2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Roderick Haig-Brown

Trevena

Cell phone use by drivers

Rustad

100th anniversary of Britannia

Secondary School

Simpson

Nanaimo Sports Achievement Awards

Cantelon

Sidney and Spencer Needham

Horgan

Scouts Canada

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Status of seniors care facilities

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Gentner

A. Dix

Child poverty in B.C.

Ralston

Hon. C.

Richmond

Simons

J. Kwan

Budget Debate (continued)

B. Ralston

J. Yap

N. Simons

Hon. R. Coleman

R. Fleming

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Simpson

J. Rustad

[ Page 9805 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Last week we had a general introduction of the group of interns, and we welcomed them to the precincts. Their duties have now been assigned, and I'm pleased to introduce to the House the corps of interns who will be working with the government caucus. They are Gordon Hunter, Rhea Laube, Grace Lore, Madeleine Lyons and Danica Wong. I hope the House will make them, specifically, feel welcome as they take up their new duties with the government caucus.

Also joining the House in the gallery today is an individual who has demonstrated tremendous leadership on behalf of the Haisla First Nation. He has brought vision and courage to his duties as the elected Chief. Chief Steve Wilson of the Haisla First Nation is in the gallery, and I hope all members will make him feel particularly welcome.

[1335]

D. Routley: I'd like to inform the members of a great experience that I've had over the last couple of days in having a young high school student do a job shadow with me. I maintain the pretence that I'm actually working fairly well so far, I think.

With the help of other people in the House, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, it was very informative for Pedro and me to meet with you and hear about your impressions of this place. Also, Mr. MacMinn took time to meet with us.

Pedro has learned a lot about the way democracy works in theory and also now in practice. I'd like all the members to help me welcome Pedro Banman, who is my job shadow. I'd like to encourage all the members to do the same, because I think it's very good for young people in this province to see how this great system does work.

R. Sultan: C'est avec grand plaisir que je vous présente Mme. Nathalie Lleres et 55 grade 11 students from the French immersion program at École secondaire Sentinel in West Vancouver. École secondaire Sentinel currently enrols over 1,090 students in grades 8 through 12. Peut la Maison les faire accueillir.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to introduce two friends in the House today. Would the House please make welcome Dan Bouman of the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association and Alison Leduc.

Hon. W. Oppal: Watching from her hospital bed is the Deputy Speaker and member for Kelowna-Mission. She tells me she misses us. Let's give her a great round of applause.

B. Bennett: I want to call the House's attention to an accomplishment by four men from the East Kootenay last weekend. They won the senior men's curling championship for British Columbia. They beat the great curler from Kelowna; Rick Folk, I think his name is. He has won several championships.

Ralph Will was the skip. He curls in Sparwood. There were curlers from Fernie on the team and my buddy Gerry Kent from Cranbrook. Congratulations to them. Now they're going to the nationals in Saskatchewan.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add a word of welcome to the Sentinel students, although I cannot do it as eloquently as my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. My son was a graduate from Sentinel in 2004. Welcome to all the Sentinel students and staff.

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to rise and introduce a good friend of mine in the Legislative Assembly, a former member of this House from the northwest part of our province. Would the House please welcome Mr. Roger Harris.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) RODERICK HAIG-BROWN

C. Trevena: The Campbell River is a beautiful stretch of water. It rips along its wide bed, and it's a hope for the symbol of B.C. — salmon — and a home for an ecosystem.

This was recognized by Roderick Haig-Brown, Campbell River's and perhaps B.C.'s most famous flyfisher, a staunch environmentalist and a writer. From his home on the river's edge he could watch the river move as he wrote. It was in his mind's eye that he fought his environmental battles.

His legacy has lived on through his writings, and he has influenced many people, including, among others, biologists, psychologists and many who were just interested in the relationship between people and nature.

This year seems to be a time of legacy. For Campbell River it is a time to acknowledge the Haig-Brown legacies. Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Roderick, a day which will be noted with celebration both here in Victoria and in Campbell River.

[1340]

The city of Campbell River is holding a special ceremony at the museum, which itself is marking its 50th anniversary, at which February 21 will be proclaimed Roderick Haig-Brown Day.

The province has also recommended this extraordinary man with a proclamation celebrating his lifetime achievements. It's the start of six months of events organized in conjunction with the Haig-Brown Institute to mark the centenary of his and his wife Ann's birth.

The institute's mission statement is to promote the links between ecology and economy through watershed management and to inspire a conservation ethic through education and literature, a noble cause which

[ Page 9806 ]

will be highlighted through the coming months. Events include a symposium this summer on how communities can act to sustain wild salmon populations. The celebrations will culminate in the annual Haig-Brown festival, held in September at Roderick and Ann's former home on the banks of the Campbell River.

I hope the House will join me and the people of Campbell River in recognizing the influence of Roderick Haig-Brown and will use this year to help raise awareness of his values and his vision.

CELL PHONE USE BY DRIVERS

J. Rustad: Drivers everywhere in B.C. have a lot on their minds. They're worried about making it to their destination on time. They're thinking about what happened last night. They may even be thinking about the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup. Okay, maybe that's a bit of a stretch.

The point is that drivers don't always have their minds on the road. Distractions for drivers account for almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes, according to a recent study.

Statistically, young drivers have the greatest problem with distractions. Focus groups suggest that teen participants do not always see the relationship between the numerous distractions in their cars and the high rate of crashes. They do not seem to connect the many close calls that they've had to using their cell phones while driving. This is not just a problem for young drivers, but it's a safety issue for everyone on the road.

According to a recent poll, 89 percent of motorists are very concerned about other distracted drivers on the road. Speaking from personal experience, there's no question that using a cell phone while driving is a significant distraction. I'm fortunate in that I've learned that lesson without being in an accident.

It's difficult to encourage everyone to have the same level of awareness regarding the distraction caused by cell phones, but perhaps there's something we can do for our young drivers. As new drivers go through the graduated licence program, our hope is to try to instil the best driving habits possible. I believe the dangers of distractions due to cell phones while driving should be highlighted.

I applaud the Solicitor General's review that is being initiated regarding cell phone use while driving, and I look forward to hearing the results. Together we need to find ways to raise the level of awareness and to help our new drivers form the best driving habits possible.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF

BRITANNIA SECONDARY SCHOOL

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to speak today about my old high school, Britannia Secondary in East Vancouver, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. On February 6, I had the opportunity — along with the member for Burnaby North, who was also a Britannia student — to participate in the ribbon-cutting commencing the 100-day countdown to the May 16 weekend when 4,000 to 5,000 past students, teachers, administrators and friends will converge on the Agrodome in Vancouver to celebrate this remarkable school.

Britannia was the second high school built in Vancouver and is the oldest still standing. It has played an integral role in East Vancouver, successfully blending a very diverse multicultural student population of working-class British Columbians.

Britannia has turned out many outstanding citizens: Barbara Howard, who competed in the 1938 British Empire Games and was one of Canada's first black athletes; well-known entertainer and comedian Bill Reiter; Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci; and of course past Premier Dave Barrett, just to name a few.

Britannia has long been known for its commitment to the community. This was highlighted in 1972 when an elementary school and the comprehensive community services centre were added to the high school in an integrated approach to meeting the needs of the people of East Vancouver.

The Britannia Community Services Centre is arguably the most successful initiative of its kind anywhere and has drawn people from around the world to come and learn about how it was done and the success it has had. Most importantly, talk to the thousands of people who use it every year, and you will be left with no doubt about the importance of its role to the community.

[1345]

I'm very proud of my days at Britannia, and I credit the school for giving me the foundation to be successful in my life. I'm honoured today to represent many of the children of Britannia and their families. I know I'm joined by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, whose constituency the school is actually located in, in congratulating everyone at Britannia and all the people working on the 100th anniversary celebration. It's a great school and deserves a fabulous 100th birthday. Go, Bruins, go.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Could I remind members to keep the chatter down just a little bit because it's hard to hear.

NANAIMO SPORTS ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

R. Cantelon: Today I want to recount a very special happening at the Pacific sports achievement awards that occurred recently in Nanaimo. Among the highlights were recognition of the Nanaimo Clippers as British Columbia champions in junior B hockey and of course the Dover Bay boys basketball team winning the B.C. championship — a triple-A basketball team. Also, Michelle Stillwell as athlete of the year, a Paralympian who has won gold medals and plans to do it again, and Jim Rayhear, a Dover Bay athlete who excels in badminton and in basketball.

The special moment came when they came to award the partnership team. Megan Yim and Kylee Abrahamsom were nominated for their bronze medal win in badminton, but also nominated was team

[ Page 9807 ]

Plasteras. Jim Plasteras had pushed his 19-year-old daughter Carly to a finish in the Vancouver marathon. That was in May, and then he decided in October to repeat it with Carly's twin sister Angela, who is also a cerebral palsy victim. But because he tore a muscle, he didn't manage to finish the race without the help of Angela and Carly's brother and sister, who finished the race in over four hours. It was a really heroic moment.

It was a hushed audience when it came time to present the award. The award was presented to Megan Yim. It was a quiet, hushed moment, and then a very, very special thing happened. Yim walked up, received the award, turned to the crowd and said: "I don't really deserve this." She walked over and handed it to the Plasteras family. We were all just stunned for a moment. It was a moment of pure and simple graciousness that captured us all in one magic moment.

I salute all these champions and particularly Megan Yim for her graciousness, and I invite all the House to join me in that.

SIDNEY AND SPENCER NEEDHAM

J. Horgan: Last year I had the pleasure to rise in this House and talk about the athletic achievements of members of my community. But the West Shore is not just about hockey; it's also about the arts. Today I want to take the opportunity to advise the Legislature about a special musical family in my constituency.

The story of Sidney and Spencer Needham starts with the awesome ensemble, the District of Soul. You don't have to go to Memphis or Motown to get a blast of the blues. Just roll into the Luxton Fall Fair or visit Jazz in the Park, and listen to the sweet sounds of soul right here in Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

The brainchild of Dunsmuir Middle School teacher Glenn Whitney, the District of Soul was formed in 2004 with 18 very talented students from Dunsmuir and Belmont Secondary. Glen saw the talent of these kids and turned to his teaching colleagues at Belmont, Glynis Dawson and the legendary Joyce Kopan, and he kept the melodies moving.

A wicked horn

section and a rhythm duo to set the tempo, the District of Soul has gained a following across the region and is a show not to be missed. As awesome as the trumpets and the saxophones are, it's the power and clarity of the main vocalists that steal the show. That is where my longtime neighbours the Needhams take the troupe to another level.

