Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 4 -- Thursday, February 14, 2002

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		1097

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		1097
	Chinese New Year	1097
	I. Chong
	Delta Hospital	1097
	V. Roddick
	Seniors bus pass program	1098
	P. Wong

Oral Questions		1098
	Medical Services Plan premiums	1098
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Health care facility closings	1099
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Courthouse closings	1099
	D. Chutter
	Hon. G. Plant
	Mental health services	1100
	K. Krueger
	Hon. G. Cheema

Reports from Committees		1100

Petitions		1101

Throne Speech Debate (continued)
	I. Chong	1101
	J. Kwan	1104
	T. Christensen	1108
	W. Cobb	1112
	Hon. M. de Jong	1113
	D. Chutter	1117
	R. Harris	1118
	Hon. G. Abbott	1120
	D. Hayer	1124
	M. Hunter	1126

V. Roddick: A dedicated number of volunteers from Delta are in the gallery today. This group includes a former B.C. Minister of Agriculture, representatives from the Delta Chamber of Commerce and the Delta Farmers Institute, as well as members of the Delta Hospital and their auxiliary.

They are as follows: John Savage, Muriel Cullen, Lisa Burt-Paxton, Jane Marynowski, Gail Kitchner, Terry Kitchner, Harvey Friesen, Nancy Friesen, Jock McGrandle from North Delta, Donna Schelpe, Elizabeth Davis, Albert Weaver, Sean Copeland, Patricia Trafford, Georgina Reynolds, Marilyn High, Joan Goodacre, Doug Massey, Eleanor Sampert, Verna Cavers, Peter Guichon, Kelly Webb and Jessica Holmes.

On behalf of myself and my colleague from Delta North, I ask that the House make them all very welcome.

K. Krueger: It's my privilege today to introduce to the House someone who's no stranger to this place. Mr. Ken Jones was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale from 1991 to 1996 and was renowned for his expertise during the estimates debate. I'd like the House to make him really welcome.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure today to introduce some people from as far west as you can go in Canada — from Ucluelet. I would like to introduce to you the mayor of Ucluelet, Dianne St. Jacques; her son, Paul; his girlfriend, April Gustafsen; her mother, Diane Frances; and also Councillor Eric Larsen. I would like the House to make them welcome.

B. Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce the first three visitors that I've had from the North Coast. Sitting with us today are Staff Sergeant Jim Mills; his wife, Dawn; and my lovely wife, Lonie. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

I. Chong: This week has been a significant one. We began the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament on the very same day as the first day of the Chinese lunar new year, the year 4699.

To live in a country, and indeed a province, rich in multiculturalism means that all of its citizens may learn and be knowledgable of other people's cultures without the necessity of travel. Chinese New Year is distinguished by the representation of one of 12 different animals or creatures of the Chinese zodiac. Depending on the particular animal or creature, one expects the year to reflect those characteristics. This is the Year of the Horse, and it is regarded as a symbol of strength, intelligence and nobility.

What can we expect in the Year of the Horse? I believe we will see a year of efficiencies and getting things done. It will be an exciting year that is positive, yet realistic, as evidenced by the throne speech delivered this week. The Year of the Horse will be challenging and changeable, with much energy focused on the economy.

Every culture has its own unique traditions and values, and it is important that they be continued with each subsequent generation. Traditions are passed down, and while they are not immediately understood, they have purpose and are steeped in history. I would like to offer some insight into these traditions as they have been passed down to me from my mother.

Chinese New Year is a festive time, and you can expect to see celebrations lasting for several weeks. Beginning with New Year's Day and onwards, there will be offerings of lucky money in little red packets called lay sees, given by the older generation to younger, unmarried generations. Throughout the province, here in Victoria and especially in the lower mainland, lion dances will be performed to welcome in the new year. People's homes will have been thoroughly cleaned by now, and no one wishes to sweep away any good luck or fortune from their household during this time of celebration.

Food always plays an important role during Chinese New Year. Certain foods are selected to give effect to what they symbolize or represent. For example, chicken, complete with its head intact, is prepared to represent prosperity. Fish, with its head and tail, is chosen to represent profitability.

I just wish to take this opportunity to wish all my colleges and all those throughout this province: gung hay fat choy and sun leen fai lock.

V. Roddick: How fitting that on Valentine's Day I have the privilege of presenting to this Legislature what I believe is the heart of Delta. It is a saver of lives — of hearts under attack, of bones that need setting, of lungs that need help breathing, of injuries that need healing, of hands that need holding and of cries that need heeding. It is Delta Hospital. It has saved lives in my community for many years, and now, after all those years, our community finds itself called to save the life of our hospital.

This remarkable hospital shares the history of our community as a whole. From its earliest days as a farming and fishing area, with people helping people, Delta has grown into a vibrant, diversified community — with people still helping. Much of that helping occurs at Delta Hospital, where appropriate, accessible care is available to our residents as well as to many other people who use our highways, our ferries, our international border, our coal port, our airports and our industrial parks. As I've explained to this House before,

you've all been in Delta. It's a place you have to go through to get anywhere else.

The citizens of Delta are now, as the Premier counselled last evening in his televised address, finding the courage to fix the system before it collapses. They are leaping to the challenge to find flexible, workable, affordable new ways to deliver health care. This is good news. Delta's example can encourage communities across B.C. if we can just find the courage, the heart, to take that leap.

P. Wong: I was very pleased last night to hear the Premier say on TV that he was going to reinstate the seniors bus pass for the next year. Right after the announcement, I received many phone calls, mostly from seniors and community leaders, commending the Premier's prompt action and compassionate consideration towards the seniors.

Many of them told me that through the TV program, they now know more about the financial hardship the government has faced and the inheritance of a $4 billion structural deficit from the previous government. They now know that the Premier and his government have the courage and conviction to carry out a long-term plan to put the economy back on track and to ensure that the government is accountable for the hard-earned tax dollars from British Columbians.

The reinstatement of the seniors bus pass program has shown that the Premier and his cabinet are determined to put not just students first and patients first but also seniors first.

This announcement is timely, on the second day of the Chinese New Year, the Year of the Horse. The horse, in the old days, was the fastest transportation vehicle. This symbolizes the fast action and pace that the Premier and his government have taken in putting B.C. back on the road to prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House and in the gallery a prosperous New Year of the Horse and success in the many years to come in this beautiful, beautiful province. Gung hay fat choy.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services insisted that he had no knowledge of the pending increase in Medical Services premiums when he accused the opposition of fearmongering. To the Premier: will the Premier please table today all documents from his office, from the Ministry of Finance and from the Health ministry related to the decision to increase MSP premiums, to prove that his Minister of Health Services was telling the truth?

Hon. G. Collins: The Minister of Health Services always tells the truth. As the member knows as a former Finance minister, all of those options are always available to government. The decision to raise MSP premiums was one that I recommended recently, certainly well after the Minister of Health Services made his statements that he was not aware of any government plan to do so.

J. MacPhail: Well, the Minister of Health Services had to suffer a public humiliation at the hands of the Minister of Finance as the MSP hike was announced. I was wanting to give the Minister of Health Services an opportunity to redeem himself. But due to his lack of availability and the urgent matters that are appearing today across the province, I will go then to where the decisions are made around health in this province, and that is to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Health said a couple of weeks ago that yes, hospitals would close. He refused to give any specifics of where those hospital closures would be. The entire province is in a state of high anxiety. Perhaps the Minister of Finance, rather than publicly humiliating the Minister of Health Services, could himself stand today and announce which hospitals will close.

Hon. G. Collins: I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting that on the one hand, the Minister of Finance says, "I make the decisions about health in this province; I make the decisions about money that goes into health care," and, on the other hand, refuses to announce for the public, for people who are in a high state of anxiety, what the future of health care is. This government's policy about the future of health care is a bottom-line policy. We know that the Minister of Finance is making these decisions.

J. MacPhail: The people in New Westminster are deeply concerned about the future of their hospital. The people in the district of Hope, as of yesterday, are deeply concerned about the future of their hospital. Are these people just fearmongering? Is this the Liberal definition of fearmongering?

Would the Minister of Finance stand today and tell us now which hospitals his government is going to close?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health Services as well.

J. Kwan: This government has four ministers of health, but they can't seem to come up with one straight answer about which one hospital is going to be closed.

We found out yesterday that the Minister of Health Planning is spending more time on her image than on her job.

I ask the other ministers, whoever will stand up and answer the question: can the Minister of State for Long Term Care tell us how many extended care facilities are going to close?

Maybe the Minister of State for Mental Health can rise up in this House and tell us what mental health facilities are on the chopping block.

British Columbians are looking for answers from this government. Should we just be looking for a lame-duck PowerPoint presentation in an open cabinet meeting?

Hon. G. Collins: I noticed the comment from the member about the PowerPoint presentation and her concern about the cost of contracts for speeches, etc. I was a little concerned about that myself, because I anticipated that I might be asked by the media or somebody today, so I went back and looked at the Ministry of Finance to see what I had done as Minister of Finance and to see how it compared with previous Ministers of Finance.

This year, for this speech that is being prepared for this budget, a contractor is being paid about $4,000 to work on that. In the economic and fiscal update last summer it was about $4,000 as well.

If I look at how that compares to what was done under previous governments, I have in the 2001-02 budget speech $6,290. In the 2000-01 speech — a speech I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Hastings will be very familiar with — $6,800. In the 1999-2000 budget speech, $11,830.

What's more interesting is I understand that Rob Cottingham, the individual who wrote the speeches, was not only a very good supporter of the member opposite, he was also a member of the New Democratic Party, and the province had to pay for him to stay at the Empress Hotel while he was constructing those fine speeches.

J. Kwan: I guess the Minister of Health Planning was preparing for her major, major speech to her open cabinet colleagues for her self-image performance. Well, it's obvious, hon. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Health, actually sets health policies. The Minister of Finance just admitted that himself.

So let me just go directly to the Minister of Finance. Which hospital is the Minister of Finance planning to shut down in the province of British Columbia? Why doesn't he just tell the Minister of Health — all the ministers of health — now which hospital he is intending to shut down? Or better yet, maybe he should lean over and talk to the Premier and say: "Hey, you know what? Let's just shut down and fire the three ministers of health and save that money and put it into direct patient care."

Hon. G. Collins: I know that the member opposite is very concerned about making sure all the dollars that government spends get down to the patients. Perhaps she might want to lean over to the leader of her party and ask her if she had the same concern when she was Minister of Finance, when she paid $48,000 for a contractor to travel around the province with her and set up meetings.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I can go on, because that was for the 1999 year. In the year of '99-2000, the then Minister of Finance actually paid the same individual $45,000 for the same accompaniment. As well, I understand that Lauri Nerman was also a very strong supporter of the member opposite and a member of the New Democratic Party.

D. Chutter: As part of the government's effort to restructure the services that it provides, it was recently announced that a number of provincial courthouses will soon be closing. Many of my constituents are particularly concerned by the announcement that courthouses will be closing in Hope, Lytton, Lillooet, Princeton and Merritt. Can the Attorney General tell my constituents why the decision was made to close these courthouses?

Hon. G. Plant: We were forced to make some difficult decisions. At all times I tried to keep the principle of access to justice first and foremost in my mind. But I think it was also important and timely for us to make sure that the physical infrastructure of the buildings that we use and operate every day in British Columbia are used most effectively. We looked at how we could ensure that there would be a minimal impact on people in travelling from one court location to another. We did the best we could. We were forced to close some courthouses, and I think there are undoubtedly going to be some people who will feel that impact.

But I am committed to working with the justice system partners, with communities, to find strategies

for changing how we deliver justice services — for allowing documents to be filed by fax, witnesses to give evidence by video conference. There are a range of ideas that I think are appropriate to be looked at now in order to do the thing which is most important of all, and that is to give the citizens who live in the communities, which the member mentions, some reasonable level of access to justice.

D. Chutter: My constituents are concerned that these closures will mean that many of the cases before the courts will be dismissed because of the length of time it might take to bring them to trial. What assurances can the Attorney General give my constituents that these closures will not adversely impact the administration of justice?

Hon. G. Plant: When we went through the exercise of deciding which facilities had to be closed, we looked closely at whether or not there would be another facility, in most cases, within an hour's drive or so — not always — and at facilities that with the addition of some new staff would have capacity to absorb additional caseloads so that the net result over the system is that cases may be moved but that we won't cause an increase in the backlog of cases in the system.

I've also said — in response to questions from mayors, for example, in some of the communities that the memo represents — that if the city or the community wants to have a conversation about the possibility of circuit court locations or circuit court activity, I'm certainly willing to participate with justice system people in that conversation too.

K. Krueger: It's tough to listen to these opposition members ask questions about the delivery of health care when we had such a brutal experience in this province on that score for the past ten years. I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Health, I believe it was, a commitment was made to fund mental health services to the tune of $125 million that was never put in the budget and never materialized.

K. Krueger: So even when our own government ? which is a kinder, gentler, more caring government by far, including the way it deals with matters in this House ? reorganizes health care, the public is somewhat cynical about whether that will actually translate into better services for patients on the ground. I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mental Health how the recent reorganization is expected to deliver mental health services to those who desperately need it in this province.

Hon. G. Cheema: I do understand the concerns of the patients and their families. I have met with many families and many groups across this province. This will be the first time in this province that we are going to have fair and active achievement of mental health. This is the first time in this province that we are going to have clear goals and objectives for mental health. This is the first time in this province that we made a commitment to fully implement the mental health plan, and we are going to fulfil that promise. There is good news for mental health in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary question.

K. Krueger: I hear the Leader of the Opposition calling out: "Ask about the psychiatric facility." Curiously enough, I was going to do that. In the early 1990s, Mr. Speaker, when you and Mr. Smith represented Kamloops, I remember a decision being made to build a cancer treatment facility in Kamloops. I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition came to power with her government, that decision was changed. It didn't happen. But for ten years and at least seven press announcements….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I would suggest you now put your question.

K. Krueger: I will, hon. Speaker. That member did promise a tertiary psychiatric facility. My constituents and all constituents of our region are concerned about when we will actually see the spades in the ground for the tertiary psychiatric facility in Kamloops. I put that question to the Minister of State for Mental Health: are there going to be any negative effects of this regionalization change, or is the facility going ahead?

Hon. G. Cheema: I do understand the anxiety of those two NDP members there. There is a broken history of the NDP in Kamloops. People are concerned. We made a commitment. I met with them. Our commitment is to have a health excellence psych facility in Kamloops. This is going to be the first time in Kamloops they are going to have a centre of excellence. This is going to happen. We made a commitment. We are going to follow through with that commitment.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament respecting the Budget 2002

consultation process. Hon. Speaker, I would move that the report be taken as read and received.

B. Lekstrom: I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit moving of a motion to adopt the report at this time.

B. Lekstrom: Having had the privilege to chair this committee and tour the province and hear from the hundreds of people that came out to our committee meetings as well as those who put in written submissions, it was certainly an honour to be able to hear from the residents of our great province and the challenges that they faced and to come out and put their views and ideas forward on the development of our budget that we'll be proud to present next week and that everybody in British Columbia, I know, is looking forward to.

