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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Hugo Dummett Diamond Award

recipients

Sultan

South Park School

C. James

Tri-University Meson Facility

R. Lee

Poverty Olympics

J. Kwan

Northern B.C. Winter Games in

Dawson Creek

Lekstrom

Teesha Sharma

Sather

Oral Questions

Budget priorities

C. James

Hon. M.

de Jong

Ralston

Austin

Simpson

Horgan

Impact of fuel tax on taxi

industry

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Funding for integrated sexual

predator observation team

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Petitions

S. Fraser

J. Kwan

Budget Debate (continued)

B. Lekstrom

D. Cubberley

Hon. O. Ilich

M. Karagianis

I. Black

J. Horgan

Hon. I. Chong

H. Bains

Hon. R. Thorpe

[ Page 9863 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Richmond: Today in the House I am visited by the daughter of a very good friend. She has just graduated from the University of Victoria, and I would ask the House to help me make Stacie Dley very welcome.

M. Karagianis: In the precinct today we've been graced by a visit from Crystal View Elementary School. They came in two groups. Accompanying the first group were parents Michelle Long, Nancy Lane, Darrell Bifort, Connie Zinstra, Linda McIver, Rebecca Lens and Louise Camsell; and the teachers Windy Beadal and Cathy Prette.

We promised we would introduce them in the House. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: As a non-profit voluntary organization, the CNIB has been helping people with vision loss since 1918. This morning a number of my colleagues and I were absolutely delighted to meet with members of the CNIB from across the province, including Brad Waghorn, who I had the pleasure of working with in Prince George. They do tremendous work.

Today in the gallery I want to introduce the regional manager of services and operations from the Victoria

chapter of the CNIB, Dawn Day. I would ask our colleagues in the House to make her feel very welcome here today.

S. Fraser: I've got two small delegations visiting today, and they're here to visit with the Minister of Environment. It's swamp people and cave people meeting the Minister of Environment. Sounds like a bad movie, I know.

Here looking for protection for a sensitive wetland known as Hamilton Marsh are Ceri Peacey and also Robin Robinson. Here looking for cave protection and karst protection are karst specialists Reid Robinson and Paul Griffiths.

Would you please help me make them feel very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor representing the country of Brazil. Mr. Fernando Jacques De Magalhaes Pimenta is the newly appointed consul general at Vancouver and is making his first official visit to Victoria.

Brazil has upgraded its diplomatic presence in British Columbia and is now represented by a consul general and a significant staff in Vancouver. I would ask the House to please join me and give our visitor a great welcome.

N. Simons: Today we have in the House visitors from the Sunshine Coast: Dan Bouman, Cathy Turner and George Smith, who are all looking forward to their meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

As well, I'd like to welcome five young progressive people from the University of Victoria NDP Club. They are Khalilah Alwani, Graeme Scott, Allison Iganthron, Logan Richards and Evan Roberts. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: I would like the House to join me in welcoming students that are visiting with us in the gallery and in the precincts today from Mulgrave School. We've got delegations from grade 5 and grade 6, along with teacher Nicola Ferguson and Mark Steffens, the band teacher. I would like you all to give them a big round of applause and welcome, as I'm delighted they're here.

D. Cubberley: In looking around the gallery, I caught the eye of a longtime colleague of mine, Susanna Grimes, who is here joining us today. Susanna and I worked together for many years at Bike to Work Victoria, growing participation in commuter cycling in this region.

For those who aren't aware, Greater Victoria is the cycling capital of Canada. We have the highest level of participation in commuter cycling of any urban area in Canada, and commuter cycling is the fastest-growing mode of transportation in the capital region. That in

part is due to the efforts of people like Susanna Grimes. So would the House please join me in making her welcome.

J. Horgan: I want to follow on with my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin in introducing a student at Crystal View Elementary, Jamie Beaman, who is here today. When asked why there were two of us, one of the kids said: "One man, one woman; makes sense to us." We all agree on this side. So make Jamie welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HUGO DUMMETT DIAMOND

AWARD RECIPIENTS

R. Sultan: Every January, 4,100 members of the Association for Mineral Exploration, which used to be called the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, gather in Vancouver. These prospectors use the occasion to brush up on their geological science and to celebrate their discoveries from Brazzaville to Ulan Bator, illustrating that we should always remember the extreme mobility of this Vancouver-based industry.

Anticipating the Finance Minister's budget, this year they turned their attention to the ultimate in carbon sequestration — diamonds. They gave the Hugo Dummett Award for Excellence in Diamond Exploration to Randy Turner, John Macdonald, Walter Melnyk and Nicolai Pokhilenko, who collectively found and developed the Snap Lake mine in the Northwest Territories, Canada's first underground diamond mine. Economic value — $4.8 billion.

[ Page 9864 ]

Dr. Pokhilenko is a Russian, Order of Lenin, who lives in Siberia. The other three are members of my own professional association, the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.

[1340]

Dr. Macdonald capped a 13-year academic career by leading the team which made the Snap Lake discovery. Walter Melnyk was the exploration manager. Randy guided the enterprise from discovery to its ultimate sale to De Beers for a cool $300 million. The $300 million caught my attention, but also the part about De Beers, since years ago I toiled at mining conglomerate Anglo American, and De Beers was a very secretive company down the hall. It's fortunate that British Columbians came along, because as the years passed by, it became evident that De Beers wasn't very successful at finding diamonds on its own.

Today I ask this House to celebrate our diamond explorers and their contribution to our prosperity. I would remind you of the words of that worldly philosopher, Marilyn Monroe, who once said: "Men grow cold as girls grow old, and we all lose our charms in the end. But square-cut or pear-shaped, those rocks don't lose their shape. Diamonds are a girl's best friend."

SOUTH PARK SCHOOL

C. James: Heritage Week is a time to appreciate the city of Victoria's rich past, culture and people. Today I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize the contributions of the staff and students of a school that is just up the street from the Legislature, South Park School, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary.

To commemorate this occasion, Debbie Marchand and Leah Picciotto have launched the publication of a book called South Park School: Memories Through the Decades . This coffee-table book contains decades of pictures, personal memoirs and important historical school, community and global events that have impacted the school throughout the past 150 years.

I have the privilege of being a former student of South Park School. It's a school that my children also attended and that my mother taught at. In addition to South Park being close to my family and close to my heart, it also had an impact on my political career, as I stood up for students' rights in one of my first political actions at that school and took the entire school out on strike when girls weren't allowed to wear pants to school. I have the school to thank for actually starting off my political career in elementary school.

A huge thank-you to all those who have contributed to this historic publication, as well as a thank-you to all the staff, students, parents and families of South Park School on their 150th anniversary.

TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

R. Lee: British Columbia is increasingly recognized internationally as North America's capital for Asia-Pacific commerce and culture. We are also leaders in many fields of research and development.

Last Friday I had the opportunity to visit TRIUMF, Canada's laboratory for particle and nuclear physics on the UBC campus, to learn about its collaborations with the Asia-Pacific region. Currently there are about 114 Japanese researchers and students working on experiments with TRIUMF staff in cooperation with Osaka University, the University of Tokyo, KEK and Toyota Laboratories.

TRIUMF staff have installed cyclotrons at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research in Taiwan and the Seoul National University Hospital in Korea. Researchers from Seoul University and Yonsei University are also collaborating with TRIUMF.

The Chinese Institute of Atomic Energy, the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Shanghai Joint Centre of Radiopharmaceuticals and Zhejiang University are associated with TRIUMF.

Senior officials from institutions of our sister province Guangdong will be visiting TRIUMF next month to establish more collaborations. India's variable energy cyclotron centre of Calcutta has an MOU with TRIUMF, which has produced many fruitful exchanges. TRIUMF has already put B.C. at the global forefront for the development and production of medical isotopes used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

I would also like to congratulate TRIUMF's subsidiary, Advanced Applied Physics Solutions, for being selected last week by the Canadian government as a centre of excellence for commercialization and research.

Since 2001 the B.C. government has awarded $17.75 million through the B.C. knowledge development fund to fund research infrastructure at TRIUMF. I'm pleased to hear that TRIUMF now has expansion plans in life sciences and superconducting accelerator technology.

[1345]

POVERTY OLYMPICS

J. Kwan: I rise today to share with members of the Legislature a report of a community event that was held in my riding on Sunday, February 3. A standing-room-only crowd of 250 people gathered in the auditorium of the Carnegie community centre to see some of the most creative community theatre and protest in years in a downtown east side neighbourhood. The mascots included Itchy the bedbug, Creepy the cockroach and Chewy the rat. No, they weren't Olympic mascots; they were the mascots of the first annual Poverty Olympics.

Neighbourhood residents competed in the welfare hurdles, the poverty line high jump and the long jump over a bedbug-infested mattress. Before individuals could sign on to income assistance, they had to fill out an online form, even though they had never used a computer before.

I wanted to thank Wendy Pedersen from the Carnegie Action Project, Jean Swanson from Raise the Rates, and long-term resident Bob Sarti, who helped organize this festive event.

In a neighbourhood which has seen the free speech riots of 1912, the labour union rallies of the 1930s and the Gastown riots of 1971, the organizers of this event

[ Page 9865 ]

stayed true to tradition, as they theatrically threw paper money into the audience. As Mr. Vanoc stood up to speak, the boos came from the audience as they asked for jobs and housing.

In 1971 residents rioted when Mayor Tom "Terrific" Campbell attempted to implement Operation Dustpan to sweep the streets and increase private security. People protested then, and people still do today. When evictions happened during the Expo 86 period, the neighbourhood rose up and expressed its concerns.

Now, as Olympic-connected gentrifications occur in this neighbourhood, the people who organized the poverty Olympics will ensure that the neighbourhood identity, history and culture will be defended every step of the way.

I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our thanks for the peaceful, creative and entertaining community celebration.

NORTHERN B.C. WINTER GAMES

IN DAWSON CREEK

B. Lekstrom: Today it's my privilege to rise and speak about a great event for northern British Columbia, and that is the Northern British Columbia Winter Games that were hosted from February 8 to 10 in Dawson Creek. We had the honour of a number of athletes and 800 volunteers. In total there were 1,058 participants.

The Premier was in Dawson Creek to open the games and truly got a taste of northern hospitality, as well as northern weather. It was minus 43 on the morning of the opening ceremonies. So although it was a challenge weatherwise, the athletes assembled. We opened the games in Memorial Arena in Dawson Creek, and it was a great success.

I rise to really thank the volunteers that make this happen in all of our communities across the north. Like any community across British Columbia, we're extremely proud of all of the events that we host. These events would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of the volunteers and families in Dawson Creek and, I'm sure, every other community that opens up their homes to billet the athletes and the participants.

