Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 10 -- Thursday, August 2, 2001

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1400

School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8). Hon. C. Clark		1405
	Introduction and first reading

Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14). Hon. G. Plant		1405
	Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions
	Government handling of nurses' dispute	1410
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan
	Tuition freeze	1420
	I. Chong
	Government handling of nurses' dispute	1420
	J. MacPhail
	Moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling	1425
	M. Hunter

Tabling Documents		1425
	Document regarding nursing shortages in provinces

Speaker's Statement		1425
	Policy for public written questions

Motions without Notice
	Sessional order for public written questions. Hon. G. Collins	1425
	J. MacPhail

Budget Debate
	H. Long	1430
	Hon. R. Neufeld	1445
	Hon. G. Plant	1505
	J. Kwan	1535
	J. Bray	1605
	R. Hawes	1635
	K. Manhas	1700
	K. Krueger	1710
	Hon. G. Collins	1725

Tabling Documents		1735
	Report of guarantees and indemnities for fiscal year ended March 31, 2001

Hon. C. Clark: I have the pleasure to introduce Elyn Dobbs, who is a director of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils and a former chair of the district parent advisory council for the Vancouver school district, who is joining us today. She's been a longtime advocate for a parent's right to be involved in his or her child's education.

I'd also like to welcome Cheryl-Ann Johansen and Beryl Watson, who are personal friends of mine that joined me for lunch today. I hope the House will make all three very welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: Sixty-six years ago tomorrow a strapping young boy was born to a railroad family in Blue River, British Columbia. He later went on to get the nickname Ichabod, and he's now the Speaker of the House. Would you please join with me in wishing a happy birthday to our Speaker.

B. Locke: In the gallery today are my daughter Ashley and her friend Sonja Rattan. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: In keeping with the celebration of birth, I would like to ask this House to make very welcome the newest member of the Liberal caucus, Janet Marie Dawson, born yesterday, and daughter of Kathryn Dawson of the Premier's office and Bob Dawson.

B. Kerr: I have some very good friends visiting me today from the mainland. They've come over to the Island here because, as you know, on southern Vancouver Island it never rains. So I'd like the House to welcome Ron and Noreen Avery from West Vancouver.

Hon. S. Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House some very special friends from Trail: Mr. Rob Brown, who is also the chief prosecutor for West Kootenay–Boundary, and his children Alison, Melissa and Justin. As well, from Trail we have Rick Larose and Ms. Ellen Larose, probably still known as one of the best Italian cooks in Trail, and her daughter Evelyn, daughter Corrie Tow and an exchange student from Osaka, Japan, You Ida. I would ask the House to welcome them.

M. Hunter: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today two special people in my life: my wife Joy and my son Richard, visiting from Calgary. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's also a great honour of mine to introduce a couple of very strong supporters and some small business folks from the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. I would like the House to make welcome Robert and Nancy Martin.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Visiting me in the House today are some friends from the west side, Lauren and Aaron Dinwoodie. Also visiting the House today is Jerry Lampert, the president of the British Columbia Business Council. Would everyone please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. C. Clark: This act amends the School Act to enshrine in legislation the right of parents to volunteer in their children's schools. No one will deny that every parent is an essential part of their children's education. This legislation protects the right of parents to be involved in his or her child's school and assures that this right cannot be bargained away in any collective agreement. At the same time, the School Amendment Act makes it clear that the services performed by volunteers will not result in the displacement of an employee. Finally, this act also provides protection for volunteers from legal action in the same way as is normally done for employees of the board.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. The government intends to chart a new course with Crown corporations to ensure that they begin to operate under modern governance principles. With this direction in mind, Bill 14 amends the Insurance Corporation Act to remove the requirement that the corporation includes the minister, as well as the three-year appointment stipulation. In addition, this bill removes section 7, paragraph (a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act to address an excessive and unworkable limitation placed on directors of the authority.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the cooling-off period for the nurses' dispute ends this week. To the Minister of Labour: can the minister please tell British Columbians what plans he has in place if there is no agreement? Will he be legislating a settlement, or will he allow free collective bargaining to resume?

Hon. G. Bruce: It will be, again, a very long and busy weekend. As you well know, the cooling-off period ends on August 8. I'm hopeful to have in my hands, either later today or tomorrow, the reports from both of the mediators, Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready. I've asked them for a report as to where the discussions are at, where the negotiations are at, how far apart they are, the cross-jurisdictional comparisons that are there from one jurisdiction in Canada to another. When I get all that information, I will take a real good, hard look at it and decide what action I should take from there.

J. MacPhail: As the minister is aware, there are over 5,000 nurses that are threatening to resign if the minister chooses to legislate a settlement that includes concessions. Again, to the Minister of Labour: does the Minister of Labour's contemplation over the weekend include a plan of action to cope with the crisis? And will he, at the time of his deliberations, make known his plan to deal with the crisis of mass resignation?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, it is a very serious situation. It's one more issue on our plate that we are having to deal with as a government, from a situation that hasn't been very properly or well managed over the past ten years. Enough of that being said, we will be developing a plan. Obviously, as we come through this, I will be sharing it not only with the members of this House but with all British Columbians. There's great concern as to this issue — very serious for every single British Columbian here in this province.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we learned late last month that the Minister for Health Services feels that there's no place for nurses to go. Where would they go anyway? Today we learned that Canada needs 16,491 nurses. Alberta is short 2,000 nurses. British Columbia is short 1,200 nurses. Ontario is short 8,000 nurses. Quebec is short 2,500 nurses. So I don't think that British Columbians throughout the province will accept dithering on this matter. We know that the Minister of Labour dithered on the matter of the transit strike. The transit strike went on for weeks when it didn't have to, because of the minister's dithering.

To the Minister of Labour, or actually to anyone who has an answer. The minister increased the stakes in this matter by refusing to give comfort to British Columbians about his plan of action in the face of mass resignations, so we really need to ask the minister again: what is your plan? What is your contingency plan that you must have in place now, with it being just days away from invoking the government's own legislation? What is your contingency plan, if negotiations fail and if there are mass resignations? What hope is there for patients in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question clearly concerns future policy. However, the minister may answer.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah, dithering. We became government some 45 days ago. After ten years the NDP as a government wreaked havoc on this province and put this province in a situation where the population of British Columbia overwhelmingly — 77 seats to two, 57 percent of the population — said: "Let's move on to a new area. Let's move on to a point where we can once again have a province that we can be proud of."

Dithering? No. There is absolutely not any dithering. There is a plan, and there will be good action taken, just like action was taken in resolving the transit dispute, just like we're dealing with the economic fortunes of this province, just like we got right to action when we first became government and gave every British Columbian in the province a tax cut.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the Minister of Labour delayed the settlement of the transit strike by six weeks. That could have been settled when the Vince

Thousands of nurses say they are now packing up and getting ready to go. Even if a fraction of that number follow through with their resignations, it would severely compromise the health care system in British Columbia. Patients are worried. People should be worried. This House should be worried. To the Minister of Labour: can he please tell patients and their families…?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell the patients and their families what his contingency plan is to ensure that patient care is taken care of if this government triggers resignations by its legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member for Vancouver-Hastings was talking earlier in question period about the severe nursing shortage that we're facing in Canada. I'd like to put some numbers on the table. In 1996 this province graduated 703 nurses. And do you know that four years later the number of nurses graduating in British Columbia was down to 569? Guess who was Minister of Health during those years. Guess who was the Minister of Health, who failed to provide the leadership we needed at that time to make sure that we would have an adequate number of nurses in British Columbia today.

To specifically address the question from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, there are contingency plans being put in place. The threat that the nurses have made to resign in such significant numbers is clearly going to make British Columbia patients pay for the labour dispute that is being perpetuated by the B.C. Nurses Union. We are putting the contingency plans in place should that eventuality happen, because we cannot take the lives and the health of British Columbians for granted, despite what's happening in terms of the lack of ability of the Nurses Union to bring this particular dispute to a resolution.

I would challenge the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to stand up in this House and tell us whether she condones the massive resignation of nurses in British Columbia. Or is she going to stand up and say that she is urging these nurses to recognize that the collective agreement being offered to them is fair and is competitive with other jurisdictions and that we should all be working together to encourage a resolution of this issue?

J. Kwan: The fact is that the shortage is happening throughout the country. In Alberta, which I know this government aspires to be just like, they're short 2,000, and that is under the Ralph Klein regime. Ontario is 8,000 nurses short. I know the Premier wants to be just like his big brother, Mr. Harris. The fact is that patient care needs to come first, and the minister should know that. The cooling-off period ends next week. This government won't give a straight answer. What is his contingency plan? Even if a fraction of the numbers of nurses resign, what will this government do?

J. Kwan: Slavery ended many, many years ago. My question to the minister is….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Please, hon. members, allow the minister to hear the question.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is: what does he intend to do if the resignations come through — even a fraction of them?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, the question concerns future government policy. The minister may answer if he so desires.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's very important that all British Columbians know and understand that this government is working very hard on this dispute. It's important that we keep the rhetoric low and calm, as much as there are times during question period when we'd like to have at it. The fact of the matter is that this issue affects every single British Columbian. It is extremely important. It behooves all of us to act in a manner that is calm, cool and collected and to try and get this issue resolved so that patient care for people throughout British Columbia is there, where and when they need it.

I. Chong: In one month students everywhere will be returning to classes. I represent a constituency with

two post-secondary institutions: the University of Victoria and Camosun College. I have heard from students who are concerned about access. In the New Era document, it states that a B.C. Liberal government would support the 5 percent tuition cut and tuition freeze.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Will she keep that promise and honour this election commitment?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to assure the member and the students of this province that we will live up to our commitment. We have enacted a regulation that will freeze tuition fees and will also implement the 5 percent reduction in tuition fees for this current year.

Perhaps equally important, we will reassure post-secondary institutions that we intend to fully fund the 5 percent reduction and freeze. That actually will give us some assurance that we can continue to offer quality opportunities for students in this province, unlike the previous government, which did not fully fund the tuition freeze and the reduction.

J. MacPhail: Across Canada the issue has been examined of how people stay in their jobs and what the employment law is around people remaining in their jobs. And across Canada it has been ruled upon that an individual has a right to leave his or her job. There is absolutely nothing that anybody can do about it, because the laws are very free. Slavery is gone. That's why the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant referred to that. That was the issue that the Nova Scotia and Ontario governments faced. So the issue of resignations by nurses is one of utmost seriousness. We know that in the greater Vancouver area, the Vancouver-Richmond health board…. If merely a fraction of the nurses exercise their individual right to quit their job in frustration, the system will collapse in chaos.

J. MacPhail: We also know that nurses could go anywhere in the country and get another job.

To the Minister of Labour: given that the right of nurses to resign rests with them, what is the Minister of Labour going to do, come Tuesday? What is he going to do to allow a resolution to the nurses' bargaining that doesn't provoke the mass resignations that the nurses themselves are telling us they're going to do?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to ask you to join with me in establishing a level of peace, coolness, calm and quiet, so we can deal with this very serious issue for all of us in a reasonable and proper fashion.

M. Hunter: Since the northern commissioner issued his report some weeks ago, there's been a great deal of public attention paid to the future of the oil and gas moratorium. Many of my constituents have raised questions about the government's position on lifting the moratorium. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Could the minister clarify the government's position on this matter?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. During the throne speech on July 24, the government committed to having a scientific panel study the issues around the lifting of the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. That was a commitment made in our New Era document and another commitment kept. We will look at sound science and try to look at how we can environmentally do it in an enhancing way. That's our commitment, and that's what we will do.

J. MacPhail: I seek leave to table a document listing the shortage of nurses across Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, today you will find on your desks the written policy developed by the Speaker for public written questions. It is anticipated that the new procedure will proceed on a trial basis during this session after authorization by a sessional order. The policy will be made available to the public upon request and is available to every member through my office or through the Legislative Assembly website.

Hon. G. Collins: With leave, I would like to move a motion. I guess I should ask for leave first.

Mr. Speaker: For comments and debate on the motion, the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly look to you for being very creative in this area. We welcome the initiative. I note that certain political parties have to meet a certain threshold. If certain political parties had known that they would have had access to this chamber and to the government, perhaps they would have attempted to meet that threshold. But certainly that will be available in the coming elections.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, it's unbelievable how partisan this chamber can be about absolutely every single matter, when I'm actually trying to offer some assistance here.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider only this: that this is what may be seen as a tiny bit of a complex situation for the public until they become used to the matter, and I would appreciate an opportunity to…. Well, I would ask you to monitor and perhaps review it with the members of the House as the process unfolds, so that we can make sure it is working in the best possible light. We would offer any assistance that we can to you to let the public know this, as much as is possible, as we monitor the success of this.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate you for what may prove to be a very innovative change to the way parliaments work, in opening up parliaments to the people of the province — not just through the members that they send here once every number of years but on an ongoing basis. I think it's a courageous move, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of it and perhaps making sure that British Columbians have an opportunity to provide their questions on the floor of the House in an innovative and direct way.

In response to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I just want to remind the House that this is a sessional order. It will be in place for the duration of this session and will expire with this session. If it works, we could certainly revive it or incorporate it in a more permanent way into the standing orders. If it requires revision, we can do that for the next session. If it doesn't work at all, then we'll have to go back to the drawing board and find something else. I just want to assure members that it's an innovative chance to try something. It's not a permanent change to the standing orders, and it is something that I think will encourage British Columbians to get in greater contact with their elected members on an ongoing basis.

H. Long: It seems like a long time ago that I was here speaking. It's not often that a member gets the opportunity to have the Speaker of the House in session when he's speaking and, also, the Deputy Speaker at another time. So I want — as I did congratulate the Deputy Speaker earlier — to congratulate you again for your nomination and your election to the chair. I know you deserve it. I think you

put a lot of time in here in the Legislature, and it's a pleasure to see you there ruling over us, so to speak.

As I said before, we're starting all over again, so everybody's got to listen. Before people get away, I've got to bring it forward that Powell River–Sunshine Coast is, no doubt, one of the best ridings in British Columbia. Earlier I was talking about — because I have a new audience here — what it covered: from Port Mellon to Oweekeno. Actually, it goes a little farther; it goes up to Namu right on the border. There are very few people in Namu, but they're still very valuable to me, and they mean a lot.

Another thing I brought up earlier.... Many people here in the House talked about these buildings and when they were built and the beauty they have. What I wanted to bring forward is that these buildings would not exist without the riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast — previously, Mackenzie riding. The very foundations are built on…. The granite rock which makes up these buildings comes from the riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It comes off of Nelson Island right at Quarry Bay, which should be a historical site, actually. We supplied the rock to build the buildings, and we're here to work with this government to give B.C. back its economy.

