Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 16 -- Thursday, February 28, 2002

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		1385

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1385
	St. David's Day M. Hunter Greater Victoria Harbour Authority J. Bray Hammond Cedar mill K. Stewart

Oral Questions		1386
	Kootenay Lake ferry service J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Funding for inner-city schools J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg Tuition fee freeze I. Chong Hon. S. Bond School district accountability K. Krueger Hon. C. Clark Availability of Women's Equality minister J. Kwan Hon. L. Stephens Maintenance of northern B.C. highways and roads B. Lekstrom Hon. J. Reid

Petitions		1389
	J. Kwan D. MacKay W. McMahon K. Manhas

Budget Debate (continued)		1389
	B. Kerr Hon. G. Abbott H. Bloy K. Manhas E. Brenzinger K. Johnston A. Hamilton K. Stewart Hon. R. Neufeld P. Bell

J. Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in introducing two of my visitors who are here with us today. One is a young lad, Alim Somani, who is here in the House for the first time with his mother, Salma Mawani. Please join me in making them welcome.

R. Visser: On behalf of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, I'd like the House to welcome 47 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay and their teacher, Dave Neill.

Hon. C. Hansen: If I can just add to the introduction of the previous member, I was a bit taken aback because that's my alma mater. I graduated from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay. Welcome as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: I did graduate — honest. My picture's on one of those walls, with the glasses.

My intention on standing up at this point, Mr. Speaker, was to introduce two representatives from the Canadian Diabetes Association who are here today: Mr. Warren Williams, a president of the Canadian Diabetes Association, and Peter Fairey, advocacy chair for the Canadian Diabetes Association. Today is Diabetes Awareness Day in the Legislature, and I hope all MLAs and staff take the opportunity to meet with them and learn more about this illness that is affecting so many British Columbians.

J. Bray: I have a couple of introductions today. First, it's my pleasure to introduce a couple of constituents of mine up in the gallery: Jean Parker and Judy Paine. Both Jean and Judy worked very hard during the election campaign. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Secondly, I'd like to introduce John Sanderson and his wife, Sandra Atkin. John is the director of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority and is also the chair of the Victoria-Esquimalt Harbour Society. John represents a number of community leaders and volunteers who are working very hard to promote a vibrant local harbour authority in our city. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Hunter: I think all of us in this House are proud to be part of a multicultural British Columbia. Today I want to recognize the culture of Wales, one of the many that is part of the B.C. mosaic but one that usually gets little attention. Tomorrow, March 1, is St. David's Day. St. David is the patron saint of Wales. People of Welsh origin have celebrated St. David's Day for centuries. Many British Columbians with Welsh roots will celebrate this special day tomorrow.

Why would an Englishman stand here to help celebrate a Welsh festival? Partly because Wales and things Welsh are very much a part of my family life, since my wife's family is from the heart of the South Wales coalmining area. Also, for anyone who has ever heard the incredible harmony of a Welsh male choir or for any sports fan who has watched the Welsh Rugby Union team in full flight, you know how passionate Welsh people can be.

St. David is reputed to have drunk nothing but water, but I can tell you with authority that this example is not well respected in modern-day Wales. If you don't believe me, try offering a Welshman a pint of water after a rugby match. On the eve of St. David's Day, I want to recognize the contribution that Welsh immigrants have made and continue to make to our province and wish every Welsh Canadian a great day tomorrow.

J. Bray: It's my pleasure to be able to speak about an exciting new undertaking in Victoria. The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority was brought into official being earlier this month. This signals a major step forward in Victoria's desire to have local management control over one of our greatest assets, Victoria harbour.

A viable, sustainable, working harbour represents many opportunities for the capital region. By divesting federal, provincial, regional and local properties to one group to manage, the harbour authority will be able to develop long-range plans for the betterment of economics, aesthetics and the environment. The authority will be made up of representatives from the Songhees and Esquimalt first nations and seven municipal and business groups. This is a historic agreement that recognizes two first nations groups, government to government.

Local management will help ensure that significant harbour assets, such as Ogden Point, Fisherman's Wharf and the lands outside the Legislature on Wharf Street and Government Street are utilized to their maximum capabilities. The harbour authority will move forward exciting projects such as improvements to the Belleville Street terminal, which greets thousands of tourists to Victoria every year, many of them from the United States.

This year we will have 114 cruise ship visits at Ogden Point, an increase of over 64 percent from last year. The harbour authority will manage proposed changes to the wharf complex to further enhance our cruise ship potential. There is an increase from one to

four major cruise ship maintenance contracts being managed this season alone in Victoria, which will bring high-paying, high-skill jobs to Victoria.

All these facts point to the significant impact a vibrant working harbour has on the economy of Victoria. Victoria has the lowest unemployment rate in British Columbia. We have momentous growth in retail sales. We're projecting exceptional growth in tourism. Our high-tech sector is one of the fastest growing in Canada.

Victoria is the economic growth leader of British Columbia. The completion of land transfers to the Victoria Harbour Authority is another successful step in furthering Victoria's leadership potential. I ask this government to give its full support to the Victoria Harbour Authority as it works to bring economic, aesthetic and environmental vibrancy to our jewel, Victoria harbour.

K. Stewart: It's my privilege today to bring forward a good-news story about our forest industry. Recently the Interfor company, which has the Hammond Cedar mill in my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, has committed to $5.3 million for capital reinvestment in their sawmill. International Forest Products will undertake a major upgrading project at its Hammond mill operation in Maple Ridge to modernize the facility and improve its competitiveness through this large upgrade.

A few comments by the vice-president of the Cedar operations, Mr. Jack Draper, who said that recent cost-cutting reduction and productivity improvements implemented by the Hammond employees were prerequisites to obtaining funding for this project. He goes on to say — I'm sure something that will please our Minister of Forests — that "combined with the optimism created by the provincial government's commitment to policy and regulatory reform, this has given us some confidence to reinvest." Draper added: "But this is just one more step in the process. Changes to the stumpage system and other regulatory changes can't come fast enough."

Peter Edwards, operations manager, said: "The steps we're taking will improve the safety of our employees, increase lumber-sorting capacity, enhance processing efficiencies and allow us to produce a higher-value product." He also said that this $5.3 million upgrade has started immediately and is expected to be completed by mid-July.

Hammond is the world's largest cedar sawmill, and it produces a high-quality wood product from a very well managed B.C. forest. This mill has been in operation since the early 1900s. I myself worked in the sawmill. My father and my brother also worked in the sawmill. There are many youths that I grew up with, in high school, that are still working in this mill. It's provided long-term employment and stability for our community for many years, and they've made the decision to continue, with some new investment.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday in the House we asked the Minister of Forests about his failure to achieve an exclusion for western red cedar that would put 10,000 forest workers back to work. Today we want to talk about another group of British Columbians who live in the interior and whose livelihoods have been threatened by this government's reckless agenda. The question should really be asked by the member for Nelson-Creston, but he's spending more time in hiding than fighting for his constituents, so I'll ask the Minister of Transportation. How does she propose that the citizens of Harrop and Procter get to their jobs now that their ferry service has been cancelled by their government?

Hon. J. Reid: The ferry service is still in existence for those communities. Ferry service is integral to communities. We have pressures on our finances, and we have to make sure that there's money available to operate those ferries. We're working with those communities to address savings that are possible, and we've already had good dialogue for a number of communities. We want to make sure that they do have access, and that access is continued. It doesn't stop.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, the Minister of Transportation should read her own website because the service is cancelled every night now between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Every year someone from the government….

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. If the Minister of Forests wants to ask a question, feel free. Maybe the member for Nelson-Creston can stand up. Every year…

J. MacPhail: …someone from government goes to Treasury Board and comes up with a harebrained plan to change the service on Harrop and Procter. Every year until now, the local MLA has said that's ridiculous, and the cost-cutting exercise is worse than what the benefits are from continuing the service — but not this year. Now the service is cut in the evenings from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and there are 130 people who live in Harrop and Procter who do shift work — 130 nurses, mill workers, firefighters who now can't get to their jobs because this government has cancelled ferry service across Kootenay Lake.

Again, to the Minister of Transportation: what does she suggest they do — pick up their families and move,

quit their jobs, collect social assistance? Or perhaps they could swim across between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Hon. J. Reid: I find it very interesting, the perspective on ferries that the member opposite has. But….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, hon. members. Order. Order. The Minister of Transportation has the floor.

This is a serious issue for these communities. These aren't 24-hour-a-day services. They don't run 24 hours a day, so we do have the adjustment in the service hours. We're working with those communities. The communities have brought several different suggestions forward. We are working with the communities and meeting with them. I was up there last weekend meeting with the people and discussing what the alternatives can be. There are alternatives in services hours. There are alternatives in service, and we're exploring that with the communities. We do understand the importance those communities have with ferry service, and we'll continue to work with them.

J. Kwan: For weeks parents and educators have been organizing to fight this government on their proposed cuts to inner-city funding. They've written hundreds of letters. They've held community meetings. They have put pressure on their local MLAs to get government to rethink this incredibly mean-spirited cut.

This morning the member for Vancouver-Burrard said he was very optimistic that the inner-city school funding would be reinstated by the government. That's very good news indeed, if it is true. To the Minister of Children and Family Development: can he inform the parents and the students of the inner-city schools that funding will be reinstated for their schools?

Hon. G. Hogg: I can inform the member that this government has put $11 million more into early childhood development to ensure that we spend money where it's most appropriately spent.

The research is very clear about where we can have the biggest and most appropriate impact and effect in terms of being able to help those who are socially and economically disadvantaged, and that's in the first six years of life. This government has expanded its spending in that area by over $11 million.

Secondly, we've been working with the school boards around the issues of early childhood development and around the issues of the socially and economically disadvantaged within the school system. We're working with the school boards to give them more flexibility so they can utilize the dollars they have far more effectively than they've ever been able to do in the past. They can have that within the context of an envelope that lets them focus on those people within their schools who have the greatest need, rather than being dictated out of Victoria. You have to put those into little, simple envelopes. We are working with them so they can do and provide a better job and ensure that the dollars go to those who are most in need.

J. Kwan: Inner-city school funding goes directly to support programs for the province's most needy and the poorest children — children who live in poverty and for whom this funding will make a difference to their educational outcome. Quite frankly, the answer is not good enough, minister. It is not good enough for the kids and the parents who live near the inner-city schools.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard today said that parents and educators should not be worried and that the government will back down and reinstate funding to the poorest children in the province. To the minister once again: will that funding be fully reinstated to support inner-city students in the province? Why would the member for Vancouver-Burrard tell parents not to worry if the government actually has no plans to reinstate those funds? Why would the Vancouver school board write a letter to the minister urging the minister to make sure that funding is in place for the children who need it the most?

Hon. G. Hogg: I'll try and remember all four or five of those questions that were put forward.

To the member once again: there was $43 million put into this envelope before. When we look at the packages we're putting in, we're actually expanding the numbers that are going to deal with the socially and economically disadvantaged to about $48 million. There's been an expansion in the overall funding that will go to help those people who are most economically and socially disadvantaged within the context of the school system.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member showed a letter which I can't read from here, but I assume it's one of the letters that we've been talking to some of the school districts about. The school districts are saying that in the past, under the last government, they were very limited in their ability to be able to use those dollars. They had them in tight, tight envelopes that told them how they had to respond to the needs within the context of their school districts.

Consistent with the direction of this government to give school boards more authority, more responsibility and more ability to make decisions around the children who are most in need, we are moving forward with that so school districts can make decisions around the greatest needs that exist within their wide range of schools. We are doing that, and school boards will be able to respond to those children who have the greatest economic and social disadvantages and respond to them effectively so that we can ensure that they are best able to meet the educational needs and demands they have — far more than was given in the last government.

I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Michelle Kinney, director of services, University of Victoria Students Society, to the Premier. The question is as follows: "Mr. Premier, will you today release publicly the evidence upon which you based your February 13 televised assertion that the tuition fee freeze has caused students to 'finance a whole extra year in school'"?

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to be able to answer Michelle's question. The great news is that all of that information is already public.

We have done a number of things, including consulting with educators, students and administrators across the province. The results of that particular consultation are found on our website. There are many stories there about students who faced individual circumstances in terms of the timeliness of their completion.

In addition to that, we looked at a number of studies done — in particular the B.C. colleges and institutes student outcomes, Simon Fraser University undergraduate students survey and the baccalaureate graduates survey from 1998 — which indicated the concern about the ability to complete in a timely manner. We're happy that the information is already public.

K. Krueger: To the Minister of Education, there's been concern in the past that school districts have not been held particularly accountable for the public dollars that they spend on children's education. I'd ask the minister to tell the House what our government will be doing to ensure that school districts indeed are accountable for the funds they're entrusted with.

Hon. C. Clark: The member will know that this government is committed to giving more autonomy to school districts to entrust them with the obligations that they have under the law allowing them to spend the money they're given in the way that meets local priorities. In exchange for that, though, we are building in new systems of accountability for school districts. We need to know that the checks and balances are there and that the money is being spent well.

There's a couple of things I'd point to: first, accountability contracts. We have entered into an accountability contract with every district in this province this year, and we will be doing that next year and the year after. Every one of those contracts will contain very specific goals for a results-oriented education system, a system where we set goals for where we want to go based on the results that our kids get, and we hold ourselves accountable for reaching those goals year after year.

In addition to that, hon. Speaker, I will be announcing tomorrow a new funding formula for school districts which will be open and transparent and population-based. It will be one that's understandable to the public so that citizens, taxpayers and parents will know where their money's being spent.

Third, I am bringing in a regulation which will require school districts for the first time to report publicly about how they are allocating their resources in their districts.

Hon. C. Clark: Lastly, hon. Speaker, I would add that parent, student and teacher satisfaction surveys will be conducted year after year so that we know how parents feel about our education system, and we can use that information to improve it every single year.

J. Kwan: This question is for the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Can she confirm that she's refusing to meet with stakeholders unless they agree not to talk to the media before and after the meeting and they promise not to make the minister angry?

Hon. L. Stephens: I am happy and more than willing to meet with any of the women's organizations in this province. I have said that quite clearly. The invitation is out there. If organizations decide to cancel at the last minute, that's perfectly acceptable for them as well.

Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite: they could really assist this government if in fact they were truly interested in the equality and advancement of women. Those two members opposite could certainly be helpful, but they've chosen not to do that. I would suggest to you that the reason for that is because they don't care about the women of this province, and their actions demonstrate that today.

B. Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of the roads and highways in my constituency are in desperate need of repair. Unlike in urban communities, roads are usually our only means of transportation. Can the Minister of Transportation tell my constituents what steps she is taking to improve the quality of our roads and highways in the northeast part of this province?

Hon. J. Reid: The roads are in serious condition. I was certainly able to see that last spring and again this winter when I was up in the area. I've met with a num-

ber of groups who have expressed their concerns and who have presented excellent material. In very difficult fiscal times I'm happy to say that over $101 million will be spent on northern roads in this next year. That's on top of the maintenance that already exists. That's with capital works, the oil and gas initiative as well as rehabilitation for those roads.

J. Kwan: I have a 523-name petition here in the form of a letter addressed to the Minister of Children and Family Development regarding the detrimental effects of the cuts to inner-city school funding that would impact early literacy and prevention programs, in-school counsellors, academic support and resources, recreational programs, multicultural workers and translators, early intervention initiatives and outreach support to families.

D. MacKay: I wish to file a petition on behalf of the residents of Atlin, a small community in the northwest part of this province.

Many of the people that have signed this 111-signature petition live in Atlin, and many live outside the country. They have expressed concern about the development of the Tulsequah mine. I'd like to file this petition.

W. McMahon: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the 4,379 residents of Kimberley and surrounding areas who are asking that health services for acute and emergency care be maintained at the Kimberley and District Hospital.

K. Manhas: I rise to present a petition brought forward to me by Dr. Mark Slater and his office in Port Coquitlam, signed by a number of folks in my community regarding chiropractic services in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Budget debate continues with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

B. Kerr: It's time to take up where I left off. I know I was reading some rather boring statistics, being the chartered accountant that I am, but there is such a shining beacon of light on the hope that we have for this province.

There is one shoal they mention on the journey to this beacon of hope, and that's the ability to attract and retain high-calibre employees; 86 percent of the chartered accountants said that's one of the most difficult things they have. Indeed, the high personal tax rates under the NDP were a serious impediment to attracting employees in the last decade, and the personal tax cuts were necessary in order to keep and attract highly skilled people in this province. That's the chartered accountants of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

You see, these are the business leaders. These are the people that believe there's hope for their province. These are the people that want to move the province forward. These are people that want to increase investment in the province. I am glad they are able to provide these statistics to me, because I truly think they are a shining beacon of light.

This was done after the problems we had, after March 31. We saw that that was the date that they determined the American economy went into a recession. This was after the pine beetle infestation. It was after the softwood lumber problem, and it was after the tourist problems we had because of 9/11. They still had that feeling — considerable hope for this province. It's got nowhere to go but up.

What else has happened? Consumer sales have gone up. Housing starts have gone up. Housing sales have gone up. My colleague here said that there's going to be a 64 percent increase in cruise ships coming to Victoria. There's been 27,000 new jobs added to the economy. This is after the problems we've had. Clearly, the initiatives we've been taking are doing everything to achieve that one goal we have, which is revitalizing the economy.

Now I'd like to talk about the budget. Rather than getting into the budget at this time, I'd like to talk about the process of budget-making, because I think that was truly unique in British Columbia and something that hasn't been done before. Everybody was involved in the making of this budget.

I mentioned to you about the various legislative and caucus committees that were formed. Well, I had the fortune to be on the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is charged with the responsibility of travelling throughout the province doing a prebudget consultation to go back to the Minister of Finance and say: "Here's what the people in British Columbia thought we should have in the budget." And we did. We went from small communities to large communities throughout the entire province, and we had hundreds of submissions. We listened to a number of verbal presentations to us, and people were saying the same thing: the status quo wasn't acceptable. Stay the course with what our plan was, according to the fiscal review panel; continue to take the initiatives we were taking, but protect the most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that we took that back to the Minister of Finance, and that's what this budget did. It did exactly that, but more importantly, the caucus committees were involved in the budget process, because every ministry had to determine a three-year working plan. That three-year working plan wasn't done in isolation. It was taken to the caucus committees. The caucus committees, made up of all the members of the government caucus, reviewed these plans, made suggestions and sent them back to the ministry. They came back down, and it was truly a working document. The plans that were presented with the budget were the workings of the caucus committees along with the various ministries to show what they're planning on doing for three years.

In addition to that — which I don't think has been done before; a three-year plan — there are some benchmarks and some accountability, because without benchmarks and accountability your plan doesn't have a hope of succeeding. The benchmarks were set out for everybody to look at. The measurement tools were there, and more importantly, there was accountability to the ministers themselves, because a good portion of the ministerial salary relates to accomplishing the objectives. I think that's critically important, because now they're putting their pocketbooks where they say they want the province to go. I think that's a very important feature of this budget. The fact that it's a three-year working budget, the fact that people know what's happening, know what's expected of them…. We can review it and make the changes necessary to keep ourselves on the course to prosperity.

Now, what of the budget itself? Well, I mentioned that some circumstances had changed along the way. We did everything in our power to revitalize the economy. We've had some major hurdles or some major shoals that we've hit on this journey, and that's caused a deficit, which I find is just horrible. I got involved to get rid of the deficit, not to have one, but we were left with no choice. The revenue went down. The revenue dropped considerably for a number of reasons that I mentioned earlier, but the expenses were still up there.

It was a difficult time for us to change those expenses. You can't shift the ship overnight, so we were stuck with a number of expenses — expenses that weren't even included, that we weren't even aware of at the time we took over in government. We were left with a $4.4 billion deficit, but because we recognized that and we recognized the problem, and we have the three-year plans, we know that by year 2004-05 that budget will balance. So I can live with the deficit. I certainly couldn't live with it if we didn't have a balanced budget down the road.

What did we do in this budget? We increased health care spending. We found that was vital, because I mentioned earlier on that the two things people told me were to fix the economy and to protect our health care. We found that with the increased salary for nurses and the increased salary for the doctors, we were forced to increase the health budget, and we did that. We're not cutting; we are adding to health care in British Columbia.

We reduced the income tax threshold for small business, because again — make no mistake — it's the small business that's the engine of this community. We have small business tax, and the small business tax used to go to $200,000. It clicked in just as if you were a large business. We've now increased that threshold to $300,000. Now, for any income under $300,000, you'll be considered a small business and have the small business tax rate, which is one of the lowest tax rates in Canada. That should help stimulate the economy.

I should say, for people who may not understand, that when we're talking about profits, profits are absolutely, vitally necessary for a company to exist. A company cannot exist without profits, because without profits you cannot expand, you cannot increase your capital purchases, and you cannot buy additional inventory. Profits aren't something that somebody just takes home and lives off. Profits are needed inside the business to make it survive. We've done that. We've revitalized that area by increasing the ability of small businesses to stay and to grow.

I mentioned to you about protecting the most vulnerable, and we've done that in a number of areas. We've increased the tax credit to the most vulnerable people, and particularly in a situation where we were forced to increase the sales tax by half a percent. When we did that, we had to take into consideration that there's no sales tax on goods for children under the age of 15, there's no sales tax on groceries, there's no sales tax on your mortgage, and there's no sales tax on interest. People are not paying sales tax on the necessities of life.

More importantly, we actually increased the tax credit to people on the low end of the income bracket. We've increased that by 50 percent to $75. We've increased for the most vulnerable in that area, and we've turned the sales tax — what a lot of people say is a regressive tax — into actually a progressive tax in that as a consumer tax, the people who spend the most on consumer goods are going to pay the most tax. The people who spend less money on discretionary consumer goods will pay the least amount of tax. I believe that's a progressive tax, and that's very good.

We increased the tax on tobacco. That's called a sin tax. I saw somebody on television on the night of the budget. It was a young girl. She looked like she was maybe 20 years old, and she was bemoaning the fact that she would probably have to quit smoking. That is great. That's precisely what we want. That's serving two purposes. It's getting more people to quit smoking; and it's increasing the revenue in the short term to help pay for our medical costs that have been skyrocketing out of control.

These are just some of the things. There are a lot more things in the budget. It was a budget designed for the times, for the period we're in. I'm saying it's a waypoint on this journey to prosperity, and I think it was the right budget.

I would just like to go into a couple of the press releases that came out from some of the business people in town here to say what they thought of it. What did the people think of it, and how's that going to affect the economy? I mentioned the chartered accountants earlier on, so I'll say them first. They said: "We're pleased that the government has addressed the small business tax threshold and will strive to keep the corporate income tax rate competitive in the future." That's what we have to be, Mr. Speaker. We have to be competitive.

"Finance minister's provided the public with a budget process that should inspire confidence in the numbers. While it may not be the sexiest part of a budget, the bar continues to be raised on sound financial management in the province." Those are just two of the comments.

I have a press release here from the CGA, the Certified General Accountants Association. They comment:

This is from the Retail Council of Canada. I wasn't too familiar with this organization, although I'm a retailer myself, and I'm probably a member. So I phoned up and said: "Are you involved with big chains or small companies? What is your constituency as the Retail Council of Canada?" They said that, no, the majority of their members are small — what we would call ma-and-pa operations, single locations. Those are the people that work the long hours, longer hours for less money than employees do in fact — the owners of these small businesses.

This is what we're talking about when we say we have to revitalize the economy. This is the direction that budget has taken us.

I would like to conclude by paraphrasing the Minister of Finance when he concluded his speech. This budget is about good government. It's about strong fiscal management. It's about hope. It's about opportunity, and lastly, it's about time.

Hon. G. Abbott: I always rise with a certain amount of trepidation when I'm following a speaker who's not only an MLA but also a chartered accountant. Of course, there's the persuasive and perhaps irresistible combination of charisma and quantification, which is a very hard act to follow indeed. It is with some trepidation that I proceed here.

It is very much a pleasure to rise in support of the budget today. I do so unreservedly, despite — I think many members of the chamber have said it, and certainly the Finance minister himself said it — that in some ways, in many ways, this is not a happy budget. It's an unhappy budget.

Certainly, none of us, when we sought election, was looking forward to a deficit. Certainly, none of us was looking forward to a deficit as large as what we have to contend with at the present day — an estimated $4.4 billion. I think we all hope that it will come in well under that mark. Of course, none of us wants to see deficits, and I'm happy to say, as the previous member noted, that we are moving over a three-year plan to a balanced budget in 2004-05. It's unhappy, as well, in that we are seeing some expenditure reductions. In many cases, those expenditure reductions are right and appropriate and in the best public interest, but certainly — and some will note this — they are a consequence in some cases of the fiscal challenges the government currently faces. We do have some challenges, and we certainly have greater challenges than I suspect any of us guessed as we ran for election in the 2001 election.

What has happened to make the job for the Finance minister and for this government even more difficult? Among other things, we've seen a sharp drop in energy prices. We've also seen a very sharp decline in the U.S. demand for energy, which was unprecedented in 1999-2000. Those two elements have been very problematic in terms of the budget.

We have seen, since the election, some $500 million in revenues from Crown corporations evaporate. Again, that blows a pretty big hole in any budget. It's $500 million that had effectively been promised at the time of the last election but is simply not there today.

We have seen, particularly in the wake of September 11, the global economy slow. It appears that it now has been reversed. I do hope, as I'm sure every member of this House hopes, that in the very near future we

will again be seeing the reappearance of world economy growth and, hopefully, prosperity. Short term, we have some challenges that stem in part from September 11 and in part from the broader global slowdown.

As well — and I think this is something that is particularly compelling in ridings like the one I represent, Shuswap — the absence of a softwood lumber agreement has been a huge problem for this province. The U.S. is by far the largest customer for our lumber producers, and the restrictions and uncertainty around future restrictions stemming from the softwood lumber dispute have jeopardized many jobs. Certainly, thousands are out of work as a consequence of that. It also has had a revenue impact for the treasury as well, and obviously the revenue impact has been quite predictably a very negative one.

Finally, one thing we don't have, which allowed a previous budget to be balanced, is a $1.4 billion one-time pension adjustment. That, as "one-time" would suggest, was there only once. It's not something that carries forward. Again, as a consequence, it's an issue which doesn't help us through the current budget dilemma.

It's not where we want to be in this budget, but it's where we have to be in the current budget if we want to move ahead and if we want to restructure government. Certainly, a large measure of that $4.4 billion in projected deficit is in the restructuring of government. If we're going to achieve a balanced budget in 2004-05, as every member of the government is committed to, certainly we do need to take these very difficult steps that we are currently involved with in this budget. I believe that when we have undertaken the difficult steps we are proceeding with, we will be an economy that is very much poised for economic renewal, poised for recovery and poised for a new prosperity and opportunity in this great province.

There is additionally, in fairness, plenty of good news in the budget, and I think we should note that. We have, as the Finance minister previously announced, made very substantial tax cuts for British Columbians. These are much-wanted and much-needed steps in making British Columbia a competitive economy once again, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that has introduced tax relief to British Columbians across the board. It's going to play a big part in restoring economic vitality to this province.

We have also seen, through removal of tax on machinery and equipment and in a whole range of other ways, tax reduction or tax elimination to B.C. business to make British Columbia more competitive. Again, as the previous speaker noted, we saw the former NDP government take us from the No. 1 economy in the country to the No. 10 economy, if you don't include the Territories. I'm proud to be a part of a government that is going to, I hope, in the very near future and hopefully within the term of our government, see us again become the No. 1 economy in Canada.

We've also eliminated some job-killing taxes. The corporation capital tax is a classic example of telling people: "Sure, bring your investment to British Columbia, and the first thing we'll do is tax it." That was the philosophy of the former government. Happily, we are seeing an end to that very regressive tax, which a former NDP Premier said was going to be a temporary tax but which hung on through the entirety of their two administrations.

As well, I know all the ministers of government are actively engaged in finding ways to cut red tape, as we committed to, by one-third over our term. It's a big job, but it's already making a difference in our provincial economy and will continue to make even more of a difference.

Finally, one of the features of the current budget that I really like is that we have increased the threshold for the small business income tax rate from $200,000 to $300,000. I think that's just a huge step in the right direction for our economy.

All of us in this Legislature will be measured on the success of this budget and measured on the success of the economic changes we have made and the reorganization of government. We will be measured on all of that, appropriately, by our electors on May 17, 2005. It's a long time away — I know that — but I'm actually looking forward to that date. I believe that by the time May 17, 2005, rolls around, we will again be the strongest economy in the country, and we will have seen this province once again moving powerfully in the right direction.