All of the members on the committee worked very hard. They listened very well. They listened to the ideas, and in putting this report together, I want to stand here before the House and say how proud I am to have been part of that committee, how proud I am of the people I serve and how proud I am that British Columbians took the time out of their busy schedules to attend the meetings and put forward written submissions. Hon. Speaker, I thank you.

I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament respecting the financial review of the statutory officers of British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I would move that the report be taken as read and received.

B. Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report at this time.

B. Lekstrom: Again, having the privilege to have chaired this committee, having worked with the statutory officers in our first attempt at this process, it was very much a learning experience, I believe, for both sides — both the statutory officers and the committee. I know that our committee learned a great deal from listening to our statutory officers and what they brought forward with their budgets, their proposals and their plans.

The recommendations contained in the report reflect what the members of the committee heard and have put forward. Certainly, again, it was a learning experience. I believe we'll improve on this process as it develops.

It was a privilege, and I would like to thank each and every one of the statutory officers who came forward to present their plans and financial picture to our committee so that we could have a better understanding to present this report to the House.

V. Roddick: I rise today, on behalf of Delta South and my colleague from Delta North and all the constituents of both north and south Delta, to present a petition to maintain our community health care.

Delta is both active and vocal. The citizens have risen to the challenge of maintaining their hospital not only with this petition of over 31,000 signatures and rising but with dozens of workable ideas and suggestions on how to deliver a viable, high-quality, effective health care delivery system in our community based on equity, patient-centred care, evidence-based care and accountability.

A. Hamilton: I'd like to present two petitions. The first petition is from the Esquimalt Legion seniors group, with 172 signatures, regarding public transportation and medicare.

The second petition is from the parents of Macaulay Elementary School, with 175 signatures, regarding inner-city school funding.

J. Bray: Today I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition is from the parents of George Jay Elementary School, with 137 signatures, expressing concern for inner-city school funding. The second petition is from the staff at George Jay Elementary, expressing concern regarding inner-city school funding, with 33 signatures.

I. Chong: As always, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this chamber to offer my Address in Reply to the throne speech. This year, more so than ever before, I am particularly proud to support a throne speech that I believe offers real hope, real opportunity and real prosperity for the future of British Columbians.

A throne speech lays out the vision and the path or the direction that a government will follow for the ensuing year. It outlines the government's priorities, and

it is clear that this government is determined and focused on revitalizing British Columbia's economy, on restoring sound fiscal management and on putting patients, students and people first.

These are the very reasons why, in 1996, I sought public office at the provincial level. I did so shortly after attending a breakfast meeting where the guest speaker spoke of a plan to move British Columbia forward. This man, this guest speaker, outlined his vision and a framework for achieving his objectives. He spoke of accountability and of responsibility to taxpayers, and it was clear to me that given the opportunity this man would be an outstanding Premier of this province, if the people were to put their trust and confidence in him.

Well, a majority of the citizens of British Columbia did just that last May. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey received an overwhelming mandate to become Premier and to lead our province back to economic prosperity. From the very beginning the Premier has shown such a dedicated commitment to our province that other government and business leaders are now beginning to take notice. They see that British Columbia is back and will once again be an economic force in Canada.

I reviewed the comments made yesterday by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, and was amazed at how quickly she forgot the legacy her government left us from the last decade, taking our provincial economy from first place to last place in Canada. It was her government's lack of leadership, her government's ineptitude and her government's mismanagement that created much of the fiscal challenges we now face. For ten years her government didn't make the tough decisions, didn't stand up to the private interest and, more important, didn't do any long-term planning for health care or for education.

There is no question that we are facing tough economic times. During these times of economic slowdown we all need to work together and find solutions to new ways of delivering and providing services to patients and students.

Let's be clear: keeping the status quo will not move us forward. Keeping the status quo means that wait-lists will continue to grow. It means people will continue to leave our province in search of a brighter future elsewhere. Keeping the status quo means jobs are lost, and businesses go bankrupt with excessive overregulation and red tape. I, for one, will not agree to that, nor am I happy that British Columbia may soon be regarded as a have-not province, a result of the previous government's inaction.

Government has a very important role to play, and that is to provide good, dependable services to people most in need. Before it can do that, it must ensure that the services to be delivered are going to be sustainable over the long term — not short term, not band-aid solutions and not the quick fixes we were so accustomed to seeing from the previous government in the past decade.

In these past eight months this new government has been working to clean up the problems of the past as well as introducing new measures to move us forward. During these past eight months this government has consistently shared information with citizens of this province and indicated that this government would be going through restructuring.

Admittedly, I am sorry that in our government restructuring some people will be losing jobs, and communities will be affected. I sincerely wish that did not need to happen, because it was through no fault of theirs that people lost their jobs. I blame the previous government which created jobs that were not sustainable, that were not always necessary.

Rather than being bold enough to take a realistic and hard look at what core essential services government needed to provide, the previous government made decisions based on politics without regard for the future. The previous government kept introducing a stream of regulations without ever asking about or evaluating the outcomes.

They virtually killed our mining industry and ignored the concerns of the forest industry. They diverted millions of dollars from Forest Renewal without any accountability of that spending and embarked on megaprojects, one after next, without proper business plans. That, too, is the legacy of the previous government. What we are faced with today is a real mess, a mess that each day brings more challenges for our new government.

Our government's plan is to turn our provincial economy around. Yes, it means we have to be more competitive, more diversified and more attractive to investors. All this will bring more opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, which have always been acknowledged as the engine of our economy.

What is really important, as well, is that more jobs will be created for our young people. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition criticize our efforts to restore the economy, and I am disappointed that she has gleaned so little from all her years as a cabinet minister. How convenient it was for her to forget that their government doubled our provincial debt in ten years to a point where debt servicing — that is, interest payments — is one of our fastest-growing government expenditures.

How convenient it is to forget that diverting scarce taxpayers' dollars to interest payments means there will be less money for health care and education. How convenient it is for her to forget that we do need a strong, vibrant and diverse economy to sustain the needed services for health care and for education.

We were elected to save and renew health care and education, and we will. Though we are fiscally challenged, we made a commitment — a commitment to maintain the budgets for health and for education and to look for savings in all other ministries. Every effort has been made to protect those most vulnerable in our society. This government remains committed to long-

As a provincial Legislature, it is necessary that we spend a great deal of time here in this precinct, but the most important work is out in our communities, in our constituencies. Every week I meet with constituents in my community office, and truthfully, I have heard more than an earful.

Last week, as an example, I met with three people employed through the MSP division of the Ministry of Health Services. One of these ladies recently lost her job, and I felt very badly for her. She appeared to be a very capable, competent and earnest person, and she, along with the other two, asked that I take a message to the Minister of Health Services. They wanted the minister to know that they, along with others still employed at the MSP office, were willing to accept change and be part of a team that helps to bring about efficiencies. While I cannot restore the job to that particular lady, I can and I will ensure that their voices are going to be heard, because that too is part of my role as an MLA.

I also met with a lady who had never before ventured to meet a politician, never before chosen to meet with her MLA, so I was glad when she came in to see me. She took the time to come in to ask questions about all te things that she had read in the newspapers. I very carefully spoke with her, allowed her to display her concerns, and at the end of the meeting she was very glad that she took the time to come in to meet with me. I know all my colleagues are doing that very same thing — meeting with constituents, taking away the fears that have been so badly misreported.

Again, hon. Speaker, that is what our job is. We should never forget — we should always be mindful — that as MLAs we listen to our constituents, we hear their opinions, and we represent them the best that we can. We find a means of bringing their issues forward to this place, where we become their voice. It is not always easy, because there are certainly conflicting views.

In a previous week I heard from several people and received many phone calls and letters. These were the people who said that they have been watching silently and carefully what our government has been doing. They encouraged me. They said: "Please, remember your commitment to restore the economy. Remember that you must stay the course and not be persuaded by the private interests to change direction." These people clearly had a different view, and it is important that we hear both sides. They were there to support us and the new direction of our government, but so, too, were the others that I met with who wanted us to take their message to our various ministers.

I want to spend a little time speaking about the working people that the opposition sometimes believe they are the sole protectors of. I say wrong, wrong, wrong. It was our government that restored workers' rights through the secret ballot. It was our government that returned pension rights to workers and our government that allowed all workers the right to bid on government contracts. It is not just the opposition that is professing to protect the workers. Our actions do speak louder.

Not all workers are members of the public sector unions either. There are many private sector unions, such as the IWA. What did the previous government do for them and for their forest industry? Well, I think we know what's happened there. Thousands of jobs were lost.

You know, it's strange to hear the opposition member be so negative about the throne speech, but I guess that's to be expected. I recall when the member for Vancouver-Hastings used to encourage us to look at the throne speech. When she was a minister, when she was in government, she said: "Look closely at this throne speech and support it for all its wonderful hopes and promises." The only problem was that in their throne speech, there were always empty promises, just like the $125 million mental health initiative that was promised and never delivered on.

This throne speech is different because it is real. This Premier expects to be held accountable for it. Unlike the previous Premiers and the previous government, our Premier does expect to be held accountable. So, too, do all my colleagues on this side and that side of the House. I guess that is what is so alarming to the opposition. They cannot believe we are saying things that we believe in and that we intend to keep them, because her government used to break promise after promise and dithered for so long that our economy was neglected.

We really do depend on the people in our communities to make them a better place for all of us. We need to listen to what they have to say, especially when they come forward with ideas and solutions.

Our volunteers are also the unsung heroes of our communities, and I want to take this time to thank the many volunteers in Oak Bay and Gordon Head for the work they did in the past year. They were recognized in the International Year of the Volunteer. Just because that one year as gone by, it has not kept them from continuing to volunteer. They are encouraged to do that much more.

Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I do wish to provide an example of the renewed sense of hope in my community. Last winter, spurred on by the energies of some small business people in Oak Bay — not that they're small business people; they're business people with small businesses…. These business people in the village of Oak Bay transformed our one main street in Oak Bay to a Victorian Christmas village. The shops and businesses benefited from the additional traffic and interest brought in by the surrounding municipalities. I commend all who took part in making that worthwhile effort such a success. I know they're already working on this current year to bring even more visitors to our friendly village of Oak Bay.

Finally, I wish to follow up on comments made by my colleague the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill,

who also spoke of the increasing high-tech industries and enterprises here in the capital region. I absolutely, absolutely agree that this is happening. As well, the member for Saanich South spoke of one particular business, Epic Biosonics, that she was particularly proud of, and so she should be. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with her that Epic Biosonics is a success story. I remind her, too, that Epic Biosonics had its very early beginnings in Oak Bay but, because of its success, quickly outgrew its premises and relocated to Saanich South.

There is much work ahead. My colleagues and I — and everyone, I hope, in this chamber, regardless of how we feel — know that we have to work on behalf of our constituents. I expect we shall all rise to the occasion.

J. Kwan: Let me just put some facts on the record, to begin with. I know that the members like to say that they kept all their promises, but let's just look at the facts in terms of their campaign. Maybe they've forgotten already, since it's been eight months.

On the issue around income taxes. British Columbians voted for lower taxes for middle- and low-income people. They did not vote for huge tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. That was something that the now Liberal government specifically did not campaign for during the election. No one from the government campaigned on big tax cuts to the wealthiest British Columbians, who are the beneficiaries by far. Are the Premier's corporate friends and high-income supporters gaining the best benefits now? Are they taking those sacrifices that the Premier's now saying that everybody has to take? They — their donors, their supporters, their friends — have the largest income tax benefit given by this Liberal government. That is the reality.

Let's look at sound fiscal management. Let's see: we've gone from the largest surplus in British Columbia's history to the largest deficit in B.C. — a deficit of $3.4 billion. Add another billion, probably, for this year's upcoming budget.

I could probably support that kind of sound fiscal management if the government were running a historic deficit to support health care and education for all British Columbians, including those who are in the lowest margins, who are in the middle incomes — all British Columbians. But that's not what this government is doing. They're cutting services. They're forcing people to pay more. They're forcing user fees on people. They're even contemplating that people who go into walk-in clinics would have to pay a fee. This is what this government's doing.

Did they campaign on that in the last eight months? Did they come out and tell people, "When we give you these big tax cuts, by the way, we're not telling you right now, but we're actually going to give big tax cuts to the big corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians as well," and that after that — to the Minister of Environment too — they were going to cut services that you depend on, that families depend on? No, they didn't.

Hon. Speaker, I know members are fond of saying: "Well, gee, you know, it's just you trying to paint your own picture, the opposition members trying to paint the fiscal picture in terms of what it looks like." Don't take my word for it. The auditor general today, the auditor general of British Columbia — an officer who's answerable to every single member in this Legislature — issued his report on monitoring government finances. He says: "People often ask me about the state of the government's finances. Both citizens of British Columbia and their elected representatives want to know how the government's finances fare and compare with other jurisdictions."

Well, let's see what this Liberal government is doing. "The government has decided to implement this requirement" — that is, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act — "at the end of the allowed period, rather than earlier. 'Until this happens, the government's financial statements will be incomplete and thus confusing,' says the auditor general." Then he goes on to say in his report that in the five-year period ended March 31, 2001, the economy in B.C. grew more than did the government's net liabilities.

"Net liabilities refer to the obligations we leave for our children to pay or finance. In the same five-year period, provincial revenues increased by 37 percent, expenses by 31 percent, capital assets by 7 percent and total debt by 18 percent. With the current year's drop in energy prices and the reduced provincial income taxes, the trend is not expected to continue." Based on this comparison, the auditor general concludes that B.C.'s economy has been the second most able to support its government's past revenue-raising and spending practices.

Another widely used indicator of government financial performance is its credit rating. B.C. has kept its high standing in the international financial market, although its ranking amongst provinces has dropped to second, after Alberta.

All of this blaming…. I know the government members want to say it's all the previous government's fault: "They spent way too much money than they could afford when revenues were coming in." But you know what? The report that was just released today by the auditor general says otherwise. In fact, spending was well within the percentage of revenues. In fact, revenues exceeded spending at 37 percent while spending was kept at 31 percent. Those are the facts. I encourage everyone in the House to take a look at this. This is a report done by the independent auditor of this House — independent of everyone. He's answerable to every single legislator in this House. Don't just make up your own stories just because they fit your own stories. Look to the facts, and go to the sources.

"By…announcing the tax cuts first, the government created a situation that can only be called grotesque. The rich in B.C. are getting tax cuts of up to $20,000 a year at the top end — which in and of itself is not a sin. At the same time, to cover revenue losses caused in

large measure by the tax cuts, the government is hitting the poor in ways that are often petty and sometimes downright heartless. But the well-off shouldn't be receiving dramatic tax cuts — small tax cuts would do just as well — while the poor are nickel-and-dimed." This is not from me; this is a quote from Times Colonist editorialist Paul MacRae, January 21, 2002. This is an evaluation by someone else in terms of the actions of this government.

From another region in British Columbia, the editorial from the Kamloops Daily News that was reported in the Times Colonist on January 21, 2002.

These are the comments from the public, from the larger public, from the media — their editorials as they see what is being done right now in this province by this Liberal government in their promise for prosperity. Prosperity for whom? The selected few.

If you're in the 1.1 percentile who happen to make $150,000 or more, well, then you are going to see a prosperous future for yourself. But you know what? If you're not in that bracket, then it's tough times. Sacrifice is what the Premier's calling it. Too bad if you don't have health care services. Too bad if your children can't afford post-secondary education because the tuition fee freeze has been lifted and tuition is going to skyrocket. That is the reality for many British Columbians.