I'm pleased to be one of those members who was elected back to this chamber after a ten-year hiatus. I put in five years between 1986 and 1991. Some of the members here today — in fact, three other members — were sitting with me at the time. Not to put down the government of '86-91, but one of the differences I've noticed is that the government of today, the government I'm in — the Liberal government here in the Legislature — is more open. MLAs like myself who do not have a cabinet job have more input into what happens in these buildings, through committees. The cabinet listens, we have access to the cabinet ministers, and I am really pleased with the leadership and with the cabinet and with the way we do business in this province.

The reason I'm going in this direction is because that's what's going to create the climate in the future that's going to make this province good. It's when all these people, 77 out of the 79 here, from such a diverse background in all aspects of society can get together in a caucus and talk out and say what they want to, to put their ideas forward. That's what we're going to gain. That knowledge is what's going to create the government in the future, and that's what's going to create our economy.

Some of the things that have happened recently with the reductions in personal income tax will generate the working man to spend his money and to work harder. The tax reductions to business and industry are going to create a climate that creates the jobs that create the wealth, and in turn, it will eventually — in very short order, I hope — create the climate we want in British Columbia. We as a government are dependent on business, on labour and on everyone out there to make this work. I say today that I look forward to working with every one of my constituents — be it labour or business, small business or big business — to work together to try and create that economy which we're going to need in the future. We must have it because our social services depend on it. We can't survive without it.

Of course I'm getting a little older, too, and long in the tooth, so maybe I'm going to need some medical….

I'd like to bring up another thing. Back to my riding again, in the riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast the forest industry is probably the dominant one. But we also have a mining industry on Texada Island. It's probably the only mining island on the whole coast that is predominantly…. It's not in the Islands Trust. It depends on mining. It ships a lot of limestone down to Oregon and different places. I don't know whether it's possible or not, but I would like to work with our government to see if we can build on our strengths rather than our weaknesses — build our forest industry, build our mining industry, which our government, through the throne speech, has already said they would help with.

I think it's important that when we look at these communities…. They already generate wealth for our government through taxation, and I think they've got to be recognized for what they do. So when I talk about the mining industry, I say: how can we help the forest industry and those mills that need help so badly? Through the programs that will come from our government, I look forward to working with those people.

Another issue is the ferries. B.C. Ferries are an integral part of the whole Sunshine Coast, starting right from Langdale on up. But one of the liftoff points for the whole coast, for the Sunshine Coast and for Powell River — I say Sunshine Coast differently, but Powell River is part of it — is the fact that Horseshoe Bay, now back in construction…. I say it's great. When I was reading one of the news releases the other day, it mentioned the citizens of Horseshoe Bay and the people of West Vancouver talking about it and their concerns, but I didn't see the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who are totally dependent on that bay. So I think it's important that we be remembered when these issues are taken…when it's such a vital part of our transportation system.

We're probably one of the very few communities that's totally isolated. I say totally isolated because we have our communities that look after one another, of course, but we don't have what I would call the big centres that interchange.

Vancouver Island is a complete centre. It has the cities and the towns that have all the amenities they need, and Vancouver has this, but these small communities on the coast don't have them. They have a hospital, but most of our people have to go into Vancouver or to Vancouver Island for treatment.

I'm looking forward to what we promised in our throne speech: that we will be able to get our health care where we need it and when we need it. I have to admit that recently the kidney dialysis machines were just started up in Powell River after a number of years of not having them and having our patients travel into Vancouver at a huge expense.

It was not covered in any form by the government or even by the travel assistance program provided by Ferries. By the time they left home to go to kidney dialysis in Vancouver and back, it turned into an 18-hour day. It was pretty bad, so it's good to hear that, and I'm looking forward to it in the future.

On the ferry issue, as well, we have school children who in our towns — in Sechelt, Gibsons, Pender Harbour and also Powell River…. We have schools. We have interaction through the sports teams and such within our schools, but we don't have access to any of the other major centres. To get people back and forth from the major centres to our schools for competitions is very, very costly, even for our teams that represent the community.

I think it's important to remember to have those kinds of commitments, possibly through B.C. Ferries, to look at how we can handle these schools and these teams getting back and forth a little more economically so they can participate. Believe me, the Sunshine Coast is a bit of an orphan. When I say a bit of an orphan, it really doesn't belong to Vancouver Island, which we're supposed to belong to as a unit, and it really doesn't belong to Vancouver. It sort of sits on the central coast. Even if it's the most beautiful place to be and the best place to go, it's still a bit of an orphan.

So I look forward to building the economies, and that's probably one of the most important things. If we could build our economies on the Sunshine Coast and Powell River back up to where they were even many years ago, back when we had 2,000 people working in our mill…. That probably will never happen, but there are new industries wanting to come in. We've got to try and facilitate them through taxes, reductions or whatever we have to do to bring them back into B.C., and I look forward to that. I think our government has done a great deal already in the short time it has been sitting, and I believe I will be working as best I can with this government to make it happen in the future.

Finishing up, I'd like to read just this little bit out of the throne speech, which I think is very important, and that is the commitment that: "This is a time of great promise for all British Columbians, led by a new government with a strong mandate for positive change. A mandate to usher in a new era of hope, prosperity and public service." And: "It will take a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability." I think that will work for this government and for this province in the future.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to the budget update. I'd first like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment and some of the changes we've already seen in the House that were brought forward today under your tenure. I think it will be great and will make this House work a lot better.

I would be remiss if I didn't begin by talking a bit about my constituency and the support I've received in my constituency. This is my third term, third election. I was first elected in 1991, again in 1996 and again in 2001. I was elected along with 76 other women and men to represent British Columbians in this fine institution, and for that I'm very proud. This is a place where we come and talk about our constituents' issues and wishes and try to resolve them in the best way we can.

I am always humbled when I come back from where I live, in Fort St. John, to this House. In fact, I remember clearly the first day I came here after being elected in 1991, and it was really humbling. This time I was fortunate enough to come back, and the Premier of the province actually chose me to be one of his ministers, the Minister of Energy and Mines, which I'm very proud to be. That is also very humbling.

To the people in my constituency — and I will get on with the budget response — I want to give thanks. I want to thank them very much for giving me the opportunity to come here and represent them. In fact, I'm really humbled by the number of people in my constituency that decided they should send me back here for a third time. Seventy-three percent of the people who voted in the constituency of Peace River North said that they wanted me, as a B.C. Liberal, back here as their representative to bring forward a new era of hope and prosperity in this great province.

I also represent a constituency which is almost the largest in the province, just a little bit behind Bulkley Valley–Stikine in size, but not much. My constituency is the size of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Vancouver Island in land mass, with a little room to spare. When they decided to make a park in my constituency, they took just less than one-third of it and created the Muskwa-Kechika, which is the size of Nova Scotia.

So when we talk about parks and land in this great big province of ours, we should always remember that our parks are huge. People who don't get a chance to go out into rural B.C. and have a look around — and I would encourage everyone to do that…. As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said, we should travel this province more and more so we are more familiar with each and every part of it. But I would challenge him that I come from the best part of the province, not Powell River–Sunshine Coast. The northeast is the best part of the province. It's always nice to speak behind the person who just said that, because they can't stand up and rebut that, hon. Speaker.

The economy is the reason why people put us here. The economy in British Columbia has been dismal at best. Under the leadership of the able socialists — or so-called able socialists — we went from number one to number ten. Can you imagine? How can anyone ever even come back to this House, sit in this House and try to be proud of the fact that they took the

number one province in all of Canada from number one — economic growth, everything — to number ten in ten years? That's every year that they took us one step further down the way.

That's why British Columbians said in full force on May 16 that they wanted a new government in this province, one that would look after people's needs, regardless of where they lived, would look after the economy, health care, education and social services. We intend, through our New Era document, to live up to each and every one of those promises.

Our economy depends heavily on the forest industry. The forest industry is the engine of growth in British Columbia. We should never forget that. That industry was absolutely brought to its knees by the last administration. Let me tell you, it's going to be a big job. Each and every one of us in this House knows it's going to be a big job to bring that forest industry back to the might that it used to have.

Again, in the New Era document we made a promise. We told people that we were going to get the economy going in British Columbia, and we intend to do that.

Energy and hydro are huge contributors to this province's well-being, both in money to the Crown and in providing jobs. I'll talk a little bit later about energy but also about agriculture. Agriculture in our province is huge, and we should never forget it. Especially where I come from, on a daily basis I hear from people about problems they're having in agriculture. We have to address some of those issues. We have to make the agricultural Land Reserve Commission more responsive to the area of the province. That's not been done in the past, and that's another promise that we made in the New Era document that we intend, and, I'm sure, intend quickly, to live up to.

In fact, we made a number of promises that we would carry through within 90 days that we are living up to. We will live up to that 90-day promise, as hard as we have to work. Each and every individual here, regardless of who they are or where they're from — other than two — is working very hard to make sure that we have our 90-day agenda put in place.

As I stated before, our goal is to bring British Columbia back to number one again. How did we start that? After being sworn in on June 5, our first cabinet meeting, the Minister of Finance put in the largest personal income tax cut that we've ever seen.

You know, I was here. Personal income taxes used to be lower prior to the NDP, the socialists, being in government. Through ten years I watched their dismal performance, standing in the House and telling people that if they made $60,000 they were wealthy and rich, and: "We're going to tax you." I can remember then-Premier Glen Clark, who was Minister of Finance, saying those kinds of things. You know what? They carried through with that.

They taxed and they put in regulation. They put in legislation like you wouldn't believe, until they absolutely choked this province. They choked taxpayers to the point that taxpayers were actually moving out of this province faster than they were moving in. That was something that had never happened in the province before. It will never happen again, because our Minister of Finance and our government saw fit to actually reduce taxes by 25 percent, not just for the wealthy but for everyone across the board. Those that make $60,000 or less actually get a bigger tax break than the ones that make $60,000 and up. That's leadership.

We've also laid out very clearly in our New Era document that we intend to cut red tape. We intend to get rid of needless legislation that actually hinders development. If there's one thing we haven't had in British Columbia, it's development. It's actually been a nightmare. Businesses have moved their head offices to Calgary on a regular basis. From where I live in Fort St. John, we're very close to the Alberta border. They have moved them almost on a daily basis over to Grande Prairie, because it is a province that actually respects business and the wealth that it brings.

We have to remember — and we will; we've committed to it in our New Era document — that we will bring back prosperity. Profit is not a dirty word as far as the B.C. Liberals are concerned, because if business doesn't have profits and is not here creating jobs, we will not have the wealth to be able to continue the health care, social programs and education programs that we have. We intend to bring this province back to number one again. We know it's going to be a hard job, but we have started. We started with personal income tax cuts. We've now come through with cuts for businesses, so they can actually come back to British Columbia.

People are energized. When the Minister of Finance was talking about the budget update, I'm telling you, it was so much good news I could hardly believe it. I couldn't control myself. You know, I went home, and people were phoning me at my constituency office and saying how happy they were. Their paycheques had actually gone up, and they couldn't believe it. They thought the payroll people had made a mistake. At first they weren't going to tell them, because "I have more money to spend." Mr. Speaker, it's just a start of something that will happen in British Columbia. It's a new era of prosperity, a new era of entrepreneurship.

You know, if you just stop and think about all the things British Columbia has that we take for granted…. There are so many provinces in Canada that would just love to have what British Columbia has.

We can start in the southern part of the province, and we have Victoria, the capital — a beautiful city. Many tourists come here. It's a beautiful city to live in. I get to spend part of the time here, but I live in Fort St. John.

We have a metropolitan city, Vancouver, where you can get almost anything you want. It is a huge city. There are all kinds of opportunities in Vancouver for all kinds of people to actually have good jobs, to start businesses. All we had to do was change the government. You can feel that vibrancy in Vancouver when you go down the street. People are actually

stopping to shop now, instead of walking by, because before they didn't have that money in their pocket.

You look around our province and think about all the other things we have. Mountains, I mean, a tremendous amount of mountains. There are provinces in Canada that would kill for our mountains and our scenery — beautiful, clean lakes; thousands upon thousands of them. Some you can only access by airplane, others by road, others by hiking.

If you look at our natural resources, huge natural resources…. Our forest industry in this province is huge. We intend to bring it back to that might that it used to be, because we're going to allow people to go in and invest money, make money and create jobs.

We have hydroelectricity generation. Let me tell you that in the last couple of years there are a few places, not just in Canada but in the Pacific Northwest, that would just love to have our hydro generation. They'd just love to have it. Huge dams on the Peace and the Columbia that provide tremendous revenue to government — both of those dams…. They also deliver to this great province of ours very good, stable electricity — we don't have blackouts — and it's the second cheapest in all of North America.

Mr. Speaker, we have huge resources of natural gas and oil — all kinds of natural gas in the northeast, where I come from. That's where most of it is drilled from now. To put that in perspective, we produce and ship over two billion cubic feet daily, second-largest in all of Canada — Alberta, obviously, is ahead of us — over two billion cubic feet a day through a whole bunch of pipelines either into Alberta or through Alberta, Chicago or straight south to Sumas and south to actually fuel the economy in the lower mainland. That is a huge amount of natural gas. People tend to forget that. The oil and gas industry invests between $2 billion and $2.6 billion every year. If that was happening in Vancouver on a yearly basis, it would be on the front page on an almost daily basis. But because of where we are, in the northeast, it's kind of forgotten. If you think about that — $2.6 billion a year in investment, over two billion cubic feet per day…. In oil we're the third largest. We have a couple of refineries in British Columbia that are supplied by the….

We have every kind of agriculture, from people who grow flowers to people who grow canola to people who grow wheat, barley, oats. Cattle, dairy, chickens — you name it; it's here. The difficulty we have now is to try and bring some of those head offices back to British Columbia so that those industries can continue to prosper.

There are so many natural resources in this province that it's hard to think about them all. When you have that, along with an entrepreneurial workforce of men and women who are well-educated, who want to go out there, who are excited and energized, who want to make some money…. They want to raise their families in a secure environment, in secure homes, and to be able to raise their grandchildren, to be able to stay in the area where they were born so that there can be generation after generation. That's what I'd like to see British Columbia come back to.

Our Premier, through our New Era document, has challenged us to do that. Each and every one of us in this House, regardless of who we are, has been challenged by the Premier to do this. We've been challenged, as ministers, to do a core review of our ministries and all the Crown corporations that we represent. And I look forward to that.