One thing I do want to do today, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's something we need to do on a regular basis, is thank my constituents in the Shuswap for once again offering me the opportunity to serve them in the Legislature. Certainly, it has been a great honour to serve here since 1996. One of the things we sometimes forget or overlook is that remarkably few British Columbians ever have the opportunity to serve in this assembly — remarkably few. In fact, I think that since the entry of British Columbia into Confederation, even with the large number of new MLAs that came into the Legislature in 2001, fewer than 1,000 British Columbians over the course of our history since Confederation have enjoyed the honour of serving in this beautiful assembly. It is a much-appreciated honour and opportunity.

Before I got elected here in '96, I also had the opportunity to serve constituents at the local government level. I want to use that as a bit of a theme here for a time. In 1979 I was elected to the Sicamous waterworks district. In 1980 they formed the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, where I served as a director and chair of the board for 16 years and for six years with the newly incorporated district of Sicamous. I certainly enjoyed a good long service at the local level as well.

There are some very powerful lessons that can be learned from that service in local government. One of the things we had to do each and every year, whether it was at the municipality or at the regional district, was produce a balanced budget. We weren't able to do anything other than balance our budgets. We are obliged, in fact, by a provincial law to balance our budgets, and

rightly so. Our government, of course, has committed to making that the law for British Columbia as well. We'll see the first in an endless series of balanced budgets starting in '04-05.

It wasn't easy. I know we sat around the council table and the regional district table for long hours looking for ways to achieve a balanced budget without curtailing services and without introducing tax increases. It's a very tough job, but it's something that the municipalities and the regional district representatives have to do.

One of the advantages local governments then enjoy, after making those difficult choices about services and taxes and so on, as they move year to year, balanced budget to balanced budget…. One of the advantages they clearly enjoy is that they are not plagued by the debt-servicing costs which are associated with provincial administrations that year after year, like the NDP, introduce nine consecutive deficit budgets. The consequences of the additional debt-servicing costs are very considerable. They chew very dramatically into our ability to deliver services. In fact, if we were to continue along the NDP's path of deficit after deficit after deficit, eventually those debt-servicing costs would erode our ability to deliver even the most fundamental services like health and education.

I know my constituents haven't enjoyed some of the very difficult expenditure reductions we've had to make. I haven't enjoyed the very difficult expenditure reductions we've had to make. Nobody does; nobody enjoys those. I think the old cliché about short-term pain for long-term gain is certainly appropriate here. That is precisely the kind of situation we face.

We can do what's easy politically. We can do what is in the short term, perhaps, politically popular and try not to touch any of the expenditure lines that we have across all of our ministries. That's the wrong thing to do. That's exactly the wrong thing to do, because what we will do over time, as we pile deficit on deficit, is continue to erode our ability to deliver services in the long term.

Certainly, while not everyone may want to be holding celebratory dinners for us today, down the line five years from now, as my kids become adults and my grandkids become adults, the efforts we've made today as a government will, I think, be understood and appreciated. They'll be understood and appreciated because the ability of governments in 2010, in 2050, will be preserved. It will be preserved because we're making the difficult steps today to achieve a balanced budget in 2004-05 and balanced budgets after that point. We won't see the continued erosion of our ability to deliver services.

The only way in which the debt servicing of municipalities is in any way limited, of course, is around capital projects, which they themselves have approved as an electorate. Why, I suppose one might ask, have municipalities been able to do that and provincial governments have not? Again, it is curious that provincial governments have compelled local governments to balance their budget, but they haven't compelled themselves. Again, provincial governments — and I guess the last NDP government was a classic example of that — simply weren't prepared to impose the same kind of fiscal discipline on themselves that they were prepared to impose on local government. As a consequence, we saw during the NDP's term a doubling of the debt in this province. It took, I think, 120 years of provincial governments to get us $16 billion in the hole. It took the NDP just ten years to more than double the debt in this province.

It's time — and certainly this budget commits us to it — to impose the same kind of fiscal discipline on ourselves as we have seen imposed on local governments. We've had to make some difficult choices, and we've had to make many of the difficult choices that confront municipalities and regional districts as they go about their budget processes every year. Because we've come from a place where governments have been dramatically overspending, it's been particularly tough, but I am proud and grateful to be part of an administration that has committed itself to doing precisely that.

One of the things, I think, that should be noted with respect to this budget is that we have not attempted as a government to download our fiscal challenges onto local government. Now, who would have done a thing like that? Well, the former government would have done a thing like that. Really, when it comes to managing fiscal pressures and managing these very compelling fiscal challenges, there are a couple of different models out there of how to proceed.

I want to spend just a moment to tell you about how the former government, the NDP government, proceeded back in late 1996 — November of 1996. I remember this very clearly, because I was the opposition Municipal Affairs critic at the time. What we saw in November of 1996 was an announcement one day — certainly without any kind of consultation, without any kind of discussion, without any kind of notice — by the NDP administration that they were meeting their fiscal challenges by unilaterally cutting $113 million in local government transfers — $113 million taken out of those local government transfers overnight, no discussion.

That download — that ripoff of $113 million — was not only, I think, morally wrong given that the municipalities were midway in their budget processes, but it was also legally wrong. In fact, it was entirely in breach of an act that the NDP had only recently put into place, called the Local Government Grants Act, which was supposed to provide certainty and predictability in grants from the province to local governments. It was entirely in conflict with that, entirely in breach of that. In fact, the former NDP administration had to come back the next session and enact, retroactively, changes to the Local Government Grants Act to allow them to do that.

Now I'm delighted and very proud, Mr. Speaker, that this administration, this government, took entirely

a different approach to the management of our fiscal challenges. We did not download our problems onto local government. In fact, to me at least, as a minister responsible for municipal affairs in the province, one of the highlights of the budget — and I think it is a highlight — is that we have seen transfers to local government protected in their entirety in the current budget. We have not in any way attempted to download our problems onto municipalities.

We have, for example, entirely protected small community grants. These are very important to municipalities. Some of them are only a few hundred people at large. For some, the transfer under small community grants constitutes 50 percent or more of their revenues. They are critical to them. We have protected those small community grants in whole.

We have protected the Fair Share program which, of course, our members from the Peace and the municipalities in the Peace very much value. We have protected the traffic fine revenue transfers, and so on and so on. We have, across the board, ensured that we have protected municipalities and regional districts. We have not attempted to download our problems onto them.

Further — I think that local governments will be very appreciative of this, and again it was a challenge, given our fiscal circumstances, but it will be very important in terms of our economic turnaround — we have protected the Infrastructure Works program, the Canada–British Columbia Infrastructure Works program. We have protected that. This is a five-year agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and local governments. On the water and sewer side it's $600 million over a five-year period, and on the non-water-sewer, on the community infrastructure, it's $200 million. Again, we have protected those funds. We look forward to working with local governments and the federal government to see a rollout of millions and millions of dollars in infrastructure programs and infrastructure projects in the coming months and years, which I think will just prove to be a tremendous stimulus not only to the municipalities but to the province as well. That's important, and that's a lot of dough, but it's something that despite the challenges we have, we have protected because we believe it's very important for municipalities and for this province that we do so.

As well — and this may seem like a smaller thing, but I suspect that many of our constituents, particularly seniors, will identify the importance of this…. Despite the challenges we face, we have protected library grants from the province to library boards and to library regions, and so on, across the province. It's about $8.5 million a year. It will help to ensure that we continue to offer the library services that many people — not only seniors but perhaps particularly seniors — value across this province.

It will be sufficient…. I've discussed this with the B.C. Library Association, and we talked about this previously in this House. It will protect the ability of libraries and library boards to provide audio book services to their blind clients. We believe that's very important. We're looking at ways through InterLink that we can continue to assist around audio books, but the most important thing is protecting the grant to libraries, thereby allowing them to continue to offer those audio book services, which they have in the past.

Another area of the budget that I'm particularly proud of — and I'm proud of it because it was a particular challenge — is the housing programs that we have in British Columbia. Again, we have not only protected housing programs, but we will be seeing them increase in the coming fiscal year to the highest level that they have ever been. It has not been easy attempting to reconcile the need for new housing with the need to curb expenditure lines as well, but we've been able, I think, to arrive at a place where I am certainly comfortable. What we will be seeing is this government meeting its commitment to address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society in respect of their housing.

Now, I'm from part of the province where there is a fairly large proportion of seniors, and certainly that's true not only in Shuswap but in the Okanagan and in a number of other areas of the province as well. What we have been seeing over the past decade is a growing deficit in the number of intermediate- and long-term care beds that are available to the frail elderly. In the absence of those available beds or assisted living units, one of the consequences is to see people inappropriately taking up acute care beds. They don't want to be there, but they are sometimes compelled by circumstances to have to do that. What we have committed to — and it's a very ambitious program — is to see those 5,000 new assisted-living or intermediate-, long-term care beds over the next five years. They are going to be, I think, enormously valued by the health regions, the municipalities and certainly by the frail elderly, who will enjoy greater independence and a better life as a consequence of meeting that commitment. I'm delighted that we have been able to ensure that housing programs have been protected through this.

As well, I'm also delighted to say that our aboriginal services budget has been protected and in fact, again, increased. One of the commitments that this government made during the last election campaign was to double the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million. We are now in the second year of meeting that commitment, and certainly by the end of our first term we will have met the commitment to doubling the First Citizens Fund.

Through that fund and through other programs in the ministry, we will see educational opportunities expanded for young first nations people, and that's very important. We've heard earlier today, and certainly we heard yesterday at the provincial congress, about some of the continuing challenges. I think we all feel a little ashamed that the success rate of young first nations people, in terms of graduating from high school and getting into and completing college, is way lower than we want to see it. It's challenge to all of us,

whether we're involved with school districts or not, to try to move ahead and improve those things. I know that we're going to work with other ministers to try to do that.

Last thing, Mr. Speaker — because I know my time is running out — is that I want to thank the Finance minister for putting in place a provision that's very important to me and very important to the Shuswap. That's the elimination of the out-of-province boat and trailer tax. What we would have seen — and this was the plan of the former government — was that boats from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Washington or wherever that were kept in British Columbia for an extended period of time — I think it was any 12 out of 18 months, cumulatively — would have to pay a 7 percent boat and trailer tax. It would have amounted to, in most instances, thousands and thousands of dollars which they would have had to pay.

Now, it certainly may have made some sense to the former government; it makes absolutely no sense to areas like mine where there's a very major marina industry. Simply put, it would have created a great marina industry in Canmore, Alberta, because everybody would have been pulling their boats and trailers back to Alberta and leaving them there, where they wouldn't have been subject to that ridiculous tax grab which was sponsored by the former government. I'm very appreciative of the Finance minister putting an end to that. I'm sure there will be great relief in Sicamous, Salmon Arm and indeed many other places in the province that have active and large marine industries. This will put that threat of devastation behind them. I'm very much appreciative of that.

I do appreciate this opportunity to speak today. I know this budget is going to be critical to British Columbia's moving ahead to once again become not only the envy of this nation but the envy of the world as well.

H. Bloy: I just wanted to follow up on the hon. Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services when he spoke of the fewer than 1,000 people that have come into this House since Confederation. I am in awe every time I walk into this House and think of the history. I really want to thank the voters of Burquitlam for sending me here. I want to assure them that I am here for everyone in Burquitlam and for everyone in this province. It's an amazing building.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to discuss the most progressive and concise budget in British Columbia in the last ten years. It is truly refreshing to see the level of honesty displayed in what is arguably one of the most important elements of any government.

The budget is a balancing act that would be a daunting task for any person. Imagine being put in charge of a business with a budget in the billions of dollars. It is the staggering nature of the job that has impressed me so much about the performance of our Finance minister. I am further impressed that the Finance minister was able to link his budget to the three pillars of the throne speech in the past two weeks — that is, revitalizing the economy, restoring sound fiscal management, and putting patients and students first.

This budget is about putting people before dollars. There have been increases in some areas and reductions in others. What is paramount for this Finance minister is that the people of British Columbia are cared for. I am in awe of the job that this minister has done. It must seem to him that he is carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, but I can assure you that we are behind him 110 percent.

Today I would like to review two main points of the budget that are particularly important to me and to my riding of Burquitlam.

Income tax reduction. One of the clearest signs that British Columbia wanted a change in government was the strong signal sent in support of income tax cuts. Unlike this past government, we actually delivered on every promise we made in our campaign, and lowering income tax was one of the main platforms of our campaign.

This tax cut will achieve two goals. First, it will put money back into the pockets of British Columbians. It will allow British Columbians to spend the money where they best see fit rather than government spending the money. Second, these reductions in personal income tax will put in excess of $1.5 billion back into the economy of British Columbia this year alone.

In addition to helping individuals, the budget also reversed the tide of support for our small business community. There was a mantra in government for the past ten years that competition is bad, that small business does not create jobs. I know that is not true, and I know that my 76 colleagues know that is not true.

Small business is the lifeblood of our province. In the provincial budget, this government has increased the income tax threshold for small business in addition to the personal income tax cuts. Furthermore, this government has committed to reducing the red-tape burden on B.C. business by one-third over the next three years. The burden of red tape is in excess of 400,000 regulations on the government books that we will reduce.

This government is also committed and has created the Premier's round table on business. This government's attitude has changed from the previous government toward the importance of small business in our economy. What this does is allow small business to thrive. I've spoken to many merchants around my community. I have a number of small retail outlets, like Gerry Vinter's Brunette Insurance, restaurants, manufacturing businesses.

In my riding I have a manufacturing business, Pacific Western Brewing, which produces beer in Prince George and is now producing alternate health products. Later in the month of March, they are making their first export shipment to Japan. This shows the growth and the confidence that these small businesses have in the new government of British Columbia. All of

them have told me that for the first time in a long time, they've felt the government was doing something to help them.

The second major point of the budget I'd like to emphasize is the commitment that this government has made to post-secondary school students. In the budget, this government has made credible and concrete strides to help our most valued resource, and that is students. The budget was a realization that this government cannot continue to spend what it does not have.

However, the government has made every effort to ensure that students will come first, and we have not cut spending to education at all. This government plans to spend $45 million to establish a leading-edge endowment fund and 20 permanent leadership chairs at B.C. universities. The government plans to increase the number of student spaces for nurses and residential care aides by over 1,400 places in the next three years.

This government plans to work with universities to ensure that students are getting the best education that can be provided. Next month I will be speaking at a forum with a number of Simon Fraser University students. I am looking forward to an engaging and lively debate. I will be going up to Simon Fraser University, which is in my riding, with the confidence that this government is doing everything it can to maintain the high level of quality post-secondary education in Canada.

Additionally, this government is working to ensure that students get the courses they need in the spaces available, so they can complete their degrees in a reasonable amount of time. I have spoken with many students at Simon Fraser University who are extremely frustrated with the lack of ability to get the courses in a timely manner. A number of students are now having to spend five and six years to complete a four-year degree.

The cost of tuition is but the smallest part of a student's education when compared to the cost of living, social needs, books, rent, clothing and excessive student union fees. The many students I have spoken with support the change in policy of allowing universities and colleges to set their own tuition fees. These students look forward to working with the administrations of the colleges and universities to set fees so that they can continue the courses as they require in a timely manner.

Yes, there are always some students that want it for free, but for a quality education to be affordable in British Columbia, there have to be reasonable fees. I have every confidence that the students within the colleges and universities will be able to work with the administrations to set fees so that they can get the education they require.

What struck me the most about the budget is the balanced approach. It has combined a tightening of the belt, so to speak, with the commitment to helping those most in need. It has also found a way to create new initiatives, stimulate the economy, restore sound fiscal management to government and, most of all, get B.C. back on track.

As I have said before, the road ahead will not be an easy one. Over the last decade B.C. has slid to last in investment and last in growth in Canada. We have been starting the race every year in last place, and this government is refusing to accept that reality. This government has promised to change our current status. We were elected to change the status quo, and with a budget as well thought out as this and with this team of strong government MLAs, I have every confidence we will achieve that goal.

Proof of the positive change made by this budget in our first eight months in office is that in January of this year British Columbia had an increase of 27,000 new jobs. This is proof positive that we are on the track to restoring prosperity for all British Columbians. British Columbians are happy with the job that this government is doing.

This past February 16 I had the official opening of my community office. I was amazed. Well, I can't say I was amazed, because I've been getting phone calls, and over 200 people came through my office opening. They were in support of what this government was saying, and they were saying to me: "Stay the course. Don't falter. This is what we need right now." The prevailing message was that the silent majority in British Columbia is aware of the tough road ahead and is in full support of this government.

I would like to thank the Premier for allowing me to serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Government Caucus Committee on Economy. The Government Caucus Committee on Economy works closely in association with the Ministry of Advanced Education; the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise; the Ministry of Transportation; and the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour.

I would like to end today with congratulations to the Finance minister on a well-thought-out and pragmatic budget. It is not always easy to be an MLA in British Columbia, but we can all take solace in the fact that we are doing what is right for British Columbia today, and we are doing what is right for British Columbians tomorrow. Thank you.

K. Manhas: I am pleased to rise here today in support of this government's budget. The minister delivered our first full budget just nine days ago, and since then I've already spoken with a number of people in my community. I've met with the mayor and council in Port Coquitlam and the mayor and some councillors in Coquitlam. I've had a number of different comments since the budget. I've heard from a number of constituents through e-mails and phone calls, and I have to say that most of the people I've talked to have been very positive about this budget. They have understood what has to happen and why the decisions that are being made have to happen.

I had an opportunity to speak with my council this past weekend. They had a number of concerns, and I've tried to bring those forward here to Victoria. They were concerned, first of all, about meeting budget targets. We said we'd meet budget targets. We have committed to it, and we'll remain accountable to that. In 2005 the people will see that we will be accountable to the decisions and statements that we've made.

They were concerned about hydro and energy costs. They were concerned about their costs and downloading. They were worried about the cost of changes on them. They were worried about meeting their own budget targets. I've taken those concerns and brought them forward here to this government, and I continue, as always, to ensure that the best interests of my community and the folks who live in it are being brought forward.

People should understand that we have inherited a situation. We have come into a situation that needs to be corrected, and a number of decisions have to be made to get us through this period. Every British Columbian will have to start shouldering that burden, because the more quickly we can get through this period, the more quickly we can deliver more opportunities for all British Columbians. In my own community we have already been seeing some great changes, and a number of new businesses have been opening up.

I don't think any of us expected the number of challenges we would be faced with coming into this government. I don't think any of us could have predicted some of the events that have occurred over this last year. I don't think anyone could have predicted the way negotiations or arbitrations…. Parties have come to the table — for example, the United States coming to the table in good faith with the softwood lumber agreement. I don't think anyone could have expected those to occur. We've tried to work within that framework.

I think the Minister of Finance has performed and pulled together a budget, with so many constraints, that really does build a foundation. I think that has been very, very difficult, and I'd like to commend the work the Minister of Finance has been doing. It has not been an easy job.

I've been hearing from most of my constituents that they do understand. They do understand the path the government is taking. I'd like to read from a couple of e-mails I've received from constituents in my area. The first one says: "Hi, Karn. Your government is on the right path. Although tough, someone had to make these decisions. Congratulations. Carry on. All the best."

I have a letter from another resident, speaking on the protests that have been going on in the last weeks in this province:

The fact is that we do need to carry on with this agenda. The problems that have assailed this province

are not going to be fixed overnight. They do require the rollout of a strategic plan that has to be carried out, which will be measured in the coming years on the effects of that plan.

There are a number of people who will jump up and down as soon as decisions are made, saying they're the wrong ones. But the decisions this government has made are holistic; they are a plan that works together. It has to be given the ability and the chance over the coming years to have its effect, so we can increase opportunities for British Columbians.

One of the comments that has been raised a number of times in speaking to members in my community since the budget is the question of taxes. We did have a number of challenges from rising health care costs that did need to be dealt with. The fact is that the tax burden on British Columbians is still lower than when we came into government.

I was speaking to a constituent recently, a fellow on the phone, who was worried about rising costs and rising MSP premiums. I understand how easy it is to read news articles or stories in the media and get concerned about the changes that are happening in government and not realize exactly how these changes will have an effect. I was speaking to a fellow on the phone, and he had understood from reading that the MSP premiums are going up. He didn't make a lot of money and was worried he wouldn't be able to afford these changes. We took a look at what was actually going to happen. His MSP premiums actually went down because of the changes. That's just one person. There are approximately a quarter of a million people in B.C. like that.

I understand how people can get concerned when they hear about changes, when they hear things in the media that are riled up by specific groups. The full details don't come out. When the full details do come out and people see how that affects their lives, I think the people in this province will see they are better off.

I was in my office last week, and as I was leaving, a fellow came up to me, worried about some of the changes that had been made and whether they would have the intended effect. At some point in the conversation he asked if the Liberals…. Somebody had asked him if the Liberals were the right choice. An immediate reaction came over his physiology. I mean, the thought occurred to him: what would have happened in this province if the NDP had actually got in for another term? The thought just spooked him so much that his whole demeanour changed, and he was willing to understand and work with the changes that were being proposed.

I think that if a lot of British Columbians understand that this government has tried to come about and balance its decisions, they will come to look at the whole picture and understand why some of the decisions that were being made had to be made. And we're not going to stop there. I know that this government is committed to having personal and business taxes that are competitive with neighbouring jurisdictions.

Low-income British Columbians now have the lowest personal income taxes in the country — for everybody earning up to $60,000 a year. When we talk about increases and changes in tax structure, we have to remember that those people, low- and middle-income British Columbians, are still paying the lowest taxes in Canada.

The total amount of tax cuts reached about $2.2 billion. After this budget, the net amount of money going back in tax relief is still about $1.4 billion.

The MSP and PST increases came to less than $650 million. They were necessary to pay for labour costs for skilled health care professionals — to keep them in this province. But I think we have to remember that the amount we're collecting in taxes in this province is still less. When you add up personal income taxes, MSP premiums, tobacco taxes and federal transfers and all the new taxes, it's still less than the amount that we're paying in health care. That's an amazing thought. We've got about a $25 billion budget, and health care costs more than everything that we're collecting in taxes.

So how do we pay for the rest of those things that government should be delivering, that government wants to deliver — the services that people want to have? We have to do two things. We've got to reduce the amount that services cost us, and more importantly, we've got to increase the health of the economy so that we can get more services. More money coming into government — that's the only way we'll be able to sustain ourselves in this province. We have to increase our economy. We've got to provide more opportunities. That's got to be our focus.

At the same time, we should remember and look back into our communities and see what's going on there, because the impact of the changes since the election of this new government has still had a considerable effect in my riding. Business is up. Everywhere you turn, everywhere you drive, houses are being built. You see signs for new housing developments. There are new offices being built. There are new retail shops being built. Development is being planned. We've got major corporations that are looking at investing in Port Coquitlam again. We've got Sears, a national corporation, building their western Canada headquarters, their distribution headquarters, in Port Coquitlam. We've got Ikea building their western Canada flagship store in Coquitlam.

There's a lot of great things happening. I think we have to get away from the doom and gloom that we hear sometimes in the media and look to what's actually happening in our lives and around us. Jobs are being created. Almost every week I go back to the constituency, and I get calls from businesses that either are looking to invest or are opening up shop in the area. That's encouraging. If we can continue that all over the province…. It's a very different effect from the doom and gloom you hear in the papers and in Victoria. People are happy. They're optimistic. When I go back to Port Coquitlam and to the Tri-Cities, people are optimistic. Businesses are optimistic.

I'm going to be meeting with the business community, a number of different groups, in the next couple of weeks. The ones I've talked to in these last weeks and in the last months have been very optimistic. The business people I've talked to have told me they're very happy about the changes that were made in the budget. They understand why they have to be made. They understand how it's providing a foundation for the coming years to ensure that we will continue to have people investing and will continue to have more business activity — not only in Port Coquitlam, not only in the Tri-Cities but, hopefully, in all of British Columbia — so everybody feels it.

There's a number of organizations I've been speaking to in my community, as well, like the Society for Community Development and the society for community living, that have been working very proactively, working with this government and with myself, to bring forward the issues concerning them so that we can help to resolve them. I encourage all organizations to do that — to bring forward the actual concerns they have so that we can ensure those are addressed.

What's been exciting about that is that in the last number of months, we've opened up a new office, our permanent office. We were working out of a temporary office since the election. Actually, we had an office that was up and running the first day after the election. I was the first newly elected member to have an office open after the election. We tried to have a temporary office that people could come into to address their concerns as soon as the election results had come in. We did that.

In January we opened up a permanent office. We built a resource centre in that office. The response from a number of the community groups has been very encouraging. We are now going to start working with a number of groups to make sure that it is a focal point for helping build and develop the community. We chose a location that was easily accessible, at Shaughnessy and Lougheed, right in the centre of Port Coquitlam. It's easily accessible for north- and south-side residents as well as northeast Coquitlam — easily accessible and visible. We intend to utilize that location in the best ways possible.

One of my beliefs is that a community office should be more than a place where people come to address concerns. It should be a place that is a focal point for the community, that helps the community. What we've done is brought some extra computers in there so that people have a place to access government resources, community resources. We're working with several organizations to ensure there's programming that people in the community can access when I'm away in Victoria. My staff have been phenomenal at ensuring that everybody who comes in is well taken care of.

There have been a number of changes that were announced as part of the budget and even before the budget — structural changes in the government. I think the people in Port Coquitlam should be very happy about the way the changes have come about, because although every area of British Columbia has had to do its part and the Tri-Cities are no different, we also now have the opportunity to serve people much better.

One example of that is the Port Coquitlam courthouse. We've got a courthouse that was decided to be built a number of years ago. In the last decade it was finally built, and it was never actually used to full capacity. Now what we'll see is the courthouses actually starting to be used and the facility being used at full capacity. What that means is that people will start to come into the community, and it will drive economic activity. That will be good for Port Coquitlam. It will breathe life into downtown, the historic core of Port Coquitlam. I think people should be very excited about that.

I know a number of the reorganizations have had direct impacts on people, and I understand their concerns. I understand what they're going through, but these changes that have been made had to be made. We're going about doing this in as balanced a way as possible. Drastic changes have had to be made.

In the last little while, if we look at the economic situation in British Columbia, we dropped to a have-not province in 1999, and 60,000 young people left this province between the years of 1997 and 1999. People should be concerned about that. That is a problem. That hurts everybody. It hurts everybody in British Columbia that that many young people left this province because they didn't see opportunities available for them in British Columbia. There weren't jobs for them. There wasn't a future. We have to change that in British Columbia. We have to make sure that young people stay in B.C., because otherwise we won't be able to continue to sustain the rest of our services and to build the society we want.

We have to ensure that there are opportunities in every sector in professional development in British Columbia. A number of the things this government has been doing have been working to ensure that, but we have to change the economic climate. If young people continue to leave British Columbia for Alberta, for better opportunities, we're all going to lose. These people leave with a lot of our hopes and dreams, and we've got to make sure we do everything we can to make sure they don't leave.

As a young person myself, I still have a family in the future. What happens today and the decisions that are made today directly affect my future. In some ways, I have more invested in this budget than anyone else here. I will work to ensure that this government does everything possible to ensure that there is a solid foundation now, that we're not passing the buck to the future and that we're doing things right now so that everybody has a great future.

My solemn vow to myself, to my family, to my community, to my province and the country is that I will do everything in my power, with every ounce of energy, to ensure that we have a better future for everyone now and into the future in this province.

E. Brenzinger: I'm honoured to stand here today in this House to respond to the budget. As outlined in the

budget speech, economic growth is the foundation we will build on to sustain our health care system, our top-notch education system and the various other social service programs that those most at risk need.

We must ensure that our economy is competitive, diversified and attractive to investors to ensure that the revenue for these services is available. When our government was elected last May, the resounding demand from the people of British Columbia was change. British Columbians were fed up with ten years of fiscal mismanagement and neglect by the previous government. British Columbians were adamant that their money, their tax dollars, be spent frugally and prudently. British Columbians didn't want their tax dollars to be spent on personal legacy projects. British Columbians want a true and affordable legacy to be left for the generations of the future — a legacy where hard work is rewarded and initiative is encouraged, a legacy that doesn't strangle the economic future but encourages its growth.

This year's budget, read in the House on February 19, 2002, set the building blocks for the future economic growth of British Columbia. We can all relate to this budget. It is simple. If you are in debt and your income cannot pay for your expenses, you must reduce your spending somehow. You prioritize. You have to make choices. No one likes to make these choices. Often they are tough choices, but it is a reality of life. But oh how good it feels when you start to see positive changes in your home budget. That is what we as British Columbians will feel in the next few years as the economy grows and more jobs become available. People will have more spending money, and so will your government.