So I want to say thank you. As well, I want to thank the sponsors and the community. The surrounding community raised $433,000 in donations for this event, which is significant. That is from the smallest of contributions to larger contributions.

On behalf of the people I represent in Peace River South, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, I want to again say thank you to the athletes, who I'm sure had a wonderful experience, and to the participants, the coaches and to the many volunteers. A special thank-you to Charlie Parslow, who headed up what I consider probably one of the best executives the games has seen to host this event.

TEESHA SHARMA

M. Sather: I want to tell the House about a remarkable young woman in my community. Teesha Sharma is 16 and attends Samuel Robertson Technical School. She is an excellent student and will be graduating this spring a year early. Teesha has been president of her student council since she was 13 and serves on the executive of the district student advisory council. Teesha has participated in many events, including Pennies for Patients, Coins for Kids and a walkathon fundraiser for her school.

She is an active community volunteer at the Maple Ridge Art Gallery, the Ridge Meadows Hospital, the Salvation Army and the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce. Recently Teesha organized, with the approval of her school administration, a noonhour protest to retain the semester system at her school.

[1350]

Unfortunately, near the end of the rally a few students took to the street and engaged in some rowdy behaviour, including pelting vehicles with fruit. Teesha did everything she could to stop them. When she returned to the school, she was dazed and distraught. She failed to enter the school when she was told to do so by an administrator.

Unfortunately, rather than suspending Teesha for a couple of days, the administration chose to take her lifeblood connection to the school from her. She was removed as the student council president and as a director of the district student advisory council. She is no longer allowed to organize anything in her school. Teesha is devastated and humiliated. Her school was everything to her. She has dropped some of her courses and finds it difficult to attend school.

Our schools function to train students to be leaders. We must do everything to encourage these qualities in our youth. We must not crush them but must nourish them in contributing to their community. I hope that the school will reinstate Teesha, that she can finish her grade 12 on the high note that it should be ending on and that she will go on to be a great leader in our society.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PRIORITIES

C. James: On Tuesday the B.C. Liberals brought in a budget that they say is all about choice but that in fact hits average families hard. The Premier said people can make a choice to buy expensive hybrids.

So my question is to the Deputy Premier. How does she expect an out-of-work forest worker in the interior to actually choose a $30,000-plus hybrid when this government has chosen to ignore the crisis in forestry?

Hon. M. de Jong: On Tuesday of this week British Columbians got a chance to witness leadership. They got a chance…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: …to witness the kind of leadership that has attracted not just attention but positive

[ Page 9866 ]

commentary, not just from across the province but from across the country. They saw a government move ahead with forward-thinking innovation as it relates to climate change.

We know on this side of the House that we are in favour of those steps. The question is: is this Leader of the Opposition in favour of it? Will she finally disclose a position as it relates to climate change and this budget? Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We saw an announcement, a pledge to further reduce the tax burden that low-income British Columbians face, and on this side of the House we support that. The question is: does the Leader of the Opposition support it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear, the choices that this government made. It's pretty clear this government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

[1355]

C. James: I heard the Premier and the Finance Minister say that British Columbians can make a choice to walk more and drive less. Well, I would like to hear every member on that side of the House actually go and tell that to a family who lives up north and who's having to drive their children further now because the school in their neighbourhood was closed by this government. I'd like this government and every member on that side of the House to go and tell that to families who are struggling and don't have an option to be able to walk to work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Continue, Member.

C. James: I also heard the government tell British Columbians they can just choose to turn the heat down in their house. Well, I'd like every member on that side of the Legislature to go and tell that to a senior citizen in the Kootenays who is living on a fixed income and can't afford to heat their house right now.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Can she explain why her government hit average families hard in this budget? They did make a choice. They made a choice to give a huge break to banks, to big oil companies and to make average families pay. How is that fair?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what I've heard. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition say that she's in favour of a revenue-neutral carbon tax initiative that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The problem is that I've also heard her say exactly the opposite. The challenge is actually getting a position out of this Leader of the Opposition.

The challenge is also this. If you were a low-income single mother just seven years ago living in British Columbia — an NDP government — earning $15,000…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …in addition to all of the other challenges you faced, you had an NDP government come along and take money out of your pocket through income tax because they decided that they could do better things…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …with that money than a single mother with a single child on $15,000.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We said no. We said that person shouldn't have to pay income tax. We stand for that person not having to pay income tax.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We want to know where the Leader of the Opposition stands.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait a second. I want to remind the minister that when I say, "Thank you," it's time to sit down.

Continue.

C. James: I'm sure that single parent will be really pleased with the $220 million tax break that was given to banks. I'm sure the person who is sleeping in a building on the streets of Vancouver or Victoria or Kelowna or Prince George is going to be really pleased that the banks got a break, and they got nothing from this government.

This government says that it's about choices. Well, they didn't give average families a choice in this

[ Page 9867 ]

budget. They made sure to give the big banks a break. They made sure to give the oil and gas companies a big break, but they're making average families pay.

My question is again to the Deputy Premier. How on earth does she expect British Columbians to buy into climate change if they need to, when they're the only ones who are paying and the big companies and the big banks get the break?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, reminding you to be brief.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we know this. We know that the NDP and its leader thought it was appropriate to take income tax from that single mother and her family, who was earning no more than $15,000. We said that wasn't appropriate. That's why that person doesn't pay provincial income tax anymore.

[1400]

We think it's appropriate that that low-income single mother should receive an additional tax credit this year of $100 and $30 for each child. We think that's a good idea. I'd like to know what the opposition leader thinks. Is she going to support that?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: And lastly….

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: You're welcome, Mr. Speaker.

B. Ralston: Maybe we can talk about some of the pockets this government is stuffing with money. Let's look at the profits: Petro-Canada, $2.8 billion; Suncor, $2.8 billion; Imperial, $3.2 billion. Those are their profits for last year.

What did this government do? B.C. Liberals handed out the largest subsidy ever to the oil and gas industry — $327 million this year and $358 million next year.

So my question is to the Deputy Premier. Why is her government's budget boosting big oil's bottom line and giving them a free pass on climate change?

Hon. M. de Jong: It speaks volumes that the opposition Finance Critic would stand up and, in the aftermath of a budget that is being touted right across the country for being visionary, for being forward-thinking, for being progressive…. He would choose to attack the performance of a sector of our economy that is undergoing incredible growth, creating jobs and opportunity across the province.

Typical of the NDP, he is offended by success that is putting thousands of British Columbians to work. We're not offended. We love the fact that the economy is growing, we love the fact that people are coming back to B.C., and we love the fact that we've got a budget that's going to encourage that to continue in the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It's not just big oil that this government is showering with money. Big banks are cashing in — CIBC, $3.3 billion in profits; TD, $3.9 billion in profits; RBC, $5.5 billion in profits. And the B.C. Liberals chose to give them a $220 million tax break while hitting average families with a new gas tax.

Again to the Deputy Premier: where is the fairness for working families when the B.C. Liberals load the burden of climate change on them and give big breaks to the banks?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member doesn't have to reassert his hostility and his party's hostility to attracting investment to British Columbia. We had ten years to see how much they believed in that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't have a photographic memory by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be interesting to investigate whether one of those financial institutions — the one the member served as a director on, I believe — made a similar pitch to create a competitive tax structure in British Columbia.

We are not apologizing. We are not apologizing for the fact that we believe our tax structure needs to be competitive. We believe it was the right thing to do to act on the incentives that were created by the federal government.

When the investment that flows from this begins to become a reality — as it most certainly will, as it has right across the economy — I hope this member will stand up and have the temerity to apologize for what he said here today and recognize that once again the NDP is hostile to investment in British Columbia.

[1405]

R. Austin: The Premier and Finance Minister are right insofar as this budget is about choice. Too bad they made the wrong choice. Can the Deputy Premier explain why banks deserve $220 million in tax cuts…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: …but forest-dependent communities get nothing but a round-table discussion?

Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides, including the Government House Leader, when I say, "Thank you," I mean it's time to end the answer, and when I ask you, it's time to pose the question.

Minister, continue.

[ Page 9868 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Budgets are always about choice. Here's a novel idea. Why doesn't the opposition make one and stand for something or stand against something? But day in and day out, we continue to get conflicted signals. We are in favour of a competitive tax structure that will attract people to British Columbia.

By the way, they were singing a different tune when it came to creating a competitive tax structure for the movie industry. Apparently, a competitive tax structure was the right thing to do there. Well, we think that's true, and that's why we're expanding those incentives so that movies can be filmed right across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: So let this government defend the choices that they have made — $220 million to banks that are already highly profitable, $327 million to oil and gas companies. Last time I looked, they make a ton of money, and guess what. They'll come here and take the oil anyway.

We're close to the end of peak oil, so we don't have to worry about that. They go all over the world seeking to take oil out. They don't need to be drawn here. They'll come anyway.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: What about the people in forest-dependent communities who have gotten nothing? What about the people in northwest B.C. whose kids are on a four-day school week…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: …while you're giving $327 million to oil companies? Explain that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Now, I want to remind members. I know it's Thursday. I know it's the end of the week, but this is disgraceful. This is really disgraceful, what's taken place here today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Usually one relies on a political adversary to provide a critique on a particular public policy, but I think we just heard a ringing indictment of all that was flawed, of all the mistakes the NDP made when they were in power. "Charge them as much as you want," says the member, "because they'll come anyway. Tax them as much as you want, because they're coming anyway."

All that member has to do is look back a scant seven or eight years to know they didn't come. They left British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Wrap it up, please, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: We believe a competitive tax structure is important for business, for small business, but we also believe it's important for individuals and for families. That's why British Columbians will be paying the lowest income tax rates in all of Canada under this budget.

S. Simpson: The fiscal plan shows that in order for the government to meet its budget projections, we need to increase the number of cars on the road and increase the amount we drive. The three-year revenue forecast requires a doubling in the growth of demand for gas and diesel over the years 1998 to 2005.

For the government to put a fuel tax on British Columbians while they give away more than a half a billion dollars to the banks and the oil companies, at the same time that their own projections rely on the tax not being effective, is hypocrisy in the extreme.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: Does the government truly expect British Columbians to believe that this budget is green when you're projecting a doubling in the growth of fuel consumption over the next three years and adding thousands of cars on the road?

Hon. M. de Jong: Funny the member would mention the word "contradiction." I'm trying to reconcile what I just heard in the House with what the opposition critic said or is reported to have said. He said the NDP wouldn't repeal the carbon tax if, God forbid, they ever became government.

Look, take a position. If the member is offended that British Columbia has now stepped forward and is leading the way in the assault on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, let him stand up. Let him say that. Let him have the courage to be accountable for those decisions.

