Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 14 -- Wednesday, February 27, 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

Tributes		1335
	Hon. G. Campbell J. Kwan

Introductions by Members		1335

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)		1336

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1336
	Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5) Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1337
	Provincial congress J. Nuraney Royal Canadian Legion charitable work S. Orr Hockey coaching in Cranbrook B. Bennett

Oral Questions		1337
	U.S. softwood lumber negotiations and raw log exports J. Kwan Hon. M. de Jong U.S. softwood lumber agreement and exemption for cedar J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong U.S. softwood lumber duty and provincial bond assistance R. Visser Hon. M. de Jong School district funding announcements K. Krueger Hon. C. Clark

Motions without Notice		1340
	Education Committee reporting requirements. Hon. G. Collins

Budget Debate (continued)		1340
	I. Chong J. Kwan Hon. K. Falcon Hon. C. Clark B. Belsey R. Hawes D. Jarvis M. Hunter S. Brice

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member for Vancouver-Burrard noted, yesterday we saw the passing of a British Columbian who dedicated his life to improving the quality of life for British Columbians. Harry Rankin was a city councillor while I served on council and, I think, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant served on council. Was it then? The thing that was important about Harry — and I think it's an example for all of us to recall — is that it's possible to be passionate about your beliefs. It is possible to pursue those, and it's possible to do it with good humour and with commitment that is relentless.

For those of you who may not have known Harry quite as well, Harry Rankin was someone who ran for office 13 times before he was elected. When he was elected, he transformed what had taken place in Vancouver city council. As many people used to say, they were going to elect Harry because he was someone that would keep the rest of them honest — whoever the rest of them were. It was never me, I want you to know.

Harry was a man who not only served his country in the Second World War but worked tirelessly to improve the lives of everyone whom he touched. I can tell you that his personal convictions always shone out. You could agree or disagree with Harry, and actually, he was one of those people that understood that. It was possible to have disagreements about principles, goals and political objectives, but he never lost sight, I think, of people's humanity. One of his partners, in commenting, said that Harry was a relentless warrior against what Harry thought of as political correctness. He treated all of us the same. He was not quiet about his beliefs, and he made an enormous contribution because of that.

Today I hope this Legislature will join me in sending our condolences to his wife, Connie; to his former wife, Jonnie; to his children, Phil and Rosemary; and to the members of the Rankin family — all of whom have given up on his personal life so that he could serve the public agenda. He was a character, and he was someone who will be missed. He was someone who helped shape the largest city in the province of British Columbia.

I hope the Legislature will join me in sending our special thoughts and condolences to the Rankin family.

J. Kwan: The Leader of the Opposition and I join with the Premier in sending condolences to the Rankin family. I didn't have the pleasure of serving on city council with Harry Rankin. However, he was really and truly a person who, when he was on council, was larger than life. He became a legend. He was involved in politics long before I even came into this country. He is an icon for people in our community who fought for the most underprivileged in Vancouver. He spoke loudly and sometimes with belligerence on issues, and he brought humour, I think, to the council chamber as well. Oftentimes he was seen debating with a variety of council members, but the most notable, I have to say, is Councillor George Puil.

Since Harry left the council days — I often hear this — when I was elected in 1993, council was never the same again. No doubt the city of Vancouver will never be the same again without Harry Rankin.

He was the champion for the poor. He championed all kinds of issues, even when they weren't politically correct. He was there because he believed in it. The city became better, I think, as a result of the work of Harry Rankin not only within the council chambers but also outside in the legal profession. Although I have not had the experience of facing off with him in the courtrooms, perhaps others have. Of course, he earned the reputation from his colleagues as one of the most experienced, senior and respected lawyers in the city of Vancouver.

We will miss him very much. I have no doubt he is watching down here, from the golden dumpster up there, as we continue the fight to ensure that the voice of those who are often not heard around council chambers, the B.C. Legislature and other places — the voice of the underprivileged — is always represented throughout our country.

I join with the members in remembering Harry Rankin and the work that he has contributed to and his efforts for all British Columbians.

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce four guests of mine who are here today. In the gallery is Mohammed Iqbal Cheema. He is my constituency president for the great riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. He is accompanied by his son, Bilal Mohammed Cheema. I would also like to introduce Mr. Sikander A. Tayob and Mr. Mohammed Saleem Khan. They are all here to attend the celebration of Eid-Ul-Adha today. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Stewart: The Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute is in town for some meetings this week, and there are two members in the gallery. Would the House please make welcome Don Darling, the president of the Manufactured Housing Institute, and Kathleen Maynard, the executive director. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two good friends of mine whom I had the honour and pleasure of serving with on Sicamous council for six years. One is

Gordon Mackie, who was the first-ever mayor of the district of Sicamous, and Rollie Durocher, who was a charter member of the council of Sicamous as well. I'd like the House to make them both welcome.

P. Sahota: It's a pleasure for me to introduce two very good friends of mine who are in the House today: Naushie and Shafik Keshavjee, who are here from Burnaby to also celebrate the festival of Eid. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orr: I would like to introduce two very special people that are in the House today: Mr. Dave Sinclair, who is the zone commander for the South Island zone of the Royal Canadian Legion, and his wife, Ann Sinclair. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 67 grade 5 students from West Point Grey Academy in Vancouver, along with their teacher Ms. Elliott. The students had a tour of the legislation this morning — the Legislature. They didn't see any of the legislation, though, hon. Speaker — just the Legislature. They heard about parliamentary procedure and some B.C. history. I hope everyone in the House will join me in welcoming the students today.

B. Suffredine: I have the pleasure today to introduce a member of my riding, Mr. Lee Rushton. Mr. Rushton has two challenges in his life. In addition to knowing me, he's attempting to run a small business in the forest industry and is succeeding. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to join with my colleague from Richmond Centre and extend a very warm welcome to Mr. Mehmood Awan, who's joined us in the gallery today. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting the Legislature today from the city of Abbotsford are three people: Frank and Beth Bower and Margaret Johnston. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday last, following question period, the hon. member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rose on a point of order relating to the interpretation of practice recommendation No. 11, dealing with public written questions. The point of order concerned the interpretation of the second sentence in paragraph 2 of the sessional order, which reads as follows: "The member from whose constituency the question comes will have first refusal to put such question to the appropriate minister." The sessional order further provides that a question which conforms to the guidelines "shall be printed on two consecutive weeks unless answered."

It is the Chair's ruling that the first refusal accorded to the member from whose constituency the question arises will remain intact for the first week the question is published in Orders of the Day. During the second week any private member may put the qualified question, unless previously answered, to a minister during question period.

Paragraph 2 of the sessional order provides that the minister may answer the question orally or in writing by filing with the Clerk of the House. When the question is answered either orally or in writing, the question itself is dropped from the orders of the day. Written answers will be published in Votes and Proceedings.

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 5, intituled Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002, be read a first time now.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As Minister of Energy and Mines, I wish to table an amendment to section 3 of the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. Under section 3 of the act, the Minister of Energy and Mines is authorized to enter into certain types of agreements with specific parties listed in subsections (a) through (e) subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Agreements are required with respect to the funding, construction and operation of the pipeline, the granting of service area and any other matter relating to the act.

B.C. Gas Inc. has entered into an agreement to acquire the common shares of Centra Gas B.C. Inc. and Centra Gas Whistler Inc. from Westcoast Energy Inc. To allow the minister to enter into the required agreements under section 3, the act must be amended to include the names of the companies that are involved in the transaction. This amendment will allow the minister to enter into agreements with all parties and allow the completion of the transaction between Westcoast Energy and B.C. Gas. An additional amendment under section 3 of the act will remove the need for further legislative amendments should the assets again be sold.

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

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to record a milestone in the history of our province and yet another new-era commitment fulfilled. Yesterday our Premier held the very first provincial congress, bringing together all three levels of government and the leaders of the first nations to facilitate a dialogue among elected officials and the leaders to articulate how best we can meet the needs of British Columbians.

The forum was well represented, and matters of infrastructure, transportation, softwood lumber and fisheries were discussed. Concerns about our health and environment were also raised, and interaction with the leaders of the first nations was found to be candid and informative. This was a commendable act of depoliticizing the process where, through common grounds, we can find solutions to our economic and social challenges and chart a course which is open, transparent and accountable. I applaud the Premier for his genuine effort in seeking the right solutions.

S. Orr: Throughout this province we have 161 branches of the Royal Canadian Legion. These are very special places for veterans, members of the military and their families to go — somewhere they can meet old friends, talk over experiences and generally enjoy themselves. What most people do not know is that you do not have to be a veteran to join the Legion. All they ask is that you believe in their traditions and are willing to help with charity programs. It is these charity programs that are probably the best-kept secrets of the province.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that, provincially, this organization pays almost $1 million in property taxes every year and owns over $68 million worth of real estate invested in low-cost housing for seniors? In the south Vancouver Island region alone — which is headed up by zone commander Dave Sinclair, who is a guest in our House today — they have 10,000 members. They own and operate an 80-suite complex for seniors. They donate $355,000 annually to charitable organizations. They donate and provide scholarships for students entering university or college. They have donated $2 million to the Lodge at Broadmead. They sponsor amateur sports teams. They operate a poster and literary contest for students from K-to-10, and the list goes on and on.

The Royal Canadian Legion is a vibrant, viable organization that is responding to the needs of the twenty-first century. I suggest that meeting with your local legion will prove very fruitful and worthwhile. I'm very pleased that I contacted them. I hope you all will too.

B. Bennett: Last Sunday the men's Olympic hockey team won gold in Salt Lake City, and we were all very proud of that. It made us feel good to be Canadians.

There's a story behind that; I guess there's probably lots of stories. Two of the people who played on that team, Scott Niedermayer and Steve Yzerman, are from Cranbrook, which is where I'm from.

What I wanted to say today was that those young men didn't get there without a lot of work by themselves, but they also didn't get there without a lot of work and a lot of dedication on the part of their parents and their coaches. The city of Cranbrook has 18,000 people living in it. We send more hockey players to the NHL than any other town that size in the country. That happens because of the dedication of the coaching people and other team officials and the parents. In rising today, I just wanted to recognize the efforts and the dedication of the parents of those players and the coaches.

J. Kwan: Yesterday, at the provincial congress, the Minister of Forests appealed to British Columbians to stand united in the softwood lumber dispute. The Minister of Forests has that commitment from the opposition.

The Minister of Forests also needs to stand behind the promise that he's made to forest workers. In December of last year the Minister of Forests told forest workers: "We have advised Americans in the clearest possible terms that the existing restrictions on log exports are not on the table for discussion."

Two months later the minister signed a cabinet order allowing for 35 percent of the timber harvested in the northwest to be shipped out of B.C. as raw logs.

To the Minister of Forests: who prompted the minister to break that promise? And now that the Minister of Forests has granted the exemption, what is he going to say to the other regions that come and ask for similar exemptions?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I were to be flip I would say you did, because it's your government's report that actually recommended that very thing.

I think every British Columbian, and everyone in this chamber, proceeds on the assumption that we want to process every stick of timber that we harvest in British Columbia. There is a part of this province in the northwest that is suffering some pretty serious economic problems at the moment.

I should say, in answering the member's question, that as I looked over some of the economic plans that her government entered into — and this is very instructive because they chose a very deliberate

mechanism for adopting a very specific strategy…. They signed economic plans, some of which approved the export of raw logs — up to 50 percent of the harvest.

We said that for an area of the province where there is extreme economic hardship being faced, we are going to help those workers get back in the woods, we are going to help put them back to work, and we are going to say to them that they have the option — in a area where the timber is of lower quality and the logging costs are up to 35 percent higher, reviewable each year — to send a portion of those logs to other markets. We don't like it. It is not the preferred choice, but it's pretty easy to sit in your living room in Vancouver and to say to someone that hasn't had a paycheque in six months: "We're going to stand behind a principle." It's pretty hard to defend that kind of approach when you've done exactly the opposite and you're sitting in your living room in Vancouver.

J. Kwan: The minister knows very well that every government with every ministry receives different advice — a whole range of advice. The fact of the matter is that the previous government never acted on that advice. This minister has said that he would never, never allow for 35 percent of export logs. Getting access to the B.C. raw logs is a key demand of the Americans in the softwood dispute.

Again to the Minister of Forests: by allowing this exemption, after stating categorically that raw log exports are not on the table, does the Minister of Forests acknowledge that he's undermining his own position with the Americans in the softwood dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm having some difficulty reconciling what that member has just said in this House, based on the documents and the economic plans — upwards of 11 of them — that her government signed. That's a 50 percent export of raw logs — 50 percent, 47 percent.

I don't imagine, to give all of us in this House credit, that they were any more excited about having to send unprocessed logs out of British Columbia than we are, but the fact of the matter is this. There is a part of this province where, due to some pretty unique economic circumstances, there are people that haven't been to work for a long, long time.

If the member wants to get on her white horse and charge out there in defence of some principle that she apparently felt far less compelled to defend when she was in government, then be prepared to go up to that part of the province and say to those people: "We are going to condemn you to a further six months of unemployment." This government is for negotiating a free trade agreement with the Americans and, in the process, defending the interests of British Columbians who'd like to get to work.

J. MacPhail: It is interesting how the Minister of Forests rises and tries to pit one region of the province against another. He actually did that yesterday at the provincial congress, somehow assuming that people who live in Vancouver care less about the well-being of our province than other areas. Today he stands up and tries to say that somehow the fact that previous governments didn't act on issues that were presented to them makes them as complicit as he is. Somehow the fact that he rose up and said, "Exports aren't on the table," and the next month allowed for 35 percent of exports lets him off the hook and makes us the enemy.

Well, I want the minister to know, regardless of him trying to pit one region against another, that the opposition does stand united with the government to fight the softwood lumber dispute. We were pleased to see today that the federal government is requesting a NAFTA panel be created. There are some actions that this government can take that will actually put a lot of forest workers back to work, not just a few, and maybe put some more money into the coffers. I have….

J. MacPhail: I have some letters here from U.S. companies requesting that western red cedar be exempted, and B.C. companies have asked for exactly the same exemption. Given the fact that both the U.S. and Canadians are asking for the same and that they say there will be thousands of workers put back to work, what has this minister done to proceed with the exemption for western red cedar, as both sides of the line are asking for?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member knows the answer to that. At every given opportunity that we've had in discussions with the Americans — certainly with Governor Racicot, when he was fully seized of the file — we have made the point over and over again that cedar and those that rely on the processing and export of cedar are collateral damage in a dispute that has nothing to do with them.

I truly do welcome the members' participation and their willingness to lend that united voice. Let us make no mistake about it. The next three weeks are going to be crucial — 21 days until the Department of Commerce has a couple of options, one of which is to turn

what is now a preliminary order into a final order. Or we can try and get that deal.

I don't dispute the argument or what the member has said here today one iota. Cedar is collateral damage, and it shouldn't be captured by these draconian and punitive trade measures. Our objective over the next 21 days is to obtain an exemption for all British Columbia producers.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the opposition raised this issue several months ago — last August, as a matter of fact. The opposition did meet with Governor Racicot, as well, but the fact of the matter is that in obtaining exemptions, other provinces are further ahead in protecting their province's interests than British Columbia is.

I have the document from the coastal forest operators that says they could resume operations, putting thousands of workers back to work, if an exemption is achieved. Mr. Racicot was here. The government has to take action on this much more strongly. I want to know now what it is that the minister is doing to pursue this exemption publicly and what help he needs. We're here to offer him help. What more help does he need to make this case?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member probably understands this, but let me remind her of the circumstance that exists. She has said to the Americans: "Exempt cedar." The Minister of Forests has said to the Americans: "Exempt cedar." The Premier has said: "Exempt cedar." Actually, the government of Canada has said: "Exempt cedar." Indefensibly, the Americans have said: "We're not going to."