There are always some people who say: "Well, everybody's a little bit nervous." I guess most people are a little bit nervous when it comes to change. That's normal. Everyone worries a little bit about change. But the Premier has not told us just to change for the sake of change. He's asked us to change it to better represent the people that we've been elected to represent, so that we actually give the power back to the people and have people involved in how things are done in government. That's what the Premier has challenged us to do.

I know that the people who work within my ministry — and there are a multitude of great people that work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines…. The people that work for government — God bless their souls — do a tremendous job. All of us should remember that those people are there doing what we direct them to do. We shouldn't complain. We create the policy. We create the rules as a government, as a House, as a Legislature, and they're there to carry out those rules. That's what they've always done in the past, and that's what they'll do in the future. And I look forward to doing that.

I want to just touch briefly on a few other issues about pipelines. We've heard a lot about the Alaska Highway pipeline and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to bring gas south from up in the frozen north. We have supported a motion put forward by the Yukon government which said that probably, in time, both pipelines would go.

But it's the private sector that is actually going to fund these pipelines. And it's billions of dollars. We're not talking just a few bucks. We're talking about an Alaska Highway pipeline that would cost between an estimated $10 billion and $12 billion. That is a huge chunk of change. The other pipeline in its entirety, if it was built across the top and down Mackenzie Valley, would cost about the same. Our job as government is to be out there and facilitate. Once the private sector makes up its mind about which gas it wants to bring to market, we should be facilitating as best we can to bring that through the province.

The reason I'd like to bring it into British Columbia is because there's a huge opportunity for the province now that we've lowered corporate tax. We're going to get rid of the corporate capital tax, thank goodness, and we've got our personal income taxes in line. We're going to get our regulations in line. We can actually have an industry in the northeast that strips the gas, liquids. It's a huge opportunity for British Columbia. It creates a huge number of jobs — well-paying jobs, high-tech, all those kinds of things that we've always just left for Alberta to do. Let me tell you, we have a

We also looked very closely at hydro generation, and we committed, in our New Era document, to look closely at wind, thermal, solar, biomass and fuel-cell technology. That will be part of what B.C. Hydro's core review is about: to look at those alternative ways of generating electricity so that we don't always depend so much on actually damming rivers, which is almost a thing of the past, or burning natural gas to generate hydro. There are other ways to do it, although they're a bit more expensive. I think they are things that we have to start looking forward to in the province.

To do that, we're going to bring on IPPs, independent power producers — the private sector. They're going to come in. The days of building fast ferries and those kind of things are long gone. We're going to start allowing the private sector to be able to grow our economy. What we need is to grow this economy to what it used to be: number one in all of Canada. That's going to take a while, but we intend to get there.

My time is almost gone, and there are so many other people who want to stand up and talk about this great province of British Columbia and all the great things that the B.C. Liberal government is intending and planning to do, has promised to do — a new era of prosperity in this province, one that provides high-paying jobs for British Columbians, where prosperity is attainable, the economy is strong and diverse, and there is hope for the future for everyone.

Mr. Speaker: The debate on the economic and fiscal update continues with the hon. Attorney General.

Hon. G. Plant: There are few things more intimidating in life than standing in this chamber following the member for Peace River North, the Minister for Energy and Mines, who has a marvellous way of raising the level of excitement in any room.

For me, this marks really the first occasion on which I've had the opportunity to rise and make more extended remarks. It's my first speech in the new parliament, and there are some traditions that go along with that which are important, the first of which is to acknowledge, as I am delighted to do, your presence in the chair, Mr. Speaker, and to say that I look forward to your wise and careful deliberations. I know that you bring to the position you hold a wonderful set of qualifications, experience and attributes, so good luck in what is often a difficult job.

I think it may well be, for that chair in which you sit, a nearly unique experience of sitting in and presiding over a legislature where there is such a relative disproportion of members from different parties. You'll have a particular burden in making sure that all voices are heard. It was my experience as a member of opposition in this chamber for five years that Speakers gave the opposition members, those who are not members of government, the opportunity to make their voices heard. It's important that they have those voices here in this chamber. It's our job as legislators to listen to all voices. I'm sure you'll have lots of opportunity to hear or watch me regret what I've just said in the weeks and months and years ahead, but I wish you well.

The second thing I want to do — and it's part of the tradition of these remarks — is express my gratitude to the voters of Richmond-Steveston, the constituency that I represent. I want, I guess, to thank everybody who voted. I know that public confidence in the institutions of government in British Columbia has been sorely tested over the years. One of the great challenges that we face as a government is how to restore public confidence in the institutions of the provincial government. Time will be the judge of our success or failure in achieving that goal.

For many of my constituents, many of the people I represent, the people who did get out to vote, I know they did so with a mixture of feelings. I heard people on their doorsteps express sometimes something close to despair about their view of how government worked in British Columbia. I think, at times, I was at least as frustrated as they have been over the last five years.

I sometimes think that I experienced sort of a perverse win, if you will, in 1996, when the majority of the voters in the Richmond-Steveston constituency voted for me and for the party I represented and for the vision that we had for government — but, of course, had to live through five years of a different kind of government. While I had a marvellous opportunity as an opposition MLA to see something about how government works, and you learn something about how this chamber works, I never lost track of the fact that for the majority of my constituents the last five years were a dismal experience of government failing to discharge even the most basic obligations of trust, credibility and integrity.

Here we are five years later. I have to say that it's more than a daunting challenge to look at the prospect of restoring the economy of the province, which is the road map that the Minister of Finance laid out in his remarks a few days ago. But I believe strongly that we will not as government — we cannot as a society — deliver the public services that the public is entitled to expect, which are part of our shared sense of identity about who we are as British Columbians and Canadians, if we do not put as our first priority the placing into effect of the basic rules and processes needed to ensure that the economy of a province like British Columbia can prosper. If we don't have a prosperous economy, then nothing of what government seeks to do is possible. I think it's probably entirely appropriate that what I want to say today is said in the context of a response to a message about how we can restore the prosperity that British Columbians are entitled to.

I heard lots of things on the doorsteps of Richmond-Steveston in the four weeks that I had the pleasure of knocking on doors. I heard lots of things in living rooms, where people were kind enough to open their homes for tea parties and coffee parties. I heard

things in high school gyms at public debates. I heard people express a diverse set of views and visions for how they think we as government should operate and how they want their province to fulfil its potential.

It is the overwhelming view of the people who make up the constituency of Richmond-Steveston that it starts with the economy. It starts with ensuring that people who have ideas and energy and resources are encouraged to expend their resources, are encouraged to invest their money and are encouraged to develop their ideas to their fullest potential. If we as government can put in place a platform that allows the citizens to take hold of the opportunities they can create for themselves, there really is no limit to what we can do as citizens to build a prosperous society in British Columbia.

With that as the context, I look, as I must, at the particular burdens and marvellous opportunities that I have been given because I have been asked to serve as the Attorney General of British Columbia and as the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

I want to speak for a little while here this afternoon about some of the things that government has done through my agency, if you will, over the last few weeks and some of the plans that I have, and that government has, over the next few weeks and months and years to come to try to live up to the new-era platform commitments that speak to questions of public safety, speak to questions of access to justice, speak to questions of our basic entitlement to be treated as equal citizens and speak to some of the more specific challenges that face the justice system and the treaty process in British Columbia.

Both sides of my responsibilities, both as Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations, are, I'm sure, equally important. It is, I think, interesting that the Premier has sought to fuse responsibility for treaty negotiations into the Ministry of Attorney General. I say that because one of the things that I think is less well understood among the public than it ought to be is that the treaty process in British Columbia, which has roots in our deep sense of the historical injustices that have afflicted aboriginal people in British Columbia and in our deep sense of recognition of the need to ensure that aboriginal people today become full participants in a vibrant and healthy economy with access to the best social services…. All of that is a really important part of the treaty process in British Columbia.

But an equally important part of the treaty process is the fact that aboriginal people in British Columbia have constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title. Those rights and title are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. It is that constitutional foundation that is as important a reason to make treaties as the social and economic and historical factors that I talked about a minute ago.

The reason why it's important is this: what we know is that aboriginal rights and title are constitutionally protected, but we don't know very much about who has what rights or what title and where that title or those rights exist. We have a framework of principles given to us by the courts for determining when rights and title would come into existence or be found to be in existence, but we don't have a land title office registry of the parcels, if you will, of aboriginal title property in British Columbia. And we don't have a complete itemization of the wildlife harvesting or fish harvesting rights or other rights that aboriginal people in British Columbia enjoy.

Because we have this very certain foundation of principle recognized in the constitution but way less certainty around knowing who has what rights and where, there is, I think, a legitimate — more than legitimate, an urgent — need to find a way to achieve some resolution of the uncertainty that's created by that quandary. The pathway to certainty that the courts have encouraged governments to follow is negotiated resolution of these issues. In British Columbia, for eight years the negotiation process has taken place, with the exception of Nisga'a, largely under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Treaty-making then becomes a vehicle for the government to achieve the certainty that all of us as British Columbians need to make and plan our lives, to make economic decisions, to make land use decisions, to make decisions about our communities. We need that certainty, and we don't have enough of it yet. While aboriginal people have rights and title in the general sense, we don't know very much about who has what rights and title where.

To come back to the point that I started with a minute ago, those are legal questions as much as they are social questions, economic questions or moral questions. I think it is appropriate that we fuse those issues into a ministry, as the Premier has done, that is both the Attorney General ministry and the Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. It's a big challenge, but I think it's a legitimate way of organizing government.

Let me speak for a minute or two about some of the things that the Ministry of Attorney General and I, as Attorney General, have done over the last few weeks and hope to do over the next few weeks and months that don't concern the treaty process or aboriginal issues.

Five or six years ago the NDP imposed upon British Columbia a photo radar program that may have had, in its original inception, some potential to be a program that could have made our streets safer. History, I suppose, will be the judge of that, but history has already passed a verdict on whether or not the way in which the NDP gave us photo radar was good public policy. The answer to that, I am convinced and have been convinced for several years, is no. Photo radar became a failed public safety program.

It became a failed public safety program for a number of reasons. First, I don't think it was ever laid out to work. That is, it never got set up or was administered in a way that gave public safety primacy of objective. Instead, it was set up to work as a revenue-generating device for government. The people knew

that. From the day it started, they saw through the program and recognized that the government that introduced it was more interested in revenue generation than it was interested in public safety.

From that moment on, I think that public confidence in photo radar was irreparably poisoned — that photo radar was never going to enjoy public confidence as a public safety tool. So what happened over the months and years of the administration of the program was more or less inevitable.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember some of the things that happened. We discovered that government spent $400,000 on an instruction manual for the photo radar cameras that told the operators profound things like: "Don't point the camera at the sky." We learned that when the government tendered the original project, it didn't follow basic tendering guidelines, and so the capital startup costs for the program were twice as expensive as they ought to have been.

We learned that the government that said it would only install and deploy photo radar cameras on the basis of criteria of fairness would dismiss and throw out those criteria as soon as it became convenient or politically expedient to do so. Municipalities, I think, were in some cases the unfortunate pawns of provincial political objectives that, as I said, had nothing to do with traffic safety.

But more fundamentally, when the program had been up and running for three or four years, I think the work that was done — including, most importantly, the work done by the provincial government itself when it commissioned a traffic safety discussion paper — made it clear that photo radar was not improving the driving habits of British Columbians. We had spent as much as $100 million on a program that was supposed to make our streets safer, and it wasn't working.

That's the kind of program that governments have to put an end to. When programs don't work, when programs don't serve the objectives that they ought to serve, it's up to us as government to put those programs and the taxpayers who pay for them out of their misery. We put photo radar out of its misery to begin the process of restoring public confidence in the work the police can do to keep our streets safe. That work continues to be a priority for government. It's a priority for my colleague the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and it's certainly an issue that continues to concern me. We cancelled photo radar in order to begin the process of repairing public confidence in the larger project of making our streets safer.

In the weeks to come I expect there will be legislation introduced that will complete the project that was announced earlier, when we made the regulatory changes that put an end to the program. Those decisions have fiscal impacts. Their fiscal impacts have been factored into the fiscal and economic update which I am speaking of. Because they are ultimately matters that the taxpayers have to pay for, I think it's appropriate to speak about them in the context of the fiscal and economic update.

I want to speak for a moment about another project that was not a new-era commitment but really something that I have talked about as justice critic for a couple of years. That is to look at our system of administrative justice as it has developed over the years and to ask questions about whether or not, as a system, the range of administrative tribunals and agencies that exist across government are working for British Columbians. Last week I announced the commencement of an administrative justice project that will, over the course of the next year, look at as many as 60 different administrative agencies across government to make sure that they're serving the public interest.

Those agencies include the Expropriation Compensation Board and the tribunals that are available in the B.C. Benefits process; they include the Human Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Commission; they include the Workers Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board. The list goes on.

What has happened is that they have been put into place over the course of half a century or more — the Workers Compensation Board, a century. They've been created on a one-by-one basis to respond to particular public policy problems or challenges that have arisen. The government of the day has thought that the way to deal with that problem is to create an agency, perhaps to create a program of benefits or entitlements, and then to ensure that there is a system of adjudication in place that can determine how best to allocate those rights and benefits.

What has not happened in British Columbia, so far as I am aware, is that government has taken a step back from this sort of ad hoc collection of agencies and said: "Let's look at this entire group of government bodies and look at them for the first time as a system, rather than as simply individual agencies." I think that the administrative justice project offers a wonderful opportunity to take that step back and say….

All right, we have this thing called administrative justice. What it is, is a set of tribunals that exist to determine rights and obligations for ordinary citizens of British Columbia on a day-to-day basis in a way that has a huge impact on people's lives. It affects people who are claiming disability benefits, people who are landlords and who are tenants, people who are seeking certification so that they can bargain collectively under the Labour Relations Code, people who feel that their holiday pay was unjustly denied them, people who feel that they have been unjustly or unfairly treated in their claim for workers compensation benefits.

All of these issues, which involve legal rights and responsibilities, are not adjudicated in the courts, in the first instance, but are instead adjudicated in these administrative tribunals. For a huge number of British Columbians, administrative tribunals become like the point of entry, not just the first-step point of entry but, in some cases, the only point of entry to the justice

system. It's the only part of the justice system that many British Columbians experience on a day-to-day basis.

So it's really important that that part of our justice system function in a way which is fair, efficient, affordable, principled, based on sound policy and avoids unnecessary duplication, which is easy to understand — all the sorts of things that we're entitled to ask of the branch of government's business which is done through administrative agencies.