On this side of the House we're proud of the fact that the rest of the country and the rest of North America is looking at us and saying: "That's what leadership is all about. That's what a serious assault on greenhouse gas emissions looks like."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister would like to listen to some of his colleagues from the north and their comments, which differ from his.

[ Page 9869 ]

You want to know, Mr. Speaker, what we'd do? We wouldn't give $220 million to the banks. We wouldn't give $327 million to the oil companies. We wouldn't exempt the large emitters from the tax. We know one thing. This government is listening to its friends, but it's not listening to British Columbians. It's not involving British Columbians in the conversation. They have shut British Columbians out of this.

For a carbon tax to work, it needs to be fair. It needs to be linked to other programs and initiatives that move forward our progress on climate change. This budget offers neither of those things. Where is the green infrastructure program? Where is the forest communities program? Where is the funding for the much-hyped transit plan? Nowhere in this budget, anywhere.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: My question to the minister: why should anybody believe that this is any more than greenwashing of a massive giveaway to your friends at the expense of British Columbians?

Hon. M. de Jong: The day before the budget we sat here, and there was a great to-do about this insightful cross-examination that the critic purported to launch on a definition of revenue-neutral. I haven't heard any of those questions.

The reason we haven't heard any of those questions is because the opposition knows this measure is revenue-neutral in the truest sense of the word. They have abandoned that line of questioning because they know that the tax relief included in this budget more than offsets the burden that the carbon tax will admittedly put on British Columbians. They know that. That's why they've abandoned this line of questioning.

It was ten minutes before the Finance Minister stood up that a member of that opposition from Columbia River–Revelstoke said: "One of the most important things to me is that British Columbia finally create an arts and culture endowment." Ten minutes later the Finance Minister stood up and committed this province to a $150 million arts and culture credit. I presume that member is going to stand up and vote in favour of this budget for that very reason .

[1415]

J. Horgan: It's a tragedy that the "minister of defence" either lives in the 1990s or the 2020s. The rest of us are living in 2008, and our constituents want to know how it is that a government on that side of the House can say it's fair to give $500 million to their corporate backers. The banks, last year alone — $110,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party. And for that they get a $200 million tax cut.

How can you square that with the people in our communities, the people that don't have transit options, the people that can't go to Maui to warm up in the winter? How do you say to them that taxing them more for their carbon is fair when everyone else in the corporate sector is getting away with it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly, if I were, as the member suggests, living in the 1990s, I'd probably be looking for work.

I'm glad the member actually took advantage of the opportunity to get involved in this debate. I'm always glad when the member from Juan de Fuca gets involved. It allows us to juxtapose the position he seems to have been taking…. He has been speaking out against this initiative where other members, his critic included, have been speaking out for it.

Can they get coordinated, Mr. Speaker? Can the leader stand up and lead? Can she lead a caucus to this point, where they can stand up and tell British Columbians where they stand on this budget? We know where we stand.

We stand foursquare in favour of ensuring that British Columbians, low-income and middle-income earners, pay the lowest income tax in all of Canada. And actually, we stand for something else. They've dismissed this, but we stand in favour of providing British Columbians with a climate change dividend in June in advance of the tax coming into effect. That's the right thing to do, and we stand in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I want to know again how it is that giving Jimmy Pattison a hundred bucks is somehow a progressive policy in this province. I can't understand that — how the Premier can give himself a 70 percent raise and then take another hundred bucks out of the purse on the way to the door.

My question is to the "minister of defence" again. He didn't answer the first question from the Leader of the Opposition. He hasn't answered a question since we started today.

How do you explain to people who don't have transit options — to people who are waiting in the northeast sector, to people waiting on Vancouver Island for transit options — that you're going to give away 500 million bucks just like that, and we're letting them pay more for their petrol because they don't have any options? How do you square that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I must confess…. There's an ever-moving target on the other side of the House. That's not unusual. I'm referred to comments that the previous questioner from Vancouver-Hastings made allegedly…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …yesterday on the radio. "So we support a revenue-neutral position. Much of this" — referring to the budget — "is absolutely revenue-neutral."

Interjections.

[ Page 9870 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that the opposition leader is desperate at a time when British Columbians are increasingly tuning her and her party out. Maybe that's because they no longer — if they ever did — have any sense of what the NDP stands for, because they refuse to stand in this place and take a clear position. We saw it in the fall.

Mr. Speaker: Wrap it up, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We saw it on the Gateway project, we saw it on the Port Mann Bridge, we saw it on treaties, and sadly, we're seeing it again today on the budget.

IMPACT OF FUEL TAX ON TAXI INDUSTRY

M. Karagianis: Anyone trying to flag down a cab in the city of Vancouver right now knows that it's virtually impossible. Vancouver has the fewest number of cabs per person anywhere in Canada. And now the government has levied a new gas tax that is going to hit that industry even harder.

So my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will he admit that his government has done nothing about this problem and, in fact, is just making it worse?

[1420]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, no, I won't admit that, because actually the passenger transportation branch, just a short seven months ago, approved another 111 cabs.

If the member actually did her homework…. Again, the NDP research staff is doing its usual great work. If the member did her homework, she'd know one of the problems is that no cabs were approved during the 1990s. That would have been real helpful too.

The fact of the matter is that when the city of Vancouver says they want to license new cabs, they can apply and get new cabs. The challenge has been that there has not been that application coming forward. It has under Mayor Sullivan and the new NPA council, and they got their 111 cabs, which will come on stream over the next six months to a year. That will make an appreciable difference.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FUNDING FOR INTEGRATED

SEXUAL PREDATOR OBSERVATION TEAM

M. Farnworth: Protection of children is a very serious issue, Member. Wait for the question.

The integrated sexual predator observation team protects the children of this province from those who prey on them. It's a very important function, an initiative launched by this government. Internal memos obtained from the RCMP indicate that the program is going to be closed down, in part due to a lack of funding, a failure by the province to provide resources.

The RCMP has stated that things are okay, that we're going to relook at things. But these memos are dated January 31. Clearly, the minister doesn't know what's taking place within his ministry with regard to the protection of children on this very important program.

So my question to the minister is: will he fund this important program — the integrated sexual predator observation team? And will he ensure that it has the resources…?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: You started it, and you are closing it.

Will you ensure that it has the resources to function the way it is intended to — properly and efficiently — and that the money required to do it will be new money and not money shuffled from another part of your ministry?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question, and I think I would emulate what the member opposite has indicated. There can hardly be a crime more horrible than the sexual exploitation of children. That is why I am proud that our government actually set up the program known as the integrated sexual predator observation team.

I'm here to tell the House that that program is going to continue. I will quote from the deputy commissioner of the RCMP in a recent memo where he says: "The RCMP continues to support initiatives that advocate and support all community members, especially children. The ISPOT team remains an entity. We get tremendous support from the provincial government of British Columbia for these kinds of projects because they produce positive results. The government continues to fully fund ISPOT because they see the value of this work."

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition from hundreds of residents looking to protect the sensitive wetland of Hamilton Marsh.

J. Kwan: I also table a petition. I have a petition containing 666 names calling on the government to increase income assistance rates, remove barriers to access on income assistance, stop the clawbacks, increase minimum wage to $10 and build 2,000 units of affordable housing a year.

[1425]

[ Page 9871 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Lekstrom: I rise to continue my response to the budget speech that I began earlier today, and I will carry on. I was on the taxation side, where I'd talked about the removal of the PST on ATVs for our agricultural community. I had talked about the $105 million that we had invested in our arts and culture community in this budget, our debt-to-GDP going down.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I'd talked about transportation and the investment in transportation for not only the lower mainland and the southern part of our province but rural British Columbia. Agriculture, as well, is very important, as I indicated earlier, and our investment in agriculture. It has been a long time since we have seen an agricultural plan put together and funded, and this budget actually funds our agricultural plan and the commitments made in it. So I'm very happy with that, and I know the people I represent in Peace River South are extremely happy as well.

I mentioned the bioenergy strategy that will benefit rural and northern British Columbia, as well as the biodiesel initiative, which is a $10 million initiative that will see a nine- to 14-cent-per-litre incentive for the production of biodiesel. All very good things.

But I do want to move on, and I want to touch on the carbon tax. This is an issue that obviously has raised a great deal of discussion in these chambers as well as around the province.

The key issue that we talk about, and I think should be noted when you look at the budget, is that this is a revenue-neutral tax. We're going to raise just slightly over $1.8 billion over the next three years with this tax, and the result of that is there will be $1.8 billion put back into the pockets of small business, large business and individuals in British Columbia. All good news.

So the issue is not: is there a carbon tax, or is there not? There is one. The issue is really, in my mind: is it going to be effective? I think it will be. Are there challenges? I won't stand here and say that I haven't received calls and questions about this from people I represent. What is the impact going to be on northern and remote British Columbia?

Deputy Speaker: Could all members of the House please take their seats if they're going to stay here, so we can all concentrate and listen to the member for Peace River South.

Please continue.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

We look at what takes place. There will be a one-time $100 climate action dividend for every person in British Columbia. I think that is a wonderful idea. You know, it's not really an issue that carries a lot of debate. But is it a climate action dividend, or is it our province doing so incredibly well economically that we have the ability to share that wealth with the people we represent? Either way, it's a good-news story.

Certainly, for the most part people are quite happy with this budget overall. I am. Do I think it's absolutely perfect? No. I think all of us have an obligation to the people we represent to go through this budget, look at it and see what could be improved. If there's anything that can be, it's our job as elected officials to work towards that.

I find it interesting a lot of times that we'll reduce taxes…. I said earlier that by the end of next year, we will have reduced personal income taxes in this province by 40 percent — an amazing number. I see that as good news, yet I hear some people — it's traditionally members of the opposition — say that we've done nothing. We've done nothing for working people. We've done nothing for low income.

I pointed to the budget and laid out where the majority and certainly the higher percentage of those cuts went, and that was to lower-income families. I think that's a good thing. I think we all want to ensure that we can enjoy a quality of life in this province, regardless of whether we make $15,000 a year or $100,000 a year. We're going to continue to work towards that.

[1430]

But I also remind people that when they talk about the $100 — again, I'll go to the positive ones — many people said: "Thank you. That will help offset that as we adjust to this new world in which we live, with the climate change."

I've had others that said: "It means nothing to me." I would encourage those people to take that money and donate it to the charity of their choice, then, if it means nothing to them. This is human nature, and this transcends, I think, virtually any political boundaries. It seems that if you raise taxes by 1 percent, the world is coming to an end. If you lower them by 40 percent, it's no big deal. I can't find those two matching up. I think there's a balance that we all have to work towards.

