Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 9 -- Wednesday, February 20, 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		1211

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		1211
	Eid-ul-Adha festival	1211
	J. Nuraney
	Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club	1211
	D. MacKay
	McLean Mill National Historic Site	1212
	G. Trumper

Oral Questions		1212
	Comments on women by Women's Equality minister	1212
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Abbott
	J. Kwan
	Government support for mental health services	1213
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Funding for independent schools	1214
	S. Brice
	Hon. C. Clark
	Impact of budget on low-income earners	1214
	M. Hunter
	Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents		1215
	British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report, 2000
	Oil and Gas Commission annual report, 2000-01
	Columbia Basin Trust report, 2000-01
	B.C. Hydro annual report, 2001

Petitions		1215
	D. MacKay

Reports from Committees		1215

Budget Debate (continued)
	Hon. R. Coleman	1215
	R. Stewart	1219

Tributes		1219
	R. Stewart

Budget Debate (continued)
	R. Stewart	1219
	B. Suffredine	1221
	W. McMahon	1223
	Hon. J. Murray	1224
	J. MacPhail	1228
	P. Nettleton	1235
	R. Visser	1236
	L. Mayencourt	1238

Tributes		1239
	L. Mayencourt

Budget Debate (continued)
	L. Mayencourt	1239
	Hon. K. Whittred	1241

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted today to make a number of introductions in the House. I know you will be pleased to help make them welcome. First of all is a former member of the House from Prince George, who served in the 1970s, a good friend to all of us. We are very pleased to have in the House today Mr. Howard Lloyd.

Additionally, I have three constituents from my riding, who are excited about the process of watching government in action. I am very pleased to welcome Hillary Monkman, Sarah Waters and my daughter, Melissa.

Hon. S. Santori: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce a very special guest, Her Worship, the mayor of Grand Forks, Lori Lum. Also I would like to introduce three students from the University of Victoria and one from the Vancouver City College. First of all, I have with me Leah Romano, who is undertaking a career in teaching; Sarah Benson, also attending the University of Victoria, majoring in history and English; Valdon McKinnon, who is attending the Vancouver City College and is pursuing a career in teaching English as a foreign language; and last but not least, my daughter, Tracy, who is also attending the University of Victoria and also will be taking up a career in teaching. I would ask that the House make them all feel welcome.

W. McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce constituents from my riding. I have here Patti Stober with her sons, Marcus and Jordan. Patti and Jordan are visiting Marcus, who is also attending the University of Victoria this year. Missing from the group is husband Dallas, who I understand is out enjoying the sunshine and golfing. I ask that the House make them welcome.

J. Bray: I see in the House today we are joined by a long-time supporter and constituent of mine, Mr. Campbell Atkinson, who I believe has not missed a question period since last July. I would ask the House to please make our guardian very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to introduce three residents of the North Okanagan–Shuswap, who I share with the member for Okanagan-Vernon. They're business people and residents in the area: Roger Lockwood, James Lockwood and Richard Lockwood. I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Bell: Joining me in the House today is my daughter, Diana Bell, who will be leaving for Australia in eight days. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Pam and Allan Perkins, who are in the gallery. They are visiting here from Sunnyhill, England. I would ask that the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I rise today to announce the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha, which will be celebrated by Muslims this coming Saturday. Over 1.4 billion Muslims around the world, including the seven million in North America and 100,000 in British Columbia, will celebrate the end of annual Hajj, which is a pilgrimage to Mecca, with the festival of Eid-ul-Adha, the second of the two major Muslim festivals. The Hajj, the pilgrimage, symbolizes on a larger scale the unity of humanity.

Historically, this celebration is about the sacrifice that Prophet Abraham and his son — peace be upon them — were willing to make and surrender to the will of God. Prophet Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice the thing closest to his heart, which was his son. Just before Prophet Abraham did so, God said: "Oh, Abraham, you have already fulfilled the vision — thus indeed do we reward the righteous. Indeed, this was a manifest trial." Instead of his son, a goat was sacrificed.

The lesson we must derive from this is our willingness to give up that which we love the most and strive to bring others to a better life. The Muslim community of British Columbia will be holding a reception to celebrate this occasion here in the legislative building next Wednesday at 6 p.m., and I encourage all members to participate.

D. MacKay: I recently attended the Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club's annual banquet in Smithers and wish to quote from their program. I think I could have written part of it myself: "In these confrontational times, it is important to belong to an organization that represents the rights and privileges of conservation-minded outdoors people." I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the friendship of this fine group as well as their unique variety of rather succulent wild game dishes.

I must say — and I'm sure you'll all agree with me — that moose tongue in raisin sauce, caribou enchilada, sheep in curry sauce, elk sweet and sour, wild turkey salad, venison cabbage rolls, Moroccan sharp-tailed grouse, lynx Oriental salad, beaver tail

and beans and, of course, the always popular cougar in gravy are not your typical banquet of New York steak, pasta alfredo and chicken cordon bleu.

Congratulations are in order for a volunteer organization that so positively carries out their conservation, education and recreation mandate. I'm proud to represent people such as those who belong to the Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club and the values they represent.

G. Trumper: I'm proud to tell you today about a wonderful asset to the province and the people of my riding. Located on 13 hectares of beautifully forested land in the scenic Alberni Valley lies Canada's last working steam-operated mill. The McLean Mill National Historic Site is a glowing example of local initiative, not only preserving the glorious heritage of Canada's forest industry but also diversifying the local economy and creating local employment.

The McLean lumber mill started as a small family-run business. They logged in the area and operated the mill from 1926 to 1965. The McLean family donated the mill buildings and heritage equipment to the city of Port Alberni in the early 1980s, and later, with a generous contribution of land from MacMillan Bloedel, allowed for the designation of the site as a national historic site in 1989.

In 1996 the federal and provincial governments provided funds for the restoration of the mill. Today the site is open from May to September, when the sawmill operates and does custom cutting activities. On site are the original buildings, homes, bunkhouses, school and smithy. Fascinating interpretive programs are presented by a troupe of local actors in original costume.

In 2001 the Alberni Pacific Railway steam train began to transport visitors from downtown Port Alberni to the McLean Mill. The exterior of the train station was completely restored to its original appearance by volunteers on one long, hot weekend in July of 1990. I know, because I was conscripted to help.

None of this would have been accomplished without the many volunteers in the Western Vancouver Island Industrial Heritage Society, which manages the McLean Mill on behalf of the city of Port Alberni.

I encourage British Columbians to step back in time and visit the heritage jewel in the Alberni Valley. Who knows? On one of the train trips you may meet the Beaufort bandits, who from time to time come out of hiding and try to hold up the train.

J. MacPhail: Today we'd like to discuss how women are faring under this government.

Yesterday, in her local newspaper, the Minister of State for Women's Equality was quoted as saying: "More women are abused, not oppressed." And she made it clear that she was speaking as a member of cabinet.

It's unclear what the minister meant by that amazing statement. Even the editor of the paper found it incredible, stating: "I don't know what she was thinking.... I'm not sure that she was thinking at all." Could the Minister of Women's Services please explain to the House: what is the Liberal thinking on this? What exactly is meant when a cabinet minister sees no connection between abuse and equality?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is a government that is very much committed to the principle of equality for all, including women. Further, it is a government that's very much committed to the principle that there should be abuse of no one — children, women or any other people who are vulnerable in our society. I know that the minister responsible is working very hard on this front to clean up some of the messes that were left behind by the former administration. I know she's working very hard on child care. She's working very hard to ensure that services are there for women when they are unfortunately thrust into difficult, vulnerable situations.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because the Minister of State for Women's Equality is also quoted in this interview as saying: "If inequality exists between men and women in the workplace, it's because of women's own choices."

According to the minister: "The opportunities are exactly equal. People make choices." Again, it's unclear what the minister might have meant by this. Could the minister actually responsible for Women's Services please explain to this House what the Liberal view is, specifically, of social and economic gender equality.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member had the opportunity over the past ten years to attempt to create a socialist utopia here in British Columbia. They failed. We are very much committed to principles of gender equality. I don't know what kind of misconstruction the member may have put on the words of the minister responsible. I suspect it was extensive. I'll let the member speak for herself. I know that this minister is very much committed to those principles.

J. MacPhail: Let's examine that in the context of the interview, because it gets better.

Yesterday we witnessed huge budget tax increases on middle-income earners to pay for the government's tax cuts for the rich. The Minister of State for Women's Equality offers this rationale for the chosen direction of the government: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." According to the minister:

What does she suggest women do? She says: "Well, then, make more money." That's a quote.

Given these incredible statements by the minister — her belief that inequality is a matter of choice; that her ministry is in fact a sunset ministry; that the rich deserve to get richer and the poor, poorer; and that violence against women is not an issue of social inequality — how can this minister stand up and say that this government is working toward social and economic equality for women? Why doesn't this Minister of Women's Services do the right thing and say to his colleague: "Step down and get out of the way"?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I don't for one moment believe the nonsense coming out of that member's mouth. I don't believe it for a moment. The member can cobble together any amount of misconstruction around what another member may have said. Clearly that is the case — in her absence, nonetheless.

I refuse to be lectured by a member who was a key minister in a government that blew half a billion dollars on fast ferries — half a billion dollars. Imagine the high principles that we could have upheld with that half a billion dollars. Imagine the child care and imagine the women's services that could have been provided by half a billion dollars that that member acknowledges was a failed experiment.

J. Kwan: The minister doesn't have to worry, because we'll table the document at the end of question period.

J. Kwan: On October 30, 2001, the government fired the mental health advocate. The Minister of State for Mental Health said he would be an effective advocate for mental health patients.

I refer to the documents which the opposition shared with the minister yesterday. They outline the frustration of one family trying to cope with mental illness, their utter despair in dealing with the mental health system and their efforts to obtain help from the minister — the Minister of State for Mental Health — and from the Premier.

In the letters dated November 7 and December 6 and addressed to the Premier, the family sought assistance in dealing with a system that isn't serving their son's needs or their needs. The Premier's response, dated December 11, was very sympathetic. It advises the family that they'll be hearing from the minister of state shortly. Well, this family didn't hear from the minister of state — not in December, not in January, not in February.

Finally, this Monday, with police cars and an ambulance in front of their home, of their own initiative they got through to the minister's office. What happened? They were referred back to the system with no apparent intervention and no apparent advocacy.

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Would he personally accept this standard of advocacy? Is this how mental health patients, their caregivers and their families should be treated by the office of the Minister of State for Mental Health, now that he's the sole person for this province responsible for mental health?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it quite surprising that this member would stand up and try to lecture us on mental health programs in British Columbia, when the colleague sitting beside her, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, was the Minister of Health in January of 1999 when the mental health plan was brought in by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. The Minister of Health Services has the floor.

In 1999 the Minister of Health brought in a mental health plan that was supposed to put $125 million over a period of seven years into programs to serve mental health patients in British Columbia. Do you know what the record of the NDP government was? They were an abysmal failure in delivering on mental health programs in British Columbia. In the first three and a half years of that seven-year, $125 million mental health plan, the NDP government delivered less than $25 million towards that. That was a violation of the trust of some of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, and that member who asked the question has only herself…. She should hang her head in shame for the record of their government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: This family wrote to the Premier and wrote to the Minister of State for Mental Health, asking for assistance. It's been three months since, and he did not get any assistance from this government.

You'll recall that back in October this Liberal government sent out a press release, and it says: "Minister of State Ensures Advocacy for Mental Health." You know what? This family received none.

Will the deputy minister admit that mental health advocacy is a difficult job and requires unique skills and professional training? Will she admit today that there is a need to make sure there is a mental health advocate in this province because the minister of state is actually not doing his job? Will she ensure that the moneys are refunded to ensure that the office of the mental health advocate is funded so there is somebody in British Columbia who will stand up for this family and others? Will this minister admit that especially those who are most vulnerable would not get any assistance from their big tax cuts for the wealthiest British Columbians and that the most vulnerable are being left out?

Hon. C. Hansen: This government has every reason to be proud of the actions we have taken in mental health programs in British Columbia. This is the first government ever in Canada, probably in the Commonwealth, to appoint a cabinet minister with responsibility for mental health programs. The reason for the appointment of a cabinet minister with that responsibility is because the previous government's record was abysmal in meeting the needs of families exactly like the family described by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have committed to funding the balance of the $125 million mental health plan. We have committed to putting the dollars into the capital projects in mental health services that the previous government failed to deliver on. I have every confidence that individuals who are in need of mental health services in this province are going to be much better served under this government than they were under the previous one.

It is being reported that as part of the budget announcement yesterday, funding has been increased to private schools at the expense of the public school system. I would like the minister to tell us whether this is true.

Hon. C. Clark: The funding for independent schools is based on a formula that's been long established in government. Independent schools get their funding based on their per-student enrolment, and that's tied to the per-student funding in the public school system in the district they're in. This year we're predicting that while enrolment is likely going to go up for independent schools, enrolment in public schools is likely to go down a little bit. This is a formula that hasn't changed this year from the year before or the year before that, but I'll tell you something that has changed for this government. When you look in the blue book, you'll see that the funding for education has gone up by almost $20 million.

Something else that's changed is that you'll see this government believes teachers should be paid better and parents should be involved in the education system. This government believes that school districts are locally elected and have the right and the ability and the obligation to make decisions based on the needs in their local communities. This government believes that we should respect the education partners we have with government. That is a big change from the last decade.

S. Brice: A question to the minister. If enrolment at the independent schools does not increase at the rate expected, can the Minister of Education tell us what will be done with any surplus dollars?

Hon. C. Clark: This government, as I have said many times, is firmly committed to public education in British Columbia. Having said that, any money that does not go to independent schools because we don't see an enrolment increase that may have been projected will be redistributed back through the school system so that we can continue to support our children who are at our public and independent schools everywhere in British Columbia.

M. Hunter: I'm not going to make a long speech, because I have a serious question for the Minister of Finance. I've heard from a number of low-income earners in my constituency who are citing media reports that the budget measures announced yesterday will have a disproportionate impact on them. Can the Minister of Finance provide any reassurance to these people that the media reports they are citing are false?

Hon. G. Collins: I think I heard most of the question but perhaps not all of it. If I didn't, then perhaps he can repeat it for me.

The government made two changes yesterday in particular to the tax system. The first one was the MSP premium changes. The average premium increase will be about 50 percent, but government went

out of its way to try and protect lower-income British Columbians from that impact. In fact, 230,000 or more British Columbians will actually see their premiums go down after this change as opposed to up. Some British Columbians will actually find themselves paying no MSP premiums, particularly those at the low end.

The other change on the taxation front was that of a change in the PST of one-half of 1 percent. As well, government wanted to try and insulate people at the lower end of the income spectrum from that change, and as a result, the PST tax credit that individuals can claim, which was $50 per person, has been raised 50 percent to $75 per person so that people at the low income level….

Hon. G. Collins: That way, people at the low-income level will actually be insulated from some of those changes. In fact, people at the very low end of the income spectrum will actually benefit from those changes as opposed to the other way around.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would just urge every member to search somewhere deep in their desk and find a copy of Standing Orders. Please take it out and read section 47a, pertaining to question period. Blow the dust off it first, and please read section 47a. I'm sure question period will work a lot more smoothly. Thank you.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have four reports to table: British Columbia Utilities Commission 2000 annual report, Oil and Gas Commission 2000-01 annual report, Columbia Basin Trust 2000-01 report and B.C. Hydro annual report 2001.

D. MacKay: I have the honour to present a petition. I have a petition with several hundred signatures on it from residents of Smithers and Telkwa who wish to express their thanks to this government for allowing them the choice to frequent smoking or non-smoking establishments.

K. Stewart: I have the honour today to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, so that we may hear the member. Please proceed.

K. Stewart: …for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament. I move that the report be taken and read as received.

K. Stewart: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

K. Stewart: I move that the report be adopted. In doing so, I'd like to make a few brief comments.

The work of this committee has, in reality, just begun. In anticipation of the core reviews of the Crown corporations, our committee has concentrated on the preliminary work of providing the background of the Crown corporations and the process for reviewing these agencies.

I would like at this time to thank the Chair of our subcommittee, the member for East Kootenay, for all his work in preparing the guide to our operations. This makes up a significant component of our report. The guide will provide the framework for any future work of this committee. The Crown corporations secretariat and the Clerk of Committees have also been a great asset in this committee.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm proud today to stand and respond to the budget speech of yesterday. Mr. Speaker, this is about a group of people taking responsibility after getting elected by the people of this province and doing exactly what they said they'd do — that they would put this province back on the track to fiscal responsibility and a strong financial future in British Columbia.

I sat in this House in opposition for five years prior to the last election. I saw five budgets — five budgets that nobody could believe, five budgets that had different assumptions in them and difficulties with every single one. I also saw budgets that were fudged, budgets that did not have realistic forecast allowances and budgets, frankly, that didn't put this province in very good stead in anybody's eyes in any way whatsoever, including bond agencies.

We've changed that. We brought down a budget yesterday that was put together by 77 members of this Legislature. We brought down a budget that was a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of thought. The reason we did that was because we felt that budget-making

and future-making in public policy should be done in an open and accountable way.

What did we do? We charged our members with taking a core review of the operations of government in the province of British Columbia. We asked ourselves the tough questions. We dealt with duplication. We drilled down and found things where government was spending money where they shouldn't be.

In my own ministry I had seven agencies receiving $35,000 apiece on what was supposed to be a pilot project to review the interrelationship between non-profit organizations within communities that were receiving government funding. You know, that pilot project was going on for five years, because nobody said: "What are the results of that $35,000 per program assessment in each of these six or seven communities?" Nobody asked the questions about where that money was being spent and how it was being spent. If you don't take care of the nickels and the dimes, the big dollars flow out the door in a hurry, and the next thing you know is that you've got huge problems, financially and fiscally, in a province like ours.

The first thing we had to do was to strategically shift this government, strategically change its thinking — its thinking being that we are here for only one reason, that there is only one person that's a taxpayer in the province of British Columbia and that there's only one tax dollar. Our job is to manage it responsibly to deliver the programs that we can deliver, choose to deliver the ones that are most important, and make the adjustments within our program development that make it work for the province.

Hon. Speaker, this was something that everybody that worked on it found to be difficult. They found it to be time-consuming. They found it to be stressful. But they also found it, at the end of the day, to be rewarding. I can remember talking to backbenchers in the previous government after a budget speech in 1999, at a reception. They had no idea what the direction of their government was. They had no idea what the plan was. They didn't have the foggiest idea from throne speech to throne speech. They didn't have the foggiest idea from budget to budget, because they weren't part of the process. They weren't allowed to represent their constituents. They weren't allowed to ask the tough questions in committee as we did through our strategic shifts that affected budgets.

The reason this budget and this throne speech that we have put into this Legislature in the last week and a half are going to be successful for the people of this province is because every MLA had an opportunity to give us input, every MLA challenged us to think and every cabinet minister and MLA worked hard to have success on behalf of all British Columbians.

I want to spend a few minutes today on some of the good things in this budget — the good news. It's all good news as far as I'm concerned, because any time you lay it out to people and tell them the truth and let them know the real challenges you have and take your financial house and put the proper forecast allowances in place, people can see where you're headed. People can see you have an objective. They can see you have a goal, and they can see you want to accomplish things.

In my ministry there are some things that are about to be accomplished. Government has a fundamental duty to protect its citizens. In this ministry we have responsibility for policing. The nature of crime in our society has changed dramatically. We deal with more violent offenders; we deal with more organized crime. We deal with more difficulty in the accumulation of evidence and how we would deal with it within our court system. The result of that is that we need to enhance the sophistication and the ability of our law enforcement agencies to perform.

Something you won't hear as people criticize this budget is the fact that police funding in this province was protected. What you won't hear is that in addition to that, the funding was actually enhanced so we can move forward with technology that our law enforcement officers need on the front line in order to do their job.

Our law enforcement officers in our community work shift work. They have a difficult, difficult job. They work in an environment where we as a society will judge a decision they have to make in a split second. Based on all their skills and experience, they'll make a decision like that, that society and other people will second-guess for the next six months to a year — or forever. These individuals deserve our support and our respect and, frankly, our acceptance of the professional job they have to do.

When I became minister, one of the things that disappointed me was sitting down with my people from police services, the B.C. Chiefs of Police and the RCMP, and finding out that for years the law enforcement community was trying to get through to the minister responsible on the things that were needed in law enforcement to improve its future in this province. It fell on deaf ears. That's not acceptable to any of us. We've moved forward, in seven months, further than the law enforcement agencies were probably allowed to move forward in the last ten years. The reason for that is because we're prepared to take the leadership. The Premier has a Solicitor General because he wants somebody waking up every morning and thinking about policing and how we can enhance it in this province. That's the job.

We're going to build a five-year plan for policing, and within that five-year plan we're going to evaluate all aspects of policing. We're going to take our police services, in conjunction with our provincial police force — which is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — and our city police forces and coordinate how we do business. We're going to move to an integration of services so that serious crime, forensic ident and special investigational teams overarching the entire police infrastructure will be there for our citizens.

We're going to take a real-time computer system, and we're going to put it in our cars and make it available to our law enforcement officers. We're going to

integrate that system with other systems so that law enforcement officers in this province will know when they're sitting on the side of the road whether there's a protection order out on somebody that shouldn't be in the neighbourhood. They can access a sex offender registry to know where the offenders are and where they live when there's a crime committed in that community. They can access the information of people coming out of our prison system, and they can access the information on what goods are being pawned in pawnshops in our province so we can follow stolen property at a better rate.

We can do this because we're testing the system now. We're testing in Richmond and Vancouver and Port Moody. We're having great success.

I went to Treasury Board and asked for the commitment to be able to invest the money in that type of system for police agencies in the province. Treasury Board has approved it so we can enhance policing, and that's good news in this budget. We're going to meet our commitment to improving the safety and the fighting of crime in every community in British Columbia.

Our ultimate goal is to move to where we have integration, seamless operation in policing and no borders of communication of intelligence so that we can make sure the bad guys don't win.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Organized Crime Agency in this province, which is already an integrated model working in policing. It's already having successes, and it's having successes because this government was prepared to enhance its funding last fall so we could complete and work on the very serious and complex investigations that it has to do.

As we move forward, we're finding this. We're having regions of the province come to us and say: "You know what? It's about time." In the northeast area of this province, in the Peace, all the regional districts and the mayors have got together and asked me as Solicitor General if they can work on an amalgamated model to police an entire region of the province with the RCMP. Of course, I said yes, because it's exactly the type of initiative we want to see in our communities as far as enhancing policing and law enforcement.

It is policing that we have to spend some time on when we build this five-year plan, but it's not the only thing we will be spending time on as we move forward. One of the criticisms that may come out of some of the issues relative to how we're doing business is in victims programs. Victims programs in this ministry have been protected at the police-based victims programs. We will be taking the responsibility to make sure those programs are enhanced and made to work for all the communities of British Columbia. We will be conducting the overarching review of victims programs and other agencies of government to see how they should be coordinated or amalgamated or made to work better. That's the mandate we were given to do as part of the ministry.

We have had some things happen in this province that have had an effect on us and some things outside this province that had an effect on us in the last year. All of us know about September 11. As a solicitor general it would be irresponsible for me not to tell the people, when I had the opportunity, in speaking to the budget, that the provincial emergency program funding is strong, that our organization is strong and that we as a group of people should be proud of how they operate and how our law enforcement coordinate with them.

On September 11 I received my first phone call, about 7:30 in the morning, from our police agency, the RCMP. Basically, it was that we were already setting up our 24-7 operation to coordinate all information relative to policing and intelligence in British Columbia with regards to what happened in New York.

Shortly thereafter, I heard from emergency program people, and they were already coordinating with our law enforcement people. We had moved immediately to assist in the security of anybody that worked for the U.S. consulate in Vancouver. We had already moved to where our volunteers were being organized so they could accept and handle the people who were going to be landing on those planes that were being diverted to British Columbia. Every hour for the next 24 hours I was briefed and kept up to speed by our people on what was happening. The system in British Columbia worked, and it worked very well.

I always go back to the one conversation I had a few weeks after September 11 with Hugo Llorens, who's the U.S. consul in Vancouver. Mr. Llorens said this to me: "You know, Canadians and Americans are like siblings. We have our disagreements, but when the chips are down, we're there for each other. I want you to take any opportunity, whenever you're speaking to Canadians, to thank them for their support, their assistance and their outpouring of love and help in our time of dire need on September 11 and beyond." That was because our agencies moved, and that's because our people care. It's because we have the people in place that can do the job.

This budget is about revitalizing our economy. It's about telling the truth to British Columbians about where we are. It's about putting B.C. back where it wants to be. We are not going to see this province become a have-not province. The reason we're not going to see that happen is because of the structure that has been put in place as a result of this budget, the core review, the restructuring of government, the planning, the forward thinking and the hard work, frankly, of every member of our caucus and our cabinet.

There's a group of people, and in particular one person, that have to take leadership when you're building a budget, and that's the Finance minister. I can tell you that as we went through this process, if there hadn't been an individual who would take the leadership and stand up and make the tough decisions and point us in the direction of the tough decisions financially, we wouldn't be here today moving forward to a strong future. The Finance minister and his staff should be complimented on the work, the time and the commitment they made in building this budget and building

our future. I think they're going to see, as we move three to four years down the road, that his vision, his ability to look forward and deal and his toughness in helping us get to where we go will be the reason we got there in the first place.

As we move forward through this process, we should start to hear from people in British Columbia that actually understand what's going on. All kinds of people had all kinds of quotes in the newspaper today, and you could almost take the quotes and draw a political line down and know exactly what the individual was going to say. But you know, there are a lot of people out there that have been calling and saying: "Stay the course. Hang in there. We know it's not easy, but you know you have to make these decisions." The reason they know we have to make these decisions is because they see the future for their children and their grandchildren in how this government will perform in the next three to five years. We have to set the foundation for its future, and we can do that by simply staying the course.

The other side of this budget and its operations is that some of the things that have come out in the 24 hours have been…. One quote said we're expanding gaming, because the B.C. Lottery Corporation's revenues are projected to go up over the next three years. Well, if people would pay attention, they would know that a Crown corporation has to operate properly and fiscally responsibly, and that's what the corporation's doing. They'd also know that they've taken over the conduct and management of bingo, which will obviously enhance their revenues, because they didn't have those revenues before. Also, they would pay attention to the fact that this corporation is well run and is obviously achieving goals that have been aligned to it through a business plan system that they needed to do.

As we go into that kind of discussion, I always find it kind of humorous. In opposition I saw the bouncing from pillar to post in the gaming sector take place and all the difficulties around the wrong influences being in the wrong place. Then the question comes up: "Aren't you expanding gaming? You're actually meeting the contractual and business commitments that were in place when you became the government, relative to the community casinos and destination casinos you had." We're not. What we did do, though, was to say that the infrastructure will be 17 community casinos, seven destination casinos — if they can get financed and built and completed — and that's it. There are no more casinos in B.C. — period.

You know, hon. Speaker, we made that decision in a public cabinet meeting. We make our decisions around gaming in public. If you want to see how the previous government made their gaming decisions rather than in open cabinet, you can go see how's it's done in open court. That's the result of how they did business — what's in our headlines today on a regular basis.

I'm proud of what we've done in gaming. We've taken five agencies and converted them to two. We put the responsibility into the hands of a professional corporation at arm's length from a ministry, so there can be no influence by any politician ever again with respect to gaming in this province. We brought the regulatory regime and the enforcement over to the ministry. We are presently preparing a new gaming act so that we can consolidate how we're doing this, do it properly and give our people the actual legal tools to do the job we want them to do. We're going to do that in this session.

Something else we're going to do in this session is to modernize the residential tenancy relationship in this province. We're going to move forward to do that because it's necessary. We did a consultative process to the end of January. We received over 1,400 submissions with regard to residential tenancy from tenants, landlords, public individuals — and even three, as a matter of fact, from politicians. We've taken that information, we've put it together with some policy and we're blending it into an act and making sure that act works for both parties, long term, in plain language.

We want people to understand that very important relationship that they have with their home relative to rental so that they know what the rules are and, at the same time, so the person that owns the property, the landlord, knows what the rules are. They know it in plain language, and they know they can access justice easily, effectively and in such as way that we can also enhance the interest of people making an investment and building more rental housing in this province. I think we'll reach that goal, hon. Speaker.

We're also looking at the streamlining of liquor licensing as we move forward. We're looking at all the options and seeing how we can improve how we do business. You know, in addition to having a fiscal plan and a budget, and in addition to having strategic shifts in a government, you have to cut regulation and red tape so that the economy and government can be more efficient for both parties. We're going to do that, because that's what we have to do.

There's a fellow by the name of Bill Clennan. Bill is known as the memory man. He wrote a poem once. This poem goes like this. It's kind of apropos, given that the Olympics are here. I believe it was coming back from an Olympic event that he actually wrote this, on an airplane, but it really applies to this government.

Yesterday the province of British Columbia won because of the hard work that was put in by the members of this Legislative Assembly.

To close, just a note from a friend who works in the health sector — I wouldn't want anyone to know the name, so I'll leave it out — in an email received today.

That's the sentiment as British Columbians start to learn that the tough decisions are being made in this Legislature by this government to build a long-term future for our province. We are going to be successful. We will not waver, because we can't waver. We have to do the job for the future generations of this province, and we will.

R. Stewart: There's much reason for optimism today in British Columbia. A week ago we heard a throne speech that undoubtedly instilled confidence in people across this province, a throne speech that established and restated this government's commitment to a new era.

Yesterday we received the budget from the Minister of Finance, a budget that sets out a responsible three-year plan to reinstate confidence, to bring government's finances to order after a decade of mismanagement, to refocus our health care system to put patients first, to refocus our education system to put students first and to refocus government on the things that government should be doing.

These two documents are indeed reason for great confidence, but there is also a context that is important to the future of this province. That context is the people of British Columbia — the volunteers; the activists; the community workers; the public servants; the medical staff; the support staff, the teachers and their students; our aboriginal communities; the parents; the grandparents; our youth; our elected officials at all levels; our workers and their employers; the people who invest in this community every day — our citizens, young and old, who call this province home.

R. Stewart: It never ceases to amaze me — the level of commitment that exists in our communities, the dedication of volunteers and others in improving their communities and in helping their fellow man, whether here at home or abroad. Along that vein, I want to begin this afternoon by marking the passing of a truly great man, a great community volunteer and a friend.

I knew Ted Segodnia primarily through the Coquitlam Rotary Club. He was the club's president for 2001-02. In that capacity, Ted was tireless, working to improve his community through a service club that he considered the best in the world. But Ted was far more than just involved in Rotary. Ted was deeply involved in social work in his native Ukraine, individually though his church and through Rotary International. Ted had a distinguished career with Canada Customs, but perhaps his proudest accomplishments included helping five orphanages in Ukraine become self-sustaining through Rotary's Children's Opportunity Project.

Ted passed away in January. He will be remembered as a great person, a community-minded person, a person who always looked for ways to help others. There are many such people in my community, as I'm sure is true in every other community in the province — tireless volunteers who work individually and through social agencies and non-profit societies and service clubs to improve their community.

R. Stewart: I was recently at a meeting of the local committee working on the Trans Canada Trail. This dedicated group of volunteers and the organizations working with them have undertaken a tremendous project, one which will benefit my community and this province for years to come. I'd like to congratulate and thank these volunteers for their tireless efforts and for the tremendous legacy they're leaving behind for the people of Canada.

In addressing the budget that was delivered yesterday, it is important to remember all of these people at the community level who work outside of government and within government to deliver programs and services and benefits for the communities across this province. Last weekend I was proud to attend the diplomats night for Douglas College's model United Nations. I was delighted to talk at that event with many students who were showing tremendous interest and knowledge of the complex issues that affect countries around the world.

These discussions gave me great cause for optimism and excitement at the level at which today's young people are interested in the global community and are determined to be a force in effecting change for the better for themselves and future generations. I'd like to congratulate these students and Douglas College for their vision and their commitment to addressing these challenges.

Tomorrow night I'll be honoured to attend the Baden-Powell dinner for Scouting in my riding. I remember my days in Scouting. I remember the tremendously valuable contribution that this organization should be honoured for as it works with our youth to improve their understanding of the social situation, to encourage them to reach their very best and to continue to work in our communities for the betterment of our society. I look forward to that dinner, and I congratulate the Scouts and other community groups throughout British Columbia.

Both the throne speech and the budget spoke quite significantly about education. I want to make some important statements about education, for the record. I've heard our Premier and our Minister of Education speak about our outstanding school system — one of the best in the world, one that we can be truly proud of. I've heard them speak at length about the dedication of teachers and of all staff that work with our young people.

I myself know firsthand about the long hours that teachers put in. My wife is a teacher. The dedication that the teaching profession and teachers in general show to their classes and their schools is to be commended. They work long hours. They're the coaches and the committee chairs and in some cases the guidance counsellors. They run field trips and community groups that help students understand the role they can play in their future and in the future of our communities.

I tremendously value the work of teachers, as does this government. I tremendously value our education system, as does this government. It was one of our commitments, prior to and during the election, that education was to be our priority, that we must have an education system that provides quality, flexibility, choice and outstanding outcomes for children, students and youth across this province. I'm committed to doing that.

Unfortunately, there are some hurdles to overcome. I get lots of mail about the fact that this government was required once again to step in and put in place a contract for teachers. Of course, this is nothing new. Not since 1993 — I believe it was — has the government of British Columbia been able to come to a negotiated settlement in the education system. That flaw, that challenge that we face, is a very important one. We have committed, as a government, to ensuring that we examine the way in which contracts are worked out between employee and employer groups in the education system so that we can come to some better agreements in future, so that negotiated settlements can be the order of the day rather than unheard of.

I also sit on the Select Standing Committee on Education. That committee has toured the province. It has heard from teachers, students, parents, professionals, trustees and many others about our education system, its tremendous value and the challenges it faces as we move into a new century. I felt tremendously honoured to sit on that committee as we went around the province and heard from groups about some of their issues.

We heard from aboriginal students in Queen Charlotte City who were facing challenges associated with aboriginal education and the need for government to ensure as many options as possible to improve outcomes within aboriginal communities in the education system.

We heard from rural school district officials from Houston, Prince George and Cranbrook about the challenges that face rural schools. We heard about students with special needs and about gifted children. We heard about the value of programs such as languages, arts and culture.

We heard about challenges associated with the graduation requirements in this province and how not a great enough percentage of students are graduating. In fact, I would argue that the only great enough percentage of students to graduate would be 100 percent, and that clearly should be our goal. Right now, of course, we fall short, particularly in aboriginal communities.

We heard about the need for trades education for students at the high school level who weren't aspiring to go to university, to post-secondary. We heard about the disparity between the percentage of students who were aspiring to go to university and the percentage of their parents who thought they would. It seems that more parents believe their children will go to university than actual children and students believe. Even so, among the students who think they're going to university, a smaller percentage of them actually go. Of those who actually go to university, of course, not all of them graduate.

We heard about the issue of post-secondary tuition as well as the challenges created by an unfunded tuition freeze. Some students were finding that the pressures created by that freeze left them in the fifth year of a four-year course of study.

We heard about community schools and inner-city schools. In fact, it was my honour to be invited to visit three community schools in Vancouver and one in my riding. At Franklin School I joined in their hot-lunch program, and I saw their special needs class and their special needs students and education program. I was truly honoured to be able to witness the work that they're doing at their community school.

At Hastings School I saw the tremendous preparations they were putting in for their community Christmas dinner and the value that community school has for the people in that area. I saw at Bayview School the work that the parents and the community do to encourage and support the community school in that neighbourhood. I spoke to a class and got their opinions about their school and about community schools in general.

I want to thank, in each one of those schools, the parents, the advocates and the community leaders that came out and showed me around and explained the value that they place on community schools. I want to thank all of these schools, I want to thank the students I spoke with and I want to recognize that we in fact were able to protect many of the programs that I find to be the most valuable programs we deliver as a government.

Of course we have fiscal challenges. The easiest thing in the world to do would be to ignore our fiscal challenges and go right ahead and spend, go right ahead and protect programs that we, as a government and as a people, can't afford. The easiest thing to do would be to forget that this isn't our money. This is the money that belongs to the people of British Columbia. Across this province, this is their money. We must re-

member that at all times. We must remember that sometimes the tough challenges, the tough choices, are the right ones. Sometimes it is important for government to stand up and make tough choices to do the right thing, even when it is not popular or even when there are protests about it.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that this budget balances not just our books but our capacity to meet people's needs. I believe that is true. I believe we must balance our capacity to meet people's needs. We must make sure that as we move forward over the next three years and try to balance the books that were left us, the books that left us a $3.8 billion fiscal deficit — structural deficit — we not only keep in mind the needs of every individual British Columbian but also recognize that we must remain competitive as a province. We must become competitive as a province with jurisdictions across the country and across the continent.

I want to applaud and thank the people who've written me, both the people who've raised concerns about actions that we've had to take, actions that we've been forced to take to deal with the deficit we've been left…. I want to thank them, but I also want to thank the people — and perhaps there's more of them, in fact, than the other — who've written and said: "Stay the course. We're concerned about this one here. This one bothers me, but I recognize you wouldn't do it out of spite; you're doing it because it's the right thing to do. You're taking tough choices; you're making tough decisions. You're making difficult decisions, and you're going to take the heat for it, but we ask you to please stay the course so that we, the people of British Columbia, can look forward to a new era of prosperity."

I myself look forward to that. I myself look forward to the day when we will not be borrowing from our children, not borrowing from the future, as the last government did every single year in the nineties — every single year, year after year. Even when they said there wasn't a deficit, it turned out there was a deficit. They borrowed from our children, and we're now going to have to pay that back, because I refuse to leave that to my children.

That's not the legacy I want to leave them — a legacy of debt. I want to leave them a legacy of hope. I want us, my generation and the generations represented in this room — yes, yours too — to leave them a legacy of hope and opportunity, a legacy that represents what British Columbia can be. British Columbia is the best place in the world. It should also be the best economy in the world. It isn't that. It's far from that now, of course, but it can become that again.

I thank the Minister of Finance for the tremendous work that he and his team have put together in delivering a budget that I believe will help move us toward a competitive environment and a new era of hope and opportunity. I hope and believe that we can look at those disadvantaged in our society and help them. I also look forward to a day when we will be able to afford, as a government, the kinds of programs that you and I value, the kinds of programs that everyone in this room values, but that right now are more expensive than we can afford. Right now, we will be spending, this coming year, more money than we bring in, which has been a characteristic of British Columbia's government for 15 years. That has to change, and I know that it will change.

I look forward to the coming years when British Columbia will be able to stand, hold its head high and say: "We've met the challenges. We are now, once again, leading Canada. We are now, once again, going to put forward the kind of society that our children will be able to thrive in, that our people in every walk of life — public servants, private sector employees, entrepreneurs — will be able to thrive, grow and have a great future in."

B. Suffredine: I am honoured to be able to respond to the budget speech today. About eight months ago I was given an opportunity that only one of about 50,000 British Columbians ever gets. I was given the chance to represent my region and make a difference. I was given the chance to show the determination of a government that wanted to bring back balanced budgets. I was given the chance to help revitalize the economy.

Chances like this don't come easily, and they're not cheap. I had to give up a lifestyle that most people would envy. I lived on the shores of Kootenay Lake, a mile from my place of work. On a warm summer day I could boat to work and fish on the way home. If I took the morning off in the winter, I could be knee-deep in powder snow at the Whitewater ski area within 30 minutes and back for lunch. Within an hour or two I could choose to go to one of three world-class hot springs. All this was in a community that was connected to high-speed, wireless Internet and a fabulous component contained in that community of arts and culture.

Year after year the economy got worse. After 27 years of working in Nelson, I changed occupations so that I could help change the province. Now, change is never easy. Changing my lifestyle wasn't easy, and the budget is about change to health care, education and our economy. That will be change for the better. I know it creates uncertainty, and I know that, particularly in my community, many are anxious. I understand their fears.

I know that continuing to run the province the way it had been would have caused the collapse of our public system of health care and education. That would not be in the interests of patients, and it certainly wouldn't have been in the interests of the workers who are now concerned about their job security.

I know that in the short term I may have to take some criticism. It may even be that some people say I don't care. They couldn't be more wrong. To restore sound fiscal management requires courage. We must live within our means or fail.

The members opposite apparently had a revelation earlier this week. They discovered that to pay for health care services the money had to come from the pockets of British Columbians. The Leader of the Opposition thought it was a surprise when she announced that every single increase in health care spending in this province will come directly out of the pockets of British Columbians. Well, that was no surprise — at least not to 77 members in this chamber.

It was only a surprise to the members opposite, who still don't know that everything that government gives to us it first must take from us. It was only a surprise to those members opposite who think it's fair to describe something as fully funded as long as you think you can borrow the money. They don't seem to realize that every dollar borrowed must be repaid, and repaid with interest.

I was elected to be part of the change to restore confidence in government and bring British Columbia back as a leader in Canada. I promised to put the interests of patients first in health care. I promised to put the interests of students first in education. I promised to support plans to revitalize the economy.

I was recently faced with some difficult choices when legislation was before this House that altered contractual commitments in public sector contracts. I decided, faced with that dilemma, that patients and students had to come first, but I also knew that failing to change a system that was about to explode with expenses was no choice at all. I knew that workers in the system that would soon collapse had none of the job security they wanted.

Since May 16 I made learning about health care my top priority. I was fortunate to be selected for the Health standing committee. I had no idea at the time how legislative committees worked; I'd never been on one. We began to travel the province, and I didn't really know what to expect. I was surprised and pleased with the presentations we received. While some asked us to leave the system alone, many gave us creative ideas for change.

We listened carefully to the advice they gave. We prepared a report that reflected what we heard. There was much to learn from people around the province and people who worked within the health care system.

I'm going to describe a little bit of what we heard. We heard from doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, caregivers, chiropractors, cleaning staff, maintenance personnel, home support workers, researchers, natives, administrators, health societies, ambulance personnel, practical nurses, acupuncture practitioners, counsellors, podiatrists, mayors, teachers, old age pensioners, seniors housing organizations, hospice societies, medical associations, universities, unions, veterans, psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmaceutical representatives and a host of private citizens and other groups too numerous to name today. That's just a partial list.

There was much to learn from people in British Columbia. It was most unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of our committee, could not find time to attend any of the meetings. I've heard her criticize the recommendations, as a result of her failure to listen. It's easy to criticize when you haven't heard a word people said. It's harder to really listen. It's even harder to listen, learn and then speak. Listening first might have given her the foundation for sound, credible opinion.

Many people in British Columbia believe it is time that the medical premiums are adjusted. That's what real people who pay the premiums told us when we travelled. This unfortunate but necessary measure will help ensure continued high-quality health care delivery.

The changes coming in health care will be dramatic. I have no doubt of that. I believe that when all the changes are known, people in British Columbia will recognize that we are actually focused on better delivery of services that put patients first.

In education we took steps to put students first. When I went to school — a few years ago — there were no class size limits. Sometimes class sizes in schools I went to approached 40 students. Students do learn differently, and class size is important. The steps taken recently to limit class size in the act and protect that class size from being traded away for money are very important.

Returning autonomy to universities and colleges is also an important tool. Freezing tuition was a shortsighted measure. Colleges and universities need the flexibility to adjust revenue sources if they are to offer the courses students need. Taking an extra year or two to graduate has a much higher cost than a modestly increased tuition. It has a cost for rent, food and daily living expenses. That cost far exceeds the difference in tuition. It also has a cost in lost income that will never be made up.

I wasn't the greatest student, but because the courses I needed were available where I went to school, I graduated with two degrees in five years. I was the second-youngest graduate ever from the college of law at the University of Saskatchewan. That wouldn't be possible in British Columbia today. The courses just aren't available. To get in, you have to have the highest-average marks in history. For average achievers like me, you don't even get the chance to try. Those accepted take longer to graduate than they should. Now it's taking some of our best and brightest five years to get their first degree.

The tuition I paid in about 1970 was approximately $1,200. Today's tuition in B.C. for a comparable degree amounts to about $2,200. When I had to fund my education, the minimum wage in Saskatchewan was $1 per hour. Today our minimum wage is $8 per hour.

Education has a cost too. In the three decades since I started university, costs to universities have risen. Universities and colleges exist to serve the needs of students. We must give our universities and colleges the tools and autonomy to make the choices that will

work for them and for the students. After all, what more does a student want than to be qualified for a high-paying, personally satisfying career? What more does business want than a qualified workforce to draw from?

In my riding, Selkirk College provides a campus that spans my riding and the adjoining one. Selkirk recently announced cutbacks in many course offerings to try to deal with its $600,000 debt and its annual deficit. They announced those changes just before changes to the Education budget and changes to their ability to control their own revenues were announced. Only days later we passed legislation that will give them that autonomy and flexibility. If that brings more opportunities for students, it's worth it.

The combined strategy of cutting taxes, reducing red tape and putting students first is the key to a future full of hope and prosperity. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his vision. He's right. Reckless spending has turned us into a have-not province. I don't want to depend on charity from other provinces. We need to be leaders again. It took eight months to build, but the foundation he has established with the budget is sound. In spite of September 11 and the softwood lumber dispute we have a sound plan that sets goals that are achievable.

We should never lose sight of the facts that September 11 changed our world and that softwood lumber is our largest source of revenue. These two factors fundamentally changed economic conditions. It is a remarkable achievement that notwithstanding the dramatic worsening of our economy, the Minister of Finance has been able to place a plan for a balanced budget before us. That plan is reasonable, responsible, affordable and realistic. It is one more thing: it is a remarkable achievement.

Earlier, I spoke of changes that I accepted to help bring change. I don't get to fish anymore on my way home. When I'm in Victoria, I get to live in a small apartment where I can't even see the water. Sometimes I don't get to see my home or my family for weeks at a time. People occasionally say things about me that are untrue and uncomplimentary. With all that, would I choose to do this again? Absolutely.

With the leadership demonstrated by our Premier and the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, a new era of hope and prosperity won't be far away. We only need to stay the course that has been set. Reversing the mistakes of the last decade is worth it all. The Minister of Finance said it well yesterday, Mr. Speaker: "After ten years, it's about time."

W. McMahon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is again an honour to stand before you and respond to the budget speech as MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Yesterday's budget speech clearly lays the groundwork for the direction government will take in the coming years. As British Columbians, we are facing many challenges. In recognizing our challenges, we must also recognize a need for a fundamental change in attitude: a need for responsibility. Yesterday we were given a clear indication of the fiscal challenges ahead, as presented by the Finance minister to all British Columbians. We know we must live within our means and do what is necessary to keep within our budget, a budget that this government will balance by 2004-05. It is a promise we made to the people of this province, a promise that we intend to keep.

I am not going to downplay the significance of what is happening. I believe most people in this province and in my riding recognize that we cannot maintain the status quo, but I also know that there is some controversy about the manner in which we are moving forward.

Every day I receive messages from my constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Many tell me that they believe the government is making the right decisions. Some don't, but let me assure you that these decisions have not been easy to make and at times have not been easy to accept. However, I know people understand that they are being made for the right reasons and in the best interests of all British Columbians.

We must get our fiscal house in order and revitalize the economy so we can take advantage of growing opportunities in rural communities. As a government we have the pressing challenge of an unsustainable public health care system. With expenditures tripling since 1985, the system has grown from 31 percent of the annual budget to more than 40 percent. There is no greater priority than saving and renewing health care. This year and next year alone the health budget will increase from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion — 7.3 percent.

The interior health authority is facing tremendous challenges and spending pressures and is looking at a number of options to ensure the most efficient use of health care dollars on a regionwide basis. Obviously, while people can appreciate these financial pressures, four communities in my constituency — Kimberley, Invermere, Golden and Revelstoke — all have the same message for government: don't close our hospital. On behalf of the citizens of Kimberley I will present a petition in the House this week.

As the new interior health authority looks at a number of options to help provide quality care for the entire region, I want to assure my constituents that no one area is being targeted. I will continue to ensure that the health authority is very aware of the ties that each community has to its hospital and to also underline how greatly people value the services being provided at each facility, as I share those same feelings.

To fund the increases of doctors, nurses and paramedicals, the government had to make some tough decisions. We raised the provincial sales tax rate yesterday to 7.5 percent. We raised the tax on a carton of cigarettes by $8. We increased MSP premiums for some by 50 percent. Overall, the vast majority of my constituents understand.

What we inherited from the previous government is shameful, and we have had some difficult decisions to make. The NDP left us with many challenges: the

nurses, the teachers, the doctors. We've dealt with them, and we're moving forward. As we work through the workplace adjustment strategy, I am continually reminded that changes should have been made years ago.

Since being elected, we have repeatedly stated that funding for health care and education will be maintained. In fact, we've increased health care funding, and this budget shows a slight increase over last year for the education budget to $4.86 billion. We recognize that we need solutions and certainly not an allegiance to the status quo. We need to explore all avenues of help, expertise and suggestions with stakeholders in each community to reach workable solutions in both health care and education. In refocusing health care funding on patients' needs and in restructuring health governance and delivery, we are attempting to find savings and efficiencies throughout the system that are consistent with the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

Before long the Select Standing Committee on Education will be presenting its report to the Legislature. For the first time in nearly 30 years the committee has consulted widely with British Columbians. We have heard from more than 800 groups and individuals throughout this process. I have had the honour of chairing the committee, and I look forward to the completion of this report and to presenting it to the Legislature in the near future.

The government recently introduced changes to provide flexibility and local autonomy to elected school boards. Students will be better protected and enhanced by the new legislated limits on class size. A new funding formula that is soon to be introduced will give districts a better chance to plan through three-year funding allocations. These are all positive changes that will assist school districts in providing excellent opportunities for students. This government will put students and patients first.

Columbia River–Revelstoke has a number of ski resorts throughout the constituency. In December the Solicitor General implemented interim measures to B.C.'s downhill ski operators for an endorsement allowing minors on the premises until 7 p.m. under the supervision of a parent or guardian. This is something that the industry has been asking for, for a long time. Throughout the constituency this announcement has certainly been good news and appreciated by the operators I've spoken with.

Recently Panorama ski resort near Invermere introduced a $20 million expansion to its operation. Again, this announcement is good news for the area, which attracts many visitors year-round. Just this week the mayors of Invermere and Radium travelled to Victoria, and we met with the Minister of Forests to discuss ways of providing services within the Columbia Valley. Standing solidly behind the mayors are their communities, who are looking proactively for solutions. I support them in their efforts.

Another area of concern in both Golden and Revelstoke is the safety of the Trans-Canada Highway through Rogers Pass to the Alberta border. I am looking forward to the Minister of Transportation's tour of the area, which will allow her to see firsthand the highway which causes much concern for so many people.

Just recently the mayor of Kimberley led a delegation to Victoria to meet with the Premier and various ministers of this government regarding their concerns for the ongoing economic viability of the community as they worked through the transition from a mining-based community to a tourism-based community. In December the Sullivan mine closed. It has been a major employer in the region for almost a century. I am working with Mayor Ogilvie and his committee through this transition, and I am committed to helping them in any way possible to ensure that they are a thriving, sustainable community with a bright future.

A key to this community's viability is the expansion of the Cranbrook Airport, which lies in the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding. Obviously, the expansion is important to the entire region, as it would open the door for both business and tourists to discover our region. The hard-working individuals involved in moving this project forward should be commended. I have met with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise in this regard and have spoken to many others about the project.

Yesterday's budget was intended to let people know that British Columbia is a desirable destination, a great place to invest and a source of world-class products and ideas.

In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues of the enormous potential that lies in the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding, both in tourism and in natural resources. The direction this government laid out in the budget speech is the foundation which will enable us to live up to that potential and ensure that our rural communities thrive. The budget is about restoring sound fiscal management, about revitalizing the economy and restoring hope and prosperity. It is about putting patients and students first. Finally, it is about a better future for all British Columbians.

Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be able to rise in this House today as the member for New Westminster and speak in support of the budget. It's an honour to have been elected as the representative in this Legislature for New Westminster. I can say that being a member of this House from New Westminster and being a part of this government is both an adventure and an extraordinary privilege. I am grateful to the people of New Westminster for the support they have given me and the trust they have bestowed upon me. I've had the great pleasure over the past two years of getting to know many wonderful people from all corners of the city. I'll serve them to the greatest of my ability, both as their representative in this House and as a member of this government. My commitment to the people of the Royal City is to listen to their ideas

It's easy to forget, standing here in this chamber in Victoria, that in 1859, over 140 years ago, New Westminster was the first capital of the colony of British Columbia. It was literally built out of the side of a hill by Col. R.C. Moody and his battalion of the Royal Engineers camped at Sapperton. New Westminster was actually the first incorporated city in western Canada. It was incorporated almost 30 years before Vancouver became a city. By 1863 the city had grown to nearly 1,000.

I'd like to acknowledge Terry Julian, the author of a book called A Capital Controversy, as the source of some of the preceding history and quotes in my speech.

New Westminster was born of people accepting the challenge to work hard and achieve results, people bringing talent and creativity to build something new for themselves and their families, people caring — a community helping each other survive and succeed through tough times. It took courage and vision to carve New Westminster out of a hillside 140 years ago and build it into what it is now. It was risky for our earliest settlers to leave the relative safety and comfort of places like Fort Victoria and the capitals of Europe and the Far East to build their homes, their businesses and their lives in this new town.

Of course, the collection of strong, self-reliant and community-minded people on the banks of the Fraser River included the people of the Qayqayt first nations downstream from Sapperton camp, where Front Street now runs. This native community was established long before the battalion and European settlers came, and some of its members joined the newcomers in the commerce of the new settlement. Band members' descendants have just recently reached out to re-establish their connection to New Westminster and are partners in achieving community goals.

The first residents of New Westminster, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, worked together in different languages, and they succeeded. I don't think our early citizens needed 400,000 government regulations to build a thriving city out of the wilderness and marshes on the banks of the Fraser River. They created a vibrant community positioned to serve the needs of other adventurers and their families, who also, through hard work and self-reliance, undertook the challenge of building British Columbia — transforming the minerals, timber, fish and wildlife into goods, shelter, food and homes.

Our forerunners not only created homes and buildings, some of which still exist today in New Westminster, but the early members of the community built the very first public library in British Columbia. They had the foresight to set aside a large piece of wilderness for parkland, and as a result, we have one of the finest park systems on the lower mainland, with Queen's Park, Moody Park, Tipperary Park and many others.

The Royal City was the mainland berth for fleets of paddlewheelers that plied the waters between Victoria and Yale to the Cariboo Wagon Road and to the goldfields beyond. In fact, the founding and building of New Westminster is inextricably linked with our province's evolution. New Westminster has seen its share of challenges over the years, but people responded to those challenges.

When the politicians decided that the capital city of British Columbia would move to Victoria in 1868, our people didn't just pack their bags and move to the Island. Many stayed in the community they called home and kept on building and improving it. They developed fish canneries, shops, hotels, sawmills and other wood-products industries, the foundations of which are still in operation today.

When fire destroyed much of New Westminster in 1898, our people helped those in need and rebuilt their town and their lives. They moved ahead into the next century with spirit, with optimism, with determination. Over the next century and a half, they overcame the many challenges that came their way, and they built a community that became, I believe, the finest and most liveable community in this province. The spirit of that community is still thriving today.

I've lived in the Royal City since 1989 and within a short walk of its boundaries for seven years before that. I was drawn by the spirit of the community, by its history of strength and self-reliance.

Once a natural harbour and transportation centre on the great highway of the Fraser River, New West is still a transportation centre today. It's located in the exact geographic centre of the lower mainland. It's linked by SkyTrain to downtown and our neighbours to the south and east. It's served by rail and is close to the airport and ferries, the valley and the border. New Westminster provides easy access to services in all directions.

I see the spirit of this community in the diverse cultures and people creating neighbourhoods where they live, work, play or raise families in New Westminster. I see the spirit of New Westminster in one of our earliest homes, the Irving House, where, at the historic centre, volunteers keep the past alive for the present to learn from and enjoy, and throughout the many neighbourhoods where Royal City homeowners were among the first in B.C. to preserve and restore their older homes. Our dedication to heritage in New Westminster has served the rest of greater Vancouver well by inspiring others to preserve their heritage buildings.

I see that spirit in institutions like the Royal City Soccer Club and the New Westminster Salmonbellies lacrosse team — a game and a team both with a venerable history in our city. I see it in the Royal City Curling Club, which is home to the 2000 men's world champions, the Greg McAuley rink, and the 2000 women's world champions, the Kelly Law rink. I wish our Royal City curlers all the best in their quest for the gold in Salt Lake City this month.

I see the spirit of this community in the people who, through a combination of determination and perspiration, brought a dream to life and established the Raymond Burr Performing Arts Centre on Columbia Street. It's named after one of New Westminster's most famous exports to the United States, Raymond Burr. The spirit resonates through the many, many volunteer events that we host to raise funds for others, from women's shelters to parenting programs, from services for the disabled to medical support for African children.

Our community expresses its history and traditions in yearly celebrations such as May Day, Victoria Day, Canada Day — all at Queen's Park. Actually, the May Day celebration is worth describing. It first took place in 1870 and is the longest continuing celebration of its kind, not only in British Columbia but in the entire British Commonwealth. More than a century after this tradition started, hundreds of boys and girls from New Westminster elementary schools still gather around maypoles in Queen's Park each year for folk dancing, music and fun. Along with our May Day celebrations, we have the Hyack festival and parade, the Chinese New Year celebrations in February, Queensborough Day in the Philippine festival in June, Fraserfest and the Show and Shine car festival in July, Santa Claus in December and many more.

Our community succeeds in keeping alive its spirit, its history, its traditions and its compassion. I chose New Westminster. It's the place my family calls home. For me, New Westminster is summer — sitting on the warm Queen's Park grass, breathing in the sunshine and cedar trees, watching my children race through the spray-pool coolness. New Westminster is spring — sharing tea and warm cinnamon buns with a friend on the patio at a quay riverfront café; watching the sea lions chasing oolichans rolling and curling on the Fraser River surface.

New Westminster is sheltering from a rainy fall afternoon, plunged into the chaos of the Sunday family swim at the Canada Games pool, sliding, swinging, diving, wrestling with three tireless children. It's stepping from the cold, slushy night into the family bustle of the Massey Theatre lobby, anticipation electrifying us as we surge to our seats, ready to be transported back in time, for a few hours, by the Nutcracker ballet staged each year by the Royal City Youth Ballet.

New Westminster is where my children grew to become adults. It's where my youngest will graduate from school this June. It's also the home of the silviculture business I built with my husband. I worked for many years in the forest industry. In the early years I planted hundreds of thousands of trees across this province — tough work in isolated places; self-reliant people solving problems, persevering, being productive, adapting to the challenges of wilderness and weather and having fun.

Over the years I had the privilege of working with thousands of self-motivated, hard-working young people providing forest restoration services to clients across the country. I saw what can be accomplished when people are challenged to do their best, are accountable for their results and are free to find their own ways to achieve them.

It's an industry where businesses learn the meaning of excellence. They know that the next job depends on providing value in the last job. They know the privilege of serving clients and being paid for it is earned each time anew and there are no guarantees. Like New Westminster, the reforestation industry is also made of people accepting the challenge to work hard and achieve results, people bringing talent and creativity to building something new for themselves and their families, people caring and a community helping each other survive and succeed through tough times.

People often ask why I left business to enter politics. Mr. Speaker, I saw a government pushing our society in the wrong direction, away from self-reliance, away from accountability for results, away from the talent and creativity of free enterprise. I witnessed the previous government trying to take away workers' choices.

In my industry they began converting reforestation into a government-run make-work program. The government imposed laws that interfered with self-reliant businesses, large and small, stifled autonomy and inventiveness with overrregulation and drove up the costs of building this province. In doing all this, they wasted billions of taxpayer dollars that were earmarked for investment in improving our forests, our highways, our ferry service and our health care system.

I saw a government with no apparent awareness of the direct connection between having an environment in which businesses can thrive and society's ability to afford the very services that people count on. I saw a government without the ability to manage well.

Now, I know that a government and a business have different purposes. A company's primary responsibility is to create value for its shareholders, and a

government's primary job is to provide value for all its citizens, but government has much to learn about managing from the business community. Leadership, project planning and sound business processes provide any organizations with the tools it needs to achieve results.