It has not been my experience with them that they take action in advance of a date like March 21 to make our life any easier. In fact, their whole history on this file — and the member knows this — has been to make life as miserable as possible for thousands upon thousands of British Columbia forestry families.

But in the next three weeks, if the member wants to join with this government — as admittedly she has in the past on selected occasions — we will continue to impress that point. It goes far beyond simply the cedar exemption. We are at a stage now — and the member knows this — where we are going to have either an agreement that provides the relief and the certainty of access to the U.S. market that we need by March 21 or a far different scenario. If it's the second, it's going to be big problems for more than just cedar producers in British Columbia.

R. Visser: I'd like to ask a question on behalf of a person and some people who live in my riding. It's Darrel Wong, the president of IWA-Canada Local 2171. This question, of course, is to the Minister of Forests.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has levied a 19.3 percent interim tariff on B.C.-Canadian softwood lumber. Therefore, my question is: will the provincial government provide bonds at fair market value to B.C. forest companies that require such bonds in order to continue to operate and provide employment and stability to resource-based communities?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if I might say, this being one of the first questions that has come to the floor in this manner, I hope I didn't violate any of the rules of this House by contacting Mr. Wong in advance of answering the question on the floor of the House. I'll relate to the House what I related to Mr. Wong. It's partly covered in the previous member's questions. It's a good news–bad news story.

This issue goes away in 21 days, but it can go away in one of two ways. It can go away because a preliminary order becomes a final order, and then it's not bonding. Then Canadian and British Columbia companies are sending cash south, and the first cheque is a pretty big cheque. That is not a happy circumstance, and one we are working diligently with our partners across Canada and with the federal government to avoid.

The second way to avoid that is because we have a deal, a framework deal that will provide us with the certainty of access to that market that we need. It is that second objective that we are working towards. I do want to end by saying this: it is heartening and, I think, a tribute to all of the public officials who gathered in Vancouver yesterday that they did speak with one voice on behalf of the families who are dependent upon our forests and dependent on our mills operating. They said to the Americans with one voice: "If you value your relationship with Canada and British Columbia, be reasonable. Come to the table. Work with us, and let's get an agreement."

K. Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Education. The school district in my constituency, like school districts all around the province, depends on a timely announcement of their budgeting from the government — their fiscal allotment — in order that they can do proper planning and budgeting. In the past, as everyone in this House knows, the announcements have frequently been delayed and caused school districts to have to scramble to do their planning and budgeting.

I wonder if the Minister of Education can commit that my school district and others around the province will receive their budget allocation announcement in a timely way this year.

Hon. C. Clark: I think, as many members of this House will remember, that it has been a long time since

the government lived up to its duty under the statute to deliver the block funding announcement on time. This year we did that for the first time in a decade. We announced the block funding that would be available, and in addition to that, we recognized that school districts need to have an opportunity to go out and consult with their local school communities about how they're going to build their budgets. This Friday we are going to be sitting down with every school board chair, every superintendent and every secretary-treasurer and delivering their budgets to them so that they have an opportunity to go out and consult.

I'd add this, too, for the hon. member: this won't be the only piece of information that school districts have when they go out and build their budgets. They will also have the results of the parent-student-teacher satisfaction surveys which we'll be doing for the first time in the history of British Columbia. Those will be going out on time for the first time as well.

Hon. G. Collins: By leave, I move that notwithstanding the motion approved on February 13, 2002, regarding the Select Standing Committee on Education, the committee be hereby instructed to prepare a report to the House no later than March 28, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that notwithstanding the motion approved on February 13, 2002, regarding the Select Standing Committee on Education, the committee be hereby instructed to prepare a report to the House no later than March 28, 2002.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

I. Chong: When I adjourned debate on Monday of this week, I reserved the right to resume my spot. I had to check Hansard, because I almost forgot where I was.

What I was talking about on Monday was the fact that we had a budget that was tabled on a date according to a fixed legislative calendar, which I was very proud of. I also spoke of the fact that the budget introduced three-year service plans which, for the very first time in the history of this province, have been introduced for the benefit of all members to see and for the public, as well, to review and to hold this government accountable. I also indicated that as private members, we will go through those service plans, we will see how they affect our communities, and we will also hold our cabinet ministers accountable.

In addition, what the budget introduced for the first time was a three-year strategic plan, which I think is very important. I hope people have a chance to review this. A strategic plan is one that lays the direction and the framework with which to proceed. It has goals, objectives, key measures and strategies for the various ministries to follow through on. I think it will be very telling in the years to follow — how the government measures up to these strategic goals and objectives.

When I was here in opposition for the last five years, I found it extremely difficult, because each and every year, as members proceeded to debate the budget and go through the budget estimates process, we were not always able — we were rarely able — to hold the government to account for their ministries' objectives, because they didn't provide us with a strategic plan, they didn't provide us with a vision, and they didn't have anything of a substantive nature that we were able to look further into to ensure that the tax dollars that were being collected were being used in the best way for the taxpayers. I am very pleased to see that's happened in this particular budget.

What probably is also surprising is that this budget really didn't hold too many surprises. This government, since its election last year and being sworn in last June, has been open and transparent, such that on January 17 of this year, the day that many labelled Black Thursday, so much information was provided about the spending plans for this government that when the budget came out about four weeks later, very few people looked at it with any kind of concern. It's because of that openness and transparency, which I think has served British Columbians well.

I know the opposition is going to go through and critique the budget, as they should do. That's their job, and that's what we did when we were in opposition as well. I know they will be negative, because, admittedly, we were negative when we were in opposition. But that was because they never told us when they were going to introduce a budget, their underlying assumptions were rarely reliable, and generally speaking, they had no plan to restore the economy — much different than what we have.

I also want to mention that I acknowledge the comments made by the opposition members about the fact that they don't like us to remind them of their megaprojects — things such as the fast ferries. I will try not to do it too often, but they have to expect that when they rise in this chamber and rail against the things we do, they need to be reminded. It is exactly those kinds of unaccountable expenditures that have put us in this particular situation. I

will caution myself and be mindful that it doesn't have to come up too often, but when it does, it will be because they need that gentle reminder.

I want to talk a little bit about what's in this budget. If people haven't had the time to look at it, they really should spend a little bit of time looking at the condensed version of the budget and fiscal plan. On page 40 is where they will see the expenditure, ministry by ministry. What's important to note is that the budget that was tabled for this current year, 2002-03, shows an expenditure of $25.556 billion. The amount that is going to be reduced by the year 2004-05, the time that we expect a balanced budget that has been truthfully developed…. It goes down to about $24.128 billion — just over a billion dollars; I think a $1.4 billion decline — over the three years.

When I hear the opponents and critics say we're moving too far and too fast, I really have to ask why they're saying that. The overall percentage, I think, is 25 percent over three years — about 8 percent per year. We did not do what other provinces and other jurisdictions have done — that is, to take across-the-board cuts. We chose a more measured and more balanced approach, one that did look, ministry by ministry, at what needed to be done, what taxpayers expected.

What we also did, which was very rare, was consult. The Premier constituted a number of select standing committees in the last session and allowed these select standing committees to travel and tour the province to those communities that don't have an opportunity to have their presence known in this chamber.

I was on one of those committees, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and we did hear a lot from the communities — the rural communities in particular. We heard that rural communities were affected in a different way than urban communities. We also heard that they did want us to proceed. They wanted us to proceed cautiously, and they wanted us to make sure we did consider our society's most vulnerable.

When I asked the Minister of Finance at one of our original meetings back in September whether the report we would table as a select standing committee would be used in his budget preparations, he indicated that absolutely and positively, yes, it would. As a result of seeing this budget, I believe he has done that. He has proceeded cautiously.

As I go through the budget document, you will find that we have mitigated, wherever possible, the impacts on our society's most vulnerable, those who are our low-income earners and those who depend on government services. In proceeding cautiously, I think British Columbians want it to at least move us ahead. They didn't say: "Stop in your tracks." They didn't say: "Go back and do what the last ten years of governance has done for this province." They did say: "Proceed." That is exactly what we're doing.

The business plans that the previous government tabled in the past were usually outdated. They didn't have what I would say are clear underlying assumptions. Oftentimes, you did wonder about their forecasts. Listening to the Minister of Finance and going through the budget document, you can see that he has used very conservative revenue forecasts. That is also something different from the previous administration.

When I was first elected in 1996, we found out shortly thereafter about the previous Finance minister having tabled what is now known as the fudge-it budget. The reason why it was a fudge-it budget was because the revenue forecasts were more than a little out of line with what a prudent person or economist would look at. So I think it was the right choice for our Finance minister to use revenue forecasts that would be conservative.

When you do that, you have to face the consequences. That's what the previous government wasn't prepared to do. On the eve of an election, they wanted to show they had balanced the budget so that electors would believe them and vote on that basis. What we've done in our first full budget was that(. We were prepared to put out for all people to see that our revenue forecasts were going to be reasonable, that they were going to be conservative and that the other part of the equation, the spending side, was going to result in a net deficit.

Admittedly, I'm not happy about any kind of a budget deficit. For five years in opposition, I spoke against a budget deficit, but what is more important to me is that the truth be put out in our budget documents, that they are going to be relied upon and that people — the international investors and those who would judge our financial performance — can put some reliance on the information that is presented here. If we put that out truthfully and accept our consequences, I think we can all hold our heads up high.

I believe that has happened, because the reaction from people around has not been as negative as the opposition members would have us believe. People have actually said: "Well, we don't like this deficit — absolutely, we don't like this — but we see that you have brought in a budget that is believable, that is reliable."

I would like to quote from a press release as well — a news release from an organization that I'm very fond of, for obvious reasons, and that the opposition members also choose to read into the record. That's the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia. Each and every year after the budget lockup, they do their job and issue a press release. Each and every year we used to get up in opposition and quote from it, because it was always good fodder for us.

I was surprised to see this particular press release, because it said: "Confidence in strong budget weakened by tax hike." I didn't much care for the title, but I do understand where they're coming from. While I may not agree with their caption title, I do respect that this is the information that they want to put out.

What the Leader of the Opposition read in was only that part about the budget weakened by a tax hike. She

didn't quote the very, very first line: "The tough measures enshrined in the 2002-03 B.C. budget are a solid foundation for a sustainable economy…."

Well, that's absolutely what we're talking about. The whole thrust of the Premier's throne speech, and the premise on which the budget speech is also based, is about revitalizing and restoring our economy. If this endorsement from the CGA Association says that it's a solid foundation for a sustainable economy, then I'm very proud that they issued this press release. It's not all bad news here, so if other members want to quote from it, I hope they do.

In addition, there's the comment about moving too fast. Well, they've addressed this here as well. They say: "At CGABC we share the government's sense of urgency." If the opposition members would choose to use this press release, I think they should have a look at that.

This press release also mentioned — just one other, final quote — that we had a "heightened sense of urgency to get our house in order." I heard that around the province as I toured last fall and last winter. Since the beginning of this year and after the September 11 tragedy, I've heard people say: "We really cannot be at the back of the race any longer."

As the Premier once put it, we weren't even in the race. We weren't even at the starting line. As people were lapping around us, we were just standing still. We had to move ahead. That is why I think people have a sense of urgency.

To be balanced with this news release, the CGA Association did say that they felt the small tax hike in the PST, the provincial sales tax, sends a strong message. I appreciate that, because people in the general population were wondering why a 0.5 percent increase had to be imposed.

I think the Minister of Finance explained it very well. Twenty-four hours before he sent his budget papers to the printers, he had received information that was material and significant enough that he felt it was going to alter the reliability or credibility of his budget. It was time for him to put in another tax measure, not to ignore the information he'd received, so he introduced a tax hike.

It was a bit of a surprise to all of us. It was a surprise to me. But I'm also mindful of the fact that people have said — and we do listen to the public and the stakeholders — that when we get our financial house in order, and we will, we'll look at that 0.5 percent tax hike with an objective of removing it and even perhaps looking at the entire provincial sales tax rate anyway. I believe that the Finance minister will do that, because part of our objective is to have the most competitive tax regime, and the provincial sales tax is absolutely a part of that. I expect the Minister of Finance will look at that over the next couple of years, and I think all of us in this House are going to help him.

That's the press release that the opposition used, and I just wanted to refer to it to let them know that I do read some of the same material they receive.

I want to also share with those people who may be home watching us on this Wednesday afternoon at five to three that those of us on the government side have been very proud to support this budget, because we have had an opportunity to be involved in it. I think it's been a good process. With the government caucus committees, each and every member sat on one of five different committees. We had the opportunity to review service plans — to help our ministers shape their service plans and their goals, objectives and final budget figures. Who best would be able to provide that kind of information to our ministers but the private members? We're out in our communities, and because we represent every single riding in this province, each and every one of us has a different perspective to bring to those government caucus committees.

I live in the capital region. I live in an urban riding, and I appreciate and understand that it is very different here than it is in Dawson Creek, Mackenzie or Prince George. When I hear people in those communities talk about the need to ensure that they have a good education system and a good health care system and that they have difficulties in retaining their health care professionals, I think we have to look outside of what happens just here in Victoria, the lower mainland and Vancouver, and think about them.

When I was there, I do recall speaking to some of the residents who came out to a forum. They said: "You know, in Victoria you have the luxury of calling up an ambulance and having them in ten or 15 minutes at your home if you need service. Here we could wait an hour and then another hour to be transported to a hospital." That isn't good enough. We have to take a look at different ways of delivering services that people expect. We can't provide everything — I know that, and I think all members here know that — but we have to make sure that those services we must provide are delivered in the most cost-effective and efficient way so that people will begin to be able to depend upon and rely on those services.

Another initiative this government had — again, to do with our financial house — was the appointment of an independent fiscal review panel last year. I think it was a good thing. These people were volunteers and were prepared to take a look at the government's books. As we know, in the past, when one government is defeated and another one comes in, they usually go out and hire a number of auditors and accountants and spend all these taxpayers' dollars, poring over government books. I'm not saying that isn't an appropriate thing to do, because you do have to be a little bit cynical when you take over from a government that you haven't trusted for the last five years.

Our Premier understood — already knew — that we would have had fiscal challenges and didn't want

to go out and spend millions and millions of dollars having this review take place, so he went out and sought volunteers, experts in their fields, who were prepared to come forward, comprise this fiscal review panel and do the job that was asked of them. That was to take a look at our government finances. They did, and they a good thing for us, as British Columbians. They went through, and they said: " You're going to have a deficit." They prepared us. We already knew we were going to have a deficit because of the spending patterns of the past.

This is why this — I wouldn't say it's a new phrase — more commonly used phrase has surfaced: a structural spending deficit. It's when government after government spends more than they take in, introduces new programs one after the next — never evaluating them, never dropping off programs that perhaps are no longer valid, and continuing to add on — that you develop a structural spending pattern that becomes no longer sustainable.

The fiscal review panel, I think, opened up our eyes and just made it that much more important for us to appreciate the next step, which is what the Premier went through with a number of private members on another committee — the core services review. Again, I didn't envy any of my colleagues who were on that committee, because I imagine that the work they had to go through was horrendous. I imagine that they had to hear from minister after minister — not just once; perhaps a second or even a third time — as each minister went through their ministries, and really challenged themselves and asked the question of what the core services are that taxpayers expected and needed — what core, essential, vital services needed to be provided to them. They had to make some choices as to those that no longer would be provided. In the end, this is what has helped form the budget that we see before us.

Again, I don't think that's a bad thing. As I recall, there were at one time many organizations that provided a number of social services, I guess you would call them, to our society's most vulnerable. They sprung up from the grass roots. These were volunteers who were prepared to meet a demand that the government hadn't considered. These volunteers took pride in what they did. They formed their non-profit organizations. They went out and fundraised. They bought equipment when it was necessary. They provided a service to the communities that we all live in.