The Premier says he puts the interests of patients, students and those most in need first — the most vulnerable in our society. The Premier says that he'll put children and family first. He says that he will not break his trust with the people. That was from the throne speech. Those were direct words from the throne speech. Well, let's take a look and measure those words, because honestly — honestly — words are cheap until you measure them against actions. What happens when the actions are measured against the words?

Let's look at the question around the most vulnerable. Again, it's not just what I say but what others in the community are saying.

Just yesterday, February 13, non-governmental agencies issued a press release and had a press conference. Twelve leading non-governmental organizations are charging that the B.C. Liberal government is engaging in an assault on poor British Columbians that violates standards set by the United Nations. The groups, which provide advocacy for human rights and poverty issues, today requested that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights give urgent attention to a massive assault on the social and economic rights of the poorest people by the government of British Columbia.

At a news conference yesterday, the NGOs released their submission to the United Nations committee, which has headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The Liberal government's proposed cuts to social assistance and legal aid are singled out in the submission. The groups argue that the cuts contravene obligations that the government of British Columbia is required to fulfil under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Canada has been a signatory to the treaty since 1976. All provinces are bound by the terms.

This is how our broader community is viewing the actions of this government. This government wants to say that they are protecting the most vulnerable. Well, how are they protecting the most vulnerable?

Let's first look at the issue around income assistance — welfare. Shelter allowances for families with two children or more will be reduced. We know that particularly in the urban centres there is a very low vacancy rate. The member for Vancouver-Burrard ought to know because his riding has the lowest vacancy rate in terms of rental availability for the public. You know what? Shelter allowance is going to be reduced by this government for people on income assistance. This is how they're going to help you, the most vulnerable.

How else are they going to help you, aside from reducing the shelter allowance? They are also going to help by reducing your support, the scarce amount of money people on income assistance get from government to survive. Those allowances are also going to be reduced. Helping the most vulnerable and those most in need, the Liberal government is going to reduce the amount of money you can have to live on if you are in the most need of income assistance.

How else are they going to do it? Formerly, if you were a single parent on income assistance, you got a family maintenance exemption. That is, if you collected some money from your ex-partner to support the children living with you, you got to keep $100 of that, and it was not deducted from your payments. How is this government helping single parents and children on income assistance? The family maintenance exemption

will be gone, eliminated. That is how this Liberal government is saying that it is prioritizing you and is going to take care of your needs first. The Premier is going to take away the family maintenance exemption for single parents on income assistance. That's how this government is going to help you.

Incentive. Everybody talks about incentive for income assistance recipients. They all talk about how they want to see them get into the workforce to gain employment opportunities, to be self-sufficient. You know, most income assistance people that I know actually want the same as well. As part of the incentive for them to do that, they actually get to make a little bit of money, what is known as the earnings exemption. If you are a single person, you get to make $100 before any additional dollars you earn are deducted off the income assistance cheque, as an incentive to get you back into the workforce to gain some experience, to gain some confidence and to be part of the workforce. If you are an individual with children in a family unit, you get to keep $200. Guess what? How is this government going to help the most vulnerable? They're going to eliminate the earnings exemption. That's how they're helping you.

I'd be really frightened if the government turned to me: "Let me help you. You're my first priority." I'd be running for the woods. I would want to say, "No thanks. I'd be doing just fine without any of your assistance," because this is what this government is intending to do when they say they're going to help the most vulnerable.

When you tally up their many examples…. I won't go into each and every one of them, but if you tally up all the deductions coming from this government for income assistance recipients, for a single mom you can see a drop of as much as $370 a month. That is for a mother with one child. This represents a 46 percent cut on your income. That's what it means.

Single moms on income assistance, the government is going to help you. Here's what they're going to hand you, wrapped in nice big red ribbons no doubt: a 46 percent cut in your support, in the ability to survive for you and your children and to try to break out of the poverty cycle, to create a better future for yourself and your children. That's how the government is going to help you.

By the time your child turns three, if you're on income assistance, you'll be forced to go to work. If you don't, you will see a further reduction of your income assistance allowance, a further reduction of 25 percent after two years. Do you know how many people that impacts, how many children that impacts? Approximately 15,000 in British Columbia. This is how this government is going to help you.

Meanwhile, the previous government brought in a universal child care program to ensure that British Columbians have access to safe and affordable child care for their children. The universal child care program has been cancelled, repealed, gone. If your child turns three and you're on income assistance and you can't find affordable child care, tough luck. That's just tough luck, because that program is now gone — from the Liberal government, from this Premier.

Then if you're a young person who has just turned 19, before you get on income assistance, you have to show you can live independently for two years on your own. You know, this provision scares me no end. In my own riding and in many other communities, as well, I know there are a lot of young people who are faced with traumatic situations at home — abuse in many instances. You know what? They would be forced to stay at home and face the abuse and continue to live with it, or they will be forced into the streets. You know my prediction? God, I do hope that I am wrong. I pray that I am wrong. I think a lot of the young people will turn to the streets. You know what else they'll turn to? They'll sell themselves. They'll sell their bodies just to survive. That's what this government is offering you when it says it's going to help the most vulnerable.

If you were a refugee claimant, you were allowed to collect income assistance until you had settled all the matters of immigration so that you could get a work permit and so on and so forth. Now, with this government's change, you will no longer be able to get assistance.

If you're fleeing a country for your life, from persecution, and you've come to Canada to seek better opportunities for the future, that support until you get your feet on the ground, until you can get the work permits and go through all the immigration procedures so that you can actually just simply survive with the bare minimum, is no longer there. That's what this throne speech speaks to. That's what this Liberal government is offering to those who are most in need.

If you're on the disability benefits program, the Disability Benefits Program Act is going to be repealed. If you're on disability, which recognizes that some people have unique needs and unique illnesses that prevent them from working on a long-term or short-term basis…. People with disability will now be included with the general welfare system, something that the disability community fought long and hard to change.

Now they fear that with the new eligibility rules that are being applied — as defined as employable — they will be forced to go back to work, and if they're unable to find work, they'll get cut off. They're petrified about it. I have a letter. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned going out to talk to people. Maybe I should just suggest reading some of the correspondence as well. I have a litany of this kind of correspondence from British Columbians, not just from my riding but throughout. They're concerned with these issues.

The astounding part of it, aside from cutting direct services, direct support to people on income assistance, is that the government is going to revamp the administration of income assistance as well. Who are they looking to? They're looking to a firm that has already done that work in Ontario. You know, far from having a stellar record, this firm actually has a very blotchy record as well.

Let's look and see what the auditor general from Ontario had to say around the restructuring of the income assistance system in Ontario.

This is, again, from the auditor general in Ontario, who has looked at what the restructuring in Ontario has done to the welfare system and found that indeed that system has been nothing but a dismal failure. In fact, taxpayers didn't save any money. They actually spent more money trying to restructure the system, and people actually got fewer benefits in that process.

It isn't just Ontario that has done this but other jurisdictions. In Nebraska in 1996-97 the same work was being done, $24 million cost overrun. Texas, 1997, $63.7 million cost overrun, four years behind. Virginia, 1996, 150 percent cost overrun. U.S. energy company, 1996, sued for $100 million for the work that was done that failed to deliver the two system development projects. The U.K., $40 million. The company that did this work, Andersen, was sued for being inept, for $40 million. Yorkshire, U.K. You know, the company that did the work, Andersen's, walked out before the project was complete. They said they were only there for the money, so when it wasn't profitable for them, they left before the project was even completed.

The Canadian government cancelled a $44.5 million contract with Andersen Consulting in May of 1995 after the firm failed to meet its contractual obligations. The list goes on and on. Yet this government is determined to head down in that direction, head right down in that direction to revamp the income assistance delivery program, irrespective of the record shown in other jurisdictions that have done exactly that kind of work.

When we think about the most vulnerable, hon. Speaker…. Earlier today, in question period, the Attorney General said that he is going to be the defender for access to justice. Well, how is this government acting as the defender to access to justice? Well, because you'll be the most vulnerable who need access to justice, when you need it, will you be able to access it — if you're low-income people who need legal aid? The answer is no. Forty percent of the legal aid budget is being cut by this government. That's embedded between the lines in the throne speech.

Forty percent of the cut in legal aid over three years will mean the closure of a number of legal aid offices. It would mean a drastic reduction in legal aid support in family law, in poverty law. The cuts will affect many vulnerable British Columbians, including disabled workers, tenants, women, women fighting custody battles, the unemployed and many other citizens who face issues, whether they be mental safety or physical safety. Those who cannot afford legal representation will simply not have access to justice. That is the reality. This is in the era of a new government that says: "Don't worry, we'll make sure that we will protect those who are most in need." That's how the government does that work.

Communities throughout British Columbia have been writing many, many letters to myself and to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. I want to quote a letter for the record.

You know, some members are wondering what pay raises cabinet ministers got. Well, in their quiet little rooms behind closed doors, this is what cabinet ministers did. They went and gave themselves a $150 pay raise for travelling to Victoria to do their business. They switched the rules. That's how they do it. Treasury Board made a decision behind closed doors, and behind closed doors this is what the government does. That's when they say…. When you need your services the most, that's what they'll do.

Other areas — human rights. Access to the Human Rights Commission has now also been denied. Many of

Women who face violence. The government talks about how they want to protect women who face violence by saying they will protect transition houses. Well, they're shutting down women's centres, pre-employment training programs that help women escape violence, that help women in transition get self-sufficiency. Those programs — gone.

Inner-city kids. I wonder where the advocate is from Vancouver-Kingsway, from Vancouver-Kensington, from Vancouver-Burrard. Why don't they stand up in this House and ask their minister why they are cutting inner-city school funding to the children who are most in need? That inner-city school funding will help them stay in school, enhance their learning opportunities — succeed and not drop out — and deal with violence issues and multiple barriers, literacy questions, counselling. Where is that funding? Well, this minister, this government, has deemed it unnecessary for the most vulnerable children in all of British Columbia, who are faced with multiple barriers. That money is now gone.

What about the environment? The minister likes to talk about how they're protecting the environment and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that when you cut programs, it's not just the water quality that could be in jeopardy. When you cut services to highway improvements, you jeopardize the lives of British Columbians.

J. Kwan: The members like to say it's fearmongering, but the reality is…. When they said that they wouldn't raise MSP and that the opposition was fearmongering, what was the reality? MSP actually went up.

J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I know that my time is up, but I'd like to close. If members want to heckle on a point of order, they should be sitting down.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm just going to wrap up my statements, hon. Speaker, if I may.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has expired. You may wrap up.

J. Kwan: Thank you. When this government says that they're on your side and that they're going to protect you, you know what? My advice to British Columbians is this: look out, because it means all your services that you depend on are in jeopardy.

T. Christensen: It's an honour to stand in the House today and represent the fine people of Okanagan-Vernon. It's always interesting to follow one of the two members of the opposition, because they always raise a number of points that just seem fascinating. Certainly if I were a citizen of this province listening to what one of the two members of the opposition says, I would be fearful, because they're very good at fearmongering.

What they do is take announcements the government has made or announcements about the direction the government's going to be taking before those announcements have a lot of meat on them, and they then try and think of the worst-case scenario. They then double it, and then they spout it off as fact. It's simply not fact.

The reality in this session is that there are a number of issues the government will be dealing with, and we'll be introducing legislation. At that point, we'll be able to all see — the citizens of this province — the validity of that legislation and the fact that this government is taking this province in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, what I found remarkable and quite pleasing about the throne speech is that there were no great surprises. It reflected the commitments this government made in the election campaign. Imagine that: a throne speech, eight months into the term of a government, that actually reflects the election commitments the government made.

It also confirmed many of the challenges this government faces, challenges the Premier and various ministers have been telling British Columbians about in open cabinet meetings and otherwise over the last number of months.

The fact that there were no surprises speaks volumes to the openness and the transparency this government is following in confronting the challenges we face as a province. Once again: openness, transparency — another campaign promise fulfilled.

It's been eight months since we were sworn into office, and in that short time, this government has taken many, many steps to get this province back on track. The first thing we did was make tax cuts — yes, tax cuts — to make this province, once again, a competitive jurisdiction, able to attract investment and stem the flow of capital and talent leaving this great province.

The Premier also did a number of very innovative things in terms of establishing his cabinet. The one I am particularly proud of the Premier for establishing is the Ministry of Health Planning. Imagine that: an area of public policy that takes almost 40 percent of the provincial budget, and we're actually going to plan ahead for the challenges that arise in that area of public policy. That's incredible foresight, and it's long overdue.

Another thing this government spent a lot of time on in the fall, and which is ongoing in terms of some Crown corporations, is the core services review. Again, Mr. Speaker, imagine a government that gets elected and then actually sits down and says, "What is government doing? What should government be doing, and how can government do it better?" — another step long overdue in terms of the governing of this province.

A number of select standing committees of this Legislature toured the province in the fall. I was very pleased to have been appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Education, and I think people are eagerly anticipating our report, which will soon be presented to the Legislature. The other committees did do their job. They heard from British Columbians. They heard a diverse number of views reflecting the diverse population of this province and the many regions of this province. They submitted those reports to this Legislature, and those reports form a foundation for ministers and for all members of this Legislature to think about a number of very good ideas that have been brought forward — a number of innovative ideas. Those reports can often form the foundation of very progressive policy in the future.

The throne speech confirms that this government isn't going to waver in making the difficult decisions necessary to follow through on the commitments made during last year's election — commitments to bring a new era of prosperity, hope and opportunity to all British Columbians.

My friend the member for Peace River South remarked yesterday that he would be gracious in that he thought that perhaps the previous government had a lot bigger hearts than they had dollars. It sort of made me think for a second, and it made me think of another quote I heard a former member of the previous NDP government say — a leadership candidate at the time: "We made announcements about things we weren't even going to do."

Well, we can wear our hearts on our sleeves and talk about all the wonderful things we want to do for British Columbia. Perhaps when we make those announcements, it does bring some comfort to various people in our province. But government doesn't do anybody any favours when it makes promises and announces programs that have no hope of being sustainable or that the government hasn't even budgeted for or, worst of all, simply for the sake of making an announcement, with no intention of following through. Such announcements are a cruel taunting of British Columbians who might genuinely benefit from such programs. Mr. Speaker, I know the days of empty promises are over.

The throne speech did confirm that we face a number of great challenges, but more importantly, it sets out a path for addressing those challenges head on, a path for renewed hope and prosperity in British Columbia. There are numerous highlights in the throne speech. It recognizes and confirms the very strong necessity of a renewed private sector economy in B.C., the need to attract investment and attention to British Columbia. We all know this, but the world is going to come to British Columbia if we only let them know why they should, and we're doing that.

Since coming to office, the Premier's been in China and Hong Kong and Japan on a trade mission showcasing British Columbia. He's getting, from what I hear, rave reviews in terms of what this government is doing for the province and the path this government is setting forth. He's also been on the Team Canada mission down in the U.S., to Dallas and, I believe, to Los Angeles, again getting rave reviews on what this province is doing.

