farming and sustainable use of the land in the production of food and feeding people here in British Columbia? What would we do with that money?

I think it's our job to answer that question. It's farmers' jobs and farm organizations…. We've got to answer that question so that we never again have this monumental disconnect between saying "We love you" and giving you nothing.

I go to a lot of meetings with farm organizations. The unfortunate thing — I love those meetings; they're really good people — is that like you and me, the people in those meetings tend to be grey-haired people — 50, 60, 70 years old. When you have a conversation with the older generation on the farm, it tends to be more of a conversation about where were we than where are we today. If it even gets to where we are today, it doesn't go to where we should go in future — which I think is the job of this House.

I went last weekend to a COABC workshop in Sidney. I spent my weekend in Sidney. That's the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. Lo and behold, it was full of young people. Half the people in the room were under 40, and half of them were under 30.

They weren't day trippers. They weren't romantics or something. They were young people that want to farm. They'd apprenticed, they'd gone to school, and they wanted to make some money. They saw it as a business, not as some kind of airy-fairy sort of romantic life. They wanted the business of…. Young people. I was so excited. I was so encouraged.

The question is: if we have real and realistic young people out there who want to farm and we're operating in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan with land at $100,000 an acre and more, how are we going to make room for them? What government programs are going to make room for them?

If we're going to have all kinds of support for all kinds of universities, are we ever going to get back to extension for the agricultural community? Are we going to embrace these people or say: "Nope. Actually, we don't want you. Our ALR is a sort of pastoral green zone. We don't want business there"? I don't actually see the government doing anything to answer that question.

I want to end by saying: this is my life's work. Given that I watched them bollix the job of making an ag plan, I'll take these two questions — "How did we get here?" and "How should we fix it?" — and I'm going to go out and ask British Columbians.

I commit the next year of my life and of my party's team to being able to actually reverse time back to the days when it wasn't a pretty brochure and it wasn't words. It was actually a priority of the people who budget for this province and manage it and make the rules and the regulations. Maybe next year we'll walk in here, and if you guys don't have a plan backed up by budget resources, by human beings and by programs to make it work, we'll have to do it.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this debate, on both sides of the House. I think that this is an important moment in British Columbia's history. I think that we have reached a turning point, and Budget 2008 really tried to build the financial foundation that will take us forward.

We all recognize that last year the throne speech laid out a very aggressive and important plan, where we are actually going to face up to the damage done to our climate by carbon emissions. We will reduce our carbon emissions in this province by a third by 2020. To do that, we have to take dramatic steps starting now and not just talk about the steps we'd like to take.

The cornerstone of this budget, as everyone knows, is a carbon tax. I want to just go over once more the principles that lie behind the carbon tax. Really, it would be hard to find an economist, environmentalist or academic who, if you say to that person, "We would like to achieve these goals," doesn't believe that a carbon tax has to be a part of it.

However, we looked around the world trying to find the best model for British Columbia. It's no surprise to most of us in this Legislature that in fact we couldn't find a carbon tax that was broad-based and really did the job that we felt was important to do. In designing this model we have really relied on a few basic principles — first of all, that it be broad-based, so that it's not just gasoline at the pump but carbon-emitting fuels. We use the national emissions inventory as our base for that.

We believed that we would have to start at a level that was very small, in order to give both businesses and individuals time to adjust to the changes that will be necessary. However, we also believed that we had to show a commitment going forward to an increase of that amount, so this budget lays out a plan where we start at $10 per tonne and move up through five years by $5 a year at the end.

There was another, I would say, essential point to this carbon tax: that it be truly revenue-neutral. To do that, the $1.8 billion that we believe will come in from the carbon tax over the next three years will be returned, every dollar of it, to the people and the businesses of British Columbia.

This carbon tax will allow the government of British Columbia to immediately cut personal income taxes by 2 percent for this half-year coming forward and by 5 percent next year. It allows us to say to our big businesses in this province: "We will take your tax rate from 12 percent over the three-year track down to

We all know how important to the B.C. economy our small business sector is, and we are pleased to say that this budget also reduces small business tax from 4.5 percent over three years down to 2.5 percent. That 2.5 percent, as well, matches the lowest in Canada. So we have a taxation regime in this province that we are developing, whereby for an individual, for instance, earning up to $111,000 per year, you pay the lowest personal income tax anywhere in Canada.

The idea of making this completely revenue-neutral is so that we give power and choice back to the people and the businesses of British Columbia. It allows individuals to decide whether or not they want to continue their lifestyle in exactly the same way. We believe that these dollars that come back to individuals will more than cover the cost of the carbon tax in their lives.

However, if they decide to make a few changes, they will not only be helping the environment, but they will end up with significant extra dollars left for them to choose how to use in their families.

There's one other very important piece and principle to our carbon tax as we have modelled it in British Columbia, and that is to ensure that those who are low-income in our province are protected as we go forward with this brand-new policy. Therefore, we are introducing a climate change tax incentive and credit. That will give every adult $100, every child $30, for those earning up to $30,000 or for a family earning up to $35,000.