In the case of a government, achieving results means creating greater value from every tax dollar spent to enrich the lives of all its citizens. I entered politics because I saw a government without the skills or know-how to create a prosperous province with a thriving economy that can support its citizens services in the long run.

British Columbians' yearly average take-home earnings dropped by $1,700 a year over the past decade. During years of prosperity in the rest of the country I saw the impact of that on the residents and businesses in New Westminster. I believed that my business skills and experience could help make positive change in government and for my community.

Last May, 77 B.C. Liberals were elected because the people of British Columbia agreed that the cost of business as usual, the status quo, was higher than the cost of change. If your mortgage and credit card bills are too high, you've got to bring them down. If you're not making as much money as you used to, you've got to cut back your spending. What holds true for individuals, families and businesses must also hold true for governments.

With the events of last fall many government programs and obligations created and expanded during the past ten years became even more unaffordable. We will not and cannot leave the next generation of British Columbians with a debt hangover while we in this generation continue uncontrolled spending of borrowed money. The cost is too high. Last May people realized the cost of the status quo was higher than the cost of change. Business as usual wasn't working. That's why the people of this province and the people of New Westminster elected us to make those changes.

The voters in the last election did not tell us that everything the previous government was doing was fine and to keep on doing it. They elected us to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability. Swift and decisive action to control spending was clearly necessary.

The budget released on Tuesday marks a major turning point for British Columbians. The tax changes this government has made since July leave a billion more dollars in people's pockets. This budget represents the determination of this government to create a foundation for increased economic activity and revenues in the coming years. That means B.C. will prosper again.

It shows a steady commitment to spending less until we can once again afford to spend more. That means we will have a balanced budget on March 31, 2004, and begin to decrease our debt loads and interest costs.

This budget also shows a depth of commitment to quality health care and to protecting — and, where possible, improving — services that are the highest priority, such as education and services for the most vulnerable. That means we are looking ahead and investing in people and in our future.

This budget includes a three-year fiscal plan, a road map of where we want this province to go and how we will get there. That plan includes our commitment to maintaining high environmental standards and respecting the strong environmental values of British Columbians, an essential part of our far-reaching strategy to achieve economic and social vitality. Positive change is our job. It's what we were elected to do.

I am proud to be part of a government that is returning leadership to this province. This budget invites British Columbians to accept the challenge to work hard and create results, to bring their talent and creativity and build something new for themselves and their families, and to continue caring, being a community and helping each other survive and succeed through tough times as we create conditions for the better times ahead.

Spending less is easier to say than to do. This budget reduces government spending by almost $2 billion in the third fiscal year. That scale of reduction will mean reducing or eliminating some programs that people value and have grown to depend on. That is part of the cost of change. As the Finance minister said, it is bitter medicine, but the province needs to take it to get better and to thrive again.

The businesses of New Westminster — the sawmills, the stores, the services, the public market at the quay — depend on a thriving and prosperous economy. This budget will bring back business investment in jobs.

New Westminster is the home of many schools and of Douglas College. We're the home of the Justice Institute of British Columbia, a training facility for police and other law enforcement officers. We're the home of St. Mary's Hospital, Queens Park Hospital, Royal Columbian Hospital and many care homes. This budget increases our investment in health care and protects education funding. It puts patients and students first.

There are many vulnerable people in New Westminster who need ongoing help or who need short-term help to get back on their feet and become self-reliant again. There are children without proper family support or adequate food. These are the people for whom a well-managed and prosperous economy is absolutely critical so the province can afford the services and supports they need. This budget reflects our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our community.

The future is full of challenges and difficulties. I'm aware that the changes we are taking as a government are major and will impact many communities in this province, including my own city of New Westminster. Most of the people in the Royal City accept the challenge to work hard and achieve results. They bring talent and creativity to build something new. They care. They are a community that help each other survive and succeed through tough times.

The voters of this province said loudly and clearly that the model for government adopted in 1991 had to change. They made perhaps the biggest change in the province's recent history. They did not vote for a government that would take the easy road and avoid solving our economic problems, and they did not vote for a government that would move warily and timidly with half measures when full ones were needed.

They did not vote for a government that would keep looking over its shoulder to see what the media was saying about them, and they did not vote for the status quo. They voted for a government that will make the hard choices they knew had to be made. They voted for a government that will bring fiscal prudence back into policy, a government that will bring the economy back to life. They voted for a government that will bring some balance back into labour relations in this province and put students and patients and the vulnerable first.

They voted for a government that is both compassionate and realistic, a government that will rethink the essential job of government and improve the way it functions, which will plan for the future and identify priorities, set targets and be accountable for results. They voted to bring hope and prosperity back to British Columbia, and this budget sets the foundation for success. They voted for us, and we intend to succeed with the job we were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition to continue on the debate on the budget.

J. MacPhail: This is the second time that I rise to address a budget brought in by the Liberal government. In preparing for my reply today, I looked back at what I said in the reply to the last budget, which was brought in by the government on July 30, 2001. I note in reading my comments that I said this to the government: "I actually wish you well; I wish you the best. I see that you're taking massive, massive risks in this budget, and for the sake of British Columbia, I hope that you're right." That's what I said when the Finance minister tabled his first budget.

The reason why I say this, Mr. Speaker, is because over the course of the last eight months, the Liberal members have risen day after day in every forum possible to say that the New Democrat opposition is fear-mongering and that we're naysayers. I thought I'd take an opportunity to see whether I was fear-mongering on July 30. I did say that the government was taking risks. There's no question about that, but I also wished them well.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I were the only two members in the House who survived the last government, and we had learned our lesson. There were two of us and 77 members of the government. In the course of the discussion about the budget, I outlined the risks that were being taken, but I also emphasized that I hoped the risks would come to fruition on behalf of all British Columbians.

Here's who I said would be put at risk. Oh, I'm sorry. First of all, I noted that there was an advertisement that came out on the same day the government tabled its budget on July 30, 2001. It was very interesting. It was an advertisement, as some members may recall, to recruit people to come and work in the government in British Columbia — July 30, 2001. The advertisement was entitled "Advertising for People." It said that people who come to this province will have to be able to work in an atmosphere of ambiguity and risk. My gosh! That has certainly come true.

I also outlined a number of areas where there were huge risks taken in the July 30 budget. I said that on the one hand, the corporate world was getting hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, and on the other hand, people were being put at risk because of that. People on welfare were being put at risk. Aboriginal people were being put at risk. Families who need services in this province were being put at risk. Youth were being put at risk Sexual assault centres were being put at risk. Today we saw that.

I made a major mistake in my address, though. I was new, and we were running as fast as we could to keep up with this government. I applauded the government for their support in keeping child care funding. I thought that the government had kept funding for child care, so here's what I said: "I do laud the government, though. I do laud the Minister of Finance for continuing to fund the Child Care B.C. program." I'm so happy that people didn't pay attention to my words and say, "Leader, you lied; they didn't keep their promise," because it turned out the very next day that I had misspoken myself and that the government had cut the funding for Child Care B.C.

I then went on to say that the economic forecast of 3.8 percent growth was taking a huge risk and that no one else in the whole economic world was willing to forecast the economy at that rate of growth. I put the question about who would take this risk. I ruminated aloud that the government must take this risk in order to be able to give their corporate backers big tax breaks.

That was on day one of my reply. Then the next day I went on to outline some of the things that my colleague and I would be watching in the budget, some benchmarks that we would be watching. Later on I'll address those benchmarks that were outlined in my speech, about what we needed to watch for as this budget unfolded. I think, as I later refer to those, that we'll find that most of the predictions, most of the benchmarks set in my support and best wishes for the government, have not come to fruition at all, have failed miserably, and there are huge, huge consequences for middle- and lower-income families.

Yesterday was a tough day. It was a tough day because the Minister of Finance, this government and the Premier stood up over and over again and said: "We inherited a mess." That was the basis for everything that flowed — the terrible, terrible breaking of promises. The Finance minister said: the devil made me do it. Remember that old comedian, Flip Wilson? I grew

up with Flip Wilson. He used to dress up as a woman — he was hilarious — and he would say: "The devil made me do it!" And yesterday the Finance minister and the Premier said: "The devil made us do this. The devil made us bring incredibly huge economic hardship on low- and middle-income families."

Let's just examine who the real devil is here in yesterday's budget and what the government did inherit. I'll quote from an article in the Georgia Straight. Interestingly enough, the article's entitled "What Did the Liberals Inherit?" The person who wrote this, I will just go on record as saying, is not a New Democrat and in fact worked for the Social Credit government just before they lost the election to Mike Harcourt and the NDP. I'll read from it. This isn't an old article. It's less than two weeks since it was published.

That's from a Social Credit political person, Will McMartin. Yet that didn't stop the Premier and the Finance minister from continuing to say that they inherited a mess. Of course, the Liberal backbenchers rise, person after person, and repeat that about the mess we inherited.

I was just joking with my colleague here, and I'm putting everybody in this House on notice that when this government is backed into a corner, we will know they're backed into a corner, because they'll stand up and say: "But what about the fast ferries?" Well, they can rest assured that every time they do that, we'll call out beforehand so that they don't get off the hook, so that they have to answer for their own makings. We'll make sure that we call out before you get to your misplaced blame. You're all on notice. All the members are on notice that when you're supposed to answer for your own mess and you try to blame others and you invoke the hated fast ferries, we're on to you.

More importantly, the public is on to you as well. The public has moved on. The public ain't looking backward. The public, British Columbians, are looking to see what this budget has done to their pocketbooks. What this budget has done to British Columbians' pocketbooks is taken a whole bunch of much-needed disposable income out of the pockets of the middle class — and lower-income, despite what the government says. They don't even answer for how they've robbed the middle class. They've taken a whole bunch of disposable income out of the middle class and turned it over to the wealthiest.

It's like a straight line. There are probably armoured cars — Brinks armoured cars — going from middle-class neighbourhoods right over to West Vancouver, right over to Shaughnessy, right over to Oak Bay–Gordon Head, probably going from the middle-class neighbourhoods in Port Coquitlam to middle-class neighbourhoods in Surrey to middle-class neighbourhoods in the West End of Vancouver, loading up to take the money over to the richest neighbourhoods in this province. That's what the budget did yesterday. That's what they did. There's one group of people responsible for that transfer of wealth from the low income and the middle income to the richest — one group. They sit in the chairs of the government today.

Don't invoke fast ferries. Don't invoke the mess you've inherited, because it's simply not true — not true.

Did the Finance minister learn his lesson? Well, let's see. He was ridiculed for his 3.8 percent forecast back

in July of 2001 — not by me. I didn't ridicule him. I said: "I hope for the best, Mr. Finance minister. I hope you're right." He was ridiculed, and just six weeks later, he had to backtrack.

Of course, that was only the beginning of a series of backtrackings by this Minister of Finance, a series of admissions of failure, a series of admissions of oops. I understand they go on today. I understand that today the Finance minister is saying: "Well, I don't know whether I'm actually going to pay those doctors or not, and I don't know whether I'm actually going to do the provincial sales tax increase."

My gosh, the Finance minister, above anyone else, is to bring sanity and stability and confidence to the provincial economy and the provincial budget, and here he is lurching from pillar to post, waking up one morning and saying: "Oh, gosh. I think I'll raise the sales tax today."

Did he learn his lesson on economic forecasting? Well, the revenue assumptions are very interesting — very interesting. The Minister of Finance has taken a different approach. The Minister of Finance got burned by listing numbers, by trying to actually get people to believe he knew what he was doing when he forecast GDP increases in economic growth and revenue assumptions. He didn't risk that this time, because he was so ridiculed and failed so miserably last time.

Instead, he's underlined the entire economic plan of this government by saying there will be fewer services. For instance, he's saying that the reason why he knows he'll be able to balance his budget is because there will be fewer surgeries. A couple fewer surgeries? No — 10,000 fewer surgeries. This is a government that's priding itself on increased funding for health care. Really? Then why are you balancing your books on saying there will be 10,000 fewer surgeries?

His revenue assumptions aren't based on economic numbers; they're based on people numbers getting less. So 40,000 fewer people will be on welfare. I love this one: 1,800 fewer people will be children in care. At the same time that those services are being cut to the bone, he's saying there will be 1,800 fewer children in care. That means that this government must be planning to put children at risk. There will be 5,000 fewer criminal cases.

He said there will be normal weather for three years — normal weather — meaning that there will be a 100 percent snowpack for B.C. Hydro. Well, I don't know. Maybe he is God. Maybe the Premier and the Finance minister fight it out to see who really is God, because they're predicting 100 percent snowpack for three years, meaning that B.C. Hydro's revenues will flow.

He's predicting double the tourism revenue, even though that contradicts his own economic forecast panel. Yup, there it is: there will be double the revenue from tourism. What did his own Economic Forecast Council and his own budget say about that? Well, let's look. "Council members believed that the British Columbia economy would underperform the national average due to restructuring in the forest sector and, more immediately, the impact of the softwood lumber dispute, reduced tourism activity and provincial fiscal restraint during the next two years." Oh. Well, I guess we can't count on a doubling of tourism revenue in the next two years, can we?

Anyway, there's the underlying assumptions of the budget this year. You know why I think the Minister of Finance shifted to this kind of unusual way of predicting how he was going to balance the budget? It's because he can actually achieve this. He can actually achieve 10,000 fewer surgeries, 40,000 fewer people on welfare, 1,800 fewer children in care and 5,000 fewer criminal cases by just denying them service — by just saying that there'll be fewer cops to catch criminals, by saying that we're not going to worry about children at risk, by just saying to people, "Sorry, this morning you're not on welfare," and by just saying that we're not going to do those surgeries.

He will be able to achieve his forecast, his underlying assumptions, by just denying people service. Or else there is another way he could achieve it. That's by driving hundreds of thousands of people out of this province. He will achieve the underlying assumptions of his forecast by saying to British Columbians: "Now leave. Leave this province." I predict that's exactly what will happen.

I was a little bit interested in the business community's reaction to the budget, because I travelled the province with some of my colleagues here on the budget consultations. I know everybody is getting up and hammering me — these Liberal backbenchers are hammering me — because I didn't travel with the Health Committee. Day after day they rise up and say: "That bad member didn't travel the province on the Health Committee."

I admit that there are two of us. There's my colleague from Mount Pleasant, and there's me. So yes, we have to pick the times that we can go on these Liberal consultations. That's true. The fact of the matter that health decisions that were negatively impacting British Columbians were being made every day back in Victoria while that Health Committee was travelling the province.... It seemed like it was not going to be a useful part of my time to go on that trip. Frankly, I disagreed with everything they came to as a conclusion in the report, which didn't reflect the public input anyway. So yes, you can all stop berating me for not going on the Health Committee.

I chose to go on the public consultations on the budget, because I actually thought there was no way the Finance minister could introduce a budget before he said he was — February — so there was time to hear from people and have the input. Business person after business person came forward and said: "Don't increase the debt." They didn't even think in their wildest imagination that there would be tax increases. They said: "Reduce taxes even faster." That's what business people said, so I am a little surprised and, quite frankly, disappointed that the business spin doctors and the spokespeople for business are saying: "Oh, no,

no, no. Tax increases are just fine. Oh, no, whatever we said before, we didn't mean." They're just in lockstep with this government, come hell or high water, regardless of the impact on their own members — the business community.