It's those messages that the province of British Columbia needs to get out. When the world recognizes what we have to offer and what we are doing here, the world's going to be knocking on our door. In that regard, I'm very pleased to see that in the throne speech, this government has confirmed its commitment to support the bid for the 2010 Olympics, an Olympics that's projected to perhaps bring as much as $10 billion in direct and indirect benefit to the province and provide up to 228,000 jobs.

We all have watched in the last few days — and over the next week — the Olympics in Salt Lake City. We watch our athletes doing so well there, and we all know the extensive coverage that such games get — that they showcase the locale in which they are being held. As I've said before, when people see British Columbia, a couple of weeks later they're going to be here.

I was very pleased to see that the Premier is going to initiate a number of small business round tables this spring. As all of us in this House know, many of the members here have backgrounds in small business or have worked with small businesses. Small businesses are the cornerstone of our local community economies.

I spent a number of years as a director and president of the Downtown Vernon Association, which was a downtown business improvement area in Vernon. Our mandate was to assist small businesses in attracting more customers to downtown. I can tell you, those small businesses have struggled over the past decade. This government is committed, and I'm glad to see that it's committed, to ensuring that small business can thrive in this province.

The Premier initiated his council on technology in the fall, and their work is continuing. I think that of any area of the economy, high-tech really does have the potential to…. Well, there's a number of British Columbia companies already on the map in high-tech, but we certainly have the potential to grow exponentially there.

Vernon is not alone in having a number of high-tech businesses. I just want to mention a couple of those that are on the leading edge. One, Tekmar Control Systems Ltd., is a world leader in hydronic heating systems. And guess what: since the last provincial election, they're expanding. I've met with them, and they've told me they're happy with what this govern-

ment's doing. They know that we want to be a competitive jurisdiction to attract and retain business. What that means to my community is a doubling of the number of people employed by Tekmar as well as the fact that they've bought new property in Vernon. They will be building a new facility, a much larger facility, and they will employ a number of local contractors in doing that and, obviously, provide economic benefit to my community.

Another leading-edge company is Ultradoc Software Inc. Ultradoc has just been invited to accompany the Prime Minister and a number of business leaders on their trade mission to Russia and Germany. Ultradoc was started by a local Vernon physician and deals with medical records information. It's a web-based system that is very interesting and certainly, I think, has a very bright future as we come to grips with the significant challenges we face in the use of medical information, in keeping that information secure but making it available around the province for our physicians, hospitals and all our health care professionals to provide the best service possible to the patients of this province.

These are just a couple of examples of entrepreneurial British Columbians that are succeeding in Vernon. I know if you speak to any of the members of this House who reside in the Okanagan Valley, we're trying to brand the Okanagan Valley as the Silicon Vineyard. I think you will see more and more over the next five years that this brand is going to stick, and there's going to be very good reason for it.

The throne speech mentioned the Energy Policy Task Force — again, another task force, another review of government policy and provincial policy that was long overdue. You don't have to think too hard to recognize that consistent, relatively inexpensive energy is the foundation on which an economy can be built. This province has done well on that in the past, but we've fallen behind because we haven't been thinking about what we need five and ten years from now. I was very pleased when the Premier established the Energy Policy Task Force to look at the long-term energy needs of the province. I'm very much looking forward to their final report this spring and to being involved with this government in responding to that task force report and in developing a policy to address the long-term energy needs of the province.

The government's outlined a commitment to renewing the mining industry. In my meeting with local individuals in Vernon who tend to be involved in the start of mining — that is, the prospecting end — I was surprised, not knowing much about the mining industry, and pleased to learn about the incredible potential this province has for mining. The mineral potential here is second to none in the world. We, as a government, simply need to get our act together — which hasn't been done by previous governments — to ensure that we're attracting mining investment, that we're doing that in an environmentally responsible manner and that we're exploiting that resource for the benefit of all British Columbians.

The same goes for oil and gas, for coalbed methane. I've mentioned mining. This government is going to ensure that these opportunities are pursued for all British Columbians. That's long overdue.

When we look at the natural resources of this province…. It's truly amazing when we sit back and actually look at what we have in the way of natural resources, look at where we are and the challenges we face and recognize that there's simply no reason we should have gotten to this point. Nevertheless, we're here. It's clear that there is no challenge that's greater or more necessary than reform in the management of our forest resource. There the challenges are daunting.

We're currently dealing with the softwood lumber dispute. It's something that every single member of this House would like to have seen resolved a long time ago. The difficult part of any negotiation such as that is it's tough to negotiate when one party doesn't seem to really want to come to the table too much. I know, certainly, that our Minister of Forests is working hard on that file and will continue to do so, keeping in mind not just getting an agreement, but getting an agreement that's for the benefit of British Columbians.

The Minister of Forests certainly has his plate full in the next while in dealing with forestry. We've made commitments to stumpage reform, and we've made commitments to tenure reform. All of those things are major challenges. When we look at forestry in the province, we've got a history of decades — in fact, centuries in some cases — of doing things a certain way. We have considerable vested interests. Like anything, when you're looking at change, there's always a general resistance to change, just for the sake of resisting. All of that must be overcome if we're going to have an internationally competitive and viable forest industry in this province.

We need to take the necessary policy steps to promote and ensure forest health. We need to ensure that fibre is available to allow the expansion and success of our value-added product manufacturers. We need to ensure that the Crown — you and I and all the other people of British Columbia — receives a good return for the sale of our timber resource. We need to ensure a viable, sustainable and diversified forest industry overall.

That's going to require us to be cautious. All of us in this House are going to need to listen carefully to those who have experience in that industry as well as to new ideas. We're going to have to think very critically.

One of the good fortunes of this government, Mr. Speaker, is that this government caucus represents almost every riding in this great and diverse province. Most of us can see the critical importance and influence of forestry and the many aspects of the forest industry by simply looking out the windows of our constituency offices. Certainly, if we can't see it from our constituency offices, we can probably see it from our homes.

I'm confident that we will ably meet the task of reforming our forest industry to meet the needs of all British Columbians.

I was also pleased to see in the throne speech a confirmation of this government's intention to work with our aboriginal and first nations communities to build capacity and to improve aboriginal British Columbians' economic opportunities, health and quality of life. Those are important commitments. From my meetings with representatives of the Okanagan Indian band in my constituency, I know that the band council and members are looking at innovative economic opportunities for their band and their members. I'm looking forward very much to government working with them to pursue those opportunities.

The throne speech confirmed this government's commitments to putting students and patients first in our education and health care systems. In education I was particularly pleased that we will be following through on our commitment — in this session, I believe — to provide more autonomy to school districts and post-secondary institutions. I've met with a number of my school trustees and with officials in school district 22, as well as with a number of principals, students and teachers. All of these people have innovative ideas. They're creative. They're dedicated to serving the students in Vernon, Lumby and Cherryville — the students of school district 22. I know that when we give them the ability to do their jobs and to exercise their discretion, they're going to do that in the best interests of students. They're going to do it considerably more capably than somebody 350 miles away down in Victoria can do. That's the benefit of local autonomy, and it gets better results.

In the post-secondary realm, Vernon is proud to be the home of the Kalamalka campus of Okanagan University College. That's a college that I believe is particularly responsive to the community's needs. There's a panel of community members that provides advice to the college campus on occasion and tries to identify what the community's needs are in terms of programming at the college. I think they've been relatively successful in having strong input with the college.

The Kalamalka campus is going to be undertaking the construction of an addition. Hopefully, they'll get shovel to ground sometime this year. That's an addition that doesn't cost the province any money. They're not coming with hands outstretched to the Ministry of Advanced Education. What they've done is be creative in looking at what they were spending for various facilities and how they could use those funds to actually make an addition at the main Kalamalka campus to house their continuing education needs. What that's also allowed them to do is free up some space in their main building so that they can finally — after about ten years of the student association putting aside funding towards a fitness centre — go ahead with facilitating those students having their own fitness centre at the Kal campus.

The Minister of Advanced Education announced in the last week that this government would be removing the tuition freeze and allowing post-secondary institutions around this province to set their own tuition. Of course, that predictably set off all sorts of fireworks from predictable sources in terms of how tuitions would skyrocket and so on.

I don't believe that's at all the case. The reality is that when you get into individual communities around this province, they're very good at assessing the capacity of their community in terms of the tuitions they'll pay. Those tuitions will reflect the needs of local students, as well as the needs of the institution to be able to serve the needs of the local community.

Again, it is only a good thing when we are allowing local institutions, local school boards, the autonomy to make decisions in the best interests of those local communities.

In health care we face incredible challenges, but again I'm confident that those challenges are going to be met. People are concerned — rightfully concerned. All of us very much want and need to have the confidence that our health care system's going to be there when one of us, or perhaps one of our family members, needs it.

I had opportunity last week to meet with a number of folks who have elderly parents in the Alexander wing of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, which is a long-term care facility. We had a very good chat about what some of their concerns are. Many of those concerns arise from uncertainty. I'm certainly hopeful that as our health authorities come to terms with their new mandate — let's remember that they've only been there a couple of months, and they need to come to terms with the number of facilities and the human resources that they have to deal with — we'll be able to allay some of that uncertainty and some of those fears.

The folks I met with at Alexander wing are actually taking a very proactive approach. They're going to try and meet on a monthly basis to discuss concerns that they have. They'll invite me now and again to those meetings to hear those concerns. That will allow me either to contact the health authority and relay the concerns there or to bring them to the Minister of Health Services, if I think that's necessary.

When we look at health care, we need to have an open mind, to be creative and try new things. It's abundantly clear that what we've been doing in the past isn't meeting the needs of all patients in this province, so we need to do better. I think that this government has shown guts in its willingness to look at new ideas and new ways of doing things.

It's raised the possibility of looking at the so-called P3s — the public-private partnerships — to try and solve some of the challenges we face there in terms of infrastructure needs. I doubt that P3s are a panacea in terms of solving our problems, whether they're in health, education or other infrastructure needs, but they certainly provide an opportunity. They're indicative of a government that's prepared to try new ideas,

prepared to look at the options to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia.

The regional health authorities, in a very strong move, have decreased administration. They're allowing the government — and the authorities themselves will be doing this — to focus their resources on patients. There are very difficult decisions ahead, as I've said, but we remain committed to access and timely, quality care for all British Columbians.

Unfortunately, we've had to make some tough decisions in health care already. There have been some necessary changes in what government expects British Columbians are going to be paying for themselves in the broad range of health care services available. When we've made those changes, we've specifically protected those that are least able to pay. Those on MSP premium assistance continue to receive supplementary health care services at no cost. Recent changes to the MSP premiums lowered the premium — lowered the premium, Mr. Speaker — for approximately 230,000 low-income British Columbians — often lowering it to zero so that where they paid some premium before, they're not paying any now. Those are progressive moves to protect those most vulnerable as we undertake some of the difficult changes in health care.

I'm particularly pleased that the throne speech reiterated that the government will act this year to advance the target of treating 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care spaces by 2006. My constituents, particularly those in Lumby, who have been advancing various creative and cooperative proposals to meet their community's need for spaces in long-term and intermediate care for their citizens, will eagerly await the government's action on intermediate and long term care spaces.

It goes without saying that each decision we make in this House has an impact on individual British Columbians. It's an awesome responsibility that each of us undertakes every time we walk in these doors. Over the last eight months I've been fortunate to meet with many constituents and correspond with an even greater number. Some agree with the steps the government is taking. Predictably, some disagree. That's the wonder of a diverse constituency. I appreciate all of the folks in my constituency who have taken the time to come and commend what the government is doing and to come and tell me where they have concerns. I appreciate in particular the individuals who may be directly affected by a particular suggestion the government has made. They've come in and sat down and had a good discussion with me, and I've tried to explain the challenges facing the government and what we're trying to do. In many cases we come to some agreement. It's important that I recognize what their concerns are and the impact that certain steps have on them so that I can come back down here and work towards minimizing the impacts from the necessary steps the government needs to take.

What I've heard most loudly from those who are expressing concerns about the direction of the government is that they are concerned about the impact on those most vulnerable in our society, whether those be the poor, the developmentally disabled, those living in or fleeing from abusive relationships, or children. Over the last number of months I've had the pleasure of sitting as part of this government's caucus, which includes a number of passionate advocates for those most vulnerable in our communities. I very strongly believe that this government has and will continue to take into account the needs of those most vulnerable in our community as we go about making the difficult changes ahead.

The vast majority of us in this House know that the path pursued by the previous government was a failure and was unsustainable. It was the road to ruin for this province. Some of the goals were laudable and well-intentioned, but unfortunately good intentions are not enough. Good governance requires making difficult choices. It requires looking ahead — far ahead, in some cases — not only to ensure the well-being of current British Columbians but to also pave the way for the well-being of future generations. We must be, and we are, committed to government providing strong, effective services for British Columbians, particularly in health, and in the greatest equalizer of all, education. But those services must be sustainable.

We've already borrowed too much from our children. We owe it to them to get our fiscal house in order and to not mortgage our ability to provide services to future generations. I'm confident that we're setting out on the right path as set out in the throne speech.

While it is an honour for each member to sit in the House and represent his or her constituents, that honour does come at a price. We all spend far too much time away from our families, and in doing so we all expect a great deal from them in holding down the home front. It's our families that often see the letters to the editor first. I know in my case my mother has quit reading the newspaper and listening to the radio. I'm not sure if she's watching television anymore. She only talks to people who don't know me or don't know that she's my mother. Nevertheless, she remains very proud. My wife is teetering on whether she's going to continue to read the newspaper. But they get to see the letters to the editor first because they're at home when we're down here. They get to fume over how misunderstood we often are. For those of us with children, the responsibility we leave with our spouses is even greater.

In closing, in reflecting on the fact that today is Valentine's Day — and the member for Delta South brought this up earlier, but I'm surprised that nobody else has — I want to thank my wife, Jennifer, for her unwavering love and support, and I certainly want to confirm my infinite appreciation for all that she does for me and my children and for allowing me to be here and represent the people of Okanagan-Vernon.

W. Cobb: The throne speech indicated and outlined for British Columbians the plan this government must

implement in order to have a renewed economy, an economy that can present new opportunities while ensuring funding is in place for patient care and education. This is a basic principle. We need a strong, thriving economy in order to pay for the social programs we all value. It's a simple concept that we can't continue to pay out more than we take in. The previous government didn't understand that basic fact, and we're all paying the price for it, as you heard today, when we were talking about closures of hospitals and courthouses.

We are making some very strong statements about the seriousness of where we find ourselves and are putting some bold changes in place to find and implement those solutions. It is important for all British Columbians to understand and not forget what the past ten years have done to this province. We used to be an economic leader, and we're now at the bottom of the heap. We're looking up at other provinces that don't have the abundance of resources and natural beauty of British Columbia. The past decade saw us fall to last in the country in job creation, to last in investment, to last in economic growth — and on top of that a doubling of the B.C. debt. It is obvious that we have not had very good managers of our finances.

They allowed ideology to get in the way of creating a cooperative front to keep our economy strong. Turning around the years of neglect will not be easy for anyone, especially for the many public servants affected by this change, just as it has not been easy for the thousands of forest and mine workers who fell by the wayside over the last few years. Coming from a small town, I fully understand the impact this restructuring has on people. I see them in the coffee shop; I meet them on the streets when I'm downtown. These people are friends and neighbours. I can promise you: no one has enjoyed this process.