Over the course of the next year in this administrative justice project we're going to look at those issues across the range of tribunals and agencies in British Columbia. I hope we will come back sometime next summer with a set of recommendations for how we can improve access to justice in British Columbia, create a sense of common values and principles across the system of administrative justice and ensure that taxpayers are getting value for their money when these agencies do their work.

I can tell you that it's probably a project that is not likely to rear its head above the radar screen very often. But I think it's important work, and it has the potential, if done right and implemented appropriately, to make a significant change in the way the people of British Columbia experience justice. So I'm kind of excited about that.

There's lots else happening. There are new-era commitments that concern the pay equity task force that will be talked about in the next few weeks. We've got the tobacco litigation up and running, because we think it is good public policy to hold the tobacco manufacturers and distributors in British Columbia to account for the damage they have done.

Although it's not in the New Era document, we think it's time that we expose to public viewing the vast amount of work done by lobbyists who seek to influence government to change its policies. There's really not much we need to do to enhance transparency except make sure that people have a chance to see that this work is being done. In the next few weeks I hope to be able to announce an initiative further to that which was discussed in the throne speech that will create a registry, open to the public, so they'll be able to see who it is that lobbies government for pay and, in general terms, the work they're doing and who they're talking to. I think there are a lot of good things to be said for the work of lobbyists, but the public interest, in my view, requires that the public see a bit more of that work than has traditionally been the case.

There's lots of work happening on the treaty negotiations office side of my ministry responsibilities. First and foremost is the planning being done to ensure that in the next few weeks, government will be in the position to introduce a motion that will empower a select committee of the Legislature to undertake the consultation process necessary to draft the questions which we will then put to the voters of British Columbia in a one-time provincewide referendum that will give the government of British Columbia the principled mandate it needs to negotiate treaties. We believe — and I believe — that the referendum is a tool for building bridges, and it can be a tool for reinvigorating public confidence in the treaty process. I encourage all those who care about resolving the unresolved issues that exist between the first nations of British Columbia and the federal and provincial governments to participate in that referendum process, to make it work, to help make sure it achieves the goals we set for it, to make it a process that brings people together rather than divides them.

I am confident we have the tools and resources here in this assembly to make sure that happens, and I look forward to it happening in the weeks and months to come. We have not waited. We have told the treaty negotiators to get back to work. They're doing so in a way that allows them to make meaningful progress at the treaty tables without in any way undermining the larger purposes encompassed by our referendum project.

We've restarted quarterly meetings with the principals in the treaty process. We've met with the leading aboriginal groups in British Columbia, and we will continue to do that. The Premier has been at those meetings. He'll continue to be at those meetings. We want to assure first nations people and all British Columbians that we're committed to a treaty process that's fair, that's affordable and that will lead to reconciliation among first nations and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia, a reconciliation that is 130 years overdue in the province.

Those who have heard me talk over the last five years know that the problem is usually not to get me started but rather to make me stop. It's because there's so much good to say about the good we can do in the next little while that I feel I've only just begun to outline some of the exciting opportunities we face and the humbling challenges we also face.

I am proud to have the chance to represent my constituents, to be their voice here in this assembly. I am honoured to be a member of this wonderful caucus of B.C. Liberals, and I look forward to working hard over the next four years to do what I can in restoring British Columbia to the place it is entitled to, a place first among equals in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Continuing with the response to the Economic and Fiscal Update, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I stand here, very privileged and honoured to represent the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, to respond to the Liberal budget.

First of all, let me just say that I wish the government well. I hope that their projections do come to fruition, particularly their projection of 3.8 percent growth, and that British Columbians will not be hurt if those projections do not come to fruition. When I looked at the budget, I thought that during the election campaign the Liberals had gone out and campaigned

on a balanced approach, or in any event had said to the public they would go out and bring in a balanced approach to government.

When I look at the budget that's been presented, I do not actually see a balanced budget in any way. In fact, I see a very one-sided and very extreme budget. It has brought in the second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. It favours the wealthy and big business with huge tax cuts. It hurts working families, I believe, and low-income people — people who are the majority of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant; people who depend on government for social programs, amongst other things; people who depend on government for health care, education and the like.

Of course, with the signs in the global economy and the turbulence that Japan and the United States are faced with, B.C. indeed needs a balanced approach that would encourage growth, protect programs and protect the interests of all British Columbians. Whether or not this budget will actually do that…. As I mentioned, I wish the government well. However, I have a lot of concerns for my constituents in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Just for the record, I know the members opposite are fond of saying that the NDP had left them a poor record in terms of the economy. But just for the record — because these are the facts, and they cannot be disputed — the economy that had generated the fastest employment growth of any Canadian province since 1991 is what the Liberals have inherited from the NDP. It has also inherited the highest wages of any Canadian province. It has inherited the highest minimum wage of any Canadian province. It has inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the last 20 years.

Under the NDP, it had built a school every 19 days since 1991. It had the fastest small business growth of any Canadian province. And it actually had the second-lowest debt per person of any Canadian province as well. Hon. Speaker, these are the facts that I want to put on the record. I know that the members from the government side would like to portray it to be different, but these are the facts that cannot be disputed.

You know, what's really interesting, of course, is to look back at the words of some of the members in the House, particularly the Minister of Finance in terms of what he said previously about deficits. Actually, this budget brought in the second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. But prior to the first budget he brought in, these were his words, back in March 28, 2000: "Those are the kinds of choices this government has made over the last number of years, and British Columbians — you have to understand — are very upset when they see a budget that's going to increase the deficit by well over another billion dollars. The deficit for this year will be well over a billion dollars." This is a quote from the current Minister of Finance, then the critic of the Minister of Finance, on March 28, 2000.

Well, what have we got in this year's budget? A deficit of $1.5 billion from the Minister of Finance, who said back then that bringing in a deficit is a bad thing. Now, let's just see what else he said. He also said: "What it requires is a little bit of discipline. They could have come much closer to balancing the budget last year just by not spending all the money, not by making a huge amount of cuts but just by not spending all the new money. There are huge opportunities here for the government to make progress on its deficit and start paying down its debt. But they've missed every single opportunity that's come along."

This is a quote from the Minister of Finance, who brought in not only the second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia but who also actually increased the debt as well. He had said that he was not going to do that and that he didn't agree with it. Lo and behold, the first thing he does when he's in government as the Minister of Finance is contradict his very own words — not words from somebody else but his own words that I quote from Hansard back in the year 2000.

I go on to actually look back a couple of more years, to March of 1998, in response to another budget. This is again from the Minister of Finance. He says: "I think the members opposite should pay attention to this one. Let's start with the principles which the people of Alberta expect their government to follow: 'Remain fiscally responsible. Don't ever run a deficit again…'" These are the words of the current Minister of Finance. The current Minister of Finance says: "Don't ever run a deficit." What does he do? He brings in the second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I raise these points because I think it is important. On the one hand, the member could say that when they were not in government, deficits were a very bad thing and that it should never, ever happen. But once the member is in government, well, what does he do? He brings in the second-largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia. There is only just a tiny bit of contradiction, I would say, in the language and in the information that the member had brought forward back in 1998-99 and the year 2000. And now for the current year, the year 2001, the minister says: "Oh well, deficit — it doesn't matter. Guess what. We're going to bring in the second-largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia — $1.5 billion."

You know, hon. Speaker, during the election campaign the Liberal Party also said that they would expect that big tax cuts would recover themselves. It would stimulate the economy, and they would be able to recover the losses through activities in the economy.

Well, not only do they project this year that they're not expecting that to happen, but in fact the people from the business community project otherwise. I quote the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who hired Stokes Economic Consulting to undertake a study of selected tax reductions. Their study for January 2000 actually concluded that 10 percent to 20 percent of the direct revenue loss resulting from tax cuts could potentially be recovered, but the majority cannot. These are actually not my projections, not my

Another group has actually made a similar projection. Even the B.C. Business Council does not believe that the tax cuts could generate enough increases in direct revenue to fully offset the direct revenue loss. If it turns out that the $1.5 billion in tax cuts already made don't pay for themselves, will this Liberal government go ahead with the extreme business tax cuts announced in this budget? Or will they actually retract that and say: "Hey, you know what? We were wrong. Those tax cuts did not stimulate the economy, and because we don't want to cut programs, we will actually take back the tax cuts and ask for the big corporations to fork back the moneys that they took from the tax cuts"?

The members, I know, are very proud of their tax cuts, and I look at the tax cuts in terms of their distribution. In terms of distribution, if you want to talk about fairness, if you want to talk about progressive tax policies, let's support the people who need it the most, the people who are the lowest income, the middle income. Where are they at? Well, look at the individual taxes. If you make $20,000 or less, your tax cut would be to the tune of $110. That's the average income of the people in my riding. We have the poorest people living in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the poorest community in all of Canada. Oh yes, their tax break would be about $110. That would be the benefit.

But look at this. To their friends, to their corporate donors, to their backers, to the people who supported them during the election — the people who make, let's say, $200,000…. What would their benefit be? Oh, the tax cut would actually give them 40 times more than the poorest of the poor in the country. That's $4,540. That would be their tax break. That is how much they will get.

So in other words, in this new era, if you're rich you will get richer. There is no doubt about it. This government will make sure that happens. But you know what? If you're poor and you live in a low-income area, you will be the last to benefit; and if you do benefit, it will be the least amount in which you'll benefit. That is what this new era stands for.

Talk about forthrightness. During the election campaign the Liberals were actually very silent, because when asked the question of how they were going to balance the budget, how they were going to make sure that services were being provided with this big, dramatic tax cut…. You know what? They said that no service cuts would be made and that the tax cuts would actually just pay for themselves. They kept on saying that in spite of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, in spite of the B.C. Business Council, who have verified the fact that the tax cuts would not pay for themselves.

I look back at some of the quotes from the Minister of Education. Here's what she said on CBC:

"There are a whole number of different issues that we'll not be putting front and centre in our campaign platform in this election. There's no question about it. For example, in the last election we said that our first tax-cutting priority would be to get rid of the corporate capital tax. This time we're going to say: 'No. We're going to put individuals first, and then our first tax-cutting priority is going to be a major, dramatic tax cut for individuals.'

"So it's going to be a different focus for our platform this time, and I think that it would be arrogant of us to walk into this election and say that we're just going to promise all the same old things we promised last time when we were unsuccessful in the last election."

This is a quote from CBC radio, January 24, 2001, from the Minister of Education. During this election campaign she said: "We're not going to do corporate tax cuts; we're not going to talk about what we said we were going to do in the last election. We're going to become completely different."

The only difference is this: she did not tell the people during the election what the Liberal government intended to do. They just quietly went and did it after the election. This is what we see in this economic and fiscal update and in the budget. Who were the biggest benefactors in terms of handouts from governments? Big corporations — millions and millions of dollars for the big corporations.

They said during the election: "But that is not high in our priorities. That's not what we're going to do." That's what the Minister of Education said. You know what? She wasn't forthright with the people of British Columbia, because the first thing they did in their budget was bring in big corporate tax cuts for their big donors and their big backers. That is the new era of the B.C. Liberals.

The theory from the Liberals, of course, is that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, that the economy will regenerate itself. But all you have to do is look across the border. In the United States, Texas is running short of money as a result of the extreme tax cuts that then Governor George Bush — the current President of the United States — introduced during his last year as Governor. Just over a year ago George Bush pushed through $1.85 billion of tax cuts at the same time that the state's budget projected a $6.4 billion surplus. Yet the latest Texas budget forecast shows that Texas expects a $700 million deficit on a total budget of $101.9 billion this year. Look across the border. You know that their theory didn't pan out for the United States.

You don't even have to look that far, to the United States. You can just look to the big brothers in Ontario and Alberta and see what's happening there. Look at Ronald Reagan's old theory, the trends of big tax cuts, the trickle-down theory. Have they come back to pay off? No, they have not, because the fact of the matter is that the theory doesn't work. It doesn't work.

But I do wish this government well, because if their theory doesn't work, you know who's going to be hurt? British Columbians.

They say that this budget is great; it's wonderful. The corporations are taking home big wads of money. They're not telling British Columbians, though, what they have taken out of this budget in terms of what's

Yes, labour market programs in the Ministry of Human Resources — $7.5 million…. Those are programs that target young people to try to get them off income assistance and move them back into the workforce. Well, the new government simply thinks that cutting $7.5 million….

J. Kwan: The Ministry of Human Resources is cutting $7.5 million out of employment programs for young people who are trying to make a transition from income assistance to work.

The members are shouting; they're heckling. They say: "Oh no, there are no program cuts."

If you look at the fine print of the program, you actually do see the program cuts, and British Columbians will be hurt by that. They cut $7.5 million out of the Ministry of Human Resources. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries had $1.6 million cut. It will eliminate the Buy B.C. program, the program that promotes local businesses in the agriculture industry, and also the B.C. Sharing program. That's not only hurting the poorest of the poor, the food banks, the people who actually utilize the dollars that they get from the B.C. Sharing program to sustain them throughout the year.... That will now be lost as a result of this new budget, this new era under the NDP government.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, the new era is that of the B.C. Liberal government. The old era was the NDP.

J. Kwan: Oh yes, of course, that's right — under the new era of the Liberal government. I must have been mistaken, because the NDP would not just give the richest of the rich money and more tax breaks at the expense of the poorest of the poor. If we can afford to give more tax breaks….

J. Kwan: If we were able to give a tax break, we would actually give it to the poorest of the poor, the people who only benefit $110 from this Liberal government versus the people who make $200,000, who benefit over $4,500. Of course we would not make such a mistake, because we would not go down that road.

I look at other programs that this government has cut. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — you know, the 47 percent or so that this government just wants to cast aside…. They have cut $23 million out of their programs — $23 million supporting cooperatives, supporting volunteers, supporting child care, which….

I know the government thinks child care is just for people to play tennis, for tennis moms. But you know what? Where I come from and where my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings comes from, moms work too. They utilize child care to be supportive for their family, to get out into the workforce, not to go play tennis. That's not their priority, and I know that's what this government thinks — that child care is somehow for tennis moms. The reality is different. The reality is different for different people with different income brackets.

I look at other programs in terms of cuts in this budget. The Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise — reductions of $1.2 million. They say this government supports the economy. They say that they support the environment, the green initiatives, sustainable economy for the community. Well, what did they do in this budget? They have cut the green economy secretariat by $4.9 million. The entire secretariat was set up to make sure that there are opportunities to develop the economy in a sustainable area. This government just immediately cast it aside. The sustainability commissioner — gone, disappeared.