I do want to say that I do recognize that there will be an impact from this carbon tax on northern and remote British Columbia. I believe that we have no choice, in many cases, in the distances we drive, the vehicles we have to operate, the number of months we heat our homes when it's winter — whether it's 10 below, as we've seen in the case of northeast British Columbia, or 53 to 57 below on occasion this year. There will be an impact there.

I'm also having the privilege to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development. Carrying with that, I believe I have an obligation to look at ways to mitigate this impact. I will do that not only for the people of Peace River South but for all rural and remote people of British Columbia.

I do want to talk a bit about the oil and gas industry, something that is a huge benefit to the province

[ Page 9872 ]

and certainly to the region I represent, being Peace River South. It's amazing. I hear there are these giveaways to the oil and goes industry. My God…. One of the most interesting things I heard from the opposition today during question period was: "Tax them as much as you want. They'll come anyway."

I think it was said earlier that we've seen what happened in the 1990s. I live in the area, and I encourage people to come and visit it. They didn't come anyway. They left. They left and left until our children had to leave the province to find work. That's a sad, sad situation.

I do want to point out that the oil and gas industry, these big bad people that we hear from the opposition…. I'm going to stand up and tell you that I think they've done a pretty amazing job. It hasn't taken government, for the most part, to say that you have to do this or you have to do that.

Our oil and gas industry has recognized over the last number of years that there's a change in climate in which we live. These people have families. They actually have children, and they've begun to make the changes necessary that they see and recognize can make less of a footprint on our land base. When it comes to oil and gas leases, when it comes to the flaring issue, we're working with them.

To say there's this mass tax giveaway to oil and gas is nothing but a mistruth. That's what it is. I want to point out that last year the oil and gas industry paid over $1 billion to the province for oil and gas leases alone. Over $1 billion — a record. Pretty good. They paid over $1 billion in royalties to the province, all of which actually helps us fund the health care, the education, the social programs and our homelessness initiatives, which I think are going very well. There's no doubt. Doesn't matter what political stripe you're from.

Would you like to eliminate homelessness? Yes. Was there homelessness in the '70s? Yes, there was. Was it in the '80s? Yes, there were. Was it in the '90s? Yes, there was. Is there today? Sadly, yes, there is. But they tout that it's worse than ever.

Interjections.

B. Lekstrom: I hear the members across talking about that. I guess, to be a little facetious, you may have higher numbers out there because, to be honest, during the '90s, everybody left. Everybody left. That's what happened here in British Columbia. So there wasn't much of a worry. There wasn't much of a worry.

The other thing that takes place…. They talk about the giveaways. I want to point out that the single largest taxpayer in this province — and I know that they have all done their homework on this; I'm sure they've read the information that's available — is Spectra Energy.

Spectra Energy — one of those big bad oil and gas companies, according to the opposition — is the single largest taxpayer in British Columbia. They contribute to the economic well-being of our province. They certainly contribute to the economic well-being of the northeast part of this province. They employ hundreds upon hundreds of people that then provide for their families.

[1435]

We have for the first time in a long time, I think, a feeling in our province that is optimistic that we are in the right direction. Does that mean everything is perfect? No, it doesn't. It means that we're going in the right direction.

I think this budget takes us in the right direction, but as I indicated, I'm going to do what I can to make sure that if there's opportunity for us to mitigate an impact of this carbon tax on northern and remote British Columbia, my commitment is to work with our Premier, to work with my colleagues and the Minister of Finance, to look towards that. But the tax reductions more than offset the impact this year, and I'll speak to this year.

We have $100 going back to every person in British Columbia, which I think is welcome news. I think they'll use that for numerous different things. It may be to put gas in their tank. It may be to pay off a bill. It may be for a number of things.

Overall, I want to make sure…. I'm sure I've made it clear. I fully support this budget. I think there are numerous things in it that benefit us in the northeast part of the province. There are numerous parts of this that help us in each and every region of this province. But what I want to encourage, during this debate in this Legislative Assembly and during the responses, is that people use factual information. That they actually go to the budget document, open it up and speak from the facts that are there, because it is an incredible document.

I carry these in my constituency office. I encourage people that are interested — and not every constituent wants to come in and go through the full document, but many do — to go through it, to ask questions of your MLA, to find out what different issues mean, because it's complex. When you're dealing with a $37 billion budget, no one individual is going to be able to answer every single question.

In closing, I want to thank our Minister of Finance for the work that she has done on this issue. I want to thank our Premier and my colleagues, and I want to thank the people of Peace River South, again, for the support that they've given me over the last seven years, for their commitment to making British Columbia a better place. I want to thank the industry that the opposition seems so, I guess, easy to slam for the commitment they've made to this province and the jobs they create.

I'll close with this. I believe it's a government's job to create an environment where the private sector will come and invest because that investment creates jobs for you, for me, for our children, for our grandchildren. And we do, whether we have differences…. I understand the political system quite well. We obviously have differences in philosophy between the two parties here today, but we can debate it respectfully. We have a great, great budget.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the opportunity to begin to address the content of the throne and budget

[ Page 9873 ]

speeches. I have to begin by expressing my disappointment in the material, in contrast with the member who just spoke, because rather than actually achieving a sustained focus on the fundamental problems, even those that government has identified and especially those that we know apply to all British Columbians — whether they're climate change, health care, seniors quality of life or children in need — what we got in this budget is a continuing focus on the privatization of public assets and subsidies to special interests. That is the primary framework for the budget — and hundreds of millions of dollars to the banks.

What you see when you look into it, particularly in the climate change area, which members spoke to so eloquently today, isn't a well-thought-out approach at all. As I see it, it's a grab-bag of half-baked ideas with cute names and absolutely no evidence in most cases that they represent best-value investments for tackling climate change.

It reminds me, once again, that this is a Premier who has an idea for everything and a plan for nothing, and that instead of the leadership that he promises, which was to be focused and relentless, what we see is government with a short-to-no attention span whose deeply held convictions of last year have dropped off the face of the earth.

A theme a year, an enthusiasm a month, an idea a week, a flavour a day and no plan and no follow-through on anything except for privatization, giveaways and tax relief for special interests like the banks.

Literacy and reading, the crusade that was going to change British Columbia — vanished. People with disabilities, special needs kids in our schools, now 10 percent of our student population and chronically underfunded — nothing in the budget. Improving the lives of seniors — that was a mission two budget speeches or throne speeches ago. There is nothing substantive, except for privatization of elder care.

[1440]

The lack of focus and follow-through is so chronic that things actually get lost between the throne speech and the budget speech. That's about a week in the same year.

Consider the alarmist rhetoric on health care and the urgency of adopting what government calls new effective strategies, new approaches, forward-thinking, new commitment, long-term results and "long-term thinking that transcends the time lines of electoral cycles." How about just a little bit of consistency and some old-fashioned deep thinking?

What we heard throughout the Conversation on Health was overwhelming support for more focus on disease prevention. The Premier says that we have to be relentless and focused on these things and that the Legislature will be asked to approve major new investments aimed at strengthening our ability to prevent disease. So was it in the budget? Was it there? And what would it have been if it were there?

Think for a moment about type 2 diabetes, a by-product of obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet — all things that the Premier used to be evangelically interested in. A preventable lifestyle disease that's the single biggest driver of health care costs in our province, at a time when government is obsessed with rising health care costs, so it says. Wouldn't one expect in that context that a diabetes action plan would be part of the budget? It's not.

Think about it. Some 250,000 British Columbians today have diabetes. Almost all of it is type 2. Some 20,000 additional people get it every year. People with diabetes incur medical costs two to three times higher than those without diabetes. Diabetes and its complications, including chronic kidney disease, cost us $1.04 billion, or just about 10 percent of total health care spending, in '03-04. It's going up by $75 million a year — a tsunami of disease.

What does the brain trust tell us? It tells us that we need effective public health interventions to manage and prevent obesity. Type 2 diabetes and its complications in '03-04 accounted for

1/5 of all hospital costs in the province, 14 percent of all MSP costs and 27 percent of all Pharmacare costs.

By 2015-2016, if nothing is done, nearly 400,000 British Columbians will be living with the disease. That's up 77 percent in ten years, and there is no focus in a budget that said it heard British Columbians when it said we should focus on prevention.

There were other prompts. The provincial health officer's report in '05 recommended population health interventions be developed to reduce the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes. Nothing was done.

In '04-05 the Auditor General reviewed progress on diabetes and noted that current British Columbia efforts to prevent and manage it are praiseworthy but inadequate. That was ActNow B.C.

November 2006. The Select Standing Committee on Health, with all-party support, recommended that government develop an action plan for population health interventions to address type 2 diabetes and that funding for health activities of this kind within the Health budget gradually increase from 3 percent to 6 percent. Nothing happened. It sat on the shelf.

December 2007. A reminder, in time to get it into the budget. The Auditor General reports out the Ministry of Health's response on its progress in dealing with type 2 diabetes. It acknowledges that we don't have a diabetes-specific prevention strategy. We're counting on ActNow B.C., and it's not happening.

Follow-up recommendations from the Auditor General — very succinct. He's obviously gently and patiently trying to guide government towards the obvious in time for the budget. He says: "Search out potentially effective and research-supported methods of preventing diabetes." Get cabinet to endorse them, and then "implement the strategies chosen."

An all-party committee, the provincial medical health officer and the Auditor General, on two occasions, recommend specific action to prevent disease. We have a budget that proclaims it's going to fund prevention of disease, and there's nothing in it. Who's actually invested in protecting the status quo here and driving health care costs up?

[ Page 9874 ]

Again, I have to say that I'm reminded of Barack Obama's comment that it's not the momentousness of our problems that's troubling. It's the smallness of government's thinking when it comes time for solutions.

[1445]

Let's look at something else that mattered to this government for a nanosecond, which was improving B.C.'s literacy rating to the first in North America by 2010. There are a million British Columbians that suffer from low literacy, an inability to read and use abstract information at a level that allows them to hold the typical jobs being created in our economy.

We thought, from the Premier, that there was a commitment to act. Clearly, there is a benefit to be gained, and a signal was given to the public that change was coming. Since then, nothing has happened — no plan, no follow-through and, one can only conclude, no sincerity.

As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast noted, what we hear is support in principle for the principle of improving literacy, but no support in fact. It's too bad.

The Progress Board gave government the rationale for intervention. There's a business case, and it's simple. Low literacy equals people who are less employable, have lower earnings, have more dependence on government supports and have higher health care costs throughout their lifetime — in fact, four times higher health care costs than members of the general public. So the cost of intervention would be more than covered by the savings from the cure.

The case for prevention is even stronger. Here's what the Progress Board said in 2006. This is the Premier's handpicked Progress Board. "Raising literacy levels by 1 percent is associated with an eventual 2.5 percent rise in labour productivity," which is $1.6 billion in GDP. Now that, you would think, would catch the ear of the members opposite.

This is silly. We require people to have skills and education and training to get into British Columbia and Canada. That's our immigration policy. We bring highly skilled people here with social capital that could be put to work in our economy, and we get them stuck at the lower end because we don't give them the passport to success. That's access to language.

In both those two groups aboriginal British Columbians are overrepresented. What should we be doing if government actually followed through on its professed commitment? We would be focusing on getting fee-free adult ESL programs to new immigrants. We would be giving those programs to a higher level and raising their outcomes. We would be focusing on pulling up the 600,000 workers who are close to having adequate literacy to participate in the knowledge economy — the low-hanging fruit.

Seventy-two percent of those people have completed high school, and many of them have some post-secondary. Some have entire post-secondary, and they don't have the language skills to participate. That group contains a lot of the people who are grey-area kids in school — the ones who drop out because they fall behind, because they started behind and never caught up or the ones who get pushed through and graduate and have low literacy skills.

The other thing that we would be doing is focusing on play- and activity-based early learning, kindergarten literacy screening and targeted interventions to catch and lift challenged kids so that they can participate at grade-level literacy. We'd be funding reading recovery in every school in British Columbia and ensuring that it's happening. That's how we would improve our dropout rate if the Minister of Education cared.

We'd also be focusing on culturally appropriate interventions in urban aboriginal communities and on ensuring there are recovery teams for struggling aboriginal students so that we could raise their graduation, employment and income expectations to provincial standards.

[1450]

If we did those things, these measures would not only raise our productivity dramatically, creating new wealth and new potential for prosperity. They'd also reduce the incidence of child and adult poverty in B.C. communities.

Poverty. We have the worst child poverty rate in the country, and poverty is the major risk factor for being developmentally at risk when kids arrive for kindergarten, as one in four B.C. kids are. Exactly the same number who are poor are developmentally at risk when they come to school. Interestingly, to close the loop, poverty raises the risk of being overweight, obese and physically inactive, and that increases the likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes.

You know, just this February the Auditor General reported out an audit of government's literacy initiatives, and what did he discover? He discovered that for the three primary target populations there were a lack of meaningful initiatives to improve literacy. A lack of meaningful initiatives — immigrant British Columbians, aboriginal British Columbians and children developmentally at risk. That was this February.

We have to change what we're doing, and this government needs to open its mind up and embrace what it says it cares about. Immigrants are vital to B.C.'s

[ Page 9875 ]

We're importing new social capital, but we're not effectively translating it into economic growth. Socially, what we're doing is creating poverty and depriving skilled individuals of opportunity by sticking them for a lifetime in McJobs.

Look at the aboriginal population. It's growing at a faster rate than the rest of the provincial population. It has very low levels of literacy compared to other students. The non-completion rate for aboriginal high school students is 53 percent. It's less than 20 percent — 19, I believe — for others, for the rest of us. For aboriginal kids, it's 53 percent.

Fully half of all aboriginals are now under 25 years of age, and the number of aboriginal students in B.C.'s public schools rose by 50 percent in the decade to '06 — to just under 60,000, which I think is about 10 percent of the student population now. Their completion rates are stalled, and there is nothing in the budget that will move that.

What about basic literacy learners? The population at large? Some 25 percent of B.C.'s kids are developmentally vulnerable upon school entry which affects their ability to learn and become high literates across their entire lifetime. Over 20 percent aren't completing high school in six years following grade 8. A significant number of those who do complete still go on to become low literacy adults, people who don't have the skills to effectively participate.

How has our government with the short attention span, the high-minded commitments to improving things and not much delivery on the ground, done on this file?

Interjection.

D. Cubberley: Well, Member, you might be interested in this. You might learn from it. But then, perhaps not.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please direct all your comments through the Chair.

D. Cubberley: Certainly.

The Auditor General audited progress on the literacy goal reporting out. What did he find? Well, despite frequent calls from far and wide for additional funding and targeted initiatives, the ministry, it found, did not identify what each proposed strategy option would cost to implement — that's the Ministry of Education — or provide a consideration of funding options. Gosh, we have a great goal of raising our literacy rate by 2010.

But you know, it gets worse. "Currently the government does not have sufficient data to monitor the progress for the population groups it is targeting in its literacy strategy." It's not actually monitoring what's happening with them. Worse yet, there are a lack of meaningful initiatives to improve literacy among target populations, despite an overwhelming business case. Worse yet, the framework has not been translated into interventions tailored to each target group. The first step, it said, would be for the government to first determine what strategies it should employ.

[1455]

You know, the Auditor General's not being patronizing. He's stating the obvious. If you had a commitment to raise literacy, what you would do is develop strategies for target populations. We've been at this for a long time now, and nothing is happening, and there is nothing in this budget.

He says that if strategies are to be successfully implemented, they need to be adequately supported by funding. He's not being patronizing. There has to be money in a budget if you want to make the social changes you're notionally committed to. Government needs to know what it will cost to implement a strategy so that it can determine whether and how to fund it.

What did he hear? We were told that the ministries were asked not to request more funding for the '06-07 fiscal year. I think we can assume they were asked not to request it for the '07-08 fiscal year, judging by the budget.

So no quantified data, no strategies, no funding relating to the principal target groups. To deal with this complete failure to follow through on a commitment that was stated publicly everywhere…. What does government do? It pushes off the deadline to get something done until 2015. What's the message to B.C., really? We don't really mean it, you know. We don't really care.

What do we get in the budget? What we get in the budget is the creation of an agency that will investigate more lesson-based learning for three-, four- and five-year-olds as an early learning strategy. I don't think you can call it a strategy. It's going to investigate it. I could stop and dwell on that for a good long time.

Honestly, what this is really is a continuation of the government's ABC policy on early learning, and that is anything but child care. Don't invest in the care that's needed in order to allow kids to become developmentally ready for school. Don't allow the kind of care that allows them to develop through play and activity into young beings who are ready for the lesson-based schooling that comes in kindergarten.

Don't supply the care that allows working parents — eight out of ten parents — to be able to hold a job, to be able to take their child somewhere in the morning on the way to work and pick the child up at the end of the day and know that throughout that day the child was involved in activities that helped him or her to grow with his or her peers.

That's not something that British Columbia can commit itself to, it seems — at least not under this government. That's an enormous tragedy. I was on a radio show talking about the budget just yesterday, and it was interesting listening to the call-ins. It actually does

[ Page 9876 ]

connect back to climate change and the professed concern about emissions and climate change in this province.

I heard a working father — and he's not somebody with a political axe to grind — simply state the fact that he and his wife are in a position now where they have to run two automobiles, living out on the West Shore, working downtown or in other parts of the region, because they cannot find child care in a location that lines up with school. It means that one of the parents has to drop the child off and another parent has to be available during the day to move the child around.

Two automobiles are required for that because care is not lined up with the working day. Heck, not only is it not lined up with the working day; it's simply not available. It is so bad in the capital region that mothers who become pregnant and expect children list themselves for child care, if it's a second child, when they become pregnant. If they're really confident, they do it when they start trying to become pregnant. Why waste nine months or longer? You're going to be on a waiting list for child care if you're in this region — if you're in any region in British Columbia. That's because the resources are not being put in place.

For the professed concern for early learning and making the best start for our children, there is very, very little openness to the idea that the best start for kids may be to be in developmental child care provided by credentialed teachers of early learning. There is absolutely no interest on that side of the House in this. Yet there's some idea that the challenges that we face, the 25 percent of kids who are developmentally at risk, will in some manner be helped by thrusting lesson-based learning down to three- and four-year-olds? Yeah, that's it. That's got to be the answer.

[1500]

Twenty-five percent are coming, and they're not developmentally ready to learn? The answer to that is get them started on math when they're three. Yeah, that's going a long way. I'd love to see the research that in any way, shape or form would suggest that that is an approach to improving the situation in British Columbia.

In the time that remains, I want to pass over for a little while to climate change, which is nominally the key focus of this year's budget. In point of fact, what we see really is a gas tax that's giving back to people something that's being taken from people, without a single meaningful initiative to enable choice and change around low-carbon infrastructures. Again I'd paraphrase Obama. Exactly the same thing.

What troubles us here isn't the momentousness of our problem, as grave as it is; it's the smallness of the thinking being offered up as solutions. And it's used, quite frankly, as a cover for cuts in taxes to banks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry — never mind the contradictions. They don't do anything bad, apparently. They don't need to grapple with climate change. They need help. They're not making that much anymore — just tens of billions.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

You have to ask yourself: if global warming threatens our future existence, and I believe it does…. It's not something I came to at the time the Premier came to it, but I came to it long before. Is the idea of the Walking School Bus and the Bicycle Train actually an adequate response to government's own actions that are making it harder and less likely for kids to walk or ride to their school, or is it just gimmicky spin? I'd have to say that for me personally, it looks like it's gimmicky spin.

There are overlapping imperatives today to take meaningful action on problems government has identified: physical inactivity and obesity, type 2 diabetes and reducing carbon emissions. All of these have been described as societal emergencies in one form or another by the Premier, and the latter is supposedly the Premier's current crusade.

All three of these things to address require environmental re-engineering of poorly designed urban environments. You simply have to make travel by car less necessary in order to reduce emissions per capita, increase the amount of active transportation that people engage in, and reduce the amount of type 2 diabetes that's coming from physical inactivity and bad diet.

On-the-ground change that will actually affect carbon emissions — not hot air rising in the chamber but on-the-ground change — means altering physical environments, the design of cities. Chiefly, it's land use and road design to facilitate transportation choices by citizens where today automobile travel is essentially necessitated — low-carbon, higher-activity choices.

Behaviour does not change by invitation. Change has to be enabled. It requires supportive infrastructures and, without it the default option, will remain the automobile, whether the price of gas goes up or not.

Why isn't government investing in retrofitting cities for walking and cycling, two primary ways that we could insert exercise into our daily lives? Why does government invest massively in things like sports and recreation — which are good things to do that result in marginal increments to activity for portions of the population, minorities — but systematically avoid investing in urban cycling and walking infrastructures that would grow them substantially while reducing emissions? Why is that?

We know that those investments pay dividends to our climate change, health, quality of life, neighbourhood security and school achievement accounts. Yet this government refuses to invest in them, despite professed concerns, preferring to reward tied interests and to try to buy votes by sending people back a chunk of their own money.

People will walk and cycle more if you enable the choice. If you simply exhort them to do it and don't give them the way to do it, you'll get the same results you get from telling them that they need to become more physically active, which is no results at all. Thirty years of telling people to become more physically active have not moved it one whit.