Yesterday, that was proven in a very disappointing way to me. I actually used to value the input of the business community when I was Finance minister. I know why they did that. The business community was so desperate to get rid of the NDP. Fair enough. I guess maybe they're so afraid that the public will say: "Gee, we don't like this government; we don't want this government." They're so afraid that this government may be put at risk that they'll do anything to protect it, including serving up the interests of their own members, including standing up and saying: "Oh, tax increases are fine."

I challenge any Liberal MLA to come forward and show me in the budget consultations we did around this province where one business person said: "Raise taxes." Yet, there we have it.

You know, I think the rest of the province, frankly, is suffering from buyer's remorse. Maybe that's what the business community is worried about. Buyer's remorse is a gender-specific concept, I think. Women suffer it more. Buyer's remorse means you make a purchase and then you regret it very shortly afterward. People do that with houses sometimes — major purchases. The whole province except, clearly, the business community is suffering from buyer's remorse today. Maybe that's what the business community is worried about — that maybe the public is going to say, "Oops, this isn't the government we wanted," and move forward to change that government.

Here's what the Certified General Accountants said, though. I must commend them. At least they addressed the issue. "Confidence in strong budget weakened by tax hike. On the one hand, the minister offers incentives to the small business sector, and on the other, he raises the provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 7.5 percent. The latter is inconsistent with the government's goal of reducing taxes and putting disposable income back into the wallets of consumers," Ruth said. This would be Gordon Ruth, the president of the Certified General Accountants Association of B.C. He goes on to say: "The Finance minister had other options, and we think he needs to reconsider this move. This budget was designed to foster confidence in every sector, and this increase in the sales tax, small in the context of the whole budget, still sends the wrong message." Well, I credit the CGA for addressing that issue.

Of course, yesterday we were flooded with parties other than us commenting on the budget. Person after person who watches these things very carefully stood up and said: "What is going on? What is in this government's mind? Where are they taking this province in terms of their economic plan?" Many people came to the conclusion that they had no plan. I guess the Finance minister gives credence to that, because today he's speculating about reversing an announcement he made in the budget just yesterday. How can anybody in this province plan anything with that kind of skittish, unprofessional, incompetent action?

We have the usual. We have the columnists that spoke out against this budget. We have Mark Milke of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I hope Mark doesn't get nervous that I'm quoting him, although I have lately been starting off my quotes by saying that I respect Mr. Milke's work, and I continue to do that. I'm actually becoming increasingly convinced that he is non-partisan. Mark Milke said this: "To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of a government in British Columbia has been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, the new era of tax cuts in B.C. was dramatically short-lived."

It is interesting that even Fazil Mihlar, who is the editorial writer in the Vancouver Sun, formerly of the Fraser Institute — that combination of CanWest Global, Izzy Asper and the Fraser Institute — was a little bit cautious and critical. He said: "Finance minister Gary Collins, at a prebudget news conference on Tuesday, sounded awfully confident. 'We will balance the budget by 2004-05. We will do it.'" Then he said: "I wouldn't bet my share of the meagre tax rebate offered up by Collins last year on his claim." Then he goes on to say: "Making matters worse, the Liberals, who were hoping to reinvigorate the economy with tax cuts, have backtracked here too. After announcing personal income tax cuts worth $1.5 billion this year, Collins took $740 million back by increasing medical services premiums by 50 percent and sales tax by half a percent, and he also tacked on an extra $8 per carton of cigarettes."

But that's the media and everybody, frankly, saying: "Oh, the government took back $780 million of the tax cut in tax increases." But they've done way more than that. You know, British Columbians need to worry about their disposable income, and their disposable income is affected by way more than taxes — way more than taxes. Let's see what else has affected the disposable income of British Columbians.

The Finance minister says: "Oh, there's still $1.4 billion in tax cuts circulating in the system." Wrong again, Finance minister. Wrong again.

The tuition fee freeze is gone. What are universities and colleges talking about? Doubling tuition over three years. The Minister of Advanced Education says: "Isn't this wonderful? That creates choice. Now they're no longer hampered by those awful low tuition fees. It creates choice."

Well, here's what it means for families in my riding: students at Templeton and at Van Tech who were going to be the very first children of their families going to university and college won't be able to go. They won't be able to go, because their parents can't afford to send them. It's no more complex than that. I'd like the Minister of Advanced Education to stand up and tell me the choice those families have and how they've got greater choice now. They're barely making ends meet. These middle- and lower-income families now have

more money ripped out of their pockets in tax grabs, and they have to pay double in tuition. Well, for an undergraduate that means a couple of thousand dollars more, at a minimum, per child.

Wait. There's more that family has to do. For the first year that child goes to university or college, it's all loans. This government has yanked $2,000 of grant money for that child out of the pockets of that middle-income family.

Let me just explain. Since 1987 there's been in place a system where first-year post-secondary students got a $2,000 grant for their education expenses from the provincial government. In fact, in the late 1990s the then government put that grant in place for four years. What did the Minister of Advanced Education do yesterday after doubling tuition costs? Well, she froze the budgets for all post-secondary institutions.

The institutions are saying, "But we needed more money," and the government said: "Oh, we agree, but we're not going to give it to you. We're too busy giving it away to corporations. We understand your concern. We feel your pain. The people who are going to pay to relieve that pain are middle-income British Columbians." Well, that's affecting the disposable income. That's affecting it.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did she come clean on that? Was that announced in the budget? Let me see. Was that announced in the minister's briefing? How did students find out they were going to have to pay that extra money, that $2,000 per year extra? Well, do you know what you had to do? Here's what you had to do in order to find out this massive cut that the government made yesterday without telling anyone, without telling a soul. You had to go to a website in the Ministry of Advanced Education, you had to make about three different clicks on a couple of links, and there it was — hidden, buried. "Oops, we're not going to give you the grant, student, for this coming year." That's open and accountable government, isn't it?

Anyway, you know what we're having to spend our time doing, besides answering questions from every single member's riding across the province? We're having to search through all of the documents of this government, search through every website, to find out exactly what was in the budget and how middle-income families' disposable income is being eroded, eroded, eroded.

I can hardly wait to hear how what the government did yesterday to students graduating from high school creates a better life for them. I can hardly wait to have them stand up and answer that question.

Anyway, we've only gotten so far to figure out what wasn't announced in the budget yesterday. Here's just a couple of examples. Most of these are represented by Liberal MLAs. We'll just talk about a couple of them.

The announcements around the ferries were very interesting. Again, that wasn't revealed by the Minister of Finance in his speech. Then we had to find out that ferry fares were going to go up by 3.2 percent every year. I wonder what consultation was done for that. I actually read the Coastal Council's document — the group of people who are the body that advises government on ferry service and ferry fares. You know what they said? "Don't increase fares. Don't cut service." I'm just curious to know who — and I'll be interested to hear — in this open and accountable government suggested raised fares.

Here's what also happened. This has not been reported yet. Ferry service is going to be reduced. Ferry fares are increased, and ferry service is going to be reduced. Here's one. This would be for the caucus chair of the Liberal government. This would be for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. There's actually going to be routes cancelled — the Marguerite on the Fraser River north of Williams Lake. The McLure route is being cancelled; the Little Fort route is going to be cancelled.

Of course, the government says that there are alternative routes available. Let's just see what the media have said about alternative routes available. This would be from the North Thompson Journal. I want everybody to know that I'm not quoting out of context. I know the poor government MLAs hate it when we quote them accurately. They want to say that we're fearmongering and misreading those words. I've actually got the whole article here. It's by Ann Piper. Here's what it says: "The end may be in sight for the British Columbia interior's six remaining reaction ferries, two of them serving the North Thompson Valley."

Then it goes on to say that this could be rumour and speculation. This was February 18. Now, as of yesterday, we know it wasn't rumour and speculation. Here we have it.

They'll now be facing the longest route since pioneer times because these services have been cancelled — yes, cancelled.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I have, as a matter of fact, to the Minister of Energy — lots of times. I've used the ferry lots of times. Don't try your regional chauvinism on me — okay? You have lots to answer for in your own community, so don't try and attack my information.

There's going to be reduced service for Kootenay Lake, Galena Bay and Françoise Lake ferries — down to 17 hours from 20. The Needles, Glade and Harrop cable ferries have reduced service. The Arrow Park cable ferry has reduced services. On and on it goes.

We know that there are going to be 24 courthouses closed. Here's one that you really had to search for, but boy, this is like what you…. You have to read between the lines.

This is our new symbol for "you have to read between the lines" — just like when you say you're putting students first and, oops, you find out that your tuition fees have doubled and you've lost a $2,000 grant, and like when you say you're putting patients first and you have people that need a mental health advocate literally frantic in the streets.

Well, this is one you've got to watch for: ongoing review of fees. That was announced in the budget yesterday. I can hardly wait for that. Do we think a government that broke its fundamental commitments on taxes is going to do anything other than increase fees? No. You heard it here first. The ongoing review of fees means more disposable income out of middle-income families and the poor and low-income families. My gosh. Middle-income families are being attacked over and over and over again in this budget.

Of course, here's another one we need to watch out for: the community charter. Local autonomy. There's a phrase we really need to watch: local autonomy. We know what that means for this government right now. It means downloading onto municipalities but giving them the right to raise taxes. We know this government loves to raise taxes and that they have no problem with that. Why not give it away to municipalities and let them raise taxes as well? Good news. Good news for the taxpayer. Not only does their provincial government raise taxes, but the provincial government is going to give the right to municipalities to raise taxes.

More disposable income. I don't expect the people who live in West Vancouver or Shaughnessy or Oak Bay–Gordon Head will be terribly worried about that. They'll probably be a little bit concerned, frankly, because they were misled and the government broke a promise — and the government's credibility will be affected by that — but they're probably not worried about whether they can keep food on the table or clothe their children. Middle-income families are in fear today, in great worry today, and low-income families are in despair.

What did several government MLAs say about all of this? Yesterday, of course, not only did their budget bring in an unbelievable draconian tax grab, they also brought in the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia, and they made the deepest cuts ever to public services in British Columbia. We know, of course, that those cuts in services are there because the minister is relying on those reduced services to people in order to balance his budget.

What did people say? I could find only one that was more dramatic than what we've already been talking about, and that's from the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, the Minister of Transportation. She said the cuts had to be made and, if anything, they didn't go deep enough. Oops. Gee, I wonder how her community feels this morning about her defence of them. I wonder how they feel about their member saying the service cuts need to be deeper and: "Oh, by the way, you're paying more in taxes."

Of course, she's just an added person that's actually telling the truth. I guess you have to give her some due for telling the truth, unlike many other Liberal MLAs, who just continue to stand up here and reiterate broken promises.

The Minister of State for Women's Equality told the truth as well. We were attacked viciously today because we told the truth about what the Minister of State for Women's Equality said. Well, gee, isn't it too bad. Let me just tell you what the reporter said about the Minister of State for Women's Equality. This isn't me saying this. Well, actually, the minister did say that the only remedy for people who…. She said she agreed that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, noting: "That's the world we live in, the world we've always lived in." The only remedy the Minister of State for Women's Equality suggests is: "Make more money." This is women she's talking to, the very people whose interests she is to protect at the cabinet table. "Oh, isn't that nice. We'll make more money." Of course, if you make more money, if you're middle-income here, the government just sees it as a way to take it away from you.

I just want to read the opinion piece that was attached to that article. The first article we read from today — and just got a bunch of bafflegab back from the government and no answers — was followed up by an opinion. This is in Advance News, Langley's first and favourite newspaper since 1931. This is an opinion piece. It's called "Make More Money," by Bob Groeneveld. He's the editor at the Langley Advance News:

Fear mongering? Not on your life. Abandonment of women by this government? You betcha. This budget has done more to attack women than we could possibly have imagined. And why? Because the Minister of Women's Equality says: "Oh, whatever. It's your fault, women. Just go out and make more money." No wonder the Premier felt completely comfortable to attack women at every turn in this budget. No wonder he felt that comfort.

The reality of this budget is that women, children, seniors, people with disabilities and B.C.'s poorest citizens are specifically targeted by the government's extreme, mean-spirited cuts. My colleague will be going into greater detail on that. But we know why now: because this government has abandoned women completely. Yesterday they abandoned the middle class in this province — completely abandoned the middle class.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to go over some things about what we wanted out of this government and what we were going to watch for in terms of a checklist of what we said we would be watching for. We said the budget may have been risky, radical and reckless. That's what we said in July of last year. That was last budget. We also put out a checklist of what we would watch in terms of the unfolding of the great economic strategy of this government. We set up that checklist.

I said the first one was the deficit. This was back in July, when that great 3.8 percent was forecast. I said we'd be watching the deficit to see whether the promise the Premier made that tax cuts pay for themselves would occur. The way that would be reflected, of course, would be a balanced budget — right? You give away money in taxes to the rich and the corporations, but money flows back in, and the books are balanced. That was the prediction. Well, what did we get on that? Oh, the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia.

We then went on to say that we would watch to see investment on the checklist, that we would watch to see how investment flows into this province. Well, that'll be interesting, won't it? This government's been elected for nine months, and the economy is in dire straits, and taxes went up yesterday. The now Finance minister used to rail throughout the 1990s that tax increases were investment killers. That'll be interesting. Certainly there's been no bright light shone on that at all.

Then we said we would watch disposable income on the checklist, as an indicator of the success of this government. Middle-income families woke up this morning being robbed. Their disposable income was stolen by this government yesterday. Disposable income as a check, as an indicator of the success of this government's economic agenda, is going down, down, down. Gee, we're not doing very well on the checklist so far.

Then we went on to say that we would look at services to people and how their quality of life would be affected by the services this government provides. I think we can see the quality of life the Finance minister predicts. There'll be more children put at risk, fewer criminals off the streets, fewer surgeries done and far fewer people able to collect welfare. That's what we predict about the quality of life.

We also said: "Let's look at that in the context of environmental protection." What do we get? We've got the Premier of B.C. signing a letter to the federal government saying: "Don't you dare implement the Kyoto protocol that will protect our air quality. Don't you dare do that." There's an indication of greater quality of life, isn't it?

We said we'd look at food banks to see how food banks grow or shrink in terms of the quality of life under this government. Well, we know what's happened to food banks over the last few months. Their demand is growing, growing, growing.

Another thing on the checklist was what the government will do for working conditions for working people, whether there would be peace brought to the province. That's gone, isn't it? The working conditions for people in this province have been destroyed, ripped asunder, made so anti-worker it's unbelievable.

Of course, there's more to come as this government changes the Labour Relations Code, rips up the Employment Standards Act, rips up the Workers Compensation Act, changes human rights legislation and changes tenants' rights legislation.

The next item on the checklist was what kind of opportunities there would be for individuals to develop and maintain the capacities and skills needed to thrive and meet life's challenges. Well, isn't that interesting? All the apprenticeship programs have been cancelled. Middle-income and low-income families can no longer get a post-secondary education. Training programs for youth have been thrown out the window,

and the Premier's idea of how to help laid-off forest workers and laid-off airline workers is to tell them there's a welfare system here. Well, even that's been attacked by this government.