Sidney, 18, and Spencer, 16, are accomplished soloists and recently put their talents up against 14 other contestants in the third annual PEERS charity fundraising performance of Victoria Idol . The packed house heard some incredible performances, but it was Spencer, the scrawny little brother, that won the day, and Sidney placed second runner-up. The scholarships are piling up, the studio time is being put to good use, and the recording contracts are sure to follow.

It is success stories like the Needhams' that highlight the importance of the arts in our public school system. It reinforces the enormous value of music educators in our schools and the need to support the arts whenever and wherever we can.

Will the Legislature please join me in celebrating the contribution of our music teachers and two wonderful kids with a mountain of Metchosin talent, a brother-and-sister combo that are going places — Sidney and Spencer Needham.

[1350]

SCOUTS CANADA

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to a global movement of 28 million young people around the world, which started over a hundred years ago. The movement I'm talking about is scouting.

I am proud to wear this uniform, just like the 24,000 other adult volunteers across Canada and hundreds of thousands of volunteers all over the world. They volunteer their time and effort to lead young people through a variety of activities, from camping and earning badges to meeting new friends and completing good turns in the community.

Generations of children have benefited from scouting and its leaders. These children are taught positive values that help them become better individuals who can play a constructive role in society.

Two leading individuals who have benefited from scouting in my community are Warren Gill, vice-president of Simon Fraser University, and David Podmore, president of Concert Properties — and other active volunteers like John Chow, Dick Earthy, Celinda Williams, Lynn Holden and Mark Robertson, who continue today to make a difference in the lives of children.

February 22 is Thinking Day. This is a day where scouting and its sister organization Guides recognize the life and importance of Lord and Lady Baden-Powell, who were the founders of scouting and guiding. As we are three days away from Thinking Day, I urge all members of scouting and guiding and members of this House to think and to thank their leaders who volunteer in their community.

Please join me in thanking our scouting and guiding volunteers.

Oral Questions

STATUS OF SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

C. James: Yesterday the B.C. Liberals delivered a budget that completely ignored seniors and their health care challenges. On the same day, the opposition received an FOI package that once again highlighted this government's absolute failure to protect seniors. This package contains assessment reports for seniors homes and community living homes across Vancouver Island.

The reports are damning. As suspected, Beacon Hill Villa was just the tip of the iceberg. Dozens of homes across this region have been deemed high-risk. These reports are from 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why is he standing by doing absolutely nothing, allowing these

[ Page 9808 ]

high-risk facilities to continue to operate and not telling seniors and their families that they're at risk?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong in relation to yesterday's budget. It contained great news for seniors in this province.

We are a government that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new facilities, residential care and assisted living for seniors across this province — now close to 4,000 incremental units across this province. We have moved away from the substandard facilities, even places like James Bay Care Centre. We've moved away from those multi-bed wards. We've moved away from those narrow hallways, those washrooms that were inaccessible to wheelchairs. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in improving the lives of seniors in this province.

We have, through the health authorities, an excellent system of ensuring that quality of care is there for all seniors in the province. The licensing officials at Vancouver Island and elsewhere work tirelessly to ensure that seniors get that kind of quality care.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: There's only one part that the Health Minister said that was accurate. That is that licensing officers work hard. We have lists of dozens and dozens of facilities deemed high-risk, and I'd like the minister to tell those families that everything is fine for seniors in British Columbia.

[1355]

It was the NDP who actually blew the whistle on the deplorable conditions at Beacon Hill Villa, a facility that is right behind the Legislature. It was the NDP who actually forced this government to take action. The minister tried to keep those reports in the dark.

The Premier actually said that everything was all right for seniors in British Columbia. Well, we know from these reports through FOI that Beacon Hill Villa is not the only one. Eagle Rock Heights: high risk, 2007. Shelmarie Rest Home: high risk, 2005 and 2007. Sunset Lodge: high risk, 2005 and 2007. Sunrise of Victoria: high risk, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The list is too long to read.

Again, I say to the Minister of Health: why does it take the opposition actually getting an FOI and blowing the whistle to protect seniors from abuse from this government?

Hon. G. Abbott: What I saw last fall were the licensing officials at Vancouver Island Health Authority working tirelessly to ensure that every one of the patients, every one of the residents in residential care facilities, got the best quality that they could. What I saw last fall was a desperate opposition attempting to capitalize on what was good and appropriate work being done.

Before this opposition leader gets too carried away with her talk about high risk, she should understand that high risk is a designation that is put on new facilities before they have the experience base to assign a permanent rating. So it may be entirely unreflective of the quality of care that is being provided in a facility.

She should watch her rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. We saw too many examples last fall of this opposition getting carried away with their rhetoric in this area.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I can tell the Minister of Health that what he saw last fall was the opposition standing up for seniors, and we're going to continue to do that, because the government sure isn't doing it.

Excuse after excuse from this government. All we've seen is the government trying to bury the information, trying to keep these reports hidden from seniors and their families. Well, residents and their families deserve better. They deserve to know the information about facilities that they're in.

So will the Minister of Health say today a simple yes or no? Will he adopt the opposition's proposal and make these assessment reports public so that seniors and their families can truly know the state of care under his government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I believe we have excellent residential care facilities in this province. I believe we have licensing officials at all the health authorities who work tirelessly to ensure that residents get the quality of care that they deserve.

I want to again advise the Leader of the Opposition that risk assessments are based on low, medium and high risk. High risk can often be a default for a facility that has not yet opened or has been opened very briefly and has not yet established a basis on which to make that assessment.

Further, I think that if there is a part…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …of the opposition leader's question that I can agree with, it is that we need to have a better system of understanding risk in residential care facilities, particularly when you have high risk associated with a facility that's not yet opened or has very brief risk experience. I think we can improve on that.

[1400]

G. Gentner: The minister talks about the rhetoric. He doesn't quite understand the meaning of high risk versus moderate risk. He makes lots of accolades and applauds relative — and we agree with that — to the

[ Page 9809 ]

licensing officials and the inspectors. But the minister has a propensity here to always shoot the messenger.

The opposition has assessment reports from VIHA from 2004 to 2007. Almost all of them say the same thing. Management lacks skills, chronic understaffing, no training. Patients are being put at risk. Even facilities that got the worst possible score were allowed to continue to operate. These are the worst of the worst. These are the repeat offenders. The minister only intervened at Beacon Hill Villa after the opposition blew the whistle.

Can the Minister of Health explain why he did not step in every other time, especially when facilities got the worst score possible, putting seniors at the highest risk?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's an interesting commentary, hearing these questions from the opposition the day after a budget speech in the province of British Columbia, given that this information has been publicly available since October. It was published in newspapers in southern Vancouver Island in October. It's very interesting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think that maybe what they don't want to discuss is the fact that unlike the $8.2 billion health care budget that we inherited in 2001, that budget today, after the budget speech yesterday by the Finance Minister, is $15.4 billion for health care. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more for residential care and assisted living, hundreds of millions of dollars for home care — right across the continuum.

This is a government that's very proud of its record. We are improving on the sorry state of affairs that we inherited from that former government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: The minister likes to do his Liberal math and throw out the numbers.

In the Greater Victoria area alone…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: …between 2004 and 2007, the high-hazard ratings were measured from 11 facilities in 2004 to 18 facilities in 2007. That is a 64 percent increase in high-hazard ratings in the Greater Victoria area.

Again, a question that wasn't answered. Will he commit today to let seniors and their families know when they are in a high-risk facility and one that doesn't even have its licensing in order?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is one charge the member made that I'm going to plead guilty to, and that's to using Liberal math, because the last thing in the world I'd ever want to use is NDP math.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: In NDP math these things just never added up, nor could people ever figure it out. It used to be well into the year before anybody understood anything of what was being done by that former NDP government.

To be clear, again, around the point. The risk rating….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's listen to the question and listen to the answer.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: The risk rating is routine information. It is readily available to members of the public on request. The risk rating is based on licensing officers' assessments, number of reportable incidents, inspection history, management issues, staff qualifications and supervision, self-monitoring and physical nature of the building facility itself.

The licensing officers undertake these reviews regularly. They're available in the case of the reviews that the members are raising. It's been available since October. The licensing officers do a great job, and we have a great residential care system in this province.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, the government did have a message for seniors in this budget. It was: "Fend for yourselves."

The minister brags that his long-term care promise is still unkept. They got cuts to Pharmacare. They got no improvements in care standards — a big fat nothing except maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush–style medical savings accounts and the continuing assertion that seniors are to blame for his government's health care failures.

My question is pretty simple to him. Since he's not going to do anything about the seniors health crisis in this province — since he's not going to do anything — why shouldn't seniors who live in a care home have the

[ Page 9810 ]

same access to information about risks in their care home that he has access to every single day?

Hon. G. Abbott: The real crisis in this province is the crisis of credibility which that NDP opposition suffers.

We've heard the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition Health critic and other members throw around charges about high-risk ratings and what that means. Let me quote here: "Ayr Bethel Centre, Sunrise of Saanich, Eagle Rock Terrace and Island View at Marty Lane, Selkirk and Sluggett have applied for a licence but have not been issued a licence."

The risk categorization of facilities that have applied for a licence is a default rating assigned by the computer program. This is an opposition that never hesitates to make charges which undermine public confidence in what is a wonderful residential care system in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, you know, the minister talks loudly and often and incessantly, but it's pretty clear he carries no stick at all. He can't even tell us today the budget for VIHA. He can't even tell us today the budget for the Fraser Health Authority. It's half the budget of his ministry. He can't even tell us.

Why doesn't he table that information in the House today? Or is that too much for us to be able to understand?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Dozens of care homes at risk, and the minister shrugs and laughs. Not enough staff, not enough training — a proud Bill 29 legacy. Oh yeah, $220 million for the banks, no problem. How many more seniors are going to be put at risk until this government takes action to protect seniors who need the care in long-term care centres?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad the minister — or the member — raised the point….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: He won't be a future minister. That's guaranteed; I agree. I'd have to agree with the opposition on that point.

This NDP government in the 1990s routinely….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know they don't like to hear this. I know they hate hearing about this, but too bad.

[1410]

In the 1990s health authorities, all 52 of them, used to hear about their budgets in August. Four months into the fiscal year, the 52 NDP health authorities would start to hear about their budgets. So I'm not going to listen to a lecture from the former chief adviser to the NDP government around that point. It's a whole lot of nonsense.

Similarly, we've built almost 4,000. They didn't build a thousand in ten years of residential care and assisted living in this province.

CHILD POVERTY IN B.C.

B. Ralston: I want to talk about a record that I'm sure the government is less proud of. For the fourth year in a row, British Columbia has the worst child poverty record in the country. Other Premiers — Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland, Premier Jean Charest of Quebec — have developed long-term poverty reduction strategies. B.C. refuses to take a leadership role. Yesterday's budget offers nothing to combat child poverty.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Why, after four years of the worst child poverty record in the country, has her government failed to take leadership on this vital file?

Hon. C. Richmond: The opposition is very eager…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: …to quote statistics from advocacy groups. Advocacy groups are well meaning, and they're sincere people, but they take a very narrow view of child poverty, of welfare and of the things that a government is doing.

First of all, their data is from 2005. Secondly, they don't take into account what has happened in the last two or three years. For example, last year we increased the welfare rates for the first time in ten years so that we are now amongst the two or three highest provinces in Canada. We have no income tax for anyone earning under $15,000. The rent supplement was for anyone earning $28,000 or less. Yesterday in the budget it went to $35,000. The day care subsidy is for anyone earning under $38,000 a year.

I could go on, but I'll wait for the supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister likes to disparage advocacy groups. Let's try the Premier's own Progress Board, where they have said that there's a persistent failure in improving the social condition of the people that live at the economic margins of our society. That's the Premier's own Progress Board.

How about the Premier of Ontario? Here's what he had to say, not an advocacy group: "It's no longer just a moral imperative to ensure that the poor find opportunity and grow strong. It's become an economic necessity." That's the Premier of Ontario taking a leadership position.

[ Page 9811 ]

My question is to the Deputy Premier. In the face of soaring child poverty in British Columbia, when is her government going to take a leadership position and serve and help the children of this province properly?

Hon. C. Richmond: For the member's information, the rate of child poverty has gone steadily downward in the last three years.

We have taken 112,000 people off the welfare rolls and put them back to work, and they're now averaging $13 an hour. Just a few short years ago in 2001, one in seven children was in families on income assistance. It's now one in 30.

Let me just give you one final quote from the C.D. Howe Institute, which says….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: Oh, an advocacy group.

They said: "Work, not welfare, eliminates poverty."

[1415]

N. Simons: Today we received a report. The Pivot Legal Society has once again pointed to a terrible problem of child poverty in the province. It's entitled Broken Promises . Yesterday we saw that promise broken again, and that was to look after the children of this province. One in four in this province lives in poverty, and that's just shameful.

I'd like to know what this minister is going to do to address what we know to be the underlying causes of children and families coming into contact with the child welfare system, and that is poverty. What is this government going to do to address that important issue, which most British Columbians recognize is a problem, but somehow 46 people on the other side of the House don't?

Hon. C. Richmond: We take any report on child poverty very seriously, and we certainly don't dismiss it lightly.

Since 2005 the children living in low-income situations…. It's falling rapidly. It fell by 15 percent since 2005. It's gone down 15 percent. That is 24,000 children who are now better off, and we expect new data to confirm the trend to fewer families in lower-income situations.

Another fact is that the poverty rate for single moms has fallen from 52.7 percent to 29 percent in the last five years. The median income for single moms has risen from $21,900 to $30,400, and the increase has been almost entirely from higher market earnings rather than social payments.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: What is shameful about that response is the fact that he is not denying the fact that we lead the country in child poverty, and he continues to quote statistics to maybe try and shape it to meet his particular needs. The fact remains that we lead the country in child poverty. That's a record that the other side of the House — the government — needs to take into account.

My question: when will this government fulfil the promise it made to children, which it has broken repeatedly, to look after families who are living in poverty? When will it have a strategy?

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, I don't think the member has been paying much attention over the last few years to the policies we've introduced for people at the low end of the income scale. Back just ten years ago there were 375,000 British Columbians on welfare in this province — 375,000.

An Hon. Member: One child in seven then, guys.

Hon. C. Richmond: That's right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: One family in ten was on welfare ten years ago. I do believe that the statistics quoted are not only out of date but that they are suspect, because the poverty rate has dropped tremendously in just the last two years. We think that any child living in poverty….

Even one is one too many, but we are working diligently with our programs to bring that number down.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister should read the government's own Progress Board report. Clearly, he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. B.C. has the worst child poverty rate since this government took office in 2002. And let's be clear. The rate of child poverty has remained the highest in the country since 2002, and the majority of the poor children in B.C. actually live with families who are working — from a government who refuses to increase minimum wages.

[1420]

The Pivot Legal Society report states: "The government's lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to take a preventative approach to child protection issues." The report lists poverty as one of the examples of the government's lack of commitment. Yesterday the Minister of Finance tabled a budget that gave banks $220 million in tax breaks and $327 million to oil and gas companies in subsidies.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Is the minister satisfied that one in four children in the province of British Columbia lives in poverty, or will he stand up and call on his government to redirect those dollars to people in greatest need — children living in poverty?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 9812 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: The opposition doesn't seem to want to pay attention to statistics like this. The employment growth for single parents has increased dramatically over the last seven years. The employment rate for single parents with young children increased from 37 percent in 2000…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: …to 60 percent in 2006. We expect that this strong employment growth since 2002, which has led to the lowest unemployment rates in over 30 years, will further reduce low-income rates and improve B.C.'s ranking with other provinces.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I'd like to introduce 23 students from Zeballos Elementary-Secondary School, from grades 8 to 12, who are in the gallery today. I've spoken to the House about the Zeballos Elementary-Secondary School in the past, and I'm very pleased that the students are here today. I hope the House can make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: I rise to continue my response to the budget speech that the Finance Minister gave yesterday. I want to begin by talking a little bit about global economic conditions as they pertain to the British Columbia economy. I think what we've seen, certainly since the new year, is a shift in mood and thinking about the economy not only in the United States but here in Canada as well.

The gathering effects of the credit crisis and related housing crisis, the sub-prime mortgage problems in the United States have led many economists to begin rethinking their growth estimates for the United States and, by implication, for Canada in the year to come.

[1425]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

At the Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum that was held in January just several weeks ago, which is a gathering place for economic and political leaders from around the world, that was the subject of some keen discussion. A panel of economists at the World Economic Forum was of the view that the U.S. economy might be — it's certainly one view — set for a long recession. The U.S. mortgage crisis has pushed consumer and company loans, and will spread to those.

It's clear that the monoline insurers are now experiencing some difficulty because of their very close relationship to numerous banking products. There's an expectation that that will push up defaults sharply.

Mr. Roubini, who is a New York University economist, was one of the few economists to correctly predict a slump in the U.S. housing market and subsequent crunch in the credit markets a year ago. He's of the view that after five years of strong global economic growth, of which obviously British Columbia has been the beneficiary, it's now only a question of how hard the landing of the U.S. economy would be — said Mr. Roubini, chair of Roubini Global Economics.

He expects that the Federal Reserve — and I think that's widely speculated upon — will continue to reduce interest rates. But that may not be enough to provide the necessary stimulus to restart the economy.

Mr. Roubini was also backed by Stephen Roach, who's the chair of Morgan Stanley Asia and well known for his economic opinions in the public arena. He criticized the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government for trying to solve the current crisis by reaching back into the same playbook that created the mess in the first place. Instead of tackling asset bubbles like inflated housing and stock markets head on, they waited until the bubble had burst and then cleaned up afterwards.

So when we set our economy here in British Columbia — our relatively small, subnational economy in the global context — it does appear that economic growth revisions are prudently revised downwards. Indeed, that was the view of some of the well-known British Columbia commentators on the economy. I'm thinking in particular of Jock Finlayson, employed by the employers council of British Columbia, who has offered his views in several recent lectures — one on November 20 here in Victoria and another one just recently in Vancouver in February.

What's noticeable — and what he says — is that there is a shift in emphasis towards a slightly more pessimistic tone, even between November and February. I don't propose to review everything that he said, but I think it is significant to have a look at what a well-respected commentator on the British Columbia economy has to say, as we contemplate the conditions that the budget seeks to address and how British Columbians can expect to respond over the year and into the future.

What one would expect during a period of economic growth is that the government would lay the basis for future prosperity using the financial resources made available to it during good times. As Mr. Roubini has said, it's been global growth pretty well around the world over the last five years. So when British Columbia is the beneficiary of that and has participated in that global growth….

But as things shift downwards, the degree to which the government will be tested is the degree to which the government has prepared for the inevitable downturn and built upon the natural and human assets of

[ Page 9813 ]

the province, in order to provide some protection from that downturn.

[1430]

What Mr. Finlayson says is that of the top ten B.C. growth industries in 2003 to 2006, seven of those ten industries are construction or construction-related. I don't think anyone will be surprised by that.

Certainly, there is a construction boom. It's related to the Olympics. But construction booms, as anyone in the construction business will tell you, ebb and flow. There will certainly be a downturn in the construction industry at some point, and that point is probably coming sooner rather than later.

He looks to what are other medium- and long-term constraints on economic growth, and we have to look at some of those. I don't think, again, that this is the chronic condition of British Columbia. A small, heavily resource-dependent export sector with a large and growing trade deficit will limit future gains in prosperity. He speaks of the impact of the pine beetle and a poor productivity record. Productivity is not simply labour productivity or inviting people to work longer hours but the complex quotient of productivity that involves the contributions of capital, labour, natural resources and regulatory reform.

He also describes as a medium- and long-term constraint on economic growth "the winding down of the construction boom and post-Olympics 'hangover.'" He has "hangover" in quotation marks. So there is an expectation out there, given by a very informed commentator on the B.C. economy, that there will be a winding down of the construction boom, and there will be a post-Olympic hangover.

He also stresses that the traditional export industries of the province are weakening. I think that's certainly very evident in the forest sector, which both on the coast and in the interior can only be described as being in crisis. It's notable and very remarkably disappointing that in the budget address all that the Minister of Finance offered up on behalf of the government was another reference to the Premier's round table on forestry. There was some reference to federal assistance and to a will to find common solutions, although those solutions are not described.

This is a government that has made big legislative changes in the structure of the forest industry in 2003 and has had it all its own way since then. The results are there to see as mill after mill throughout the province closes.

To return to the issue of the weaknesses in the economy that the government ought to turn its attention to, the next one that Mr. Finlayson talks about is that B.C. has a low export intensity. In total exports as a share of GDP in 2006, British Columbia is at the bottom of the Canadian provinces. It's last.

This is Mr. Finlayson. This is not some conspiratorial reference to an advocacy group, as some of the ministers opposite would have it. This is based on Statistics Canada and the provincial economic accounts. His calculation is of total exports as a share of GDP in 2006, the smallest percentage of any province in the country. That includes all the obvious ones. We're behind even Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

That weakness of the traditional export sector in British Columbia, as reflected particularly in the forest industry, and the beginning of the waning of the construction boom pose some obvious economic challenges for us here, for the economy here in British Columbia and for the kind of government leadership that one would expect to see in constructing a budget.

[1435]

As I said, Mr. Finlayson in February of 2008 addressed the higher learning symposium and again offered his opinion on the direction of the economy. As I said, his view of the B.C. economy had grown a little bit more pessimistic just based on the changes.

I think there has been a real shift in the view of commentators coming out of January and early February and of the public in general. There's a growing concern about the economy. He says in his report that the United States is downshifting, led by the housing sector. The credit market difficulties aggravate the housing downturn. Slumping home values, high energy costs and weaker job growth threaten consumption in the United States.

Consumption is valued by many experts as being as much as 72 percent of gross domestic product in the United States, so when U.S. consumers stop buying, their economy begins to lose momentum very, very rapidly. Other modest growth is also ahead for the European Union, Japan and Canada.

I want to turn to what he has to say about the British Columbia economy and to focus on a couple of challenges for anyone looking at the economy and its future here. He once again notes that exports are structurally weak and recently falling. They've continued to fall, although there's a slight — particularly to the United States…. That obviously reflects lumber sales.

Most export categories — this is the change in value of B.C. international merchandise exports 2006-2007 — are negative. So not only is it not growing, but it's shrinking in most categories of exports.

That's very troubling for a small subnational jurisdiction of just over four million people, essentially export- and trade-oriented. We really have a very small domestic market, certainly not enough to sustain us.

Later in his lecture he makes comments on some of the obvious things. "The pine beetle disaster, a forest health issue of unprecedented scope." That's what he calls it — the pine beetle disaster. He speaks of the challenges in addressing regional impacts and dislocation, developing "replacement" economic activity in the infected regions and nurturing non-forestry export sectors for British Columbia.

In the budget speech the government, faced with this calamity in forests that for…. Any of those members who represent constituents outside the lower mainland, lower Vancouver Island and perhaps the Okanagan Valley will immediately recognize the obvious statements that he has made here.

It's very disturbing and very lacking in leadership in the budget for the government on this important file to have nothing other than: "There's going to be a

[ Page 9814 ]

round table. We're hoping the federal government will bring some money, and we have the will to find some solutions." That really, I think, for most people throughout the province, other than in the metropolitan areas I've listed just moments ago, is very cold comfort.

Given the regulatory and business tools that the government has and has had at its disposal since 2003 and the major changes in the forestry legislation, I think that really is an indictment of their failed policies on this file.

[1440]

Now, sometimes what the government likes to point to in this jurisdiction in British Columbia is that while so-called traditional industries may be declining, the high-technology industries are going to replace forestry. There's a new growth of new industry, and that will replace those industries. He, given his audience there perhaps, did address that sector.

What's striking about B.C. high-tech as a percentage of the provincial gross domestic product is that essentially, despite some modest improvements in the late '90s, I think, it has been flat from 2000 to 2006

— 5.2 percent in 2000, 5.1 percent in 2002, 5.3 in 2003, climbing to 5.5 in 2004, declining to 5.2 and 5.1. Now, the most recent year, it's 5.2 percent.

In an area of the economy that's often touted as the future of the economy, providing new growth, new jobs and creating the kind of economic dynamism that will replace some of the so-called — and I don't agree with this categorization — traditional industries of the province…. It's essentially been flat.

That really is, again, disturbing, and I think this view was captured by Vancouver city councillor Peter Ladner. He is a member of a political grouping that's certainly not the same as the members on this side of the House, although he's a well-respected city councillor and owner of a newspaper that comments regularly on business matters.

In an

article in B.C. Business in August 2007, talking about the regional economy in the lower mainland

— but I think this applies even more so now to the broader economy across the province — he warns: "But all booms end, and when you look beyond real estate speculations and one-time Olympics construction, our productivity is declining, our research-driven high-growth 'new' industries are lagging behind their competitors, and head office employment is declining." To continue with the quotation: "The foundations of all this growing wealth — they're shaky at best."

So there's someone who I don't think is politically aligned with the opposition, who understands, though, the economy not only in the lower mainland but throughout the province. His professional life is involved in commenting on newspaper and other economic matters. And that's his view of where the economy is at.

He echoes the same concern that Mr. Finlayson expresses about the absence of real growth in the new industries — the so-called high-tech sector. There are some measures in the budget that certainly look at the film sector, which was the subject of targeted tax relief by the previous NDP governments. That tradition has continued.

Certainly, giving credit for the labour component was particularly innovative, but that's been modelled elsewhere, and it's very competitive between jurisdictions to attract the film business to this province. That competition continues, but we have established an industry here in the 1990s. It hasn't been driven away. It hasn't grown to the extent that it now supplants other more traditional industries of the province.

[1445]

There was a discussion by some thinkers in the city of Vancouver and the region about how to make the lower mainland a more effective and dynamic area economically.

Professor Muzyka, who's the dean of commerce at the faculty of commerce at the University of British Columbia and was at that point the chair of the board of trade in Vancouver, endeavoured, beginning in 2005, to create a regional development mechanism in order to, as many other jurisdictions do very effectively, begin to think seriously about how we face the competitive challenges of a global economy. He met with a lack of interest on the part of the business community, no support from the Minister of Economic Development, and the project has simply fallen away.

That's notwithstanding that, for example, the B.C. Progress Board says the following in one of its recent reports. I'm going to quote: "Competitive economies of the next few decades will be underpinned to a considerable extent by city states in many instances. This implies that the lower mainland will need to cooperate much more closely to increase regional competitiveness, especially with respect to the critical factors and activities that underpin economic development activities."

The Premier's own economic Progress Board has given this advice. The dean of commerce at the faculty of commerce at UBC has given this advice. Has the Minister of Economic Development, has the Finance Minister…? Is that reflected anywhere in the budget? The kinds of regional economic groupings that are necessary, the serious thinking, the inventory, the opportunity to build the economic clusters that Michael Porter of Harvard University talks about…. Is there any serious interest in that in the budget? There's none whatsoever.

That's particularly disturbing at a time when the economic ground is shifting under our feet, and those kinds of initiatives are going to become more important, not less important. Every informed observer in these matters takes that seriously, but apparently, the message hasn't gotten through to the government.

I guess that if we are to create a competitive, innovative, dynamic and egalitarian economy here…. Egalitarian economies are generally considered to be more efficient because when you don't have the same great disparities of income between people, you have greater social harmony and there's less social dislocation. The Premier's Progress Board confirms that.

If you look at jurisdictions like Finland or Taiwan, those are very effective by any economic measure.

[ Page 9815 ]

Finland is a country, granted culturally homogenous for the most part, except perhaps in the north, where there are some aboriginal people…. It is regarded by most measures of economic effectiveness and competitiveness as being one of the leading economies in the world. It has a population of slightly over four million, and it offers examples that we might do well to consider.

The forest sector in Finland has four of the leading ten international companies in forestry. The research component of what those companies do dwarfs anything that takes place here, and certainly, the opportunity to build a globally leading forest sector here in British Columbia has been completely missed. Indeed, we're heading in the other direction.

What little manufacturing we had in terms of even rudimentary milling is disappearing with the end of appurtenancy. Remanufacturing operations are experiencing a shortage of log supply and cost pressures. They're experiencing difficulty, and increasingly, the forest sector in this province is reduced to export of raw, unprocessed logs. That's a long way from the achievements of the highly competitive world-leading forestry companies that are based in Finland, a population of about the same size as British Columbia.

[1450]

There are other voices that speak of this direction and other advice that's been offered and not acted upon by the government in this budget — for example, research investment. The Premier's own technology council in its recent report speaks of research investment, and they have something to offer. I'm going to quote from their report. "Research investment is the most important direct contributor to innovation and commercialization. Currently B.C.'s investment in research accounts for only 1.5 percent of the province's GDP, compared to Ontario 2.4 percent, Quebec 2.7, California 4.1 and Massachusetts 5.3 percent."

The PTC, the Premier's Technology Council, believes that British Columbia should establish a long-term strategic target of raising R-and-D investment to 4.5 percent of GDP, with 65 percent of this coming from the private sector.

So it's not necessarily a government-led initiative, but it's a question of setting a strategic direction, having some leadership from the Premier, from the Minister of Finance and from the Minister of Economic Development about the economic challenges that this province faces and setting some targets in this area, rather than….

This obviously would require some spending. This can't be achieved simply through tax cuts. There is a role for state leadership in this endeavour. This is very clear from the Finnish example, from the Taiwanese example and from other examples of small, competitive, innovative, vigorous economies throughout the world.

I'm going to continue reading from the Premier's technology report.

"To spearhead this initiative, we've proposed the creation of a new ministry of research and talent. As universities are central to creating clusters" — by clusters they're referring to the economic clusters that Prof. Michael Porter speaks about — "we also recommend that the province must set the goal of making one of them a top-20 global institution and develop plans to attract new faculty and graduate students. Finally, to capitalize on creativity, university and industry liaison arrangements need to be more uniform to reduce the current complexity involved in sharing marketable ideas."

That goal of choosing one of B.C.'s universities and setting a target for it of being one of the top 20 universities in British Columbia has not gone unremarked.

Prof. Stephen Toope at the University of British Columbia…. I express no bias here, but I happen to be a graduate of UBC. I think that in one of the e-mails that they send out regularly to graduates, he has already addressed this issue. He's prepared to take up the challenge. No doubt, the professors, the leadership and the president of Simon Fraser are similarly prepared to do that, as would be the professors or the presidents of University of Victoria and University of Northern British Columbia.

Certainly, it's a question of setting those kinds of economic goals — 4.5 percent of GDP devoted to research and development, to create a world-leading university. I'm not disparaging any of the universities in this province, but they can do more and are willing to do more.

We haven't seen that kind of leadership from the government. This budget, as we head into an economic downturn, doesn't have much to offer.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I'm just reflecting the opinion of expert economists rather than the untutored opinions of those members opposite. I'm speaking of one member in particular, whose name I won't dignify by placing it on the Hansard record.

I want to continue, though, with this report of the Premier's Technology Council, because again, this is advice that the government has set up to take and provide. They apparently aren't prepared to act on this advice.

[1455]

They have some suggestions on how to attract what they call the best and the brightest talent. They say that "high-tech firms often have difficulties in attracting high-quality personnel as well as senior executives. Through its extensive consultations, the Premier's Technology Council has learned that housing costs, taxation levels and immigrant approval processes are barriers to the inflow of talent."

They have some suggestions about how the government might tackle that. None of those are forthcoming in the Speech from the Throne, none of those are forthcoming in the budget, and I await some action by the government on that account.

I think that's particularly important when we look at the general economic landscape here in the province, as the temperature cools somewhat in the United States and we look for solutions to keep this economy going in a way that it won't as world commodity prices decline.

On the other side of the social equation, another area where the government and the throne speech and the budget in particular were notably deficient was in

[ Page 9816 ]

the area of poverty reduction. What has become very evident is that this issue has become virtually a post-partisan issue. Governments across the country of different political views have taken leadership on this issue.

Premier Danny Williams, who's a Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, has taken personal ownership of the target of reducing long-term poverty in Newfoundland. When you look at his home page on his website, that's one of the things that pops up. That's something he is personally committed to. That's a leadership position. We've heard nothing like that from this government at all. It simply doesn't appear to be a priority.

Jean Charest, a Liberal Premier of Quebec, has a strategy to reduce poverty — social exclusion is how it's described there — similarly placed high up on the political agenda, a target for leadership at the provincial level in Quebec.

Premier Dalton McGuinty, the newly re-elected Liberal Premier of Ontario, has signalled his intention by November 2008 to have a detailed poverty reduction program in place with targets and a strategy.

This approach of targeting those on the margins of society, the poor in our society, is something that a number of governments across the country have taken on, but there doesn't seem to be, judging from the complete absence of mentioning it in the throne speech or in the budget, a priority in any way for this government.

It's significant, I think, that Judith Maxwell — who's a former senior policy person in Ottawa and who chaired the Economic Council of Canada at one point, I believe — has said that given some of the measures that the federal government has taken, coordination between the federal government and the provincial government programs would be advantageous in order to make that kind of a strategy effective. That's what she's advocating, and she speaks of these three provincial governments positively as a goal that should be achieved.

I'm optimistic that the government of British Columbia, the Minister of Finance and the Premier, in particular, will accept the challenge that's been, I suppose, indirectly raised by other Premiers across the country and take this on as a strategic priority.

[1500]

If I might respond to some of the comments that were made by the minister earlier in question period today on this topic, since I'm on this topic. Judith Maxwell says:

"The road to poverty reduction goes far beyond raising social assistance rates. It is primarily an investment in programs and services that get adults off welfare and out of working poverty. It means targeting extra supports to put children and youth, especially aboriginal children and youth, on a path to economic independence."

She goes on to say:

"This agenda creates immense challenges for governments. It forces them to break down the silos between ministries in order to create citizen-centred programs and services. It forces them to think clearly about what their targets are and how they will measure progress. And most difficult of all, it seems, it forces them to coordinate provincial and federal initiatives."

That's a senior economic policy person advocating that provincial governments across the country take some leadership of this issue, but there's nothing in this budget to address that at all in any way. That's rather disappointing, to say the least. This view of the social condition is not something that is generated on this side of the House. Indeed, I've been guided in my thinking about this by the B.C. Progress Board, the Premier's own Progress Board, in its report of December 15, 2006.

The Progress Board was so struck by the long-term persistence of the proportion of British Columbians living below the Statistics Canada low-income threshold…. They were so struck that they commissioned a special report — a senior economist and sociologist, I believe, from Ontario — to look at this and find out what might be the reasons for this persistence and how the government might address it. So far, no action has been taken.

This is something that is known to the government. It makes it a little bit harder to ignore, I would think, given that it's the very board that's struck to advise the Premier and the cabinet on economic directions for the province. I think it's relatively hard to ignore when you have this body populated by those who the government presumably has sufficient confidence to appoint to the board making these statements.

What they say is:

"Low income matters for two reasons. First, equality of opportunity is an important goal in British Columbia. 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.

"Second, governments and society as a

whole bear important collective costs that flow from high levels of economic marginalization in the province."

I'll just repeat that.

"Secondly, governments and society as a whole bear important collective costs that flow from high levels of economic marginalization in the province. The fact that one in ten British Columbians lives on the economic margins for extended periods stands as a pressing policy challenge."

That's the Premier's own Progress Board report on the social conditions in British Columbia. Are there any programs in the throne speech to address that? Is there a strategy in the budget? Are there any long-term goals on poverty reduction? Absolutely not. It's not because the cabinet and the government don't know about this.

The Premier's own Progress Board has very carefully, in a detailed report that's about 50 pages, set out all the statistics. It's overwhelmingly convincing. The evidence is there. The consequences, particularly to children, are there. This is not just some advocacy group — although they do great work; I often take much advice from advocacy groups — that the government can simply brush aside. This is the Premier's own B.C. progress report on the social conditions in British Columbia.

I look forward to a budget and a throne speech which begin to address that pressing problem in our society. This throne speech and this budget — this

[ Page 9817 ]

budget in particular, since that's the one we're debating — does not address that. That's one of the reasons — that policy failure, that failure of political leadership — that I won't be supporting the budget when it comes to a vote in this House.

[1505]

I want to move on now to other topics that are raised by the tabling of the documents associated with the budget. One of those documents that were tabled at the time of the budget was the service plan and the prospective budget for B.C. Hydro. What is clear is that for British Columbia ratepayers, British Columbia consumers — those of us who pay our hydro bills every month or two — rates are going up very dramatically. The budget shows in some of the ancillary documents to it that Hydro customers in B.C. will see a rate hike of 24 percent compounded over the next three years.

What is clear from the budgetary documents is that the artificial constraints that have been placed upon B.C. Hydro the definition of self-sufficiency that has been torqued beyond economic rationality in order to create a market for independent power producer power — are now resulting in rate hikes to consumers.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I detect some grumbling on the other side. I suppose they can't take the truth. But it's very clear that that's what's happened to the great, the proud — the crown jewel of British Columbia — B.C. Hydro. These artificial limits that have been placed upon it to cover the costs of uneconomic, inefficient and environmentally destructive private power projects are now coming home to roost. These rate increases, I dare say, are the first of many that will come about.

Private power or hydro power in British Columbia has been part of the successful economic strategy set in place by W.A.C. Bennett. W.A.C. Bennett created B.C. Hydro by expropriation — not that I suppose members opposite would have supported it at that time. Maybe they did. I don't know. But that was a taking by the state of B.C. Electric — formerly a private company — expropriating it and turning it to public purposes.

What is clear is that that legacy is being eroded in order to create artificial limits — directives to the B.C. Utilities Commission to create artificially inflated prices for power that ratepayers here in British Columbia will have to pay over the long term.

At a time when our economy is going to be tested, at a time when we're facing the prospect of cooling growth in the United States and its consequences here, that economic advantage for businesses, for ratepayers here in British Columbia, is being systematically and deliberately lost. That is a policy failure. That's the wrong direction that this government is taking on this issue. The B.C. budget and the ancillary documents that are tabled with it confirm that those power rates are going to increase over the next three years and will continue to increase.

The other topic that I want to address — part of the general economic and social climate here in the province, which is again not addressed in the budget — is any initiatives for public safety in the province. One of the things that attract people to continue to live and work in big cities in our province and indeed throughout the world is a sense of personal security and safety as they go about their daily business.

[1510]

What has happened recently — and I think the Attorney General can confirm this and will confirm this — is that the unprecedented spate of gang shootings, notwithstanding the best efforts of the police, is leading people to become increasingly concerned about safety in our cities.

I recently hosted an event in my constituency with Eileen Mohan, whose son Chris Mohan, and with Steve Brown, whose brother-in-law Ed Schellenberg…. Both were innocent bystanders in a gang shooting and were slain along with four other young men in an apartment building in Surrey. The consequences and the ripple effect and the kind of impact that has on our communities are difficult to describe.

In talking with Eileen Mohan, certainly no one expects to bring up their son or daughter to encounter that fate at such a young age. It's obviously and simply a tragedy, but I think it speaks of a larger public concern that people have, and there's nothing in the budget to address that.

The throne speech talks about creating a sentencing commission, a slight shift in policy on regional policing perhaps and a prospect of some further studies down the road, sometime in the autumn of this year. That doesn't address what citizens, certainly in the lower mainland, are experiencing and wondering about.

It doesn't address, I think, the growing problem that we may be building in terms of our reputation nationally and that may spill out over, unfortunately — I hope not — into our reputation internationally. Those are not things that we want to be known for, obviously. Citizens don't want to have that kind of fear, that kind of anxiety, that kind of worry when they go about their daily lives in the cities and towns of our province. The government hasn't taken a leadership position on this issue. There are things that could be done. Certainly, the police forces have some strong suggestions.

One suggestion was that in Quebec, when gang warfare became very open and there were a number of public shootings and tragic killings of innocent bystanders, the state…. The province of Quebec devoted more resources to policing and to prosecution and made a very determined fight against criminal gangs in Quebec. I think it has, by all measures, succeeded in eliminating most of the gang warfare with a series of high-profile trials and convictions of those responsible for much of the violence in Quebec.

Again, it's something that's missing from the budget and that's missing from the throne speech for the most part. It's something that people really want to hear about and are looking for leadership on. There's nothing in the budget speech from the Finance Minister that even begins to address those concerns.

[ Page 9818 ]

With those comments on the budget, I will conclude my remarks and give the floor over to the next member of the Legislature who rises to speak.

J. Yap: It's my honour to rise and speak on this budget. But first of all, I want to acknowledge a number of key people who help me in the work that I do here as a member of this House: my constituency assistants Paige Robertson and PoWah Ng in Richmond, and in Victoria my executive assistant Nicole Hamilton and communication officer and research officer Sarah Morris and Justin Molander.

These are the people who work hard to help me here, and I thank them for their diligence and support. They help make me look good, and I appreciate their support.

[1515]

Madam Speaker, we continue to make great progress in British Columbia, in spite of the fairly subdued and gloomy presentation by the speaker before me, the member for Surrey-Whalley. I believe this is a visionary budget that supports a visionary agenda for our province. This is a fitting position for the people of B.C. as we celebrate this year our 150th anniversary of being a province. On behalf of my constituents from the great riding of Richmond-Steveston, I am proud to endorse and support this budget, which I believe will continue to move B.C. forward.

We've come a long way with our economy, now one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in Canada. After a dismal decade of the 1990s, when the NDP were in power and B.C. went from first to worst…. When the rest of the world was doing well, B.C. went from first to worst. But thanks to the hard work of British Columbians and our B.C. Liberal government's policies, B.C. is now back, and we are truly in the midst of a golden decade in British Columbia.

We are blessed to live in a truly special part of the world — I believe the best place on earth. However, with this blessing comes a responsibility, which we all share, to deal with the effects of global warming. Climate change is the challenge of our times. It is a priority for British Columbians and a priority for our government.

I support the proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax, which will be a first step to reduce the carbon footprints we leave on this earth. This carbon tax will be implemented, as laid out in the budget, in a fiscally responsible manner phased in over the next four years.