These tax cuts and tax credits are cumulative in a couple of ways. For instance, if you are a family earning $30,000 a year, you would, for your family — perhaps you have two kids — have the tax credit of $260. But you would also receive the 5 percent income tax cut on that $30,000.

If you are a trucker, for instance, who is a small business, incorporated…. That trucker would receive a personal income tax cut of 5 percent but also the small business tax cut, which is in fact a 44 percent reduction in small business tax just over three years.

We believe this is a solid model. We are appreciative of the comments that have been…. Actually, I'll read a couple of them. We have comments from the academic world. We have comments from the business world, environmentalists.

From academic: "Frankly, why I like it is that it puts more money in the pockets of British Columbians to allow them to make choices in more energy-efficient ways. That's the way to deal with it. Use the marketplace to find solutions. Don't tell the marketplace what the solutions are. Give people the money to actually assist the market in making those moves." That's Dr. Andrew Weaver.

From the world of business: "I think it's a positive step, the move to a carbon tax. I think it signals intent. Putting a price on carbon is probably the single most important thing a government can do right now." That's from Jeff Rubin, CIBC World Markets' chief economist.

From Ian Bruce, the climate change specialist at the David Suzuki Foundation: "We congratulate British Columbia on taking this visionary step" — by pricing carbon. "This marks a real turning point for British Columbia and puts the province at the forefront of North American action on climate change."

We are all individuals with our families, and I think we all understand that it's one thing for a government to say: "Yes, you will start paying the carbon tax in July, but you will see your income tax cuts after you've filled out your form" — which is the next year.

So what we have tried to do as a government, in fact, is turn that around and give the people of B.C. the benefits first. Because we've had such a strong economy over the last few years and surpluses that have been stronger than anticipated, we were able to go back and look at that surplus.

As you all know, we came to the House recently and received unanimous support for taking $440 million out of last year's surplus to give back to the people of B.C. — $100 for every adult, every child in this province — so that in June the people of B.C. will receive the benefit first, before the carbon tax starts the very next month.

Now, while the carbon tax has certainly received the most attention, it is only one piece of what we will do with our climate action plan going forward.

Another very important issue is to put dollars into investment and incentives in climate change. So this budget gives $1 billion towards those efforts. We can do that because the economy has been so strong. This $1 billion will go towards supporting research and innovation in our businesses, throughout our rural areas around this province as we look for the solutions that will carry us forward.

There's $25 million for the bioenergy network that will look at both agricultural and forestry initiatives that will help us find new answers, dollars that will go to the pulp and paper industry to help them find innovative new ways to make sure that they are participants in cleaning up the environment, and dollars that will go to the oil and gas industry to help with pilots looking at carbon sequestration.

This package, of course, also has many incentives for individuals in British Columbia. So if we in our own lives start to make some small changes, government will be there to help. There will be tax incentives if you choose, when you're remodelling your house, to put in Energy Star windows, as we announced last year. Now if you buy new appliances and they're Energy Star, they will be tax-exempt as well.

We will help individuals and businesses should they choose to do an energy audit to see where they can make a difference in conservation. If you decide to retrofit, we will help with those costs. If you put insulation with your ducts and piping, we will help with those costs.

We are trying to show a way forward where we can all start to choose our pieces, as we together will solve the problem of climate change in B.C.

One of the issues that we did…. We listened to the people of B.C. when we have had tax-exempt hybrid cars for some time. But people came forward and said: "Well, in fact, there are other vehicles out there — and some are even better than some of the hybrids — that should also be considered for this tax exemption."

This budget broadens the tax exemption for individuals who are thinking of purchasing a car — up to $2,000 — and we're matching the federal ecoAuto list. So if you do that, you can receive up to $4,000 off your next vehicle that you purchase.

One of the things that I started the budget by saying was that we can't just do environmental initiatives if it's at the cost of the economy. So this budget, throughout, concentrates on both the environment and the economy.

On top of the many climate change initiatives that are, of course, good for business and good for our rural areas, we also have another $407 million of competitive taxation changes for business so that we can ensure we've still got that strong economy that we all want, that helps our kids have jobs, that has brought net 50,000 people to B.C. to work and the lowest unemployment that we've had in 30 years. We want to keep that strength going. To do that, these competitive tax issues will help as well.

This allows us to say that in the next three years we anticipate we'll have $5 billion of fiscal room, new spending that we can put back into the province of B.C. We have made the decision as government that our priority is health care. We are taking two-thirds of all the new money available in the next three years, and we're putting it towards health care in this province.

We, of course, continue to support education with dollars that make this the province that has a historical level of dollars per student — another $144 million. There is another $787 million in this budget for social services, including public safety. Included in that is $104 million for homelessness and another $23 million to help buy more apartments that we can turn into social housing that is upgraded and meets the needs of today.

So I would say to you, hon. Speaker, and to the members sitting in the Legislature today that we believe that Budget 2008 is a strong budget. It supports our climate action initiatives, and we believe for the people of British Columbia that it brings us all together as we take action going forward to solve the problems of our environment.

I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

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.


	YEAS — 42

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Campbell	Taylor
Bond	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad

	NAYS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy