Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 18 -- Monday, March 4, 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		1433

Tributes		1433
	L. Mayencourt

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1433
	Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1433
	Trans-Canada Highway between Alberta border and Sicamous W. McMahon Community development project at Simon Fraser University H. Bloy Firearm registry D. MacKay

Oral Questions		1434
	Privatization of health care system J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Government support for workers in health care system J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Hon. G. Campbell School construction project in southeast Burnaby J. Nuraney Hon. C. Clark Elimination of Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission T. Christensen Hon. S. Bond

Petitions		1437
	H. Bloy

Motions without Notice		1437
	Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		1438
	Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5) Hon. R. Neufeld

Report and Third Reading of Bills		1438
	Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5) Hon. R. Neufeld

Budget Debate (continued)		1438
	P. Bell Hon. M. Coell K. Krueger D. MacKay R. Sultan

Introductions by Members		1452

Budget Debate (continued)		1452
	T. Christensen B. Bennett W. Cobb Hon. G. Cheema Hon. G. Collins

Motions on Notice		1462
	Access to justice services (continued)

Introductions by Members		1463

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		1463
	Hon. J. van Dongen Hon. C. Hansen R. Visser L. Mayencourt J. Les

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 42 students and teachers from grades 10 and 11 visiting this House today. Half of the students are from a school in my riding, Fraser Valley Christian High, and half are visiting from Quebec. Would the House please make these students and their teachers very welcome today.

J. MacPhail: It gives me pleasure to introduce one of my constituents, Mike Old, who is visiting in the gallery today. He is amongst a group of people who provide great health care at Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria General Hospital, Gorge Road Hospital, Queen Alexandra, Saanich Peninsula General Hospital and Sunset Lodge. They are largely women — and lots of men — who provide good health care each and every day. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to note the passing of May Gutteridge. May Gutteridge was a wonderful individual who worked in the downtown east side for the last 40 years. She created the St. James Social Service Society and was responsible for the creation of May's Place, a hospice in the downtown east side. May received the Order of Canada a few years ago. She is a great hero to many of us who have worked in community services down there. I just ask the House to join me in expressing our condolences to her family.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Gaming Control Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Gaming Control Act. This bill will provide the legislative framework necessary to bring stability to the gaming industry. It will ensure a carefully regulated gaming environment and will ensure the integrity of gaming in British Columbia.

My ministry conducted a review, and our review identified a number of inefficiencies in the management of gaming in British Columbia and indicated the need for restructuring. It highlighted a need for a comprehensive legislative framework. The proposed Gaming Control Act will bring all sectors of gaming under one comprehensive piece of legislation. It will replace the Lottery Act, the Lottery Corporation Act, the Horse Racing Act and the Horse Racing Tax Act.

The bill will establish a statutory authority for some functions not currently legislated. For example, it will give us the ability to conduct audits and investigations. The bill will provide British Columbians with assurances that management of gaming is fair, open and transparent.

I move that Bill 6 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

W. McMahon: Today I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues once again a stretch of highway that is of significant importance to not only the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding but the entire province: the Trans-Canada Highway between Sicamous and the Alberta border. This highway plays a vital role in our province's economy.

Every day transport trucks travel this highway through Kicking Horse Canyon and the Rogers Pass, bringing goods and services into British Columbia and exporting some of our goods and services to the rest of the country. It is the first impression tourists from the east have when they drive into British Columbia and the last road they travel on their way home. It is our lifeline to Alberta and to the east.

In a nation that still relies heavily on its road infrastructure, this highway keeps us connected. It passes through some of the most beautiful areas this province has to offer and can be a joy to travel as a tourist or as a resident. Unfortunately, it can also be treacherous. I won't mince words when it comes to this issue. The threat of avalanche, combined with low visibility and a narrow winding highway, can be downright dangerous if not driven with extreme care. Horrific accidents have claimed lives on this highway. We've all heard about them before.

Safety is our number one concern. It has to be. Recently, the Minister of Transportation and I met with the committee in Revelstoke for a Safe Trans-Canada Highway to hear of the firsthand concerns that my constituents have. I know safety tops the minister's

priority list, and I know all stakeholders from Revelstoke all the way to Golden and beyond to the Alberta border share that same priority. So do I. I am committed to working with the minister, the federal government and all groups to ensure that we have the safest highway possible to carry our friends and our neighbours and our families through the mountains.

We've started a new era in British Columbia that will entice people to come to our beautiful province, lay roots and start families. However, when they first arrive and every time they return, I want to make sure the entrance to our province contains not only a warm welcome but a safe journey.

H. Bloy: I am pleased to have this opportunity to share some information regarding a very exciting initiative about to get underway in my riding of Burquitlam. This summer construction is about to begin on a complete new community being undertaken by Simon Fraser University on Burnaby Mountain. This community, to be developed over the next 25 years, could eventually house over 10,000 people with a wide variety of housing not only for faculty, staff and students but also for anyone else wanting to live on Burnaby Mountain next to a world-class university. In addition to housing, the community will include a vibrant new commercial street along with new schools, parks and a full array of community and recreational facilities.

In undertaking this community development, the university has two major objectives: firstly, to help transform Simon Fraser University from a commuter destination to a community and, secondly, to create a financial endowment in support of a variety of purposes at the university.

The project is being managed by Burnaby Mountain Community Corp., headed by Mr. Michael Geller. This is a separate entity with an experienced staff and a knowledgable board of directors. It will be a financially sustainable community. Financing is being arranged by the university without any funding requests from the provincial government. I am confident that the new community at Simon Fraser University will be innovative, forward-looking and a very attractive place to live, work and learn. It represents the benefits which can come from a partnership between the public and private sectors. I am confident that it will reflect positively not only on the university and the city of Burnaby but on the entire province.

D. MacKay: What I'd like to do today is take the House back to December 6, 1989, and more specifically to the city of Montreal, because on that date a young man by the name of Marc Lepine walked into the University of Montreal and shot 24 people and killed 14 young women. The shock and horror of that day was felt right across the country, Mr. Speaker, and that shooting in Montreal resulted in a federal bill more commonly known as Bill C-68. That bill requires all gun owners across this country to register their firearms by January 1, 2003.

It is wrong to think that the registering of firearms will prevent another tragedy that we saw back in Montreal. It's not guns that kill people; it's people. Several provinces challenged the federal government's legality of Bill C-68 but not the province of British Columbia under the previous administration.

The Criminal Code of Canada has provisions to deal with people such as the man that shot and killed all those young women in Montreal. We've had a handgun registration in this country since 1934, and today people are still killed with handguns. We have now spent close to $650 million on the registration process for long rifles in this country, and I suspect a large number of people will not register their firearms by the deadline of January 1.

In closing, I would like to express my personal disapproval of the thoughts that the registration of firearms will prevent another tragic event. I would like to remind the House that the tragic events of September 11 and the loss of thousands of lives were not carried out with firearms, but in fact those lives were lost because of the actions of a few people armed with box cutters.

J. MacPhail: Today is a day that we should all mark on our calendars, because today is the day that British Columbians for the very first time ever know the full extent of this government's broken health care promise. It's a tale of documents: the New Era document and the new briefing book of the Minister of Health Services. It's a private and confidential budget briefing book that was kept hidden from the public until today.

The New Era document promises a renewed public health care system. The minister's confidential budget briefing book outlines an agenda of massive privatization and for-profit health care.

To the Minister of Health Services: will the minister finally admit what his own confidential briefing book is saying over and over again — that the Premier did not tell the truth to British Columbians in the election about his hidden for-profit plan for health care?

Hon. C. Hansen: We were very clear to the public of British Columbia that we were going to maintain a health care budget and protect health care services across British Columbia. Our agenda as a government is to make sure we put patients first for the first time in 11 years in British Columbia. Our agenda is to make sure every health dollar spent is there to maximize the benefit to patients, not the benefit to a group of workers — not to make the health care system the employer

of last resort but to make sure we have the appropriate number of health care professionals and support staff in place and we are compensating them fairly in relationship to other jurisdictions in Canada so that we can ensure the needs of British Columbians get met.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services and the Premier can hide from the truth, but they can't avoid the reality of their own document. The Minister of Health Services's own briefing book lays it out in gory detail for all British Columbians to see. In the New Era, the Premier promised he would reduce wait-lists. He said we didn't have enough hospital beds, but the minister's secret briefing book states very clearly that wait-lists will actually grow. It says that hospital beds will close.

To the Minister of Health Services: will the minister please stop the charade, stop pitting one worker against the other, admit what everyone now knows and finally own up to the truth about this government's plan to dismantle public health care and turn it over to the for-profit sector?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we inherited from the previous government was a track we were on that was going to destroy public health care in British Columbia. The commitment we have made is that we will save public health care in British Columbia, but we're not going to do that by maintaining the status quo.

We have seen wait-lists in this province grow every single year since before she was a Health minister in this province. We are determined to come to grips with some of the challenges in health care, to make sure we get the best value for health care dollars spent so those dollars can be focused on patient care and the needs of British Columbians wherever they live in this province. We're not going to do that by continuing the legacy they brought to health care while they were in office.