The budget calls for the carbon tax to be offset fully by reductions in personal and corporate income taxes. I applaud the Minister of Finance for balancing the priority to deal with climate change with the priority to ensure that our economy remains strong. The Minister of Finance said it perfectly. A strong economy is fundamental to everything we do.

Our economy is on a roll. I realize that the member for Surrey-Whalley was trying to paint a gloomy picture, but actually things are going well for the province of British Columbia. British Columbians today are confident and optimistic about their economic future. Business confidence is high. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business continuously surveys its members, and for five years in a row, B.C. firms are the most optimistic in the country by a wide margin.

The Conference Board of Canada, in their fall 2007 Provincial Outlook , forecasts continued strong economic growth for B.C. This was in the fall of 2007 when we all were aware of the situation in the United States, which the member for Surrey-Whalley referred to. Unemployment at 4 percent in British Columbia is a historic low — among the best in Canada, the national average being almost 6 percent. Conversely, employment is at record highs, a far cry from the 1990s when we had high unemployment and we were losing people seeking work to other jurisdictions. That was the case in the 1990s — the dismal '90s.

We have a record high of 64 percent employment of our population. In December 2007 alone, B.C. added 12,000 full-time jobs. This past month, January 2008, our economy continued to grow.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Yap: The employment rate grew by 2.4 percent, implying that 53,000 more people were employed, compared to January one year ago. Since December 2001…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me.

Member. Member.

J. Yap: …400,000 new jobs have been created in B.C.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, Chair.

Deputy Speaker: You can apologize.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I want to hear the debate. I cannot hear the debate when….

Deputy Speaker: Member, have you heard me? You can apologize.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I will apologize when I can hear the debate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Unequivocal.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I apologize unequivocally, but I would like to hear the debate.

Interjection.

[ Page 9819 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I apologize unequivocally.

[1520]

J. Yap: We're now in the fortunate position of, instead of people looking for jobs, jobs looking for people. We have the challenge of meeting increasing needs for skilled labour in many sectors, thanks to the strong economy. Business creation and investment in B.C. continue to increase.

The member for Surrey-Whalley lamented that high-tech was really not doing as well as we believe it is. Well, I have something to say. Microsoft will be investing in our province, in my community in Richmond, and will create 700 jobs — that little company, Microsoft. Whether it's Microsoft investing in Richmond and British Columbia or the record number of small businesses that start in our province, investors are showing their confidence in B.C. and choosing to do business here.

Indeed, the small business sector, the backbone of our economy, has been thriving. Between 2001 and 2006 small business growth was 11 percent. That's growth of 11 percent, more than triple the national average of 3.6 percent. The number of new business incorporations in my community of Richmond has increased every year under our government with an all-time record reported in 2006.

The member for Surrey-Whalley talked about experts around the world suggesting that British Columbia could have some issues. I would like to refer to a release by the MasterCard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index. MasterCard Worldwide listed Metro Vancouver among its top 50 worldwide centres of commerce — cities that drive global commerce. Vancouver was ranked number one in Canada ahead of Toronto and Montreal. It's another endorsement of the great progress that we're making here in British Columbia.

Evidence of this progress is everywhere. Walk along No. 3 Road, the main road in Richmond, and you see our community being transformed by the new Canada line, new developments, highrises and construction of new facilities, both residential and commercial.

Take a drive through the expanding commercial and industrial parks throughout Metro Vancouver, and you see signs of expansion and growth everywhere. Let your fingers do the walking, and you see the career pages of the newspapers with pages and pages of unfilled job vacancies.

Our mining exploration sector, so much a part of our history, recorded its best year ever in 2007 — $416 million in annual economic activity, an increase of 57 percent over 2006 and 1,300 percent over 2001.

The oil and gas industry also had a record year in 2007, surpassing $1 billion in rights sales, shattering the previous record of $647 million in 2003.

The high-tech sector, which I mentioned, continues to thrive. This is what the president of Microsoft Canada, Phil Sorgen, had to say about Microsoft's reasons for investing in B.C. "We have burgeoning high-tech and software industries and a globally envied quality of life, and our cities represent exactly the kind of environment that leading information workers want to live in. This centre will help Microsoft remain globally competitive while providing strong economic benefits to B.C. and Canada."

The retail sector is strong — in fact, so strong that it's the rare retail shop that is not seeking more employees to meet with the record level of business volumes. To quote Mark Startup, Retail B.C. president, in the The Vancouver Sun recently: "We're firing on all cylinders, and almost every category is strong right now. We haven't seen as many communities reporting positive growth during my whole time here at Retail B.C., which is over a quarter of a century."

British Columbia is a trading province. We always have been, and we always will be. Our future prosperity as a people depends on expanding our trade opportunities. As this millennium continues to unfold, B.C. is well positioned as Canada's only Pacific province — that's right; we're Canada's only Pacific province — to benefit from the great economic transformation that is happening in the Asia-Pacific, including China and India and the other Asia-Pacific countries.

[1525]

The budget earmarks $30 million in funding to further promote our business, trade and cultural links with the Asia-Pacific region. I know this will make a major difference in ensuring that we continue to make gains in Asia-Pacific trade.

The growth is impressive. The member for Surrey-Whalley was trying to minimize the extent of this. But let me share with you, Madam Speaker, that the export trade with the Asia-Pacific region has grown steadily from $6.9 billion in 2001 to almost $10 billion in 2006. Through the Asia-Pacific Initiative our government has made trade development with the economies of the region a priority, and this budget affirms this priority.

My community, Richmond, is uniquely positioned to contribute to this growth in the Asia-Pacific trade. We have in Richmond a sizeable immigrant population, many of whom have ongoing family and business links with their countries of origin. The budget refers to strengthening the International Financial Centre program further, and I applaud this because this will enhance B.C.'s position as a business centre in the global economy, which is so important in this day and age.

The budget reflects continued sound management of public finances. Through effective leadership and management we have moved our province away from the reckless deficit spending of the 1990s to consecutive fiscal surpluses, with this year's being the fifth surplus budget delivered by our government. Public debt is being carefully managed, with the ratio of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP steadily decreasing.

B.C.'s strong economic performance has gained international recognition. In 2007 Standard and Poor's, the debt-rating agency, upgraded our province's debt rating to triple-A, the best possible rating. This is what they said. Standard and Poor's cited strong

[ Page 9820 ]

budgetary performance, strong management culture and improved transparency as reasons for the upgrade.

This is what the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. had to say. This is from their CEO, Richard Rees, about B.C.'s improved economy. He said this recently: "B.C.'s chartered accountants believe that government policy has influenced the province's strong economic performance. In particular, lower business and personal tax rates and a reduction of red tape have played an important role in encouraging both people and investment to the province."

The power of a strong economy is in the jobs that it creates. The power of a strong economy is in the opportunities for building on our shared progress as a province. The power of a strong economy is in the revenues to government that allow us to invest in the priorities important to British Columbians. This budget, all $37.7 billion of it, earmarks investments in the priority areas of British Columbians — priority areas like health care.

Our strong economy has allowed us to continue to make historic high levels of investments in health care. We have a great health care system that is there for those who need it. I am pleased to see the government's commitment to ensuring that our public health care system remains well funded, with two-thirds of all new spending to be allocated to our public health care system. The budget provides for investments in vital research areas such as Genome B.C., brain research, cancer research, and hip health and osteoporosis research.

The budget increases, as well, the funding in that other important area, K-to-12 education and advanced education. We're investing more than ever in our public, elementary and secondary school system, even though student enrolment is declining. I am pleased to see the increased funding for expansion of the number of preschool StrongStart programs to 400, which will help build literacy in the early childhood years, which is so important.

I have had the opportunity to visit schools in my community with these early literacy programs in action, and they are invaluable. We're investing significantly in advanced education, in keeping with our commitment to add 25,000 new post-secondary spaces throughout the province.

This budget provides the unprecedented increase in training that is underway in our province. We are training more doctors, more nurses and more trades apprentices today than we ever have in our history.

[1530]

Of course, the budget puts our province at the forefront in the battle against climate change, with major initiatives to encourage British Columbians to transition to a lower-carbon-emissions way of life.

British Columbians care deeply about the environment, about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on our climate. With this budget our government takes specific, targeted action to lead the change, to lead the transformation which people expect and want. This budget includes initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, to invest in green technologies and to encourage energy conservation.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Our strong economy allows us to expand public transportation. Our government has committed to the largest-ever investment in public transit in Metro Vancouver, the Okanagan, Greater Victoria and other areas of the province — $14 billion over the next 12 years. This is a visionary transit plan that will help improve the movement of people and goods to further spur the economy and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The link is obvious. If we can encourage more urban commuters to use public transit, there will be fewer cars on the road, and carbon emissions will be reduced. This is what is envisioned for Richmond with the arrival of the Canada line.

The Canada line is progressing well. In fact, just yesterday the last concrete block was put into place on the southernmost end of the No. 3 Road guideway of the Canada line. It is on

schedule and on budget. Even though the Canada line is not scheduled to be completed until 2009, already there are a multitude of residential developments that have been built, are underway or are planned to be built in the next while, transforming the downtown skyline of my community, Richmond.

This budget makes significant provisions for supporting the arts and culture in B.C., so important to the vitality of communities throughout our province. I know that British Columbians will be very creative and innovative as we celebrate our 150th anniversary this year.

The new BC150 cultural trust fund will go a long way to providing funding for the arts and culture this special year and into the future. Along with my constituents, I am personally looking forward to the BC150 celebration called Rivermania, which will happen on September 28 at Garry Point Park in Steveston in my community, which I've previously talked about in this House. As well, the $105 million for arts and culture projects will truly help honour and celebrate our shared heritage and history.

B.C. is the destination of choice for business and investment. This budget will help maintain this for the benefit of all British Columbians. This budget will ensure continued confidence in our economic prospects. This budget will meet the needs, the hopes, the aspirations and the dreams of British Columbians.

This budget will ensure that B.C. remains competitive. In a global economy — and this is one point where I agree with the previous speaker; we are in a global economy — it's essential that we keep B.C. competitive.

Since 2001 our government has reduced personal income tax rates, and with the further income tax rates with this budget, we will have in B.C. the lowest marginal rates anywhere in Canada for those earning up to $111,000. Individuals earning up to $16,000 per annum will pay zero income tax, and 250,000 British Columbians benefit from this.

While income tax rates have been reduced, we have seen overall personal incomes rise thanks to the strong economy. Personal incomes have been rising steadily since 2001, with the 7.4 percent increase in 2006 the highest ever. What a turnaround from the 1990s, when average take-home pay per person dropped by $1,738 under the NDP, when B.C. had some of the highest personal income tax rates in the country.