We are setting the building blocks for a health care system that will provide the necessary medical care that British Columbians expect and deserve. Let us not forget the horror stories from hospitals that we as British Columbians have had to experience and listen to over the past decade. Let us not forget the wait-lists for services and the immense stress that caregivers have had to endure.

We are setting the fiscal requirements for an economy that encourages businesses from around Canada and the world to invest in an atmosphere of cooperation free from government regulations.

That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that these challenges will be easy and can be accomplished overnight. These challenges are enormous, but as set out in the budget speech, our great province will be on its way to recovery and revitalization three years from now. Our budget will be balanced. Our deficit will be gone. Our government will be a model of affordability, sustainability and efficiency. Our Finance minister, for whom I have tremendous respect, has tackled this fiscal boondoggle that we've been saddled with and has set forth a visionary and forward-thinking budget that will get our province back on track.

It is heartbreaking to see that over the last decade, B.C. has slid to last place in economic growth and last place in investment in Canada. We were once an economic leader, at the beginning of the preceding decade, and now we have slid to the point where this province qualified for federal equalization payments in 1999-2000. We went from being an economic contributor to being a have-not province. To me this is unbelievable and unacceptable.

This government has started taking the first steps towards real economic revitalization by cutting taxes and putting the money back into the pockets of British Columbians. British Columbians now have the lowest personal income tax rates in the country for those earning $60,000 or less. We have lowered taxes to make British Columbia competitive again.

My riding of Surrey-Whalley has seen the opening of a new customer-interaction centre in the flats. RMH Teleservices will open its second call centre facility in B.C. and will provide employment for up to 1,000 residents in Surrey. Our government has sent out a message that is loud and clear: British Columbia is now under new management. This new management is letting people know that British Columbia is a desirable destination, a great place to invest and do business, and we are a source of top-notch products and ideas. I want the business community to know that Surrey-Whalley is inviting business to our riding along the beautiful Fraser River.

One of the greatest challenges facing our government is the salvation and renewal of our health care system. Health care spending in British Columbia now accounts for all our revenues from personal income taxes, MSP premiums, total federal transfer payments, tobacco taxes and the latest increase in sales tax combined. Ten years ago the province spent 34 percent of its total budget on health care. Today that figure has climbed to 41 percent.

Wage pressures are a significant contributing factor to this increase. To fund the salary increases for doctors, nurses and paramedicals, this government has had to make tough choices, such as raising the provincial sales tax to 7.5 percent, raising the tax on a carton of cigarettes by $8 and increasing MSP premiums by 50 percent. But the government has also ensured that approximately 230,000 of British Columbia's most vulnerable will actually see their MSP premiums decreased or pay nothing at all. The delivery of health services will be restructured to get the most out of every health dollar and enhance the quality of patient care.

We are paving the way to re-establish our education system, both public and post-secondary, to be the envy of all other provinces. As a mother of three children myself, I share a tremendous respect for teachers. Teachers are charged with the challenging and serious task of shaping our children's lives. We also need to ensure that schools are places of learning first and not a stage for political agendas. I believe most teachers are hard-working professionals who are interested in putting students first.

The commitment of our government to put the students first is very important to me, Mr. Speaker. I have

the honour to be a member of the Select Standing Committee on Education. I have spoken with many stakeholders in the education system: parents, educators and students. They all shared a tremendous dedication to our education system. This budget delivers on our promises to put students first.

Our government is contributing more to post-secondary education. Our government has given post-secondary institutes in British Columbia the responsibility in setting their tuition fees. Our government feels that institutions working together with the students they serve are in the best position to decide what level of fees are fair, reasonable and affordable.

The budget for the Ministry of Education is up slightly to $4.86 billion. The new school funding formula which will be introduced this session will ensure that local school boards are able to plan for their districts' individual needs and requirements with three-year funding allocations which are fair and directed towards community student population and classroom cost.

For too long one of the biggest hurdles facing health boards and school districts was the challenge of trying to focus resources on patient care and students, while facing inflexible and stringent labour contracts. The contracts have resulted in taxpayers not getting the best value and services for their dollars. Our government has made the necessary legislative changes to allow health authorities and school boards the ability to make the right decisions for patients and students.

Our government is also ensuring that we set about making the necessary changes to protect those most vulnerable in our society. We have maintained seniors bus passes so that the elderly in our province are able to preserve their independence within the community.

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited with the board of directors of the Surrey Women's Centre and met with some of the women who work in the centre. I was impressed by their passion and their commitment to what they do and the services they provide. The Minister for Women's Equality has also shared that same commitment by protecting funding to transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing and counselling for abused women and children as well as programs for the prevention of violence against women.

We have also begun the process of outlining and redefining core programs and services to provide people on income assistance with the tools they need to achieve independence from government subsidization. Our government also realizes that for some, this independence may not be attainable due to barriers such as physical or mental disabilities. We will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected with the necessary social safety nets. This is a caring government. Over the next three years the Ministry of Human Resources will invest $300 million in training and job placement programs to allow those who are able to work to achieve independence.

Some of the calls and letters to my constituency office say that we are going far too fast. My response is: "Yes, changes are happening, and yes, these changes may seem quick." The reason it may seem too fast and too quick is that for the last decade British Columbians have come to expect their government to do nothing. Our government is moving forward and making the difficult decisions we were elected to do. Difficult decisions are never easy — I know that — but these measures are essential to revitalize prosperity, protect patient care and build a strong future for our province. Thank you.

K. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to rise in the House today, especially on such a beautiful day here in Victoria. I just wanted to give a very positive response to the budget debate.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance and certainly his staff for putting this budget together in extremely difficult times and with extremely difficult sources of information. These economic times have certainly not been very kind to the people of British Columbia. The budget process has been made an extremely difficult exercise by an inherited deficit of almost $4 billion; a high-tech meltdown; a global recession affecting our energy prices to the tune of a billion dollars; a $300 million reduction in Crown corporation contributions to the province; the softwood lumber crisis, which is ongoing; the tragic events of September; and the recent wage settlements that government had to effect.

I know that the Minister of Finance and the government caucus committees and everybody worked extremely hard in trying to put this together. I also know that shortly before, I think, he was ready to table the documents, there was an arbitration award to the doctors that also affected the amount of the budget at the end of the day.

I really feel that the Minister of Finance must feel he's paddling a canoe in a hurricane. I've had experience with budget processes. Normally, you have a little bit of stability to work with, and you have a little bit of better information, historical and otherwise, to work with. In this case, this certainly did not happen. I truly hope that this province has much better days ahead than we've seen in the past.

I had the opportunity with all members of our caucus — in fact, all members of the House, I think — to attend the provincial congress summit held the other day in Vancouver. I think it was a very, very important exercise. This was where, obviously, elected officials from all levels of government in British Columbia — the civic level, municipal level, MLAs, MPs and first nations — came together to express opinions and to have a dialogue about issues that affect British Columbia. I have to say that I thought it was a very worthwhile experience because I think that as elected people, we often tend to go off in different directions without any real cohesion as to what we're trying to achieve for the people of British Columbia. We all know that there's just the one taxpayer, and I think we sometimes lose sight of that. It was a very good start to a process

I was certainly very moved by the comments of Dr. Gosnell and Bill Wilson from the first nations. I thought that their openness and their willingness to discuss the issues are going to help us in the future with resolving some of the treaty situations around the province.

It was interesting because I don't think I had met half the MPs, certainly, in British Columbia. We got an opportunity to do that. I know from a civic perspective, from my past life in civic politics, that for the mayors there it was also a tremendous opportunity.

At that congress there was a presentation by the chairman of the progress review board talking about the relative ranking of British Columbia to the rest of Canada with regard to economic, health and education issues. I think what the report put forward by the chairman of the B.C. Progress Board — I have a copy here — pointed out was some actually quite disturbing things in terms of British Columbia. Some of those things were the huge gap that British Columbia has with our neighbours to the south and certainly to the east — a huge gap in economic performance. Just as an example, over the last decade B.C.'s GDP grew 4.3 percent compared to Alberta at 22 percent and Oregon at 40 percent, which I think was quite amazing. Our disposable income dropped over the past decade, while all others went up.

There are some other indicators from that report released a couple of weeks ago that, just for me personally, were somewhat unnerving. The report indicated that our high school graduation rate, as an indicator, was one of the lowest in Canada. Personal property crime in British Columbia was the highest in Canada. I think that shows the kind of work that has to be done in a lot of areas to make us number one again, like we were years ago. The focus of the B.C. Progress Board is, in fact, to get British Columbia, in terms of quality of life and economics, back to being the best province in Canada by the year 2010. I think that is something we will all be striving for.

Just having a chance to read, like many people, a headline this morning in one of our local papers, the headline was this: "B.C.'s Equalization Cheque on the Way." Again, this just indicates the kind of state we're in, in this province, at this particular point in time. The article went on to say that this is the first equalization cheque we'll be receiving from Ottawa since 1962. That is not a good thing. It's not a place we want to be in this province.

This is why I so strongly support the commitments of this government and the budget put forward by the government. I strongly support the commitments. Those commitments are to restore sound fiscal management, to revitalize the economy, and to put patients and students first.

Mr. Speaker, many groups in British Columbia have responded to the budget either through support or voicing concern. Being one of the two certified general accountants — the other being the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — in this particular Legislature, I'd just like to read something from the CGABC, which has been referred to by that member and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca earlier.

I feel that it's an important thing. CGABC represents 12,000 members and students across British Columbia, and I think it has quite a voice in terms of the financial community. If I might, I'm going to quote Gordon Ruth again, president of the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, who said this:

I share those sentiments, not just because I happen to be a member of that association but because I think that is the truth on the state of British Columbia today.

The steps taken in the budget are necessary to get this province back to health. You know, I'm constantly asking myself the question, as a member of this House: is there some other option that we might have taken? Is there some other road we might have gone down in terms of the budget and the direction of the government? I hear the opposition and I hear lots of groups saying we're not doing the right thing; we're moving too fast; it's not something that British Columbians want to see. I say to myself: what are those other options? What are those alternatives?

All I've heard so far is that we should maintain the status quo. We should let things be as they were. After all these years, I just cannot fathom why anybody can put that argument forward.

If the answer is to just continually borrow money to increase our debt and continually write cheques, then I think we'd be having more of the same that we've had in the last ten years. I've just quoted a whole bunch of things, including the B.C. Progress Board's findings on that, and that simply has not worked.

I have had the opportunity, as everybody does in this job, to meet with many constituents in Vancouver-Fraserview. Over the past weeks I have had the opportunity to talk to teachers, health care professionals and others. I have listened to their concerns and their opinions. What I seem to end up doing at the end of the day is just trying to explain the course we're trying to take but also saying: "Give the government, give us, a chance to show that this economic program will work."

After nine months, there's not enough time in that period to make things happen. We all know this program is going to take longer, so I ask for that opportunity. I say that if you want to see something happen, give us the time. You can comment on what's going on,

but please give us that time to make it work. I think that's only reasonable. Whether it be talking to teachers regarding the class size or the flexibility provisions, or speaking to health care professionals on the flexibility side, we have to have that opportunity to make the change, to effect change, to do things differently.

When I was meeting with some teachers, they said: "What's the control on this in terms of giving our flexibility back, giving flexibility back to school boards and letting school boards manage the system?" Teachers know best, and I said: "Well, maybe parents should have a say in it; maybe school boards should; maybe everybody. Administration should have a say in it." They said: "What's the control on that? How are we going to ensure that the education is delivered properly?"

I refer to the accountability contracts that the Minister of Education has talked about. These accountability contracts are going out to every single school board. They give out the terms and the kind of performance standards that are expected of individual school boards. I'll just read a bit about what they are: "These are not legal contacts; rather, they detail specific goals individual school boards have set to enhance student achievement. As well as academic achievement, goals may be related to safety issues and the provisional alternative pathways to success."

What I tell those individuals is that through this accountability contract process, there will be an ability for public monitoring and for teachers to monitor just how programs are implemented and class sizes and everything else are monitored. I think that's a very important thing, which is being brought forward.

Not everything that government does is going to be 100 percent correct. I'm sure I'll make mistakes, and many members here will make mistakes. I've yet to meet anybody that's perfect, but sometimes you wonder. For an example, I'll give you the seniors bus pass decision. I think many MLAs felt maybe that wasn't the proper direction to go. Many of us voiced opinions of that. I was very happy to see that decision reversed.

I think that just shows, in fact, the openness of government. We have the ability to give that feedback, and decisions can be changed. I think that's important for anybody, especially new MLAs like myself who are trying to get used to the system of how government works and having input into government.

I think it's very important that we go towards a balanced budget, as required by legislation in 2004 and 2005. I think with that goal and objective, it gives us a real target to hit. I don't think there's any way that any of us around here want to see that target not hit.

This budget was, I think, a little different than some of the others I've seen in the past, and read about and read through, in terms of the three-year service plan for the ministries and the Crown corporations. I think the importance of having these plans can't be overstated. My perception was that so often in the past, government seemed to want to operate without any kind of plan. Government almost felt it was exempt from any kind of structural or strategic plan or any kind of long-term planning, for that matter. It seemed to be like government by the seat of the pants, you know. Decisions were made through the last thing you heard.

I was very happy to see that strategic plan put forward in the budget presentation. I don't believe there's an organization in the world that's been successful which has not put forward a strategic plan and a long-term plan. My goodness, even if you go to a store like Costco or somewhere, you can see small business owners in there buying up certain goods and products to stock their own stores. In fact, even at that level, the smallest business, you'll find some sort of preplanning for the long term.

The three-year strategic plan tabled with the budget documents has common themes. Those themes are that government will operate in an innovative, enterprising, results-oriented and accountable manner. In doing so, it will adopt the following managerial principles: high standards of accountability, consultation and ethics; focused and efficient delivery of government services; social and fiscal responsibility; open and transparent government; and innovative and goal-oriented public service.

This plan lays out key goals, objectives and measurements. One of those most important objectives is that British Columbians will be healthy. Since being appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Health, I've certainly developed a keener interest in the delivery of health care services. Having the opportunity to travel around the province and listen to people from all corners of British Columbia was a very enlightening experience. I think there was a common theme as we heard from, I think, 350 people, and we had another 350 written submissions. The people we heard from face to face tended to have a very common theme, no matter what group or what point of view they were trying to put forward. The theme was that the health care system, as it stands today, is not serving everybody, and it's not serving everybody as it should.