There were many job losses in my riding of Cariboo South and a lot of uncertainty, but I believe that what we are doing is absolutely necessary. Some say that I haven't been a voice for my constituents, that I am simply toeing the party line. Well, I have been a voice for my constituents, because I believe these changes will lead to a stronger and more prosperous British Columbia. I am fighting for Cariboo South, trying to ensure that we have a forest policy that makes sense and a regulatory system that will encourage the rebirth of the mining industry.

The comments in the throne speech about needing to revitalize the forest industry were very welcome. The government made clear the need to bring a final and lasting solution to the softwood lumber dispute. The actions of the American industry have been disappointing, to say the least. As mentioned yesterday by my colleague Blair Lekstrom, you can't be a part-time free trader. If you want our energy or our natural resources, if you want an open border, then you must also accept our wood. But more than that, the government understands the problems that have been built into our forest industry over the past ten years.

We will be working to create an industry that is globally competitive and embraces market-based reforms. The Forest Practices Code will be revamped — none too soon, I might say. The code has strangled our industry, and the people of Cariboo South have felt the impact more than most. The government's plan to market B.C. wood products around the globe is a welcome idea. For far too long we have let others set our image. It's time we got out there and sold B.C. products and sold them with pride.

The mining industry is also getting the attention of our government. For the people of the Cariboo that is also good news. We want to get people working again. We want to have people have pride in our province. We want all of us to get the benefits that flow from a restored economy.

I know this is contrary to what some try to portray, but these changes will put patients first and ensure that we have a sustainable system for the future. We will have an education system that puts students first, but government needs to be in control of the issues that mean the most to the people — like health care, education and our social programs. During the discussions on the merits of Bills 27, 28 and 29 it became very apparent to me that government did not have control. If we did not take back the right to manage our health and education, I believe we were giving up our right to govern. We were not elected to have this province run the way it was in the past. We must govern for the future.

It has been asked of me on many different occasions if there ever was a politician with an eye on the future, not just the next election. I must say that 77 members of this Legislature are doing exactly that. We are looking forward and making plans so our children have a future — a future of hope and prosperity, not a future of debt and despair.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer use our Visa to pay off our MasterCard. We are putting in place the building blocks to enable B.C. to grow out of the ruins of the last decade and regain its place as the number one province, not continue as a have-not province.

Our three-year restructuring plan will allow business and industry to come home, rebuild and prosper so we will have the funds needed to support our health and education system. As hard as it will be and has been, these decisions must be made.

I try to be back in my riding at least two days in every week, and there is a lot of uncertainty and fear out there — fear of the unknown — but most people who think it through are willing to make some sacrifices, knowing that in the end we will create a better place to live and raise our families.

In conclusion, the past eight months have been difficult, but it is now time to focus on the future. We have laid out a plan to rebuild the province, and I urge all British Columbians to put aside partisan politics and, instead, join us in creating an economy that will flourish and provide the benefits we all desire in this great province.

Hon. M. de Jong: The throne speech. It's the ninth or tenth time I've actually had the honour to sit in this

place and listen to the Lieutenant-Governor deliver the Speech from the Throne. I must confess that notwithstanding the passage of time and the number of times one participates in that exercise, it is always enjoyable. The pomp and the ceremony associated with it does remind one of the history and the traditions associated with this place and, I think, also serves to reinforce in all of us how fortunate we are to occupy a desk — with 79 members, an increasingly smaller desk — in this chamber.

There are other changes in this place that have occurred in the time that I have been here — certainly over the last number of months since the election of a new government which I think we are all proud to serve in. I noticed the member for West Vancouver and the member for Prince George North working away on their computers here in the House. The Legislature has moved into the twenty-first century. I actually always enjoyed and looked forward to coming into the House as a place to escape any of those devices from which we might get messages.

Hon. M. de Jong: As my colleague from Peace River North points out, that might have something to do with my ability to operate one of those electronic devices. But here we are, where members now can come into the House and actually communicate with their constituents from their desks. Isn't that amazing? It's an age when constituents can ask questions of members and have them placed on the order paper, thanks to innovations that the Speaker himself has brought to this chamber over the last number of months. There are changes — I think healthy changes — that will serve this institution, serve its members and, as a result, ultimately serve the people of British Columbia. That most certainly is a good thing.

It's the second Speech from the Throne we have listened to since the election of a new government. I think that upon reflection we can all look back — and do look back — with a degree of satisfaction and pride upon the first session of this parliament, when a new government, a new Premier, came into office with an overwhelming mandate, a mandate for change.

That change was spelled out, I would suggest, with a greater degree of particularity than any government in memory which I can think of — particularity not just on the issues but on the timing: a 90-day agenda. I, for one, and, I think, all of my colleagues were proud and are proud of the fact that in the last session the government fulfilled its 90-day pledges — 21 of them.

On our first day in office a dramatic tax cut was delivered to all British Columbians as was promised. Education was deemed and designated an essential service. These and other promises were made with a view to bringing change to British Columbia, to bringing improvements, to fixing problems that had been permitted to develop over time and were an impediment to the people of this province reaching their full potential.

At the conclusion of that exercise we all left here exhilarated and proud but in the back of our minds understanding, as well, that as fulfilling as that was, the tough work was yet to come. That was tough enough — tough personally to learn new jobs, to learn about being a member of the Legislative Assembly, to learn about being a member of cabinet. We're all still learning.

I think when we left this place at the end of last summer, the last session, we knew there was a challenge awaiting us. Though we could not know with precision the extent of that challenge, we knew it would test our resources, test our commitment to public service, test our commitment to the platform we ran on and were elected on.

That was what was in my mind as I listened to the Speech from the Throne and, I have to say, listened to the Premier on television last night. They are, combined, rather remarkable addresses, rather remarkable presentations, in my view — extraordinary, actually — when you think that they really represent a departure from the past, in this sense.

They represent a calculated and deliberate desire to communicate the state of this province in as straightforward a manner as possible with the people of this province, pulling no punches and in no way trying to gloss over some of the difficulties we face. As the Premier said last night, that's not always easy. In fact, the record of governments past — certainly over the last decade — is to do quite the opposite: not to tell people the facts, not to give them the straight goods but to tell them what they would like to hear.

As I was thinking about the past — without dwelling on it, Mr. Speaker — it occurred to me that it would have been more difficult to tell people the truth in 1996, after that election — that the budget wasn't in fact balanced, as the NDP government of the day had promised it was and would be. Of course, people, in their hearts, really would have preferred not to hear that, I suppose. It would have troubled them to know that they hadn't been told the truth. It would have been the right thing to do, but it would have been difficult.

It would have been difficult to tell people that tax dollars had been squandered on electrical projects in far-away places like Pakistan and easier, I suppose, to tell people something else, to withhold that information from them, withhold the facts — but more difficult to tell them the straight goods. It would have been more difficult at some point during the construction of those fast ferries to give people the facts and tell them it wasn't going to work, as was surely apparent long before the facts became known by other channels.

It's not easy telling people bad news. It's not easy telling them that the treasury that governments are charged with protecting and administering has been mismanaged. It's not easy to tell them that we are adrift in a sea of debt. But those were the facts. Those were the facts then, and the fact that they were withheld

from people doesn't diminish their import. It doesn't diminish the impact they have on government's ability to deliver services to people today and in the future. It is a shame that it has taken to this point for people to learn the facts. That's what the Speech from the Throne, in part, does — pulling no punches and withholding nothing. It has laid out for people the challenge we face as a society here in British Columbia.

It would be easier, I suppose, to tell British Columbians that we have a health care system that will meet their needs and is sustainable over the long term. That would be a much easier, more palatable message. In communities that the member for Cariboo South and the member from Vernon spoke about, it would, in the short term, be a message that would be probably be received more positively. But it wouldn't be true.

It wouldn't be true because our health care system as it is presently established is not sustainable, and people deserve to know that. People deserve to know there is a government which is prepared to make that admission, to make that acknowledgment, and which has a plan in place that it is executing to ensure we do have a sustainable, publicly funded health care system there when people need it, where they need it.

It would be easier, I suppose, to try and hide from people that government has a spending problem on a massive scale — deficits in the billions of dollars. Maybe my colleagues here in this House will correct me, but I don't know of a lot of people that are proud of that. I don't think people in Port Alberni are happy about that, but I think the member from Port Alberni, who has spoken on this in the past, is correct when she says that they want to know. They want to know the truth. They want to know the extent of the problem. They want to know the impact it is going to have upon them, and I think, by and large, they are ready to deal with it. They want their government to show some leadership in dealing with that problem, because they understand that over the long term, the ability government has to deliver those services in Port Alberni, in Merritt, in Maple Ridge, is tied to government coming to grips with a structural deficit that is in excess of $4 billion — one that this government inherited from a previous NDP regime.

As I have spoken with people in my constituency — as all of my colleagues have — I have been buoyed and encouraged by the reaction that I have received that says: "About time. It's about time a government came along and in its defining statement for the session didn't try to gloss over the facts." I'm from an agricultural area, so excuse me when I quote one of my constituents who called me right after the throne speech was delivered and said: "Thank God, at least you're no longer trying to b.s. me." You can't fix the problem if you're not going to admit it's there. The Premier and the government and the members of the government caucus have had the courage to acknowledge the problem and the extent of it.

All of us, I think, are dealing to one degree or another with the anxiety and nervousness that exists in our community around the government's stated intent to fix the problem, because it is going to require change. It's going to require change on an unparalleled scale. Change on that level should engender a certain degree of nervousness, and it does. All of us deal with that in different ways. It manifests itself in different ways in our communities. Whether it's Prince George, whether it's North Vancouver, whether it's Surrey, all of us deal with that nervousness and that concern within our communities.

In my community, in Abbotsford, a hospital facility promised more than a decade ago is now in the final planning stages. We're doing something new. We are involving the private sector. P3s, they're called: public-private partnerships. It's never been done before on this scale. I, for one, am proud that we're doing it. I, for one, am proud that this will become a potential model for future capital construction in this province.

I understand that there are people who are nervous, but they should not be nervous, and surely they should not be surprised that the government is intent upon proceeding in a way that will extract the maximum benefit to patients for every health care dollar spent. That, most certainly, is the objective. To suggest that the government should look away from various construction models, from various management models, simply because someone's notion, someone's perhaps antiquated notion, of what our health care system needs to look like is offended…. I say: "Too bad."

We have gone beyond having the luxury of hiding behind dogma and ideology. Patients aren't getting the care they need and deserve. Every one of us sitting in this chamber has a duty to those people to explore every avenue and every option to ensure that they get that care. That's what we're going to do, and we're going to make no apologies to anyone for doing it.

In my community there are concerns — as there are everywhere, except, I think, Peace River North — around transportation infrastructure. Maybe they have those concerns there too. Apparently, they do.

We live in a world where there is tough competition for scarce public dollars. The challenge for communities across this province, I would suggest, is to work together within various regions to establish what those regional transportation priorities are.

It is a simple and straightforward matter, I understand, for a community to create a shopping list. You know, in the year 2002 British Columbians move not just within their regions; they move around the province. Probably what we need to do and should do and what I know this government intends to do is establish regional transportation planning and regional transportation priorities.

I think I can make a very compelling case — and I intend to, to the best of my ability — that in my com-

munity transportation infrastructure surrounding the expanding airport at Abbotsford is a priority and something to which overall economic growth is inextricably tied. Our community has to make that case with the realization that there are around us other communities with other priorities. I think that case can be made.

It'll be made better if we work together on a regional basis, and I'm pleased to say that is something that the locally elected people in that end of the Fraser Valley are doing in, I think, a very positive way, and I think and hope that will reap rewards.

We should be under no illusions no matter where we live in this province that the fiscal well is virtually empty. It is empty because of some very poor decision-making that governments before us have made, and we will pay a price. British Columbia will pay a price for that poor decision-making.

I have listened to my colleagues make their speeches in response to the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and I have heard in those addresses an understanding of the impacts of some of these very difficult decisions that government is making on their communities, courthouses and in my case, in my present job, forestry offices — district and regional offices.

There are a couple of things as I turn my mind for a moment to that portion of the throne speech that addressed forestry matters. I thank some of the previous speakers for their insightful remarks on that issue and their kind commentary, in many instances, on the attempts the government has made on a dispute that has raged for some time now with the U.S. — but more about that in a moment.

Whether you are from Yale-Lillooet, from the Cariboo, from Prince George, from the North Coast, it is a difficult thing when government offices close and people lose their jobs. I know that everyone in this place understands that the trauma associated with losing one's job does not disappear any quicker because it is a public sector job versus a private sector job. These are people who have been asked to serve the people of British Columbia as public servants and have done that, done it to the best of their ability and, in many cases, performed exceptional service, and now find themselves out of work — in the Forests ministry, many hundreds this year, some of them long serving members of the Forest Service.

There are two reasons they find themselves in that position, neither reason attributable to them personally. One is a $4 billion structural deficit that has obliged this government to take some very difficult decisions right across the board, and that has been visited upon this ministry that I presently have charge of and virtually every other ministry within government. In the case of forestry there is another dynamic at play — I think a more significant one in the longer term — and that is the realization that we need to change the way we manage our forests in British Columbia.

I want to talk about that for a moment because the throne speech dwelt on some of those changes and highlighted what some of them may be — the fact that they will be played out, rolled out over the course of the year. There are not a lot of surprises anymore. I think most people know what they are, but there is, again, anxiety about the impact some of these changes are going to have on workers, their families, communities and licensees.

I thought I would take a moment at this point to try to articulate some of the reasoning behind the general direction of these changes. I'll begin by saying this: I don't think we achieve anything by addressing this from the point of view of criticizing decisions that were made ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I don't think we achieve anything by second-guessing those decisions, because I think in many cases, perhaps the majority of cases, those decisions that gave rise to a policy regime that we now have in place were defensible, were the right decisions.

We have built a province around the development of the forest sector over the last century. Towns exist because of forestry. Road systems exist because of forestry. But part and parcel of that is in so doing governments have preserved unto themselves a tremendous amount of decision-making authority to direct the evolution of the forest economy. I think you could make an argument that there was a time when that was appropriate or required. I think you can equally make an argument today that that time has past. So, in general terms, extricating the government from the decision-making process, removing the government's ability to artificially direct the evolution of this industry is very much at the heart of what we are doing. For many people that is troubling. But I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that I have been impressed by is the degree to which agencies, business or otherwise, that enjoy success in the year 2002 are generally those that are able to adapt to changing conditions in a global community. I think that is very much a given. To remain stagnant is to eventually disappear.

Why, then, do we believe that government policy over such a fundamental issue as the forest economy in British Columbia should be immune from that dynamic? Because that's really what's happened. These policies that we are tackling and changing today have been in place for generations. The argument that says that they must remain in place forever, it seems to me, ignores the reality that unless we are prepared to adapt them to changing circumstances, we are condemning our forest economy and forest-dependent communities to a bleak future.

Don't believe me; look at the recent past. Go to those communities that have seen facilities shut down and ask them how the social contract has operated to preserve those communities. I would suggest that it hasn't, and I will suggest that you will get agreement on that point from people who live in Tahsis, Gold River or any number of communities across this province.