Government could never do everything. The fact of the matter is that we depended on our volunteer organizations and agencies. Whether they are people who belong to Rotary or Lions Clubs, whether they are people who belong to the Kinsmen or Kiwanis, these are all organizations which we have grown to appreciate and which have added to our quality of life. These organizations provided many services. Over the years, over the course of the last decade, some of them either redirected their objectives or decided that they were no longer going to provide certain services — not because they didn't want to but because, unfortunately, the previous administration went after them and attacked our volunteers. Organizations, particularly, that raised money….

I. Chong: I see the opposition member shaking her head. I just can't believe how quickly she forgets that her government went after organizations that fundraised, that built community care beds and that were under the threat of being…

I. Chong: …expropriated. I had one in my very own riding: the Queen Alexandra Centre. This government wanted to take it. I fought to have that be retained. That is why last session we had the Minister of Health Services introduce a bill that finally gave assurance that no organization for whom volunteer dollars were raised to provide a quality-of-life service in their communities would have the threat of their asset being expropriated. I supported that piece of legislation last year. I've heard back from that organization, and they say that's a good thing. These organizations now have the opportunity again to know that they can continue to fundraise, to do whatever they felt was their mandate, their vision, and to contribute to their society.

Speaking of volunteers, I think another laudable and excellent measure in our New Era document, a commitment that we've now delivered on, is to refund the provincial sales tax on purchases for schools made with parent advisory council–raised funds. That is a very good measure. I think parent advisory councils around this province are very pleased with it. I haven't heard anybody complain. I know that when we were in opposition, we raised that very issue. When someone brought that to our attention and said that we need to look at the sales tax, we did.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize how fast the time goes by when there is so much to say about such a wonderful budget. I just want to say on the record that I support this budget. I hope all members of this House support this budget.

J. Kwan: I can't help but note the previous member who rose up and said that this government supports volunteers. You know what? This government cancelled the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. You know what? That ministry was established to provide support, to build capacity in communities and particularly to assist people who volunteer in their communities. You know what? All of that work in the ministry is now gone from this government. This is their dedication.

J. Kwan: The members in this House rise up and they say: "This budget is just glorious. It's absolutely wonderful; it's great for British Columbians."

You know what? I'd like to ask the members how they'd feel if you were this person who sent out a press release on the impacts of this budget. I'm going to read this entire press release and quote her. These are not my words, because I'm not in that situation, but real British Columbians are. Single parents out there are hurt by this budget. People with disabilities are hurt by this budget. Seniors are cut by this budget, and youth are hurt by this budget.

I want to know from the government benches, the seals that bark every time the executive council speaks, where they are when the community raises these issues. Are they just deaf to these issues, or are they just not listening to them?

Here's one comment from a woman who is faced with challenges and hardships as a result of this budget. I'm going to read the press release into the record. To put it in context, this came from a large meeting that was held at Langara College. A variety of people came to this meeting. Over 80 people attended it: concerned citizens and representatives of educational, human service agencies, individuals who need social services, legal support and community services in British Columbia.

These are the words of a woman named Suzanne Barton, a single parent and domestic abuse survivor:

Another speaker deplored the lack of compassion and justice shown by these cuts: "The Premier in his televised address to the province made no reference at all to the plight of the tens of thousands of poor and vulnerable citizens of British Columbia that will be affected by these cuts," said Graham Riches, director of the UBC school of social work and family studies.

"Many of these actions are unlawful. They have serious implications for human rights. They violate the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Taking the government to task on its rationale that it is faced with a structural deficit, Michael Goldberg, research director at SPARC-BC, asked: "How can the government have a structural deficit when it is the government that controls both revenues and expenditures?"

Mr. Goldberg added: "What is the logic of taking $600 a year away from the people who only receive $6,600 a year and giving a tax cut of over $6,000 to one person who earns over $200,000 a year?"

I wonder, hon. Speaker. From the chambers here, from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: are there no single parents in her constituency who need support from government that she's spoken with? Do they not exist at all in this entire province for the government members? Or are they just out there somewhere far, far away, because they are the people that this government has chosen not to represent and not to hear their voices?

When the government backbench members rise up and speak proudly of this budget, I wonder if they've asked the questions. When they say that they have participated, I wonder if they've asked these questions. These are some of the questions that Langara College had put together — the forum that was hosted at Langara College by a variety of people who attended, who asked these questions. I wonder if any of the government members asked the executive council, asked the Premier, asked the Minister of Finance, asked the Deputy Premier these questions.

One of them says: "Have you identified the risks in your cost-cutting? What are they? What other plans do you have in place to respond to them?"

Another question is: "Do you think that cutbacks to social needs will not increase harm in all areas, increase crime, diseases, addictions, suicides? Reduction in welfare benefits equals increased crime. How will your government deal with this? Reducing income assistance equals loss in pride, self-esteem, self-worth, hope, and increases the rich-poor gap. How will the government deal with depressed neighbourhoods?"

Another question that was asked by the community was: "What do you mean by special interest groups? Why is everyone except business designated as a special interest group? Why not give the tax breaks to the people with lower incomes, since these moneys will almost certainly be spent in British Columbia? Is it fair to the next government, which would have to deal with the social disintegration that you're creating?"

I wonder if any of the government members asked any of these questions, looked at the government programs and the budget that was introduced with a poverty lens — to look at the impacts of this budget from a poverty perspective impacting British Columbians. Look at any of these issues through a women's lens. Well, you know what? Is it any wonder that women's issues are actually not highlighted by this budget — not at all? It is no wonder, because you have a minister whose view is that the ministry for women's equality is sunsetting. Its days are sunsetting. "It's getting closer to the sunset." That is a quote from the Minister of State for Women's Equality. The Minister for Women's Equality goes on further to say that people have choices to make for themselves: "The opportunities are

exactly equal. A single woman and a single man have exactly the same opportunities with the same education."

Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? The minister must have missed all of the years, the history of women struggling for pay equity, trying to get access for recognition in the economic system that exists right now for pay equity. Women are suffering because they actually earn less than the men. You know what? The Minister of State for Women's Equality's perspective is that the disparity between men's and women's average pay exists because women want to work part-time. She says that's a choice they have made. They choose to earn less money. Well, is it any wonder that for this budget, women's issues are not highlighted by the government as a priority? It is not a priority.

I know the government says: "You are our priority — women, children, the poor, the most vulnerable. You are a priority. We're going to put your issues first." But when they say that, you know what it actually means? It means cutting the programs that you most depend on. That's what it means when the government says you are their priority — unless, of course, you're in the business community; unless, of course, you are the wealthiest British Columbians in British Columbia.

The stats actually show this. Marc Lee at the CCPA has established that the top 8,000 B.C. taxpayers got a larger portion of the tax cut than the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers. So if you are in the top 8,000 British Columbians in terms of your tax bracket and your income, yes, you got the greatest benefit from this budget. Make no mistake about it. But you know what? If you were in the bottom 50 percent, you got the least benefit from this Liberal government's budget. That's when the government says: "You're our top priority." Well, you know what? Pray that you are not in that 49 percent or 50 percent bottom end, because top priority for you means increased taxes. For you, it means cuts in services, decreased access to government programs. That's what it means for you.

During the last election campaign the Premier made a lot of promises to British Columbians. He insisted that his planned tax cuts would pay for themselves. He promised that he would not increase taxes. He swore that his economic strategy would benefit low- and middle-income individuals and families. All the evidence points the other way. Top economists and even his own economic advisers said that the Premier's plans would not work. They said it was unwise to cut taxes when the economy is in a downturn. They said that the Liberal government would have to run a deficit or drastically cut services to make up for the revenue lost to tax cuts. They advised the Premier to proceed with caution.

You know what? The Premier pressed on, choosing ideology over expert opinion. On his first day in office, before he even looked at the books, the Premier gave away billions in tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the highest-income earners and the wealthiest corporations in British Columbia. He said that his high-income and corporate tax cuts would be a cure-all for everything in British Columbia. He said that it would be done without pain, without sacrifice and without cutting the services in B.C.

Nine months later, on February 19, the budget was introduced. The government introduced its first full budget, and now we all know the truth — that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Social program cuts pay for tax cuts. Record-setting deficits pay for tax cuts. Low-and middle-income families pay for tax cuts, and British Columbians are starting to see and feel the damage and the hurt that result. For most British Columbians, the measures the government has taken in this budget have wiped out whatever was left of the tax cut after nine months of service cuts and fee increases.

Just to put it in perspective, the average income of my constituents in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is $20,000 a year. Their tax cut is $110 a year in total. That's not a monthly tax cut. It's $110 a year. The promise that came from the Premier was that he wouldn't raise taxes. But in this budget, what did he do? He raised the gas tax. He raised property taxes. Worst of all, he raised the tax that would hit families the hardest: the provincial sales tax.

He said he would put patients first, but his budget says that 10,000 surgeries will be eliminated.

J. Kwan: The Premier said children will be the top priority, but do you know what the budget says? There will be fewer resources for children at risk.

The government said that they will build safer communities, but the budget says there will be 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions. There will be 60 community law offices closed throughout British Columbia. These are the law offices in which the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, the people who need to get access to legal aid, the people who need to get access to their legal rights, the people who face multiple barriers, who depend on the lawyers in these offices…. Sixty community legal offices will be shut down. That's what this budget is bringing to British Columbia.

The Premier, I understand, cannot control how many surgeries will take place this year in B.C. or how many children will be put at risk or how many crimes will be committed. But the Premier can set the priorities of this government. They could decide to not give away billions of dollars in tax cuts to the highest-income earners or the big corporations. They could put

aside the ideology and look at the needs of B.C. and really put the priorities of the people who are most in need first.

But what is the ideology of the government? What is driving this agenda behind the budget? I suppose that ideology could best be summed up by the woman who was appointed by the Premier to be the Minister of State for Women's Equality. In her interview with her local paper, the Langley Advance News, the Minister of State for Women's Equality stated very succinctly what her Premier and her colleagues have always believed. That is the notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The Minister of State for Women's Equality says that's the world we live in. That's the world we've always lived in. In that same interview, she provided some advice to anyone who feels disadvantaged or left behind by the Liberal government. To them she said: "Well, then make more money."

That is the approach of this government. If you are middle-income or if you're low-income, and this budget does not provide for your needs — too bad. Go out there and make more money so that you can get into the higher income brackets, so that you can get into the benefits of those tax cuts.

What of the people who are faced with multiple barriers and are not able to do that? What happens to them? They're not the minority in British Columbia — quite the opposite. They're the majority. The majority of British Columbians who don't make $200,000 a year in income will be hurt by this budget. Make no mistake about it.

The government claims that every effort has been made to mitigate the impacts of cuts and the elimination of public services, especially on women, seniors, children and those who are most vulnerable. But the reality is that women, children, seniors, people with disabilities and the poorest British Columbia citizens are specifically targeted by this government, by their extreme and, quite frankly, mean-spirited agenda.

Welfare cuts are being made in a variety of areas. The justice system and legal services are going to be impacting the people who need access to legal rights. The closure of 24 courthouses throughout British Columbia, the gutting of funding to support family law and poverty law, slashing the budget for the debtor assistance program, eliminating Crown victim services, eliminating family advocates, gutting the Human Rights Commission, cutting the child care program…. Most British Columbians, unlike what the Minister of State for Intermediate Care thinks, are not tennis moms. They need child care services so they can get out into the workforce to support their family.

The abandoning of the responsibility for child protection and family development, the axing of the inner-city school funding…. This government claims it wants to give every child and every student in British Columbia the opportunity to enhance their educational outcomes. What are the government's plans for the most vulnerable children, many of whom live in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and in my colleague's riding of Vancouver-Hastings? They are the most vulnerable children living in the inner city, and the funding from this government for the inner-city schools is gone. Do you know what? That funding goes directly to assist the children to stay in school. It's direct services to assist them to stay in school. It's counselling services so they can deal with the challenges and the traumas that they experience, unfortunately, early on in their lives.

It is services to ensure that the parents can participate in the school system, which the Minister of Education claims she values so very much. What is she doing to ensure that the inner-city school parents have opportunities equal to the west-side schools? What we did was ensure that inner-city school funding is provided for and that the school meal programs are introduced and that the community school funding is in place.

The Minister of Education fails to see that the children who are most vulnerable are the children living in the inner city who live in poverty and who face multiple problems, and aboriginal children who have the lowest educational outcomes. Without consultation the minister has cut that funding — without consultation not just with parents, not just with educators, not even with the trustees. They read about it in the newspaper. How is that helping the people who are most marginalized?

The Minister of Education thinks it's funny, and she's chuckling to herself and smiling broadly. I invite her to my riding to meet with the parents and the children who have the hopes and dreams that every member in this House has for themselves and for their children. I want those hopes and dreams, as well, for the children from the inner-city schools. The minister is just mocking the needs of these children. She's saying: "Yadda, yadda, yadda; whatever, whatever; blah, blah, blah." Shame on her as the Minister of Education, who just belittles and casts aside, as though those children somehow don't count and as though somehow those families don't count. They do count. They're real human beings, and their lives count for something. Their hopes and dreams, too, must be realized.

Today in this House we recognized the loss of Harry Rankin. He must be sitting up there right now in the golden dumpster looking down and thinking: "My God. What will this Liberal government do to ensure that the voice of the underprivileged is heard and that their needs are met?" I have to say that in looking at this budget, I see very little that is being offered from this government to the people who are in greatest need.

On the education and training programs front. The budget speech doesn't tell you. You have to comb through this information to find out and really, really look for the information. Read between the lines. What have they done? Well, they've eliminated the training programs and the Welfare to Work initiatives, the Summer Student Works program, the skills for employment program and the Job Start program that are

targeted toward welfare recipients to assist them to move from income assistance to work opportunities.

The tuition deregulation that was introduced by the Minister of Advanced Education was somehow supposed to enable access. What of the families who are middle-income and low-income, who don't have a bottomless pit for the tuition fees they will now have to fork out in order to get post-secondary education?

Opportunities will be lost for many of those students: disbanding the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, known as ITAC; the closure of employment services centres; the cutting of funds of the entire network of women's centres in B.C.; eliminating even the audio books programs for the blind; cutting multicultural language programs; bridging employability programs; and Bladerunners.

Bladerunners was the program designed to help youth at risk, street-involved youth, to gain employment opportunities, to learn a skill and move into the workforce, and to gain self-esteem. That program is now gone. Funding for treaty advisory committees is cut.

This government wants to highlight the Olympic bid, yet what is this government doing to assist amateur athletes in the Olympics? The government has cut the athletes assistance program and all the funding for the National Coaching Institute, denying any assistance to B.C.'s young athletes and the programs that support them.

They have fired the senior advisory council and slashed support in the women and seniors bureau in what is known as the ministry of lost causes — that is, the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — cutting the staff from 11 full-time positions to the equivalent of 2½ full-time positions. Prior to this budget, what else has this government done to help the people who are most in need? They have cancelled the universal child care program. That started in August last year.

They lowered the minimum wages for all the people they're going to cut off income assistance that they want to push out to the workforce. They will now be making $6 an hour, as opposed to $8, for the first 500 hours. That's how this government is helping you: reducing your salary, reducing your income, cutting your services, increasing your taxes. That's how they prioritize you when they say you are their top priority.

Victims assistance, rape crisis counsellors — they're faced with cuts as well. These are programs targeted, without a doubt, toward the most marginalized British Columbians. Pay equity? The pay equity provision is gone. When the members in this House say they're there for you, what it really means is that it's only if you are the richest British Columbians that this government will be there for you. If you don't fall within that income bracket, then you are faced with the most drastic cuts this province has ever seen.

I'd like to wrap up just by quoting Paul Willcocks from February 27 in an article he has written in the Vancouver Sun:

For the members who want to just simply say that people are not worried about the government's direction, that they are heading in the right direction, I ask them to pause. Stop and reflect for a moment and think about the people who speak otherwise, and work hard to make sure that their interests, too, are represented. For all the members who are silent, representing the most marginalized people in British Columbia: look in your hearts and make sure that their voice is heard in this chamber.

Hon. K. Falcon: Having listened to the previous member talk about this budget, I must say that I'm having real difficulty trying to understand what she said and to put it into any sort of realistic perspective about what we face here in the province.

You know, it's amazing that they continue to trot out the same, tired class warfare rhetoric that they've used for years and years in this province. They just haven't learned. They talk about how, when they were in government, they represented the working families of this province — the working people. Well, let me tell you, the working people of this province had the worst, most devastating time under ten years of NDP government. That's one thing that we certainly recognize.

They forget to talk about the almost 60,000 mostly young people that had to leave this province over the last decade to look for opportunity. They had to look for a future, unfortunately, outside of British Columbia — again because of their NDP policies.

One thing that we recognize, and that I certainly recognize, is that British Columbia needed a bold change in direction. The budget that we brought down under the leadership of this Premier and this Finance minister does exactly that. It is a bold response to a decade of neglect, incompetence and mismanagement.

It's also, frankly, a prudent response to some of the external challenges that we face in this province. The softwood lumber imposition of tariffs clearly has had a devastating impact on the forestry workers in this province. The issues surrounding the September 11 terrorist incidents are clearly having effects not only around the world but here in British Columbia. I'm proud of the steps that we have taken.

There are some that are against these changes. There are some who have benefited from the financial excesses of the last decade and are strongly resistant to any kind of change. Let's be frank about this. I recognize that the public sector union leadership were the chief beneficiaries of the previous government. You see, the previous NDP government really saw their role as the chief union organizer in the province. Frankly, many of their contract settlements — while I recognize that they served the interests of the public sector unions — certainly didn't serve the public interest. That's why we've made a decision that we need to start serving the public interest in British Columbia. I have absolutely no hesitation and make no apologies for doing so.

Let's think about the history and where we've come from over the last decade in British Columbia. Virtually every other government in Canada has dealt with the financial challenges they were facing over the last decade. Whether it was Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba or even Saskatchewan, they've dealt with the respective financial challenges that they faced in the early 1990s.

They had to make some tough decisions. Let's not forget that they, too, faced enormous opposition in many cases from the public sector unions. They, too, faced budget deficits and growing public debt. They, too, faced demands from doctors, nurses and teachers that in many cases were financially unaffordable, but you see, ladies and gentlemen, they faced those challenges in the early 1990s. Many of those other provinces made the difficult decisions to rein in spending and control expenditures and try and create a foundation for growth and opportunity. They and many of those provinces are now benefiting from the difficult decisions they made in the early 1990s.

I recall doing a fair bit of business in Alberta in the early 1990s, when they were going through a period where they had to rein in spending and make some difficult decisions, not unlike the kinds of difficult decisions we're making here in British Columbia. Let me tell you, you could hear the rain of criticism come down on them, the same thing we're facing today: the public sector union leadership yelling about how they were destroying the province, how the whole foundation of the Alberta economy was going to collapse under the weight of the poor decision that Premier Klein was making — same thing in Ontario.

You know what we found? What I noticed in Alberta was that over the years, as they made those difficult decisions, the response of private sector investment was incredible. Capital started to flow in. Capital and investment rewarded the government for controlling its expenditures and coming forward with a tax structure that made sense. Because of those decisions being made in the early 1990s, today they have surplus budgets. They virtually eliminated their public debt and now have the opportunity to reinvest in health care and reinvest in education, and they have the financial means to put forward first-class health care and education.

Even in NDP provinces like Saskatchewan they were dealing with their financial challenges, and even they had to make difficult decisions rationalizing health care and in many cases having to close hospitals. They made the difficult decisions that needed to be made so they could ensure that they had an economy that would support the services their public needed.

But in British Columbia? No, not in British Columbia. Over the last decade in British Columbia we continued — the previous government continued…. The member opposite who was speaking here was part of the leadership that continued the failed policies of tax and spend, continued cranking up the spending, continued hitting the public with tax increases.

What happened? We just saw endless increases in taxes, endless increases in public spending. It was a decade of deficits and increased debt; a decade of extravagant public sector union agreements that certainly benefited special interests over the public interest; a decade that saw this great province go from the number one economy in the country, back in 1991, to virtually dead last in almost every economic indicator; a decade not only of managerial incompetence by the leadership here in the previous provincial government but of a staggering level of incompetence that infected the Crown corporations — again, under leadership appointed by the provincial government — and that saw things like $500 million blown in the B.C. Ferry Corp with the fast ferries, that saw the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia blowing what looks to be somewhere around $100 million in real estate deals in my community of Surrey that made no financial sense whatsoever. It was widespread right across government.

This was the reality and the landscape we faced as a new government coming in, after a decade of financial irresponsibility that was unparalleled in this country. We had some challenging choices to make in British Columbia. Granted, we could have continued with the failed policies of the past. We could have ignored the challenging financial circumstances we face in this province. We could have said yes when the nurses were asking for a 60 percent wage increase. We certainly could have said yes most recently with the teachers when they asked for a 34 percent wage increase. We could have ignored many of the sweetheart side deals that were negotiated by the last government and that imposed huge, enormous costs on the provincial taxpayers. We could have done all that. That was an option.

But let's be clear about where continuing along that path would have left us as a province. It would have jammed down the accelerator of decline that has characterized our economy over the last ten years. It would, frankly, have set us on a course of decline at warp speed that would have been devastating for the taxpayers and the citizens of this province, but it was a choice. Now, we correctly rejected that option. That wasn't a path we were going to take British Columbia on. Instead, we chose to make more difficult — granted

We went through this process very thoughtfully and very openly. That's why we set up a core services review process. We wanted to examine every single ministry and Crown corporation in this province and look not just at how we're spending money or how much money we're spending but at how effectively we're spending the taxpayer dollars in this province. We wanted to say not just how much money we're pouring into a program but what kind of results we are getting for British Columbia. What kind of outcomes are we actually achieving in the province? Is the spending that we're currently doing effective? Are we achieving the goals that we should be achieving?

Those are questions that just have not been asked in at least a decade in this province, and we're asking them. That's a real philosophical shift. What we need to do is educate the public that the success of public spending programs and the success of how our health care or education systems are operating is not necessarily in how much money we're spending. It's how we're spending that money, and it's what kind of results we're achieving. That's why I'm proud of our Minister of Education, who is sitting next to me here and who is going to demand results from the dollars we're spending in education. She's allowing parents to be involved in the process, and I want to tell you how happy the parents in Surrey are about the opportunities and challenges that she's putting into the education system in British Columbia.

That is leadership, ladies and gentlemen. We're also providing political leadership as we go through these difficult times. That's why we as MLAs have taken a 5 percent pay reduction, and we've frozen that reduction over the next three years. I want to let the public out there know something. There is a misunderstanding. Some people write letters to the editor and talk about how we've given ourselves big wage increases. There've been no wage increases for the MLAs that serve. That's been confused with some federal Members of Parliament who voted themselves an increase, but it's not provincial. We've cut our pay 5 percent, and we're freezing that cut over the next three years.

We've done more than that. We've cut our legislative caucus budget by 25 percent. Again, we're demonstrating that we're going to make the difficult choices for ourselves.

Ministerial accountability has been reinforced. Back in July we voted that we would withhold 20 percent of ministerial salaries that would not be earned back unless we met our personal ministerial performance targets and that we as a government overall met our budget targets — 20 percent ministerial holdback that will take effect this April 1. That, again, is reinforcing accountability. I remind the public out there listening that back in 1996 we eliminated pensions for provincial MLAs — again, just to reinforce that MLAs are doing their part.

What we've done with this budget is address some of the structural barriers to growth that characterized the B.C. decline. We've done some exciting things not just in this budget but in the previous budget, dropping the personal tax rate by 25 percent across the board. I'm proud of the fact that the greatest percentage increase goes to those folks who are earning $60,000 or less. You know, the members opposite will talk about how this is tax breaks to the rich. Well, let me tell you that the greatest percentage increase — I say it again — went to those folks earning $60,000 or less. That is representative of the folks from my district, and I'm proud of the fact that the single parent, the single mother that cuts my hair — and I think, frankly, she does a pretty darn good job…. [Applause.] It's getting easier for her every year, but that's another story.

I want to tell you those tax cuts are meaningful for that lady, and they're meaningful for the folks that are working hard and struggling to raise families — and really struggling during tough economic times. We've put more money back into their pockets, and that, again, is a very important philosophical difference. The members opposite believe that government can better decide how to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. We believe that the public, who worked hard trying to earn those tax dollars, can better decide how they can spend that money. So, that lower tax rate is going to be important in generating future economic opportunity and future revenue growth.

I want to tell you that I never cease to be amazed at the critics who will tell us: "Oh, my goodness, you've made this tax cut, and eight months later we haven't seen the results of the revenue growth." Nobody with any serious credibility believes that when you make a tax cut like that, eight months later you're going to have all of it returned. We recognize that what we are doing is laying the foundation for future economic and revenue growth. It doesn't happen overnight, and the public out there understands that when you lay down a foundation, you will get a return. We will get that return. It doesn't happen overnight; it will happen over the next coming years.

We've also tackled corporate taxes. We knew back in July that we needed to reduce our corporate tax rate, which we did — from 16.5 to 13.5 percent. But in this budget I'm pleased to say that we've also increased the threshold for the small business tax rate to $300,000 from $200,000 to ensure that we would be in line with our major competitors in Ontario and Alberta.

We've fulfilled yet another new-era commitment by introducing refunds of provincial sales tax on school supplies that are purchased with funds raised by our parent advisory committees — another important new-era commitment fulfilled.

I'm very proud of the fact that as we went through this process, we've preserved the funding for the two very important departments of health care and education. That's something we ought to be very proud of.

I want you to know that in spite of the protests and the loud voices of special interests that are talking about how the world's coming to an end with this budget, the folks in my community have been very

vocal in phoning my office and stopping me in the street and telling me what a great job we're doing as government — that they support the direction we're moving in, they understand that we inherited a mess and they understand that we need to rein in government spending.

I've always been clear about one thing in my mind. I get that the union leadership may not understand or feel that they benefit from our policies, but I'll tell you that the union membership will. When we're creating jobs and investment and opportunity in British Columbia, that directly helps those hard-working union members out there who ought to benefit and will benefit from these policies. I feel very good about that.

I had a constituent that approached me and said: "You know, Kevin, a lot of what you're doing reminds me of a family household. It would be like if our family doubled our mortgage and our expenditures were exceeding our revenue in our household by several thousand dollars a month and our kids were going to all these great after-hours programs, and we were funding them to do this and that. If we were facing a situation like that, we would recognize that we would have to rein in our own spending in our household budget so that we acted responsibly. You know, that may mean we may have to say to the kids that they can't go to this particular summer camp or we're going to have to cut back in certain areas so that we can meet our responsibilities as a family." He likened that analogy to what we're trying to do as government.

I thought that was a fairly good analogy. I think many of the folks out there understand that we in government are doing what many households have to do, and that is to be responsible in their spending and to ensure that we are responsible in our spending as government.

The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia we have, in almost all cases, the most generous social programs in the country. Unfortunately, though, we have one of the worst-performing economies in the country. That was certainly highlighted by the news that in the year 2000 we were officially declared a have-not province in this country. What a shame that is for this great province to actually have been declared a have-not province.

That's what we're working to change. If we're serious about protecting health care and education — indeed, if we're serious about protecting all of our important government programs — then we have to recognize that we need a thriving private sector economy. We need to create the kind of opportunity that is going to attract investment, attract capital, restore confidence in the private sector and ensure that we are generating the kinds of revenues and taxes we need as a government so we can fund first-class health care and education systems in this province. That's exactly what the policies we've laid out are going to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I come to the conclusion of my remarks, I would just like to tell you that for all of us, as we go through this process, it's not always easy. The decisions that we make are not always easy decisions. We're keenly aware that sometimes the decisions we make impact real folks out there, but I am proud of the fact that we as a government have the courage to make those decisions, that we are honest enough with the people of British Columbia that we can say to them that we are prepared to make difficult decisions in the short term so we can enjoy the benefits in the medium and the long term. I'm proud of the fact that we have the courage to do that as a government.

Let me just say that one of the things that used to frustrate me so much over the last number of years was hearing about how great things were in Ontario, how great things were in Alberta. I used to hear that all the time in the course of doing business and talking to other people — about how bad things were in British Columbia. Well, I, for one, am tired of hearing about how great things are in Ontario and Alberta, and I want to see British Columbia pole-vault past Alberta and Ontario and become the greatest wealth-producing province in the country once again.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I'm proud of this budget. I'm proud of working with my colleagues. I'm proud of the direction that we've launched in British Columbia, and I look forward to seeing the great opportunities that are going to result from the decisions we're making today. Thank you very much.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, like my colleague, I'm delighted to rise in support of this budget today. I don't think that when any of us ran for office, we ran because we thought it would be easy to make tough decisions — because it's not. This budget includes a lot of tough decisions.

One of the things we've seen over the last decade is a government that refused to make tough decisions. That was an abdication of their responsibility to British Columbians, because each of us gets elected to do the things that we know are right, not to do the things that are easy to do. We get elected to sometimes say no to some of the special interests that come knocking at our door, not to say yes to everybody who comes looking for a handout.

We get elected to do what our constituents have asked of us, and what they have asked of us is to get British Columbia's fiscal house in order, to get our economy back on track. Most importantly, British Columbians want to go back to work. They want to go back to work in the forests. They want to go back to work in the mines. They want to go back to work in the tourism industry. They want to be able to go back to work, and when they get back to work, they want to earn a decent wage.

One of the things we've seen over the last decade — and we saw this yesterday when the progress board reported out at the provincial congress — is that British Columbia, over the last ten years, has become sixth out of the seven jurisdictions that they were comparing in our standard of living. That is disgraceful. It's disgraceful in a province that used to boast the best economy in the country, in a place where everyone who lived here

was proud to say: "I'm from British Columbia. Come on, folks. You'll find work in British Columbia. Come on, folks. Come to the best education system in the world, the best health care system in the world, the best economy in the country."

As our economy has diminished over the last decade, so has our ability to be able to support a great education system and a great health care system. Ultimately, this last ten years of neglect have meant that thousands of British Columbians have found themselves out of work and that tens of thousands of British Columbians have found themselves further and further behind, year after year, even though they work harder. It's also meant that for those of us who care so deeply about supporting our social programs, for those of us who care so deeply about ensuring that our children have the education they need to compete globally and that our parents have the health care they need when they need it, where they live…. For those of us who care about those things, those programs have also been badly endangered by a decade of a government that abdicated its responsibility to do the right thing, to make the tough decisions.

Do I stand here today delighted to be able to say: "Boy, we're going to give everybody everything they want"? No, I'm not going to be able to say that. Nor should I say that, because that's not what budgets are about. This budget is a budget full of very, very tough choices. There is no question about that. This budget is one that has a large deficit. This budget is one that has even a few small tax increases. It's a budget that meant we had to make very tough decisions in a lot of very important ministries.

One of the decisions, though, that this government made — and this distinguishes us from every other government across the country that's undertaken a restructuring — was to protect education funding from any reductions. We are maintaining education funding not just this year but over the next three years. That's because we believe that we have to put students first, and if you're going to put students first, the only way to do that is to maintain the budget for education.

Every single other government across Canada that has undertaken a restructuring like this one…. All of them did it in the nineties. All of them did it in the decade before us, so that they were able to take part in the largest economic expansion in North America's history — the one that we sat out. They put their houses in order, and they participated in that expansion. Nonetheless, we are putting our house in order today. Every single one of those jurisdictions that did that cut education funding as part of that restructuring. We didn't do that. We chose, consciously, not to do that.

I'm not going to argue that that means that there still won't be tough choices for school districts. There will be, but what we want to do as a government is give them the opportunity again to lead in their communities. Just as we as a government know it's our responsibility to show leadership, to make tough decisions, it is also school districts' responsibility to be able to lead. That's why they get elected.

One of the things we saw happen over the last decade was an erosion of school boards' right to be autonomous and to make the decisions that they are elected by their local communities to make. Increasingly, the Ministry of Education made decisions about programs in the smallest amount, determining for school districts what programs they should be providing. That isn't the business we should be in. We elect school boards. They are no less elected than any member of this House, and they're elected with a set of responsibilities that people expect them to fulfil. The Ministry of Education has over the years — slowly, through policies and practice — eroded that autonomy for school districts.

Part of what this budget is about is giving back that autonomy to school districts, saying to them: "We know that you are just as elected as we are. We know that you have rights and responsibilities, just as we do. We know that you have jurisdiction to make decisions." So let's let them make their decisions. This budget sets out a three-year rolling budget for school districts so that they know in advance how much money they're going to be getting. What an innovation. Think of it: school districts will actually be able to plan in advance how to run their schools, how to staff their schools, how to manage their budgets.

Not only will they be able to do that but because, for the first time in a decade, we've actually delivered the budget on time for school districts, this year they're going to be able to go out and consult with parents in their communities about what programs they'd like to see. What an innovation: to go out and actually talk to parents and talk to school administrators, principals and vice-principals — to talk to students, if that's what you choose to do — and to go talk to your individual teachers, find out what's going on in your local community and design an education system that meets their needs.

That's why we elect them, and that's why we're supposed to deliver our budgets to them on time. That's why this government has seen fit, for the first time in a decade, to make sure that that's actually going to happen.

This budget demonstrates to parents that we respect them. It keeps our government's commitment to exempt purchases for parent advisory councils from the PST so that the money that parents spend for their children in their children's schools goes a little bit further.

Parents work very, very hard to support their children in education. We should be encouraging parents all around the system as much as we can. We know that the single most important determinant of a child's educational success is parental involvement, so shouldn't we be welcoming parents into the school system, providing as many opportunities as we can for them to have input? Of course we should. Of course we should be saying to parents every day: "Here's how

you can help. Here's an opportunity for you to plug in and have meaningful input on your child's education."

Anyone who's a parent will tell you that there is nothing more important to them than their children — nothing. There is nothing they treasure more than their children. There is nothing more important to them than their children's future. There is nothing that they will sacrifice as much for as their children. Across the province we have parents who are involved in schools everywhere, parents in huge numbers who are involved in their children's schools, who are making a difference every day so that they can better their children's future.

This government's committed to making sure that that input is meaningful. Yes, we want to make sure that every penny a parent raises for their children's education goes into their education — absolutely — but we don't think that parents are just fundraisers. We think that parents are valuable for a whole lot of things in our school system other than just selling chocolates and putting on fundraisers. We know that parents certainly do that well, and we know that parents do a heck of a lot of it. Is that the reason they get involved in their parent advisory councils? Of course it isn't.

They get involved because they want to do something for their children. They want to make sure that they have an impact on the outcome of their child's educational program. Maybe they've been annoyed about something. Maybe they see something that they could do better. Maybe they just see it as their responsibility, their obligation to their child, to get involved and do something about it. That's why parents get involved in parent advisory councils.

As a government, we're saying: "Let's make those opportunities for input meaningful. Let's give parents as many opportunities as we can to get in and have their say. Let's not just make that say on paper. Let's make that meaningful. Let's translate what they say into results."

Another thing we're going to do to ensure that is parent-student-teacher satisfaction surveys. We want to know how they think we're doing in our education system. No one's done this in a systemic way in British Columbia before. We want to go out and ask parents what they think of our education system, what they would improve. Not in general — we want to ask them specifically about their children: "How could we do better for your children?" That's what we need to know as a government. It's the first time anyone will have ever done this.

We won't just be asking parents. We'll be asking students; we'll be asking staff. The results of those surveys will be made public. School districts will be able to act on those results and will have a good sense of how we're doing year on year when we compare those results. Surely that must be an important part of the information we'll gather every year.

One of the things that we're doing, as I'm sure you know, is entering into accountability contracts with every district in the province, where we sit down with them and say: "All right. Let's agree on your goals for improvement for the next year. Let's look at your data. Let's look at your foundations skills assessment results, which is some of the standardized testing that's done across the system at certain grades. Let's look at parent-teacher-student satisfaction surveys and see how you're doing in your districts. Let's look at your graduation rates and see what we can do to improve those. Then let's set goals for improvement — goals that are based on results."

That's what education is about. This is something we can actually measure, so shouldn't we be measuring it? Shouldn't we be holding ourselves to account for improvements? Let's set those goals, and then let's strive to meet them. Let's set our goals as high as we can, and then let's work to meet them so that we can make sure that year on year our education system is improving for children.

One of the most shocking things, I think, about our education system is the fact that one in four kids in British Columbia doesn't graduate from high school. That's pretty bad. That puts us amongst the worst of the jurisdictions that the B.C. Progress Board measured. We can certainly do better than that.

That's for the general population, but the story is even bleaker for first nations kids. For first nations kids, the graduation rate is 38 percent. We can do better than that. We need to recognize that it's not those kids' fault that they don't make it through the system. If we suggest that it is the fault of those children, then aren't we suggesting somehow that those kids maybe aren't smart enough or aren't working hard enough? I don't believe it's the children's fault that they maybe drop out in grade 5 or grade 6 or grade 10 or grade 11. I think we've got a problem in the system.

When the system doesn't graduate one out of four children, we have a problem in our system that we need to fix. We need to design a system that meets a greater number of children's needs so that we can create different pathways to success for those children. I simply refuse to accept that one in four children just isn't good enough to get a grad certificate in British Columbia. I refuse to accept that. One of the commitments we are making in this budget is that we will improve graduation rates in British Columbia. We will move us from the bottom of the heap so that we can eventually get to the top.

I know we can do better, because we spend a lot of money on education. We will spend $4.8 billion on education this year. That's a lot of money. If we aren't spending every single one of those dollars to benefit children and to make sure that we are improving academic achievement for each of those kids, then we're not doing our jobs.

When I talk about academic achievement, I don't just mean measuring who's doing the best at the best school in the best city in the province. I wouldn't suggest that for a second, because there are a lot of children who won't always get 90 percent on an exam. There are a lot of children who would never get 90 percent on an exam at the end of the year. There are some neighbourhoods where there are children who face

significant challenges in trying to reach those high levels. For some children, learning to read is a miracle because of the challenges they face. If a child goes into our system not able to read because of the challenges they've had at home or elsewhere in their community or their lives, and they score 60 percent on an exam at the end of the year, isn't that something we should be cheering? Isn't that a success we should celebrate? Shouldn't we celebrate that teacher, that parent? Shouldn't we celebrate that child who worked his tail off to get that result? It's not 90 percent, and maybe that child will never get 90 percent. Maybe 60 percent is the best that child will ever do, but it's a heck of a lot better than that child would ever have done if they hadn't been part of a system where their teachers cared, where their administrators and their school cared, where the staff at the Ministry of Education cared, where their school trustees cared, where their community cared. That's what this is all about: making the lives of each of those children a little bit better and giving them the tools that they will need to cope in an extremely and increasingly complex world.

This budget is the result of the most open budget process that I've ever seen in British Columbia and, I'm told, the most open budget process that anyone has ever seen in British Columbia. It's been open; it's been inclusive. You'll know that government caucus committees played a huge role in helping to design this budget. You'll know that Treasury Board did a whole lot of work to ensure that the impacts of this budget on people who were low-income were minimized.

You'll know that the Finance minister made information public about our financial status as a province as soon as he had it, even though that didn't always mean the government got a great headline in the newspaper the next day. He conducted the most open process for budget-making that we've ever witnessed in this province. That is a fundamental change to the way we manage British Columbia. It's a recognition that British Columbians deserve to know how their money is being spent on their behalf. It's a recognition of the fact that taxpayers and citizens deserve respect, a recognition of the fact that information is power. This Premier, this Finance minister and this government intend to give citizens the information that they need to be able to make judgments on their own.

The days of fudge-it budgeting are over. The days of casting a light on the budget process are here. This is a dramatic change. I know that every member of the government has appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this budget process. Certainly, as a member of the government, I have appreciated, as well, the openness of the Minister of Finance in designing this budget.

In conclusion, I'll say that this budget — as I said at the beginning — isn't full of easy choices. It isn't full of opportunities to say yes to everybody, to every special interest group that wanted something. This budget is full of difficult choices. There's no question about it. This budget contains some very, very tough decisions, but the decisions that we made in this government speak to our priorities.

Our priorities are ensuring that British Columbians have the education they need to be able to cope with an increasingly complex world and compete internationally, and ensuring that British Columbians have the health care they need to be able to care for themselves and their families. Those are what this budget sets as priorities, and I think we share those priorities with every British Columbian. Health and education are at the top of our list, not by accident but because we know those are the programs that British Columbians truly treasure the most. That's what this budget is about.

It hasn't been easy to make some of the decisions in here, but the decisions that we have made are the right things to do. Make no mistake: we will get to our goal of a balanced budget. We will get to our goal of a British Columbia that is prosperous, that boasts the best economy in Canada — a British Columbia where we can all say: "We are so proud to be from the greatest, best economy in the country."

We will be able to say that again; we will be able to reach that goal. This budget, for the first time in a decade, is a budget that will set us on that course.

B. Belsey: Let me start today by saying what a pleasure it is to hear the Minister of Education talk about education, when I contrast that to what we heard a little earlier on from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. If we believe that the sky is falling, as they have been telling us — or told us for 20 minutes in here — what a shame. It's so refreshing to hear exactly what we have in store for health care.

The 2002 budget that was brought down a week and a half ago has many benefits, many positive messages, for the people of the North Coast riding — my riding. I have only 20 minutes to speak, so I can't touch on all of those points, but I will touch on what I think are some of the most important.

One of the most important messages that came out in that budget was the good news for small business. That's the engine of northern communities and certainly in my riding. In the budget, small business heard of the increase in the threshold for small business income rate. It went from $200,000 to $300,000. That means that the hundreds of small businesses throughout British Columbia, throughout northern British Columbia and throughout my riding — the ma-and-pa operations, the home-based industries — are going to have less money taken off in the way of tax and more profit at the end of the day. That is good news.

Profit is not a dirty word. It's what companies and corporations and industries need to grow. It's what we need to create jobs. It's what we need to create opportunities in my riding. We often hear the phrase that profit is made on the backs of labour. Well, here's a fine example how. My government has changed the tax rate. It has moved that threshold to $300,000. That will

increase profit to small businesses, and it won't be created on the backs of labour.

The increase in the threshold to small business income tax is good news, but when you combine that with the good news we heard in the throne speech, where we have the Premier's commitment to small business round tables, this is proof positive that my government is committed to revitalizing our economy. His commitment remains strong and unwavering. We will work with small business.

Let me share with you some of the examples throughout my riding, some of the companies that may benefit from this tax change. In Stewart, the northernmost community in my riding, there's a company called Brand New Video. They haven't been in business that long, but it is a company that has the potential to move into that tax bracket. With the extra profits that they could realize, they may increase their stock. They may increase the size of their store. They may hire more help. That's the kind of message we want to get out there.

In Masset, the owners of a coffee shop called Haidabucks coffee shop are going to realize an increase in profit. They will benefit from the threshold of small business income tax, and who knows what they'll do? They may hire somebody else. They may get a new product line. They may put a new piece of equipment in. The thing is that the money goes back into the communities. It goes back into expansion. It goes into hiring. It goes into creating jobs.

There are many businesses in my riding — Barry's On Location Fabric Care in Prince Rupert, Bella Coola Valley Seafoods, Bella Coola hotels, Hagensborg hotels in the Bella Coola valley. They could benefit from this. This is good news. I have not spoken to these companies. I have no idea what their revenue is today, but I know, after being in small business for many, many years, that when you have more profit at the end of the day, you have more money to spend.

It gets spent, and for the most part it gets spent in those communities in which it's generated. Small businesses in this province are the biggest employers. They create the greatest number of jobs, and I'm proud to say that my government in this budget recognizes that fact.

I think the second-most important issue that came up in the budget is a solid commitment to a three-year plan to protect funding for health care and education. True to our commitment during the election campaign, we're putting patients and students first. The 2002 budget increases funding for the Ministry of Health Services from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion — an increase of $700 million that is going into health care, an increase of over 7 percent.

This is good news for the people in my riding. This is good news for the patients. This is good news for those dedicated health care providers that work in the hospitals across my riding. What a positive change for the province. Instead of half a billion dollars going into fast ferries, we're going to put three-quarters of a billion dollars into health care.

People throughout my riding once again know that there is a plan for health care that includes hospitals in Bella Coola, Queen Charlotte City, Masset, Prince Rupert and Stewart, and that the plan also includes nursing stations and nursing facilities in some of the smaller communities like Waglisla, Kitasoo, the Gitga'at, Lax Kw'alaams and many of those small first nations communities. This is great news, especially when we consider the state of health care across our country. We now have a long-term plan that puts patients first.

The other point was our plan to put students first. Education is the cornerstone of civilization. Education is the foundation upon which society builds and is developed over the years. Education is a priority of my government. In this budget we guaranteed $4.86 billion to the Ministry of Education and $1.9 billion to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

It always fascinates me when I listen to the members opposite. They stand there, and they sit there, and they bring in this fearmongering. They tell us that students across British Columbia will not be able to afford education. There are provisions in the budget so that students are assisted with the cost of education. Both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education have spent time travelling around this province talking to students, administrators and parents, and trying to understand what it is that students really need.

We had a freeze on tuition at one time. We supported that, but we also made it very clear that we would look at that freeze and talk to students and administrators, and we would travel this province and try to understand where we should be going with tuitions. The minister consulted extensively with many people in the province, and as a result she began to understand the hidden costs of tuition freeze.

Some of the concerns expressed by students regarding hidden costs were that educators and administrators were unable to fund courses and that students were losing access to courses. The availability of courses was disappearing, and the wait-lists were increasing. Degree-completion time was being extended. Students were telling us that what used to be four years to complete a degree was five and sometimes six years. If we take a look at the costs of that extra one or two years — costs in administration; costs in not being able to work, lost wages; costs in the extra course times; costs in accommodations — all that adds up. All that adds up to a huge extra cost. Maybe an increase in some tuition could shorten the number of years and offset those costs. My government listened to students, instructors and administrators across this province and took the action they requested.

Students are a priority of my government. The opposition wants the public to believe that lifting the freeze on tuition will be the demise of post-secondary education. I say they're wrong; they're very wrong.

This budget is also a major step forward. It's our commitment to balance the province's books while we maximize the province's opportunity for new growth and increase in private sector investments. This commitment is at a time when revenues lag, spending pressures climb and the world economy continues to change.

My government has stuck with its plan to take full responsibility for people's tax dollars. Those dollars must be managed wisely. They must be spent wisely. It's not an easy job; it's a very difficult job, but it's a job that my government's committed to and that my colleagues are committed to.

Mr. Speaker, the 2002 budget is a reality check. It will, as we move forward, help to put this province back to the have-province status that we once enjoyed. At one time this province was looked upon as a leader in Canada, a place where prosperity and opportunity were second to none. People wanted to move here. My parents wanted to move here. This was a place of milk and honey at one time.

Today we're doing those hard things to try and turn that around. We've had to make cutbacks — cutbacks that have been very, very difficult for people to understand; cutbacks that have impacted people across the province, including my riding; cutbacks that the colleagues in this room have felt. We've made cutbacks. We may have to make more. We did not know what would happen on September 11, but that's had a huge impact on what our government can do and the direction we have to take.

Should one take the time to read both the budget and the throne speech, you will see that there are many challenges. The challenges are there. The challenge, in some ways, is thrown out to the people of the province. We must all be prepared to roll up our sleeves, and we must all be prepared to work hard. Successes are achieved only when people work together. I know the people in my riding. I know they are committed people; I know they are hard-working people. I know they're people that need breaks, and I know they're people that need opportunities. We will all work together.

R. Hawes: I rise today also to speak to the budget of last week. I had planned to speak to a number of the specifics in the budget, but events of last weekend really made me change my mind. I've decided instead to talk a little bit about what happened this weekend, but first I want to talk about how we got into the budget situation that we find ourselves in. I also want to take some time to talk a little bit about health care and why we have the problems that we have in health care.

The opposition says that the budget was balanced last year and the year before. They left a big surplus for us. In fact, the auditor general in his report has said that spending and revenues were almost equal during the five years preceding this last year, but if one reads the auditor general's report very carefully — that's where I think those who are just reading headlines need to go — you find that the budget actually was not balanced at all.

What we had was a structural deficit. The other day here in this House the Leader of the Opposition said we were coining a new term: a structural deficit. Anyone who works in economics understands what a structural deficit is. It's when your spending pattern is bigger than your revenue pattern. That's what our problem has been. Energy prices, a one-time transfer from pensions and a longtime raid on Crown corporations balanced our budget two years ago, but spending patterns never changed. In fact, because there was a small surplus, the previous government increased spending.

Then when they left government prior to the election, and they knew they were leaving, they made a number of deals that increased what the deficit could be. In fact, I think many of us here refer to them as time bombs that they left ticking for us. People in this province understand; everyone understands deep down. We have a huge budget problem that was left to us as a legacy for the ten years of incompetence that preceded us. I think the members of the opposition also understand this. They have to. There isn't anyone who could look at the history of the last government over ten years and not understand that we have a huge financial problem. You can't solve that kind of recklessness without some pain. I think people fundamentally understand that.

As we went through the last ten years, I tried to get some clues as to what they were thinking. I did some reading. One of the pieces I came across was a statement made by a former Finance minister. She said: "…unlike other provinces, we intend to grow our way out and not cut our way out." Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you've ever heard of growing your way out. I'm not sure what she meant. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. It would be the Leader of the Opposition who said that. The Leader of the Opposition, when she was Finance minister, said that we will grow our way out, not cut our way out.

Well, I took a look to find out what did grow then, when the previous government was in place. There was the jobs and timber accord. There were going to be 30,000 new jobs in the forest industry grown. Does anyone remember the jobs and timber accord? It started with a 15,000-job loss. As it proceeded, though, and forestry people lost their jobs — good-paying jobs — there had to be ways to put them back somewhere to useful employment, so the forest renewal fund which the government had built, billions of dollars, was spent trying to find new ways to employ foresters who were going to be put out of work because thousands and thousands of hectares of good forest land in this province were removed from the annual allowable cuts.

Who did we put to work through this? Well, I can tell you that we took a number of forest workers and put them to work planting trees, an occupation that

previously had been done under contract by employees that traditionally earned between $10 and $12 an hour. We made them union people, and we took these foresters and put them to work at over $20 an hour, and we used forest renewal funds to augment their paycheques. Those that were making $10 to $12 an hour as contract workers previously were just put out of work. They were disposable because they were not union employees.

Then every day this group gets up and talks about how they are the ones who are the watchdogs for the underprivileged and for the poor. The other day in this House the Leader of the Opposition said that somehow we were picking on the lowest of the government-paid employees that were making only $16 an hour and that we were going to stop their paycheques from rising to, I suppose, $20 or $22 an hour. Somehow this was picking on the poor.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how those tree planters, who were making $10 to $12 an hour and trying to support their families on that wage and were supplanted by former forest workers, felt as they went on the unemployment rolls.

Mining was another one that I think the previous government wanted to see grow some jobs. They really went to work on the mining industry. About $500 million a year was spent on research and development in the mining industry prior to that government taking office. The mining industry, by the way, pays the highest average salary of all. It's over $70,000 a year, I understand, on average. Mining exploration went from $500 million a year to $25 million a year. That's growth; that's big growth. In fact, I think the only things that grew were the unemployment rolls and the deficit under the previous government. The Finance minister of the previous government, who said that we'll grow our way out, grew a deficit — that's all — and a deep, deep hole that she's left for us.

If you look at the previous government, they have a history of attacking success. Companies that make money were attacked over and over. You still hear it: attack the rich; attack the wealthy; attack the big corporations. "They're the enemy. They're making profits. We want to reward failure." That's what they like to do. Can anyone say Canadian Airlines? Do you remember Canadian Airlines? I think $25 million is the figure we pumped into that failing exercise to try to prop it up.

Skeena Cellulose should have stayed in private hands, and I'm sure everybody today would agree with that. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of our tax dollars were put into that company. Now, if we're really lucky — and I really hope we are — a private concern is going to take it over, and it is going to operate, but it should have stayed that way to start with.

We've got this long history of the past government rewarding failure and punishing success. As they like to say: "Let's tax the rich. We've got to really get after those big corporations."

I just found another little thing in Hansard. Let me just read you this. I wonder if you can tell me who said this: "Just on a fairness issue, we look at that for commercial and industrial uses. We try to be competitive with respect to income tax and other tax, being very conscious of the fact that one of the things that supports a healthy economy here in B.C. is making sure that our markets and our businesses can be competitive with jurisdictions around us."

I wonder who said that. Could it have been our Premier? Could it have been somebody from this party? That's the sort of thing this party says. I was amazed. This is something that was said by the Finance minister in 1996 under the previous government. They seemed to believe that tax cuts work and that you should cut taxes to corporations and industry if they aren't competitive with neighbouring jurisdictions. Well, they must surely mean small businesses. That's what they like to talk about. That's the engine. "We can't cut big corporations. They're the enemy."

Then I tried to find out what they were talking about. CP Rail had been complaining that their property taxes were too high in this province. The government of the day took a look and decided: "Yes, we must make you competitive. We'll give you a $20 million tax cut." They took some of that tax cut from taxpayers all across the province, but they took a lot of it from property taxes in municipalities so that ordinary working British Columbians could have a tax increase on their homes. They could be comfortable knowing that CP Rail could be more competitive, because they're not a big company. I looked that up too. When they got their tax cut, CP Rail had recorded a profit that year of $700 million. This last government and the two members there liked to talk about how the big corporation is the enemy. Yet, what hypocritical behaviour! It's disgusting.

This weekend we saw a very large demonstration here in Victoria, and we heard a lot about how it's because we are the enemies of the poor and what is in this budget that's hurting people. I've thought a lot about that, and I've thought a lot about the behaviour of the last government for a full decade. The unions, the big government unions particularly — the ones who contributed significantly to the election campaigns of the previous government and to the two members opposite — were the recipients of huge government largesse for the last ten years.

I would recommend to anyone watching and to members in the House to look up the HEU website and just read the Health Employees Union master agreement. It's really revealing. What I found there is that a first-year employee — be it a food server, a housecleaner or just about anybody who works in support services in hospitals — starts their first year with four weeks' vacation. On top of that, the contract spells out a workweek adjustment. The workweek adjustment moved the workday from 7½ hours to seven hours and 12 minutes daily. That's the workday: seven hours and 12 minutes.

It's very difficult, when you have back-to-back shifts, to do scheduling with that kind of workday, but that's sort of covered. If you read through the agreement very carefully, you find those employees that had worked 7½ hours and were now going to be seven hours and 12 minutes would still work 7½ hours; and in lieu of that extra 18 minutes a day they'd work, they'd get ten extra days a year off. That really makes the paid vacation six weeks for a first-year employee.

When I looked at that, I couldn't believe it. I have a son that's a union tradesman. I asked him what his vacation time was. I told him what the vacation time in the government union's contract was.

I'm not, by the way, blaming government employees at all. I look at the last government and the leaders of the big unions who made deals — sweetheart deals, I call them — not the employees. Any employee is going to take whatever is offered, and I don't blame them at all. But surely you've got to look at the last government…. Six weeks' vacation for the first-year employee. Now, I challenge you to find a business, a union job or any job in this country that offers that kind of vacation benefit in year one. It's not there.

Two weekends ago my son worked on the weekend on his union job. His contract says that he gets time and a half or double time. In fact, he and the whole crew worked for just regular time. They did it because they know that we're in big trouble economically in this province. They know that when they go out on a job, their employer has to make a profit or he's not going to be in business. They have to be competitive. If they're not competitive, they don't work. They're quite happy to take less than what they're entitled to under their contract, because they believe they've got to do their bit, do their part to make sure their employer is viable and is making that nasty word: profit. They understand it.

Lumber workers and private sector union employees all over this province are doing similar things because we all understand that we are in a huge financial crunch and that everyone has to pitch in and do their bit.

On the weekend we saw thousands of people come here. Their trip was all paid for, arranged and choreographed by the B.C. Federation of Labour, who spent $100,000 to get them here. Union leader after union leader got up and trashed the government and talked about how we're hurting the poor and the most vulnerable. What they're really saying is: "We're looking after our members — period." That's what their mandate is. I think the people of this province understand that. They know that the big union leaders have been in bed with the previous government. They were in bed for a decade. They cut deal after deal after deal that was not in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province but rather was in the best interests of their backers. The unions were the backers of the past government, and so I ask what the rally on the weekend was really about. Where is this campaign about all of the pain coming from?

Each and every one of us knows we've gone to great lengths to protect the most vulnerable. In almost every section of our budget you'll find that the most vulnerable have been afforded specific and special attention. They have been shielded and sheltered from the kinds of cuts that are affecting so many others. The fearmongering is a paid advertising campaign that's coming out of the offices of the B.C. Federation of Labour and some of the big unions. I think it's shameful.

I'll tell you what. The other thing that's shameful is the statements they're making: "We're going to be at war; We're going to shut this province down." Mr. Georgetti is very familiar to the Leader of the Opposition — very familiar. Ken Georgetti — a voice from Ottawa: "We'll stop economic growth in British Columbia." That's going to help the workers of this province?

It's time the unions got responsible. It's time the union leaders got it just like the private sector workers in this province get it. It's time the leadership of the big government unions gets it. We're in trouble. It's time to pare back and peel back the rhetoric and together work our way out of this mess, and it is a mess.

Just for a moment I'd like to talk about health care. I was privileged to travel the province on the Health Committee. We heard from British Columbians in every corner of this province. They knew that health care is in trouble. What we're doing here is not sustainable, and a lot of the reason…. We heard it in place after place after place. They would ask: "Why are you paying 35 percent more for labour in the hospital than for private sector labour doing the same kinds of jobs?" We're hearing from the union bosses all the time how someone who is serving food in a hospital or a care home has a different job, somehow, than someone who is serving food in any other kind of establishment. That's a great argument. It doesn't hold a lot of water, though, I don't think.

It's the same thing with laundry. Somehow hospital laundry is much different than laundry in a hotel. There's some body fluids in the laundry in a hospital, and I guess they have to wear rubber gloves, but this is not a job that requires a high education level such as nursing or any other job like that. I don't want to denigrate laundry workers or food servers, but these are jobs that in the private sector are almost entry-level jobs. In the government service, the previous government has turned these into career jobs. We're making career people of those kinds of workers, and I think that's wrong.

What we're doing is taking high-paid jobs in the forestry and mining sector and turning people into…. For example, perhaps the shut-down forests will have a lot of people working in drugstores selling film to German tourists who come to take pictures of chipmunks in the forests that we can't cut down anymore. We're making a lot of low-paid jobs.

We keep hearing the rhetoric that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and that our policies are driving them further apart. That can't be further from the truth. The truth is that the way to close the gap between rich and poor is with jobs, good-paying jobs — not $10-an-hour jobs, not jobs working in the drugstore, not jobs working in the hospital laundry. We need jobs in the forests. We need jobs in mining. We've got to recreate those jobs.

What we've got to do is stop listening to the naysayers out there and understand that we have a forest industry, for example, where we grow trees. We farm trees to cut down again and then grow them again. This is a renewable resource. This is what we do. Most of our forests are now second-growth forests. For heaven's sake, they're out there trying to say that we're ending the world by doing some forestry. It's time to stop listening to those special interest groups and start listening the heartbeat of the people of this province, who want only to work.

Today our Forests minister spoke very well at question period as the two members opposite were trying to grill him about cedar and about a number of other things, particularly the shipment of raw logs. That was really shameful. As the minister said, we have no interest in shipping raw logs. But you know, the economy is in the dumpster big-time. There's a number of companies that under previous agreements with the NDP government, as part of the economic strategy around loans they received, could ship raw logs.

The previous government signed those agreements. They went year by year by year. Some of them are now coming due again. The year is up. It's time to re-sign. These two members are critical, as though they didn't create the situation to begin with. It's the height of hypocrisy. It's not something anyone here should have to listen to. They ought to go back and have a good read of what they did when they were in office. It's just absolutely shameless and shameful.

I think the big problem here is that the people of this province are being subjected to a publicity campaign, and now they don't know what the truth really is. The truth is that we have a huge deficit that was created by the actions of the previous government. I know that deep in the hearts of the people of this province, they know that. I know they understand that the steps we have to take today, painful though some of them are, are steps that are necessary. They're steps that have been taken in every single province in this country — every province except here.

The reason we didn't have it here is because we had Finance ministers like that member, who would say: "We'll grow our way out of the deficit." I've never heard such foolishness. Those members that sat in this House for the past ten years were probably hardened against the stuff that these people were saying. Day after day, to be lambasted with those kinds of statements…. I don't know how they stood it. I think they need medals. There ought to be medals coined for the members in our party who sat here for a long time. I think one of the members probably turns his hearing aid off.

Right now we need a hand to get out of the hole that's been dug. We need a hand from every British Columbian. We need understanding from every British Columbian. We need a little bit of patience. We all know that there's going to be pain. We're all going to feel it in our families, in our constituencies. I have a daughter that's a government worker. She's been told that she's very likely not going to have her job at the end of next month. That's painful, but it's necessary. You know, I think even my daughter understands that. It is necessary.

We have a problem. You can't have what you can't pay for. Such a fundamental thing escapes the grasp of that group. It doesn't escape ours. We understand it. The people of this province understand it. I know they do. Deep in their hearts, they know. You can't have what you can't pay for.

The tax cuts that we made are going to create an opportunity for investment that hasn't existed for a decade. We have been shunned around the world by investors because of tax policies that were unfair, because of regulation that is just unbelievable, because of the kinds of decisions that were made around shutting down forestry and mining in this province that lost money for investors.

I need say no more than Windy Craggy mines — in northern British Columbia, a major, major mining find. Millions of dollars were spent on research and development, encouraged by the past government, only at the last moment to be told: "We're making a park around where your mining site is, so you'll not be allowed to mine. The mine is out, and there's no compensation for your investment." That resounded around the mining world, and we have a reputation internationally now as being one of the worst places to invest in the mining sector.

That's all because of those two members and the government that they supported and propped up and sat and thumped their hands on their desks every time another idiotic thing came up, day after day after day. All of that piled up and has created this disaster that we now have to deal with.

But people know; they do know. I know they do. I'm asking the leaders of those government unions and the leader of the B.C. Federation of Labour to stop and think about the state of the economy in this province. I'm asking that they do no more than the private sector union workers out there, who know we've got trouble and who are prepared to give up some of what they have worked for in order to keep going. I would hope that those union leaders, those people who earn the big salaries from the unions, who are the recipients of the checkoff from every government employee's cheque, would understand that the people of this province are being hurt by their actions, not the actions of this government.

We will be in prosperity before the end of our term. We will have a balanced budget. Our province will

move forward, and all the people of this province are going to benefit greatly, but we have short-term pain to get there. There's only one way we're going to get there successfully, and that's if we all understand it, and we all pitch in and work together.

We have no desire to do things to people, but we certainly want to do things with people. We want to do it with the big union leaders, but unfortunately they prefer to spend the money that they take from their members on $4 million advertising campaigns and things that are going to hurt the economy of this province even more than the damage done by those two members and the group that was around them for the last ten years.

I thank you for the opportunity of being able to say something today about the budget. I have told you how upset I personally am with the condition that we have found our finances in this province to be in and the state of the economy here. I refer to this budget as the budget that shouldn't have been. It never should have come to this, but it has.

I'm very proud of our Finance minister and every member of our government who has the courage and the backbone to do what's right and what's necessary and do it now and face up to the people of this province who are the naysayers, who really understand but want to not be the recipients of the pain. Mr. Speaker, it has to be shared by everybody, including those who would work for the government.

D. Jarvis: I originally came to talk about the spending end of our budget, the 2002 budget, but a couple of articles came to mind just a short while ago, and so I will get back to the spending end of it later on in my little talk here.

What I want to talk about is revenue and how our revenue affects our budgeting. Our basic revenue in British Columbia comes from, whether we like it or not, the resources of the forestry, mining, energy and fishing in this province.

A major policy towards revenue has to be our energy — what we use domestically and what we have to offer to our resource producers throughout the province. At the same time, B.C. Hydro is the precursor to any energy being produced in this province, also being the main supplier of electricity domestically. Electricity sales, both domestic and foreign, go through B.C. Hydro or their Powerex subsidiary, their selling arm.

The question is: are they serving British Columbia as a corporation should? Are they supplying the power to the domestic and industrial users of this province to the benefit of all British Columbians? Are they part of a comprehensive energy policy?

Energy is in a state of evolution throughout North America, and an energy policy is critical to the overall development and economic stability of this province. If we don't get it right, we shall lose the opportunity to be competitive in this North American market. If we are not competitive, we will become a have-not province forever. This is our chance to offer North American companies the opportunity to come and establish themselves in British Columbia, to offer them secure, uninterruptible power so that they can compete. This is what B.C. has and what we could offer.

If we do not pursue a competitive energy policy, we are doomed to be subservient to every policy dominated by the U.S. markets. It is imperative at this time that we pursue an independent market by supporting an independent power-producing policy. It's important that this policy must be put in place — an independent power system first, prior to establishing any energy policy of deregulation.

It's an important message to investors in British Columbia and outside to know that this government is willing to level the playing field, to correct the errors of the past and to make sure that B.C. is competitive in the future. B.C. Hydro and its subsidiary, Powerex, are continuing to be the major supplier of electricity, as I have said, for both export and domestic consumption. Therefore, the government should attract private capital through its IPPs and merge the supply and development to equal access to the transmission lines in British Columbia.

Hydro should no longer have a monopoly on our storage system and our transmission facilities together. Giving them favoured treatment on this action will only discourage investment and capital into an independent power market. Mr. Speaker, if you think there's a dichotomy now between the urban and rural areas, especially the big city of Vancouver, wait until you see what will happen if we allow B.C. Hydro, if it is handled the wrong way, to continue to be a monopoly.

With no monopoly for transmission capacity, a competitive market will grow in British Columbia. We will not attract private investment to B.C. on the existing basis or on what has been proposed or suggested. We do not want to see the soaring costs of electricity occur, and it will if we don't have a competitive market set up first. True competition has to be in place before opening up a market-based system in this province.

Failing this, I believe, along with a lot of experts, that we will see excessively high prices for both domestic use and our existing resource industries, which are already very high, intensive users of electricity. At Highland Valley, for example — and most people wouldn't realize it — $1 million a month is nothing for them to spend to use electricity. In my own riding I have Sterling Pulp Chemicals, which uses enough electricity to supply power right across the North Shore from Deep Cove through West Vancouver, up the Sea to Sky Highway, supplying electricity to Squamish, Whistler and into the Pemberton Valley. They spend close to $900,000 a month for electricity.

These businesses, as I say, have high electricity costs. If those get any higher, it will get to the stage where it's going to become untenable, and they will be forced to either pick up and move or simply close down. There is a trend out there now to sell B.C. Hydro assets, to save its generation business, to deregulate

and go to a market-based system. This could lead to a disaster of proportions, with thousands of jobs being lost in British Columbia as prices rise. The mines, mills, pulp and electrical firms will close as they become very uncompetitive — not to say what it will do to the cost of lighting and heating our own residences in this province.

It is true that we have been lucky to have low-cost power up to now. That was the basis of W.A.C. Bennett's vision in the fifties and sixties when he approved the Peace and the Columbia dams and made Hydro a Crown corporation regulated by BCUC.

B.C. Hydro has been returning substantial benefits to this province and has served us well over the past 45-odd years, but to such a point where it failed to create competition across the province as it enjoyed its monopoly position. This, I believe, is to the detriment of the taxpayers as a whole in British Columbia. By failing to build a competition, they have put taxpayers in a position of potentially losing our entitlement. To this potential loss of not being able to export our vast hydroelectric power….

As well, an interesting point I want to bring forward is on the export. At the present time there are some 22 states in the United States that have made it law that any energy consumption must be generated by renewable sources and must come from what they call green sources. The problem is that they now have stated that they do not consider hydroelectric as a green resource. They feel that there'll be vast environmental damage caused by waters flowing down rivers. Those are natural-flow rivers. It's hard to comprehend. This issue is of major future importance to British Columbia — not only in the questionable environmental damage caused by flowing water. The states below the border are being required to increase the percentage of their green electricity, which in political philosophy is directly opposed to what we have in abundance.

All of this is from a country that really can't tell the difference between freehold land and Crown land, and that believes that free trade means "one-way north" as evidenced by the softwood tariffs and duties, the wheat tariffs and duties. They've now put tariffs and duties on steel, and our hothouse tomato market is virtually dying because of the duties they've put on that. They have changed the rules of protection to suit them.

Will we see this kind of treatment of British Columbia in the future course of hydroelectric power or transmission or the sale of our energy to the States? We cannot tell, but it's interesting to note that, plus the fact of where those 22 states are going. Earlier this week I saw an ad in the Globe and Mail in which the state of New York — actually the Buffalo–Niagara Falls area — is offering hydroelectric to Canadian businesses, to go to the United States at 2 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Now, this is way below what we charge. They say that if you are planning to build or expand a manufacturing facility, now, more than ever, you should consider the Buffalo–Niagara Falls area. You may qualify for western New York's low-cost hydroelectric power. At less than 2 cents a kilowatt, it's 60 percent lower than the national average.

Now, we are in a state of flux in this industry, and this is what's happening. It's becoming very competitive and changing. It also says that if you wanted to come and locate your business in that area within the next little while, the business will be virtually tax-free from electricity. So that's what we're up against.

At the same time, another article came in this morning, a business plan for B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro says in there: "Despite almost a decade of rate freezes that were funded by profits from energy trading, operational efficiencies and lower financing charges through restructuring debt, rate increases will be required."

Are we going the wrong way? Are we going the other way? It's hard to say. It is of concern. We see what New York is offering, and we see what our B.C. Hydro is offering. We can see that we could be in trouble even marketing our so-called green hydroelectric power. Can we, as citizens of this province, afford to be paying for domestic power if Hydro is allowed to continue the way it's going now? The same rates that Chicago or New York will be — that's what it's going to come down to. If we go to a market-based power, we will pay the same price as NYMEX or the Chicago Exchange buys that electricity for.

There are alternatives. Will we grab it? The question is that Hydro has to approve and go forward with an independent power project system in this province so that we can build up competition before we move into the advanced part of going market-based. With any major change to the electro-power industry, as I said, which is in rapid evolution, we must recognize B.C.'s unique situation and clearly provide for domestic advantages over our current system.

Now I'd like to change to another topic of conversation on the budget. That's to say that I'm pleased with this budget. It's on its way to making B.C. fiscally stable once again, and it'll bring fiscal sanity back to this province after a generation of instability which brought B.C. from number one in Canada down to tenth place in every economic measurement. In this budget we have to bring confidence back to British Columbia citizens, give them some faith that they can prosper again. Despite the challenges that are with us, a vibrant economy is not out of sight. It is in reach of all of us.

But first we must get past the political posturing that is presently dominating our progress. The politicians and the unions and the professionals must change their attitudes. The past structural mismanagement has to change. We all need to change the way we think and our perceptions of each other and stop the NIMBY attitudes that we have going, with all of us keeping an eye on the prize that is British Columbia prospering again.

We need to work together to get back on track. Even though basic philosophical differences between various groups in this province do make the dialogue difficult, it is not impossible to do. I would ask the people in the province not to make decisions based on

the sound bites and news headlines and to remember that the bombardment they are getting from information through the press and our friends and our co-workers and our constituents may not all be correct or well-informed.

The budget is on line, and if you take the time to sift through all those pages, you will realize it's fair and not out to get the little guy. I'm not sure the general public is aware of some of the good news in this budget.

The MSP premiums are going to be lowered or removed for over 270,000 British Columbians — the seniors. It allows PAC groups an annual refund on PST for school-use purchases. There are increases to disability-related tax credits, to an average of about $1,100. Low-income families will receive $25 a year per adult family member in sales tax credits. Those making $60,000 or less will pay less taxes than the rest of Canada. The government budget will be taking in a billion dollars less than it did before, in the previous budget. The B.C. family bonus will be adjusted, and families will receive increases to keep up with the inflation rate. Small businesses will have their business limit raised from $200,000 to $300,000, which is good. Health care resources are up over a billion dollars, to $10.4 billion, and that is good.

Many solid changes to improve B.C.'s fiscal position are in this budget. There are a few things that people out there feel are questionable, but believe me, as I said, it's not possible to get something for nothing by any magical formula that I can find. If our revenues are down and our spending is up, we owe money, and we have to pay it back — all of us. We must remember that government's money is the taxpayers' money. We cannot increase the pay to teachers and nurses and absorb losses from Hydro, ICBC, softwood lumber, 9/11 fallout, etc., and not think that something's got to give.

Yes, the government did have a boom a little while ago in the year '99-2000, courtesy of the oil and gas and electrical revenues, but that was a one-shot deal, and it's not likely to be repeated. It's like saying that we won $200,000 in the lottery, and therefore our annual income from now on is going to be $200,000 more. That's not very likely. That kind of revenue is a windfall, not a steady income that we can rely on.

The boom is what supposedly balanced the books for our previous government. However, they failed to include the debts coming down, which were very significant. I can't imagine what would have happened if those millions of dollars and the boom had not come to us, but it did help at that time.

This budget will affect all of us, but on the other side of the coin, we will all benefit when we come through this period of adjustment. The unfortunate philosophy of our predecessors, of spend now and pay later, has come home to roost. We find ourselves now at that later point of view. All the people of British Columbia have no choice but to start paying. We're at a point where it's no longer permissible for us to continue paying $8 million of interest every day to the foreign banks just to look after the interest on our debts.

The good news is that our government's philosophy is to restore fiscal responsibility by eliminating the deficit — to build a strong, vibrant economy to tell the rest of the world that we are open for business. At the same time, we will continue to protect health education, and once our later time arrives, we will be in a much different British Columbia — much different. The North America economy is having a rough time now. It will recover, and we will be on track, on budget and prospering when the world economy starts turning around, especially in North America.

We have prepared a three-year plan, and a conservative plan at that, really. We do not intend to be blindsided by any changes. We're going to go straight forward and finish it. We have set this province down the road to recovery, and when the world economy begins to recover, we will be poised to join it, as I said before.

We have to change the system in those areas where we know that the system is broken. Health, education and social services are not working. We keep pouring money into them, and yet the crisis continues to grow. There has to be an alternative, and we took it. It is reflected in this Budget 2002.

Changes are hard to accept by many people, and many don't want change at all. Their attitude is: "As long as I'm not affected." There are a lot of those out there.

If we want to restore our province, we have to be disciplined and accept the fact that what we have been doing in the past will not work today. In this budget we are laying down a process that we feel will start us back to economic and social recovery. The budget is a good budget, a fair budget. A lot of people will feel it's against them, but the principles are fair and not that onerous on all of us.

There was an article in the Times Colonist a couple of days ago by a reporter by the name of MacRae. I'm going to read a part of that, which I feel is rather true. He was talking about debt, and at the same time he was talking about the yogic flyers and meditation. I don't know how many of you read it, but just to summarize it, he said: "It may be true, as the 'myth' school of economics believes, that the province's fiscal problem isn't as dire as the government wants us to believe." He goes on to say: "But the situation will be dire if B.C. doesn't get a handle on its spending now, just as Ottawa's complacent attitude in the 1970s set the foundation for fiscal disaster later."

He says: "Governments have to match spending to revenues, just like the rest of us, because money doesn't magically appear out of the air. If they are wise, they take action to balance the books before the situation goes out of control. Yogic flying may be fine in the meditation room, but we've had way too much of it in the real world of British Columbia and federal economics. Sooner or later we have to come down to earth." It

is a competitive world out there, and we can't expect to pass costs on to them and expect them to survive.

I think that aptly falls in with the way I feel towards what we are doing here and what is going to happen to my children and my grandchildren. We cannot leave them with these untenable debts that we have. The whole story comes down to the fact that good governance requires a good economic base. With any major change, with these changes we're going to see a province that's going to benefit in the long run.

M. Hunter: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this House again in support of the budget for fiscal 2002-03. I must say: what a budget it is. I brought with me just the tip of the iceberg of the paper that represents the analysis of the economic situation of British Columbia and most importantly, at least in my view, all the planning, the service plans of ministries. We now have a budget that includes not only the financial projections but also service plans for every ministry of this government for the next three years. That, in my mind, is a significant achievement of this government and a significant departure from the past, and a very positive one.

What a difference an open process of government makes. We've had standing committees touring the province, one very much engaged in the kinds of issues that the Minister of Finance has dealt with in this budget. We've seen open cabinet meetings. In fact, last Tuesday when the budget was introduced, it was something of an anticlimax for many people in this province. Because of our open approach to government, much of what was in that budget, except for some needed tax measures, really was already in the public domain.

It's really a pleasure to be part of a government where transparency in dealing with public business is indeed the order of the day. The pile of paper that accompanied the budget speech is indeed witness to that. The honest financial picture that is painted in these documents, accompanied by the detailed plans of ministries as to how they will operate and why they will operate that way for the next three years, is indeed a pleasure to see. When I ran for election to this place, I ran on the basis that I thought the public's money deserved to be dealt with in the open. We have certainly achieved that.

Openness in public finances and the management thereof doesn't mean that we can rest on our laurels or at all be satisfied. I can say that I am one of many members in this House who are very disturbed about the amount of the projected deficit that the Minister of Finance has told us is going to be the case in this coming fiscal year. That's very difficult for me. I know many people in this province and certainly in my constituency who have expressed concerns about the growth of the public debt in British Columbia.

When I spoke in response to the Speech from the Throne, I talked about the political football that the public's money had become in British Columbia. I don't want to recreate that political football now that I'm speaking to the budget, but it's important that we examine this budget and understand it with the past experience and in the context of the past.