Again, referring to the provincial congress, a gentleman named Dr. Baxter made a presentation on demographics in British Columbia and Canada. It was extremely interesting. His statistics talked about — and he had slides and everything else — the effect of the baby boom of 1938 to 1964 on social services and health care delivery. I didn't realize it started in 1938. I always thought the beginning of the baby boom was closer to my age. If we're lucky enough, people my age get to turn 65, and that's when the real crisis in health care would hit because of that big bubble of baby boomers in the population.

What the presentation showed the other day was the fact that we're in this demographic crisis at the moment. People are living longer. They're utilizing the health care system quicker. The thing that's really interesting is that the group underneath the baby boomers is going to have to support, and there's not enough folks there to do that. The current health care system as it stands, just from that point of view, is certainly not sustainable.

The fact that health care spending in B.C. has more than tripled from 1985 to now, from $3 billion to $10.4 billion, just emphasizes the kind of costs and structures we'll be going through. That is why we must deliver health care in a more effective and efficient manner. There's comments in the papers today by Roy Romanow, the federal commissioner who's leading the inquiry into medicare. Mr. Romanow says he hopes to kick-start a debate that will entail Canadians coming to grips with their heightened, sometimes unrealistic expectations of what the public system can deliver. He also added that the most politically challenging cost driver is the expectation of the public. With better technology and as we all age, then obviously you can see where the cost drivers are.

In order for all of us to deliver the services that British Columbians deserve and need, the basis of everything is restoring sound fiscal management. On February 19 the budget did many positive things, and one of those was increasing the small business income tax threshold by 50 percent from $200,000 to $300,000. This will enable small business to earn a little more money from the bottom line, to retain it or reinvest it in their companies and in their businesses or to expand or expand the number of jobs they've got in their business. I think this is very progressive and a very, very important thing.

That budget also raised the sales tax credit for low-income workers by 50 percent. It also increased disability-related income tax credits, including credits for the in-home care of relatives and credits for disabled dependents.

The budget identifies a $4.4 billion deficit, and this is really tough. Difficult choices are being made daily, and sometimes those choices affect people. Most often they affect people. None of us elected to this House — certainly not myself — really came here just to deliver bad news to everybody. So far, it's been difficult for all of us. I certainly don't get up in the morning and say: "Oh boy. I wonder what we can do to affect programs, to affect people today."

I think we're doing the right thing today for the future of British Columbia tomorrow. I know that by making these tough decisions and taking these tough stances, there will be brighter days ahead. I truly believe in my heart that the decisions we are making today will benefit our children and, if I'm lucky enough sometime in the future, grandchildren.

I just want to speak a little bit on the feedback I've had on the 5 percent reduction that MLAs took to their basic compensation. I have to tell you that I'm fully supportive of the action we took. No, to answer many editorials, it will not solve the fiscal problems of British Columbia, but I believe it sends a very strong message that your elected officials are committed to showing leadership and setting a direction.

A lot of e-mails have come into my office and constituency and talk about the large increase that MLAs received in compensation. I have to tell you that we're all trying to clarify that. Those were federal MPs that were dealt with in that manner. The British Columbia MLAs have not had any such increases.

I believe that recovery is certainly on the way. The comments yesterday by Alan Greenspan in the United States that the U.S. economy is going to see a moderate economic growth of 2½ percent to 3 percent this year, I think, were very, very positive. I think the engine is starting to turn, and things are going to turn around globally and certainly in this province. They're going to turn around because we've put a plan in place. Again, I say: give the plan an opportunity to breathe, a chance to show what it can do. I'm sure we'll see great results in the next few years.

Finally, I'd like to talk about pride in our country. I certainly know that I share, with probably almost every Canadian, a tremendous pride in being a Canadian. After watching the Olympics through the last few weeks and the great performances of all the Canadian athletes, I, like all Canadians, felt an unbelievable sense of pride. This is a thing that I think in Canadians sometimes fades away a little bit, and we have to once in awhile have something like those games to reinforce it.

I was especially impressed by the way our athletes handled the adversity and the situations. The class and integrity of those Canadians and all the Canadians at those games, I think, really shone throughout the world. There's an old expression: "You don't know how to win unless you know how to lose." I think the Canadians really showed that. I know all of us were extremely struck by the performance of Burnaby's Joe Sakic in the gold medal hockey game, certainly a performance of determination, true passion and commitment to a cause. I have a feeling there's a little bit of Joe Sakic, certainly the spirit he brought forward, in all of us as Canadians.

I bring this up because I would like to say: wouldn't it be truly nice if we could return that feeling of pride to British Columbia? In a small way we could make people feel really good about this province again. We could have people talking about British Columbia and how great it is and how great it can be again. There's only one way we can do that, and that's by making British Columbia whole again. I believe this budget sets the groundwork for us to head in that direction.

I know that making British Columbia whole again is the commitment of this government, and it's certainly my personal commitment. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the people of British Columbia is: just give us a chance, and you will see results. Thank you very much.

A. Hamilton: It is certainly an honour for me to stand in this House today and reply to the budget which was delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 19. This budget reflects what my colleagues and I on the government side of this House campaigned on almost a year ago. This budget is about restoring sound fiscal management, revitalizing the economy, restoring hope and prosperity and, lastly but not least important, putting patients and students first.

This province went through a decade of financial mismanagement. However, Budget 2002 is another step this government has taken towards the path of turning British Columbia around to better days, which will mean that British Columbia will once again become the best province in the best country to live in.

B.C. belongs to all of its citizens, and this government is working very hard to ensure that everyone is proud to call B.C. their home. The task that all British Columbians face won't be easy, but it absolutely has to be accomplished. We have no choice if we want to leave a legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

At this time, I would like to take a minute to explain to my constituents and others watching these proceedings the difference between an operating deficit and a structural deficit. There appears to be much confusion about their meanings, so I just want to take a second to differentiate. An operating deficit happens when spending is higher than revenues for a short period of time. However, a structural deficit is far worse. It results from a long-term pattern of consistently spending more than the government can afford year after year, and it can't be solved overnight or with a short-term increase in revenue as has been done in the past.

Some may say that with this budget, our government has added to our structural deficit. However, I must stress that unlike the previous government, who just spent and spent without any regard to a vision of keeping cost under control, this government which I'm proud to be a member of has a long-term plan to fix our finances. That means getting rid of the structural deficit once and for all by ensuring that government spending doesn't exceed our revenues. This government is 100 percent committed to getting our fiscal house in order.

While every other Canadian province dealt with their debt, British Columbia's NDP government doubled the debt during the decade of destruction that left British Columbia with a massive structural deficit. As a matter of fact, it presently costs approximately $2 billion to service our debt. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the services and the programs that would pay for?

British Columbia used to be a leader in opportunities, but it turned in a dismal performance under the NDP tenure of office. British Columbia had the lowest productivity growth, the lowest growth in private sector investments, the lowest growth in per-capita GDP and one of the least competitive tax regimes in Canada.

Growth is not some figure. It is what creates jobs and provides people with opportunities. My government's plan is to have financial accountability, a plan for real balanced budgets, reinvigorating the economy and placing patients' and students' priorities first. In doing this, we are establishing the building blocks for future prosperity, again ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not burdened with our debt.

Now I'd like to take a few minutes to address health care and some of the tough decisions the Premier, the Minister of Finance and every member of this government had to make in regard to taxes and the economy. As the Minister of Finance stated in this House when he delivered the budget, we won't get there overnight, but British Columbia will get there. We will achieve this vision of British Columbia, and we'll do it by delivering on the commitments we made about our economy and our finances during the election.

Some people and groups in this province have tried to make British Columbians believe that the health care budget is being cut. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government has increased the health budget from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion since last June, when the people of this province sent a loud and clear message that they wanted health care protected and every dollar to be spent in such a way that would benefit patients and not administration.

Furthermore, we have taken steps designed to get more out of every health dollar and to increase the quality of patient care. The legislative changes we have made will allow health authorities the flexibility to make the right decisions for patients. Having taken this action, our government kept another promise: to give local governments and boards a larger say in how services were best provided in their communities.

Health care is not just another government program. It's the main reason why British Columbia and Canada consistently rank as world leaders in the quality of life. To ensure that we continue to reach such a level, our government has made some tough decisions. We always said that when tough decisions needed to be made, we would make them.

To fund the increases to doctors, nurses and paramedicals, this government had to make a very tough decision. The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, had four options to choose from. They were:

1. We could ignore the increases and not provide for possible settlement in the budget.

2. We could borrow another $40 million and undermine the hard work, the necessary work, that the government is doing to get our fiscal house in order, then shunt the costs onto future generations — our grandchildren.

3. We could have made deeper spending cuts. We could have cut every ministry except Health and Education by an additional 5 percent. That's not an option.

4. Option No. 4 was a focused tax increase. That is the option this government chose, and I support it 100 percent.

These costs cannot be ignored. Health care is not free. While some people would like to think otherwise, someone has to pay for it. We have taken steps toward ensuring that our public health care system remains intact and that those at the low end of the income spectrum be protected along with every other British Columbian.

I know how hard it is to run a business and ensure that one keeps the costs down. If not, the business will not move ahead and flourish. Small businesses are the backbone of our amazing province and the lifeblood of our communities. After cutting personal income taxes, we lowered taxes on businesses to make British Columbia competitive again and to send a message that B.C. is once again open for business.

I was quite glad to hear that effective April 1, we are increasing the threshold for the small income tax rate to $300,000 from $200,000. In B.C. small businesses are the largest employers, and this change will save them money that they could reinvest in creating new jobs and new growth.

Just last month alone B.C. created 27,000 new jobs. This constituted one-third of all new jobs created in Canada. Experts agree that British Columbia's economy will bounce back by 2003, and we are actually already seeing signs of this. We are well positioned to take advantage of a turnaround because of our competitive tax structure and the positive business environment this government has brought back to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, let me inform you more about the economy and how it has grown in the capital region. As has been previously mentioned by other colleagues in the capital regional district, there are 40 more cruise ships than last year arriving in Victoria. This will generate huge economic gains for all of our communities and will promote tourism as well. As a matter of fact, five cruise ships will be in for refit in the drydock in Esquimalt, creating employment in my constituency.

As a result of lowered taxes on businesses, a small business owner recently approached me and informed me that he is expanding his business and hiring more employees. Real estate sales are booming in the greater Victoria area. Automobile sales are up. Tourism is ahead of last year, and it appears to be heading to record numbers for this year.

Obviously, business is on its way back. It's starting to rebound. In the Western Communities an investor is putting in a Jack Nicklaus golf course, another sign of economic renewal. Also, the Hudson's Bay Co. is building an Home Outfitters store in the Western Communities, again creating employment.

I am hearing these good-news stories from all of my colleagues throughout the province — all of this in expectation of strong economic gains and population growth. This obviously speaks volumes for the confidence the businesses and citizens of our city and province have in what we have done and accomplished.

I wish to speak for a minute about education. This budget delivers on our promise to put students first. The budget of the Ministry of Education is $4.86 billion, and the budget of the Ministry of Advanced Education will be $1.9 billion. This budget has also initiated a $45 million partnership with the private sector to establish 20 research chairs. These will be in the fields of medical, social, environmental and technical research.

This budget reaffirms the government's new-era commitments to protect education. We have lifted the six-year tuition freeze, giving colleges and universities the autonomy to meet growing demands. This budget reaffirms our commitment to increase spaces for high-tech, professional and medical students. For the first time class sizes have been legislated, and school boards will have autonomy to run their districts. The budget also introduces refunds of provincial sales taxes on school purchases made with funds raised by parent advisory groups. All of this, I say, puts students first.

I recently attended a provincial council made up of federal, provincial and aboriginal members and communities and 15 of the larger communities. Obviously, due to the size, there wasn't enough room to have everybody invited, but every MLA was there representing their constituency — the smaller ones. I belong to small communities — Esquimalt to Metchosin. I was there representing those small communities.

I want to impress upon the people that we do listen. The bus passes are an example. School counsellors are an example. The hot lunch program is an example. Community schools are an example. We do listen.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I will speak very briefly on is the increase that MLAs supposedly got — in the range of 20 to 30 percent, depending on who you're talking to. Contrary to popular belief, we took a decrease of 5 percent. It was the federal MPs that got the increase. As a matter of fact — to those that are still non-believers — pension plans do not exist for MLAs either. I've heard that many times over and over again. To set the record straight, we did not get a raise, we do not have a pension, and we did take a decrease. And I agree that we should have taken that.

In conclusion, I would like to say that our work has just begun. It will be challenging work. Some people will not agree with every decision this government will make. Others will feel some discomfort. But we were elected to lead, and we will. We will not waver from our mandate or hesitate when the tough decisions must be made to ensure that patients and students are protected.

I close by congratulating all the athletes that attended the Olympics on behalf of Canada. We're all very proud of them. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

K. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in response to the budget speech, it is my belief that this budget will get us back into the position where we will again be receiving true value for the tax dollars we are spending. To me, this is the most important role that government can accomplish — to give the taxpayers a full return of services for the tax dollars that we collect.

If we were starting fresh with a clear balance sheet, this task would be much easier than the one we are faced with today. Using simple math, when you have a $40 billion accumulated debt at a simple 8 percent interest, this works out to about $3.2 billion per year as an expenditure. This covers the interest only. I only use

these figures as a generalization. I trust the Finance minister has expressed this in a much more accurate manner in the budget detail.

As we all know, our debt is made up of various sources — different types of bonds, different types of currencies — so simple math doesn't work in this case. But I trust you get the gist. The point I'm trying to make is that the bigger the debt, the larger the debt service will be and the fewer tax dollars we'll have left to spend on true services.

It will be a long time before we surrender this massive debt. What we have committed to do by the 2004-05 budget is to stop adding to this debt and to fully support the debt payment on an annual basis to this great liability.

I will attempt to give some background on what I see from this budget by using a reflective perspective based on what I have seen in the past. Everything has a value, and every service has a cost of delivery. All the everyday goods we consume have a cost. They have a cost of production, raw good costs, research and development costs, returns to investor, costs of sale, sales, delivery, advertising — all concluding with a price paid.

Included in these costs are not just the straight economic values, but social beliefs, perceptions, a sense of fairness and sometimes justice. Most of us have a conscience and a concern around the products we use. Was the local environment destroyed or polluted in the production of this product? Were workers exploited or endangered unnecessarily in the production of this product? All these factors are included in a sales formula. If you can sell your product for more than it costs you, you make a profit. If you are competitive with this formula, you become successful.