We have said that as part of our legislative package as announced and referred to in the throne speech, we intend to move ahead. We have dared to speak the heresy that we will change and eliminate appurtenancy provisions as they presently exist — a heresy. I have said it before and I will say it again: you cannot on the one hand say that you want — as I think we all do want — to exact the highest value from timber harvested in British Columbia and in the very next breath point to policies that preclude that from happening.

These are significant changes as they relate to cut control and timber pricing and other mandatory requirements that presently exist within the Forest Act. Yes, they will change the way that industry operates in British Columbia, but they'll change it for the better. They will help revitalize and build hope again. It requires us, in order to fulfil our objective and achieve our objective in that respect, to overcome one other obstacle — that is, the present impediments thrown up by our neighbours to the south, our largest market.

No one should underestimate the challenge we face in the weeks ahead, but as someone said — I think the member from Vernon — just a few moments ago, we will make every effort to secure an agreement. Not an agreement at any cost, but an agreement that works for British Columbians, an agreement that will allow us to move ahead and make some of these fundamental changes that will allow our industry to reattract investment, that will allow our industry to prosper, that will allow our industry to once again begin to employ the people in the communities that are dependent on our forests. No one should underestimate the challenge that we face in reaching that agreement with the Americans.

I've had some tough things to say, and my time is at an end, but I will say this: the degree of support that we have enjoyed — the Premier, I, the government — from every member of this House and from people around the province leaves me feeling entirely confident that at the end of the day, notwithstanding the trials and tribulations we may face along the way, we'll get that agreement and we'll be on our way to rebuilding a vibrant, profitable forestry economy in British Columbia that people can be proud of once again.

D. Chutter: I must say I certainly admire the ability and ease with which the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman can address the Legislature without notes and run out of time as well.

I welcome the privilege to speak today in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to respond to the Speech from the Throne as the representative of the people and communities of Yale-Lillooet. This government was elected with a mandate for change — to take action, to make decisions, to invigorate the economy, to instil sound financial management practices and to put patients, students and those in the greatest need first.

I am pleased to say that change is taking place as a result of the decisions based on a responsible, thoughtful planning process. This government must not waiver from this plan, because the services we all count on and the jobs we expect will only exist for us and for our children in their future if we have a healthy economy and a fiscally responsible government that lives within its means.

Let me briefly review the past eight months. In the early summer, an independent fiscal review board determined that if changes were not made, the province would have a $3 billion deficit this year and a $3.8 billion deficit next year. Unfortunately, due to unknown events of the time, including the September 11 tragedy, the degree of the softwood dispute impacts and reduced revenue from the resource industry, the budget outlook is much worse.

With these future multibillion-dollar deficits, we have a financial crisis that must be addressed immediately. We are in a vicious, ever-deepening debt hole, and we must stop the digging now. Each additional deficit dollar adds to our debt. Each additional debt dollar adds to our interest costs. This further decreases funds available for services, which explains the urgency to control spending, to balance the budget and to act now.

We all witnessed a decade of reckless spending, an incredible waste of our tax dollars by the previous government. Unlike our previous government, we must stop stealing from our kids' futures, saddling them with our debt for our benefit — which limits their opportunities for services in the future. To carry on as in the past would be irresponsible and selfish.

Another determination from the fiscal board was that reducing spending alone would not be enough to balance the budget. There would have to be changes to increase revenue as well as to reduce expenditure. To address the revenue shortfall, action was immediately taken this past summer to open up B.C. for business. To attract investment, the province must be competitive with other jurisdictions.

The measures that this government implemented to become competitive included reducing the cost of doing business by cutting taxes and regulation and reducing the risk of making investments by building trust in government with responsible financial reporting and planning requirements.

To reduce the expenditure side of the ledger and obtain greater value from each tax dollar, this government undertook a core review. This core review took place over the fall with the purpose of determining the priority or core services that government should provide to the public. The core review and the alignment with budget limitations occurred under careful scrutiny involving all MLAs through extensive committee work.

In January, as promised, this government announced changes to services and corresponding budget constraints as determined by the core review process. Excluding health and education, which are both protected at current funding levels, ministry spending is to be reduced by 25 percent on average over three years. This equates to about an 8 percent overall reduction

across all ministries. Compare this to the 21 percent across-the-board reduction in Alberta and the 11 percent reduction in NDP Saskatchewan that occurred in the 1990s out of the necessity to address their financial crises.

These decisions are difficult ones, as they impact families and communities in my riding of Yale-Lillooet. They are necessary decisions in order to sustain services to our communities. Let me assure the people of my riding that these decisions were developed over the past eight months after undertaking a responsible, principled review and planning process.

Legislation adopted this past summer meets the commitment of this government to practise sound financial management, including a requirement to balance the budget and to report all provincial finances accurately and honestly under generally accepted accounting principles. The most recent legislative changes are necessary to allow for the flexibility to focus the limited resources on patients and students in order to meet their needs first. I know that change is difficult to accept, but we are in a financial crisis, and we have no choice but to change if we want to sustain government services.

Change is also coming to our health care service, and I would like to talk a bit about what I've been doing in my riding on this subject. The hospital in the rural community of Yale-Lillooet is the heart of the community, having evolved and expanded over many years with a great deal of volunteer work and donations. The hospital is more than just another government service. It is the beginning, often the lifesaver and the end for many community members. I fully appreciate the importance that we all place on hospital services in rural communities. I too have children, I have aging parents, and I plan to grow old in my rural community.

The challenge today is that patients are not always getting effective health care. We do not have the money to spend more, and spending more will not necessarily fix the problem. We cannot continue the way we have been delivering health care in order to sustain services to rural communities.

This government increased health care spending this past year by 13 percent to $9.5 billion, which is over 40 percent of the total provincial budget. With this expenditure level frozen for three years, the two health authorities in my riding are faced with challenges to reduce spending to stay on budget. To do this, a process of review of acute care services in each of the hospitals in Yale-Lillooet is taking place. This review is expected to be completed in this month of February, with the proposed changes to be presented at that time.

I would like to assure my constituents that consultation with community leaders and stakeholders will take place, with the decisions by the health authorities on acute care changes announced in March. I want to encourage my constituents to submit their innovative ideas and solutions in order to optimize health care services in their communities within the budget constraint. I can assure the people of Yale-Lillooet that I will take their constructive input forward on their behalf.

In preparation for this change that we're going through, this past fall I sat down with health care providers in each of five hospital communities in my riding and documented their comments and issues. I summarized the common issues, which included:

1. The importance of sufficient hospital services in rural communities to attract and retain families and seniors in order to sustain the community.

2. Population-based funding alone is not sufficient for communities with adjacent major highway systems and corresponding accidents, nor for those with a high tourist influx.

3. The need for community input into decision-making. Local people know best the needs of the community, and in the past, community volunteers have delivered health care on budget.

I submitted this information along with petitions from three hospital communities to the minister responsible and discussed their concerns. The number of signatures on each petition was in excess of 1,400 for Princeton, 3,500 for Hope and 3,900 for Merritt.

This issue in health care is about change — to provide affordable and effective health care with a focus on benefiting patients. The best thing that we can do for health care, regardless of what it might look like, is to establish a sustainable service to benefit us now and into the future.

In closing, the plan for the future, as laid out in the Speech from the Throne, is a responsible, principled strategy to bring prosperity and opportunity to British Columbians; to put first the interests of patients, students and those in greatest need and, finally, to pass on with pride a British Columbia that offers our children the opportunity to reach their full potential.

R. Harris: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I get to stand in the House again and speak on behalf of the people of Skeena. First, let me take the opportunity to thank the many people who have supported me. Though they may not write letters or carry signs and placards, I have very much appreciated their phone calls and gestures of support in these challenging times.

In my first speech in the House, I described the beauty as well as the potential that the riding of Skeena possesses. We are a riding rich in natural resources and blessed with an abundance of talented people. The beauty of our rivers and mountains provides us with endless tourism opportunities. Skeena has all the components necessary to build strong and successful communities. We are a population of people who are poised and willing to participate in the rebuilding of the northwest economy and the economy of British Columbia. All we want to know, though, is that we and our children can live in this riding and that they can get an education and career opportunities right there in the north.

I also shared with the House the disastrous effects of the last ten years of misguided government policy and incompetent financial management that have struck and really hurt most rural communities in British Columbia. Skeena, like so many resource-dependent ridings, continues to pay the price of the previous government's inept forest policies that have often driven the costs of logging in this province to the highest in the world. This, combined with the softwood lumber dispute, September 11 and the continued uncertainty around Skeena Cellulose Inc., has contributed to make a poor situation even worse.

The previous government's taxation and regulatory regime has virtually eliminated mining as a participant in any of our rural economies. As well, these same policies have placed a huge cost burden on the small business sector of our economy, stifling the growth of this sector also.

As a member of Treasury Board, I've gained an insight into the depth the previous government plunged this province. The decisions over the past ten years have had nothing to do with servicing the needs of taxpayers and everything to do with serving and advancing the political agenda that's rewarded friends at the expense of students, patients and taxpayers.

In 1996, when other governments across Canada were grappling with their economic challenges, the previous government continued on a reckless course that even in the face of a shrinking economy and declining investment took this province from being number one in the country to the last in just about every economic indicator. From 1998 to 2001, 54,000 jobs left this province. In the Pacific Northwest, from December 1999 to December 2000, the workforce shrunk by almost 10 percent — nearly 5,400 jobs. In 1999 the plan of the previous government transformed B.C. into a have-not province.

We are now challenged not just with stopping the exodus of capital and jobs but in fact with convincing the international community that we are open for business. The leadership of the groups that oppose our government's direction would have us believe that we live in a bubble, that somehow government can legislate prosperity with the wave of a hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. The road to rebuilding the economy will be long and tough. Interest rates, global markets, as well as international events, are beyond our control. We must focus our attention today on the issues within our control so that this province is positioned to take advantage of the economic rebound when it comes, and it will. That is why it is critically important to get our financial house in order today.

The people of Skeena face a number of pressing issues. As I stated earlier, the uncertainty around Skeena Cellulose continues to weigh heavily on all of the communities in the northwest. As most of the members are aware, the timber holdings of this facility span three ridings and seven communities. If we're going to revitalize the northern economy, families, communities and businesses need to be able to plan with a sense of certainty as to their future. With so much of the local economy tied to this industry, and specifically this company, we need to find a way to bring closure to this file, hopefully with the successful movement of SCI to the private sector.

Even so, forestry will continue to be a major player in the economy of Skeena. Issues around softwood lumber, a new look at tenure reform, as well as the changes to the Forest Practices Code are all being watched with a great deal of interest by the people of my riding. SCI may be the immediate problem, but these other items will shape the future. We must move quickly but prudently as we reform the tenure system in this province to ensure it reflects the interests of B.C., not the interests of other jurisdictions.

The investment community in this province has continued to say that high taxes, over-regulation and a lack of certainty are preventing business from locating or expanding in B.C. In July of last year we dealt with the taxation issue by finally making B.C. competitive again with our neighbouring jurisdictions. A recent KPMG study showed that B.C. beat 43 U.S. cities in terms of business costs, so we are obviously heading in the right direction.

In the upcoming session I'm glad to see that we are finally going to start to deal with the over-regulation of this province without compromising standards. Restoring the economy is the top priority because it is the foundation upon which everything else flows. We need the cash to support the programs.

The communities of the north share the same concerns as other British Columbians about health and education. I am proud of the changes we have made in providing flexibility within our education system. In the rural communities where weather, lifestyle, culture and industry differ from the large urban areas, these changes will now actually allow us to provide an education system for our children that fits the needs of students, parents, teachers and communities.

Health care in the rural communities is a major concern, not just in Skeena but also in the entire northwest. As our health delivery area, geographically, covers 25 percent of this province, services that are enjoyed by the rest of the province, like renal dialysis and trauma, are still not available to over 100,000 people who live in this vast region. The restructuring of health care authorities, as well as the new management tools, should allow them to focus the scarce health dollars more directly on patient care and services. It will be critical for us as politicians to make sure that communities that fuel the engine of economic growth do, in fact, have the services and resources they need to attract and retain the professionals and workers that we will need to meet this challenge.

In my first speech to the House I spoke of a committee that I sit on and chair. That's the northern caucus. I believed then, and even more so today, that this group of MLAs from the ten northern ridings has an opportunity to make a significant, positive contribution to the future of our communities. Over the last six months as chair I have met with a significant number

of mayors, community groups and regional districts, as well as the northwest treaty group. The northern caucus has met with the NCMA, an organization that represents all the incorporated communities within the north.

We've also met with a significant number of groups and organizations representing industry and tourism as well as a variety of other interests. We participated in the Northwest Corridor Development Corp.'s annual convention in Smithers and now have a representative on that board. This organization has membership from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Alaska. Its mandate revolves around increasing economic activity to the highway transportation corridors of the north. Although these groups all may differ on some fronts, the one area of common agreement between all of these groups is the northern caucus and its need to find a way to attract investment and create employment.

First nations across the north have been extremely hard hit by unemployment. Their communities are paying the social and human costs that are associated with such high levels. As chair I met recently with the northwest treaty tribal group, and as a northern caucus, we will be meeting with them again soon. Our hope is to be able to work outside the broader treaty process to help move projects forward and create the certainty that business is looking for. We must find quick and effective means of generating real employment. This is a tremendous opportunity for first nations to finally be active partners in the developments in their communities and become partners in industry. Any benefit that their communities have will be felt in and ripple through all the other communities of the northwest.

The northern caucus also has an important role to play in ensuring that the additional costs that northern residents have in accessing health care and education are considered as we move to the new delivery models. Students who must incur the additional living and travelling expenses in pursuit of an education need to know that there is support there for them.

I live here in Victoria with three students. When I asked them about the tuition fees, they told me that they certainly would enjoy low fees, but the tuition fees make up only 20 percent of the cost of their education. The real cost of their education is the cost of living away from home. They need to know that the courses and support services will be available for them so that they can complete their education in the shortest period of time. They want me to make sure that they have an economy that will provide them with jobs and opportunity, both while at school and after graduation. They ask that the student loan programs be available so that if they need assistance, it's there for them.

A strategy for the north cannot be accomplished on a riding-by-riding basis. It will take the collective efforts of ten MLAs that recognize that as one community succeeds, so do we all. With this throne speech, British Columbians can finally look forward to turning the corner and fostering a climate that will stand us well when the economy starts to rebound. Forestry, mining, oil and gas development, tourism, manufacturing: all can and should be part of the northern economy.

The days ahead of us are going to be tough. The economic minefield we walk through has been ten years in the making. There is a need for us as a society to really start to ask the tough questions. If we do not deal with the economic challenges in front of us today, it will be up to our children to deal with them tomorrow.

Our government has started to take actions that are necessary to reverse the trends of the last ten years. The tax cut that was introduced last year is absolutely essential if we are to compete with our neighbouring jurisdictions for investment. The sacrifices we make today will ensure that our children will have a future — a future that can provide long-term, sustainable health care; an education system that challenges, entertains or reflects the diverse interests of regions within our province; a social safety net that makes sure that we are able to provide for those within our society that are most in need; but most importantly, a vibrant economy that provides the kind of community stability that makes B.C. the number one place to invest and live.