I look at the issue around global warming, which everybody across the country, across the world, is very concerned about — with the exception, of course, of George Bush, the President of the United States; Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta; and of course Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario. The global climate change initiative — $4.1 million has been eliminated from that in this budget by the Liberal government. And they say that they want to build the economy.

Well, the way to build the economy should be to focus on sustainable economies, in the green economy, and they eliminated the green initiatives that would have sustained and developed our economy in those areas. They just said no to trying to come up with programs, initiatives, that would protect the climate, reduce pollution in the air and the like, because that is the first thing to go.

Not only that. Eliminating the programs is not enough. This government actually wants to go the other way, moving forward with offshore oil and gas drilling that would be very detrimental to the environment, moving forward in exploration in the mining industry, and the like. That is the direction they want to go, because with this government the environment takes the back seat. It is not their priority.

Women, issues of child care, pay equity take a back seat. It is not their priority.

Low-income people, housing programs…. We had the best housing program in the history of Canada, actually. In 1993 the federal government had pulled out of housing programs. British Columbia and Quebec were the only provinces which were maintaining a comprehensive housing program. We built more housing in the last ten years for people who need safe and affordable housing. And you know, this government has made no commitments whatsoever to ensure that affordable housing is kept intact in this budget.

Who is going to be hurt? No, I know it's not a big deal for the members who are sitting in this House on the government side, because the people who make $200,000 would not be concerned about that. They'll get a tax break — you know, $4,540. You know who will be hurt? The people who make less than $20,000 a year, the people who make less than $30,000 a year — people who are just struggling to survive on a day-by-day basis. People who depend on affordable housing, the seniors, the families, the single moms — they are the people who will be hurt. The young people who are having a hard time finding housing out there will not get support from this government. They will not get support from this government because they're not on their priority list, because they were not the people on their donors list.

If you look at the donors list, from the oil and gas industry alone, from 1991 to 1996, you know how much they donated to the Liberal Party? My God, it was close to $200,000. Is it any wonder that their first priority is to fast-track offshore oil and gas drilling and make sure that the mining industry, exploration and all those things take place regardless of what it might do to our environment? That is where this government is at. You know why? They were backed by these big corporate companies and donors.

It is very dismaying. As we embark on this so-called new era, I will wait to see what will happen. I know that with the core review…. I hope this government is not going to use this as a euphemism for cutting more programs. They have hidden it in the document so that perhaps nobody would notice what public programs they have cut, but I hope that the core review is not a euphemism for cutting more programs and therefore creating more hardship in the community and for British Columbians. We'll wait to see what they're going to do with the core review and whether or not it does become a euphemism for more cuts in programs.

I know that they looked to Mike Harris and Ralph Klein for advice. I know in the headlines today the Premier east of us is recommending that you should cut fast and deep and do it right now, immediately. I hope the Premier does not take that advice, because Ontario has never recovered from those deep cuts, and people are hurting out there. I was just out in Toronto, and I saw the number of homeless people in the city. I hope British Columbia does not become like that, but what are the chances of that? Well, I have a lot of concerns, because I think this government is going to move forward with big cuts, deep cuts that would hurt British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, we have a nursing crisis looming. We have potentially 5,000 nurses poised to resign. For a fraction of the tax cuts that this government gave to their corporate backers, they could have made sure that does not happen — that they do not provoke the nurses to move to other provinces, to move away from British Columbia or simply resign. This government had that choice, and they could have done that, but they refused to do so. At least to date, they have refused to do so.

Instead of making sure that the health care system was protected and patient care was provided for, making sure that these issues were addressed…. They could have addressed it in the budget. For a fraction of the amount of the corporate tax breaks that they gave to their donors and backers, they could have ensured that the health care system was taken care of. They could have ensured that patient care was first on their priorities and that the nurses would not contemplate the idea of leaving British Columbia.

Instead of going down that road, this government said: "No, I don't think you're going to leave." The Minister of Health Services actually said: "Well, I think you're bluffing." Therefore, he put the health care system at risk, the patients and families of British Columbians, just because he said: "Well, I don't think it'll happen."

But if even a fraction of the nurses who said that they would resign materializes, it will paralyze our health care system. For the Vancouver-Richmond health board in my own region, I know that even if a couple hundred nurses resigned, it would hurt our health care system. It would paralyze the health care system for the Richmond and Vancouver region. I know that in the northern communities in British Columbia it would even be a greater threat. Would this government stop? I would urge this government to stop and pause and reflect on their actions and to make sure that they do not provoke the nurses to leave the province, that they recontemplate their budget to make sure that nurses are retained in this province and attracted to this province and not driven away by their own legislation and their own actions.

I'd like to summarize my comments. This government has taken on a theory, the trickle-down theory of economics, that says that somehow big tax cuts will generate enough revenue back into the economy, irrespective of the fact that when you look at the United States, it hasn't materialized. When you look at other jurisdictions, you know that it hasn't materialized. Even the Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that won't materialize. In spite of that, they're going to gamble and take those risks at the expense of British Columbians.

They say that they really care about the lowest-income people. When I look at the comparison in terms of the tax breaks, who will benefit the most? I see the people with the highest income will benefit the most. If you make less than $20,000, your tax break is $110; $30,000 is $201; $40,000 — perhaps that's the average income — you'll benefit $308 versus $200,000 income earners, who will benefit $4,500-plus. That is the difference in terms of where they stand.

They say they'll make sure that people will be taken care of in the area of housing, yet I see nothing in their budget ensuring that housing is indeed there. I'm even wondering about the 600 units that were formerly committed under the NDP, whether or not they will actually commit to those. I'll wait and see. I hope this

government will honour its word and make sure that those units will be built for the people who need it most — so that we don't have people lying in the streets, sleeping in the streets, homeless people — which I know every single community represented in this chamber is in need of: safe and affordable housing.

J. Kwan: … and make sure and recognize that child care for women is not just for tennis moms.

The environment has to be held with the highest regard in the priorities in making sure that the environment is protected.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for the time in speaking in this House. I would urge this government to stop, reflect and make sure that they do take a balanced approach in representing British Columbians.

J. Bray: It's a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to the budget that we heard on July 30. Let me be very clear: this is a good-news budget. After ten long years of NDP incompetence and mismanagement, the voices of small business, of tradespeople, of civil servants and of working families have finally been heard.

It's been interesting to listen to the debate, and I must comment at this point, as I see some members are leaving. I am a civil servant, and I'm now honoured to be a public servant. My wife, Launa, is a CGA who works in the private sector. We both work very hard; we both work in our communities. I can assure you that we make use of our child care resources in this city, and I can assure you that my wife is not a tennis mom. I find that extremely insulting, and I know that the working families in my riding use child care not because they're tennis moms, not because they're rich and wealthy, but because they're working hard in the community to make Victoria and Victoria–Beacon Hill a better riding. I know that's why child care is there, and I find that very insulting from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I also had the privilege of speaking to the throne speech, so I will not wax poetic again about the virtues of my riding, Victoria–Beacon Hill. However, I do understand that as the House has been sitting now for a couple of weeks, many of my colleagues are starting to learn about the wonderful physical attributes in my riding and also the tremendous sense of community that Victoria–Beacon Hill offers. Since the Legislature sits in my riding, I continue to encourage my colleagues to get out into our community, to frequent the local shops downtown, in James Bay, in Fairfield and Cook Street Village, and get to know this riding and this community, because it truly is a special community.

During the recent election I had the honour, as did many of my colleagues, to knock on literally thousands of doors and talk to our constituents, potential supporters and voters. I heard from them questions like: "When will we get relief from high taxes? When will get relief from overregulation by government — unnecessary, burdensome and socially engineered regulation from government? When will we get relief from public policy that's designed to serve an ideology rather than the needs and wants of the community? When will we get relief from a government that believes profit and success are to be feared? When will we get relief from a government that doesn't use the same common sense in running government that people use when they run their households and small businesses?"

My community got its answer on May 16 when we elected a B.C. Liberal government in this province. On July 30 many members in my community who watched also saw in the budget speech that we've held true to our commitments. They saw a budget speech that delivered more on the promises that we made during the election. The Leader of the Opposition rose earlier in this House and spoke about the risks that she saw in that budget — the risks to the community, the risks to programs, the risks to civil servants. Mr. Speaker, the greatest risk that British Columbians faced in May was the prospect of another four years of that government of incompetence and mismanagement.

The risk that the Minister of Finance faced as he and his staff worked on this mini-budget was the status quo. If the Minister of Finance had not done anything, just allowed the next year to be like the previous ten years, this province would have faced ever-increasing problems. We would have fallen further behind our colleagues in the rest of Canada. We would have fallen behind our neighbours to the south. It was the type of economic outlook that we could no longer afford in this province, a province that used to be number one in this country and now, shamefully, is lagging behind almost every other region in this country.

The status quo would not have supported the kind of programs and services that British Columbians rely on and expect their government to provide. The status quo would not have allowed us to be part of the global economy that does exist. It would not allow us to take advantage of the people, talents, prospects, potential and natural resources that are here. The status quo simply wasn't good enough. That's why I'm so proud of the speech that we heard and the actions that the Minister of Finance is taking. We're making sure that the status quo of the last ten years isn't there. We're going to move forward. We're going to bring the province forward. We're going to once again be the number one province, the number one economy in this country, and I'm quite frankly excited about that.

The Leader of the Opposition, in her initial address to the budget, also referred to how proud we all were. She was somewhat sarcastic in the way she put it. Well, I am very proud of that budget. I'm proud of this government. I'm proud of the bold and decisive actions that are being taken by the Minister of Finance just 50-odd days out from a change of government. We're sending a clear signal to British Columbians and to people in the rest of Canada and in all of North

America that British Columbia is a place to come and invest. British Columbia is a place to come and set up business. British Columbia is a place to stay and expand your business. And British Columbia is a wonderful place, in doing your business, to raise your family and be part of a community. I think that the budget speech delivered on all of those promises.

Leading up to the election, the Premier was very clear and concise in his vision for the province and his view that we have the potential to again be the number one jurisdiction in the country. It was a vision that was viewed overwhelmingly by a majority of British Columbians, and they ascribed to that vision. They grabbed that vision, and they said: "Yes, we believe that as well." They became enthusiastic about that vision. They said: "Yes, we want to work to be number one again. Yes, we want to be a part of that." It was positive, after ten years of negativity, ten years of bad news, ten years of budgets that changed from week to week and flipped and flopped and fudged and did everything else.

My constituents and I believe all British Columbians were pleased to hear a budget that was clear and concise, that followed the same message they heard from the Premier during the election, that was positive, that spoke to the future and that was progressive. It was the kind of budget that this province has sorely missed over the last ten years, and I'm excited about that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in her reply, went on incessantly about the budget rewarding government's corporate backers. Quite frankly, I'm already getting very tired of that rhetoric. The fact is that this budget that we heard from the Minister of Finance on July 30 benefits every single family in the province. It rewards single parents, it rewards small business, it rewards those who work in the forest and mining industries, it rewards those who work in high technology and want to bring high-tech here and want to create high-tech activities in this province, and it rewards those who are prepared to take new risks in starting ventures in this province.

It rewards our young people who are looking for their first opportunity to work in the community as they're in high school, as they're in university. It's going to create the kind of atmosphere where new jobs are going to be created, the new jobs that for the last ten years our young people have not been able to find. The reason why so many young people talk to many of my colleagues and myself about the high student loan debts they incur while at university and college and tech schools is not because university is too expensive. It is that every summer they face the same problem: no employment for young people, because the economy is so stifled. It's so overregulated, it's so overtaxed, and no employers are willing to take the risk of adding one more employee, because they can't get the productivity that they need.

This budget will ensure that young people get the chance to participate in the economy, especially during those summer months. It means that they'll have less of a student loan burden, they'll be able to finish their university quicker, and they'll be able to become full workers in our province. It's a budget that lays out the plan that says this is a place where, when they graduate, they can stay. They don't need to go to Alberta; they don't need to go to Washington; they don't need to go to Toronto; they don't need to go to Wisconsin. This budget tells our young people very clearly: "When you finish your investment in your higher education, this is the place where you stay. This is the place where you set down your roots. You stay here and build British Columbia." That, I think, is great news for all young people in the province.

The former government liked to cherry-pick who would be rewarded when they did budgets and who would be rewarded when they did special program announcements. The previous government catered to special interests, small groups of people. This budget rewards every single citizen in the province. The fact is that those making under $60,000 a year receive the bulk of the tax cuts. That is not the corporate backers that the opposition members prattle on about. In fact, those who are making under $60,000, those average income earners, many of whom are in my riding — it's the largest percentage of workers and families of my riding — are the backbone of our community. Those working families, those small business people, those tradespeople who go out day in and day out, making a living, providing services, building our homes, fixing our roads in my community and working for the civil service, are the ones that benefit from a tax cut.

I find it interesting that the opposition members continually chime about how bad the tax cut is for those making under $60,000. Somehow, even though they had ten years to do a tax cut and they never did, now all of a sudden, after the election — when they said they wouldn't do them — they complain that the tax cuts to those same families that they didn't give a tax cut to are too small. I find that somewhat ironic.

I also find the mathematics of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant interesting. She continually pointed out during debate that those making over $200,000 received more money in tax cuts than those making under $60,000. Well, of course they do, because they're earning more money. The whole point of this budget is to tell British Columbians that if you work harder, if you take more risks, if you do more ventures in this province, you are going to benefit more. You're going to be able to keep more of the money you earn in your community. I think that's good news.

The other thing this budget speech told British Columbians very clearly, I think, is that we recognize that for families, the best people to make decisions on what families need are the families themselves. After ten years of government collecting all the money it possibly could through taxation and overregulation and "overfeeing" people and then turning around and handing it back in the form of grants and other activities, to tell British Columbia families what they

We recognize as a government that families that get to keep more of the money they earn will make the best decisions to meet their own needs in their own communities without a big provincial government in Victoria making all those decisions. We also recognize — and this budget is very clear about this — that money kept in the hands of working British Columbians is far more effective in stimulating and sustaining real economic growth than it ever will be in the hands of politicians or in the coffers of Victoria.

The budget also recognizes — and the Minister of Finance alluded to this very clearly — that the money we collect through taxation is not our money. It's not our money to do with as we please. It's the money that's earned by British Columbians; it is their money. The public contracts with government to provide services and then, through taxation, provides us the funding with which to do that.