For government to be competitive, we must also look at the steps and formulas that are necessary for successful outcomes and the delivery of service. In government we are trying to deliver services in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Given that we no longer continue to build up a debt load, as we have in the past, and only cover the financing of this debt as we move along, it's obvious that this becomes unsustainable. In order to live within our means we can either find a different way of providing the service or, through efficiencies, do more for less.

To relate a story about how to do things differently, a few years ago there was a time and motion study commissioned by the British military. They were looking at artillery pieces. At each artillery piece there was a crew of three. There were two men that loaded the artillery piece and a third shouting orders. The first man would open the breach, and the second would put the shell in. Then the first man would shut the breach up. It's fine so far; it makes sense. Then the first member takes two paces to the left — okay. Then the second member takes four paces to the right and ten paces to the back — okay. Then the third shouts, "Fire," and they repeat the process.

Going over this time and motion study, the question was asked: "Why did the man at the left only take two paces and the man at the right take four paces to the right and then another ten back?" The answer was: "It was always done this way." But why? Well, it was obvious why the person to the left took the two paces. If not, you'd get nailed by the recoil of this big artillery piece. But the person to the right could just as easily take two paces to the right and not get hit by the recoil. So why did they do this? They'd been doing it for years; they'd been doing it forever. No one really asked the question. There was a really simple and logical reason why the person would take four paces to the right and ten to the back, and that was to hold the horses when the gun was fired so that they wouldn't get scared. This was great, except that they hadn't used horses in the British military for 50 years.

This is just an example of why we have to change things from the way we've done them in the past and look at why we really do things the way we do. To hold nonexistent horses is not a good idea. I wonder how many invisible horses your government has held in the past while they spent your tax dollars. Hopefully, our core review will address some of these issues.

Another example is where people often talk of doing more with less. This can work if there are significant inefficiencies where savings could really be made. More with less doesn't always work, though. If you ask a bricklayer to build you a house with 20 percent less bricks and if that's all the bricks you can afford, what you're going to do if you don't structurally change the way you're going to build that house is end up with a house that's 20 percent not built. An incomplete house is no good to anyone. We have to be careful when we take percentage changes and try to complete a service without having the goods to do it.

As government, we must ensure that we reduce these expenditures in the various areas. As was said clearly, the current rate of expenditures is not sustainable. We must be clear about where these efficiencies can be found, and we must be truthful where they cannot be found. In some areas reductions would negate the measurable outcomes we initially sought, ending in failure. In some cases, we must either do it differently or not do it at all. As we enter into the implementation of this budget, we have two processes that will ensure that the dollars spent will be effectively used to provide the necessary services for the people of British Columbia. We have a core review.

Mr. Speaker, prior to my election, continuing through my election and after being elected and coming over to Victoria to the House, I keep in my folder this document called A New Era for British Columbia. It was a document that was produced by the B.C. Liberal Party prior to the election. It's a document that I still reflect on today, because many of the things we're doing are right out of that blueprint.

I'd just like to touch on the core review and some of the vision that comes from that document. These are the types of pillars on which we're basing our Speech from the Throne and our budget speech. Out of this

vision comes a top-notch education system for students of all ages; high-quality public health care services that meet all patients needs where they live and when they need them; a thriving private sector economy that creates high-paying job opportunities; safer streets and schools in every community; better services for children, families and first nations; the fastest-growing technological industry in Canada; a leading-edge forest industry that is globally recognized for its productivity and environmental stewardship; greater equity and equality for British Columbia in Canada; the most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada; responsible, accountable management of your public resource and tax dollars.

That's the basic vision that we went into the election with. That's the basic vision that we continue to run government with. We have a core review of government services to ensure that these principles are incorporated. These principles are to ensure that open government and accountable decision-making are there, to enhance a competitive business environment, to ensure sound fiscal management, to ensure effective and sustainable use of the provincial land base, and enhanced focus on our customer service.

Key features of this include a tax environment that is competitive with any other Canadian jurisdiction. We have said clearly that this is one of our goals. We weren't even in government more than two weeks before a tax break was given to all the people of British Columbia, with the highest level given to those who earn less than $60,000 in this province.

A regulatory environment where any regulation would exist only where it can be justified on the basis of good public policy. We have a minister who's working very hard to ensure that we do not have unnecessary bureaucratic red tape hampering the businesses of this province. We're slowly working through, as they go through a review process, and eliminating those that are unnecessary.

A system of accessible public infrastructure — transportation, transmission and communication — that is effective, efficient and non-discriminatory.

An efficient service delivery model for government services responsible to user needs, which, where appropriate, may employ user-pay principles.

These are some of the principles that this core review is looking at. Referring back to what I said earlier, sometimes we have to look at services we have provided in the past and see whether we should even be providing those services. Is that program consistent with the government's vision? Is it consistent with the stated government priorities? Is this program fulfilling a compelling public policy objective? Is this a critically necessary program? Do the overall benefits of this program outweigh its costs? Does this program have defined objectives? Is it meeting these objectives? What would happen if the program was eliminated or even suspended just for five years?

These are the types of questions that are being asked about all the services being delivered by government. We are questioning and reviewing where we spend your tax dollars. Are they being spent in the most effective and efficient manner? Are there other ways that these services can be provided?

That's one of the documents I have before me to express our government's will to ensure that the tax dollars we're spending are being spent in an appropriate manner. The other documents that were put forward with the budget were the ministry service plans. These clearly outline, for each ministry, the services they are going to provide and how they're going to provide them.

Some of the outlines for these plans include an accountability statement, which clearly defines what the minister is trying to do within the ministry; a strategic context, to put that plan in a context that's easily understandable and makes sense as it interfaces with the other areas of government; and policy choices clearly defining what the choices are and what the policy directions of that ministry are, clarifying for the public what that ministry is trying to accomplish. That reflects right upon the next criterion of their ministerial goals: clearly defining what they're going to try to achieve.

Then, of course, there's the core business plan. We've seen in the past, with the previous government, the type of mess you can get yourself into if you don't have a clear business plan of what you're going to be spending money on. I don't even want to get into it. I think it's been mentioned enough. The member opposite mentions every day, when we start talking about anything with water, about their ferry incident.

Some of the other performance and measurement targets in this document are ensuring that not only do we have stated goals but that we're actually going to achieve those goals. We're going to describe how we're going to measure those goals so they'll be clearly definable when they're successful.

We also link these to other government priorities. For too long governments operated in silos, insulated from one department to another. When one ministry does something which has an effect on another ministry, we want to ensure that it's clearly linked so we're not duplicating services or, even worse, working in opposite directions.

Those are two documents I wanted to highlight that are very clearly making this government accountable.

A third process I was involved with and, hopefully, will continue to be involved with was the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. The role of this committee was to do the same for the Crown corporations. As those of you that follow government know, Crown corporations make up a significant amount of government expenditure and government business. In the past these Crown corporations have run pretty much autonomously from government. The government utilized these organizations, in many cases, as an adjunct tax collector for them and manipulated their books to meet the needs of government.

What we're trying to do is ensure that the operation of these corporations is transparent and clearly within

the objectives. Objectives very similar to the business plans that were laid out for the ministries will be laid out for these large organizations, which have yet to be fully accountable to the public. Now that we have an opportunity to ensure not only that they're accountable to the public but that it's transparent, the public will have a clear opportunity to see what's going on within those organizations.

As government we must ensure that the core services are provided. I think one of the issues we've all heard about through the election, through our first nine months in office, is a concern about health care. There's no question that health care is an area that is high on the minds of every citizen of British Columbia. It's what you always hear about first, especially with those people who are getting a little older and are starting to be in more demand of those services. I believe it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 percent of the health care dollars that you're going to use are going to be in the first two and last two years of your life — 80 percent of that health care dollar that's spent.

We're looking at a health care budget that's now surpassed, or will in the next budget, $10 billion. That's a lot of money. I mean, just to say $10 billion doesn't sound like…. It's just a number, but you start thinking what $10 billion really buys, and pretty soon a billion here, a billion there, and real money starts to occur in your mind real quick.

Our health care budget has increased by 7.3 percent. I am a little concerned about the sustainability of the health care budget, and I know this government has done a lot of work to try and get that under control. Just the fact that the minister had to add money into the budget to ensure that health care would continue is a bit of a…. I guess it's a mixed blessing, one to show that we believe in the importance of health care. Just the fact that we had to add so much money within one year shows there are some real issues there which have to be dealt with. I certainly support the minister in all his efforts to try and bring that under control.

I'd also like to talk a little bit about the community that I come from, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, and how it's changed over the years as a result of what I say is borrowing from our future for living today. We all know about the deficit financing that's gone on in the country for a number of years, starting with the federal government in the late sixties, moving to our province in the seventies with the first NDP government and continuing on right through the last government. Unfortunately, we have to continue with that deficit financing until we can get this under control.

I'm very encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Finance has made this strong commitment to ensure that by the 2003-04 budget, we will finally have that deficit under control. It's like trying to turn a large ship. You just don't turn on a dime, and it takes some time. I really support the efforts we're making to bring that under control. As I started off, that $3.2 billion we pay just for interest could buy a lot of services, even when we look at how massive our health care budget is. That's one-third of the health care budget right there that's just gone to pay old loans.

Back to my community. Growing up, the major employers in the town were the sawmills. We had a large brickyard, a cannery, a very active river fishery. Now I look around, and what do I see as the three largest employers? The local hospital, the local school board and the municipality. Fortunately, there are still some large commercial ventures in town, including a sawmill. I had the opportunity to comment about their expansion today in the private members' statements. They're still a large employer, but nowhere near the size of the employers that are on the government taxpayer dollar.

What I would like to see as we move along is a stronger balance not only for my community but all over the province, so we don't have the situation we're starting to see now in small communities, where they become very reliant on public dollars to employ the people there. It's unfortunate that we have to get to a point where we say: "Look, we just cannot afford those public services to be so widely dispersed and costing us so much money. They are just not effective. We don't have the tax base to do it. At one time we did." I certainly look forward, as a result of this budget, to seeing the dollars starting to move back into the economy and into those communities so that they will no longer be totally reliant, as a major source of their income, on the public amenities.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I fully support the efforts of this government, which have been consistent from day one. Again I refer to the New Era document. People who say that they're being surprised…. We told them during the election what we were going to do. We keep going back to saying what we're going to do. We're going to continue doing what we said we were going to do until this province is back to being the great province it once was. I fully support the Minister of Finance for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House again. I had the pleasure of speaking to the throne speech, and I'll also add a few words to the budget debate today.

It's interesting, when you sit here and in your office and listen in the background to the speeches that are given by many members in the House, that each and every one of them has huge concerns for the economy, revenue generation for government from the private sector, and things such as health care and education.

If I think back to just a few days ago, when we were in Vancouver at the provincial congress, and remember the presentation that Mr. Baxter gave about sustainable health care and education, I remember the graphs. They are pretty alarming — in fact, very alarming. When you see what's happened in British Columbia over the last decade or more in health care spending….

When Mr. Baxter puts it in a form on a screen, so that each of us can see that the baby boomers are starting to get to that age where we start….

I guess I'm one of those. In fact, he defined that very clearly. I'm one of those on the leading edge of the baby boomers, not on the back edge. I think my friend down the way here is right along with me.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe he's racing ahead of me a bit, he says. Anyhow, we're both fairly close. That is a concern for us, and it should be a concern for everyone in British Columbia.

Obviously, it was enough of a concern that during the campaign, our Premier — a very able Premier, a good Premier — led the campaign by saying we would maintain spending for health care and education. In fact, he's kept that promise and not only kept it. Although some across the way in the opposition — both of them — would like to say we have cut it, we haven't cut it. In fact, health care has increased dramatically this year — again something that Mr. Baxter brought forward to us about being sustainable.

Also, in education, the Premier's been very clear that the best thing we can do for new health care costs is to have a well-educated society. I believe that's true.

We also have to look seriously toward the future as the bulge of baby boomers gets bigger, as we saw from Mr. Baxter's presentation, and as we require more and more health care dollars. It's no secret that the older you get, the more you're going to consume. In fact, I believe you consume most of it in the last few years of your life on this planet.

It is something we have to look at seriously. Our leader has said we're going to look at this seriously. You know, Mr. Speaker, you can't have a good social safety net anywhere unless you have a bloody good economy. If we don't have an economy that's driven by the private sector, that's driven by investment by the private sector and that creates good, well-paying jobs for future generations — for future young people — we're not going to have any health care.

To prove that, all you have to do is look back a little ways — ten years — to see the economy declined over ten years under the past administration and see the structural deficit that came out of that. The problems this government faces today are huge, but I'm happy that our Finance minister, when he rose in the House and sent out his messages about the budget, said we were going to restore sound fiscal management. We're going to revitalize British Columbia's economy, and we're going to be addressing patient and student needs. They're our top goals.

Those goals are not easy to reach. They're tough, in fact. I would say that with some of the issues we've had to deal with as a government, all of us in here other than two, we've had to make some pretty tough decisions about what we can afford and what we can't afford. Making those decisions isn't easy.

When you think about anybody who has been in business — and there are many of them in the room here — who has gone through tough times in their business and has had to cut back maybe not always staff but in some of the things you've become accustomed to, but especially in people who work for you…. There's nothing harder. No one relishes the fact that you have to downsize the public service. It's not something that anyone likes to do.

We know, too, that if we were going to get our economy going, if we were going to get new investment in the province in all kinds of industry — whether it's tourism, mining, oil and gas, forestry, high-tech, you name it — we had to do some tough things. We wanted to change how we were doing business. We wanted to go from a previous government that liked to almost tell individuals what to do from the time they opened their eyes in the morning until they went to bed at night, to one that's actually respecting people's ability to make good decisions on their own.

That's the difference between us and them. We actually believe people can make good decisions on their own. The old socialist way is to make sure you tell them what to do from the time they open their eyes until they close their eyes at night and even how to sleep. It's enlightening. It's a new way and a new era in the province.

I'm proud to be part of the new era in British Columbia, where we actually respect people for their ability to do things on their own, their ability to take responsibility, their ability to invest in this great province in almost anything they want to invest in, to create jobs and wealth in this great province and actually bring this province back to the number one province it was before those bloody socialists came in here and took it over.

For the first time, I'm told — and I've been here for about ten years along with my friend from North Vancouver — ministries had to present three-year service plans — not just ministries but Crown corporations — of what ministers felt they had to do to roll out plans on how we'd revitalize the economy or how, if it was the case of a ministry, to provide services to people in British Columbia.

We also said that along with those service plans, there were going to be three-year rolling budgets for health care and education. Those services that are provided can be done looking forward a little bit, so you don't have what they call "March madness" anymore, where school districts or hospital districts or whatever were forced into…. If they didn't spend their whole budget, whether it was needed or not, they weren't even going to be able to get that amount the next year. March madness has been around governments, or at least this government, for a long time.

The Premier said we want to have a different viewpoint of that. We want to look differently at how that's done. We want to draw on the entrepreneurship of

those people that are elected to those boards to be able to make decisions into the future — not just for a short 12 months but to actually make a decision three years down the road about how they would like to roll out the services they provide.

That's much the same as we are doing within the ministry. My ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, is one of them. We have a three-year service plan of how we plan to deliver and how we plan to work through the next three difficult years so that we can develop some revenue for the province so we can meet our revenue targets and continue to provide services to people in British Columbia.

I want to just speak briefly about the debt, because it's something that I don't think any of us really like but have. Personally we have some, and I guess corporately there's some. Within these great halls there's a whole bunch. When we came into office the debt stood at $36.4 billion for 4.1 million people.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall the time — it's not that long ago really; I guess it is a long time when I think about having to listen to the socialists for ten years, but really it wasn't all that long ago — when British Columbia only had a $17 billion deficit. That was when you were there as part of another government.

For a province to go from $17 billion — I'm going to use round numbers — to $36 billion, a $19 billion increase, in ten short years with not much to show is pretty disheartening. If you double your debt at home, generally you've accomplished something — right? You've either got a new house that's worth twice as much or maybe even more, or you've got some other tangible assets. But for ten years this province laboured under a government that thought money grew on the trees out back here. They thought that all you do is just go to the warehouse borrowing program and borrow a few billion more, and life would go on as it normally did.

Mr. Speaker, that happened. People became accustomed to it, as we normally do. They became accustomed to services that were far beyond our means. It's easy to get there. I can't imagine there is one of us in this House that hasn't, from the time they were a young person until now, probably spent a little bit more than they should have. I think that's human nature, but you don't do that on a constant, continual basis, as the NDP did in British Columbia for ten years. They constantly spent huge amounts more than they were taking in. Money on the credit card, I call it — the credit card just to keep the average things going within government.

If we had $17 billion worth of assets in this province in the last ten years, you could almost set those off, but we don't. I'm not sure exactly how many billions of dollars in assets we have that have actually increased in the province in the last ten years. There are a few fast ferries around that probably aren't really much of an asset. They're more of a headache, I would say, for anyone.

That's something we have to get in line: a $4.4 billion debt this year that we have tabled — the Finance minister has — because of a structural deficit. We have to work hard to try and bring that around and, in fact, have committed to bringing that around by the year '04-05.

That takes some hard work and some tough decisions. Let me tell you, it's not easy to stand in this House and make those tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, you'll know that very well. When you have to actually stand up and vote for something you know is going to make a lot of people angry, it's not always easy. If you're not prepared to do it, this isn't the place for you, because those tough decisions are decisions we're going to have to make.

It's not just tough decisions on what has to be changed in the province about services to people. It's also decisions on the other side, on the revenue-generating side, that are a little bit easier to make. Sometimes they don't make people happy, but they have to be made.

One of those that's not always easy to tell people is that government — again, I refer to Fred and Martha — will not subsidize business anymore. The Premier was clear on that, very clear. There's a process in place to get rid of all business subsidies. This is not the place to come with some kind of an idea, thinking that someone else is going to finance it. There are institutions out there — banks, friends, whatever. Go out and get whatever collateral you need, however you need to.

What we will do in this province is facilitate, have a place where you can actually invest your money, make a dollar, create jobs and create the wealth that's needed in British Columbia. That's the Premier's promise to the people: keeping services, keeping funding for health care and education, keeping as many other services as we can and reinvigorating the economy in the province.

To do that, the Minister of Finance has initiated a number of things not just in this budget but previously. I'm proud of them, as I'm sure every other member in this House is, except for two that probably aren't. That is, we as government decided on the first day to give a personal tax cut to every British Columbian. We decided we would give a greater tax cut to those earning under $60,000. We had to get in line with other jurisdictions close around us, those being Alberta, Saskatchewan to a degree and those south of the border. That's where we compete for that entrepreneurial dollar to come in and create those jobs and build industries that will create jobs and provide economic wealth for the province. We cut those taxes.

The Minister of Finance also said that we had to get our corporate tax in line. Our corporate tax was way out of line. Is it any wonder that Finning Tractor moved their head office to Calgary? Is it any wonder that Nalley's potato chips moved out of Vancouver? I don't know how many businesses actually moved out of British Columbia. I know that where I come from, in northeastern B.C., there were quite a few. In the lower

mainland there were a whole bunch, along with the young people. They left. Guess what. They went to some place where they could actually go out and work hard and keep some of it in their pockets and not have it all pickpocketed. We lost 50,000 young people to the province of Alberta.

It's hard to get them back, you know. It's hard for them to understand that we've actually changed here in British Columbia. It's going to take a while, but by cutting personal income taxes right off the bat and by cutting corporate income taxes, we're starting down that road to where people are coming back to British Columbia and also where industry is looking seriously at investing in the province.

We also cut tax on machinery and equipment in the mining industry and in the oil and gas industry to invigorate and get some investment going, specifically in the mining industry. Mr. Speaker knows. He comes from a part of the province where mining is a big part of the lifeblood of that area. There's great mineralization in the province of British Columbia. What we have to do is create the climate so industry will come in, will feel comfortable about coming in and will invest in the province of British Columbia, and we can actually get mining started again.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's going to take some time — exactly. As the member from North Van just said, it's just like the young people who went to Alberta. It's going to take a while to get that young entrepreneur group that we lost back here, and it's going to take a while to get those investment dollars that went to Chile — right? — to come back to the province of British Columbia.

We have to start somewhere. We know we have to start somewhere. The Minister of Finance was serious about it. The Premier is serious about it. Every one of us in this House is serious about it, except for two.

We want to bring back industry and those well-paying jobs — the mining industry, some $80,000-a-year-average jobs. Those are good, family-supporting jobs. They're the type of jobs we need in the province — or the high-tech jobs, which pay about the same amount or even more sometimes, I'm told. It's a huge amount of dollars. We have to bring those people back.

The Premier also said he wanted to put forward an energy plan in this great province of British Columbia that's so full of energy. Whether it's mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas, coalbed methane, geothermal — you name it; we've got it. That's one thing about British Columbia. We've got just about everything you could wish for, except that in the last ten years we had a lousy government that didn't care whether the province was prosperous or not, just whether they could spend lots of money at someone else's expense.

The Premier appointed an energy panel to go out and study energy in the province. I thought, as many others did when we came into office, that I'd be able to walk into the past Minister of Energy's office and find an energy plan or something that resembled an energy plan. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was lucky enough to be appointed as the Minister of Energy, and when I walked into that office, which is the same office that's been used for Ministers of Energy for a long time, I looked around on the shelves. I said that there's got to be an energy plan around here. There's got to be some kind of plan around here that says where we're going, what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. Well, I'll be darned. I didn't find anything. The cupboards were bare, as they say. There was no plan. It's as bad as that government could be.

If you think about health care, the largest expenditure that the province has, the same thing happened when the ministers that are responsible for health care went in the office and asked the people that worked for the ministry: "Is there a health care plan? Does anybody do any long-term planning out there a few years?" No plan. That group of individuals went from pillar to post. It was just, I guess, the flavour of the day — whatever they thought they might want to do and whatever they felt they might want to do and for whichever friend they wanted to do it. In fact, I think we're witnessing a court case right now where that's how it works.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, exactly. That's how you found out the gaming policy, and we're finding out in the courtroom now what kind of a gaming policy it was, and it was not a very good policy.

I know the ministry I represent is challenged by the Premier to get the economic wheels moving again in British Columbia. Actually, each and every one of us here is challenged with that regardless of what ministry you're in or what you do. We want to work hard. We want to fulfil the Finance minister's plea that we actually look towards the future in a way that we know we can, in a way that we know is going to happen and that investment is going to start coming back to this great province.

I've lived in British Columbia most of my life. I'm a native Albertan. My parents moved to Fort St. John. I was too young to leave behind, so I went along. I'm darn proud…

…of British Columbia. I am very proud to live in the province. I have no intentions of ever leaving British Columbia, unless for some strange reason that other group gets elected again. I'm also very proud of the

area I come from — Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, one of the most beautiful places in the province, I say. You can have Kamloops, sir.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll take Fort St. John any day, and I intend to stay there, but I also want my children to stay here in British Columbia. I want them to be able to have jobs in the province — both received their education and grew up here — and to be able to prosper, to be able to have families, to be able to think about the future, to be able to know that their children, when they come along, will have the opportunity to get a good education and have good health care. That begins at the start. That means that we have to stop, look and listen, and figure out what we can actually pay for, what we can't pay for, how we can get the economy going — not at the expense of the environment, but by respecting our environment as much as we all do — and make sure that this province again becomes the number one province in all of Canada. That's a pretty tough target to hit. It took the NDP ten years to put us in the ditch. I can tell you that it's going to take a while to get back out of it. It's just like overspending your household budget. It doesn't take long to spend more than you have, but it takes you a long time to come back.

Mr. Speaker, our pledge to the people of British Columbia is to restore sound fiscal management, revitalize the economy, and put patients and students first for a change. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Prince George North.

P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, share a passion for the Peace country, although it is perhaps a different passion than that of the hon. Minister of Energy and Mines. I spent some time logging in that particular area. My experience in driving on some of the roads in that particular country is that they're in terrible condition. I can't imagine that any government would allow roads to deteriorate in the fashion that has taken place in the Peace country. I would suggest that the hon. minister should perhaps drive down into God's true country of Prince George and see what great roads are all about.

With that, I'd like to speak to the budget. The year 2001 was truly a year of change for us all. I'm sure that as we look back 15 or 20 years from now, there will be many comments about the significance of 2001. Certainly, it started off with the election of a new provincial government — and a fine government, at that — and a substantial tax reduction for all British Columbians, as has been alluded to a number of times in the House over the past week and a half or so.

I think that oftentimes we need to look at the results or the benefits of that tax cut. That's not something that's been spoken to broadly at this point. I think it's interesting to note that in the third quarter of 2001, B.C. led retail sales in all of Canada for the first time in ten years. In fact, B.C.'s retail sales for the third quarter, which was the first full quarter after the implementation of our tax cut, grew by a full 5 percent as opposed to a national average of only 1.9 percent. I think that substantiates the net effect of that tax cut. Truly, it was substantial, and I believe it started to move our economy forward.

There were other changes that occurred in 2001, and some difficult and challenging ones. Certainly, our world — Canada and British Columbia specifically — will never be the same, I don't believe, after September 11. The significance for British Columbia…. All of our trade, and particularly our softwood trade, with our friends to the south will, I think, be dynamically different from here forward. We will never truly be able to have the type of open border that we've had over the last few years. There will always be that sense of caution. The amount of money that will have to be put forward for higher levels of security will be much greater in future years. I think that as we move forward, our foes will continue to try and disrupt our society — a truly free society, at that.

The third significant change, I believe, that occurred in 2001 is that of the softwood lumber dispute. We've been through this softwood lumber dispute before — I guess this is our fourth visit to the table over the last 20 or 25 years — but I think this time we're committed to a complete and final solution. Over the past 20 years we've gone back and visited this particular issue, and every time we've come up with temporary or interim solutions. That just simply isn't acceptable anymore.

I commend the Minister of Forests for the tack that he has taken in this endeavour. I do believe that we will get through this process and in the end get the type of deal that we need for British Columbia to advance our forest industry again. It's going to be a huge challenge for us, but I think that when we accomplish that task, British Columbia will be poised to truly grow its forest industry and move forward. I think that's exciting. As I move forward with this speech today, I'm sure I'll expand further on the forest industry.

I'd like to start out, though, by telling members of this House about two communities in my riding of Prince George North. They are very small and unique communities. The northernmost one is called Kwadacha. It's located about 350 miles north of Prince George. To most people in this House Prince George represents the true tundra of the north. Well, there is more country north of that.

I travelled to Kwadacha on December 20, 2001. It was a tremendous experience for me. It was truly something that I enjoyed. I was blessed with fine weather on the trip. It was one of those beautiful, crystal-clear winter days in the north country that you see

Chief Emil McCook was good enough to show me hospitality and entertain me when I was in the village. We had an excellent meeting. I had an opportunity to do a tour of the school in Kwadacha. They were clearly very proud of the facilities that they've built over the last ten years there. The school is as advanced as any school in my riding. It has a beautiful science lab and has great technology equipment. It has Internet access. There are about 75 kids in the school.

They do have challenges in Kwadacha. They're challenges that all the members of this House face, really, in many cases. The road access to Kwadacha has been a huge challenge for them. There's about, I guess, 80 kilometres of road that is not maintained. That road truly is rough. We were driving down that road into Kwadacha, and there were pieces of cars and trucks lying on the side of the road. The road was so rough that it really beats up the vehicles. We as a government have been challenged to find a way to maintain that road. With the help of the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Forests and the Attorney General through the treaty negotiations office, we were able to find some funding to maintain that road. When we did that, the people up there truly appreciated that effort.

The second really key area of importance to the people of Kwadacha is simply jobs. That's something that we all face on an ongoing basis. Every member in this House is looking for development and jobs for their community, perhaps with the exception of the members from Chilliwack who managed to sneak away with a call centre that was supposed to be located in Prince George. They managed to attract them down to golf courses that were open for 12 months of theyear instead of better-quality golf courses that are only open for a few months. We're sorry to have lost that, but hopefully we'll get that back.

Job opportunities are very difficult in the area. There is an expansive effort underway for both the mining and the forest industry. I think there are some good opportunities for the people of Kwadacha, but certainly it's going to be an ongoing challenge for the folks in that particular end of the world.

Really, the third key area of focus for the people of Kwadacha is a bit ironic. Their village is located about 70 kilometres from the north end of Williston Lake which of course was created by the B.C. Hydro dam, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam that generates a huge amount of hydroelectric power. I believe there's 2,800 megawatts that come out of the Shrum generation station, if I'm not mistaken. Yet the people of Kwadacha do not have a consistent source of power. That's a real challenge for them.

Noting the time and the day, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to carry on in the future, but I do move adjournment of debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's been a long week. I move that the House do now adjourn.