Mr. Speaker, I know the people of Skeena have a tremendous amount of optimism about our community's capacity to meet the challenges ahead. I look forward to representing their interests over the next year.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to join in this response to the throne speech. I do hope today to make some general observations about the challenges we face in British Columbia and also to advise members of the House of some of the initiatives that we have undertaken in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in relation to the throne speech, of which — as I'm sure all members know — further details will be available again next Tuesday when the Finance minister makes his budget speech.

It's now about eight months since the new cabinet was formed in British Columbia. It has been an interesting period, indeed — certainly for members of the government, members of the caucus and for the public as well. On some days, Mr. Speaker, it seems like those eight months were really just eight days. On other days it seems like they're about eight years. I know you've had that experience before.

It is always a great honour to serve in this chamber, and we have to remind ourselves of that despite the tough times and the challenges that we may face, both within ministries and across government. One of the old expressions about government — and I'm sure you know this one very well, Mr. Speaker — is that the worst day in government is still better than the best day in opposition.

While I'm sure, over the balance of time, one would say that's right, I have to say that on some days, recollecting the carefree, joyous days of opposition, I'm not necessarily in agreement with that expression. But it is

a huge honour and on some days even a pleasure to be a part of a government that is trying to reshape and rebuild an economy and a social fabric in British Columbia that really cries out for that kind of reform. It is a great opportunity and one that I have enjoyed.

I do hope, as I'm sure every member of this chamber hopes, that over the course of the next, now, almost three and a half years to May 17, 2005, when we will all be judged by our respective electors, we leave this province, our constituents and constituencies a little better place than when we arrived — although I guess, based on what we inherited, hopefully a lot better place than when we arrived. I do believe that we are working tirelessly toward making this a better place.

These aren't easy times. Certainly, looking back over the past eight months, in many ways they have been the toughest months of my life — no question about that. I know that many other members of this assembly feel the same way — that this great turnaround project has, in many ways, been more difficult, deeper, more complex, than what we ever anticipated we would face when we took office. They have been tough times.

It's not just the 12- to 14-hour days that we routinely put in, trying to come to grips with the awesome range of policy challenges that we have. I know I will often leave this building at 8, 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and there will still be ministerial office lights on around the buildings. I know that we are part of a government that is working tirelessly to bring better government, better policies, to this province.

I think, when we look back in May of 2005 or indeed at any point in the future — when we look back on this period that we are currently in — we will say that moving into the bright, warm sunshine of the future felt all the better because we had to go through some dark and very difficult days before we arrived at that warmer, sunnier place where economic activity was revitalized, social programs were strengthened. Before we arrived there, we went through some difficult times that made it seem all the better, once we got to the other end.

That, I believe, is what's going to happen. These are tough times. I don't think any of us enjoy people gathering outside our constituency offices to tell us that they disagree with the direction of change in the province. We may not enjoy getting letters from people who, in their view, have been adversely affected by changes in expenditures. This is all pretty tough stuff. But what we have to appreciate is that all of this is part of a plan to rebuild, strengthen, rejuvenate and revitalize this great province that we live in.

I've had the pleasure of living my entire life in British Columbia. I was born in Enderby in the constituency of Shuswap that I'm now proud to represent. I've had the opportunity to travel on many occasions to different parts of the province. What I know from that, as I think every member of this House knows, are the enormous resources that we have been blessed with in British Columbia, whether the resources are our forests, our water, our majestic mountains, the mineral resources we possess, the oil and gas, the natural ports and harbours. We have in every way been blessed in this great province. I thank my lucky stars that I didn't have to even choose to live here. I was born here and have been able to build a great life here in British Columbia.

When one looks at what we have done, or what the previous government did, with those great resources that we possess in British Columbia, I believe that the record can only be judged as shameful. Again, while I don't want to be partisan here, clearly there is much more that we can do for this great province, considering the resources we have, the people we have, the educational institutions we have. Everything points to the enormous success that this province ought to be enjoying at the beginning of the twenty-first century, but we're not.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the Finance minister's open cabinet presentation recently on the state of the province and particularly the state of the province's finances, the state of the province's economy. Clearly, we have been moving over the past decade in precisely the opposite direction of greatness in this province. I don't want to go through all of the material that he presented, much of which was very compelling, but there are three points that I want to make based on the slides that he presented to us that day.

That is, among other things, British Columbia in the 1990s trailed every other province in Canada in terms of new economic investment — an absolutely astonishing fact given, again, the human and physical resources that we enjoy in this province. Over the last decade under the guidance of the former government, we moved from the number one economy in Canada to perhaps the number ten economy, depending on whether you include some of the territories. We had slipped that badly. The percentage of change in British Columbia is 21.2 percent over the decade as opposed to Alberta, which was well over a 100 percent increase in terms of investment between 1990 and 2000.

Again, I think it is very much the consequence of a theme which I hope to touch on a couple of times in relation to my own ministry and in relation to, broadly, the challenges the government faces. That is, even if you have the greatest, most abundant, most widespread resources that a province can possess — and clearly, that is what we have here in British Columbia…. Even if you have all that, even if you have great human resources, as we have in the province, if you inject into the mix taxes that are way too high, taxes that are uncompetitive with other provincial jurisdictions, if you mix those in, if you mix in one of the most oppressive regulatory environments in the nation — way beyond what exists in any other province in Canada — surprise! B.C. may be a great place to live. B.C. may have great resources, human and physical, but if you mix in too much regulation, you mix in taxes that are uncompetitive — guess what. Investment doesn't come here anymore. That was the lesson of the 1990s,

and the NDP government delivered that lesson in spades and by doing so took us from the number one economy in Canada to the number ten economy in Canada.

A second slide, again, particularly astonished me and obviously astonished many British Columbians. As the Finance minister pointed out, over the decade of the 1990s the NDP took us from being one of the strongest have provinces in Canada, by the estimates of the Ministry of Finance officials, to becoming a have-not province in the fiscal year 1999-2000. We won't know for another year or two hence whether we'll continue to be a have-not province or not. The estimate from the Ministry of Finance is that for 1999-2000 we will be getting an equalization payment from the federal government of about $30 million.

Now, that ain't a lot of money, but I think the fundamental point is this: a province as rich as British Columbia has no business being anywhere near a have-not province in Canada. A province as rich as British Columbia should lead this nation. It should never trail this nation; it should lead this nation. I'm proud to be part of a government that's going to restore British Columbia to that position as a leader in Canada.

The third and final point I want to make that's borrowed from the Finance minister is this. He looked at how debt was managed in different provinces in Canada over the decade, looked at how it was managed by the federal government, and he compared that to our performance in British Columbia. If you look at the graph, you see ten salmon swimming upstream. Those ten salmon are reducing their deficits and eliminating them, setting about to reduce their debt and in some cases actually reducing it. The one exception to the direction in which the salmon are swimming — surprise! surprise! — is British Columbia.

Only in British Columbia over the decade of the 1990s did we see a provincial administration that was either too incompetent or simply too unable, because of their inability to come to grips with the situation they faced, to do the right thing. That was to get their spending under control, to get deficits under control and to begin to reverse the very destructive piling up of debt that continuously robs our social programs in British Columbia.

Every province in Canada and the Canadian government itself quickly learned the lesson, which should have been universally known at that point, that you can't keep piling up deficit after deficit, building the debt, seeing more and more costs for borrowing, and hope to preserve intact all of the programs that exist across government. All the rest of the administrations in Canada made those difficult changes.

I'm sure they had long days and sleepless nights, just as this administration is having now, as they attempted to come to grips with spending issues and revenue issues in their provinces and in the federal government. I have no doubt about that at all. There is no easy way of doing this. If there were, we'd be doing it. There's no easy way of doing this. It's going to be tough, and we're going to be doing it.

This graph shows clearly the one administration that just wasn't going to do that was the NDP, and we're paying the price for that today. We're getting beat up. We're having the tough days, the short nights, and we're having all of that because in British Columbia, at last, there's a government that has the guts to come to grips with the compelling problems we face.

It's just in time, I think. We know we continue to face a big deficit problem. We know it has been tough making those expenditure reductions in my ministry and a whole bunch of ministries of government. It has been brutal, and it is going to continue to be tough for some time.

Do we have to do it? Yeah, we have to do it. If we are going to come out in 2003, 2004, 2005 with a renewed economy, if we are going to balance the budget in 2004-2005 and reverse this very destructive pattern that the NDP followed for a decade, yeah, we do have to make those very difficult changes. We need to close that gap. We need to balance the budget. We need to confer on British Columbians once again that leadership, that greatness, which for many decades characterized the province.

The last weeks, the last months haven't been difficult just for government members. This has been very, very difficult for public servants as well. I just want to take a moment, if I could, Mr. Speaker, to say this. As we move forward, our greatest resource and in some respects — not in a political sense but in another sense — our greatest allies have been public servants in British Columbia. I can tell you that if I've worked hard and my colleagues have worked hard, I know our deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, program directors — all of them — have put in enormous hours over the past weeks and months as we attempt to bring about some fundamental reforms in public policy in British Columbia.

There's a price to be paid for moving quickly, but there's also going to be an enormous benefit conferred on British Columbians by moving relatively quickly. We have been enormously aided in that effort by the very skilled and very dedicated public servants that we have to work with. I do want to thank them for the very considerable sacrifices that they have made in recent years.

I want to turn for a moment to some of the areas in which the programs of my ministry mesh with the goals that are articulated in the throne speech. When the Finance minister said, "You've got to find expenditure reductions in your ministry, just as in all the ministries, excluding Health, Education, Advanced Education and so on. You've got to find some savings," it was a daunting task. The one thing we didn't do in my ministry, and one thing we didn't do as a government, was what the NDP administration did when they tried to cut costs back in late 1996. For those of you who weren't around at the time, what the former government did, without any kind of notification, consultation or

discussion, was to simply advise municipalities across the province that the provincial government was unilaterally reducing their transfers by $113 million overnight. No consultation, no discussion.

The NDP provincial government simply tried to offload their problems onto the backs of municipal taxpayers. They did it right in the middle of a critical time in terms of the formation of municipal budgets. They did it without any kind of consultation. Remarkably, they did it completely against the provisions of their own Local Government Grants Act, which they had only recently put into place. The Local Government Grants Act was supposed to protect against precisely that thing. It did not. In fact, in the next legislative session the government had to come in and change the Local Government Grants Act so it would make allowance for what they had done.

We did not do that. We didn't cut local government grants. We didn't say: "You're going to take on our challenges. We're going to offload them onto you." We didn't do that. I'm proud to say that at the UBCM convention last September our Premier said: "No, we're not going to cut small community protection grants that in some cases make up 50 percent or more of some of the very small municipalities' budgets in this province." He didn't say we're going to cut that. He said: "We are not going to be off-loading our problems onto the backs of the municipalities." And we have not. Local government and local government funding have been entirely protected in the budgeting process. We are not in any way off-loading our problems onto municipalities. I know they appreciate that. I've met with UBCM, and they are very appreciative of that fact.

Further, while it was difficult in the context of budgeting, another thing we did that was extremely important for municipalities but also extremely important for the province, for the federal government and for the economy generally was protect the provincial share of the $600 million in the Infrastructure Works program for water and sewer, and we protected the $200 million for non-water and sewer projects in British Columbia. Of the 800 million bucks shared by the three governments, our share was and is a very substantial commitment, but again, in line with the Premier's commitment to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we chose to protect those funds. What that will mean is that communities with water systems that perhaps aren't producing the quality of water that the residents deserve will be able to make application to the Infrastructure Works program through their regional district or their local municipality so that they can upgrade their water quality and shortly, hopefully, will benefit enormously from those projects.

Already we have seen well over 400 applications for the IWP. It would have been easy for the province to say: "Sorry. Can't afford it any longer. We're not going to do it." But, no, we didn't because we know that this is a critical issue for local governments. It's critical that every British Columbian have access to safe, clean drinking water, so we protected the IWP in our budgets.

Further, what we will see as these roll out — and I'll be blunt about this; they haven't rolled out as quickly as we would like…. But we've already seen 15 projects announced — $37 million in value. Those have been finalized by the joint federal-provincial-municipal UBCM committee that makes the awards. My ministry makes the recommendations; they make the awards.

We have made, as of December 2, I believe, an additional body of recommendations which includes 85 projects with a value of about $300 million. When those are ratified, as we hope they will be ratified by the joint committee, we will see better water systems, better sewer systems, better social and cultural facilities in the province. We will also see economic development associated with that new infrastructure as it goes in and the infrastructure and new economic development that will be permitted as a consequence of that infrastructure being in place.

I'm delighted that not only have we protected municipalities and regional districts across the board, we have also protected the Infrastructure Works program. We believe it can be part of the kick-starting of the economy that we believe is necessary and in fact will occur in the months ahead.

Another area of the budget, which…. I guess I shouldn't be saying too much about this, given the Finance minister will be talking more about it later, but I can tell you that we have given the highest priority to housing for British Columbians. In particular, we have given the highest priority to trying to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable British Columbians.

One of the more dubious duties which I had to perform over the past few months was, on the eve of Affordable Housing Week, to actually put under review a number of projects which had been granted provisional approval by the former government. That wasn't a lot of fun. What I was confronted with, prior to making that very difficult decision, was the knowledge that, all things being equal, I was seeing a budget line for B.C. Housing that was growing from $126 million in the current fiscal year to $172 million in '04-05. Now, that is not a sustainable expenditure line for any government, never mind a government that is desperately attempting to come to grips with revenue and expenditure problems, as this government is.

What we have been doing over the past few months is — again, I give full marks to B.C. Housing and to all of our partners for this — working tirelessly to develop a new, sustainable housing model that will allow us to address the needs of the most vulnerable in British Columbia but to be able to do it within a sustainable budget line.

There's no magic to that. It means that people have to bring more resources to the table to make it work. To their credit, people have been doing that. I was delighted that back in November — I guess it was actually signed in December — we were able to conclude a $90 million agreement with the federal government.

That will go a long way. The municipal partners have stepped up to the plate; the non-profits have stepped up to the plate. We are in a great position now to move ahead with B.C. Housing.

I'm amazed how quickly half an hour went. I apologize. I do look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House in these and other areas to ensure that in the very near future British Columbia becomes once again not only the envy of Canada but the envy of the world.

D. Hayer: On behalf of my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead I welcome the opportunity to rise in this great Legislature to respond to the Speech from the Throne delivered so well by our new Lieutenant-Governor, Iona Campagnolo.

Before I begin, I wish to add my personal condolences to the family of Don Ross, who served as a councillor for the city of Surrey in the 1970s and who was also mayor of Surrey from 1980 to '87 for eight years. He will be remembered for his many accomplishments in Surrey, including bringing a SkyTrain to the city of Surrey.

The Lieutenant-Governor spoke of this government's mandate from the people of British Columbia for change and of the changes necessary to build a solid foundation for economic and social renewal in this province. She did not flinch from mentioning the raging storm that change brings. Change is never easy, nor is it painless.

Our central mission is to revitalize the economy. We have created the framework for economic renewal by cutting personal income tax, reducing corporate income taxes and eliminating other taxes that have discouraged growth and job creation in this province. A level playing field for all business has been created through the elimination of business subsidies. We are working hard to reduce the regulatory burden on B.C. businesses.