If you retrofit cities in ways that support active transportation, so that destinations like school and work are accessible from home, people will walk and

[ Page 9877 ]

cycle in larger numbers. Health will improve, and emissions will go down. It's precedented. Look at Holland. If you need to look at an example, look at Holland.

[1505]

But if you move schools further from home and the linking environment is unsafe and unappealing, more people will drive their kids to school and then drive themselves to work, which is just what's happening today under the brave leadership of the Premier.

This government is resistant to learning from experience, especially its own, which means it can't effectively lead us where we have to go. Walking and cycling as modes of transportation, not recreational activities, carry more trips per day than public transit in this region — more than double the number of trips — and they're much more elastic as activities, when it comes to expanding them, than transit is. It requires far less infrastructure at far lower cost.

Yet they get nothing in this budget, or previously, from a government bleating about global warming and wanting to be a leader. Zero-emission travel, which at the same time is a proven fighter of obesity and type 2 diabetes, can easily be incorporated into daily life, because it uses time that is already committed for travel to work or school.

There is absolutely zero interest on the other side. If the government actually felt the urgency to act as it routinely proclaims, if it supported the principles in fact and not just in principle, it would begin doing the obvious. It would invest in those with the greatest need in ways that enable their independence. It would invest in prevention of disease, of low literacy and of carbon emissions. It would invest in actions that pay dividends in multiple accounts like the redesign of cities. Climate change, inactivity and diabetes are all affected by that.

It would invest in breaking a cycle of poverty by redistributing some opportunity in British Columbia so that our children come to school better prepared to learn; so that parents find child care that provides them early learning while enabling the parents to keep their jobs; so that our seniors get care in their communities and age in place in their home; so that immigrants can put the skills that we've chosen them for to work within our economy to grow our collective prosperity; so that people with disabilities have the same life chances and the same life choices the rest of us do; so that our cities become walkable, complete communities with high quality of life.

Invest in reconfiguring our urban areas for walking, cycling and transit so that active, healthy, climate-positive choice becomes the easy choice, and we will see change. Invest in infrastructures that enable change so that change can be triggered, so that we can stop hearing hollow calls to action with no follow-through from government.

Stop living with this disappointment in the lack of vision — vision without leadership, ideas without action, declarations of intent with no plan and no real commitment to effectively act now.

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, let me say welcome to all the students that have joined us. I hope you're going to find this entertaining.

It is an honour to rise today to respond to Balanced Budget 2008. This budget is a tremendous accomplishment. It is the foundation for government's bold plan to reduce British Columbia's greenhouse emissions. It supports a strong and growing economy, and it makes important investments in key public priorities such as health care and education. It truly is a budget that will be remembered as setting our province apart as a leader in climate action while preserving our economic well-being and positioning us to meet the challenges of the future.

I come from the business world, where accounting and annual budgets tend to be very dry documents that only accountants would love, but British Columbia's budgets are something very different.

They look to the future, a blueprint for progress during the next three years and beyond. They examine the present, a snapshot of where our province is right now in its financial health and its economic outlook. They're a look at the past, a

summary of our stewardship of government's finances and the measures we've taken to support the priorities of British Columbians — priorities such as services for seniors, addressed in Balanced Budget 2005; like children, the focus of Budget 2006; and housing, for Budget 2007.

[1510]

That history speaks well of this government. It speaks of prudent fiscal management, sound public policy and innovative ideas that have gone a long way to improving the lives of our citizens. I'm proud that this government has a fifth balanced budget.

Prudent economic assumptions, built-in forecast allowances, planning for contingencies and a close eye on debt have given our budgets built-in shock absorbers to withstand economic slumps. The approach has meant a triple-A credit rating and more choices for British Columbians to make investments in programs and services.

Our policies of tax reduction and deregulation have resulted in one of the most competitive business environments in Canada. British Columbia has enjoyed robust growth in our economy in recent years. Our economy is estimated to have grown by 3 percent last year.

As Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, I'm particularly pleased at how the strong economy has meant that more British Columbians are working. We have created more than 400,000 jobs since 2001. Our province has drawn 40,000 net new residents every year since 2005. Think of that. That's the same as adding a city the size of Kelowna to our economy in British Columbia. That's a large increase in population, and for many it's an opportunity to work.

The unemployment rate today is down to 4.1 percent — one of the lowest in Canada and one of the lowest in British Columbia in three decades. That's 4.1 percent. Compare that to 7.7 percent in 2001.

We have gone from people looking for jobs, to jobs looking for people. Good-paying jobs too. The average

[ Page 9878 ]

wage in British Columbia is now over $21 an hour. That's one of the top wage rates in Canada. In fact, during the past three years the growth of our hourly wage rate has been twice the national rate and more than four times that of Alberta.

I am pleased that in today's economy, more and more young people are also getting a good start in the working world. Back in 2001 the youth unemployment rate was nearly 14 percent. Go back to 1998, and it was more than 17 percent. Today it's only 7.5 percent. Young people are earning more than ever before, with an average hourly wage of more than $12.

More jobs, higher wages and competitive tax rates have meant that our province has enjoyed the largest boost in our standard of living in two decades. All British Columbians can be proud of that achievement as we look forward to an even brighter future.

We have had fewer strikes and lockouts since 2002 than at any other comparable time in the past 30 years. That speaks not only to the underlying strength and diversity of our economy but also to the significant achievements by negotiators for employers and organized labour.

As you know, the groundbreaking negotiating framework detailed in Balanced Budget 2006 led us to an historic series of labour agreements with the public sector — 166 contracts covering more than 320,000 employees. That's 99 percent of the public sector.

These agreements are fair for workers, fair for employers and fair for taxpayers, and thanks to the long hours and hard work of negotiators on both sides, the agreements will see us through the 2010 games.

The labour stability we've seen in the public sector is also mirrored in the private sector, where the overwhelming majority of collective agreements have been achieved with little or no job disruption.

[1515]

Labour stability; a strong, increasingly diversified economy; and now a turning point in the way we think of our economy and its relationship to a healthy environment. A turning point marked by this historic budget, in which we invest not only in British Columbia's economic competitiveness but also in a new measure to address climate change and promote greener choices. My colleague the Minister of Finance has said that either/or thinking belongs to the past.

We can take steps today to build a better future for our children. We can reduce our province's greenhouse gas emissions and take bold steps to improve our environment, and we can sustain our vital public services and keep our economy strong.

The world took notice on Tuesday when our government announced its plans for a fully revenue-neutral carbon tax. The principle is simple: tax carbon-emitting fuels to discourage their use and give money back to people, back to businesses, so they have control. They can make their own choices about how tax affects them.

It makes sense to discourage the use of carbon-emitting fuels. Higher costs for higher carbon choices will also make cleaner choices more commercially viable and more broadly available. It will also mean more innovation and more economic opportunities. So I am pleased that the Finance Minister has announced built-in protection for lower-income British Columbians and a $100 climate action dividend for all British Columbians this June. That's $100 for every woman, every child and every man in British Columbia.

We're making a $1 billion investment in climate action. The list of initiatives is long: measures to encourage energy-efficient choices, improved public transportation and using technology to reduce emissions from trucks and ships; developing a cap-and-trade system for large greenhouse gas emitters; support for biodiesel and solar energy; tax relief for fuel-efficient vehicles and energy-efficient appliances; and $130 million for a carbon-neutral public sector by 2010.

I am particularly proud that on that last point, my ministry is making significant contributions. From green buildings to green buying, we're helping government lead by example.

Take, for example, the buildings the province has in more than 200 communities throughout British Columbia. We will be retrofitting existing provincial public buildings with greener technology. The budget allocates $14 million in operating funding over three years and $75 million in capital funding to bring in these improvements. For example, we'll be installing higher-efficiency lighting and more efficient boiler systems, and this will reduce energy and water consumption to cut carbon emissions.

We have already seen the benefits of this kind of change. A retrofit program for British Columbia's education and health care institutions has resulted in annual energy savings of more than $14 million. It has also reduced greenhouse gases each year by the equivalent of 10,000 cars. The energy management program has increased the energy efficiency of other provincial buildings by more than 50 percent. It has avoided costs of about $200 million and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 61,000 tonnes a year.

While we make our existing buildings greener, we will also be going gold with our buildings of the future. From now on, all new provincial public buildings will be built to LEED gold standards or the equivalent. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's a rating system administered by the Green Building Council, and the higher the certification, the higher the energy efficiency of the project.

Examples of LEED-certified buildings include the new B.C. Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver and the Medical Sciences Building right here at UVic. These kinds of buildings will become the norm as we move forward to reduce government's carbon footprint.

[1520]

My ministry's approach to climate action includes more than buildings. We're also having an impact through our procurement policies — everything from toners to Toyotas. If you thumb through the catalogue of office supplies and other items handled by the ministry's distribution centre, you'll see a growing list of greener choices. These include recycled paper, notebooks, envelopes, pen and pencils, and toner cartridges. Small things, but with a big impact when you add them up throughout the public service.

[ Page 9879 ]

More dramatically, the ministry has recently purchased for government more than 450 hybrid vehicles. That compares to only 45 hybrids in 2005. These are Toyotas, Fords, Saturns and GMCs. By replacing a conventional vehicle with a hybrid, we can cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent.

Our government is investing $2 million toward developing new low-carbon procurement procedures so that we can apply the green lens to our purchasing. We're also looking at ways to reduce government travel by using today's technology to bring employees together. The budget announces $15 million to begin developing advanced communication tools and collaboration tools for the public sector — tools like desktop video conferencing.

I'm excited about the potential for this technology to help public servants share information and ideas without having to drive and fly. This will not only reduce the impact of government travel on the environment but also allow our staff to deliver better, more efficient services to British Columbians.

We'll be able to track our success in reducing travel. Right now we're piloting an on-line tool to help ministries track and calculate their emissions from travel. This ability to measure their impact will help ministries reduce their carbon footprint even more.

My ministry also supported another bright idea, and that's replacing the 3,300 light bulbs on the outside of this building. The lights on the legislative building are a famous Victoria landmark. We've sent a message to the world by replacing the old bulbs with leading-edge energy-efficient lamps, which means improving energy efficiency by two-thirds, not to mention the longer bulb life and fewer bulb changes.

Perhaps the tourists who stroll the Victoria causeway in the evening won't notice the difference, but we will. I think it's a great symbol of our commitment to climate action, a commitment that is the heart of Balanced Budget 2008.

The Finance Minister began her budget by noting that this year we are celebrating British Columbia's 150th anniversary and that the spirit of opportunity that existed in 1858 is still with us today. I would add that the spirit of service also lives on, exemplified by the government agents who have helped shape our province since the founding of the Crown Colony of British Columbia.