J. MacPhail: The issue here is what this government said they were going to do in their New Era document and what the minister's own private briefing book demonstrates: the reality of their for-profit health care agenda. The secret document also says that 14,000 health care workers are going to lose their jobs to pave the way for privatization, for for-profit health care. The briefing book says that over $700 million worth of services are going to be privatized. Someone will be making huge profits, but no one will be getting better health care. The government's health care plans are about ideology, not about patient care.

Will the minister please come clean and admit that his plan for health care for B.C. is not about putting patients first but is about putting corporate profits first?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are no targets when it comes to the number of support staff that may be reduced throughout the health care system in British Columbia. There are no targets. What we have said to the health authorities is that they have inherited a system that pays some of the highest wages in Canada by far — 30 percent higher than the Canadian average of support workers. Is that good value for the health dollars? Is that meeting the needs of patients?

What we have said to the health authorities is that they have the flexibility now to perhaps contract out if they wish, but perhaps they can sit down with the shop stewards and the unions in their communities and say: "How can we better utilize available health dollars to meet the needs of patients in British Columbia?" That's our priority. That's our focus. That's how we're going to meet the needs of patients in this province, not the way the previous government did.

J. Kwan: Prior to the election, the Premier was asked if a 48-year-old housekeeper who's finally earning the average wage in British Columbia has anything to fear from the Liberal government. The Premier said: "I say no. She's going to find the quality of work she's able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling." We now know he wasn't telling the truth.

Joining us in the gallery today is a 48-year-old health care worker who believed the Premier's promise. The Premier won't admit to British Columbians that he wasn't telling the truth about his plans, but maybe the Premier will now look this woman in her eyes and tell her the same thing.

Hon. C. Hansen: The message from this government has been consistent. The message is that we want to first of all put the interests of patients first. We recognize the importance of having the appropriate number of health care workers in this province who are doing the job of delivering on that patient care.

Hon. C. Hansen: We're not going to hire twice as many staff as is necessary. We're not going to go to wage rates that are considerably higher than any other province in Canada. We want to be competitive. We want to make sure we manage the health care budget wisely so that we can deliver on patient care. I think every British Columbian can work with us in doing that, because it's in the interest of preserving a publicly funded health care system that we get our costs under control and that we make sure the health care system is sustainable into the future. Otherwise, we will not be able to protect the public health care system we cherish so much.

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

J. Kwan: The question is to the Premier. The government's New Era document has been shown to be empty and meaningless. The Premier promised to renew the public health care system, but we now know that in the backrooms, in the secret document, he plans to destroy it. Will the Premier stand today and admit he has betrayed the public trust of British Columbians? Does the Premier have the courage to admit that what is contained in this secret document is the truth, and will he admit that his campaign promises aren't worth the paper they're written on?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell the member opposite this: this government is committed to making sure patients get the care they need in British Columbia. This government is committed to revitalizing health care. This government is committed to providing our health care workers with wages that are the tops in Canada, because we recognize the contribution they make. This government is willing to reform health care so patients are finally at the top of the list and get the care they need where they live.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Some of my constituents are concerned about the school slated to be built in southeast Burnaby. The concern is that it may not be adequate to meet the needs of the community. Can the minister please tell us what the status of that project is, and what is going to be done to meet the needs of the community?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member well knows, the students in southeast Burnaby badly need a new school. The old Burnaby South Secondary that they've been at is like sardines. It's wall-to-wall kids. You can barely get through the hallway at lunch hour. I've been down there and toured the school. They certainly need that to be alleviated.

Yes, we are planning a new school in southeast Burnaby. It will accommodate 1,200 students. The core of the school will be built for 1,500 if the growth that we've anticipated is outpaced. The classroom size will accommodate 1,200 students. It's going to be great news for Burnaby and great news for all those kids who so badly need that space.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has a supplementary question.

J. Nuraney: If I understand this right, minister, the school will be built initially for 1,200 students. There will be a provision for an expansion for a further 300 when the time comes and when it is needed.

Hon. C. Clark: The original plan, as the people of Burnaby know, was to go to 1,000 students, based on the numbers we'd received from the Burnaby school district. We went to them and asked them to update their numbers. They told us the numbers were current. However, after we'd made the decision, the Burnaby school board informed us that they did indeed have new numbers. After extensive lobbying, I can add, from the Burnaby MLAs, I decided to revisit that decision and build the school to a capacity of 1,200 as the new numbers demonstrated. I think this is a real example of the cooperation that we as a government have with our MLAs and our school districts.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Okanagan-Vernon has the floor.