We won't stop there. Next year, changes to the Employment Standards Act, Workers Compensation Act, Company Act and Labour Code will cut red tape, improve efficiency and provide flexibility and fairness for employers and employees alike. The goal is to encourage growth in the economy and to make British Columbia more competitive, diversified and attractive to investors. Growth and investment are key to the prosperity that provides our health support services and educational structure.

Is all this effort having any effect yet? Yes, it is. There are already encouraging signs that our provincial economy has begun to turn around. Last year B.C. had the largest increase in housing sales in the country, the highest percentage increase in residential construction in Canada and a faster rate of increase in retail sales than the rest of the nation. The message in the throne speech is that this good news will continue.

Evidence of an investment climate that attracts business to the province is welcome news. RMH Teleservices Call Centre is bringing thousands of new jobs to Surrey. RMH received no government subsidies to set up shop in Surrey. They say they are here because we have a great investment climate. They join other successful businesses such as Teal Jones Group, S&R Sawmills, Flag Chevrolet Oldsmobile and hundreds of other businesses in my constituency which contribute to the creation of jobs for thousands of taxpayers in Surrey.

A major factor in economic recovery is job creation, and small businesses are the big job creators. The throne speech spoke of economic renewal, of the new era of hope and prosperity for British Columbia that this government will usher in over the next few years. We will not be doing this in isolation. We will be looking to the people of this great province to tell us what needs to be done. One of the first actions toward this goal has already been planned and announced in this throne speech. Premier Campbell will soon lead discussion with small business owners, operators and entrepreneurs to hear their advice and ideas for growth.

In my own riding of Surrey-Tynehead one of my greatest pleasures is responding to the many calls, e-mails and visits from my constituents. To help keep them informed and to hear their concerns and advice, I hold regular open houses for business people. I just held a seminar on doing business with government. Every month, on a regular basis, I will be holding breakfast meetings on the Fraser Highway in the ABC Restaurant to gather input from my constituents. I am always available to listen to their concerns and their input on all sides of the issues. This way I can pass on their concerns and their suggestions to my colleagues in caucus, the ministers and the Premier.

The throne speech highlighted the moves this government will take to spur more private sector investment. Government can no longer afford to undertake megaprojects based solely on the public purse. To that end, we will explore public-private partnerships and seek investment in transportation and highways, in information technology, in housing, in land and resource development. In fact, these public-private partnerships will result in great benefits for the constituents of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, as well as for the greater population of the lower mainland and the rest of British Columbia.

A good example of public-private partnerships — P3s — would be the construction of a new crossing on the Fraser River between my riding and those of my colleagues from Fort Langley–Aldergrove and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. This new crossing would enhance traffic flows, reduce commuter time, and speed the movement of goods and services. It will replace a current and very costly transportation bottleneck. The new plan would reduce cross-river traffic on the existing Port Mann Bridge, cut fuel consumption and reduce air pollution, which will be of great benefit to our environment.

That brings me to another P3: a new highway connector between Highway 1 and Highway 99. This new

route will pay for itself simply by the enormous saving in travel time for commercial vehicles which need to access the southern half of the lower mainland. Joined by the Fraser crossing, this route will improve traffic and ease congestion on existing residential, rural and commercial streets. It will create a seamless flow of commercial traffic from Highway 1 in the interior of the province to a major border crossing at Pacific Highway and the Peace Arch. This new route will allow simple and smooth access to the major commercial industrial area along the Fraser delta, as well as serving the larger industrial complex in Langley and Surrey.

This government was given an overwhelming mandate to do things differently, and P3s are the route toward the positive changes that voters demanded from us. I will encourage my caucus colleagues to seek support for such P3s in their own ridings for the benefit of all British Columbians.

I want to touch for a moment on other transportation issues within my riding. As you know, the original Trans-Canada Highway, now known as the Fraser Highway, carves through the centre of my constituency. Many sections of this route need major upgrading. I want you to know I am working diligently with the city of Surrey and TransLink to get some of these upgrades accomplished, particularly on the section that runs through the Fleetwood community between 152nd Street and 168th Street.

Another issue is the improvement needed to the 160th Street interchange on Highway 1. This is a major traffic bottleneck at one of Surrey's busiest interchanges. I am working on this issue with the Minister of Transportation in an effort to resolve it.

That brings me to the topic of the Port Mann Bridge and the important part it plays in the transportation system in our province. The Port Mann links my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to the other ridings of greater Vancouver. It handles not only many thousands of daily commuters but virtually all east-west bound commercial traffic, which affects the delivery of goods and services to and from our heartland.

If there is a problem on the bridge, someone in Prince George, Fort St. John or the Yukon is going to get their groceries delivered a little late. This bridge affects the lives of most people in British Columbia and well beyond our borders too. When it was built in early 1960, it was a marvel of engineering and provided a huge improvement in traffic flow, but in the past 40 years things have changed, and changed drastically. My community of Surrey has gone from basically a rural municipality whose downtown was Cloverdale to become a major metropolitan city.

Surrey is today the second-largest city in British Columbia. One day soon Surrey will be the largest city in British Columbia. My riding of Surrey-Tynehead was created out of this huge population boom, and many of my constituents use the Port Mann Bridge on a daily basis. In the past few years we have seen some improvements to traffic flow on the Port Mann with expansion to the third eastbound lane. However, the time has come to soon add more lanes to this crossing for today's commuters and the future growth of our province.

We should take a look at the public-private partnerships to make these changes. P3s will be designed so that those who use them the most will pay the most for their construction. Someone who lives in Atlin may not wish to be burdened with taxes to build a bridge that will see a very small return other than personal transportation benefits to them, even though he or she may benefit through improved commercial transportation.

This is the beauty of P3s that was highlighted in the throne speech. They benefit the users, and the general public throughout the province is not saddled with the enormity of their debt. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead over the coming period, I will be urging the government and the Minister of Transportation to actually consider the addition of more lanes to the Port Mann Bridge over the Fraser River.

The throne speech spoke of being fiscally responsible and accountable. I assure you that one of the driving forces behind this government will be to make good on that promise and to be held accountable. We were given an overwhelming mandate based on the principles of accountability. We intend to measure up to that mandate. As a result, the independent B.C. Progress Board was appointed by this government to establish performance measures for progress in the economy. It will issue its first report within weeks.

Another goal of this government is to make British Columbia one of the world's top ten technological centres within the next four years. The Premier's Technology Council is tackling that challenge and has already issued its first quarterly report.

There has been a concern in my city of Surrey that cancellation of development of Tech B.C. would negatively impact my community by denying residents the opportunity to obtain a technical education and a degree in their home city. I met with the vice-president of Simon Fraser University and with others at that outstanding educational institution, and I have been assured that the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University will be a permanent one. There are more than 2,000 Surrey residents attending Simon Fraser. When there was a big concern about Tech B.C., I met with students, their parents, the faculty, the administration and many other concerned constituents.

I want to point out that all of our Surrey MLAs worked very hard to keep a major university in Surrey. We achieved that with the help of the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance. The government has met with Simon Fraser University and arranged for expansion of the institution's technology facility not only to incorporate Tech B.C.'s program but to enhance it. This has been good news for Surrey, for the students and for my constituents. This is a win-win situation for everyone.

We recognize education as a cornerstone of our future. This government will focus resources on stu-

dents. Post-secondary institutions will now have the tools to fully utilize their resources. This will enable them to offer enough classes to ensure that students complete their education in a timely manner and pay less total cost over the long term.

Those students who are most in need will be given top priority under the legislation that will replace four existing acts and will help create an improved culture of employment and self-sufficiency. Safe care for children within their own extended families will be ensured under the new amended child protection legislation. The rights of tenants and landlords will be protected under a new and modern residential tenancy act, written in a language that can be understood easily by everyone.

I was also encouraged by the comments in the throne speech that more private capital will be actively pursued this year to support public policy objectives in several other areas. I was very happy to hear that these will include such things as land and resource development as well as health support services and facilities. For us to prosper, we need to partner with the private sector. They have the expertise and the motivation to ensure win-win solutions for everyone. However, the bottom line is that government must wrestle with the revitalization of our economy. Without that, all the good things that people want us to do can't be done.

One of the first actions undertaken by this government was to stimulate the economy by decreasing personal income tax to the lowest-based income tax rate in Canada for those who earn less than $60,000 a year. That was the first step. Now, we're working to create comprehensive strategies that will allow government to stimulate investment and job creation in both the energy and mining sectors, and I am looking forward to the next month's report on this.

The biggest challenge we face right at this moment is resolution to the softwood lumber dispute. I know that our Forests minister is doing everything he can to come up with fair and equitable terms with the Americans. I know that our hon. minister is pulling out his few hairs he has left on his head trying to get the Americans to see the light on this issue.

The throne speech was very clear on what British Columbia is doing to make our forest industry more competitive and perhaps more agreeable to the protectionists to the U.S. policies that are controlled by the powerful, rich American lobby group. Unfortunately, our hon. minister's best efforts seem to be falling on deaf ears in the United States.

I am proud to say that this government is making the effort and, as stated in the throne speech, will make a shift toward market-based stumpage. It will tackle the complicated challenge of forest policy reform. It will streamline the Forest Practices Code to make sure that it will be result-oriented, cost-effective and workable on the ground.

While I emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, we'll maintain the same standard of environmental protection. The forest industry is still the backbone of our economy. We must do everything within our power to ensure it is sustained. I have personally met with my colleagues, the U.S. President's envoy, and I met with the workers and owners of sawmills regarding the softwood dispute. I do have a number of sawmills and many wood-manufacturing plants in my own constituency.

Entire communities, jobs and the well-being of families throughout the province depend on the forestry. Its fate touches every one of us. It must be maintained. I encourage our Forests minister to keep up the heat on the U.S. protectionists. I also want to encourage him to stand firm in his efforts and to remember his own words: "No deal is better than a bad deal."

Next week we are going to present the people of British Columbia with our first full budget of this government. I won't deny the fact that it will contain some tough news, but sometimes to cure an illness, you have to take a little bit of bad-tasting medicine.

While this budget may have some bitter pills to swallow, as I listen to the presentation next Tuesday, I will heed the words from the throne speech that this government is committed to balancing the budget. To achieve that fiscal responsibility, we will have to make some cuts. We will have to sell some assets, but we will remain committed to protect those most vulnerable in society. We will remain committed to children and families. We will ensure long-term improvement in services to women. We will put patients and students — those most in need — first.

In closing, the throne speech has promised these things to the people of British Columbia. I am certain I speak for all my colleagues as well as myself when I declare that we will live up to the promises we made in the last election.

M. Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak again in this House and to indicate my support for the agenda and for the direction set out in the Speech from the Throne.

Every time I enter this House, I'm reminded of the enormous responsibilities that we undertake here. We are all busy people trying to serve our constituents to the best of our ability — and, of course, our province.

It's sometimes difficult for people to recall all of the achievements that this government has already accomplished in its term of office. The Speech from the Throne, in my view, is a very useful reminder of those accomplishments. More importantly, it sets out in broad terms the task and the work that lie ahead.

In order to understand what we must to do to reach the goals we have set for ourselves as government, with the overwhelming support of the voters of B.C., I think it's useful to remind ourselves of some important economic facts. My constituents in Nanaimo are as aware as anyone else in B.C. of the underperformance that characterized the British Columbia economy for the last decade of the twentieth century. We know that three million Albertans produced more goods and services than four million British Columbians, and we are appalled by that.

As private sector investment dried up in this province in the 1990s, and as we ventured deeper and more expensively into the failed experiments and depthless incompetence of the former government, the mounting costs were saddled onto the people in my constituency as well as everywhere else in this province.

My father used to tell me that money does not grow on trees. While the meaning of that adage is certainly true, as we in British Columbia know all too well, one might argue that in this province my father was wrong. Money did indeed grow on trees. The forest industry provided the jobs and the tax base that afforded my generation the quality of life that we have enjoyed. The forest industry was, of course, not alone. Mining, fishing, construction and tourism, amongst many others, laid the base for the economic success story that was British Columbia.

My community is hurting because of the termination by the last government of the promise and profit that the resource industries brought to us. Just as we entered the second industrial revolution — a revolution which has brought excitement, investment and new wealth elsewhere in Canada — the last government closed the door on the new entrepreneurs as well as on the old.

Now we see in the Speech from the Throne a reaffirmation of this government's determination to end the policies and philosophy that created the economic and social failures of the 1990s. I'll quote my father again, because he's a man who played — and I'm glad to say still plays — a part in my life, whose depth and breadth I appreciate more and more as the years go by. He always warned me, as a youth, against the popular attitude that emerged in Great Britain after the Second World War — an attitude that was enhanced and affirmed by the socialist Labour government under Clement Attlee: if things went wrong, the government would fix them. For years Britain was guided by this notion, and eventually Britain became known as the sick man of Europe.

As an immigrant to Canada in the late 1960s, I felt liberated in a province and a country where people depended on themselves, their friends and family, not the government, for support when it was needed. Somehow, somewhere along the way we caught the English disease in B.C. Unfortunately, long after the disease was cured in Britain, British Columbia is still suffering from it.

The patient must now take the cure, hard though that may be. It is with pride that I stand here on the government side of this House, ready to participate in and help forge and guide the significant changes we must undertake to cure our economic ills.

Those ills present a clear and present danger to our economic well-being and to the future of our children and grandchildren — indeed, to our very way of life. Those ills threaten to destroy in British Columbia the fabric of the social conscience that is at the heart of Canadian society and is what makes our society a civil one — that is, the desire to help our fellow citizens when they are in need. Continuing the status quo ensures that this help and those services will simply erode and disappear.

At the last election, voters saw that it was time to end waste, to start spending within their means, to put money back in their pockets so that they could make expenditure decisions that met their family needs. The people accepted this government's underlying philosophy to give taxpayers a greater say, to revive legislative committees, to listen to the public and to be held accountable for our actions and decisions.

The decision of the people of British Columbia is the basis, the foundation, of the agenda set out in this throne speech. Some special interests find these fundamental changes in approach very difficult. Many have become so cynical about the political process that they cannot accept that we on this side of the House mean what we say and say what we mean.

I was cynical too. That's why I ran for the privilege of being in this place and doing my part to rebuild trust in public institutions in British Columbia. I was cynical about how my tax dollars — my public bank account, if you will — had turned into a huge political football. Was the budget balanced? Was it in deficit? How much was being accounted for off the books? Thankfully, all that has come to an end.

It was an independent group, the fiscal review panel, that last July finally exposed the truth about B.C.'s finances and underlined the changes that needed to be made. Every person in this province should keep that report on their bedside table or in their bathroom, or wherever it is they read, as a constant reminder that no matter how much we try to avoid change, no matter how much we regret leaving the apparent comforts of yesterday behind, we have no choice but to change.

The conclusions of that independent report bear repeating. Without changing our government spending habits, we were headed for a structural deficit of some $3.8 billion by 2003-04. That is just 13 months from now. I can say that I did not seek election to carry on the spending habits of the past, the habits that doubled the public debt of this province in ten years, the habits that led to the kinds of decisions whose results are still visible every day in Departure Bay and Nanaimo.

I drive by them twice a day at least. In case anyone has forgotten, those results are called the Pacificats, the fast ferries, arguably the single largest travesty ever visited upon the people of this province. Long after those boats have gone, we will need to remember what happened and make sure that this kind of breach of trust never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of the hour, and I would now move adjournment of debate.