I was very pleased to be a part of the first provincial congress yesterday in Vancouver. I wanted to just quote from the report of the B.C. Progress Board that was highlighted yesterday by Mr. David Emerson, the board's chair. His report says, in part, the following: "Over the decade 1991-2000 B.C.'s relative position within Canada deteriorated, and it stood last among the provinces in increasing real GDP per capita. Stated differently, B. C. was, on average, the least successful province in expanding the size of the economic pie on a per-person basis over the decade." It's not news but confirmation of the real serious economic and financial problems that we are facing and that this budget begins to address.

It's a past that saw the B.C. public double during the last government's term in ten years, from $17 billion to $34 billion. The rate of growth of public spending far exceeded the rate of economic growth — which was, incidentally, the worst in the country.

I often look to literature for guidance and, hopefully, some spiritual encouragement. I remembered from my school days the great Victorian author, Charles Dickens, and his great novel David Copperfield. One of the major characters in that novel was a Mr. Wilkins Micawber. Mr. Micawber is described as a great speechifier — a projector of bubble schemes sure to lead to fortune but always ending in grief. Notwithstanding his ill success, he never despaired but felt certain that something would turn up to make his fortune. That kind of reminds me of the opposition's approach to public finances through the decade of the 1990s. The only difference, of course, is that in the end Mr. Micawber did understand the cause of his misfortune, and he ended up as an immigrant in Australia. He didn't come here.

To explain the principle of deficits and debts, Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield says the following: "Annual income — £20; annual expenditure — £19, 19 shillings and sixpence; result — happiness. Annual income — £20; annual expenditure — £20, ought and six; result — misery." Mr. Micawber, by the way, was in debtors prison at the time he made that quote in David Copperfield. While we don't have debtors prisons anymore, I think if we did there are some members of this House who might be populating them.

It makes me wonder how opposition members can stand in this House and complain about the cuts. They say that they're representing people who are going to be very poorly off under this budget. How can they do that? How can they complain when they were the government that cut the average take-home pay of every British Columbia worker by some $1,800 during the 1990s?

Again, I want to refer to what the Progress Board had to say about that last decade: "In 1991 the real GDP per capita in British Columbia was $1,781 above the national average in 1997 dollars. By 2000 the province had slipped $2,251 below the Canadian average. B.C. went from having a real GDP per capita $2,951 below that of Alberta at the start of the period, 1991, to trailing its neighbour by a full $9,371 ten years later."

Not only that, B.C.'s per capita GDP is not only worsened with respect to Alberta, but perhaps not many people in British Columbia know — and again reading from the B.C. Progress Board's summary report — that now in 2000 B.C. had the fourth-highest level of real GDP per capita in the country, ranking behind Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan. I find that not only distressing but almost hard to believe, and I take nothing away from the hard work and courage of people who live in the province of Saskatchewan and tolerate the kind of winters they do. I have nothing but admiration, but I really thought that economically British Columbia was a little more vibrant than Saskatchewan. It appears not.

Again, it bears repeating, Mr. Speaker, the fact that B.C. trails Alberta in total gross domestic product — not surprising, given the numbers I just quoted. But three million people in Alberta today produce more goods and services than 4.1 million people do in this province. As a rhetorical question, I ask: do people really think, in those circumstances, that we can carry on with the status quo?

The last government's policies clearly impoverished people in this province. Now our opposition members pretend to stand here as champions of the poor and the less fortunate in our society. These claims are absolutely false. They cannot and will not go unchallenged.

The Leader of the Opposition likes to quote from letters she receives. I'm going to follow her lead. I want to read a quote into the record from an e-mail I received late last week. I think this e-mail sums up, as well as anything I've seen, the situation we're in. I'm just going to read one sentence. It's a piece of work full of caustic wit. It's got keen satire. The writer says: "Let us recall the fantastic days of old comrades when we forever sailed towards the fair shores of prosperity upon the magnificent Pacificat ferries." I was somewhat amused by that. It's a piece of satire that is quite rare these days in political commentary.

These oppositions members, these masters of the half-truth, are the same people that had their hands deep in the pockets of every worker in this province for ten years, as the B.C. Progress Board report suggests. Now, to add insult to injury, we find out that as of 1999 we are in fact a have-not province under the equalization formula in Canada. Not only did those members have their hands in the pockets of taxpayers in this province, they reached out to Alberta and Ontario to put their hands in their pockets as well. If I were a resident of those two provinces, I'd be very keenly interested in what we were doing here, because our country cannot live on the backs of two provinces. It's difficult enough with three contributing, but with only two…. We simply owe it to the rest of the country, of which we are a part, to do better.

The tax-and-spend, double-the-deficit kind of approach, the jobs and timber accord that cruelly promised 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry but actually shrank the workforce, is the kind of record this budget leaves behind. Tax-and-spend put three ferries at docks, ferries that don't go anywhere; and when they do, they're so expensive. We've all heard about that, and I'm not going to go on about them, even though as I said earlier in my response to the Speech from the Throne, every time I leave my home in Nanaimo, I see two of them sitting there, and it hurts.

We forced thousands of hard-working B.C. families to move to Alberta over the last three or four years. You would think that the historical declaration, the encouragement that I heard as a young man in the United Kingdom: "Go west, young man, to make your fortune…." In British Columbia we've turned that world on its head. "Go east, young man" has been the rallying cry of the last government. One of my own family has indeed gone east. They stood by these opposition members while the so-called Alberta advantage was created.

I was visiting my family, along with my wife, in Calgary last weekend. Nice place, but you don't want to be there when it's snowing and minus 25. I happened to be looking at the television to try to find some news from British Columbia about what had gone on outside this building last Saturday. It was interesting that I couldn't find out anything until Sunday morning in Calgary, and that was during a CBC program in which some young Albertans were being interviewed. They were young people in their early twenties. They were talking about the Alberta advantage. These were people who had moved from British Columbia, and they were telling the reporter how in Calgary it was easy. They could move from job to job, and there was lots of work.

I want those people back here. I think this budget creates the groundwork that will mean people can come back here. I want those people back here, buying and producing the goods and services and buying houses and furniture and appliances in British Columbia. I believe this budget starts to offer again the hope that British Columbia can both attract new talent and investment and also repatriate people who have had to go to other parts of this continent and, indeed, other parts of the world to seek their fortune.

This budget promises to change the sordid decade of the 1990s, but change, I understand and I think we all understand, will not come quickly or without difficulty. Nobody on this side of the House, and certainly not this member when I ran for office, believed that the job we had to do was going to be easy or that it was going to be quick or that the tax breaks introduced last June were going to pay for themselves in the first six or seven months. Nobody ever said that; nobody pretended that. This hoax that's being imposed on people

that the tax cuts didn't work is that. It's a cruel hoax. Nobody on this side of the House ever pretended there was going to be an immediate response, even in the best of economic circumstances, without softwood lumber disputes and so on.

Change that we're trying to engineer and that this budget represents is not going to come quickly, and obviously it's not without difficulty for many people in this province. In fact, an adjective that I have seen commonly used to describe at least parts of this budget is "bleak," and I think that's not an unfair adjective to use when you look at the deficit the budget predicts.

It's clear we still have a long way to go to rebuild the kind of confidence that used to exist in British Columbia in the 1970s and 1980s and years before that. We still have a long way to go, clearly, to restore competitiveness with other provinces, although this budget makes a significant contribution, in my opinion, to restoring that competitiveness along with other measures that were taken during the first 90 days of the B.C. Liberal government. The budget is based on conservative assumptions, conservative risk-management strategies. They're the very bases of this budget, and those bases come from the open process that I talked about at the beginning of this statement.

I think the fact that we have made conservative assumptions and have made conservative risk-management strategies the bases of this budget will inspire confidence in British Columbia. You know, while things may be bleak and while that adjective may be used to describe, at least in part, this budget, and while we have a lot of work to do, it's worthwhile remembering that on February 27, 2002, there is somewhere in the region of $1.4 billion more in people's pockets than at this time last year. The personal and corporate income tax cuts that this government introduced…. While there have been some changes and increases in MSP premiums and in some other parts of the tax system, we are still, as individual consumers in this province, considerably better off than we were when we started.

I know how difficult change can be, but in my mind, the evidence is in. The evidence has been very clear to me for a long time — and I know it has been to most, if not all members on this side of the House — that we cannot afford not to change.

Change means accepting some simple economic truths, ones that ordinary people in this province understand. Most people don't have to go to Mr. Micawber's debtors prison. They understand that money borrowed has to be repaid. It doesn't matter if you're borrowing on your Visa card. It doesn't matter if you're borrowing from the bank to buy a car. It doesn't matter if you're the government of British Columbia seeking to raise money on debt markets around the world. Eventually, that money has to be repaid. We are paying interest on the debt in this province, and interest charges, even in a regime of the lowest interest rates we've seen in our lifetimes, are still the fastest-growing expense this government has. People basically understand that debt piled upon debt eventually means a visit from the bailiff.

This budget starts the process of accepting the simple economic truth that we cannot live beyond our means without serious consequences. I, for one, think it's a delightful change to see a government that also understands these simple and proven economic facts.

I must say that I'm not happy to see the addition of $4.4 billion in new debt. I don't know anybody with a business background who would agree that it is where we wanted to go. I don't like to see taxes increased because I believe that taxes should be lower not higher, not only because we have to be competitive with other administrations, other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world, but from a simple philosophical point of view. I happen to come to this place with the belief that government ought to be smaller and ought to be out of people's lives to a greater extent than it is. I think that this budget and the service plans are a very important step to getting government smaller, more focused and more involved in dealing with people who really need help. That's a direction which this budget focuses on, and I am pleased to see that.

I'm also pleased to see that the changes outlined in the budget are part of an overall plan. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a government in this province having a plan. It's something new and something we shouldn't just let pass by. It's an achievement. It's a plan that actually foresees the restoration of sound management of your money and mine and that of the people who work and live and invest in this province. It's a plan that foresees a smaller, more focused and efficient public sector that works hand in hand with private capital and entrepreneurs to deliver the needed services in innovative ways. It's a plan that has already delivered an additional $1 billion to health care in this province.

Again, I have to be critical of the opposition and those outside this House who keep talking about cuts in health care. The evidence is in; it's in this budget document tabled by the Minister of Finance last Tuesday. The $1 billion increase in health care is not in anybody's language a cut. I think that needs to be stressed and put on the record. I embrace this change wholeheartedly. I know that in the end, it means we will be able to afford the public services that people need.

Let's look at that issue as I conclude. Referring again…. I'm sorry to do this, but I think the B.C. Progress Board report is a very important document in terms of setting out the past and some of the targets that it's recommending to government. One of the things they've looked at in their report is the incidence of low income in British Columbia. In 1999, B.C. ranked sixth amongst the provinces with 16.1 percent of the population below the unofficial low-income cut-off level, slightly above the Canadian average of 15.8 percent. B.C. ranked eighth in progress on this measure between 1998 and 1999 and seventh in success in reducing the proportion of population experiencing low incomes over the period of 1990 to 1999.

That says there are many people in this province — a much higher percentage than any of us would like to see — who are living in poverty as measured by that particular measure, which has its problems. I've said in this House before that in my community of Nanaimo, those numbers are evident to anybody who wants to walk around the streets in the south end of my city.

This budget is important because it points the way to more efficiency and a better plan, a three-year plan that sets out how we are going to deal with these issues. The budget, also, in addressing those issues specifically — and I think it's worthwhile repeating what has been said in this House before today — increases disability and sales tax credits. Let it not be said that this government is not sensitive to the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum who need some help. We are very conscious of that, and this budget tries to address it.

I think that by the end of the current service plan — i.e., by 2004-05 — in this province we will have absorbed the very difficult changes that difficult choices have forced upon us and have engendered.

As the Minister of Finance indicated in his speech, the books of this province will be balanced. I think that is a very important part of this budget. It's easy to look at the current year and say, well, that we've got a problem. I think we have a problem. I think we all know we have a problem, but at the end of the road, set out in these documents as the plan of the government, we will have balanced our books. It's with pleasure that I support this budget and its real promise of bringing back prosperity to British Columbia.

S. Brice: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House and make some remarks on this budget that has been tabled. It's a pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Nanaimo, who acknowledged a certain bleakness but then ended on an edge of hope. That's where I'd like to pick up.

Before I turn to the budget particulars, I want to add my sincere gratitude to the Minister of Finance for demonstrating the leadership to set out this three-year plan for fiscal renewal in British Columbia. He is to be applauded for his directness, his thoroughness and his wisdom in putting forth this budget, a budget that is designed for all British Columbians. To be sure, as has been said by my colleague, it is a budget that contains a large dose of reality. This follows a ten-year spending binge which left our province encumbered with debt and unable to attract investment.

While the minister confronts our economic responsibilities, he has delivered a budget which also addresses government's two top priorities: education and health care. The Minister of Finance is to be commended. This budget ensures, even in these difficult financial times, protection of education spending and an increase in health care spending.

In producing a document which carefully balances our spending within our ability to pay, the minister has mapped out a route for government to follow to ensure that the commitment to a balanced budget in '04-05 is met. On behalf of my constituents, the residents of Saanich South, I thank the Minister of Finance for his courage.

Now let's take a look at the budget. This budget has, quite naturally, attracted considerable attention. This budget was announced on February 19, but as has been said many times before, it was actually in the making for many, many months. As ministries went through core review and then caucus committees and Treasury Board, there was every consideration given to determining how government can provide its services in the most cost-effective manner. This process has been respectful of the taxpayers whose hard-earned money is used to finance these programs.

I find that most taxpayers are willing. They're willing to pay their fair share for quality services, but they hate wasteful spending, and they are suspicious of special interest groups focused on a narrow agenda. When I hear the opposition rail on about tax giveaways…. How many times have we heard that in various forms — tax giveaways? When they describe our $2.2 billion tax cut, it becomes apparent that the opposition still envisions government having a pot of money which it doles out. A tax cut is not giving away anything. It is merely taking less from the taxpayer in the first place.

This government's economic plan leaves $1.4 billion out in the economy in order for it to stimulate spending and generate marketplace activities. In no way can it be described as tax giveaways.

In my response to the Speech from the Throne, I made particular mention of my enormous respect for the small business community. I had the privilege of working with the small business community for the last eight years alongside people who put everything on the line to pay their rent, pay their employees, pay their licences and pay their taxes; who work hard, market their products and their services, and hopefully, at the end of the month, still have something left to provide for their own families.

I was delighted when the Minister of Finance announced that there would be an expansion of the range of machinery and equipment parts exempt from provincial sales tax. As well, the budget increases the threshold for the small business income tax rate to $300,000 from $200,000. In '02-03 these measures alone will return about $425 million to B.C. businesses. These measures demonstrate our government's commitment to support small businesses, which are the most effective job creators and revenue producers in the overall provincial economy. We must support our small businesses, and we will continue to seek out ways to eliminate unnecessary red tape and regulations that interfere with their ability to thrive.

This budget reaffirms our government's pledge to the children of British Columbia. As I turn to this portion of my remarks, I want to be able to give particular attention to the work done by the Minister of Education in putting forward a budget which meets the needs of British Columbians and their families. It an-

Education funding is maintained, and education is established as a top priority in British Columbia. As a former teacher and school board chair myself, I am supportive of the financial resources which have been allocated to students in this budget. The $4.86 billion allocated to the Ministry of Education must be viewed in context with other initiatives undertaken by our government. These include reinstating education as an essential service, enshrining class size in legislation, guaranteeing the rights of parents to volunteer their services in their children's schools, the introduction of accountability contracts, reinvigorating the Select Standing Committee on Education and providing the elected school trustees with the administrative tools they need to provide effective leadership at the local level.

There is a good deal in this budget for education. I look forward at a later opportunity to elaborating on that, but noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.