Is the government planning on doing anything to assist in getting a better workforce? No. They ended, cancelled, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission — a group of industry people and trained journey people working together to plan to deal with the skilled shortages we'll be facing imminently. That's great planning.

Then we talked about…. Oh well, we've already talked about a diverse and sustainable physical environment with clean, healthy and safe air, water and land. Well, we know that's gone.

I'm afraid the checklist isn't standing up very well. I'm afraid the checklist that we said we would be monitoring the government with is getting failing grades — absolutely failing grades. It goes on and on and on, over and over. The things that we said we'd watch for and that British Columbians said, "Yeah, that's what we'll be watching for too," in terms of the success of the Liberal economic agenda, meet with failure after failure after failure.

There are those out there, though, that would say: "It doesn't have to be thus, and we don't want to have the pendulum swing so far away from the needs of middle-income families. We're tired of pendulum politics. We're tired of the polarization of this province." I join that group. I'm exhausted by the polarization of this province. It's wrong. It's bad for the people that my colleague and I represent in our constituencies. It's bad for British Columbians. It really is time for all of us to come together and figure out a way this province can move forward that takes everybody into account, not just the richest and not just the most powerful corporations.

It's time to stop the attack on the middle income. It's time to stop the attack on the low income. It's time to stop the attack on businesses. My gosh, businesses were hammered by increased business costs yesterday, hammered by increased costs for just offering services in this province. They were hammered by this government.

There are solutions. There are solutions to how we can stop the pendulum of politics swinging back and forth, back and forth. People are offering help. The opposition started as early as the early fall, offering, to the Minister of Finance, to participate in an economic summit. I think we'd even go as far as to say that we'll participate silently but that the Minister of Finance and the Premier should bring together business people, labour leaders, aboriginal first nations leaders and community leaders from all around the province.

They should sit down and rethink their economic strategy. We started making that offer in October or November, and we continue to make that offer today. There's much more to work with in terms of problems, much more need and urgency to stop the pendulum of politics, to stop the attacks on British Columbians in favouring the wealthy over the middle-income and poor. The budget was the perfect example of that.

Of course, there are others. There are others that are offering solutions. There were alternate budget solutions put forward earlier last week. Yes, it did come from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, but that's just one example of where we could have a rethink that doesn't hurt British Columbians and favour others, that doesn't have the biggest transfer of disposable income from the middle class and the lower-income to the wealthiest, that doesn't cut much-needed health and education services to the bone.

I'm standing here on behalf of my colleague and urging the Minister of Finance, urging the Premier, to stop this harm they're doing to British Columbia and to put on hold the draconian tax grab, the tax cuts to the high-income people and the devastating service cuts that disproportionately affect women, the poor and rural people and that disproportionately affect rural communities. Put those on hold, and let's get into a room and rethink what the future of British Columbia is, because this budget is a recipe for further devastation and further harm.

If the government has the courage to rethink the economic agenda, we will join in that rethink in a calm, open-minded way. We will sit and listen. We will offer our advice. We will also listen to the advice of others. But please, Mr. Premier, just take the advice.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and honourable members. I'm pleased to respond today to the budget.

Pick up any newspaper or talk to anyone on the street and it's clear to all that we're living in challenging times. Considering this, it's our duty, our responsibility, to seek creative and reasonable solutions, just as we're asking the people of this province to do.

I believe these solutions should be well-planned and flexible. We're learning that we cannot always be rigid. That which is rigid, when subjected to pressure, is liable to break, just like a bridge that must sway with the wind. Flexibility is the key, such as the timely reconsideration of the seniors' bus passes. Hopefully, we will continue to see such flexibility exercised in the face of any undue hardships in other areas that can be averted.

Hindsight often shows that not all solutions are well thought out. Something less than a complete reversal worked out in committee could have saved perhaps half of the $13 million annual cost of the bus passes while making sure that those who need them most still benefited from them. But what's done is done, and we can't keep reversing good policies in other areas because of a perception that they place our government in a bad light. It is the future of our province, not the advancement of spin doctors, that must be kept in mind.

If what's best for British Columbia is the rationale for change and if the decisions have been reached through genuine consultation with the public, then there's no reason not to proceed full speed ahead. We

can't play favourites. We can't discriminate in upholding this responsibility. Whether we're dealing with seniors, students, welfare recipients or unionized government employees, we must be even-handed. We must be impartial, and yes, we must be fair.

We need to trim the fat, reduce the scope of government and cut expenditures. Yes, we need to get the province back on solid fiscal ground. Yes, we need to get going on this right away as we have been — not indiscriminately though, but with the thought, the consideration and the caution befitting a responsible government. Everything we enact in this House has lasting implications, and as the saying goes, haste often makes waste. Let us not forget that our constituents will live with the impacts every day, far outlasting our tenure here.

The constituents I represent. Prince George–Omineca is like many other regions of this province, experiencing its share of cutbacks and loss of services. Vanderhoof has lost its courthouse, for example, and now people in this community, geographically at the very centre of British Columbia, will have to travel afar for justice services. My constituents are certainly shouldering their share of the provincial burden — not gladly, but stoically — in the hope that this government will get us back on track.

There is not one British Columbian who will remain untouched by the domino effect that this restructuring has set in motion. As representatives of all British Columbians — and that includes supporters and detractors of this government — we need to involve ourselves in local decision-making processes that will impact people's lives and livelihoods so that we can ease and contain as much of the negative effect or fallout as possible. This will require, on our part, compassion, commitment and competency. It will require empathy, concern and care for those affected most of all.

The days of believing that government will meet all of our needs are all but gone. This much is known. The look of government in our lives in the days ahead is not known, but a timeless biblical imperative is appropriate in these uncertain, changing times. Isaiah 1:17: learn to do right, to seek justice, to encourage the oppressed, to defend the cause of the fatherless, and to plead the case of the widow.

It's not wrong to have a change of heart for the sake of justice or to relieve hardship. It's not wrong to say sorry. When exercised with impartiality, mistakes can be minimized, and the backtracking, the costly retractions, can be prevented. To do what's right and to seek justice is indeed a lofty goal, and it's a difficult one, but let us remember that good government for all British Columbians is a just government and a government for all. Thank you.

R. Visser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to respond to our first full budget as a government.

For years — for me, probably well back into my high school days — I've always been fascinated by budget day: the secrecy, the tension, the focus on the Finance minister, how radios and televisions would break away for special budget day coverage, and the following days when commentators would dig through the documents and seek their meaning and the results of decisions that were made by finance ministers. Even the tradition of new shoes on budget day helped with my fascination, so yesterday was a great day for me — to be able to sit in this House and be part of this government. It was a grand day for British Columbia. It was a grand day, because for the first time in a long time, the people of this province have provincial leaders that are willing to govern. For the first time in a long time this province has a government that understands what that term "governing" actually means in all its facets, in good times and in times that are not so good.

This budget is a remarkable document. The budget is a sobering document for all British Columbians. It is a budget that will help define the next decade. I say that for two very important reasons. First and foremost it's because of the tough choices and the realistic measures. The Finance minister tabled a budget that controls the spending side of government and also provides the tools B.C.'s private sector needs to restart our economy and bring us back to being number one again in this country.

The second and, in some ways, more important one to me is that it is a budget that reflects the months of hard work by the Minister of Finance, by each of the ministers and by all of the private members. In many ways, for the first time in Canadian history it was a budget that was made out in the open for all to see. Ministry service plans have been tabled as companion documents to the budget, plans the people of this province have had in various forms for the past few months. Not only are targets for spending reductions there for the public to see but also the visions, goals and objectives for each ministry. The people of this province, for the first time in many years, know where we are going, and for the first time they can measure our performance.

This is a budget about tough choices. Raising taxes is the last thing the Finance minister, the Premier or even I as an MLA wanted to do, but we also committed to the people of this province that we would make the tough choices when we had to, and we've had to make some of those choices now.

I read not long ago in a paper by an American commentator on public policy that government has nothing to give anyone except what it first takes from someone and that government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this province has come very close to that precipice. I want to tell you that this budget pulls us away from that gorge and sets us on a path that restores hope and prosperity to this province.

The world changes, and we have to change with it. Critics would say this — the tough times we're going

through — is a made-in-B.C. phenomenon. Well, they are partly right. The mess we find ourselves in has taken a decade to construct. But in reality, the pressures of the global economy and certainly the economy here in North America have created problems for many, many governments. There are 39 states in the U.S. right now that are currently facing significant budget shortfalls. These pressures that exist on this continent compound our problems and require our government to take the difficult but correct path of getting our budget balanced as soon as we can.

Restoring sound fiscal management is one of the reasons I wanted to be involved in government. It is one of the things that had to happen. We need generally accepted accounting principles, we need open, honest and principled discussion of budgets, and all those facts and figures have to be laid out for the people to see so that we can make decisions about where we want to go as a province and the people can see why we make some of those decisions.

Many of these choices we've had to make are tough — they hit close to home as we go out in the evening with our friends and our families — but I think they're the right choices. For a long time in this province we have not been able to grasp the understanding that we have been living beyond our means. Every day those of us that were in private sector business or those of us that went home to our households knew that you can't spend more than you bring in, that it can't go on forever and that some day the choices you've made are going to come back to grab you. In the future, if you let it go too long, the choices you will have to make are going to be even sterner. I think that's where we are today. We've had to make some very difficult choices. It hasn't been fun, but it's been right, and it's been reasonable.

I think that for the first time for many Canadians…. If we look back at the history of how governments have adjusted themselves in size and relationship to their people and their economies, I think history books will judge us as being just and open and accountable. Once we're past that, I think this budget did a couple of things for us that are very, very important. That's about revitalizing the private sector economy so that we can get back to creating jobs again.

I come from a small business, and I can tell you that raising the small business taxation threshold from $200,000 to $300,000 brings us in line with other jurisdictions. It also gives us that competitive edge. All the small business folks that I know, that world that I lived in and still frequent today, put every dollar they can back in their business. It is into new people, new productivity measures, new equipment, new facilities — anything they can do to grow their businesses. We've stifled that for a decade. We've removed that from our discussion. It was never about that.

For the first time in a long time, when I go back to my communities and I talk to small business people now, they start to think in that way again. What can I do? How can I invest in the sector that I'm in that's going to make me more productive, that's going to give me that competitive edge, that's going to allow me to compete, not only locally but perhaps in the global marketplace? They are small forestry operators. They are tourist operators. They are small mining interests, aquaculture people, suppliers to the aquaculture industry. All those folks are looking at us as a government and finally agreeing that it's time to understand British Columbia again as a place that's good for investment and good for small business growth.

There are a number of things that happened in the budget yesterday which we've committed to and which the Minister of Finance made comment about that I think are very wonderful, especially for my part of the world, the North Island. He made a comment about coalbed methane. There's something new about that. We're going to develop — we are developing — a new royalty and regulatory structure for the development of this new industry. Coalbed methane provides 7 percent of the energy generated in the U.S. through electricity. It provides nothing in British Columbia at the moment, and we need to change that.

This program is particularly exciting for Vancouver Island, where today drilling has just been undertaken in a farmer's field just west of Courtenay. The exciting thing for the North Island is that there are optimistic estimates of reserves of between 500 billion and one trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane in a field that stretches from Nanaimo to Port McNeill. These estimates have a value upward of $500 million. It's one more sign that this province is open for business again: a drill rig is now in a farmer's field west of Courtenay looking for coalbed methane, looking for a way to invest in this province, looking for a way to develop our economies and looking for a way to make our communities stronger.

For many years I've watched the salmon farming industry develop on the north end of Vancouver Island. Our recent decision to allow for a managed expansion of this industry is going to provide for more new and exciting sustainable growth opportunities for our communities. I've watched this industry strive to become the most environmentally responsible operations in the world. I'm proud of our government's resolve to use sound science to make our decisions about the economy.

This industry has come a long way. It started back in the early eighties, when I left high school. I've watched them. I've visited their farms. I've been to the plants, and I've been to the suppliers, everywhere on the north end of the Island. I think it's 2,300 people who have full-time jobs working in the salmon farm industry there. It is phenomenal. The average age is well below the average age of any other industry which I have contact with. These people are young, they are vibrant, they are well-educated and in many cases they have science degrees. They go to college to get aquaculture technology degrees. They are excited about their future. They are excited about the fish that they grow and the products they produce and the markets they're developing around the world.

It is an exciting time for these people, and I'm very proud that we're part of a government that would recognize that excitement, allow it to flourish and allow it move forward in the most environmentally responsible way in the world. Through tough regulations, tough procedures, good monitoring and good science, I think this industry is going to be one of the ones that allows those communities — especially the ones that I'm from on the North Island, which have been hit the hardest over these years — to rebuild and grow again in the future.

All British Columbians should be encouraged by the comments made by the Finance minister about our forest industry. I know the people of North Island eagerly await any and all reforms that will get this industry back on track, producing wealth not only for our region and our communities but for the province. We did it for years, and we want to do it again.

We'll be moving to a market-based stumpage system. We need to do that soon. We will increase certainty on the land base with working forest legislation. We have needed that for years and have been sorely denied it. We will streamline the Forest Practices Code to make it workable. We have been buried in a mountain of red tape, a mountain of procedure. We have become the most unproductive forest industry on the face of this earth, and that is no longer acceptable. Most of all, we will introduce tenure reforms that will create the environment that will see this industry grow trees and grow a future for all of our communities.

There's one major issue that still hangs over this province like a black cloud. It can be seen in every community, and certainly it is manifest in this budget: the softwood lumber dispute. Last Saturday President Bush stopped in Alaska to address the U.S. and Canadian military that are currently stationed there. He said to the assembled crowd: "I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are here. I want to tell you something. We've got no better friends than Canada. They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom — this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."

On Sunday we demonstrated that commitment here in this city, as many of my colleagues in this House watched the HMCS Ottawa head for the Arabian Sea and the war on terrorism. It joins five other ships, as well as the men and women from the third battalion of the PPCLI and the JTF2, in the conflict area in Afghanistan.

The President of the United States is right: his country has no better friend. We have been holding up our end of the deal for some time, but it might have been nice if, while cruising in Air Force One through Canadian air space, and most certainly over British Columbia, he might have given a little thought to what was happening below.

Today thousands of forest workers across this province continue to be held hostage to unfair and unsupportable trade sanctions over the softwood lumber exports to the U.S. Today communities across this province continue to suffer from a trade policy that by all accounts is at its very best protectionist and unwarranted but, most importantly, unjustified and unbecoming a neighbour who calls us their best friend.

I'm frustrated and I'm angry. The Minister of Forests, the Premier and every single member of this House have made this our most significant and pressing priority. The minister has tabled reforms to our forest policy that any right-thinking individual would consider both significant and valid. They did not even do us the courtesy of returning the phone call until yesterday, when they finally showed up in Ottawa two months late to say it simply wasn't good enough.

At some point British Columbians and Canadians are going to say that enough is enough. This is not the way you treat your best friend, your neighbour or your closest ally. At some point we're going to get tired of being called their best friend.

This has been a troubling time, and we need strong leadership from our federal government now to take this message to the President of the United States. Friends don't treat friends the way they've been treating the people of this province and those workers in my communities that are sitting at home waiting for them to get off their butts and get a trade deal done.