T. Christensen: Over the last number of months I've had the privilege of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Education. As we toured around the province, it didn't matter whether we were in big communities or small communities, one of the things we heard a lot about was a real need for skills development and training in this province.

My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. As part of the government's restructuring program the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, commonly known as ITAC, has been eliminated. Expanding training and apprenticeship opportunities is a top priority for my constituents as well as many other British Columbians. Many of them are now wondering whether those opportunities are going to be available without ITAC. Can the minister tell us why ITAC was disbanded?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly do recognize the importance of skills and trades training in the province of British Columbia. In order to respond in a timely way to the needs of industry in this province, we are restructuring at this point in time. We want a system that looks at being timely and being able to produce a number of workers that are not only in need now but certainly in growing demand.

In fact, we're in the process of putting together a transition advisory committee, and I'm pleased to say that we're going to put members of labour, industry and institutions on that committee. I look forward to being able to announce that committee very shortly.

Hon. S. Bond: This is a great, exciting opportunity for government to work for training in this province. We're excited about it, and we look forward to an announcement in the near future.

T. Christensen: Part of ITAC's mandate was to provide colleges in B.C. with funding for training and apprenticeship programs. Now that ITAC itself has been disbanded, can the minister tell us whether the funding will continue to be made available to those service providers in the interim?

Hon. S. Bond: The great news is that we're going to take our time and get this right so that we can ensure that as we look forward….

The additional good news is that industry is excited about getting involved with us, and we are looking forward to that.

Even better news is the fact that we've protected almost $70 million that we're going to use for training in this particular province, and we're going to work with institutions to be innovative, creative, and do a great job.

H. Bloy: I rise today to present a petition from 52 members from the lower mainland pertaining to health care.

Hon. G. Collins: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded from the Table that I have a motion to move. It's a standard motion we've moved in this House for a number of years to charge Committee A for the estimates process. It's in the hands of the opposition and the Table. I ask leave to move it without reading it.

J. MacPhail: Just before leave is granted, I want to clarify the words of the House Leader in terms of…. I understand this is a motion that was tabled in 2000, not 2001.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 5, Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

P. Bell: I'd like to continue on with the direction of my comments from last Thursday, if I may.

Just briefly as a review, I spoke last Thursday about some of the highlights and lowlights in 2001, in terms of the significant increase in retail sales in the third quarter of 5 percent compared to the national average of just 1.9 percent. I spoke about the challenges of September 11 and certainly the softwood lumber agreement, which is starting to look somewhat more promising. I also spoke extensively about my trip to Kwadacha in the north end of my riding and some of the issues surrounding that particular community.

I'd like to go on and talk about the continuation of that particular trip and the community of Tsay Keh. I speak about this because I think it's relevant to the budget process. The issues facing these two first nations communities are very similar to the issues that we face throughout the province. I think they're a really good example of microeconomies at work and what we need to develop those.

The folks in Tsay Keh have four priorities at this point in time — things that I've been working on, on their behalf. The first one is the issue of the road into the community. The second, as I spoke of earlier this morning in some debate, is the power generation facilities for the communities. The third critical issue — and we speak about this extensively in this House on an ongoing basis — is that of education for the community.

They have a wonderful school. I was able to take a look through the school. It's one of the more advanced schools in the riding, but they have a terrible time getting and keeping good teachers. I'm working with the BCTF now on trying to develop a greater rapport and get some teachers who are currently certified under the BCTF through their aboriginal education program to consider relocating up to Tsay Keh. I'm hoping that we're going to have some progress in that area.

The fourth key issue in Tsay Keh is the post office. They actually don't have any postal service in a community of 250 people. I've spent some time working on this issue with their federal MP, Jay Hill, and I'm pleased to report that we're close to having a post office that will be permanently located in the community of Tsay Keh. That's great news.

I spent some time with Johnny Pierre as well, the chief of Tsay Keh. He was very upfront with me. We talked extensively about the issues facing the community, and it was truly a great trip.

You know, change has just begun. We must move aggressively on our agenda of deregulation in the government service sector. There are 404,000 regulations currently strangling our resource industries in their attempt and ability to expand and grow in the province. It's been a huge challenge for our resource sectors for the past ten or 15 years.

One of the challenges I'm looking forward to being involved in is the development of a results-based Forest Practices Code. As you know, I've worked in the field of forestry for the last seven or eight years, and I'm continually confused by the amount of process-

It's very, very frustrating to know that you have a heavily infested mountain pine beetle tree, but because it happens to grow on one type of moss instead of another type of moss, you're not allowed to remove that tree, and the hatching of the mountain pine beetles from that tree will continue to infest our forests in the coming years. That's extremely frustrating for me as someone who wants to contribute as part of the community.

Speaking of the mountain pine beetle problem, it's a huge issue for us in the north. I'm pleased that the Minister of Forests has identified some key initiatives, in both the Speech from the Throne and the budget, that will help us attack the mountain pine beetle problem in the north. There's a lot of new technology that we've been working on, and I believe that we're actually close to the point where we'll be able to identify the attacked areas in a much more economical fashion. I think that will be something that's very positive.

The third real initiative that I think we must move aggressively on in terms of deregulation is that of the value-added forest industry. British Columbia really is on the edge of having an incredibly thriving, value-added manufacturing industry. It's principally new technology that we're talking about here. This is not technology that was developed ten, 15 or 20 years ago. In fact, in many cases it's just been over the last few years. A lot of it has to do with stress-rated types of lumber and glue-lam beams and engineered wood products and that type of thing. That really is our future in this province. Certainly, I speak about that on an ongoing basis.

Another key component or key area we need to focus on in terms of deregulation is the energy production field. My colleague from East Kootenay often speaks in this House about the need to develop coal-fired electrical generation systems. I really believe this is an area that we can expand aggressively in our province. Certainly, just located outside the edge of my riding of Prince George North, at Tumbler Ridge, we have huge untapped, very high grade coal fields where we could be developing electrical energy. It's not located far off the main power grid that would carry that energy down into the lower mainland or perhaps even into the United States. There's a real opportunity for us, I believe, in terms of the electrical energy generation area, specifically to do with coal and certainly coalbed methane.

Another initiative this government has taken that I'm very pleased about is expanding fish farming. I think there's a huge opportunity for us, particularly in the hard-hit coastal areas. The riding of my colleague from North Coast, I believe, will be a significant beneficiary of the actions this government has taken to expand the fish-farming industry. It's exciting to me that although we have lost many canneries over the last ten or 15 years in this province, we will be able to regain that component of our industry. I think that over time, the employment we will see in those fields will be substantial. Those coastal communities that really have been dying, particularly over the last ten years, will begin to thrive again. That's very exciting.

The tech industry is great news for us as well. Probably a lot of members in this House would find it odd that the member for Prince George North would wish to speak about the tech industry. That part of the province is known as an area of natural resource extraction, and it probably seems odd that I would refer to the tech industry. But Prince George has a thriving tech industry, and it's growing. The interesting thing about it is that most of the technological developments from my general part of the world relate, actually, to the forest industry. There have been some really neat things developed: little sending units that you can mount on a steel I-beam, which can detect weight down to a pound or two that is placed on that I-beam. There are some very positive things.

Some other really good-news stories that I'd like to talk about. On this last weekend we just completed a series of budgetary consultation meetings in Prince George. The three area MLAs — myself, the member for Prince George–Omineca and the member for Prince George–Mount Robson — got together with a total of about 20 different groups over two days in a series of 12 meetings and spoke with the groups in terms of some of the initiatives. You would think that certainly we would want to meet with our friends, but we met with a broad spectrum of members in the community. We met with the BCGEU, the HEU, the HSA, the BCTF and the Prince George and District Labour Council.

There's a quote I'd like to read into the record from the weekend, in terms of the news media reports from the meeting. It's significant because it really takes us, I believe, to a new era in our relationships in the community.

The BCGEU actually came away from that meeting with a new willingness to work with us as a government. I think we've crossed a threshold now that is absolutely necessary for us to bring inclusively all of the government employees in to start working on and addressing the issues that are facing us. It's a huge challenge, but I believe that certainly this weekend in Prince George we made substantial headway in overcoming that challenge.

There are some other good-news stories in my riding right now that relate to the actions of this government in the last eight or ten months. Prince George Regional Hospital was in a state of distress eight months or a year ago. It was really in tough shape. There were weekends, in a community of 75,000 people, where we were not able to have a normal delivery

of a baby at PGRH because of lack of services and an inefficient operation and management system.

At that point in time we had just three operating rooms open out of a total of six. It was a challenge for anyone to get any sort of basic level of services. We had taken Prince George Regional Hospital from the status of a regional trauma referral centre down to no better than a first-aid location. It was a very, very sad state of affairs that had been created by the actions of the previous government.