[ Page 9821 ]

As I said, B.C. is back. This budget will ensure that our future as a people and as a province under this government will continue to be bright. I agree with the Minister of Finance when she says we should not have to choose between a strong economy and dealing with climate change. This is a budget which achieves both objectives in a thoughtful, balanced way.

[1535]

In closing, I am proud to support this budget. This budget will set British Columbia on a transformative path to a better place — to take action as a people; to deal with the challenge of our times; to make our lives better, healthier and enlightened — for a world that will be better for our children and our children's children. This is a budget for the times, and I thank the Minister of Finance for her vision, her wisdom and her contributions to the province.

N. Simons: It's my honour and privilege to stand here and respond to the budget that was presented in the House yesterday. I'd like to take this opportunity to warn the sensitive members on the government side that it might not all be positive. So in case it catches them off guard, in case they think that maybe I'm going to be pointing out like the advertorial we just heard, that is not going to be the case. I might actually even point to certain issues that seem to be completely forgotten in the government's mind and in their actions.

There's a disconnect between their advertisement in the throne speech and the actual delivery in the budget speech. Some of the most startling contradictions are the ones that I'd like to point out to the people of the province. They are already, I believe, starting to question whether all the gloss and shine is not actually covering up something more deep and concerning to the people of British Columbia — and sinister, in fact, with the level of poverty that exists in this province.

Are we actually seeing an increase in the disparate earnings of the rich and the poor? Are we actually seeing that gap expanding, and what is the consequence of that? That's the larger issue.

The specific issues brought to the House's attention by previous speakers are quotes from corporations that are pleased with certain aspects of the budget. What I'd like to do is represent the community that I have been elected by, and that is the community of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

It's a community that has, like many other communities in rural British Columbia, been absolutely left out of this budget for a number of reasons. Some of them are obvious, and some of them need to be pointed out. I don't know if the…. We'll see.

The first one I'd like to bring up is that the disconnection between the throne speech and the budget was the issue of Jordan's principle. For those of you who don't know about Jordan's principle, Jordan was a little first nations child in Manitoba who was born with severe health problems which caused him to have to live in a major urban city, near a hospital — in a hospital, in fact.

He was approximately two when he was able to return home, but due to government infighting — provincial and federal governments trying to argue on who was responsible for the payments for that child's care…. Because of that dispute, Jordan remained in hospital, where he died two years later. The principle says that as a consequence of the attention brought to that particular case, we are to look after the children first and worry about the funding for that child's care later.

It was probably a hastily added

section of the throne speech, because it doesn't show any reflection in the budget. I don't know if this is something that was deliberate or not. It certainly was a recent decision of this government to support Jordan's principle, but unfortunately, I believe they support the principle in principle. That doesn't get first nations children anywhere closer to the level of care that is offered off reserve.

I think that Jordan's principle, which requires that the federal and provincial government not argue over the funding for a child's care, should be implemented. Unfortunately, there's no indication in the budget that adequate resources will be put in place to achieve that particular goal.

Right now there are 25 delegated first nations child welfare agencies in the province that are operating on federal funding. The federal funding is specifically for services on reserve. Unfortunately, many of the services on reserve aren't able to meet the service levels that are provided off reserve, and that disparity is what's supposed to be addressed by the implementation and the endorsement of Jordan's principle.

[1540]

The federal government and, unanimously, the federal parliament supported Jordan's principle. British Columbia should be the first province to do so, and I encourage the province to actually put that into effect. But it will require more than words. It will require more than a simple "we agree with the principle."

It will require resources, it will require energy, and it will require a commitment, in fact, to try to level the disparities that exist now. I am afraid that I have not seen any evidence that the commitment is there beyond the words.

Jordan's principle, which will actually allow children in British Columbia to receive care wherever they live, should be endorsed by this government. They've said that they would, but there is no indication in the budget that they are prepared to do so.

I believe it's partly because they don't really know what it meant. I believe that it was added on at such a late date in the process that they actually did not do due diligence and figure out that it would require serious consideration. In fact, what we heard the government say is that they want to start negotiating with the federal government about Jordan's principle.

That is exactly what the principle is attempting to get rid of — that negotiation first. We don't need to negotiate whether a child should receive medical care or social services that will allow them to live a healthy life. We need that service provided first.

The discussions between the federal and the provincial government should happen after. Right after

[ Page 9822 ]

this government said that they would endorse Jordan's principle, they said that they would also start negotiating with the federal government. Their first test — and they failed. I would just point out that despite the words, we as British Columbians expect some action behind those words.

A number of issues specifically affecting the Powell River–Sunshine Coast area…. It's a beautiful area, and it has remarkable people who are very involved in the community and very active in the issues that we face. If I could just bring up a few issues specific to the government's apparent commitment to communities that are carbon-smart.

If I may read from the throne speech. This is the part where I'm actually reading government writing, so the members from the government side might want to hear that. "Carbon-smart communities are energy-smart, water-smart, health-smart and resource-smart."

Yet this is the same government that on the Sunshine Coast allowed massive clearcuts under the Private Managed Forest Land Act, which this government essentially set up, to denude the landscape to such an extent that the impacts on our water supply are unknown. This is a government that allows a regulatory regime to exist in this province that potentially threatens water supply. The contradictions between the words and the actions are apparent. That is a simple example. The watershed on the Sunshine Coast, the Chapman-Gray watershed, provides 85 percent of our community with their drinking water.

This is a historical dispute between various levels of government. The first nations in Sechelt consider it part of their traditional territory — and should. I know that the first nations government is concerned about protecting water source.

I think that's a good sign, because right now there's very little in government legislation that allows communities to have control over their water. They are required under various pieces of legislation to protect the quality of water leaving the water treatment plant, yet they have absolutely no control whatsoever on what happens to the water before it goes into the treatment plant.

While the liability rests with local government, the provincial government puts them in a position to not have any control whatsoever on various impacts of that water before it reaches the water treatment plant.

Yes, I agree with the government that carbon-smart communities are water-smart communities. But you can't say that and then undercut the ability of those communities to be water-smart. There's a distinct break in logic here between what the government says in their flowery words and what they actually produce in terms of legislation.

[1545]

There are a number of other issues that specifically concern residents of the Sunshine Coast and Powell River and rural communities across the province. May I bring up the issue of meat regulations, the new regulations requiring all livestock to be processed in a government-approved abattoir?

In my constituency there is nobody who is against protecting our food sources or the quality of our food. We, in fact, are all encouraging of government to make sure that it reflects the needs of our communities, however. That hasn't been reflected in the meat regulations as brought forward by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

When a government says to a community that they need to be carbon-smart, one shouldn't, on the other hand, also require everyone who is raising chickens, sheep or beef to take those animals, put them on the ferry, bring them over to Vancouver Island — emitting who knows how much carbon emissions — and bring them back for sale.

This is a complete contradiction. We are, on the one hand, encouraging less driving — or making it expensive — at the same time as reducing the ability of communities to adapt to the changes that they are putting forth.

Let me just read from a letter from the Powell River Farmers Institute, in part to the government but also to other people hoping to raise attention to this particular issue. "While the cost of fossil fuels needed to transport animals and animal product rises, the idea of a mobile abattoir may be interesting. But this solution's problematic to the actual needs of the smallhold farmer."

This brings up the fact that solutions have been sought by the community; solutions have not been found by the community. Now the government is backing away, and there's no funding to allow them to find a solution. The problems of disposal of offal and other by-products of the slaughter process have not been fully discussed or acknowledged.

Finding a solution to meet the needs of local farmers or smallhold farmers is an important one. We were talking about…. This is the 150th anniversary of British Columbia's history since contact, and it's a celebration of everything that British Columbians have done for 150 years. At the core of that, I would submit, is the raising and the production of animals for our sustenance and our nourishment.

Here we have what is potentially the end of the family farm in British Columbia with the banning of farm-gate sales. There have not been examples good enough to explain why this new regulatory regime, this increase in regulation, is going to meet the needs of farmers or the people who buy products from farmers. While it's a local issue and an issue for farmers, it's also an issue that we have to consider in terms of climate change.

We, as a society, are more and more aware of the need to produce food locally so that we don't have to rely on massive transportation infrastructure to transport our day-to-day food products. That's just another contradiction. On the one hand, you have a government extolling the virtues of carbon-friendly communities while, on the other hand, implementing or allowing legislation to continue to exist that makes it difficult for communities to do so.

Transit is another issue that I believe residents in my constituency are concerned about. Many people have called the budget a lower mainland budget. I would like to see the issue of transportation in rural

[ Page 9823 ]

communities be addressed, because what we have now is people relying a lot on cars. Nobody's arguing about the need to reduce our reliance on cars, but in the rural communities, where there may be four or five buses coming every hour or two, the options are not good.

When the roads are built in such a way as to be primarily, if not solely, for the automobile and truck, we have options of bicycling and walking that are not there. Transit — if that's not there as well, then it almost becomes…. The budget becomes a guilt trip, saying: "You have to do this. If you don't do it, you're not getting our help."

[1550]

If the province could actually invest in rural transportation infrastructure so that people in rural parts of our province can get around safely and efficiently, that would be a good start towards reducing their reliance on the automobile.

I was particularly intrigued by the discovery of the ability of people to walk to school. That ties directly into that whole issue of transportation. Yes, we should encourage children to walk to school. Yes, we should encourage physical activity. But I would submit that parents of children who are walking to school would like to know that the roads on which they are walking are safe. If the infrastructure does not exist for safe travel to school, then that needs to be designed. That needs to be encouraged, and that is not something I've seen in this government's commitment.

There was a reference in the throne speech to being generationally selfish. A number of things. If we didn't do this or if we didn't do that, then we could be accused of being generationally selfish.

The issue of independent power production, the issue of run of the river — it's not a simple issue. However, what is simple is the fact that these power production sources are using the common wealth of British Columbians, and what I don't see is how those investments will give British Columbians long-term security in cost and in supply.

I'm not suggesting in any way that I disagree with the government's long-term plan, because they don't have one. What I'm suggesting is that if we don't look at the cumulative impacts, then we are being generationally selfish. If we are not looking at the long-term impact of government policy, then we are failing as government. We are failing the people of British Columbia. So being generationally selfish is not something that government can tell people about; it's what we can assess in terms of what government's policies are doing.

