Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 11 -- Thursday, February 21, 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		1257

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1257
	B.C. Heritage Award recipient Stuart Stark	1257
	I. Chong
	Sale of Skeena Cellulose	1258
	B. Belsey
	James Bay Community Project	1258
	J. Bray

Oral Questions		1258
	Comments on women by Women's Equality minister	1258
	J. Kwan
	Hon. L. Stephens
	J. MacPhail
	Government support for students	1260
	R. Lee
	Hon. S. Bond
	Health care service delivery	1260
	R. Visser
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Early childhood services for aboriginal children	1261
	B. Belsey
	Hon. L. Reid

Tabling Documents		1261
	Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, Service Plan 2002-03 to 2004-05
	Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Service Plan 2002-2005

Reports from Committees		1261

Budget Debate (continued)
	R. Nijjar	1261
	Hon. J. van Dongen	1265
	J. Les	1269
	Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt	1273
	B. Locke	1274
	Hon. B. Barisoff	1277
	D. Hayer	1280
	P. Wong	1282

Tributes
	P. Wong	1282

Budget Debate (continued)
	P. Wong	1283
	Hon. R. Thorpe	1283

P. Nettleton: It sounds like a contradiction in terms. It's not. I'd like to introduce a reporter friend, Doug Brown from Prince George, and his friend, Charlie Hampton. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the gallery we have a very special visitor from Mexico. Guadalupe Albert is the consul general of Mexico at Vancouver. Consul General Albert has been a dynamic and very hard-working representative of her country in British Columbia and Alberta for the past two years. She will now be returning to Mexico to assume new responsibilities. Please join me in wishing her all the best in her future career. We trust that she will not soon forget our Pacific province.

J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to have a group of very hard-working deputy sheriffs and prison guards here in the Legislature. They're here on vacation, I should say. They're not here to do their job is what I'm saying — right now, anyway. They are Gary Ralph, Gary Robbins, Greig Simpson, Peter Dignard, Graham Trottman, Nathan Davies, Gary Renolds, Greg Engh and Garrick Marshall. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I must take the opportunity in an incredibly open, honest and multipartisan way to say: let's give our best to that women's hockey team today.

J. Bray: It's my pleasure to introduce two people in the gallery today from the James Bay Community Project. Hanne Fair and Vanessa Hammond work very hard with the James Bay Community Project, providing successful community health and social services to literally thousands of constituents in my riding. Hanne and Vanessa, along with many others, are helping James Bay to build a strong and healthy community, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: I only have one friend here today. I actually have more than one friend; I have two.

Anyway, today joining us in the House is a very good friend of mine, Mr. Richard Nash. He has come down to enjoy the activities here in the House. Would you please make him welcome.

K. Manhas: It's my pleasure to introduce two individuals to the House today from the beautiful Tri-Cities. Here today are Gene and Heather Vickers. Gene has, amongst other things, been a volunteer for the hospice and is a vice-president for the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce. He was named millennium man for the Tri-Cities in the year 2000. He founded the Port Moody Rotary Club, organized the first-ever Terry Fox run in Port Moody, has been involved in an unimaginable number of community organizations and is the best darn car salesman in Port Coquitlam.

Here today, also, is his beautiful wife, Heather, without whom Gene would not have been able to have accomplished all these things. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to introduce four people from Coquitlam who are in the gallery today: Kristy Ilic and her three children, Bianca, Max and Felix Fiedler. Would the House please make them welcome.

In a multipartisan way, I'd like to have the House wish the men's hockey team also much success tomorrow.

I. Chong: This week is Heritage Week, and as we near its end, an event is about to take place. That is the B.C. Heritage Award presentation. This evening in the Segal Centre of the Simon Fraser University Harbour Centre, a constituent of mine, Mr. Stuart Stark, will be duly recognized with an award. Mr. Stark is known for his work in restoring heritage landmarks throughout the province and the Yukon, including the birthplace of one of British Columbia's most beloved citizens, Emily Carr.

The province gives this award annually to people who have made a significant contribution to heritage in British Columbia. Award winners receive a $10,000 grant to be invested in a heritage-related non-profit organization of their choice. I understand that the Land Conservancy of British Columbia has been chosen as the beneficiary of this award.

Stuart Stark began his career in the history galleries at the Royal British Columbia Museum almost 30 years ago. Since then, he has worked on many restoration projects such as the chapel at St. Ann's Academy in Victoria, the courtroom at the Maritime Museum in Victoria, the sternwheeler SS Tutshi in the Yukon and the turn-of-the-century telegraph office in Dawson City. In addition, Mr. Stark has researched and authored an inventory of Oak Bay's heritage buildings, taught courses in building preservation and volunteered on Victoria's heritage advisory committee, Oak Bay's Heritage Commission and the Hallmark Society.

British Columbians appreciate the history and heritage of our province and of our country. We are grateful for the work done by many of our individual citi-

zens such as Mr. Stark, who has spent a lifetime promoting awareness. We all speak in praise of our communities in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, but it begins with praise of our particular constituents. This day I say hearty congratulations and thank you to Mr. Stark.

B. Belsey: Yesterday the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise completed the definitive sales agreement to sell Skeena Cellulose Inc. to a Montreal group called Northwest British Columbia Timber and Pulp Co. Ltd. This agreement is a major step forward in returning Skeena Cellulose to private industry, where it belongs. Let me be perfectly clear: this is a major step forward and not a completed sales agreement. The new purchasers now must work with the creditors to complete the judicial process to bring SCI out from under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The roller-coaster ride experienced by many of my constituents from Prince Rupert and Port Ed, as well as the constituents of the member for Skeena and the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine…. It has been a very stressful time. Time and energy demands that were placed upon many people to complete this deal have been staggering.

On behalf of all the families depending on Skeena Cellulose, I would like to thank those that worked so hard, so tirelessly, to complete this deal. To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, to his ministerial assistant and to the rest of his staff: thank you. To the mayors and councillors who worked so hard on this deal: thank you. To the union leaders and the members of their unions that participated so hard with this deal and held my feet to the fire, I say thank you. I thank the MLAs for Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine for their assistance.

For the creditors and NWBC, much work remains ahead. The achievement reached yesterday is but one of the necessary milestones. Your work will be challenging. It will require generosity and sacrifice. I ask you to keep foremost in your minds the families and the lives of the people living in the Pacific Northwest.

J. Bray: I'm pleased to advise this House of an amazing success story only metres away from this Legislature. The James Bay Community Project has been serving the residents of James Bay in the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill for over 25 years. The James Bay Community Project was established in 1975 for the planning, development and delivery of local community and health services. In 1984 it became a non-profit society, with all the residents of James Bay who are 16 years of age or older as voting members. The society has charitable status for its multisource funding and receives funds from federal, provincial and municipal organizations and governments, as well as corporate and community fundraising.

Mr. Speaker, the James Bay Community Project is a shining example of community helping community. The project focuses the community on meeting the imminent needs of people. These needs often change rapidly, and the James Bay Community Project ensures that resources are moved quickly to meet changing priorities.

Many services for families with younger children take place at the family resource centre. The centre offers a well-equipped children's play space with many resources for parents. The family resource centre is a friendly and caring place for parents, caregivers, grandparents, volunteers and children to come together to meet and enjoy activities, to learn and share information about parenting and to become involved in the community. In fact, with the project's focus on family services in James Bay, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has commented that the number of interventions needed from their staff has decreased.

The project also provides a multitude of services for youth and encourages youth to become active participants in their community.

The health clinic is one of the primary care demonstration project sites for the federal-provincial study on primary care reform. Given the sheer number of testimonials that I've received from patients in my community office over the last eight months, it is a soaring success.

The James Bay Community Project demonstrates how community can identify its own needs, develop local solutions and then engage the larger community in supporting those solutions, making governments only one partner out of many. I am proud to support the James Bay Community Project, because the James Bay Community Project works.

J. Kwan: Women in this province know what the Minister of State for Women's Equality does not seem to understand. They know that we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality between women and men. This week's budget makes things worse for women, with drastic cuts to services that are particularly important to women: child care, legal aid, welfare, just to name a few.

To the Minister for Women's Equality. Her comments are unacceptable and insulting to women in B.C. Women have lost confidence in this minister's ability to do her job. Will the minister do the right thing and resign?

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm pleased to rise and respond to these questions. I have to say that the comments to which the member is referring were quotes in an article attributed to me and do not reflect my comments or my

intent. I've written to the editor and asked for a full retraction and demanded that he set the record straight.

There can be no doubt about my commitment or the commitment of my government to women's issues in this province. There is much work to be done as long as women are still afraid to live in their own homes, as long as women are still subject to a wage inequity. Those are the issues that this government will be fighting for. These are the issues that this minister will be fighting for.

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

J. Kwan: Just a little bit of advice to the minister — what we've learned. You know, when you're found…

J. Kwan: ...to be in the wrong, it doesn't work to blame the media. The Minister for Women's Equality says she was taken out of context. The editor and the reporter, both of whom our office has been in contact with, conducted the interview, and they say otherwise. Furthermore, they offered the minister the opportunity to clarify her statements. Yet she stood by what she said.

Everything this government does and says demonstrates an attitude of indifference towards women. Given the minister's attitude towards women, it is no wonder that women are being hurt the most by the budget cuts.

To the Minister of State for Women's Equality. The minister does not seem to see the need for her own ministry. Those were her own words. She sees her role as a member of the executive council as a burden. Why does she not do the right thing, relieve herself of the burden and step aside and allow for a real advocate to be at the cabinet table to advocate on behalf of women — if that is possible at all with this Liberal government?

Hon. L. Stephens: It's very, very clear that there is much work left to be done for women in this province. This government is doing it.

We are ensuring that government programs address the social and economic inequities of women. We're providing intervention and prevention services to stop violence against women. We're developing a safer community strategy for women in shelters and transition houses. We're developing a long-term strategy to encourage the expansion of safe and affordable child care spaces for the women in this province. We are developing a provincewide perspective for the delivery of women's services.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have protected funding to transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing, counselling for women and counselling for children who've witnessed abuse. We're going to continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting that this minister stands and blames the media? She only does that when she was caught out with her own words. Did she stand immediately when the interview was published and say: "You've got it wrong"? No.

The truth is in the actions of this government. The government has cut day care programs — cut them. It's cut minimum wage, which is disproportionately earned by women; cut support for low-income single moms; cut home support services, which are now going to have to be paid for by women; cut inner-city school funding, which disproportionately affects single-income families headed by women — all of which impact women far more than any other aspect of society.

Why doesn't she just admit that her government doesn't care a whit about women's place in the economy, because that's what she truly believes? Why doesn't she just step down?

Hon. L. Stephens: The biggest cut of all was in the last election when we were cut to two members of the opposition.

This government is committed to providing services for women and children in this province. This minister is committed to those programs and services as well. We've laid out quite clearly what we are working on. We've laid out quite clearly through our service plans, which are available to everyone on the website, exactly what we are going to be doing to further women's economic and social objectives in this province. We're following through on a new-era commitment in pay equity. We have a report that is going to be available at the end of this month. We are committed to giving women and men the safeguards and incentives that they need to participate fully, accurately and economically in the economic opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, Mr. Speaker. This minister responsible for women in this province stands up and first of all tries to blame the media when she's caught out. Then she refers people to her website or the service plans. What the service plans contain are a repeal of pay equity legislation and cuts to child care so that a middle-income family will now be paying $1,100 more per year per child for child care because of this government.

She says her ministry is a sunset ministry. She's saying we're moving toward that sunset. Now she stands up and instead of taking responsibility, instead of admitting that these are her true views and that perhaps she should take on other tasks, she starts to blame others.

Why doesn't she just do the right thing for 51 percent of the population and step aside? Maybe we can find someone else amongst these other MLAs who actually understands and believes that women deserve an advocate at the cabinet table.

Hon. L. Stephens: I don't know how much clearer I can be on what this government is doing to address the economic and social issues for the women in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Stephens: If the members opposite would listen to what is being said, perhaps they would understand.

The years that I was in opposition and introduced a domestic violence bill as a private member's statement in this House…. Since 1995…. What did the members opposite do when they were in government? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They don't care. They never did care. They still don't care.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Critics are saying that recent government decisions are not putting students first. As my riding is close to Simon Fraser University, many of my constituents have been calling me and asking for clarification of the issue. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell us whether those reports are true?

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today and say that our government is putting students in this province first. At a time of incredible fiscal challenge in this province, our government committed…

Hon. S. Bond: …over $6 billion in this province to protect services to students and to work with them. I'm proud — more than $6 billion in education and advanced education.

R. Lee: I understand there have been changes to the B.C. student financial assistance program. Could the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what those changes are and how they will affect the benefits of students?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have made changes to the student financial assistance program and moved some of the grants to loans in the first year. Having said that, the part of the story that seems to be missing is the fact that it will allow more student financial assistance — in fact…

Hon. S. Bond: …$15 a week more for students with no dependents, which will give them, in fact, $500 more over an eight month period.

In addition to that, we realize that some students may be challenged at the end of their post-secondary experience. We're going to enhance their ability and help them pay back those loans in an appropriate way. We're also going to ensure that we have the ability to help as many students as possible. That's why we made that decision.

R. Visser: My question is for the Minister of Health Services. In December a major restructuring of the province's health regions was announced, and many of the residents of the North Island are concerned about the impacts on their health care. Can the minister tell my constituents how many of these changes will fulfil the government's new-era commitments to provide health care to British Columbians and people of the North Island where they live and when they need it?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the commitments that we made in our New Era document and during the election campaign was that we were actually going to get out and listen to British Columbians about the health care they want. The Health Committee of this Legislature had never sat since 1993. One of the first actions of this government was to activate the Health Committee. It went around the province; it listened to the views of British Columbians. We are making sure that gets incorporated into the health plans for the future of this province.

Part of redesigning the health authorities that the member mentioned is making sure that every single health dollar that is available gets concentrated on patient care. It is not absorbed with the huge administrative structure that the previous government had in place but rather is focused on patient care from community to community around British Columbia. These are the kinds of changes that we were elected to do, and these are the kinds of changes that we will continue to implement.

R. Visser: Under the previous government there were lots of changes to the health regions, and many of them had little or no success. Can the minister please tell my constituents that the changes we've made now are going to be more successful than the ones we've done in the past?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would say that one of the biggest mistakes that the previous government made in their restructuring was the endless micromanagement of health care from the Ministry of Health in Victoria. Communities throughout British Columbia were crying out for the ability to manage the effective delivery of health care in their communities. That is what we have delivered under this new structure. By going from 52 health authorities to six, we have been able to consolidate services, we have been able to reduce the amount of money that is spent on administration, and every dollar saved is being directed into patient care in British Columbia.

In terms of the ministry itself, we have tried to show that leadership. We have seen in the past the duplication of service between what was provided for by the Ministry of Health and by the local health authorities. What we have done under this new direction is streamline the administrative costs at the Ministry of Health itself. We are actually going to see a reduction of 43 percent in the administration costs of the central ministry, and I think that's good news for British Columbians, because every single dollar saved is going to be directed into front-line patient care.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. Helping children to get a healthy start in life is an important factor in whether or not they will live a productive life. Aboriginal children have not always received the appropriate early childhood services from government. To the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development: will she share with us today the steps that she is taking to help support the development of young aboriginal children?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm absolutely delighted to respond to this question. Those of you in this chamber who know me well will know that I live and breathe early childhood development every single day, both personally and professionally. In terms of the aboriginal children of this province, my government has made a significant contribution. We've invested $8 million. Those dollars will go into these 25 communities that have come forward with plans on how best to treat the youngest citizens of this province. That successful RFP process has concluded. Those dollars will be in the hands of those communities within weeks.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, Service Plan 2002-03 to 2004-05; Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Service Plan 2002-2005.

J. Kwan: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament, entitled Review of Auditor General Reports. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

J. Kwan: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit moving of the motion to adopt the report.

J. Kwan: The report has undertaken a variety of reviews that have been proposed by the auditor general. The committee, by and large, agrees with the suggestions of the auditor general, with the exception of one area, and that is performance reporting. The opposition within the select standing committee has suggested that the auditor general's report on the recommendations around performance reporting be adopted in their entirety. However, the committee had a different view of that, and amendments were proposed relating to the performance review of government. All of the information is contained in the report.

At the end of the day, the committee has put together a report that I think is a good one. It acknowledges the auditor general's report in a variety of areas, and I'm looking forward to future reports from the auditor general.

Mr. Speaker: Budget debate will continue in a moment, as soon as the House clears, with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

R. Nijjar: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to the budget speech.

I have, especially over the last several months leading up to the budget, heard the concerns of many of my constituents. I have met with every organization that has asked me to meet with them, including parent advisory councils — PACs — attending schools to speak to students, even speaking with teachers one on one. I

have met with boards from, say, Collingwood Neighbourhood House area services committee, which is a monthly meeting of all the societies and associations that get together to talk about common issues in Vancouver-Kingsway.

I've gone out of my way to make sure that I listen to their concerns, meeting them for two, two and a half or three hours at a time, allowing them to give questions and responding to questions as they see fit. I've answered every single one of my e-mails personally, responded and written to the letters that I have received. I have written a letter to every single constituency organization asking them to set some time to meet with me if they so wish and making myself available.

I have had the minister responsible for child care come to my riding and go to the community centres that provide day care. I have had the Minister of State for Mental Health come to my riding to speak to those that are concerned about mental health issues and that provide services. The minister responsible for early childhood development is scheduled to come to my riding, along with the Attorney General, to speak to the crime prevention offices.

I have heard what the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway are saying, and I continue to hear them. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I say to them when they raise their various issues when it comes to the budget speech — and the throne speech, for that matter. I'd like to outline that. It'll be part of my comments here today.

I'm going to talk about the principles upon which the budget speech was written and why it is the way it is. The budget speech, as I see it, has two fundamental principles. One principle is that we as elected officials are here to serve the long-term interests of British Columbians as a whole. There are many interests that our constituents have. They have immediate interests. They have interests right now for their health care and educational issues.

Yes, you work to serve those, but if you are a responsible elected official and a responsible government, you are going to look beyond today and people's immediate needs or immediate satisfaction. You're going to look beyond the four years that happen to be the length of your term. You're going to look after the long-term interest of your public. That's your duty.

We have had a budget delivered last week that is unlike the budgets that we've had in the last ten years in that fundamental principle. It is our duty not to serve certain interests of our community. It's our duty to weigh it against all the interests.

I respect the fact that the two colleagues that sit opposite — the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — have their constituencies to represent. My constituency isn't single, nor do I hide behind the comments of one single constituency, pretending that I represent a whole segment or all of the population.

This fundamental principle of our budget is that our job — and our budget reflects this — is one of changing the direction of government from what we call a cost-policy government to a result-policy government.

Cost-policy government is when you have elected officials who say: "We have our issues; we have a problem." Let's say it's the youth unemployment rate, which is very high. "Let's develop a lot of programs. If we develop programs, we can stand up to the public and say we have developed programs to deal with youth unemployment." That's what we had the former government do. Then people who read the headlines in the newspaper say: "Well, we have a youth unemployment problem, and the government says they've created programs. So that means they're dealing with it."

If you really care about your constituencies and, as I have said to the boards of directors and the area services that I have met with, if you really care about youth unemployment, you don't look at the programs that you've delivered and say: "This is what we're delivering." You look at the result of what you have delivered, because it is the result that counts.

We will no longer be a government — and this is what the budget reflects — that says cost equals result. Results will be measured, and we as government are now responsible for our policies insofar as the result it creates. As I told the youth that attended the meeting last week in my office, although we have cut youth training programs as they may be — a variety of them — our job is not to create programs; our job is to deal with the end result. The end result under this former government was that youth unemployment in British Columbia was the highest of any province west of Quebec.

You ask me, and let the public tell me — phone in to my constituency office, e-mail my constituency office, mail it to me and tell me: what am I responsible for? How do I answer to you? Do I answer to the fact that we have the worst youth unemployment rate west of Quebec, or do I answer to the fact that we as government create many programs? The result is what counts, and it is very easy for us to sit here as elected officials and say: "We've created programs, so we're doing our job." Politically, that's easy. Politically, we saw that happen not just for the past ten years, quite frankly, but past beyond that.

This is no attack against the former administration. This is the reality of what happened in this province for many years — a cost-policy government — and what has happened throughout Canada and in the federal government. Many governments are changing. We're behind the times.

As far as I see it, the great thing about our budget speech that was delivered is that it's moving to a results-based, accountable budget and government. The significance of that is: not only is government responsible now for the outcomes, but so are other organizations — whether they are regional health authorities like the one in my area or whether they're school

boards like the Vancouver school board and the many others throughout British Columbia. They are accountable, and, yes, it's not going to be easy for them either. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Universal day care is something the member for Vancouver-Hastings loves to bring up over and over again, and it was brought up again in question period. I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to address that issue. If we're going to be a results-based government…. Let's look at day care services. The former government brought in universal day care. Yes, it sounds great on paper, doesn't it? It's great to have an ideology. It's great to believe in socialism. It's great to try to deliver socialism. However, again the result is what counts.

I ask the public: what is most important? Is it that somebody that's earning $8 and $9 an hour should subsidize the day care of somebody that's earning $80,000; $90,000 and $100,000 a year? Is that what's fair? Is that what is reasonable? Universal day care is great, if we had billions and billions and billions of dollars to spend. Sure, let's subsidize the day care of a couple that makes $120,000 or $130,000 a year.

The reality is: (1) we don't have that money; (2) it doesn't matter whether we did. The principle is wrong. Day care services funded by the public are supposed to be for those that need the assistance. We as elected officials are accountable to make sure that children are cared for.

Did we do away with the former government's universal day care program? Yes. The member for Vancouver-Hastings will then stand up and say: "Look what you have done to day care." What have we done? We've done what we should have done to make it reasonable. The day care program that they brought in will continue till June 30, as it was so scheduled. The minister responsible for day care, the Minister of State for Women's Equality, came to my riding, spent many hours with my constituency organizations and told them — as I have many times — that day care services will continue to June 30, and our job is to make sure that the service continues beyond that, based on a reasonable structure, assisting those that need the assistance.

When I meet with my constituency organizations that deliver day care, they don't say: "No, you're wrong." Of course they don't, because they know we're not. It makes common sense. No, it's not an ideology; no, it's not an "ism," and no, it doesn't back up any one interest group and help them to get their workers in there and increase their wages and benefits and structure it so that it benefits those that fund the election campaigns of certain members. It doesn't do that. What it does do is serve the people that it's supposed to serve — that's the public — and, especially in this particular issue, those that need day care services.

I also met with — as many of my colleagues have — those who choose to protest at our constituency office. We have invited representatives in, and so we should. The HEU, Hospital Employees Union, picketed my office. They told me they were coming on a particular day, and I said: "That's fine. I'll make sure I'm there. If you so wish, I will meet three, four or five of you who are from my riding. Come into the office. We'll sit down, and we'll speak. I shall explain our views and my view as to why I voted a certain way. When we meet, we will discuss for as long as you wish to discuss, and when we're finished, you promise to leave in an orderly fashion." We did that, and I know they appreciated it, because they said they had appreciated it after.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the conversation was long, but in the end they asked me: "What can we say to the members outside when we go outside and speak to them? What can we say to our fellow members about what you're doing to protect our jobs?" I said to them then what I say to the public and what I say now: "Yes, my job is to help structure a system that allows them to be employed and provide the services they do within the context of the service that they're providing, within the context of health care, within the context of all the other things that must be provided in health care."

"What is important for you to say," I said, "if you're going to say anything, is that I as a member am not just responsible for you and your job, but responsible for your health care. Every one of you will use health care again. What am I doing for you? I'm making sure that your health care is there for you when you will need it." And so it should be that way.

Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. I respect their view, and they respect my responsibility, which is to serve the interests of all of the people of my riding and to serve all their interests.

We have tried very hard with our three-year service plans. Every minister has. As I was on government committees working through the three-year service plans, I worked very hard to make sure that we analyzed every single program and every single dollar that is spent and to spend it wisely. What we're trying to do — the budget reflects this, and in the weeks leading up to the budget all the announcements that were made reflect this — is take care of those that need the most help within the context of our ability to pay for programs.

With that in mind, MSP premiums went up because we need more money in health care. However, MSP premiums went down or were completely eliminated for 230,000 lowest-income British Columbians. Do the members for Vancouver-Hastings or Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ever bring that up? No. Why? Because that does not serve their public relations interests of trying to pretend that they serve the low-income people and those they call disenfranchised.

We do not do PR, because we're trying to spend government money in the proper way. We do not have a $500 million campaign paid for by a certain segment of the population backing us up and certain organizations. We haven't spent a penny on advertisements ourselves. Our message is getting out there because we passionately speak about it in our communities.

That is not to say that while we make changes, we will not make mistakes. Of course we will. The Premier admits it himself. Every one of us admits that of course there are mistakes. We are making changes for the long-term interests of British Columbians. In the process, things are not perfect, but (1) that should not stop you from making those changes; and (2) you should have the integrity to analyze and reanalyze the programs you're delivering and make the changes over the months and years as they are required.

The constituency organizations I meet with understand what we are doing. The very people who deliver the programs, which these two members opposite say they represent, understand what we're doing. They're not against the general direction. What they are worried about — and this is why they asked for meetings that last for two or three hours — is certain particular aspects. They need clarification, or they're worried about a certain direction. They're worried about a certain speed of change.

Yes, we work together on that, because I am a member of Vancouver-Kingsway. I live on the east side of Vancouver; I was born there. My home is there. That's where I raise my family. Community centres and the services they provide are important for me outside of my job at the Legislature, because I will use those very services. My children will go to the very schools of which we speak. Of course we sit down at the table, and we speak together and work over these issues.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the issues that are brought up by these two members do not reflect the sentiment with which these people speak. It may reflect the sentiment with which union executives speak. It may do that very well. I also respect that all of us have been elected here democratically. You have a right to campaign as you wish and be elected as you wish and represent how you wish. If those members wish to be the voice of union executives, then that's fine, but let's be clear about who they represent.

British Columbians deserve at least to know what the game is. There may be 50,000 or 60,000 people here on the weekend, but that's irrespective of the fact that the silent majority of British Columbians realize and accept what we're doing as something we must do. Not a single member in the government caucus sat there in the months of October, November, December and January — especially in January, when we were finalizing the budgets — and said: "Yes, this is something I want to do. This brings me pleasure." Of course not. Bills 28 and 29 aren't something you do easily, but it's something you do if you're responsible to all British Columbians.

One thing I've noticed, no matter where you look in this world and at what time you look, is that a good government that represents all people really makes no one too happy. The real road is somewhere down the middle. It's very grey. In that respect, I'm happy to say that the budget hasn't made anyone too happy. But people realize what has to be done.

Two of the issues that are brought up over and over again — and that the two members opposite often like to bring up — are the speed of change and the tax cuts. I'd like to address those two issues.

Speed of change. This world is in a recession. We are going to get out of that recession sometime. We are seeing numbers from throughout the world, from the United States and from here in Canada and in B.C. showing us that we are starting to get out of it. Experts throughout the world believe that by mid-2002 and especially in 2003, we'll be recovering. Investment will be out there. Companies will be looking to mine. Investors will be looking to invest. If British Columbia isn't ready at that time a few months from now, when investors and dollars are being knocked around from country to country, we are going to lose out on investment yet again, as we did throughout the nineties. Do I care about investment? Yes. Does this government care about investment? Yes.

Timing is of paramount concern. We cannot afford not to make the changes immediately. Yes, we did it thoughtfully. We did it as thoughtfully as we possibly could. We did not do across-the-board cuts. We did not cut certain ministries. We increased certain ministries, such as Health, by a billion dollars. Obviously, a government is concerned about decreasing the size of spending within the context of how much we value the services we are delivering. That's why MSP went down for certain people, and that's why we increased spending on health care by a billion dollars. We did not cut across the board. We have to be ready for the upswing. The world's going to recover, and we're looking for investment.

Tax cuts. Tax cuts were right before the election. Tax cuts were the day after the election. Yes, September 11 happened, and, yes, there was our ongoing issue between the Ministry of Forests and the U.S. There was a world recession. But let's be clear about something here: we were one of the most highly taxed jurisdictions in all of North America, but we didn't have better services than other jurisdictions. Clearly, there's a problem here.

This is not a political statement. This is not us versus them. This is nothing against the former government. The reality is that we were one of the most highly taxed people in North America, yet our services did not reflect that. There's a problem. Either you're paying too much, or your money is being wasted when it's given to government. Quite frankly, the truth is both. You were paying too much, and government wasn't using it wisely.

The tax cuts we made are bringing the public on a par with other jurisdictions. This isn't something novel. This isn't something drastic. We're bringing you on a par with other jurisdictions. That's an even playing field. That tax cut was right across the board, regardless of what the members opposite say. It was 25 percent across the board for every British Columbian.

Now, separate from that, we cut taxes — for example, machinery tax, capital corporate tax, investment

When I sit down with people in my riding — single mothers and those working to provide programs and training for single mothers and youth — what do they care about? They care about whether there's a job or there isn't a job. Is there an opportunity for this person, or isn't there? They don't spend their time worrying about investment and corporations.

I don't worry about corporations; that wasn't the point of the tax cut. It's what the corporations can provide. They provide jobs in our communities. Why do we want investment? It equals the very thing that these two members are speaking about: jobs. If you care about those day care services, programs for youth, services within your community, social assistance, and so forth, then you'd better start caring about investment. You'd better start making the connection.

The two members opposite, after ten years, still fail to understand that the reason why this government supports investment isn't because we're buddy-buddy with big corporations. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone in big corporations. I'm a regular guy from the east side of Vancouver, but I care about a corporation's investment because it delivers the programs I want.

They are not going to come here unless you make it fair for them to come here. That doesn't mean you give them tax cuts way beyond any other jurisdiction. That means you just make it fair. There's not a single person I met with, who these two members purport to represent, that disagrees with what I have said. But while those two members know what I say is true — I have no doubt they know that — they will never admit it. The union executives will not allow them to admit it.

Along with our change in direction of government that the budget has illustrated — a moving from cost policy to result policy — is the accountability. I'm going to speak about that accountability in the context of the Ministry of Education.

In the Ministry of Education, in Bill 28, we made changes to who has certain responsibilities, who will make decisions and what public policy will be. It was done in the interest of the public, in the interests of all constituency organizations. We do not have a $5 million campaign to tell the public our one-sided story, as certain organizations did, so we'll take this opportunity to explain it in full.

The public make choices when they elect school board trustees. They make those choices based on what those school board trustees say they will do with the funds they get. Those trustees, therefore, are supposed to have the ability to make public policy decisions. Why? That allows the public to hold them to account.

When public policy decisions are taken away from the very people that the public elect and are put into contracts, then there's no accountability. It's a fundamental principle here. It is wrong to have public policy decisions made by any organization or person that is not elected.

When it comes to class sizes, the government did not put the control of class size in the hands of the school boards. They put it in law. The accountability is right here. Kindergarten size went down from a strict 20 to 19. Grade 1 to grade 3 went down from 22 to 21. Does the union tell its members that? No. Of course not.

Is there flexibility within those numbers? Of course. Should there be? Yes. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said there was flexibility. All you had to do was ask the union to let this student into this class because of so forth and so forth.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'd like to remind you of the time. I'd like to remind you that your time's up.

The point is that we have changed direction from putting policy where it should be. Either we are accountable, or school trustees are accountable. School trustees will now have to work with that responsibility. Some of them are unhappy, but they will have to deal with that responsibility. That's where the buck stops.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and to address what I believe are the fundamental principles of the budget speech and the throne speech.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's a privilege for me to rise today and speak to the budget that was recently tabled by the Minister of Finance.

I want to take this opportunity to spend a few moments talking about my constituency, the new constituency of Abbotsford-Clayburn. Then I will make some comments about the budget and the government's plan and how things within my ministry fit into that plan.

Abbotsford-Clayburn was created as the result of a boundary realignment within the Fraser Valley. It is a great constituency to represent. This constituency includes many important historical features, a broad cross-section of agriculture and agribusiness and a place of higher learning in the form of UCFV. It includes many of the seniors care homes in the city of Abbotsford. It includes a mix of old and new residential areas. It also includes the aging MSA General Hospital. I should also mention that the constituency includes the site for the new hospital and regional cancer treatment facility that we as a government have committed to build.

The University College of the Fraser Valley is over 25 years old and has become the major centre of post-secondary learning in the Fraser Valley. I'm very pleased to have that in my constituency and to work with that institution.

Clayburn village, Matsqui village, the original downtown core of the city of Abbotsford and the MSA Museum provide insights into the area's history.

Abbotsford-Clayburn is a key hub in B.C. agriculture with more feed mills, farm equipment dealerships and farm suppliers than any other constituency in B.C. Food-processing plants are well represented with ma-

jor fruit, vegetable and dairy processing. Farm production includes a whole range of commodities including dairy, blueberries, raspberries, hogs, chickens, eggs, turkeys and a host of other commodities. In fact, agriculture in the city of Abbotsford is a $300 million-a-year business, and it's a bit of a fortuitous coincidence for me to be able to represent a riding with a serious presence of agriculture.

The greatest feature of Abbotsford-Clayburn is its people, from the old-timers in the area — and I'm thinking in particular of our illustrious mayor, George Ferguson, who can tell us about what it was like when he was a child — to the recent settlers, many of whom are commuters who enjoy living out in the Fraser Valley.

Abbotsford-Clayburn is a great place to live and work. I invite each of my constituents to join me in working together with the new provincial government to develop a vibrant economy and a vibrant community.

I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank my constituents for their support, their concerns, their criticisms and their ongoing dialogue. I particularly want to mention health care workers and teachers, who I think have been very professional in the carrying out of their duties through some difficult times.

I'd like to take a moment, in speaking to the budget and speaking clearly in support of the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled, to talk about our priorities as a government. The government made a commitment to British Columbians that we would revitalize the economy and that we would get our province's finances in order. Certainly, that is one of the key reasons I ran for office. I'm totally personally committed to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

Our goal as a government is to fix the economy, to rebuild our health care system and to balance the budget by fiscal 2004-05. We want the world to know that British Columbia is open for business. We understand the critical need to encourage investment by lowering taxes, making government services more affordable and reducing regulations.

Some of the early decisions we made…. British Columbians now pay the lowest rate of income tax in Canada on their first $60,000 of income. The top marginal tax rate is the second-lowest in Canada, effective January 1, 2002. B.C. businesses will see their corporate income tax rate fall 3 percent to 13.5 percent. It's a good thing for our small businesses to see that change.

Another change that we've made is the threshold for the lower corporate rate being moved from $200,000 to $300,000, bringing us more in line with other provinces. We will also eliminate the corporate capital tax by September 2002. That, again, is a critical need to ensure that we are competitive with other areas and that we don't tax investment — that we simply tax profits as opposed to putting up disincentives to investment. These measures will fuel consumer spending, encourage business investment and help our province be more competitive.

We as a government are making clear choices. We are making choices to make health care and education more efficient. We need to be able to meet the health and education priorities of British Columbians.

In addition to our efforts to make these ministries more efficient, we are also increasing the budget for health from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion — a 7.3 percent increase. Health care is the fastest-growing expenditure within government. In the years that I've been an MLA, I've seen it grow from less than $6 billion a year to over $10 billion.

We've also made a commitment as a government to maintain our level of spending in education, both in post-secondary and in the K-to-12 area. We're committed to that critical need for British Columbians.

These are often not easy decisions to make, but they have to be made. In many respects, particularly with respect to the fiscal reality, we have no options. British Columbia faces a large deficit and a history of spending more than we take in. The June 2001 independent review — this was the fiscal review panel — showed government spending out of control. It projected a $3.8 billion deficit and unsustainable growth in health care costs. In the fall of 2001, B.C. was faced with the added pressures of a global economic downturn and the impacts of September 11, as well as the softwood lumber dispute.

I've watched over the last ten years as B.C. has run deficits of nearly $2 billion a year every year — $2 billion a year, Mr. Speaker. In the last decade, provincial debt has doubled from about $17 billion to over $36 billion.

We spend close to $1 billion each year just to service our debt, and that's not counting Crown corporations. These debt service payments are the first charge we pay against revenues. These dollars are not available for program spending, and this is why it is so critical for us to arrest the growth of debt. We cannot afford to do this anymore. It is not sustainable. We must get spending under control. Government today cannot afford to be or to do all things for all people. We must learn to do more with less. We must be more frugal with tax dollars and more strategic.

The core services review was about defining the business of government and setting priorities around what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. The core services review asked the questions: what do we really need to do as government, what is the compelling public interest for doing these things, and is government the best agency to do it?

We also want to make sure that our government is one that is helping people, not intruding upon their lives needlessly or acting as a disincentive to business and investment. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the budget that was tabled includes the development of three-year service plans for each ministry that are designed to help get spending under control and to provide British Columbians with programs and services that are essential, that are affordable, that are effective and that work with the private sector to energize B.C.'s

Changing the structure of the public service is a necessary part of redefining the work of government. The government will continue to rely on an efficient and professional public service. For staff who face transition, we as a government are committed to do our best to ensure that they are treated with fairness and consideration.

Now I want to take a few moments to talk about the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. We as a ministry have certainly participated actively in the core review process, and we are facing significant budget reductions. I want to start by presenting the new vision for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, which sets the goalposts for our efforts in the next three years. Our vision is a competitive and profitable agricultural and fisheries industry providing safe, high-quality food for consumers and export markets.

We've divided our ministry's core business areas in the three-year service plan into six areas. I just want to briefly mention those. The first one is food safety and quality. Certainly, a critical public need is to have a continued assurance of the safety and quality of the food supply. I'm pleased that within the city of Abbotsford, we do have a very modern animal health centre — a laboratory facility that is staffed by very competent people who look after the interests of British Columbians with respect to fish, animal and plant health issues.

Our people work very closely with regulatory people in the Ministry of Health Services and with people in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It's quite amazing — the number of different issues within the areas of plant, fish and animal health that are ongoing issues that our people are monitoring every day.

We're also looking at the need for emergency preparedness when we're looking at food safety issues. We're looking at things in rural British Columbia like noxious weed, which is a critical threat to our grasslands and our grazing lands for both beef animals and wildlife.

Mr. Speaker, the first core business area is food safety and quality. We have actually seen some increase, I should say, even despite a declining budget of staff and resources in that core business area.

The next one is environmental sustainability and resource development. The agricultural industry certainly has a role to play in ensuring environmental sustainability with respect to issues of water quality and the management of waste. We work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to ensure high standards of performance in these areas.

We also work with the Ministries of Sustainable Resource Management and of Water, Land and Air Protection to encourage the aquaculture sector with respect to good environmental practice. We are working actively with those ministries to establish improved standards and regulations to ensure good compliance and good results.

The other part of this core business area involves the whole area of resource management and resource development and working with other agencies and other levels of government, in particular local governments, to ensure that we get maximum value out of our agricultural and marine resources, whether they be privately owned or publicly owned. Our role as a ministry, under this core business area, is to ensure that we maximize economic activity and that we maximize job opportunities but, at the same time, do it in an environmentally sustainable way.

The third core business area is fisheries and aquaculture management. Certainly, this is an area of some opportunity for our coastal communities, including finfish aquaculture development, shellfish aquaculture development and an ongoing effort to maintain and enhance all of our commercial fisheries activity and our marine recreational activity with respect to the wild fishery. Certainly, we embrace this area as a core business area, one of great potential and one where we take our collaborative role with the federal government very seriously and will be increasingly working hard to develop positive working relationships and constructive programs with the federal government so we maximize economic activity in rural communities, particularly communities such as Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Port McNeill and many other rural coastal towns that have been hard hit by changes in the resource sector.

The fourth core business area is risk management, and this refers to the safety net programs that we as a province and we as a ministry are engaged in, mainly with the federal government, to provide a level of support to farmers so that they can mitigate risks of weather problems, market downturns, disease- and pest-related issues that may not be foreseen and that may impact their viability. This is a joint federal-provincial program that includes farmers and the farming community as partners to manage risk. This part of our core business area also involves international trade agreements and our role as a ministry to assist and represent the interests of British Columbia agriculture and the seafood sector with the federal government.

The fifth core business area that is contemplated in the three-year service plan which forms part of this budget, Mr. Speaker, is industry competitiveness. Certainly, we have a significant percentage of our staff in the ministry working on these issues. We as a ministry are renewing our role as advocates for agriculture and for the fisheries sector and advocates vis-à-vis other ministries within the provincial government — I've mentioned some of those — but also other levels of government, both local and federal, and any government agencies which have an impact on the competitiveness of agriculture. This is really a core business area for us and gives our ministry an opportunity to really represent the critical needs of our agricultural industry to be competitive in a global market.

The sixth core business area is corporate services, which basically provides the overall policy direction for program and service delivery and works with other ministries and the policy shops in other ministries to reduce regulation and red tape and develop more business-friendly regulatory regimes.

I'm very pleased as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to embark on this three-year plan that forms part of this budget and to develop an industry that is viable, competitive and provides jobs for our rural and coastal communities. We're looking at a number of strategic shifts within our sector, within our ministry, and I just want to mention some of those.

We're looking at going from a situation where we have a high level of government involvement in industry development and industry direction to more industry self-reliance in managing and funding the development of the industry. We see that our role there is to help the industry facilitate that, but more to encourage the industry to provide its own direction and leadership.

We are doing a strategic shift from minimum programs which protect the safety of our food and animal production to outcome-based regulations and increased government monitoring to reflect both higher consumer expectations and risks from global trade and travel. We've certainly seen the experience in Europe where the incidence of things like foot-and-mouth disease have been very damaging to their industry and their trade position, so it's important and very, very critical that our people, our ministry and our government are vigilant in these areas.

We are looking at going from prescriptive approaches to sustainable development and protection of the environment to a focus on farming practices that are more results-based. Certainly, we're working with other ministries to develop regulatory packages that go in that direction. I think a good example of that is the new waste management regulations that are being developed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, together with the two other resource ministries, to provide a higher level of monitoring, reporting and accountability for waste management in the aquaculture sector. I look forward to working with the minister to table those new regulations.

We're working to move from a position of minimal influence on the fisheries, particularly the wild fishery in British Columbia, to having a greater level of influence with the federal government to manage those fisheries in a manner that is positive and contributes to the economic well-being of British Columbia. We certainly support the conservation objectives of the federal government, but we want to be sure that we have a good balance of conservation and economic activity — maximizing the jobs, maximizing the economic outcomes of those resources.

We're looking at moving from a position where the government is funding the majority of costs with respect to risk management programs, to encouraging and increasing the level of risk management and risk management tools that the private sector brings to the table. We're working with farmers to move in that direction.

We're moving from a time when government provided a lot of subsidies to business, including direct grants to organizations in the farm community, to eliminating subsidies and grants and going, as I said, to a more self-reliant model.

We're moving from providing direct production advice to farmers to moving staff out of those areas and into some of the other core business areas that I've talked about. We will continue to partner with industry and provide technical information on our website through our award-winning program called InfoBasket. I need to mention that, because I did not present the right title in answer to a question here recently. The program is called InfoBasket and not infonet.

I want to just highlight some of the changes in the ministry that are part of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. Our ministry's budget is being reduced by 45 percent over the next three years. If you exclude the $15 million that involves Fisheries Renewal B.C., the reduction for the ministry overall is 30 percent. We'll be going from a budget of $81 million in '02-03 to $64 million. Then we will reduce further to $58 million in '03-04, and in '04-05, when this government tables a balanced budget, our part of that budget will be $45 million.

Our total staff reduction is 17 percent, going from 395 positions to 327 over three years. I do think that this is, really, barely critical mass. Certainly, I'm very proud of the staff we have in our ministry and the work ethic that they bring to their jobs to get the job done. The staff reductions do include the 14 staff of Fisheries Renewal and 54 positions that have been eliminated through the closure of district offices, certain program reductions — in particular, production advisory services — and some reductions in safety net programs and corporate services.

The government's and the ministry's role is to create an environment that will help the industry become more self-reliant. By lowering taxes, making government services more affordable and reducing regulations, we can create a supportive business climate for the individual entrepreneur or the large-scale business. Certainly, in agriculture we have both. We have very small operations. We have a lot of part-time operations throughout British Columbia, and we also have some very significant-sized businesses.

Our mission as a ministry is to embrace the needs of all of those players, large or small. I will encourage our ministry staff to embrace this new culture of self-reliance. This will allow us to move away from our traditional individual production assistance to producers and instead to focus on what is really important in terms of driving the overall industry.

As I said, the ministry will be the advocate for agriculture, food and fisheries with other government agencies. This may well be the biggest shift that we make as a ministry, but I believe that we will be doing work that is meaningful, valuable and relevant to the

industry. I can say to you, hon. Speaker, that we have already seen some examples of that.

We must focus on helping industry to solve specific problems that create a barrier for doing business. We must work with the agricultural industry and the fisheries sector and at times with many different interests to solve the types of problems that individuals cannot necessarily solve on their own. This will require that we focus on working with other levels of government, particularly federal government and local government. I'm indebted to the work of the member for Richmond Centre, the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, to help us deal with federal government issues.

It's important that we concentrate as a ministry on providing service that has substance, service that is relevant and meaningful to producers and fishers. Our communication must be honest and open, and electronic communication is a tool that within this budget and within this government we certainly intend to use more.

For everything we do using public time or money, we need to focus on providing the best value we can for the taxpayer. That is certainly a value that is embodied in this budget. I know that the efforts that have gone into the construction and development of this budget and the thought and discussion that have gone on have been very extensive and really focused on providing value to taxpayers.

Our focus as a government and as a ministry is on getting things done. We need to focus within the ministry and within industry sectors on the big challenges that need to be addressed. This may sometimes involve staff learning new skill sets. Certainly, within our ministry that is something that we will be working on. We're working on some training needs, because we will be looking at some new skill sets to implement this budget and this three-year service plan.

As I said, we'll move to results-based regulations and enforcement, shifting away from the labour-intensive, prescriptive-based regulatory regimes that burden people with a lot of time, paperwork and red tape. Regulation needs to be sensible, but it needs to be effective. This government understands that people's time is valuable — not only the time of our public servants but of our clients, whether they're farmers, business people or members of the public.

I want to make a comment on something within our three-year service plan that I think is critical for British Columbia, and that is the food-processing sector. This is an area where B.C. needs to gain back some ground. In the last ten years we've lost a lot of our food-processing sector to other areas. I'm very concerned about this loss of food-processing capacity, because it is a critical element to support our primary industry. I am confident that the provincial government, in making some of the changes that it's making to develop a more friendly business climate, will help send a message to the food-processing sector that B.C. is open for business and that this is a good competitive place to locate new plants and new investment.

On January 29 I brought together a group of food industry leaders to form a ministers' Food Industry Advisory Council.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I thank you for the privilege of speaking to the budget today.

J. Les: Thank you for this opportunity to make some comments with respect to the budget that was tabled last week, Tuesday.

I enjoyed listening to the comments of the member preceding me, the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn. It's pretty clear that he has a very good grasp of the ministry that he's responsible for, the Ministry of Agriculture. That certainly comes as no surprise to me. The minister is absolutely committed to the industry and has been for many, many years. I believe we have the best Minister of Agriculture this province has ever seen.

I'm really pleased to be responding to the budget. It is a budget that is going to put the province back on track economically. I'm looking forward with real anticipation to the next several years, as our budget plan unfolds. Actually, I'd like to put the office of the Whip on notice that two years from now, immediately after February 17, I want to be on the speakers roster, because that will be the first time in a long time that British Columbia will have a balanced budget, and I want to help celebrate that.

Unfortunately, this province has endured a decade of financial mismanagement. In the decade of the nineties I used to hear a former Premier refer to the problem as being the Asian flu. I looked around and observed the economy of the state of Washington, for example, doing just fine. The state of California seemed to be growing at record rates, the state of Alaska seemed to have no economic difficulties, and the province of Alberta, as we know, was growing strongly in the nineties. I wondered, if we were suffering from the Asian flu, why none of those jurisdictions were so affected. I had to come to one inescapable conclusion: that it was not the Asian flu at all. It was socialist constipation that was affecting the fortunes of this province.

You know, it really couldn't have gone on much longer. Fortunately, there was the opportunity for an election in May of last year, and that sorry chapter of British Columbia came to an end. Had it gone on much longer, fairly soon the Cubans would have become our economic cousins.

People might say: "Well, here we are into hyperbole again." There's a little-known fact that if our British Columbia economy had simply grown at the rate of that of the rest of Canada through the nineties, the revenue side of this year's budget would

have been $4 billion greater. Now, the previous government's unlikely to remind you of that, but I think it's important for us once in a while to reflect back and reflect on the misadventures of that lost decade of opportunity and how that affects us today. The $4 billion in lost opportunity, lost revenue to government, would have nearly balanced the budget this year.

In any event, here we are finally with a budget that has some vision in it. I was very pleased to see in the budget document that the vision of this government is of a prosperous and just province whose citizens achieve their potential and have confidence in the future. If nothing else, that confidence is what is so critical not only to individual British Columbians but to investors who come to this province. Without confidence, everything else starts to fall apart fairly soon.

After eight months of hard work we brought forward this budget, and believe me, it was eight months of hard work. I know that all members of the government had a lot of input into it, and a lot of the cabinet ministers worked diligently to bring in service plans for their ministries. No one, of course, worked harder than the Minister of Finance, as he's the minister responsible for this budget, and I want to pay tribute to all of his efforts as well. This is not an easy time in B.C.'s history to be a Finance minister. But I'm sure that a couple of years from now, we'll be able to look back, and we will have one very gratified Finance minister. He'll be able to reflect back and know that the difficult decisions made in the years 2001, 2003 and 2004 will finally have paid off in a balanced budget and a secure future for British Columbia.

This budget reflects a blueprint for change, for economic renewal, a blueprint of hope and renewed confidence in the future. It clearly establishes benchmarks. This is, unfortunately, a somewhat foreign concept, one that we hadn't previously seen as part of provincial budgets. We're clearly trying to determine where it is we are today in various performance indicators. I think that's an extremely important innovation. Previously, the common wisdom was that if you spent X number of dollars this year, then you spent that plus a little bit more next year. If you were accused of not providing enough service, your defence was, "Well, we spent more than we did last year," without ever referring back to see what the outputs were that resulted from that spending. Clearly, we are charting a different course. I just want to highlight some of the targets that have been established in this year's budget, and some of the baselines, the benchmarks, that have been identified as benchmarks from which to work.

In the area of education, for example, we have a benchmark at 2001 baseline of 32.4 percent of the people that have a post-secondary certificate or diploma. Clearly, we'll be able to look back two, three, four, five years from now, and we'll be able to measure our progress. I'm very certain that we will be able to improve on that measure. The percentage of the workforce in natural and applied science-related occupations will increase from a 2000 baseline of 6.3 percent. This is one of the key areas of growth in the modern economy, and clearly this is a real opportunity for British Columbia.

The real gross domestic product per capita at a 2000 baseline of $30,664 — again, we've established a benchmark. This is what we're going to work from, and this is what we're going to measure our progress and success against in years to come.

A very important benchmark is the value of goods and services produced per hour from the 2000 baseline of $30.72 per hour. This is an extremely important economic indicator where, unfortunately, we have been falling behind in the years past. We have to do better.

We're going to improve on the province's gross fixed business investment from the 2000 baseline of 17.2 percent of provincial gross domestic product.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we have an array of performance indicators like that, and I want to commend the Finance minister for including those kinds of very important indicators in his budget this year. Those are going to be critical in terms of measuring the success I am sure will flow in the future.

Last year the Finance minister announced the largest tax decreases in the history of this province — $2.2 billion worth of tax decreases — carefully crafted to ensure that British Columbians would have more take-home pay and that those who invested in this province would be appropriately rewarded for making that investment and not be punished, as previously.

Now, we've heard all the naysayers who have said: "Well, it's now obvious, just a few months later, that tax decreases do not work." These, of course, are people who have studied long and hard at the school of instant gratification. Tax decreases need time to work their way through the economy. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the tax decreases that were put out last year by the Minister of Finance and strongly supported by this government will do what they were intended to do.

They will increase consumer spending in this province. They will increase business investment in this province. They will increase business confidence in this province. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever. Personal income taxes were reduced to the extent that personal income taxes in British Columbia are the lowest in the entire country, bar none. I think that's important to note.

We also reduced the machinery and equipment tax that had long been the bane of business investment in this province. Out of that, you will see new investment in mining, new investment in the forest industry. I think we're going to see very major results flowing from that initiative.

The corporate capital tax simply penalized anyone for investing a dollar in British Columbia. Now, I have heard the word "investment" spoken a number of times by members of the opposition, and it is used every time as if it were a pejorative term. I simply fail to understand why people don't come to realize that investment is important.

Investors are important. It is these very people that provide the economic foundation where British Columbians can then take on new jobs and where we provide the wealth that supports all the important social programs on which we all rely. I think investment is great. I think investors are great. We need to provide an environment where we don't punish them but celebrate their arrival here and where we ensure that they have a fair working environment in which to survive and thrive.

In this particular budget, some tax increases have been imposed as well. There was a tax, for example, on tobacco. I would suggest to those who do not wish to pay this tax that they simply don't smoke, and they won't have to pay that particular tax. Sales taxes were increased by one-half of 1 percent, but adjustments were made in other parts of the budget where the very lowest-income people will, in fact, not be negatively impacted by that at all.

The MSP premiums that were announced several weeks ago, again, were adjusted to ensure that the 230,000 British Columbians who are at the very low end of the income scale are paying less in MSP premiums than was previously the case. I think we have made adjustments, although the additional revenue requirements were there, particularly to support increased spending in health care. I think we have made the adjustments necessary to ensure that the people least able to pay these increases are, in fact, sheltered from those increases.

In health care, we made a commitment that we were not going to cut health care expenditures. The same is true in education. We committed there as well — no decreases in expenditures in health care and education. In health care, however, we not only found it appropriate to hold the line but, in fact, had to increase spending in health care to the tune of 7.3 percent.

I would suggest that we still have much work to do in health care. With a 7.3 percent spending increase on top of about $1 billion spending increase last year and about a $1 billion spending increase the year before, clearly that situation is not yet under control. I suspect average British Columbians would not be prepared to say that their health care availability and service has improved 7.3 percent in the year just past.

I know that the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning, along with the two ministers of state, are going to be working hard to ensure that we deliver health care services much more efficiently, that the average satisfaction level of British Columbians with the health care they receive is in fact improved and that we get back to a sustainable scenario. If we're increasing health care spending by 7.3 percent and our economic growth rates in British Columbia are currently only at 1 percent, clearly that is not a sustainable situation.

I know that the current situation is unavoidable. The transition that we have to make in the Health ministry is one that is going to take some time. For that reason, I'm certainly supportive of the major expenditure increase in health, but it is clearly a situation I want to flag for the future to make sure that the situation is brought under control.

In fact, projections were done last year which indicated that if health care spending was not brought under control and current trends were to continue, roughly 20 years from now all provincial revenues in British Columbia would be consumed by health care spending. There would be nothing for education, nothing for any other ministry of government. We would then have a situation where, I gather, the only two ministers required would be the Minister of Provincial Revenue and the Minister of Health. I'm not sure that is a situation the average British Columbians is much interested in.

We have our challenges in the current economic horizon in the province of British Columbia. One of the most serious challenges is the softwood lumber dispute that is ongoing with the United States. I believe that this results from the abusive behaviour of American industry interests.

You know, as I think about this issue, I find it difficult to believe that a country that is able to marshal all of the resources necessary to rout the Taliban out of Afghanistan is not able to rout out the economic protectionists that reside within its own country. I just wonder about that sometimes — why it is. Is the willpower lacking? Or is the American President and his administration that neutralized that it cannot deal with the issue? This is an issue that affects its best trading partner, its nearest friend when difficulties arise on the world stage. Yet it's been months and months and months, and near as I can tell, we're still pretty much at an impasse. It's an absolutely unacceptable situation.

I would encourage our federal government and our Minister for International Trade to redouble their efforts and to get down and tell the American government that it's time that this was resolved. The punishing effect of this action by the American interests has gone on way too long in our province. If you travel through the timber resource–reliant areas in the province, you can readily see the economic decimation that has resulted.

Forestry is not a sunset industry in this province. It has a very good and bright future. It can grow, and it will thrive. I'm absolutely convinced of that. We have a very good product here in British Columbia. It will grow and thrive because of fair trading policies on both sides of the border. It will grow and thrive because of the economic incentives that I've talked about earlier, an economic environment in which industry is treated fairly, where taxes are levied equitably. It will thrive because of all of those factors and not because of the shell games that were carried on in the past, such as the jobs and timber accord. I'm sure we all remember the jobs and timber accord and the shell game that represented.

I see a bright future for the forest industry in British Columbia. It has for many, many years been the economic mainstay of this province. Although other in-

dustries will rise, as well, in this province, such as the high-tech industry, the biotech industry, the agriculture industry — which, again, is one of the mainstays — and the fish-farming industry, which has so much potential for our province, all of these things can add to our province. We need to make sure that we don't throw away those things that have been so supportive of our economy for so long.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, that I think can contribute to the economic health of this province is an increased reliance on public-private partnerships. Those of you who know me know that I've been a champion of this manner of providing services and capital resources to government for quite some time. P3s, as they're called, have taken hold at the municipal level in quite a few jurisdictions across this province, and in every case, when done well, they have the potential of saving taxpayers millions of dollars while at the same time often providing much better services to the public than would otherwise be the case. They have the ability to enhance creativity. They often shift risk away from government. They enhance competitiveness. They shift government's role to being more of a facilitator as opposed to being a direct service provider.

Government doesn't need to monopolize everything that moves in our economy. It needs to ensure that services are provided to the public, but it doesn't need to be the direct provider of those services. It can simply be the regulator or the organization that assures, through its offices, that these services are provided.

I have studied P3s in many, many jurisdictions across Canada and in the United Kingdom, where this method of delivering government services first really took hold in the early 1980s. I have no doubt that with the implementation of P3s in British Columbia, we will be able to do much more in terms of providing the infrastructure that is required to help our economy grow.

New courthouse facilities are currently under construction in my riding. Again, this is a P3 initiative. It's often important to remember, as well, that P3s do not always mean public-private. They can also mean public-public partnerships involving different levels and agencies of government that bring their various interests to the table and have them rationalized in one project or process. These law courts that are currently under construction in Chilliwack, as I said, are a public-private initiative that involves a law courts building, an office building and some millennium commemorative improvements in the Five Corners area of Chilliwack. Those facilities will be opening soon. And where that facility, back in 1991, was projected to cost the province $22 million, the provincial contribution to that project today, in 2002 dollars, is $7 million — an enormous saving to government.

I just use that as one example. There are many, many other examples like that. I want to see us make a real commitment to public-private partnerships as we look to increasing the road capacity, the bridge capacity, the transportation infrastructure and also the major sewer and water infrastructure improvements that need to be made around the province. The private sector is fully capable of providing these services on behalf of government. It is our role, I believe, to ensure that we bring forward some very, very good and innovative, creative proposals to allow these companies to provide this service.

The other thing that happens, of course, is that employment is generated. More investment is generated. This is exactly the time in the history of British Columbia when we need to be encouraging that kind of investment. For too long now — for a decade and more — there has been very little investment in infrastructure. We find of course, because of past economic mismanagement, that we don't have a lot of government capital to throw at this lack of infrastructure either. Perhaps that is somewhat of a blessing in disguise. Now that we're almost going to be forced to go to P3s, I would argue that even when government is flush, it should be looking to P3s as an option of choice in any event.

Economic growth is required in this province. If we're going to stagnate, then the lessons of the past will simply have to be relearned. We don't want to be doing that. We have the resources. We have the people. We have the technology. I think we're going to move forward in a very strong way.

Certainly, in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas…. The member for Chilliwack-Kent mentioned a few days ago a major new employment facility that's been brought into place in the last seven or eight months — a company called Stream International, which now employs over 1,000 people. Stream International has 28 of these locations around the world. I was so pleased to learn not too long ago that, after having now been in operation for seven or eight months, this company has determined that the Chilliwack location is their best service location out of all 28 locations around the globe.

I think that's a real testimony to the people in the Fraser Valley who work at that location. It is a testimony to the education system in the Fraser Valley that has produced workers that are in fact, by what this company has told me, world-class employees. That is the kind of foundation that we can build on.

I'm reminded also of companies like Conair Aviation in the city of Abbotsford at the Abbotsford Airport — again, a world-class company. Another new entity in my riding recently is the Pacific region training centre of the RCMP. This is located on former CFB Chilliwack lands and promises to be another major employment generator in my riding.

To summarize, I think this budget finally, after a long decade of mismanagement, puts this province back on track economically. It guarantees our future. We're all working hard together with all British Columbians to ensure that we have an economic future, and I'm just delighted that we have made the choices that will bring these things about.

A final comment I would make is from a press release that was put out just a couple of days ago by the Mining Association of British Columbia. I won't read

the whole thing but just the closing comment. It says this: "But give credit where credit is due. A clear plan for the future has been presented in today's provincial budget. It has purpose; it has promise. It represents the kind of disciplined budget that has been lacking in B.C. for too long, and it will yield positive results."

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's indeed a pleasure to rise and respond to the direction that this government has outlined in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. There is an old saying: if you don't know where you're going, it doesn't make much difference which route you choose. Today, as a government, it is more important than ever to show leadership and direction and to stay the course to economic and social recovery — economic and social recovery that is necessary after a decade of going in the wrong direction as a government in British Columbia.

Leadership means setting goals, providing a focus, being transparent about the problems and the issues, and engaging the public in a discussion on our plans and objectives as a government. The election campaign last year was about two very different choices for British Columbians. An absolute majority of British Columbians voted to choose our new-era platform of social and economic change in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we had a number of commitments that we said we would implement within 90 days of being sworn in as government. We kept our commitments and implemented all of them within the three-month period. Now we are continuing that commitment with our first full budget, fiscal plan and strategic plan.

I would like to spend the next few minutes outlining why I think setting a course and having a plan is critical in this province. Fiscal and strategic plans set out our goals and allow all British Columbians to engage in the discussion of where we are going and how we get there to build a province that they want to be part of.

I spent my working life until 1990 as a town planner. It was my privilege to prepare community and neighbourhood plans in such great communities as Surrey, Delta, Coquitlam, Prince Rupert, Port Clements on the Queen Charlotte Islands and Port McNeill on the North Island. In creating these plans, we carried out extensive public consultation processes and presented policy options to the communities. We created land use plans, plans for housing, population growth, recreation, industry and costs to achieve community visions. All are contained in these plans. These communities and others knew where they wanted to go and had a blueprint on how to get there.

As many of the members in this Legislature know, I was in municipal politics in Richmond for 20 years before I was privileged to be elected by the people of Richmond Centre to represent them in this Legislature. I had the opportunity during that time to work with other local politicians, staff and the public on preparing budgets — budgets that, by the way, could not show a deficit. We used five-year rolling capital and operating budgets and, for many large capital items, ten-year plans and forecasts. We worked with the public to create community plans that set out geographic areas of land use: new subdivisions for high-density residential areas, future parks and environmentally sensitive areas, areas for industrial expansion and areas that we protected as agricultural land. We developed population growth scenarios and plans that we're going to build new sewer and water lines and roads in which aging infrastructure had to be replaced. Fire halls, police stations, new swimming pools or ice rinks had to be planned for, built and staffed.

For all these plans and programs we had to produce financial plans that we could afford. Capital expansion and expansion of services means an increasing staff complement and increasing plant maintenance. This logical and rational approach to government programs has stood the test of time and is heartily supported by citizens who see local government as being close to the people and wise trustees of public money. This is why I am so pleased to be part of a provincial government that finally brings a sense of organization, direction and reality to provincial services and finances.

You will note that the documents accompanying the budget speech are entitled British Columbia Government Strategic Plan 2002/03-2004/05: Restoring Hope and Prosperity. The budget and fiscal plan 2003 goes through to 2005. They do not deal with just one budget year, nor do they deal only with finances. They contained a three-year planning process for finances and contained a three-year strategy on what we are going to achieve and how we are going to get there. For the first time in government, there is a real sense of purpose and financial reality.

My only wish would have been that this provincial election had been called at least a year earlier. All of us could have been spared so much. Decisions were made around public sector wage demands in the closing months of the last government that no succeeding government could possibly afford. A prime example is the health budget, which has been increased from $9.5 billion in 2001-02 to $10.2 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, an increase of 7.3 percent, or $700 million in one year.

The tragedy of this huge increase in health care spending is that it all goes to wages with no money for additional staff or improvements in patient care. We have a huge increase in health care spending but no improvement in patient care to show for it. To meet this unprecedented increase in health spending, there are increases in MSP premiums and the tax on tobacco and a half percent increase in sales tax. Tough but necessary decisions have been made by the Finance minister to deal with the problems.

The previous government relied on a short-term surge in energy prices and a one-time accounting adjustment to balance the budget last year, when in reality a three-year financial plan would have highlighted the structural deficit to all British Columbians.

For the first time in government, ministers were required to review what programs they were offering and at what cost. We had to decide what services were core to government and which could be better provided by the private sector or by leaving the choice up to the individual. Each ministry produced three-year service plans which laid out programs we were going to deliver, what changes we were going to make, what accomplishments we could expect and what our performance targets were going to be. Imagine the public sector, of which all of us here as MLAs are a part, setting goals, outlining a plan on how to get there and being held accountable for our performance — certainly a first in British Columbia.

With three-year service plans you know where you're going, the public knows exactly what we are doing and what the cost is, and we can be held accountable on an annual basis for our performance. For the first time the budget is based on programs and a strategic direction that has been reviewed by ministers, by government caucus committees and by cabinet at open cabinet meetings.

This budget sets out, for the first time, three-year rolling budgets for school boards and health regions. For the first time they know how much money they will receive three years ahead and therefore can plan accordingly. This step and the necessity for these boards to prepare their own plans and budgets means the process is transparent, and it gets provincial politics out of the decision-making process in these areas.

For health regions, professionals can offer the best advice on how to manage health care. For school boards, the elected trustees, teachers, principals and parents can make choices around the delivery of education in their communities and are held accountable locally.

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Richmond Centre, when I meet people on the street, in the malls or at community events, they tell me they know it is a tough budget, but they also know that we have been living beyond our means for the past decade. Government spending consistently outstripped revenues. We had an anti-business government that discouraged business growth and investment in British Columbia and at the same time created new government programs every year with diminishing revenues to pay for them.

Ministers have made some difficult choices and decisions around our service plans. The Finance minister made some tough decisions around revenue increases through MSP payments, the tobacco tax and an increase in the sales tax, and, very importantly, he has taken steps to protect those people who are the most vulnerable in our society with the least ability to pay.

Optimism is beginning to return to my constituency. Housing sales are up almost 50 percent in 2001 over the previous year. Applications for new development projects in the city are up 20 percent in 2001 over 2000. Confidence is returning to the retail sales market. At the Vancouver International Airport — a vital economic engine in my constituency and for the province as a whole — domestic, U.S. and international passenger traffic is still 10 to 12 percent below last year, but the good news is that there has been a steady increase in passenger traffic since the falloff of September 11. Recovery is on its way, and confidence is being restored.

This budget is about restoring realistic and sound financial management to British Columbia. It is about a financial and strategic plan that restores hope to families, workers and businesses in B.C. We know now what our three-year course is in government. We know what the cost is going to be, and we know what we can afford. We know what programs we are going to be delivering, and, most importantly, in 2004-05 we will have eliminated the deficit and have a balanced budget.

Mr. Speaker, in my community we have just finished celebrating the beginning of the Year of the Horse. The horse is known for its nobility, its spirit and its strength. My constituents look forward to the coming year, because they know our government has the spirit and strength to stay the course and to work with British Columbians to restore prosperity in our province.

Just before I conclude, I would like to add a personal postscript to my comments. Amongst the changes that we have brought in this year are changes that permit flexibility in class size at community colleges and at universities. In addition, the tuition freeze of the past five to six years has been lifted. As a parent of the six children that my wife and I have in our blended family, I would like to say thank you to the members of this Legislature who supported these changes and, in particular, to the Minister of Advanced Education.

We are fortunate that all of my children, at one time or another, attended either a community college, an institute or a university. As a matter of fact, two are still at university, and one is at a college. The freezing of tuition and the restriction on class size have meant that my children, like thousands of others around the province, could not get into the classes they needed to graduate in four years, which is a normal program time period.

It takes five or six years today to graduate, and this means much higher costs to students in living expenses, student loans and forgone income. I know I share the thoughts of many parents and students in British Columbia who would like to thank this government for helping all of us in B.C. with these changes.

B. Locke: Before I start, I would like to make a comment. I am a working mom, and my family is a middle-class family. I want and need the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and for Vancouver-Hastings to clearly know that as a woman, part of the 51 percent of the population, they do not represent nor have they ever represented me.

I have two daughters. I have raised them to know they are equal, and I am appalled that the members opposite would have them feel any different. There is no doubt we are obliged as a caring society to care and assist women in need who are in desperate situations. This Minister of State for Women's Equality has made that commitment, and I thank her for that.

As always, it's my privilege to speak in this House. I want to open by formally thanking the finance chairs for the city of Surrey, councillor Marvin Hunt and school trustee Shawn Wilson, for their interest in taking time from their busy schedules to come to Victoria on Tuesday and hear firsthand from the Minister of Finance. We have a wonderfully progressive city, one I'm very proud of. Many thanks go to the work of our mayor, our council and our school board, led by chair Mary Polak.

Many members have spoken to the throne speech debate before me, and now I'm responding to the budget. The breadth of the expertise in this government caucus is tremendous, and I'm always humbled by this amazing talent pool. I thought I would talk to you today from a slightly different perspective, a perspective that was the very reason I decided to run for office.

I am proud to represent the working men, women, families, seniors, those in need and those who are vulnerable that make up my riding, Surrey–Green Timbers. We live in a great community, where my husband and I have chosen to raise our children. We are a working-class family. My husband is a steel fabricator and a welder, and our children attend public school. My most important job is that of a mom, and I'm proud to say that I am a soccer mom, a hockey mom and a ringette mom.

British Columbians have always been a very proud lot. I was born and raised in the lower mainland. Right from the time I was a child, my parents gave me the opportunity to travel B.C. and see our province. There is no doubt we are blessed to live here. We have clean water, clean air, incredible vistas, an abundance of natural resources and livable regions. This is Super, Natural B.C.

When I heard the Minister of Finance say in open cabinet that my province, a place that is the envy of the world, had become a have-not province, I was heartsick. I know my dad would have been devastated. What happened? Well, the answer is pretty clear: a squandered decade. A decade for every other jurisdiction in North America that was positive and prosperous and that is now helping them weather this world economic downturn. A squandered decade of opportunity we are now paying dearly for.

I am determined to ensure that my children and grandchildren — hopefully, not too soon for grandchildren — are not going to suffer because of the incompetence of the NDP. Getting out of that debt won't be easy, it won't be painless, and it won't be overnight. The only light we have at the end of this tunnel is the leadership of this government. The guts, the vision and the commitment of this Premier and this Minister of Finance will deliver a new day for my kids and for all of B.C. — a new day of opportunity. I'm committed to that vision and wholeheartedly support this budget.

As a government, we certainly are not without our detractors, but from my own experience, we have many more friends than foes. The majority are silent, and they understand that the credit cards have run out and the buy now, pay later plan has come back to haunt us. The silent majority are proud British Columbians, and they want to see this province great once again. They know there will be pain.

Calls to my office indicate that for everyone expressing concern about our government's actions, we have more that say: "Good on you. Stay the course. We want our province to be number one."

The foes, on the other hand — the big union bosses chanting rhetoric into megaphones — will do their very best to manipulate, mislead and fearmonger about the changes that will happen. They believe that somehow our government will waver. They say we are moving too fast. They say we should listen to their wisdom. Well, it was in fact that very so-called wisdom that got us into this economic mess, and time is not on our side. Our government is resolute. It will not falter, and it certainly will not be bullied.

Have we heard these union leaders take some responsibility for the decade of waste and mismanagement? Have we heard them acknowledge the role they played during the days of sweetheart deals? No, we haven't. Well, thankfully, those days are over. It's time these big union bosses stepped up to the plate to admit that it's time we all act responsibility for the sake of our children's future.

I want to talk about my children again — my personal raison d'être. My oldest daughter is in grade 12. She speaks Japanese, she plays in a band, and she's travelled to Japan, played in a music festival in Florida and travelled throughout Canada and the United States. We hope that she'll attend post-secondary school this fall. Her dream is to be a schoolteacher. The world is her oyster. I thank her schoolteachers for giving her all those opportunities and encouragement.

My youngest daughter is in grade 6. She likes school, and she has also had caring and committed teachers. Collectively, they have had 18 years of teachers and principals, and I have met and talked to all of them. All of these teachers have positively impacted the lives of my children and our family.

I feel a real disconnect — a disconnect between the teachers I know and their big union bosses' rhetoric. In talking to many of the teachers, they do too. The big union boss is wrong. A collective agreement is no place to deal with management issues. It does not hold our children's education and future as a top priority. The majority of the people in the public school system are working for the good of all children. Their top priority is instilling good education in these young people.

I am so glad this Minister of Education has put flexibility into the system so that we can best utilize the dollars we have on education, not on bloated collective

agreements. Taking the rigid class-size provision out of a changing collective agreement and enshrining it in the School Act gives me great comfort as a parent.

In my work on the Select Standing Committee on Education, I have had the opportunity to travel this province to Haida Gwaii, to the Kootenays, to Dawson Creek, to Vancouver and to my hometown, Surrey. Our committee heard from a number of people — from parents, students, teachers, administrators and many others. I look forward to our report being tabled this month. One message that was consistent was that one size does not work for all students, all learners. A prescriptive collective agreement is not good for students.

I am so glad this Minister of Education has truly put our children first, above all. I know that the school trustees and administrators in my community are up to the challenge. I know that they, too, care deeply about the kids in Surrey and will continue to put our children's education first and foremost.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Surrey–Green Timbers is also home to one of the most colossal boondoggles of the NDP era: Central City, a massive commercial development project still under construction. It is an embarrassment that is eclipsed only by the fast ferries. This monument to NDP incompetence is a huge shopping mall with a 25-storey office tower. It is being developed as an investment by our government-owned auto insurance company. So far, ICBC has invested some $300 million in the project, which industry experts estimate is worth less than half that amount. To make matters worse, there are few tenants willing to move in. This NDP blunder may be the world's largest echo chamber. It amazes me that the official opposition would make so much noise about a 0.5 percent PST increase and want to deny and ignore the $100 million waste on Central City or the $465 million on fast ferries. And that list is just endless.

I live in the real world. I thought I would point out what 0.5 percent means to my family. My daughter is attending a birthday party this weekend, and the present will go up by about 10 cents. A new pair of runners for my kids, who like the very best, will go up about 30 cents. My oldest daughter's grad dress, a dress that represents her future, will cost about another $1.50.

No one, not least the Premier or the Minister of Finance, wanted to see the PST increase. But the cost in the end to my family will ensure that my kids don't pay for the decade of waste and will mean that our health care is protected in a sustainable way. Sometimes I wonder whether I should laugh or cry because once again all British Columbians will pay for the incompetence of the previous government.

I want to talk a little more about Tech B.C. It has been one of my biggest concerns since occupying my office. The manner in which the previous government handled this project jeopardized an institution that I believe will be a great benefit to B.C.'s knowledge-based economy. Tech B.C., home to almost 400 post-secondary students, was saddled with a poor business plan, interference and imposition by the NDP government. The actions of the NDP almost doomed Tech B.C.

For every black cloud there is a silver lining. The greatest silver lining is the one I'm particularly proud of: Simon Fraser University coming not only to Surrey but to my riding of Green Timbers. I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance for their efforts, vision and commitment to the students of Surrey. I also want to thank the Surrey MLAs and the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for helping establish the groundwork for a university in my constituency.

The primary driver of the government, as we worked out how to save Tech B.C., was the interest of the students. The plan is both fiscally responsible and sustainable. It has allowed technical studies and research to be done at the Central City site. The greatest part of all is that Surrey is now home to a proven, progressive university, one of the finest universities in all of Canada.

I am personally very pleased to have played my part in making that dream a reality for the students and potential students in Surrey and all of the South Fraser. SFU will bring hope and opportunity for Surrey, and it will establish our city as the hub for technology and education. SFU will entice more and more economic development, and technology alters the world we live, work and play in. It is a catalyst for our future potential. SFU's technical site will present opportunities for our region and our province — opportunities that we have not even dreamed of. I believe this is an example of how we can work together and ensure that programs that are priorities to many are properly structured so they can, over the long term, be successful in the truest sense.

The previous government founded Tech B.C. and never understood what the costs were or how to deliver the programs effectively. What resulted was an institution, at a cost of $24 million last year, that delivered educational services to fewer than 400 students. Under the new SFU plan, the institution will expand to serve more than 800 young British Columbians and will cost the taxpayers less than half of last year's expense. The institution is now sustainable.

As we tackle the trail of waste left by the previous government, I encourage all British Columbians to find solutions that work and are sustainable over the long term. I especially encourage those who invest their time in protesting change and those who want to hang on to the past, no matter how unrealistic it is, to join us and put their energy towards helping us create solutions for British Columbia.

We are making progress. Since the government was elected, my community has seen growth in our building permits of over 30 percent in both residential and

commercial. Thanks to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, Surrey has begun a major tourism marketing initiative. Several new hotels will be developed over the next few years. Just yesterday I had the honour of opening a new Hampton Suites hotel on Highway 10 in Surrey. It was encouraging to hear the owner state that they had curtailed their investment in this province until now. With the election of this government led by this Premier, that gave them the confidence to reinvest in British Columbia.

Representing my constituents is one of the toughest jobs I've ever had to do, but it's extremely rewarding. Over the past eight months my colleagues and I have been faced with challenges that have been gut-wrenching and have given me many sleepless nights, but I know we are doing the right thing. Although I don't always sleep well, I can always look in the mirror, knowing we are doing the right thing for our children and for the future of this province.

Hon. B. Barisoff: It gives me great pleasure to stand here before the House today and talk about the provincial budget that the Minister of Finance brought down on February 19.

When the Minister of Finance stood up in front of this House on February 19, he changed the whole concept of what's going to happen in British Columbia. He started restoring the hope and prosperity. He wants to revitalize the economy. He's going to make things different in this province, and I think on February 19 there was a change. There was a change for this province that we haven't seen in the last ten years.

We had a Minister of Finance who got up and decided to tell the people of British Columbia that he wanted to restore sound fiscal management for British Columbia. He wanted to put patients first in this province. He wanted to make sure that our hospitals are run in an efficient, well-organized manner — something that we haven't seen by the past government. He did the things that are going to make this province stand alone again and be number one in Canada again. He wants to put students first, and we're going to put students first in this province again.

Because of what happened, we're going to have a balanced budget in '04-05. We're creating a new era of competitive taxes. When we first got elected in May, one of the first things we did was create the lowest base rate of provincial personal income tax. What that's going to do for the people of British Columbia…. We put in excess of a billion dollars in the hands of the individual people. We all know that the money in the pockets of individual people is that much more powerful than it is in the hands of government. Over the past ten years we've seen the things that government has done to waste money. We've seen $500 million spent on fast ferries that still aren't running to this day, and people criticize the Liberal government for making sure that the money is put back in the hands of the individual people.

The Minister of Finance cut the corporate capital tax. That makes more business want to come back to British Columbia. We've had a mass exodus of businesses leaving British Columbia. The corporate capital tax on non-financial institutions will be totally eliminated by September 1 — totally eliminated. That's going to make business come back into British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance eliminated the PST on production machinery and equipment. In this last budget, when there became some difficulties with the parts, he addressed the problem, and now parts for that production machinery and equipment are also eliminated. People have phoned my office and phoned the Minister of Finance's office to say it was a burden on the small business. We addressed that. We made sure that the PST on production machinery and equipment, and the parts for that production machinery and equipment, was eliminated.

Domestic jet fuel tax was down by two cents a litre, another added bonus for the province. Seven percent tax on bunker fuel was eliminated in the minibudget in July. The 20 percent share credit for the mineral exploration…. Mr. Speaker, if you look around, you see that the mining industry in this province has almost disappeared. Why? Because over the last number of years we've done everything in this province to make sure that we drove all of those industries out of this province. We're turning that corner, and we're going to start bringing them back.

The threshold on vehicle surtax was up to $47,000 in July, one of the things people were always looking to see when I travelled throughout the province. For farmers and construction workers, a luxury vehicle and a pickup cost anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000. So they weren't luxury vehicles for them.

We have done a lot, and the Minister of Finance has turned a corner. One of the new tax reliefs that the minister brought forward was that he increased the threshold from $200,000 to $300,000 for small business. In an area that I come from in the South Okanagan, where the bulk of the people are small business and small wineries, that is a huge impact. That makes a huge difference for small business in my riding of Penticton–Okanagan Valley. It makes the difference that some of these industries are going to be able to make a little bit more profit, keep the profit and spend it in the community.

The Minister of Finance raised the low-income sales tax credit from $50 to $75. The members on the other side have always said we're not looking after some of the low-income people. The minister addressed that — not in a big way, but 50 percent, from $50 to $75, is a 50 percent increase in what they can deduct from their sales tax credit.

Also, the PST exemption for funds raised by parent advisory councils to purchase school supplies — that's something that's been asked for, for a number of years. The parents that go out and raise money and do the different kinds of things…. We've eliminated the PST that they would have to pay. They'll make application

through their school board offices. They can do it once or twice a year; it's not when they go in. It'll make it much more efficient for PAC groups to do that. It certainly makes a difference for them. It's not a large amount of money, but I think it adds up to in excess of $1 million. That million dollars will be spent on the students here in British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance also provided — and I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture touched on it — some PST exemption for farmers. A number of different items that they have brought forward should be exempt for farmers. It's one of the things that I've found over the years. The new B.C. Liberal government is looking at farmers the way they should. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. minister from Abbotsford, has done a marvellous job of making sure that farmers' views are represented. That was one of the things brought forward, and of course there were some PST exemptions for farmers.

We increased the MSP to make sure that we covered a lot of the salary increases that took place in the last budget increase, but we've also eliminated the MSP for an additional 230,000 of B.C.'s most needy. That is really important for a lot of people in British Columbia. For some of the most needy, the MSP program has been eliminated. They will get the benefit of not having to pay the MSP.

The homeowner grant rises by $275 a year for people with disabilities. People will have to do some modifications to their homes, but they will be entitled to a $275 increased homeowner grant.

This is renewing confidence in British Columbia. We've waited a long time. In fact, being elected in 1996, I have waited a long time to finally see a Minister of Finance stand up and give us a plan of where we're going and what's going to happen. The Minister of Finance has indicated we will have a balanced budget by 2004-05. Finally, the people of British Columbia can look and see that this government is taking a direction. We are renewing the confidence of the people of British Columbia to understand that we're just not going to spend, spend, spend as the government of the past has done. We're going to look forward to having a balanced budget and start paying down the deficit in the years to come.

I think we've seen that. With the renewed confidence, we've seen the largest increase in housing sales. They went up by 28 percent in the last six months. That's really saying something for…. I think that since the May election, the people of British Columbia have regained this new confidence in the fact that things are going to change. We're going to make things change. We were, of course, affected by what happened on September 11. Nobody could figure that something of that magnitude would ever happen, but the people of British Columbia are turning this province around, and we're creating a new level of confidence. The largest increase in residential construction — up 27 percent.

Consumer spending is up 5.9 percent versus 4.5 percent, the national average of 2001. We've got, historically, the lowest interest rates in history that I've seen. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, even in the days that you've been here, they're the lowest interest rates that we've seen. We're going to revitalize the economy.

The Premier of this province created a ministry of deregulation. I think it was roughly 450,000 regulations that we had. I know that the Minister of Competition and Science brings to the government caucus operations on a regular basis regulations after regulations that we're looking to eliminate to make it easier for people to do business in British Columbia.

There's going to be forest policy reform. The Energy Policy Task Force is out there. Improved access to Crown land and resources. When we talk about the improved access to Crown land and resources, we find that the mining and logging companies want to come back and start doing things. They want to revitalize the economy. When I talk about the different tax measures that the Minister of Finance brought in this budget, these are the kinds of things that we can give access to — the forests and the Crown land — to make sure that people come forward.

Public-private partnerships are something that I know the Minister of Transportation is very high on. She's been working with a number of groups and looking at how we can create the P3s, the public-private partnerships. How can we take the public, bring the private sector in and make sure that we create these partnerships so that the burden of taxes isn't always borne by the people of British Columbia? We have other people out there that are prepared to put the capital forward and build bridges, build highways, build schools, build hospitals. There's just all kinds of things that can happen with public-private partnerships, and I know that the different ministers involved will make every effort to make sure that public-private partnerships succeed in this province.

I talked earlier, Mr. Speaker, about putting patients first. I know, coming from a small, rural community, that putting patients first is the most important thing. The Minister of Health Planning has created a number of different regions in the province to make sure that the needs of individual communities are addressed. We've been criticized for doing this. The regionalization plan that the previous government had put forward was a total failure. We're moving forward to make things happen in the regions so that we are putting patients first. We're going to make sure that in this last budget, we increase the health care spending by $750 million. That will pay for a lot of the escalating wage costs.

In my ministry, which deals with a lot of the tax on tobacco…. The increased tax on tobacco will bring up another $150 million. That alone will help to put patients first in this province.

Now, a lot of people have said that by increasing the tax on tobacco, we're going to see a lot more smuggling of cigarettes. Well, we're going to create added enforcement. We're understanding that the state of Washington has actually increased their price of cigarettes to where a carton is now, I think, in excess of $70.

Ours is around $60. The province of Alberta, from what I understand, is looking at increasing the tax on tobacco. I know a number of the other provinces will probably follow suit as time goes on to make sure that the interprovincial smuggling of cigarettes is brought to a minimum.

If that doesn't happen, in my ministry we've got an RCMP tobacco investigation team that's out there making sure that the smuggling doesn't take place. We have members of my staff that go to the retailers on a regular basis to make sure that people aren't selling cigarettes that are not legal, that have come from somewhere else — that they have the proper markings. We're in the process right now of going into what we call "black stock" to make sure that cigarettes that are sold on aboriginal reserves are clearly marked, that they won't be sold illegally. It makes a huge difference that we're going to make sure that we don't have the smuggling of cigarettes, because it's estimated that we lose anywhere between $150 million and $200 million in the importation of cigarettes. Also, since September 11 the increased border security has made a huge difference in some of these areas.

Now, I touched on the new health authorities just slightly. What we're looking at in the new health authorities is to restore the management flexibility that wasn't there in the past and to create some nursing strategies that I'm sure the Minister of Health Planning would talk about and some structural reform that has to take place in the new health authorities.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about new hope, new prosperity. I look back on the riding of Penticton–Okanagan Valley, and I think that I'm very fortunate in some ways, because the hope and prosperity in the South Okanagan has been probably at a high because of the wine industry that has been created there. We probably have some of — not probably; I know we do — the finest wines that are grown worldwide. We've got, I think, in the neighbourhood of 60 wineries in the Okanagan right now, and they're winning awards all over the world.

So when I talk about new hope and prosperity, I notice that in the South Okanagan, the entrepreneurial spirit is still there with the grape-growing industry and the fruit-growing industry, the farmers. They're working hard all the time, because they know that that's part of how you make a living. You have to work hard to make a living. It doesn't come by government simply taking control of everything. When we talk about putting money back into people's pockets…. I know that the constituents in Penticton–Okanagan Valley were pretty excited when they got the tax cut. They said that was their money in their pocket.