This year our government agents are celebrating 150 years of providing service to British Columbians. They have served as members of the Legislature, magistrates, gold commissioners, provincial police, notaries public, tax collectors, insurance agents and public health officers. They have been an important part of our history, as they represent the spirit of our province.

Today government agents are the foundation of Service B.C., part of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. They continue to serve in 59 communities throughout the province, and their commitment to quality customer service is as strong today as it was 150 years ago. I want to congratulate them, and I look forward to events celebrating the 150th anniversary.

I am delighted to vote in favour of a budget and to speak in favour of a budget that introduces a revenue-neutral carbon tax, invests over a billion dollars in climate action, provides tax cuts for individuals and businesses, invests in a stronger economy, maintains our government's tradition of financial prudence and provides more support for key social services.

This is a pioneering budget in a special year in our history. It's bold, it's visionary, and it leads the way to an enduring legacy for our children and grandchildren — a healthier planet and a thriving province. It will be our guide for the months and years to come as we work here in this House to make British Columbia, the best place on earth, even better.

[1525]

M. Karagianis: As always, it's an honour to stand here in the chamber and speak up for my community on issues like the throne or budget.

When I spoke the other day in response to the throne speech, I talked about my constituency staff, and I'd like to start out today with a special thanks to my legislative staff. I've been very fortunate to have really terrific support, and that helps me do my job better. So a special thanks goes to Teresa Scambler, who is my LA. She is a no-nonsense lady but also has a great sense of humour, and it's a pleasure to work with her.

I have terrific research people, especially Jeff Dean, and other great staff, like Sara Goldvine and Neera Ritcey. Both women help me do my job as well, in a great way, and Jeff is a terrific source of information.

I anticipated the budget with a certain sense of excitement. I knew that the things my community has been telling me about for the past year that are important to them would show themselves here in the budget — whether the government had listened to my community and other communities around British Columbia, whether they, in fact, heard the things that I've stood in this House and talked about for my community. I was very interested to see what was in the budget and what it held for my community.

The thing that my community really cares about is, of course, health care. That's the primary, number one concern for my community right across the board. Whether it's seniors health care for their parents or whether it is because they're raising a family and they have young children, they need the full gamut of the health care system. I think my community very much exemplifies families today that have those responsibilities of both raising children and caring for their parents, on either end.

My community also is, unfortunately, part of the statistic on child poverty, because we have a very high level of child poverty in my community. So it mirrors what the statistics are here in the province. It's a grave concern for all the members of my community.

Certainly, we've gone through school closures. That has been a hotly contested issue especially in Esquimalt, where a beloved school, Lampson Street School, was closed last year. That galvanized the community to really stand up and fight for that. They were very sor-

[ Page 9880 ]

rowful and still continue to be very sad about the fact that we lost that battle.

Because my community is made up of mostly young families, they're certainly very acutely aware of the need for child care. Most of them really depend in some way on a child care system. I know that there's been a great deal of anticipation about whether or not the government would take the step to repatriate an appropriate and well-funded child care system here in the province.

The forest crisis, although it doesn't touch directly on my community, is a contributor to the economy here on the Island. My community has been watching, as well, the deterioration within the forest industry here on the Island and has been gravely concerned about the domino effect of that crisis on the economy.

Transportation — a big issue in my community. It is in the newspaper here almost every single week. Issues around transportation in and out of my community. The ongoing wishes and hopes of the community that we will get a commuter rail system, that we will get expanded transit, and that we will, in fact, be much more futuristic in addressing the concerns here of a growing community in the western communities part of my riding.

Homelessness touches us all, of course. Part of my community in Esquimalt has its feet in the downtown, and we've seen homelessness actually creep into little corners of the community that we didn't expect. I remember talking with the director of the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, who said she'd begun to see people sleeping in the lawns and yards around the neighbourhood house, thinking that it was a place that they could find shelter and hope.

That's a long way from downtown. So it's not just happening in downtown; it's happening in our suburban communities and happening in small towns across B.C. It's a concern, and it has my community very concerned. Because so many of the members of my community are really struggling to make ends meet, I think there's always that fear that any of us are only perhaps 30 to 60 days away from homelessness ourselves.

[1530]

I know, doing a homeless tour last year with the police, that I was really saddened to run into a woman who had just been made homeless in the community of Esquimalt. She was a woman who was not young, Madam Speaker. She was in her early 60s and had found herself homeless and living on the streets for three weeks at the time I saw her.

It touched me very deeply that that kind of thing could occur in my community. I'm always looking towards budgets as proof that government, in fact, is going to put resources out there that care for communities. That was one of the things I anticipated seeing.

Public safety is a big concern. I've talked about it in this House before and will continue to. My community police force of Esquimalt was amalgamated by this government, with a promise that it would be the first of a wholesale amalgamation in the south Island here. That has failed to occur. As a consequence, the cost of policing in the downtown core is now being borne by two communities only, when it should be the responsibility of the entire region. But the government has shied away from actually making good on the promise that they made to my community, and it's costing my community more money.

At the end of the day, we have all of the same kinds of issues, I think, as many communities, but affordability is first and foremost and uppermost in people's minds after their health care. After worrying about their children and their parents in the health care system, worrying about how they're going to educate their kids and make sure their kids get the best start in life, the other challenge is affordability.

In fact, families in my community are pinched between all of the fees and charges and ever-growing costs of living here in our community, as government continues to pile on more and more. We'll talk a little bit about that in a moment, because that's really what was delivered to my community out of this budget.

The throne speech was full of re-announcements and repackaged promises from the past and lots of fancy slogans, but it was really up to the budget to deliver on all of that fancy talk. I would say that it's greatly disappointing to me, and to those in my community that I've already spoken to, that government has seen fit to make it more difficult, rather than less, for families to get by.

The gas tax that has been levied against working people here is a hardship, no matter which way you look at it. It's not offset by a lot of delivery on the other end for them. For the families there's no security in their knowledge that there are going to be other options for them, other things for them to choose if they choose not to drive as often.

In fact, we don't have the kind of transportation system here in the south Island that allows that kind of choice for people, so now they've been backed into a wall. They've got a gas tax that they are going to have to pay whether they can afford it or not, because there are no other options here for many of them.

For people who live out in Sooke or work in Sooke and have to drive back and forth, for anyone who lives where there aren't adequate bus routes and who has to work early in the morning or late at night…. There are inadequate transit options for them, so they're going to have to drive. They have no choice but to bear the cost of this gas tax.

The hundred dollars in some ways trivializes this enormously. Most people, I think, are feeling a bit insulted that this is what government delivers back: "You are now going to bear the costs of a gas tax that you may or may not be able to afford. We're not offering you a lot of alternatives here in your community, but we're going to give you $100 back, and that is somehow going to make your life better in many ways."

It's a little bit like Stephen Harper sending families $100 to get child care. It's absolutely so trivialized and inadequate to really address the issues that families need that it just makes families angry. That's what I've heard from my community — that they are angry, because certainly….

[ Page 9881 ]

You know, they've got increased hydro rates coming. They've got ICBC. In the lower mainland, of course, they've got increased transit, and we could, again, see that kind of thing here. They have a lack of affordable child care here. Many of the families in my community are living from paycheque to paycheque, and this has not delivered to them anything that they can take comfort in.

This climate change plan hasn't delivered alternatives for them. They don't see that there's a way out of this in the future, that there will be a delivery of something that they can achieve. No. The government said: "Take the $100 and help replace your water heater." I don't know if government members have gone out and bought a water heater lately, but they're a lot more than a hundred dollars. "Buy a new energy-efficient fridge." Well, an energy-efficient fridge is a thousand dollars — right?

[1535]

Again, it trivializes it that somehow this $100 or a couple of hundred dollars into the household is going to allow people to make these choices. So I think the government is really out of touch with reality.

At the same time, the constituents in my community know that the government has given huge subsidies, a huge gift to the banks of $220 million and over $300 million to the oil and gas industry. Frankly, these are both sectors that cannot in any way plead poverty. These are not poverty cases. The banking system, the banks in this country and big oil and gas are hardly hardship cases. Yet a much more significant gift of dollars has gone into those sectors, into those industries than what my families are getting. They're getting a hundred bucks to try and go buy a new water heater.

It seems to me that government is so completely out of touch with reality on this that it's no wonder that my constituents are angry, and they are angry, Madam Speaker. When I talk to them, they are angry. When I'm on talk shows, they are angry when they call in. They are angry at the government for failing to deliver anything useful in their lives — something real and tangible that would make their lives different or better.

You know, we see gas prices rising. Oil companies' profits are quite bloated, but the government feels perfectly happy and quite boastful about the fact that, on top of these bloated profits that banks and the oil and gas industry are making, we feel compelled to use taxpayers' dollars to give them half a billion dollars in a gift. It says to you that that's taking money directly out of the pockets of families in my constituency and giving it to hugely profitable organizations.

It's no wonder that people are saying: "What is wrong with this picture?" Where are government priorities when it's about that? Frankly, we'll have to see if the cap-and-trade scheme that the government brings down in the future is in any way punitive on any of these industries.

What I see is that this climate change initiative by this government is being borne by consumers and the working people of this community. All of the onus is being placed on them, and none on some of the biggest polluters and on those who should be taking the first and biggest leadership role. Government is not forcing them to do that.

We've got families who struggle for rent and mortgage payments, to get by from month to month, to pay for child care, to try and pay all the additional fees for MSP and all of the other things that this government has raised and levied onto these families. They're worried about their parents and what kind of seniors care they can expect in the future, and are spending time looking after those parents while they're trying to raise their children.

They're faced with the fact that their young people, in order to achieve every possibility in their lives, to achieve their dreams and to achieve their greatest potential, are going to actually come out of post-secondary education in debt for life. That's the reality for many, many of the constituents in my community, and this is what the government has said is low on their priority list.

No tuition relief. We're not taking all of this largesse. We're going to give half a billion dollars to oil and gas and banks, but not do anything about relieving tuition costs for young people so that they can actually get the education they deserve. Instead, we're going to make it difficult for them and leave them in debt, burdened in debt for years.

When I hear the government talk about how much they're spending on health care and how much they have sacrificed here for health care, I really want to put a little bit of a reality check into this, because we have this argument all the time in the House here. The reality is that we are spending more on health care because the population is growing, because we have more people using the health care system. In fact, the ratio of health care spending to GDP in this province has changed very little in 20 years — very little in 20 years.

So all these big figures that the government throws around just confuse and dazzle the listener, but in reality, with our population growth, our health care spending to GDP has changed very little. It's stayed very much the same, within the 20 percent range, for 20 years.

[1540]

Madam Speaker, you have to say to yourself: what is it that the government is actually doing here for the constituents in my community? Many of the things that we see foreshadowed here in the throne speech, and somehow now not appearing as an offset in the budget, are things like this MSP sustainability plan which, in fact, means that we're going to see higher fees and fewer services. The government has already been incrementally delisting services since the day they got elected. That means more hardship for the seniors in my community and for the families in my community.