The good news is that we now have five operating rooms open and operating at PGRH, with a sixth one expected to open any day. There's a whole new attitude at PGRH now. The doctors are happy. They see headway in the operation. I meet with groups of nurses on a regular basis. They're contributing. They're trying to be part of the solution now. They believe we are over that initial hump — that difficult time. They understand changes need to be made, but we're making progress, and that's significant. I'm excited about what's happening there.

Some of the other good-news stories that we have in my end of the world. The Mackenzie pulp mills, of which we have two, actually have set records for pulp production in some of the worst markets that we've ever faced. Because of the innovative steps they have taken, they're able to produce pulp and make a profit at record low prices. That's wonderful news for us, because it means that it will be sustainable long-term. They've developed processes in utilizing types of fibre that have not normally been used in the pulp process — and they're relatively low value — to produce a high-value product.

The sawmills throughout my riding, of which there are six, are working flat out right now. They're all producing high volumes of lumber on an ongoing basis, and they're actually adding shifts. In Mackenzie for the first time in anyone's memory — in recent years or certainly in the last eight or ten years — the sawmills have had to run ads to hire labourers. They're actually out recruiting people for the first time. I think that's wonderful news for us.

The exciting part of all this, of course, stems back to the housing market across Canada. As you heard earlier today in a private member's statement, the housing market is exploding in Canada right now, and we're having wonderful results. There is some really good news out there, Mr. Speaker, and we need to focus on some of the good news.

It's opportune, though, to take a look at the history of how we got here. In order to move ahead with our budget this year and over the next three years, we need to look back and ask ourselves: how did we get into the situation we're in? I'm happy to be able to tell you how we got into that situation.

Through the period '91 to '97 it's no secret that B.C.'s economy was flat. In fact, in the '92-to-'97 period B.C.'s gross domestic product actually went backwards by 0.6 percent. The thing that makes it so sad is that the next worst province in Canada, the province of Saskatchewan, had a GDP growth of almost 10 percent. The province of Newfoundland had a 28 percent GDP growth. Yet in B.C. we went backwards. You have to ask about the economic plans of the previous government if they were able to actually drive the GDP in a negative fashion at a time when we had the most vibrant growth that's ever occurred in North America.

I suppose that was devastating in itself, but there was another fundamental problem which occurred over that seven-year period. While our economy was going backwards to the tune of 0.6 percent, the government increased spending by 31 percent — on an economy that was going backwards — over a period of seven years. How can you possibly sustain that type of growth in a negative economy?

We can even extend that further. If you look at the period from 1991 to 2001, the period of the previous administration's involvement, the cost of government escalated by 73 percent — 73 percent in a ten-year period — and the total gross domestic product only grew by 5 percent during that period of time. Where did that money come from? It came out of the pockets of the people of B.C. That's why the average income dropped throughout that same decade by $1,100 per citizen in this province. That's absolutely disgusting in view of the fact that in both Alberta and Ontario, people's incomes grew during the same period of time. People voted for change last May, Mr. Speaker. It was clear that change had to happen, because we were going nowhere in this province.

Last Tuesday we were all invited to the provincial congress. Certainly, I enjoyed the B.C. Progress Board's report. I thought it was very timely. The interesting component for me was that the benchmarks established by the B.C. Progress Board responded not just to economic issues but also to social issues. The member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant continue to insist that we have no heart. Well, I would challenge that. There are a number of specific initiatives in this budget that I believe address some of the social needs in our province.

I think the fact that we reinstituted the seniors bus pass was a very positive thing. I think the fact that we've protected the funding for women's shelters and transition housing is extremely important. You don't hear either the member for Vancouver-Hastings or the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ever congratulate us for the fact that we protected that funding. We do care for people.

They constantly talk about the need to protect the quality of our drinking water. Do you think they've ever once mentioned that we've added $1.5 million to the budget for the protection of drinking water in the province? I don't think they care, Mr. Speaker.

They've talked on numerous occasions during question period about the changes to the legal aid system. Do you think they once mentioned the fact that even after all those changes take place, we will still have the third-richest legal aid system in all of Canada, and in an economy that's barely been firing on one cylinder for the last ten years? I think it's admirable for

us to put that kind of commitment behind legal aid spending when we've been in such a difficult state.

The Pharmacare issue. The two members like to talk to us about Pharmacare. I'm happy to talk about Pharmacare. They like to paint the picture that we don't care for our seniors. Again, they have not once mentioned the fact that even after the changes, we have the richest Pharmacare system in all of Canada, with an average reimbursement level of 52 percent versus 43 percent in the rest of Canada.

The fact is that we have protected and actually grown the budgets in the ministries of Health, Education, Advanced Education, and Children and Family Development. We have been committed to the social values of this province, and I think that the ministers certainly have done an admirable job.