I don't suppose that government will recognize our position that the wealth of British Columbia and British Columbians, our common wealth, shouldn't be sold to, necessarily, the highest bidder. We're talking about what they're calling a gold rush. It's a gold rush…. We have first nations who are dealing with referrals in high numbers.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The "minister of energy and mines and heckling" seems to think that I'm not going to get to the point, because he hasn't been here the whole time. I'm not allowed to say that. I withdraw.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah. Oh certainly.

Deputy Speaker: Member, withdraw, please. Withdraw the unparliamentary language.

N. Simons: I withdraw, and I apologize.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, were he able to listen to me, would know that I would come to the point where I would say that the first nations communities in this province need to have the resources at their disposal where they can actually do the studies and the necessary groundwork so that they can assess the appropriateness of independent power production in their traditional territory.

When you have first nations that have at least 50 on the table in front of them…. I think this government knows about the power differential, and I think that needs to be addressed.

Thank you to whoever it was on the other side of the House that brought up that issue. Whether they were here or not, I heard something.

An Hon. Member: Does he want to play the game?

N. Simons: I've just been asked if I want to play a game. I'm sure I have a bit more time before I'm allowed to go out for recess.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please, for a moment. The member should know that it is unparliamentary to make reference to whether members are or are not in attendance in the House at any time.

Continue.

N. Simons: I apologize, and I withdraw my remark if I made any reference to the presence or lack of presence of a member on the opposite side. What I simply said to the members opposite is that if they're inviting me to play a game, I'd be happy to play a game. But this is serious business, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Thank you, Member. The Chair has ruled on this. Will you please resume your comments.

[1555]

N. Simons: I can resume my comments, with pleasure. I was saying that members opposite are inviting me to play a game. I think that if they believe this to be a game, if they believe this issue — the budget that has been presented yesterday or the throne speech of last week — is in any way a game, then they've obviously missed the point.

The issues that are of primary concern to British Columbians are the fact that we continue, despite all of the nice things that are said by members opposite,

[ Page 9824 ]

despite the fact that there's a disconnect between this economic situation we're in and the fact that we lead the country in child poverty.

As the critic for child and family services, I think it's my opportunity and my right to speak to those constituents who have not had a voice in this budget. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that children and families have not had a voice in this throne speech or in this budget. That concerns me, because it is not the first time that this government should know that the needs of children and families in this province have gone unmet.

It happened last year, and it happened the year before, and it happened the year before because this government has been successful in maintaining their rank as number one in child poverty for four years in a row. So that is not a joke to me. That's not about playing games.

There are families in this province…. It's not just statistics. There are families, there are little boys and there are little girls in this province who go to bed hungry. There are little boys and little girls in this province who don't have the same kind of clothing as their friends in school. There are little boys and little girls in this province who need the attention of this government but are not getting it, because they're more interested in self-promotion than in the interests of families in this province.

Where does this government get off talking about the challenges of poverty, mental illness and addictions when we know that they have been an abject failure in dealing with those issues in the last seven years? This is shameful. It is actually shameful, because while they're talking about the wealth and bounty of this province, they are also ignoring those who should benefit from it. That is the failure of this government.

The failure of this government has been their inability to deal with the real issues, but their ability has unfortunately been in the glossy self-promotion. We will soon see the tarnish on that shiny little exterior.

There are victims and casualties in our society, and we saw nothing in the budget and nothing in the throne speech to address that, except words to acknowledge that they exist. On one hand, in the throne speech they say there are victims and casualties in our society — injured, hurt, lost and isolated — who can't find their way off the street into a home, out of addictions and back to health.

What did this government do in their budget? Nothing. This government has once again decided that they're going to choose a topic of the week. That's the way this government sees it, because they did that with children in 2006. Are children any better off? How could they be better off when we have a poverty rate the way we have it now? How can it be that the number of children in care for first nations is now over 50 percent?

That's a failure of this government's policies. It's a failure of their vision, and it's a failure of their commitment to the hollow words that we now see resonating through the previous throne speeches.

It is not my favourite occupation to criticize people. It is my responsibility to point out where they are lacking, and they are lacking in their ability to serve the people of British Columbia.

Let me bring you an example, Madam Speaker. A 19-year-old man on Vancouver Island, when he was 12, was brought into care. He was brought into care, and he became a ward of the state. That's what it was called — in permanent care. The parent of this young man was the state.

He has an IQ in the range of 62. He is eligible for services as a developmentally delayed adult. He is fully aware that he does not have the faculties that many people around him do. Yet he's unable, as the psychiatrists and psychologists and caseworkers have said repeatedly, to make decisions that are in his best interest. He's unable to make decisions that will prevent him from getting in trouble with the law.

He appeared, soon after being discharged from the care of the Ministry of Children and Families onto the streets, before a judge in Provincial Court. And the judge said: "Why is this man before me? What is he doing before me?" The lawyers looked at each other and said: "I have never seen a case like this, Your Honour." I don't think it was a good example of government's commitment to families.

[1600]

This young man was charged with vandalism. He was let off. The judge specifically said: "I hope this man gets the services he needs. I hope he finds a place to live." This man lived in a shed attached to a garage behind a house. Now, that is not the way a child raised in the care of the state should be. That is not the place that young man should be when he turns 19 and leaves the care of the state. We should be providing for these young people. We should be providing so that they don't have to live a life of sadness, a life of poverty and despair.

These young people need to be supported in environments where they will be safe, where they will be fulfilled and where they will be contributing members of our society. Yet in this province of wealth and bounty we choose, through government policy and government legislation, to allow them to go onto the street on their own.

He was beaten up. He was threatened. He's attempted suicide on more than one occasion. He's without a home. He is soon to be one of the many homeless in this province. The homelessness situation is bound to get worse unless this government recognizes their need to address poverty.

Poverty affects children early in their life. Studies as recent as…. One was quoted two or three days ago in the Financial Times . Poverty is the biggest threat to the well-being of a child and their ability to cope in society as they grow older. In fact, the direct quote is: "Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain."

Let me just quote from the director of Harvard University Center on the Developing Child. It's Jack Shonkoff. He says that policy-makers have to take note of the research, because "the foundation of all social problems later in life takes place in the early years. The earlier you intervene to counteract the impact of poverty, the better the outcome in the end, because the brain loses its plasticity as the child becomes older."

I continue: "Stress hormone levels tend to be higher in young children from poor families than children

[ Page 9825 ]

growing up in middle-class and wealthy families. Excessive levels of these hormones disrupt the formation of synaptic connections between cells and the developing brain and even affect its blood supply. It disrupts the brain's architecture."

We're talking about children who are now young children in the province of British Columbia whose parents are living in poverty, who we know now are going to have less of an ability to succeed because of that poverty. Until this government recognizes that poverty underlies most of the social problems coming from it — unless they realize the interdependence of poverty, mental health, addictions problems and, in many cases, historical problems like colonization and the loss of language and culture — and until this government realizes the underpinning of social problems later, we are going to continually have the same kinds of problems.

That troubles me, and it troubles me even more because this is well known. This is well known to government. I don't believe there is anyone on the government side of the House who doesn't recognize that poverty has a severe impact on our ability as a society to call ourselves a just society. I would wish that this government recognize that and actually put their concerns, if they had them, into practice through legislation and policy and regulation.

Poverty, Madam Speaker. We all know that British Columbia has a wealth of natural resources and brilliant minds and energetic people and creative artists. We also have the responsibility because we're capable of doing it. We have the responsibility as legislators to find solutions, to plan solutions and to implement solutions that impact positively on families, all families in British Columbia.

It's not about judgment, and it should never be about judgment. We should look after people regardless of their circumstances. It's our responsibility to do so, and in my most positive language possible, I encourage the government to make a plan to deal specifically with the issues of child poverty and their concomitant impacts on society.

[1605]

I think that if we recognize that — our need to address issues of poverty — we will also, by extension, address needs of young people as they come out of care and the support we need to provide for children while they're in care and when they come out of care, and for the families that try to raise them.

With that, I would like to close with just a comment. There are some lofty goals we've heard about in the throne speech. There was a single-minded approach in the budget. I hope this government realizes that it's supposed to be the government for everyone. It's supposed to be the government for all of British Columbians, and I wish that they could expand their horizons — expand their vision, in fact — to see beyond themselves to what is good for the province, not just now but for in the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: Good afternoon. I'm honoured to rise and respond to the budget speech and the government's budget for the next generation of British Columbians. I'm also honoured to have been in the House a week ago and to have listened to the throne speech.

One of the most telling moments for me was actually in only the second paragraph of the speech. That was where it said we owe a special debt of gratitude to MCpl. Colin Bason and MCpl. Darrell Priede, who fell while serving in Afghanistan. I knew Colin Bason, my wife went to church daily with Mrs. Bason, and we know Colin was a young man who had committed to his country. He believed in what he was doing in Afghanistan, and he believed in what he was doing on behalf of Canadians.

We sit in a legislature that's pretty peaceful most of the time, except for maybe a little bit of ruckus during question period. That's all it is, a ruckus. That's because we have freedom. We actually can change our governments with a ballot and not a bullet. We can have the ability to have debate in our province and in our country in a way that people allow us to do it, because some sacrifices of many were made for us.

My father-in-law was in the Royal Navy in the Second World War. My father was in the Royal Navy in the Second World War. My father-in-law was at D-Day. I've got to say that when you sit and reflect on the impact of one individual in my community who lost his life and the suffering that family went through, your prayers go out daily to those who serve overseas on behalf of our country.

I know that the opposition doesn't support the budget or the throne speech. I know they don't support the 33 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. I know they don't support leadership on the environment and climate change and the reduction of GHGs.

I must say this. As we came through the process to develop our position on climate change and the budget, I was fortunate enough to sit on the cabinet committee on climate change. I know we listened to well over 175 presentations from people from all walks of life — scientists, non-scientists, people that were concerned about the environment and what have you — who told us that there is an opportunity here for somebody somewhere to take some leadership and try to change the paradigm that is climate change and how we handle our own consumption as people in this world.

One of the arguments people will make is that a small population of four million people in a province, in a country, can't make a big difference in climate change. They've got bigger polluters in other areas of the world. There are other people with larger populations, and they have more cars. There are other people in different populations that might use coal to create their electricity without sequestration of carbon monoxide.

But if somebody doesn't stand up and try and change the direction on climate change, what happens? What happens to us? What happens to my children? What happens to that grandchild that my daughter tells me I'm going to have — the first one — in the first week of July of this year?

[1610]

[ Page 9826 ]

I think we can, frankly, set a direction. I think that we as a society in British Columbia can actually change people's opinion by doing something bold. And I think you saw that opinion start to shift, even in this country, in the last couple of days, as you saw the headlines and read the stories about the fact that somebody had stepped up to the plate to try this. I think it's very important.

I live in a region