But they ask simple things of government. They ask that when government collects the money and then goes out to spend it, they spend it with a plan, they spend it in a reasonable manner, are clear about what they are trying to do, measure those outcomes and make those outcomes very clear. British Columbians want no more fast ferries, no more Skeena Cellulose bailouts, no more massive, one-size-fits-all programs, no more half-baked ideas that are reacting to a small demonstration on the steps of the Legislature or one headline and cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.

This budget recognizes that the province needs to get its economic house in order, because we do not compete, as I said earlier, just with other provinces. We don't just compete with the United States, our largest trading partner and a mammoth economy all on its own. Despite the various protests to the contrary, we are in fact competing with the entire world. We're part of a global economy. This budget takes the first steps necessary toward making British Columbia globally competitive while still honouring our number one commitment to protect health care and education in this province.

The opposition members' rhetoric about massive tax cuts to programs, massive layoffs in the civil service and the putting of those who are in need at great risk is fearmongering at its worst. It's something that the previous government was very good at. They would continually put fear in every single group: "If you don't vote for us, if you don't support us, all these terrible things are going to happen." In the meantime, those very groups suffered enormously under the previous government.

In fact, I find it very interesting that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked about some potential cuts she referred to in the Ministry of Human Resources. I believe those are in fact simply administration savings through some contracting changes. They're not actually cuts to programs. I find that very interesting, because as you may know, Mr. Speaker, I worked for 13 years in the Ministry of Human Resources. I was there on the front lines when in 1996 that government cut basic welfare rates to single people in this province. It's my understanding that it's the first time since B.C. joined Confederation that there was a cut to basic welfare rates.

I find it ironic that this member talks about potential cuts when her government's record of cuts is there for everybody to see. They went after the very groups that they claim to protect, by cutting those rates.

When I worked as a financial assistance worker in the east side of Vancouver, I knew what most of my clients talked about and needed. When I was a district supervisor in the east side of Vancouver, I knew what most of our clients talked about and asked for. When I was a policy analyst for that ministry here in Victoria, I knew what the research and all the economic indicators told us was necessary for people on income assistance. It was what the people on income assistance wanted themselves: they wanted a job.

They wanted a chance to participate, to be involved in an economy that would sustain their employment long enough to get out of the rut of income assistance, employment insurance, income assistance, job, and so on and so forth. They recognized the need to have a strong private sector economy that encouraged economic growth, encouraged small business and encouraged expansion of business, because that was where their opportunities for entering the workforce were.

They were so angry that for the last ten years the government that was there, the NDP government, just didn't get it. They didn't understand that the best economic security for people in need was a strong economy. The best economic security for a family was employment. It wasn't government handouts; it wasn't another government program. It certainly wasn't another advertising program. It was a strong economy.

This budget that was presented to us on July 30 starts that process of providing those on income assistance, those who are in need, the best opportunity. That is a job; that is employment. I'm very proud that our government is taking such bold action right away on that issue.

The budget also addresses some other fundamental questions of what programs government should offer. The core services review will look at every aspect of government to determine: are we providing the services that people need? Are we doing it in the most effective manner? Is there another way it can be done?

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has deferred any further comments because she hopes, as she said, it's not a euphemism.

Well, having worked for that government for ten years, I can tell you their approach to dealing with budget crises. Their approach was to pick a number, any number — 5 percent, 7 percent, 6 percent — and then simply cut across all ministry lines, regardless of how it might affect that ministry, regardless of the fact that there was no plan to implement that cut. It was just a matter of cutting

That meant simply that you had literally hundreds of government programs and government contracts — including contracts with foster parents, day care centres, employment agencies, employment training programs, colleges and universities — that lost a percentage of their funding but were still expected to carry on with that program. What did that mean? That meant that the program was underfunded. It couldn't meet its results; it couldn't meet its objectives. But for the previous government that wasn't a problem, because they simply said: "Well, we'll cut some more." And eventually those programs would fall off the table, because there was no plan.

This budget is all about providing a plan, providing a framework with which government will allow all in the province to understand the directions we're going. It will provide a framework for our institutions in health care and education to plan three years out, so that they can make the decisions from a strategic planning standpoint. That will ensure that every dollar that taxpayers work for and earn and then give to government will meet the objectives that they, the public, set out in the first place.

The core services review is not about finding or cloaking ways of cutting programs or cutting services or any of those things. The Minister of Finance and the Premier have been very clear about what the core services review is all about. It's about ensuring that when government involves itself on behalf of the people of British Columbia in providing a service, it is done in the most effective and efficient way it can be. That's exactly how small businesses operate; it's exactly how households operate. Being married to an accountant, I can assure you that's exactly how my household operates, and I don't think people should expect any less from government when we handle the public's money.

Now, my constituents want that review to occur. Civil servants have spoken to me constantly about the need for that review to happen. They've seen contracts and programs come up out of nowhere. They don't know where they came from. Nobody from within the professional bureaucracy ever came up with that idea, but there it is. There are millions of dollars committed to it.

My constituents want to ensure that the dollars and the services that the government provides go to meet real needs and go first and foremost to those who need them the most. At times when basic health care is at risk, when children don't have textbooks when they're in school, when highways are in such disrepair that public safety and commerce are directly affected, taxpayers want to ensure that resources still aren't sent off somewhere else. In other words, when Nero fiddled while Rome was burning, we were building fast ferries, and our highways in the north were falling apart. We were bailing out businesses that we knew weren't going to last, while our health care system was crumbling.

We want to ensure — and through this budget I think that we start that process — that every dollar that comes in goes out effectively. However, I must also speak on behalf of my constituents and express some of the concerns that they did raise. I would not, quite frankly, be doing my job if I didn't. I have a large number of civil servants that live in my riding, and any time there's a large change in government, there's a large, big-T transition, if you will.

There are concerns about job cuts. We've been very clear that this is not a process of job cuts, that we in fact need a professional, non-partisan, strong civil service, and we're going to rely on that civil service. I said before and I'll say it again — and I'm sure my colleagues will agree with me — that British Columbia is fortunate to have the best civil service in this country today.

My constituents have also spoken because they've heard of the fearmongering from the NDP. They have spoken about concerns of reductions in child care spaces. They've heard about the much-vaunted but completely unfunded universal child care program that we aren't going to follow through with. I can assure my constituents and the budget speech can assure my constituents that we're going to ensure that child care meets the needs of British Columbians who need it the most, because it will be balanced.

The NDP scheme all of a sudden created a huge demand for child care by letting everybody get child care at ridiculously low prices but did nothing on the supply side, did nothing about building capacity for child care. It would have created the problem that Quebec had, where all of a sudden everybody could get child care for $5 a day, so everybody took it. But they did nothing on the capacity side, so who got forced out in the end and lost their child care spaces? Those making low incomes, those working split shifts, those who didn't have the ability to phone somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody to get them into that child care space did.

We're going to ensure that our child care plan in this province meets the needs of children, meets the needs of families, meets the needs of child care providers and meets the needs of the community, so it supports families and supports communities.

I was very pleased also to hear the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development pay particular attention to toddler and infant child care. Those are two areas that, as the father of a 14-month-old, I know are difficult for families in every part of the province — to find those spaces. We will ensure that we have the resources to build the capacity for that much-needed area, and I'm very pleased.

I know that many in my community have also expressed concerns about potential cuts to services for children with special needs. I think, again, that the Minister of Finance has made it clear that we will focus all our resources on the areas where the need is greatest. Certainly children with special needs are one of those areas. Again, by having a Minister of State for

Early Childhood Development along with the Minister of Children and Family Development, it ensures that we have a proper ministerial role to ensure that children with special needs aren't just one more issue on the side of a desk of somebody but that in fact they get the kind of focus and attention they need. This budget ensures that the resources will be there, that the economy will be strong to support those programs.

I find it interesting that the member talked about environmental standards and how this budget somehow was going to create great havoc in the environment. I know that many in my community are concerned about the environment. Many in my community, myself included, feel that we are stewards of the land and the air and water and that environmental protection and stewardship are very important. But the budget, in fact, achieved more action in one day than the previous government achieved in ten years. It set the course for encouraging people to buy vehicles that have better emission levels for the province. It encourages people to use alternative fuels. It encourages people to invest in environmentally friendly activities.

We've been very clear that we will protect the environment not by press release, not by headlines and not by demonstration. We'll protect the environment with action, and we'll protect the environment based on sound science from our own civil service as well as from the scientists that exist in our province. I think that is good news for the province.

I know that the budget speech acknowledged the next budget, set for February 19. We'll set out what we're going to do, how we're going to do it, what results we will achieve and how much it will cost. I know the Minister of Finance can appreciate that there will be some unease between now and then. I will continue to raise those issues both in this House and to the ministers involved so that my constituents' concerns are known.

I also speak to my constituents about the fact that this is the most open and accessible government in the history of British Columbia. I encourage my constituents to watch the legislative channel, to watch the open cabinet meetings. I think that many of the answers to their concerns will already be there. It'll be out in the open, so they understand where we're going. If they don't see the answers there, I encourage my constituents to write me, phone me, e-mail me. And if I don't have the answers, I'll make sure I go to the ministers who have the answers.

Unlike previous regimes, where cabinet operated in secret and private members never had any access, this cabinet, this executive council, is open to all members. We have incredible access. We're getting answers. We're providing services to our constituents that are unparalleled, I think, in the history of British Columbia. I'm appreciative of my colleagues for that openness.

This budget demonstrates that this government will fulfil its promises and, in doing so, is going to help to fulfil the great promise and potential of this province. I am proud of this budget. I am proud of this government. I am proud of this province. I am proud to be a part of this positive change.

R. Hawes: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that this coming Sunday one of the greatest environmental events in this province will take place in my riding, in Mission. That's the famous Mission Soapbox Derby, and I'd like to invite everyone in the House to come and take part. If you want to, we could probably find a car if you want to try your hand at soapbox racing.

It's a pleasure to rise again in the House. I was privileged to speak last week on the throne speech. It's a real privilege to be able to speak again, this week on the economic and fiscal update. I want to start by quoting my colleague from across the aisle, the member for Peace River North, and his wise words: "So much good news." And in so little time. After taking office just a short time ago, this government has already had a profound impact on the lives of people in this province. That impact is going to be felt more and more, in a positive way, over the next few weeks as we unroll our 90-day agenda and fulfil the promises we made during the election campaign.

Before we go there, before I speak further on that, I'd like to think a little bit about the past ten years. I don't know if you recall 1991, Mr. Speaker. I think you probably do. You were here, I believe, in this House as the NDP government took office. Within the first year there were massive tax increases, unprecedented in the history of this province. Those taxes began to drive the economy of this province into the ground.

Over the past ten years we've seen the reckless spending. There's no point in reviewing all of that pain; we've felt it for so long. I think probably the worst thing is the class warfare that we still hear as we listen to the rhetoric from the members opposite day by day as they come into the House and talk about the rich versus the poor, the union versus non-union and the corporation versus the worker. We've had ten years of division in this province, and I'm so proud to see now, with this government, that this has ended. We're uniting the people of this province, whether they be wealthy or poor, whether they be corporate or just workers. We're all uniting for one common purpose, and that's to return this province to the place that it ought to be: number one in the country. [Applause.]

Boy, that was really…. [Applause.] That's better; that's better. That's what we need here.

I was a banker for many years. I remember the 1982 recession in this country, as the wealth through the late seventies just disappeared overnight. The crash of 1982 was a killer. Sitting in a banker's chair at that time, we were forced to look around and see what had caused that recession and what the cure might be. What we found…. I'm sure we all know. It was an international recession, and time was what really cured that problem.

Sitting as a banker…. What happened in the bank was that we sat for the most part and said: "We are

partners with these people, these corporations and private citizens that have found themselves in terrible positions." If you remember, interest rates were going through the roof and there were terrible economic conditions throughout the whole province.

We recovered from that. It was not the making of the government of the day. It was an international situation. Then we hit the nineties, and we slipped again in this province into a recession. Now, was that caused by some international incident? The previous government would have us believe it was the Asian flu, that it was caused by a terrible situation in Japan or in Asia. It's funny that that flu never infected our neighbours in Alberta or Washington State or Oregon or Saskatchewan. It was only in British Columbia. The fact is, we have suffered for the last decade with a recession that was made in British Columbia, and it was made by the government that said they were serving the people of this province.

When you look back, I guess you'd have to say they were ill-serving the people of this province. They have stood for so long saying: "We represent the working men and women in this province." What's happened is that there are fewer and fewer working men and women in this province, because jobs have disappeared. Good, high-paying jobs have gone. In fact, it was with a great deal of shame that I read in the newspapers in the last week or so that the growing of marijuana in this province now has outstripped forestry for the amount of dollars created in…. Well, I won't call it an industry but a budding industry, maybe we would call it. No, we won't go there.

That's just shameful. I know our Minister of Forests looks at that and knows forestry is going to be again number one, and I'm quite sure that a lot of the people engaged in the illegal activity of growing these cash crops may be people who have been forced into it because they have no other employment. That is a result of the economic policies of the previous government.

I've sat and tried to figure out…. I put on a banker's hat sometimes and try to look at the economic policies that were followed by the previous government. I wonder where their thinking came from. I wonder: is it yogic flying? Is this how they determined how they were going to run this province economically? Maybe it was through a mirror. "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, how do we set the…?" I think maybe it was Carnac, the great Carnac. "What is the answer?" The answers haven't come. What they've done is bankrupt business after business after business in this province.

For the benefit of the two members from the opposite party, just a simple, commonsense look…. What's the difference between someone who's reliant on government handouts and someone who's self-reliant? I think it's a job. If you follow common sense, then you say: "Where will the jobs come from?" Well, that can come from the free enterprise sector, or it can come from the government.

For the last decade the policy of the government has been to create jobs through the government. That's our biggest job engine here. The economic engine was fuelled from right here in this building through tax dollars pulled from ordinary men and women and from the corporations of this province amid the continual statements that: "We're only going to tax the wealthy." Well, the fact is that the definition of who the wealthy are in this province has changed dramatically over the past ten years. Some of those who were thought to be wealthy ten years ago may still be wealthy, but those that were poor ten years ago are now, many of them, considered wealthy, because the bar has slid down.

The average wage for men and women in this province has dropped dramatically, and that means there are fewer and fewer people paying taxes to support the programs the government had to have and couldn't afford. The businesses they were trying to tax left in droves for other places, like Alberta. It's just common sense that if the government is going to be the employer, we're going to have to have higher taxes, because the government will need more money to fuel its ever-growing lineup of programs and its ever-increasing civil service.