I'd just like to close with a couple of comments in terms of some consultation I've had with teachers in my riding. When we introduced Bill 27 four or five weeks ago, there was a clause in that bill that stated we would do a review of the negotiating process for teacher contracts in the future. I would just like to encourage the Minister of Labour to continue to travel down that road.

I find it absolutely despicable that the last three contracts for teachers have all been legislated — not just the one we had to legislate this year but the two previous contracts that also had to be legislated by the previous government, the ones that were supposed to be friendly. Even they had to do it. It shows that the system we have in place does not work today, and we need to correct that. This government is committed to making those kinds of changes, and we will make those changes.

It's an exciting time in front of us. Certainly, I'm looking forward to the resolution of the softwood lumber agreement. The minister has done an excellent job, and I continue to urge him to move down that path.

I think the Minister of Finance has certainly found the best compromise available to us, so I congratulate him on his budget and encourage him to move ahead.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and speak in support of the budget. I'd like, firstly, to thank the Minister of Finance. From what I've seen, I think the whole process of developing this budget was more open than it has ever been in British Columbia. There was access for members of this Legislature, for members of cabinet and for committees in the building of this budget, and I think the proof is in its success.

I would also like to thank my deputy minister and her senior staff for the work they did in preparing the budget. We have an extremely talented, capable and professional ministry, and I'm grateful for that and thank them for that as well.

I'd like to start off by making a few comments about the Ministry of Human Resources and the effects and the changes as this budget affects it. I'd like to speak about the budget as a whole, and then I would like to look into the future as to what this budget holds for the future of British Columbia.

This government has a new vision and a new mandate for the income assistance system in the province. It is based on employment, training and assistance for those most in need. The ministry wants to shift from a system and a culture of entitlement to one of employment and self-sufficiency. The Ministry of Human Resources B.C. employment and assistance program has a fundamental goal, and the goal is to support people in finding sustainable employment.

A job is better than income assistance. We want to see British Columbians achieve their full economic and social potential. I believe the people on income assistance in British Columbia truly want an opportunity to realize their potential and to become economically independent.

To that end, my ministry is committing in this budget $300 million over the next three years toward effective job placement and training-for-jobs programs. The money will support performance-based programs that move people off income assistance into sustainable jobs. This is consistent with the new-era commitment to providing responsible, manageable, accountable public services and tax dollars.

The ministry is also designing employment programs that will support persons with disabilities in part-time, cyclical employment and in self-employment. Earning exemptions and income treatment will also support increased independence for people with disabilities. This spring we will raise the earning exemption from $200 to $300 for persons with disabilities. This will leave them with an additional $100 per person in their pockets.

We also know the appeal system needs to be overhauled, and we are making changes. It is essential that people have an effective and efficient avenue for appealing decisions affecting their income assistance. The changes to the appeal system will result in a streamlined single-appeal process that will be fair, timely, effective and responsive to people's needs.

I believe we are sending a clear message to British Columbians that we are determined to revitalize the economy, to restore financial management and to put people first. We have undertaken a major restructuring of our programs and services so this ministry can play an important role in fulfilling those commitments, because the people this ministry truly serves are a resource of talent that we can tap into and create jobs for.

We are all determined to help people create a bright future in the province. I believe the ministry can do that. I believe the changes we are making this spring will help people to succeed and to fulfil their greatest potential. I look at what this budget is for British Columbians. It's a beginning. It's taking the last ten years and saying: "We're changing direction. We're going to create a more prosperous province. We're going to get our financial house in order, and we're going to do that openly and accountably to the people of British Columbia."

This is the first year that we will have detailed, three-year service plans for ministries so that the ministers and the ministries and the people who work in the ministries will know what their dollar figures are, know what they can count on. Also, the people of the province will know the direction we are moving in. We're going to restore sound financial management in this province. We're going to revitalize the economy. We're going to put patients and students first.

I want to speak briefly about the deficit. This year is the largest deficit that British Columbia has had. We have a plan to have a zero deficit in three years, and we will meet that commitment. The debt that British Columbia has, has been created over the last decade and a half, and it will take a long time for us to pay that debt down. We will begin that process this year.

The underlying deficit and debt problems this province has to cope with are hurting individuals. They're hurting industry and are hurting our province in moving ahead. We must revitalize the economy. We must get our financial house in order. Those two aspects go hand in hand. When we get our financial house in order, we will have more money to put into health care and into education. When we revitalize the economy, we will have more money to put into health care and education and the other vital services our province has.