These are challenging times for our province, and it's at times like these that dramatic and principled leadership is required. I'm proud to sit in this Legislature and hear these ministers stand and let us know the direction they're taking in each of the ministries they're responsible for. I admire their hard work and the passion in the way in which they've tackled their jobs, and I'm very proud to be a real and significant part of this team.

While it may be difficult and challenging, we all believe we're on the right track. We believe we have given the people of this province the tools they need to succeed. We believe we have given the people of this province the tools they need to build a future with.

We believe the actions we are taking will recharge the entrepreneurial spirit that was driven out of this province, and these tools are going to unleash the potential that I grew up with, that entrepreneurial spirit, that energy that existed here for so long. In a few short years we won't be having these challenging discussions. We'll be back on track, and we'll lead this country once again.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

L. Mayencourt: I want to begin by thanking the people of Vancouver-Burrard, the people that sent me here, and I want to tell them that it is a great honour for me to be able to represent their view, their hopes and their vision for British Columbia and to bring those views forward to this government. I want to thank the people that helped me get here, the people that worked on my campaign, my friends and my family members for their support.

The other day, during the throne speech, the Lieutenant-Governor mentioned three individuals that I want to pay tribute to now, because they were great British Columbians.

L. Mayencourt: The first was Justice Jay Gould. Jay Gould was the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard from 1949 to 1952. He was a great MLA, and he went on to serve this province with great dignity and passion in our Provincial Court system. Justice Jay Gould passed away a few weeks ago, and I want to pay tribute to him. The tradition and being in this Legislature means a lot to me, and so I honour the people that went before me.

L. Mayencourt: I also had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Cyril Shelford a few months ago. He had been the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Mr. Shelford came to this Legislature a few months ago, and I met him in the cafeteria. He was the guest of the current MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and I recognized him because I have read one of his books. He was an author and had published three books, and I wanted very much to meet him.

I met him in the cafeteria, and after that, I was having my lunch and noticed that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine brought forward a procession of new MLAs to meet Cyril. It was as if Cyril Shelford had come back to this Legislature just one more time to pass the torch to a new generation of MLAs. His message for us was clear: "You're doing a good job, but stay the course. It's tough-decision time, but you're doing a good job, so keep going and stay firm." It was a pleasure to meet him, and I respect him greatly for his contribution to this province.

L. Mayencourt: The third person mentioned in the throne speech that I want to mention is Norma Macmillan. Norma Macmillan was not just my friend. She was a friend to many British Columbians, to many Canadians and, in fact, to many North Americans, because Norma Macmillan was the voice of Casper the Friendly Ghost and of Gumby.

Norma Macmillan and I met several years ago because of her daughter, Alison Arngrim, who was the star of Little House on the Prairies, and Norma and I became good friends. She quite often took me to some of the important things in her life. She took me to her church, St. Paul's Anglican in the West End, and introduced me to her parish and her friends.

Then she took me to the 411 Seniors Centre down in the West End and introduced me. She was a great volunteer there as well.

She wanted me to know the people that make up our community, and she wanted me to understand some of their hopes and their dreams. Norma came to work on my campaign. Unfortunately, she passed away a short time before the election, so she wasn't there on election night. I miss her greatly, as does her husband, Thor Arngrim, her daughter, Alison, and her son, Stefan. I pay tribute to her today.

L. Mayencourt: It's been a great honour, as I said, to be in this House, but it has also been a great honour to serve on some of the committees that the government has set about the task of hearing from people in this province. One of those committees has been the Finance Committee, and together with many members of this Legislature, I got to travel this province and meet people in different parts of the province to hear what they had to say about our finances.

I also sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It's been a great experience for me. As a new legislator, as an ordinary British Columbian, it is very difficult to imagine the billions and billions and billions of dollars we bring in from this province and put to work to make a better tomorrow for the citizens of British Columbia. It's hard to understand that without talking to people and seeing what it's all about. I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve on those committees.

I also had the great privilege and honour to serve on a government committee that visited the people of the North Coast to talk about offshore oil and gas development. We met with people from all across the North Coast, from northern Vancouver Island to Bella Bella and Bella Coola to Kitkatla to Masset. We talked to people in the coastal communities there and to first nations bands. I heard people speak passionately about the responsible management of our natural resources. I heard from people that were looking for economic opportunity for their peoples and for their communities, and I heard from people that want a say in how we share the benefits of our bountiful resources.

I want to thank the Premier for the opportunities to serve this Legislature — and not just the citizens of Vancouver-Burrard but the citizens of British Columbia. Our Premier is a strong leader, and he has a great and clear vision. I am glad to say that he is staying the course. That's what people in my riding are telling me we should be doing. They know there are tough times for us right now, but they have told me, as they've told many members of this Legislature: "Please stay the course. We will share the pain with you, because we know in the end we'll share the gain."

The Premier has said that we're going to get our house in order. Well, Mr. Speaker, none of us could have imagined the mess the house was in, and it was left to us by the previous tenants. Yesterday our Finance minister spoke of the financial devastation that we have inherited. There is a challenge ahead of us, but I also see there is great opportunity. Our government has a plan to make our economy more competitive,

diversified and attractive to investors. Our government will build a strong framework to maximize growth and job creation so that British Columbia can restore its rightful spot as the best place to live and work in Canada.

Last May we were given an overwhelming mandate by the people of British Columbia to develop a plan and to rebuild this province, and we're taking that very seriously. We cut personal income taxes. We reduced corporate taxes, and we eliminated other taxes that were killing job creation in this province. We're working on the regulatory side of things. We know B.C. has been stifled by an overburdened regulatory regime. At the same time, we eliminated business subsidies set up under the previous government. We don't believe that government should be picking winners and losers in our economy, so we've levelled the playing field for all businesses. We believe that B.C. business can survive doing what it does best, and that's competing in a fair and balanced marketplace.

Our government has committed to being open and accountable, so we instituted open cabinet meetings, fixed budget and election dates and free votes in this Legislature. We've established the B.C. Progress Board to set benchmarks so that every four months or so we'll be able to show the people of this province how we're performing. We owe it to British Columbians to demonstrate that we're making progress.

The 2002-03 provincial budget delivers on three major government commitments: to restore sound financial management, to revitalize our economy and to put patients and students first. Our government's first full budget protects funding for health care and education, and it's a major step towards balancing the budget and maximizing the province's opportunities for new growth and increased private sector investment.

Our budget is reasonable. It's responsible, affordable and realistic. Budget 2002 sets out a plan to build a strong and vibrant economy for all British Columbians. It's about getting government right. Ultimately, it is a clear path towards renewed hope and prosperity for all of us.

Budget 2002 is the first to include three-year service plans for ministries and all Crown corporations. They're based on two main strategies: building a strong and vibrant economy and eliminating the deficit. A balanced budget is forecast for 2004-05, and we'll meet that commitment, Mr. Speaker.

Our fiscal plan is based on conservative revenue forecasts. Funding is being preserved, as I said, for health and education, while all other ministries have been asked to reduce spending by about 25 percent over the next three years. To show leadership in controlling government's costs, all of the members on this side of the House have taken a 5 percent pay cut, something that I encourage the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition member to do as well.

Our Premier and our cabinet ministers are accountable for spending within their ministries.

The budget reaffirms our commitment to maximize the value of B.C.'s resource sector while encouraging emerging industries that offer significant potential for growth. This means revitalizing the forest industry by moving toward a market-based stumpage system, introducing tenure reforms, providing greater certainty through a working forest base and by streamlining the Forest Practices Code. And I believe, as the member for North Coast mentioned, that we will be successful in negotiating a suitable conclusion to the softwood lumber agreement.

It's about accelerating the development of the energy sector through a new royalty and regulatory regime, encouraging the development of coalbed methane, building infrastructure projects to improve land access, and a single-window process to speed up and streamline the granting of energy permits. It's about supporting mineral exploration and development in this province. It's working with the Premier's Technology Council to make B.C. one of the leading places for technology. It's encouraging the private sector to join with government to create public infrastructure and services and to create alternative service delivery models, and it's about fostering growth in other sectors, including agriculture and aquaculture, as well as film, television production and new media.

I am very proud that our government will improve the Employment Standards Act. I'm glad that we're reviewing the WCB to make it more accountable and more in keeping with what the workers of this province deserve. We're instituting changes to improve the Company Act, to cut red tape, improve efficiency and encourage growth in our economy.

Another important initiative before us is the Olympic bid. I'm proud that the Premier has personally put so much of his time and effort into this important opportunity. Like Salé and Pelletier, our bid deserves the gold, and the Premier knows how to bring it home.

My riding, Vancouver-Burrard, will be especially blessed with a successful bid for the Olympics, but it's truly important that everyone in British Columbia understand and know what it will mean for the whole province and for our whole country. Bringing home the gold means jobs and opportunities for all of British Columbia. It means promoting British Columbia to the world.

In this budget we put patients and students first. Budget 2002 increases the Ministry of Health Services budget to $10.2 billion, up from $9.5 billion last year, to help us attract and retain the health sector workers that we need to provide a world-class health care system.

As the Leader of the Opposition stated a few days ago, we need to pay for the compensation increases in the health sector and thereby ensure that we can recruit and retain nurses, doctors and other skilled workers, so reluctantly, we raised the provincial sales tax to 7.5 percent, and the tobacco tax rate is increasing by $8 a carton. In addition, MSP premiums are going to increase as of May 1.

However, to protect our low-income earners, medical service premiums will actually drop or be completely eliminated for 230,000 British Columbians, and we've increased the B.C. sales tax credit for our poorest citizens by 50 percent. We've also protected those persons living with disabilities, our province's most vulnerable citizens, by increasing their tax credits for care and special needs.

We've streamlined and reduced the number of health authorities to save money and increase the value that patients get for every health care dollar we spend.

The Minister of Education is improving learning conditions with a budget of $4.86 billion, and the Minister of Advanced Education's budget is holding firm at $1.9 billion. Lifting the six-year tuition freeze will help colleges and universities provide access to the resources our students need and will protect B.C.'s high quality of education to build a stronger economy for all of us.

Budget 2002 supports the government's commitment to double the number of graduates in computer sciences, electrical engineering, computer engineering and other high-tech sectors in the next five years. That will help promote growth in our high-tech sector.

We're working with the B.C. universities and colleges to increase the number of medical school graduates, and we'll increase the number of student spaces for nurses and residential care aides over the next three years.

A few days ago I talked in this House about growth in my riding. Yes, it's true. Vancouver-Burrard is thriving. In every community in my riding this growth is evident, whether it be in Yaletown, Coal Harbour, Concord Pacific or the downtown south. A building boom is underway. Thousands of new homes and condominiums are being created. New retail spaces are being snapped up as people start to spend their tax cuts to finance their dreams, to fuel their hopes and build their tomorrows.

The member for Surrey–Green Timbers spoke a few days ago of a similar phenomenon in Surrey, where $800 million in building projects are underway. That's a record for Surrey. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson spoke of the same for his riding. The growth is not just in homes and towers. It's also in businesses, amenities, parks and new schools. It's all about creating safe and vibrant communities throughout this province.

I am very, very pleased that last month our province created 27,000 new jobs for British Columbians. That is a third of all of the Canadian total for that month. Ten thousand of those jobs were in the construction trades. Those are good, high-paying jobs, jobs that help people finance their dreams.

It's clear to me that British Columbia is on the mend. These early positive signs underline the importance of this government staying the course to address the important issues, to make B.C. creative, to make us competitive and able to meet the needs of all of our citizens.

These initiatives, difficult as they seem today, are really just the beginning, the thaw after a long, cold winter and the first signs of spring. Together we're nurturing new growth, we're encouraging British Columbia to blossom into a new era of hope, prosperity and bounty for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Finance minister for what is going to be a truly historic budget, one that will show British Columbians that we're serious, that we're prepared to take the tough steps to make our economy grow, to make our province better.

Hon. K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this House today to respond to the very first budget that has been presented wholly by our government.

One of the tenets of our position, I believe, has been that renewing health care is certainly one of our greatest priorities. Because I am one of the ministers with responsibility in the area of health care, I'm going to pretty much restrict my remarks to dealing with the area of health.

The first thing I'd like to say is that I think everyone in this House — and, surely, the people who toured the province with the Committee on Health — knows how much all British Columbians value our health care system. It is a value that Canadians have shared since the 1960s. For over 40 years the aspects of the Canadian medicare system have been very, very dear to the hearts of all Canadians.

I was one of those people who was actually very fortunate to be a child in Saskatchewan at the time that medicare was introduced there. I can recall being in my school in about grade 4 or 5 — so I suppose I was 8 or 9 or 10 — when Mr. Douglas, who was the Premier of the province then, actually started to experiment with some of the things which were ultimately to become part of the Canada Health Act.

We used to have a big van that rolled up to the school. Actually, I think that in those days it was more like a big truck; I don't know that vans were in, in those days. Anyway, this truck used to come up, and out of it would come a dentist chair. They would take the dentist chair into the basement of the school, and along would come a dentist, of course, and he would fix all the teeth of the children in the school. Some time later another truck would come along, and out would come an optometrist. The optometrist would do the same. He would come into the basement of the school and set up and test everybody's eyes.

It used to be a little bit of a joke in the community, because this was all very new, and people didn't necessarily trust it. I can remember my parents — and, I think, just about everyone else's parents — when all of this was over, trotting us all off to the city to have our eyes retested because they really didn't know whether they wanted to trust this newfangled kind of medicine or not.

That first exposure, I guess, to the beginnings of medicare remains in my mind, and I am reminded of that from time to time as we reflect upon the changes that I think we are going to have to look at in order to save medicare, to save those sections of medicare which we hold dear and to bring them into the twenty-first century.

I would like to review with you, for just a moment, the five tenets of the Canada Health Act, which we value a great deal. I think these are common, shared values of all British Columbians and all Canadians.

The value that we have a publicly administered system. "Publicly administered" means that there is a role for the government to play — the government as the embodiment of the public, in this sense.

A second principle of the Canada Health Act is comprehensiveness. The Canada health insurance plan will be comprehensive and will entitle people to coverage of those things which are defined in the act.

A third principle is universality, the principle that every citizen will be treated equally.

A fourth principle is the principle of portability, the idea that if we as a resident of British Columbia travel to Alberta or travel to Nova Scotia or to Newfoundland and we become ill, we will be entitled to treatment in that province.

The fifth principle of the Canada Health Act, which we hold so dear, is the principle of accessibility, the idea that health care is going to be accessible to all citizens of the province in an equal manner.

I have started out my remarks by suggesting that all Canadians hold those principles to be very valuable and very close to our hearts, but across the country, in every province, citizens and governments are realizing that maybe at this time, in the year 2002, we have to take a look at what those principles mean in the year 2002.

That is, of course, why we have committees of many, many different varieties right now looking into health care. On the national level we have Mr. Romanow who is touring the country and who will report later on this year. In this province our own member from South Delta has recently submitted her report entitled Patients First. In Alberta we have a report that was recently submitted to the Alberta government. I believe there is a Senate report which has come out very recently. All of them are involved in discussions about how we can ensure that we are going to be able to maintain the values of the Canada Health Act into the twenty-first century.