When we increased the small business tax from $200,000 to $300,000, I know that businesses in the South Okanagan were extremely excited about it. I hear now of people saying: "You're taking it out of one pocket and putting it in the other pocket." Well, hon. Speaker, when we started, we put in excess of $2 billion back into the people's pockets. The Minister of Finance, when the arbitration came down for the doctors last Friday, had to look at ways of addressing what was going to happen. What happened there was that we had a 0.5 percent increase in the sales tax and of course the increase in cigarettes to offset some of these costs, but that still puts in excess of a billion dollars into the people's pockets in British Columbia.

Well, I know one thing. When we put money back into people's pockets, the best thing that can happen is that they'll spend the money a lot more wisely than government ever hoped to, whether it's this government or particularly governments in the past that certainly didn't spend the taxpayers' money very well. I hate to go back on some of the things that they've done, because when I talk to constituents in my riding in the South Okanagan, they get pretty heated about some of the costs we've been faced with and what's taking place.

When I look at the new opportunities for young people, families and communities, we know that this budget is what's going to make the difference. People will have that new sense of confidence in saying: "Listen, we now know we have a government in place that's prepared to balance the budget in three years and is looking at ways that we can put more back into people's pockets." You know, Mr. Speaker, it's going to create a higher quality of life for everyone in British Columbia. It's just a matter of time before British Columbia will actually be number one again.

I just want to touch a little bit on some of the pressures that the Health ministry was facing with wage pressures of $164 million for nurses, $392 million for doctors, $161 million for paramedics and $52 million for other incidentals in the health ministries. That adds up to $769 million. Then we talk about the revenues that we got. We increased the MSP revenue by $358 million. We increased sales tax and got $250 million. We increased the tobacco tax and got $150 million. That adds up to $758 million. So what we've done is kind of balanced that out. When people talk about the fact that we've had to take some money out of their pockets that we'd given earlier in the income tax and corporation capital tax rebates, it was something that had to be done. I'm sure, from my perspective and I know from a lot, that nobody wanted to have to take some of that back. I think that when we looked at health care and what had to be done, the decision that was made was the right decision, with the fact that we had to meet some of these pressures but with the commitment, still, that we were going to balance the budget in the year '04-05.

I'd like to touch a little bit on my service plan for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. The mission of the Provincial Revenue ministry is to provide fair, efficient, equitable revenue and debt collection which supports the public services to meet the needs of British Columbians.

I'm going to talk about meeting the needs of British Columbians. That is for Health, Education and all the other ministries, but in particular those two big minis-

tries. This government maintained the budgets of health care and education. Not only did they maintain them, but the budget for health care has actually gone up by over $700 million, and the budget for education has gone up slightly. It's my mission to make sure that we collect the taxes so that we can maintain health care and education in this province.

The strategic shifts. In the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, we want to move from a centralized multiple accounts receivable system to efficient, consistent, electronic-based revenue and administrative collection practices. The intent of that is to make sure that we make it easier for people to pay. We want voluntary compliance as much as possible. We do that by making sure that it's a lot easier for people to pay their fair share of taxes.

I know that people are prepared to pay their fair share of taxes if they understand that government is spending their money wisely. In the past the government wasn't spending their money wisely. People were disillusioned by what was happening. The underground economy has grown; it's estimated that it could be in the billions of dollars. When we look at these kinds of things, we realize that some of this money should be coming into the government coffers to support health care and education.

If we can create an easier, friendly accounts receivable system, we can make sure that more and more people are prepared to pay their fair share of the taxes. I'm sure they will over time, as long as we're prepared to spend their money wisely — something that hasn't been done in the past.

My ministry actually collects over $10 billion in government revenue; $10 billion is just about what the Ministry of Health budget is. The Ministry of Health budget is actually going to exceed $10 billion in the coming year. So you understand the amount that it takes to make sure we maintain our health care budget. The rest of it is collected through different means, mostly through Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in our income taxes.

Our tax administration, collection and enforcement, and debt administration and collection is a branch of my ministry that is going to be enhanced over time. Over the coming years we're going to be hiring a number of new auditors — 117 to be exact — to make sure that the enforcement of collecting the taxes that are duly owed to government will be done. In turn, by doing this, we create a lot more voluntary compliance.

As I mentioned before, we're going to do everything in our power to make sure that it's easier for taxpayers to be able to pay their taxes in a friendly, efficient, effective manner so people feel that things are done very fairly.

Some of the major initiatives that we're going to be touching on are tax administration and collection. A substantial number of taxpayers do not remit the taxes that are owed to government. As I mentioned before, we'll be hiring more auditors. I think the bigger thing here is that it puts those who do pay at a competitive disadvantage. Those who do pay their taxes feel very strongly that the ones who are beating the system or trying to beat the system should be paying their fair share.

We're going to increase our resources to target the non-compliant taxpayers. People believe that the non-compliant taxpayers are only here in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, a lot of our tax auditors spend a lot of time in Edmonton or Calgary or Toronto. We send tax auditors down to Los Angeles. We'll be addressing those people who are doing business in British Columbia, collecting the sales tax and not remitting it back to the province, to make sure that we cover off as many of them as we can.

I know that I get a lot of complaints, particularly from the MLAs between the B.C.–Alberta border where there's a lot of cross-border shopping, where people are going across into Alberta and buying things tax-free. We're certainly looking at these kinds of things. In fact, I've set up a briefing next week with the members of all of those border ridings to make sure that they're informed of what my staff will be doing, what we can do and what we can make sure that can be done to enforce the laws of British Columbia — not to the extent that we're being unfair to people but simply to the extent of making sure that people do pay their fair share of taxes in British Columbia.

Another huge area that we're looking at is debt administration and collection. We have in excess of 40 different accounts receivable systems in government. When you look at the corporation of the B.C. government — we're a $23 billion or $24 billion corporation — it sounds pretty big in the scheme of things. When you look at a lot of corporations across Canada and across North America, yes, we are big, but we certainly shouldn't have 40 different accounts receivable systems. In the years to come, we're going to make sure that we change this.

I see the red light is on, Mr. Speaker, and I would thank the Minister of Finance for the excellent job that he's done in sending this province in a totally new direction that we can be proud of. We know that as time goes on, we will balance the budget.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to rise and speak in support of the first full budget of this government, which was presented on Tuesday of this week.

May I offer my congratulations and those of my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead to the hon. Minister of Finance for his diligent and courageous work. He must have spent many sleepless hours putting this excellent document together.

I want you to know that sometimes there has to be a little pain before there is a lot to gain. This province could not continue along the fiscal path that the previous government had established. That route was leading only to long-term pain. I know that in the government's budget presented on Tuesday, there are many areas that all working people will find tough over the

short term. Even in my own family, that pain is being felt, but I want everyone to know that sometimes something has to be done to get the economy going again.

Without a vibrant economy and the jobs and the opportunities it offers, the pain that the previous government had inflicted on us would continue. The cuts would be deeper, the personal depression greater, and the hope for everyone would be almost nonexistent. This budget addresses those things.

This budget sends a clear message that we are prepared to take tough measures to get our financial house in order. It sends a message that we want to get the economy going and that British Columbia is once again open for business. We have to take a strong stand. While most of us will feel the effects of the government that left us with the legacy of debt and deficit, this budget offers us hope. It offers us a chance to return to those days of hope and opportunity.

I welcome that chance. I welcome the tough decisions we are going to have to make, because unless we do make them, our hope for a better future will be dashed. I said last week in my response to the throne speech that sometimes you have to take some bitter medicine to cure an illness. That is what this budget presents us with: a little bad-tasting medicine but eventually a cure for the financial illness that plagues our economy.

During the past couple of days I have travelled with the Premier and heard him speak. Just yesterday he spoke in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to more than 400 concerned citizens from Surrey. He was addressing the Surrey Chamber of Commerce at Northview Golf and Country Club, and I tell you, there was overwhelming support for this budget.

At that event I also had an opportunity to speak to many of my constituents and heard their thoughts, concerns and observations on the budget. Overall, they were very supportive of the difficult choices we all must make. They asked me to give the message to all my colleagues, and especially to the Minister of Finance and the Premier, that we must all stay the course so that over the long term we can all benefit. We can return this province to its number one position in Canada again.

In fact, at another function later that day I received the same message. I was attending the readers' choice awards sponsored by the Surrey Now newspaper, which is an event that recognizes and honours Surrey businesses, some of the top businesses and services offered in Surrey. These awards were held at Eaglequest golf and country club in my riding. The dozens of people I talked to there were very firm in their comments to me that this budget charts the proper course.

Certainly, there are some who oppose it, but those voices are in the minority. Those voices call for the status quo. We all have become aware over recent months that the status quo isn't working, it hasn't worked, and it won't work. Measures — some might even call them drastic — have to be taken, if we are to shake off the status quo that hasn't worked, so that we can get our economy going again.

One of the greatest incentives to economic development, investment and job creation is a government that isn't afraid to tackle tough issues, isn't reluctant to take a little heat. This government is doing that because we must — I repeat: we must — get government spending under control. That is the only way to gain investor confidence.

Why would any investor want to come to a province, create jobs and boost the economy when there is a government in place that cannot balance its own fiscal house? The answer has been amply demonstrated over the past few years. Investment has left this province in record amounts. Over the past few years people have been moving away from British Columbia to other places instead. You can't have growth and a vibrant economy in the province when people are leaving in droves and when businesses pull up their stakes and move to more stable economies.

Over the last couple of years I've had the chance to visit Alberta and Ontario, and I've talked to many people who moved there from British Columbia. I listened to their reasons for moving and their pleas for us to fix the economy, to make it strong and vibrant so that they could return home again, so that their kids could return home again. This budget will change that. It's going to encourage growth. It is demonstrating that the government understands fiscal control. It says that we welcome the return of those workers and those investment dollars.

Another message that was delivered most clearly on Tuesday was that this budget is the first major step toward a true balanced budget. I know from personal experience that sometimes you have to make some tough choices if you want to go forward, and as I have said, this budget does contain some tough choices. It does contain some bitter medicine. It does have a measure of pain — as they say: no pain, no gain. However, I want to make it very clear that this budget was not designed to deliberately inflict pain on any individual or organization. It was designed to send a clear message that this government understands fiscal and economic responsibility, and it is willing to work diligently and provide that responsibility.

As the hon. Finance minister said on Tuesday, we know that the revenue that flows into government is not our money; it is taxpayers' money. We understand that we have to be responsible for that money and be very careful how it is spent. We cannot continue to squander tax dollars on unaffordable contracts, fast ferries and pulp mill bailouts. The last two items cost the taxpayers of British Columbia close to $1 billion. For what? For a political agenda, Mr. Speaker — a political agenda. That $1 billion came out of health care, education and the pockets of working people across the province. That isn't right.

Some might ask: is there an agenda in this budget? Let me say yes to that. It is an agenda that will return hope and prosperity to this province. It is an agenda

that will spur the economy, an agenda that will lead to government wisely spending its income, just like everybody else has to. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have to live within our means, or we court disaster. Well, that's where this province was heading until the people of this great province said they'd had enough. They elected a government with the greatest majority in the history of British Columbia. Last year the voters sent a clear message and gave a mandate to the government to get its financial house in order so that we can enjoy our beautiful province and not leave our debt and our problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with in their future lives.

This budget is a bold step in the right direction. It is a brave step that will lead to balanced budgets, a strong step toward removal of oppressive deficits. It is a courageous step that all have to take. We have to live within our means, and so must the government.

One of the first actions of this government on day one was to give the people of British Columbia a dramatic tax cut. British Columbians earning less than $60,000 a year now benefit by having the lowest-based personal income tax rate in Canada. We said during the election campaign that we would do it, and we followed through. We are saying with this budget, the first full one since our government took office, that we will get this province's fiscal house in order. Like the tax cuts, we will follow through on this courageous step 2.

In closing, this is a brave and bold budget. It does contain some pain, but its main message is hope — hope that one day soon we will all benefit and enjoy the opportunity to renew the economy that it brings.

P. Wong: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues. It is an honour to rise in this house representing the people of Vancouver-Kensington to respond to the Finance minister's budget speech.

As I have mentioned in this place before, my riding is an exciting place. The people of Vancouver-Kensington all contribute different strengths, traditions and rich heritage. They are also very strong and resilient. The people of Vancouver-Kensington, much like the people throughout British Columbia, are active participants in civil society, committed to making this province better for all of us.

This pride, this commitment, has never been clearer than in recent months. There is no doubt that difficult times lie ahead. The previous government left our finances in a devastating mess. Since the election the Premier and the Finance minister, along with the civil service and all of the government caucus, have been busily working on plans to address this gigantic deficit.

I'm very pleased to see that this budget is about restoring sound fiscal management, revitalizing the economy, restoring hope and prosperity, and putting patients and students first. This budget is the first in B.C. history to include three-year service plans for all ministries and Crown corporations. This has never been done before.

I shall congratulate the Finance minister's budget with three Rs. The budget is reasonable, responsible and realistic. It is not an easy job, but many tough choices must be done if we want to have a prosperous future and if services essential to our society's well-being, like health and education, are to be properly secured.

Restructuring and cuts have been applied fairly and justly. These plans are essential to our economic recovery, and they will be most successful with the majority support and backing of British Columbians. The Premier has asked for our support and openness during these challenging times ahead. I'm pleased to inform this House that most people of Vancouver-Kensington agree that this hard work must be done so that our children and grandchildren will enjoy bright and prosperous futures. In fact, the people of Vancouver-Kensington have already begun to actively participate in the creation of a new era of hope and optimism in British Columbia.

Crime and safety are important issues in Vancouver-Kensington. The citizens work hard to ensure funding for community policing. They were ecstatic when the Solicitor General recently announced that funding for community policing will continue throughout 2002 to 2003. As active citizens, Vancouver-Kensington residents have formed volunteer groups to secure the streets, walking at night in high-crime areas to deter prostitution and drug trafficking. The Vancouver police department is an active partner, providing police services and education through the community policing centres. Most recently, Vancouver-Kensington residents applauded the establishment of a foot patrol program organized by the South Vancouver community policing centre.

The intense multicultural flavour of the riding is one of Vancouver-Kensington's greatest strengths. To capitalize on this, I have worked with community leaders to create the Vancouver-Kensington multicultural committee. The committee is open to any resident of the riding, and the group meets monthly to discuss multicultural issues affecting the community. Their discussions, along with citizen submissions, are published in the Vancouver-Kensington multicultural committee newsletter distributed throughout the community by participants and volunteers. Copies are also available in my constituency office.

P. Wong: I would like to take a moment to say a few words in honour of a great friend and mentor of mine. Jack Moore was an essential part of the Vancouver-Kensington multicultural committee. His guidance and leadership were invaluable in creating the community's newsletter. Jack passed away on February 2, 2002. His contributions to the Vancouver-Kensington multicultural committee, the riding and to those around him will be sorely missed. The constituents of Vancouver-Kensington send their best wishes and deepest sympathy to Jack's family and his daughter, Tam Conns, now living in Dawson Creek. Jack — friend, mentor, guide — may you rest in peace.