Having said that, when you have fewer people working in the free enterprise sector to pay taxes, you obviously have lower income coming to government. It's this self-fulfilling, catch-22 problem. You're running to try and catch your tail, and you'll never get there. This government never, never figured it out.

We've heard over the last few days that the budget that we've just brought down — the fiscal review — has given great tax cuts to the wealthy and to the corporate world in this province. But one must first ask: "Who creates the jobs, and how do we get those that have left that do create jobs to come back?" The only way you can do it is to be competitive with the provinces who have enjoyed good economies for the last decade, like Alberta. That means allowing those who work hard to keep more of the money that they earn — to make profit, again, the leading driver for business. We always know that's what attracts business: the ability to make profit.

If you think about what causes someone in the entrepreneurial world to take their wealth out of their pocket and put it on the table and risk that money in any kind of a venture, I think you start to understand. If you yourself or any member here were to take his life savings and risk it on some project…. It takes a tremendous amount of bravery — courage — to do that, and it takes confidence in the economy of the province that you're investing your money in.

It takes a level playing field, and it takes goalposts that are rooted. You can't have rules that change in the middle of your investment that create new risk you hadn't accounted for, and for the last ten years that's what's been happening here. That's what's driven business out of this province. The rooting of the goalposts, which started the other day in the fiscal review, and the reduction of taxes are what are going to start the flow back into this province and make us again the number one province in this country.

So is this a budget, then, for the rich? Absolutely not. This budget is, as the previous speaker noted, for everyone. Sure, those who are wealthy are going to get a break here. But you know, generally speaking, the people who have the highest incomes are people who have perhaps the most to offer and who are the rarest commodities. We've been seeing many of our youth that are highly, highly trained — a big investment in their training — leave for other places, like the United States, to work, for example, in the high-tech sector, where they're able to keep more of the income they earn. They're in high demand, so they're paid big dollars. Those are the people that we have to have in this province. They're the people that are going to build the future for our province. Yet we're forcing them to leave with a tax regime here that's just simply not fair.

I'm really proud of the way that we have reacted very quickly to build a tax regime in this province that's not just competitive but that rewards initiative and entrepreneurship. That's what's got to drive the engine of the economy of this province, not the government. The government needs to get smaller and get out of people's faces, out of their pockets and out of their lives to the greatest extent possible.

I'll give you an example. During the election process I had a call from a man who is a tinsmith. He works in a union shop. He's worked there for years. He has a pension coming. He's a middle-aged fellow, and he'd like to retire. But the pension is not quite big enough if he takes early retirement, so he thought: "Well, maybe what I'll do is work part-time. I'll work part-time at a shop somewhere close to home, a non-union shop." Well, of course, the previous government had interfered to the stage that if he had done that, he would not be entitled to the pension that he had worked years to earn. The previous government took pensions away from people who had worked years to earn them. That's just incredible.

Those members should be ashamed. Every one of the members that sat in this House under that previous government should be ashamed of doing things like that. People who work hard to earn a pension deserve to have that pension. They're vested in their pensions. I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's got to be one of the most unattractive things. If that legislation had stayed in place and if this had been allowed to continue, that's got to tell young people: "Do not work here. Do not enter the trades in this province, because you'll be punished in middle age. You'd better get out of here now while you're young." I've got to tell you, I'm so happy that message is going to be reversed very quickly by this government. If you've earned a pension in this province, when you receive your pension, you're free to do anything you want….

We did give very deep tax cuts, and we are expecting a deficit. I'm a former banker. Deficit financing is not good. Everyone knows that. Even as a banker, if you analyze any company, if their fiscal house has been in disarray but they review what they've done, they build a business plan, and they're able to show you how they're now going to move ahead and move their company into the black.... Even though it may force them, in the meantime, slightly further into the red, the bank does support those kinds of propositions when they're able to judge management's ability to fulfil the plan that they've laid out.

Thinking again as a banker and putting that hat on and looking at the way governments have run, would any banker sit and look at the plans that the previous government laid out and say: "They know what they're doing; I'll continue to support them"? I think not. As a banker, the previous government would have had its loan called long, long ago. But this government, I'm really proud to say, does have a plan. It's a plan that is going to work. It's a plan that's being implemented. It's a plan that already people in this province are feeling the positive results of.

I don't look at what we have as a deficit; I look at it as an investment. It's an investment in the corporations that are going to drive the economy of this province, and it's an investment in the people that live in this province. Anytime you can make that kind of an investment, no one should be looking at it as those two members opposite do and denigrate what is really happening here. That investment is the right kind of investment.

As I listened to the members, especially today, they asked the Minister of Labour: "What are you going to do about the nurses?" I was so proud of him with the answer he gave when he invited those two members…. He said: "What I'm going to do is ask you to join with me in finding a solution and cooling the rhetoric and speaking in the right kind of language to these nurses." I really hope they listened closely to that answer, because that's part of the solution. The kind of rhetoric we've been hearing around that issue really is not doing this province or the people who need health care in this province any good.

I believe where we ought to be going is exactly where the Minister of Labour said we should be going, and I really urge those two members to join with him in finding the right solutions and in talking to the nurses in the right kind of language to make sure they return to providing the kind of health care in this province that they themselves want to provide.

As a province we're right on the line here now of becoming one of the have-not provinces. I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker: do you know anyone in this province who's had to have financial assistance from the government who really wants to be there? I don't think so. There isn't anybody that's having to receive financial assistance who wants that. Everybody wants to be self-reliant; everybody wants to be a contributor. It's the same thing provincially.

We have traditionally forever been one of the have provinces in this country. We have provided equalization payments to those provinces that are less fortunate than us. Yet here we are very close to receiving equalization payments from other provinces, and that is shameful. The budget that we have brought down and the beginning of the rebuilding of the

economy of this province that we saw the other day with this government will forever end the prospect of us receiving equalization payments. I know we will be proud to provide those payments to the less fortunate provinces in future, as we have in the past.

I'm going to end very quickly, but I just want to say a couple of things. SE2 in the Fraser Valley is a huge issue to the folks in my riding and in all of the ridings in the Fraser Valley. It's one of the biggest threats to the Fraser Valley, to the airshed in the Fraser Valley and life in the Fraser Valley that we've faced for many, many years. From an economic standpoint the construction of that plant will drive businesses and professionals and…. In fact, when they talk about the medical fraternity, I've heard from numerous doctors who say: "Build that plant, and I have to take my family out of the Fraser Valley." That's tragic.

I looked at the previous government and what they did, and I look at what we're doing. We have applied for intervener status; it's now been granted. We're taking on the full financial responsibility for fighting that fight, and it's because we are responsible. We are the governors of the airshed in the Fraser Valley. We've taken our responsibility seriously, and we're doing what we should do to fight. We're going to lead the engine of the fight for the Fraser Valley residents, and it's the right thing to do.

When I looked at the previous government and how much they…. Mr. Speaker, do you know how much they spent fighting SE2 in the last battle with the EFSEC? Well, I'll just be Carnac: how much was it? It was nothing; that's how much it was — not a cent. They weren't there; they were absent, as they've been absent in every issue that's come up that really involves people in their lives and could make their lives better. They've been absent for a decade. I'm just so glad now we that have a government in this province — and I'm so proud to be a part of that government — that isn't going to be absent.

Mr. Speaker, with that, thank you very much. I know there are lots of people who want to speak about the good news, and the good news just keeps coming.

K. Manhas: As the Minister of Finance stated, this province started the last decade as an economic powerhouse. We all know it didn't end the decade that way. But because of the actions of this government, this province will be an economic powerhouse once again. That's because this government is committed to decisive action to tackle the issues and problems facing this province and to act quickly in making the necessary changes.

That's what this fiscal update was all about: swift actions to restore economic confidence in British Columbia so that we can increase opportunities for young people; increase options and opportunities for low-income families and everyone in British Columbia; pay for the education system that will prepare our citizens for an economy driven by information, research, knowledge and technology; reinvest in transit infrastructure and transportation; and maintain a health care system that provides people with the care that they need where and when they need it.

It is my pleasure to speak to what I see as an innovative plan to put British Columbia back on the right path to reclaiming its place as the fastest-growing economy in Canada, to placing British Columbia at the centre of attention as our economic growth and successes become known across the world, to placing British Columbia back on its own track developing new economies, becoming a global trading force and revitalizing our primary industries — the resource-based industries that have built our province. I believe that can be done to economic benefit while maintaining our environment. That's what this government plans to do.

My family, like many others around this province, can trace its place here to the resource industries that built British Columbia. My grandfather came to British Columbia in 1927 as a teenager with nothing but big dreams and a willingness to work. He came to B.C. with a strong back, a strong mind and the will to succeed. He made his living, like lots of people in this province did and still do, working in a mill. He worked hard to build a solid foundation for himself and his family.

In 1993, when I decided to go out of province for university, my grandfather refused to speak to me. He felt I was turning my back on British Columbia. He had a passionate loyalty to British Columbia and to Canada, and he wanted his kids and his grandkids to continue building on the foundation that he had laid.

After graduating in 1997, I came back to B.C. to discover a place where hope had vanished. Most people had shed their dreams of success to concentrate on getting by in life. I want to see that pride. I want to restore that pride in British Columbians so that we can again be a community of achievers. I want to ensure that we build a foundation that's dynamic, healthy and strong so that when I have grandchildren, they will have a solid foundation to call their own. I want to continue that legacy of success. By allowing people to keep more of what they earn, this government will restore the drive for success to our people and our province.

My family built its success on the opportunities that this province had afforded them. Now it's up to us to reinstate those opportunities so that more generations and more families in British Columbia can reap those opportunities and that success.

Now, I might not have all the answers, but I do have the common sense to understand the difference between necessities and luxuries. The past NDP government didn't always have that sense. If the NDP had prioritized our essentials like health and education over luxury extras like experiments with fast ferries and government subsidies to businesses alone, we would have an extra $1.5 billion to spend in these critical areas.

Instead of nickel-and-diming our key services, we should prioritize them. Our government will put the priorities of British Columbians ahead of partisan political motives that have divided this province. I

don't need to fuel my ego with monuments, and neither does this government. I just want good government that is up front with its citizens, that is fair, that accepts responsibility for its actions and accepts input from experts and workers without arrogantly assuming that it has all the answers.

I want a government that encourages people to work together toward the common good of this province, not one that attempts to divide the population for short-term political gain. That's what we'll see with this government. With this fiscal update this government has shown that it's committed to putting this province back on track.

Identifying and prioritizing issues and then making the difficult decisions is what good government is all about. Having the courage to ask ourselves the fundamental questions is always difficult for government. What are the things that government does? What are the things that government should do? That's what the core review process is all about. It's about identifying priorities. That means that the tax dollars of the people of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will go where they're needed most. The core review is where questions asked will be demanding, probing and perhaps intrusive, but they will be answered.

We have identified failing investment, a fall in disposable income and the loss of our most precious resource: our people, our best and our brightest, and our sense of innovation. Too many young people have left this province in search of better opportunities in Alberta, Washington State or elsewhere. When our students need to leave our province, that investment in British Columbia is lost. It has in fact become an investment in Alberta, Washington, Ontario or wherever they go.

The tax cuts that have been introduced in this fiscal update will attract new business and, in turn, provide more opportunities for those people so that they can stay here. British Columbia will be restored as a competitive tax environment. This, coupled with our fantastic quality of life, will make us unstoppable in the marketplace. Young people will choose not only to become educated here but to stay here to work, to start businesses and to raise a family.

Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of the people. This you've all heard before. But come full circle. A strong and thriving economy leads to more government revenue, which means more cash spent on the people of British Columbia and on their priorities, priorities like health and education. In fact, I again applaud our government for investing in our people. The increase in funding to health care, up from $1.1 billion to $9.5 billion, and our spending on education prove that our commitment to our people does not start and end with their position in the marketplace but starts with them as human beings with dreams for the future.

Every citizen has these dreams, but along with each individual dream there are friends, family and a community that dreams with them. I think that's why the 2010 Olympics bid is so exciting. After the last decade of decline here's an opportunity that fuels our imagination and provides a symbol of what we're capable of and what we can achieve. Our Canadian athletes dream of gold in their own country. B.C. dreams of welcoming the world to our back yard. Vancouver-Whistler dreams of the Olympics in 2010. To those British Columbians and all British Columbians, I say dream.

This project has infinite possibilities to jump-start our economy and draw attention to B.C.'s incredible strength, vast resources, our location and our talented people. Again, I paraphrase the minister. British Columbia's international reputation for excellence in all areas of life could be recognized, and I support the bid as an economic goal to be used not only to show what the west can do but to show that British Columbia is the place to do business, have fun and showcase what Canada is all about. As the MLA for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, I seek to represent not only those who would benefit from the project but all those who promote international relationships and endorse a flourishing sense of multicultural and cross-cultural values, which the citizens of British Columbia believe in.

Mr. Speaker, there are great things in store for us, and I am proud to be part of a team of strong leaders. The essence of strong leadership is vision. Not only does this government have that vision, but its members have the ability, strength and integrity to carry it to fruition.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity in the House to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker. It was well earned. Our caucus much appreciated your service in the past, the expertise you developed in leading us as an expert in the high-tech area and in serving as critic while we were official opposition. It's a delight to see you in the chair.

I would also like to congratulate the Speaker, the member for Kamloops. It was a tremendous joy to share his election victory with him in Kamloops. Every day when he walks in and I see the twinkle in his eye and the spring in his step, I'm so delighted that he's back here in the House with all of us.

As I speak, the great man himself has arrived in the chamber, and I'm delighted to have him here. The Bible says that white hair, or a hoary head, is a crown of glory, and every time the Speaker takes his tricornered hat off, we see that crown of glory. There's also a saying that while there might be snow on the roof, there's fire in the furnace. Our Speaker is 67 years young today, and we congratulate him….

K. Krueger: I'm sorry. Sixty-six years young, into his sixty-seventh year — a multi-talented man. Regrettably, the members will never have the pleasure of hearing him play his trumpet in the chamber, although we might be able to persuade him on social occasions. He is a wonderful trumpet player and the leader of a band that distinguishes itself all over the world on behalf of the city of Kamloops.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the work you've already done to restore the dignity of this great place. It much befits the new era that has been ushered into British Columbia. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents take tremendous joy in the new era, and I know yours do as well.

We all take pride in a new Premier who had the vision and now demonstrates the courage to usher in that new era for British Columbia. We have pride in our caucus, these wonderful people, dozens of people brand new to this chamber who stood up over the last two weeks and gave us their maiden speeches, showcasing to the people of British Columbia the talent of those they entrusted to bring about the new era in B.C.