I will stand here today and say that I will bet that this is where we're going in the future with this MSP sustainability model. There is no place else that that would go to be sustainable, but to reduce services and to charge more money.

You know, the other side of this coin is for families who are looking after their mothers and fathers, whether it's in some kind of home care or some kind of

[ Page 9882 ]

facility. Now the government has foreshadowed that seniors will have to really start planning for themselves.

In fact, that's a bunch of the baby-boomers. I guess the government has decided now that the baby-boomers must have money. They'll be on their own. So you better start socking away money to look after yourself in your old age. If you want home care, you're going to have to have a bank account that is flush so that you can afford that, foreshadowing here that the government is about to renege on the responsibilities for seniors who have built this province, who worked to actually create the kind of province we live in, which we are all so proud of. They are going to be now told: "No. You have to reach deeper into your pockets."

What that says for many of the seniors in my community, I don't know. Frankly, a lot of the seniors in my community are women. I have a very large percentage of women in their senior years, most of whom are living in poverty. And so they have no option. The day that the government begins to pull the plug on the rest of the home care system…. They've partially dismantled it. As they continue to sort of dismantle it towards this independent living savings scheme, a lot of the women in my community are going to be the first to suffer. That is just unacceptable to me.

Public safety is a big issue and a big concern as well. I talked earlier about the lack of amalgamation, the lack of follow-through. The government has left my community with growing costs and growing discord, frankly.

Now I've got communities fighting with each other over the cost of policing, because the government has let them down. Inevitably that will fall back on the shoulders of taxpayers who will have to pay more and will not get the public services and safety services that they actually deserve. So there's a growing list of things that the property taxpayer and my community is going to have to bear.

We've watched schools being closed. I talked a little bit earlier about Lampson School. I was quite amazed when I saw that one of the things the government wants to do now is turn kindergartens into child care centres by having children as young as three years old going into kindergarten.

Well, first of all, teachers are not day care providers, child care providers. Secondly, where are all these resources? Is this the healthy thing to do? I would be very alarmed if I was a parent. When my children were three, they weren't ready for school. I know that. Any mother here knows that.

They did have child care because I was a working mom, and that allowed me to go out and provide a living for my family. But there was a big difference between child care and kindergarten, and I'm very alarmed.

Nonetheless, when Lampson School proposed to the government, as one of the options to stay open, that they begin to provide child care options in that school, they were denied. Yet now we're seeing the government turn around and ask for the very same thing. Start utilizing your schools for child care — or, God forbid, kindergarten at three. My community was not allowed to do that, and so we have lost one of the fundamental education centres, not just in my community but a historic education centre for the entire south Island.

Now families are forced to go further for school. Kids have to take longer walks, or in many cases, parents have to drive further. So we have this continuing sort of dichotomy. Close down schools; parents have to drive further. Oh, wait, we have to reduce greenhouse gases. Get out of your car. There isn't a bus in your area. Well, too bad. Gas prices are going up anyway.

What are families to choose? Where are the choices in that? Government talks about choices, and yet I see that there are very few. Everywhere you go, the avenue has been closed.

[1545]

The lack of child care is a huge issue. It's a controversial issue. There is nothing that galvanizes my community more than a discussion on the lack of child care resources here, because families feel it every day. Unlike some communities, where maybe mom can stay home, most of the people in my community have to have a dual income in order to be able to afford shelter over their head and food for their families, and to get by day to day.

That's the reality for the majority of the people in my constituency. They need child care. It is a fundamental part of their life. Yet this is a government who has failed in any way to invest in a child care system here and offer security for these families.

No wonder they are angry at government. Everything costs them more. All of the things that they get from government are being whittled down. Services are being pared down every single day. They're getting less and less, and they are frustrated by that.

It's very interesting when I look through a number of the things that are gone from government's promises of the past, because it also speaks very much to what their priorities are. They no longer are putting a focus on literacy. They're no longer putting any kind of focus on the forest industry as it begins to fall apart.

We see the government often is only being held to account by Auditor General reports. We've had lots of those. In fact, that's what we now have to rely on, because the government is less transparent and less accountable every single day. So we become more reliant on the Auditor General to go in and investigate.

Why do we have to do that? What kind of province do you live in where you have to rely on the Auditor General to go in and closely examine the actions of government, to uncover all of the inadequacies of what this government has done to its citizens? Something is wrong there. Something is fundamentally wrong there.

I will say that there are a number of things in the budget that I can support, and I'll tell you why in a moment. In fact, I've been kind of fortunate. Last year I called on the government to change the policy around homeowner grants for seniors. Seniors on fixed incomes, through no fault of their own, had their real

[ Page 9883 ]

estate values escalate beyond the maximum threshold that the government had set for homeowner grants. They were being punished by being denied their homeowner grants. I petitioned the government, and I would say, to the Finance Minister's credit, that she heard that and understood that was a situation that affected seniors across this province. And that policy was changed.

Interestingly enough, we've seen a couple of my other pet projects and passions here also responded to in this budget speech. PST on electric motorcycles. I think the House is very familiar with the fact that I drive a little electric motorcycle. One of my first motions that I put on the order paper when I was elected in 2005 was to say we should do away with PST on electric motorcycles and enable people who wanted to really engage in lifestyle choices and changes that were responsible actions towards climate change — that they should in fact be rewarded.

It's taken a couple of years, but government has finally responded and has finally done away with PST on electric motorcycles. For that I give them full credit.

The other issues here…. Smoke-free cars when you have children in your vehicle, and getting rid of trans fats. These have been ideas that were put forward by this side of the House, and I'm always pleased when I see government respond to that. I think it does show that in some ways you can be collaborative. It would be nice if you could do it more often, but it's competing priorities here, I think — as many of the speakers on this side of the House have outlined.

The reality is that affordability for families is a high priority in my community but not a high priority for this government. That makes me sad.

All of the things that this government could so easily do, they could so easily do by first of all not giving huge gifts of millions of dollars to industries that don't need it, like the oil and gas industry or banks. If we had not done that, that half a billion dollars could certainly go a long way to setting up a child care system here in British Columbia. It could go towards making it more affordable for families in the future to have hydroelectricity.

[1550]

I think one of the biggest tragedies…. We'll look back, and history will be very unkind to this government around what they've done with the hydroelectric system here in British Columbia. This is one of the resources that we have prided ourselves on for many years. We kept it public. We therefore benefited from low hydro costs. We sold our energy at a profit to those who needed it.

Now what we have done is undermined all of that. We have said that we will allow private enterprise to step between us and our resource — a middleman.

I spent lots of years in retail. I know exactly what that means. The middle person then begins to make the profit. Who's going to pay for that? Well, we are, the citizens of British Columbia. Our own resource. We're now buying it from private enterprise at a much inflated rate from what it would cost us if we bought it from ourselves. Does it make any sense? No, it does not. It makes no sense to me.

History will look back on this and say that was a tragedy. That was, for sure, letting the barbarians in through the gates to take money directly away from British Columbians and deny them the benefits of their own public resource. Instead, we become consumers just like anybody else in the world. We're paying more for our hydro than what we're selling it for.

Things like that. More MSP fees — we will see that. We've already seen that. We're going to see that continue. The sustainability is going to be a sword that is not necessarily used to make a better lifestyle for everybody but, in fact, will be used to again find ways to give less and charge more.

The gas tax. We can already see that the backlash here from the public — despite the government's attempts to pooh-pooh it and ignore it — has been instantaneous. The public can see through what is happening here. They're saying: "Why should consumers have a gas tax as a solution to climate change, but big industry doesn't have to pay the same kinds of taxes?" In fact, they're going to get a great big huge dividend back. They're going to be subsidized. That infuriates people, and it should.

The government, I think, is being shortsighted if they think for one minute that the public is fooled by this. The public is not fooled in any way. The public is very savvy. It's funny. I had a group of high school students come through to do a tour the other day. I went and spoke with them. It was the day after the budget, because they had had a chance to look at the budget.

I went and said to them: "What do you think of the government's climate change plan?" All those grade 11 students got it. They got it. They understood immediately that a gas tax is not a climate change action plan.

Until we are actually going to invest in new and innovative technologies and make sure that we are offering other options for families, so that they can get out of their cars and get on the transit, or that what they are driving is sustainable…. Unless we are looking at better ways to supply wind and wave power and all kinds of solar power that are free, we are in fact denying the next generation their rightful due and the kind of climate change that they would like.

I would have to say that I will continue to stand with my community here to demand better from this government. Seven years of disappointment for families is a bit too much to bear.

We have got to do something here in this province to change a government that would deny its own people, at the expense of big oil and gas; that refuses to put a child care system in place; that insists on charging people more money for their own resource, like B.C. Hydro; that will make seniors pay for their own home care in their senior years; and that continues to bluster and bluff us with what they are doing with the health care system, while families know that they are not getting what they are paying for.

While we continue to get less and pay more, families will tire of this. I believe that they will ask for a change in 2009. They will say: "Enough is enough." This government caters to big oil and gas and banks long before they do to the people of this community.

[ Page 9884 ]

They've trivialized their climate change plan, and the public sees through that. They want more. They deserve better.

[1555]

The next generation sure deserves a lot better than to be in debt for life and to have had a government give away their resource like B.C. Hydro to private power producers. The next generation knows they're being cheated and that the legacy left behind by this government is zero.

I. Black: It is indeed an honour to stand today and speak in favour of this budget and the direction of this government. Before I begin my remarks on the specifics, however, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the tremendous support I receive in the day-to-day job of an MLA, both in my constituency — the marvellous constituency of Port Moody–Westwood — and indeed here in Victoria.

I am very fortunate to have an extraordinary woman named Linda Kingsbury, who keeps my world organized and keeps me on the straight and narrow. Linda at the moment is on a very, very well-deserved vacation, but I can assure you that burned DVD copies of this speech will be awaiting her upon her return, and she'll watch it many, many times.

I also have the able and very capable support of Vicki Collins in my office in Port Moody. Today Evelyn Kennedy is assisting because of Linda's absence, so I say thank you to Evelyn as well. Here in Victoria I have Sabrina Loiacono, who does a great job trying to keep up with me and chasing me down the halls to make sure I have what I need as I go from meeting to meeting.

Of course, I could not do my job without her and Sarah Elder and Sarah Morris, my research officer and communications officer respectively. I remain in their debt for their ability to give me what I need to help serve the people of Port Moody–Westwood.

I also understand that some of my family are watching today. They really should find something better to do with their afternoons. My mom and dad are watching, I understand, and my moth