P. Wong: I have had many calls to my constituency office in recent days congratulating the government on the decision to continue funding for transit pass subsidies for seniors. The Premier and the cabinet team have once again demonstrated that they are open to input from the public and that they listen to the public's concerns.

The Premier initiated this fantastic two-way, free flow of information with the establishment of this province's and this country's first-ever open cabinet meetings. Mr. Speaker, the people of Vancouver-Kensington are active participants in their community and have already done much for the betterment of this province. As their representative, I must work for Vancouver-Kensington. I provide the people with information from government, and in turn, I bring their concerns to government. I participate on legislative committees to examine issues thoroughly. This work is vital to ensure that my constituents' views are presented to government and woven into legislation.

As a member of the committee on economy, I used my experience as a chartered accountant to help government review ministry budgets. As an MLA, I am pleased to be a part of the process which is restoring fiscal integrity and accountability to government. The committee on economy has reviewed the budgets and finances of the Ministries of Labour, Transportation, Advanced Education and Competition, Science and Enterprise. I am honoured to have been a part of this process.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major issues plaguing homeowners in Vancouver are leaky condos. As a member of the leaky-condo committee, I have helped develop a constructive process to listen to the concerns of homeowners. We are to share our findings with the government to ensure these problems do not arise again.

One of the best things about living in a free and democratic society is the confidence and trust we have in our security and peace forces. The very fact that our police forces participate in public hearings and are subjected to scrutiny is a sure sign that our democracy is vibrant, strong and free. I was privileged to have served on the police complaint process legislative committee. The committee sought and received public input and suggestions into the police complaint process. The findings will be presented to this Legislature and used to form recommendations for the government. All told, Mr. Speaker, it has been a busy and productive fall and winter.

As we go boldly forward to meet the challenges that lie ahead, we can take comfort and allow ourselves to feel hope and optimism. Our recent Speech from the Throne coincided with the beginning of the Chinese New Year. As the Year of the Horse unfolds, I urge everyone to pause and feel the wind of change, firm in its determination, fair in its application. Peace, prosperity and success are very near ahead. Let's keep moving forward to greet them.

To the people of Vancouver-Kensington, thank you for your trust and confidence in me. I assure you I will continue to represent your interests to the best of my abilities.

To my hon. colleagues in this place, congratulations and keep up the good work. We are getting somewhere.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a great honour for me to rise in this House today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Westside. For those of you who don't know, Okanagan-Westside includes the communities of Summerland, Peachland, Westbank, the Westbank first nation and Westside Road, up to the Vernon Indian band. I must say that it's a very exciting riding to represent.

What I enjoy the most is the support, calls and input that I receive from my constituents. I'm very, very proud to be able to stand up today and speak in support of the budget of my colleague the Minister of Finance.

This certainly was, Mr. Speaker — as you are here, and noted — a great historical event in British Columbia when a Finance minister tables his budget and shows British Columbians a financial plan for three years, then follows that up with a strategic plan not just of government but of every ministry in government and all the Crown corporations — opening the books, opening the business of government to all British Columbians.

It certainly is a new era in British Columbia. It's an era of vision. It's an era where we have goals. It's an era where we actually have established measurable goals for ourselves. Not only can British Columbians hold us to account, but we can also hold ourselves to account.

I would also like to thank each member of this House — well, 77 members of this House — for all of their work in working together as a team to develop the priorities, to work with us in developing the ministerial strategic plans, to challenge us, to assist us and to review all of these plans with us. The Premier and the Finance minister have a vision of teamwork, and I want to say that working together with all members of this House in building this budget and building this plan has been a great, great experience.

The budget was fair, it was open, it was responsible, and it was realistic. But there were some tough, tough decisions that had to be made. We cannot forget how we actually got into the situation we all find ourselves in as British Columbians. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings knows very well — and I doubt that she'll have very much to say here today — or the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. They actually know how we got here. They know how this province got into these problems.

One of the great things that my constituents have told me is that as we work through this, know that it took ten years to find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves. It cannot be fixed in eight months. It is going to take a very disciplined, focused approach. That's what this multi-year budget puts before us. It is a plan that shows hope; it shows prosperity. It is a road map

on how we're going to get where we're going. I think the most important thing that I want to say to my constituents and to the rest of British Columbia is that you will have the opportunity to hold us to account. There are measurable objectives in here. Our government has also told you when the next election will be. It will be May 17, 2005. You will be able to monitor and measure us, and you actually know now when you're going to cast your vote. We have taken the politics out of calling an election — truly another great move in British Columbia by our Premier.

Let me also just talk a little bit about the issue of raising the sales tax from 7 percent to 7.5 percent. That was not an easy decision; that was a tough decision. You know, the Finance minister did a tremendous job, given the fact that he had between 24 hours and 48 hours to make a decision. He was faced with an unexpected $400 million last-minute challenge. I know that decision was tough. I know all British Columbians don't agree with it, but I do know — I do know because my constituents have told me already — they support it in the short term because they know it's going to health care. They also know that our commitment — our commitment as a political party and the government in British Columbia — is to reducing taxes because we've shown them that our commitment is to reducing taxes.

I want to assure this House, my constituents and all British Columbians that together with my colleagues in this House, we are going to work very, very hard not only to roll back that half a percent but to roll back the sales tax in British Columbia because we know we have to do that. We know that we have to make the province competitive. It's a short-term solution to a problem to help us fix and ensure health care is there for British Columbians. We have to start rebuilding our health care system, which, quite frankly, was put in total disarray by the previous government.

You know, one of the things that the members over there for Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver–Mount Pleasant do is stand in this House and throw the rhetoric out about personal tax cuts. On behalf of my constituents, I'm here to tell this House that my constituents appreciate the fact that they received a 25 percent cut in their personal taxes. We hear the rhetoric from the members over there that this is for a certain class of people. When I go home, when I get the opportunity to get home on the weekends, and I talk to people — whether they're a local security guard, a waitress, a small business operator at the drycleaner or a student — they say: "You've done the right thing." They know, British Columbians actually know, that they have better control over their money than government. I believe that taxpayers deserve to have that money in their pockets because they know whether they want to buy a book, a car, a stereo, go to the movies, go on a holiday, come down to Victoria and see their MLA — whatever they want to do. They will make better decisions than government.

After we get past the rhetoric from those members over there, the facts and the truth have to be told — that now, in British Columbia, we have the lowest tax rate for those hard-working British Columbians that make $60,000 and less. The lowest tax rate in Canada — it is unbelievable. That's good for British Columbia. That's good for their families.

I want to talk now about education, because education is about our future. Our government has committed to working with administrators, teachers, parents and school boards, and all these groups have told us that their priority is the students. They've also told us it's important that parents and volunteers have the opportunity to participate in the school system. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what they've also told us? They've told us that over the past ten years the previous government put too much rigidity into the system, and we need some flexibility. Parents know that we were faced with tough decisions. They also wanted us to make those tough decisions, so we have. We've put students first; we've put flexibility back for the school districts, school boards and administrators. We've also made changes so that parents and volunteers can become much more involved.

In talking to teachers in my riding, they are thankful for these changes, because teachers are professionals. They want the ability and the opportunity to be in the classroom and teach students. Of course, mentors, volunteers and parents are very, very important for our students and their future. Today my own wife was in one of our public schools in Penticton, British Columbia, working with a teacher, working with students and teaching and mentoring them in creative writing. That's what it's about. It's about us all working together to educate our students.

From my seven years of being involved as an MLA representing ridings in the Okanagan, one group that we have to pay very special thanks to is those volunteers and parents who serve on parent advisory committees. Without their help, their dedication, what would happen in our schools? We've heard their voices. The Finance minister heard their voices and their pleas for help. They work, they raise money, they buy supplies, they buy equipment for the schools, and in the past under the former government they had to pay sales tax. Now under our government they're going to get their sales tax rebated. That is good. That is but a small recognition of the great work they do.

Of course, in my riding one of the issues we're going to have to deal with, because it's been an issue for some time, is busing. I believe, with the changes and the funding — our government maintaining the overall provincial funding for education — there will be some flexibility for administrators and parent advisory committees to work together to find creative solutions so that our children can get to school safely. Together with the other members of our Okanagan caucus, we will work together with the teachers, trustees, administrators and parents to lead and enhance the education opportunities for our future, which is our children. We should always work together as a team in these excit-

This budget puts students first. The budget delivers on our promise to put students first in our education system. The budget for the Ministry of Education is enhanced to $4.86 billion, up slightly from last year. What we're also going to be doing, besides holding ourselves to account, is to hold our school boards, our colleges and our universities accountable for improving student achievement. We as a government, as I said, will also be held to account. This budget, brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Finance, demonstrates the vision we have for a proud and prosperous future, which can be achieved by putting our students first.

Then, of course, there is the other subject that is near and dear to all of our hearts, and in my case very close to my heart, as a heart attack survivor: health care. I have had the benefits of our health care system. You know, one of the great things about the members of this House is that after we get past the political rhetoric, I believe, all members respect the professionalism of our caregivers, whether they be the nurses, the doctors, the health technicians, the aides, the support staff. They all work together in providing a world-class health care system in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, those members know, under their ten years…. The health care system is simply not sustainable. I also believe it's time for the union leadership to stop the harmful rhetoric and to start sharing the real facts with those that work in their unions. I'm not going to get into the details, but I am appalled — some of the calls that I receive at my constituency office from health care workers and some of the things they are being told by their union leadership. It is absolutely unacceptable; it's wrong. It's time they started telling their members the truth and stopped scaring people and destroying our health care system.

It's time for all British Columbians to be part of the solution, because everyone knows the health care system is not working. It's not sustainable. We all know that — every member of this House.

In my own riding we have a concern. The community has a concern in Summerland that the hospital may be closed. That is a great concern in Summerland because of the many, many seniors that live in the community. Never mind that we're only 12 minutes from Penticton, where we have the regional hospital. The seniors feel very close. What we've been able to do is bring people in our community together. I have no idea what the outcome is going to be, but I know there's going to be lots of consultation. We have been able to bring the health administrators together with the community groups so that they can talk through the issues, get the problems out and bring forward solutions. That's what we need. We need everyone working together to bring forward solutions.

I've had a few calls on the MSP premium increase. Again, after we get past the political rhetoric, British Columbians are miles ahead of us. They're actually miles ahead of us. They know that the health care system is not free. Last weekend I had one constituent ask: "Could you tell me why I pay more insurance on my car than I pay for myself and my health care?" An arresting question — very interesting question.

I hear some of the rhetoric from some people. I know there are some people that have difficulties with their finances, and that's why I'm so proud of our Finance minister for ensuring that some 230,000 British Columbians are going to have lower MSP premiums. There was a constituent of ours who's 87 years old. When a friend of mine was talking to him about the increase in MSP premiums, he said: "It's the best deal in the world, and if they have to raise it again so I have health care, then raise it again." That's from an 87-year-old British Columbian. It's absolutely amazing to me how people outside the beltway are so far ahead. Perhaps we all have to start listening to those folks out there that deal with reality every day.

This budget puts patients first. We have no greater priority in our government than saving and renewing our health care system. All members of our government are committed to that. It's not just another government program. It's our health; it's our family's health. It's one of the reasons that British Columbia is a province that so many people want to come and live in.

However, in this province our costs have tripled over the past years, with wage increases that have led the country. Our health care workers are the highest paid in Canada. When we ran and had the election, we said that we would maintain health care funding. That was at $9.2 billion — the supposedly surplus budget that the former government members over there brought in. Subsequently, on July 30 we increased that to $9.5 billion. I don't know where these union leaders get all this rhetoric about cutting health care. This budget increases it to $10.2 billion, an increase of 7.3 percent.

We've had to fund this, though. We've had increases for doctors, nurses and paramedics. We've had to make tough decisions. Of course, I talked earlier about raising the sales tax by half a point. I have no problem raising the taxes on cigarettes to $8…

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know my colleague from Trail does, but that's the way it goes.

…and raising the MSP premiums by 50 percent, because British Columbians know that the health care system is not free. These costs can't be avoided. We have to fix our health care system. That's why I'm proud that all four of our health ministers are working together to revitalize, rebuild and reposition the health care system in British Columbia.

Of course, the budget also talks about restoring sound fiscal management, revitalizing our economy and, most importantly, restoring hope and prosperity for British Columbia. You know, it's not that many years ago that British Columbia was No. 1. Under their

leadership we fell to No. 10. That's not acceptable. This is the first budget that provides a vision, a plan, of how we're going to get there. Yes, it's unfortunate that the deficit has to be $4.4 billion, but it's about time a government came clean with British Columbians. That's what this budget does.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very, very clear. I don't want people to misunderstand. We have a very tough road ahead of us. Energy prices have plummeted; $500 million in Crown corporation revenue has evaporated. The global economy has slowed. Softwood lumber, despite the efforts of our colleague the Minister of Forests, continues to be a huge issue for all British Columbians and, in particular, the resource-based and rural parts of British Columbia.

The job will not be easy. Under the leadership of our Premier and the vision and discipline of this budget, we will work our way through this tough situation. We will make hard decisions. We will work together.

In working together, I'd be remiss as the MLA for Okanagan-Westside if I didn't say thanks to Mayor Cameron and the council in Summerland; Mayor Waldo and the council of Peachland; our regional directors in Westbank, Len Novakowski and Aaron Dinwoodie; Mayor Walter Gray from Kelowna; and Chief Brian Eli from the Westbank first nation. These are the other elected officials in our riding. I'm very proud of how they bring solutions to the problems that we have. They don't come and complain. They say: "We have a problem. How do we work together?" I'm very, very appreciative of those folks and who they work with.

I ask, as we move forward with all of these tough decisions we have, that we work together, that we seek inputs, that we build solutions. Change must happen. British Columbia once again in the near future will be a leading economy in Canada — an economy that all Canadians will want to participate in.

We are working very, very hard through my ministry — working with the Finance minister and other ministers — to make British Columbia a leader in investment climate so that companies will come and individuals and families will return to British Columbia and bring their investments back here. When we have the investments, we will create the jobs. When we create jobs, we will have a strong economy. When we have that strong economy, we will have the funds there to build our health care system and to provide the great education that all British Columbians — our youth — deserve.

I want to thank publicly the Finance minister for his leadership, for his hard work, for his commitment to British Columbians in bringing forward a frank, honest, open budget with a three-year vision and a three-year plan. It was the right thing to do. It's balanced. It's responsible. It's realistic. It will return financial stability to British Columbia, put patients first in health care and our students first in our education system.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Westside, I'd like to thank this House very much for the opportunity of letting them know and passing on to you and members of this House their wishes that I vote in support of this budget. I will be doing that.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. The House stands adjourned until Monday next at 10 a.m.