We have tremendous pride in a Finance minister who time and again exceeds the expectations of the public and even of the caucus to meet our commitments and deliver more than we committed — and earlier. Well done, Mr. Finance Minister.

A sea change has occurred in British Columbia. The new-era tide began running as the election approached, and it ran stronger and stronger. Two weeks before the election people were telling me the economy was already turning around in dramatic ways. In Kamloops we had reached the dismal point of being at the lowest point in 40 years for new residential construction. That began to turn around. The job creators began to come back, and they're flooding back now.

We get congratulations from all over the province and all over the country, welcoming the new era. As this government has demonstrated time and time again in the few short weeks since we were sworn into office, we meant everything we said, and we'll deliver everything we promised and more.

In the couple of minutes remaining before we wrap up this debate on the Economic and Fiscal Update, I'd like to talk a little bit about how this document we're debating has benefited my constituency. I have a wonderful constituency, folks, which runs from Albreda in the North Thompson Valley, north of Blue River, all the way down to Kamloops and then out to Chase and Adams Lake. It was expanded considerably in the last electoral boundaries change.

It's full of hard-working people, salt-of-the-earth people, people I am tremendously proud to represent. Like all of British Columbia, my constituency is resource-dependent, and people are absolutely delighted to see an end to PST on production machinery and equipment, incentives for investment in mining exploration, an end to the corporate capital tax.

We have a wonderful investor in our area, Mr. Ohkubo from Japan, who purchased Tod Mountain, renamed it Sun Peaks and has brought on just a great development that employs hundreds and hundreds of young British Columbians. When he had to sign his first corporate capital tax cheque, he said to his general manager: "What in the world is this one for?" When it was explained to him, he said: "I think I'm going to have to stop investing in British Columbia until this kind of nonsense stops." Well, it is stopping. And we're so very proud of our Finance minister.

The mystery to me is, and has always been, why the New Democratic Party could not and cannot understand that money is more powerful when you leave it in the pockets of the people who earned it than when government takes it away and presumes to decide how to spend it, and why it is they have never been able to understand that there is something fundamentally false about saying that a tax cut is a giveaway when that money belonged to these people in the first place. Because a B.C. Liberal government has the courage and conviction to pull the government's hands out of those taxpayers' pockets, somehow NDP people and even some of the media consider that to be a giveaway. I've never understood that. How can you give people something that was already theirs?

It's a very false way of looking at things. It is the heart of the problem that drove our economy from best-performing in Canada to worst-performing in Canada and caused us to languish there over the dark decade that, happily, has just drawn to a crashing close.

Speaking of people's own expenditures driving the economy, I can tell the Finance minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents are delighted with the change in the so-called luxury tax. It's no luxury when you have to purchase a four-wheel drive crew cab to take your people to work safely. It's no luxury when you need what we call a sport utility vehicle — the operational words for us are "utility vehicle" — to take your family safely around an interior riding or to take yourself and your loved ones to and from work or to and from school. It's no luxury. So the increase in the designation to $47,000 is a very, very welcome thing in my constituency. People will no longer have to pay this objectionable so-called luxury tax on what is essentially a work tool for many of them.

It's wonderful to see those things reversed. It's wonderful to see an end to the NDP attitude, which essentially was to say to those who create wealth, those who create jobs, those who wanted to invest in British Columbia: "Yes, we're going to take your money, and we'll keep taking it and keep taking it as long as you generate it. But just do your work; never shirk. You'll get pie in the sky when you die." People don't want to have to die to enjoy the fruits of their labours. They're entitled to enjoy them, and their families are right now. When they enjoy them, when they do things in the economy — when they ski, when they travel, when they create jobs, when they start businesses — they're doing a favour for everybody around them.

We're going to see the employment picture change dramatically in British Columbia. Throughout the last

decade, the dark decade, one of the great oddities of being in the basement the way we were economically was that the rest of North America was booming. In fact, there was not only zero unemployment in a number of places; there was underemployment, where employers had to go searching and competing for employees, and employees could command a higher salary as a result. Well, that didn't happen here.

Now, regrettably, the rest of the continent's in a bit of a recession. Nevertheless, we're seeing the tide change. We're seeing things come to British Columbia that are long overdue, because people would really rather live and work in beautiful British Columbia. It's wonderful to see that begin to happen.

It is a new era. The goose that lays the golden egg, fortunately, wasn't killed in spite of the experience of the last decade — nor could it be, because as many of my predecessors in this debate have said, this is the most beautiful province in the most wonderful country in the world.

In my constituency, my government has already made good on beginning the construction of the Clearwater hospital, a multilevel health care facility that had been promised — firmly promised — for a decade and never delivered. Several weeks ago it was my great joy to be at the sod-turning ceremony, and people showed up with their own shovels — 30 shovels. One senior pushed a shovel into my hand, and we all turned sod together. It was a great day in Clearwater, way overdue.

Just this week, as Mr. Speaker is well aware, my government announced a decision in Kamloops that finally put an end to a tremendous amount of unrest and concern launched by the previous government over the fate of a community known as Valleyview in Kamloops and the east Trans-Canada Highway through Kamloops. This government has the courage to make a tough decision, explain why and live with the results of that decision. I'm tremendously proud of the Minister of Transportation and her people for having had the gumption to go ahead with that.

I am running out of time, and it's time for us to conclude this debate. It's been a wonderful thing to hear my colleagues speaking in this House. I congratulate all of them.

As I close, I want to reach out to the nurses of British Columbia and say once again, on the record, how valued and esteemed and prized every one of them is. I've grieved for them in the situation they've been thrust into over recent years. I've gone and spoken with the fourth-year nurses at the University College of the Cariboo every year just before they graduate. It's been terrible to see them all — virtually all — planning to leave the province because of the uncertainties they've been through and the tough working situation that they face in the hospitals here.

I want to assure the nurses of British Columbia that my government means every word it has said about improving their work situation, recruiting nurses, increasing training spaces and making that whole situation better for them. I urge them to have patience; I urge them not to resign. Every resignation is a tragedy for British Columbia.

There is no better place to go; there is no better offer available in Canada. We would like to do better. We've offered as much as we can, and we really want the nurses to stay. As the economy improves, we have committed that we will add money to the health care budget. So I want to, as I say, reach out to the nurses of British Columbia and plead with them to stay on the job, to stay in British Columbia — not to resign, not to give up their seniority, but to work with us to turn our problems around.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to share these brief comments in the House. Once again, my congratulations to you and to everyone who has spoken in this debate, and to all British Columbians, for the joy we share in a new era for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: On the economic and fiscal update, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. G. Collins: I listened as much as I was able to over the last number of days to the speeches made in the chamber here. I must congratulate the members — all members — for their comments, in some cases their accolades and in a couple of cases their criticisms. But I respect those as well. It's how this place works best. I'm always appreciative of the comments the members make, regardless of which side or where they come from.

But I must say that some of the comments I heard from the two NDP members opposite require just a small moment of comment in the few minutes that are remaining in this debate. I find it interesting that after a decade of seeing their economic policies repudiated not just by the people of the province but by the markets, investors, people looking for work and British Columbians voting on their economic policies with their feet, getting up and leaving British Columbia…. For the first time ever we've seen a net outflow of people from B.C.

After a decade of that policy, seeing the measurable proof in the decline of B.C.'s economy, the decline in people's take-home pay and the decline in the standard of living of British Columbians in communities right across this province — large cities, small towns…. It doesn't seem to matter where you are; you've seen that sort of impact. After watching that and then seeing the comments, the results of the vote that took place in the election — which really did send a pretty negative verdict on the previous administration's economic policies — to see the two members stand up in the House and stay the same course is incredible.

I don't think — in this province, anyway — a political party has ever seen its economic policies so soundly rejected by the people that we're elected to represent, yet still get up in the House and stay the course and defend the same policy over and over again. I think it bodes not very well for the province to think that the party that would like to be the official opposition, one of the definitions being that it's ready to

assume government if the current government should fail, maintains a course on the economy that's been soundly rejected by a record majority of the people of British Columbia.

I hope that in the months and years ahead, as they see a turnaround in B.C.'s economy, they see B.C. come back to what it used to be — by far the strongest economy in Canada, leading in economic growth, leading in innovative ideas, leading in population growth and innovative ideas from the people who live here — they'll come to change their tune, as many left-of-centre governments have done right across the world.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at what Tony Blair has undertaken in the U.K. and some of the changes he has done there with their economy, you wouldn't compare them very closely to the previous socialist governments, or Labour governments, that they had in the U.K. in years past. If you look at the NDP in Saskatchewan under Roy Romanow and now their new Premier and see the direction that they've taken over the last decade, you can see that they've found a better way to deliver upon their policies and their priorities than to drive their economy into the ground and drive business out of their province.

You can even see it in Manitoba, where Gary Doer, the new Premier of Manitoba — he's been there a little over a year now, I think — didn't take his province in a drastically different economic and fiscal policy direction from his Conservative predecessor. I think what that's shown is that right across the globe, left-of-centre governments have found that perhaps a right-of-centre fiscal policy is the best one to pursue and that you have to grow your economy if you're going to be able to deliver on the social programs that people rely upon. That's clearly what this government is trying to do in the goals that we've set.

I must say that I found it interesting to hear the criticisms of the taxation policies that we've put out in our budget here today, because they were things that, if you got the New Democrat members of this House sort of aside — you know, around a cafeteria table, a coffee table or a bar somewhere, having a few drinks or a cup of coffee — they'd tell you that they actually thought that some of their policies perhaps were headed in the wrong direction. It was nice to see, when the leadership contest finally broke out the second time with the NDP prior to the last election, that some of their comments started to come forward.

There was a little hint, a glimmer of light, there in their economic plans. I used the quote the other day from Corky Evans, who used to speak at length in this House in very passionate ways about how he felt about the people who lived in rural British Columbia and some of the challenges they face, when he talked about how his party had lost touch with rural British Columbians.

The example that he used was interesting. He didn't get into forest policy. He didn't get into agricultural policy. He didn't talk about any of those other things: the highways, health care, the issues that we often hear from members from outside the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island, or challenges for their constituents. Rather, as the example, he used the luxury vehicle tax that his government had put on people right across this province but had been particularly onerous and was viewed as being targeted toward people who lived in rural British Columbia, who if they chose, I suppose, could buy a Neon. But it's unlikely it would last the winter.

I think the fact that one member of the previous administration saw the light on the fact that it wasn't a luxury tax on vehicles…. It was a punitive surtax that had a disproportional impact on people living in rural British Columbia. Despite the fact that I come from an area of the province where we rarely get snow and it's not that hilly and the terrain's usually pretty good, I certainly heard from my colleagues around the province and from individuals right across this province, as I've travelled over the last number of years, and it was one of the things I wanted to make sure came up front and centre in our first opportunity to make some changes. I'm glad that people have responded as positively as they have.

Mr. Speaker, the comments that I thought were particularly interesting were the comments from the former Premier, Dan Miller, who was Premier of this House for a brief period of time but had been a member since 1986. He was certainly one of the more senior members of the Legislature. He made some comments about two years ago or so, when he became the Premier of the province of British Columbia, albeit for an interim period. He was talking to Jim Beatty of the Vancouver Sun, and he was talking about some ways that he felt British Columbia should try and get its economy going again. I'm quoting the article; these aren't direct quotes from him — in this part, anyway. The article says:

I thought that was very interesting to hear from a Premier. The only problem was that while he was Premier, he didn't act on any of those things. Perhaps if he had, he might still be Premier of British Columbia, because it's certainly what people were looking for. Stranger things have happened in British Columbia; you never know.

It was interesting, because the reporter went on to speak to Mr. Gordon Wilson…

Hon. G. Collins: …who was at the time — yes — a minister in the NDP cabinet. He was asked what his thoughts were. It says: "He agreed Friday with Miller's suggestion that the machinery and equipment tax, which does not exist anywhere else in Canada, should be abolished."

I thought that was interesting: that once again the NDP at least sort of believe, in one way, anyway, that these were real pressures on the economy. He talked about tax reduction as well. He said he would like to see middle- and low-income earners get breaks that would stimulate the economy. Well, with the budget that we presented the other day and the announcement we made in our first day in office, those middle- and low-income earners, as of January 1 of this year coming up, will pay the lowest rate of personal income taxes of anywhere in Canada.

I know that there were some other comments. Some of the — how would I put it? — commentators had heard these comments before from New Democrats, and their analysis of all those speculations on reductions and tax cuts was that talk is cheap. Until it's in a budget document, it's just another trial balloon that may be shot down by his more ideological colleagues. I think that's in effect what happened. It's unfortunate that when the people of British Columbia elected two New Democrats, they didn't elect perhaps one that had a little different view on taxation than the current members that are sitting in the House.

I want to give the House a bit of a sense of the reaction that our government and my ministry have had to the tax package we put in place on Monday. We're already getting e-mails from British Columbians. We're getting phone calls from British Columbians. We're getting calls from people in the bunker fuel industry that are signing contracts on the order of $100,000 and $150,000 (U.S.) to attract new shipping contracts into British Columbia. They're pulling business away from Portland and Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles. They're attracting new and additional cruise ships away from some of our competing jurisdictions. Each one of those cruise ships that pulls into Victoria or Vancouver sends hundreds of thousands of dollars into the community in high-value tourism. Those shipping companies that bring their goods here create huge, well-paying union jobs on the docks loading and unloading those ships. It creates great jobs for the people in the railway and the trucking sector to move those goods inland and across the continent.

I was hearing from small business people e-mailing us and saying: " The PST reduction on machinery and equipment is great. Now I can go out and hire another full-time person to help build my business." That's in three days. We're already seeing some of that impact. I must say it's encouraging that we would see those kinds of changes that quickly as a result of the comments and the economic update and the tax package that this government introduced on Monday.

I think those are all extremely positive things. We look forward to more of them. I think that, given the very quick anecdotal evidence we're seeing, British Columbians are geared up. They're ready to go. B.C. businesses and businesses from around North America are looking at investing in British Columbia.

I met with a large financial institution the other day that's looking at opening a head office in Vancouver. They flew out. They saw our stuff on the Web and in the news, and they were out here on Wednesday. Those are the kinds of reactions we're getting. They're all very positive; they're encouraging. I encourage British Columbians, investors and individuals to get out there and start rebuilding B.C.'s economy, because this place should be the best place in North America to live with the most thriving economy and the best opportunities and jobs for the people of British Columbia.

With that, I'm pleased now to close the debate. I move, seconded by the Premier, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the pleasure to table the annual report of guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001.