I believe we will be successful. I believe this budget is a step towards the eventual revitalization of this province. B.C. is back; B.C. is open for business. B.C. puts patients and children first. That's the message this budget rings clearly.

I believe the future of this province is great. When I was young, jobs were plentiful. B.C. was number one. We balanced our budget. We actually saved money. We created wealth, and that deteriorated and has deteriorated badly over the last ten years. But we are moving in the right direction now. We're moving in a direction that will put this province back on top so that we can have the best social programs in the country, so that we can have the best economy in the country, so that people are proud to say they're British Columbians and we're number one. We lead this country. We're not in second place to anyone on any issue in this country.

I am pleased to stand and support this budget, this new direction for British Columbia, this positive direction that puts British Columbia in the front seat moving forward, getting ahead and becoming number one in this country like we deserve to be.

K. Krueger: I rise to support the budget as presented. Like all of my colleagues, I'm quite chagrined to see us having to table a budget with a $4.4 billion deficit. We all saw it coming with the NDP years, the ten years we lived through and the arrangements they left us with. We weren't happy to see it coming. Thank the good Lord the people of British Columbia made the right moves on May 16, 2001, and we were able to get into the saddle and put an end to the decline of British Columbia.

Now, 2002 is a unique year. It's a palindromic year. A palindrome, of course, is a word or a number that looks the same whether you look at it from front to back or back to front. For almost a thousand years palindromic years only happened every 110 years. There have been many people who lived their lives without ever seeing a palindromic year. We had 1001, 1111, 1221, and so on, up until 1991. We have unique lives in that everybody in this House has seen two palindromic years, because one happened in 1991 and now in 2002.

I think the reason for that is that the people of British Columbia were destined to make a terrible mistake in our first palindromic year, 1991. It was a nightmare mistake. We elected a government that moved us from being the best-performing economy and province in Canada to the worst-performing — ten years of misery, moving backward, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In an absolute boom decade for North America, when everybody else's economy was thriving, we and Chiapas, Mexico, had the terrible misfortune of being the only two jurisdictions in North America that were moving backward. We had one person in ten on welfare; our debt doubled. We incurred financial responsibility as debt that leaves us paying close to $3 billion a year in interest, every dollar of which we would much rather spend on health care or education.

The word "palindrome" actually comes from a Greek verb palindromos, meaning to run back again. British Columbia certainly ran back again — ran backwards for those ten years. Investors left in droves, and young people unfortunately packed up their careers and took them outside British Columbia. As we went from first to worst in Canada and stayed there, people lost hope and moved away. A lot of fine people moved away.

My wife is a grade 1 teacher. In the last year of the NDP reign she did a little session on government with her grade 1 students. She was trying to make it a positive thing, and she asked them to start with: what do governments do? A little guy said: "Governments boss us around." Obviously, they had heard the message that British Columbia is pretty badly overregulated. She said: "Well, government does lots of positive things too, like they pay for things for us. They paid for this school, for example. They pay my salary to be your teacher." One little guy said: "Where do they get the money?" My wife, the teacher, said: "They get the money partly from your parents." A couple of other little guys said: "How do they do that?" Several yelled: "By stealing. They steal it from our parents." That's the way taxation began to feel in British Columbia — that people were being stolen from, because the government hands were in the pockets far too deep.

We made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to roll that back, to reduce personal income taxes in British Columbia to the lowest level in all of Canada for people up to $60,000 a year in income. That's what we did.

We keep hearing a hue and cry from the people who opposed us in the last election and continue to oppose us, alleging that our tax cuts were giveaways to the rich. It confounds me and a lot of British Columbians why anyone would think that. How could it possibly be a giveaway when you allow people to keep their own money in their pocket, or at least a little bit more of it than before? Far from a giveaway, it's the thing that has turned the economy of this province around, and there is much evidence that the economy has turned around and is rebounding.

It was doing so in a very robust way up till the September 11 catastrophe last year, an event that horrified and saddened all of us and hurt economies right around the world, but it's still doing well. I've talked to entrepreneurs in my constituency, and whether it's restaurateurs, retailers or real estate agents, people say we're doing a lot better than we were the year before and much better than we did through the dark decade of the nineties.

We thank the good Lord, in His kindness, that way back then when people were deciding how we were going to do the calendar, he gave us a second palindromic year and another chance at this so we won't have to live with those results for 110 years.

It's been a lot of hard work since then, obviously — a Premier who has a tremendous work ethic, who saw a vision for British Columbia, who laid that vision out very clearly in the New Era document and has delivered on that vision; a cabinet who work like Trojans and have worked very hard in supporting him and all British Columbians in bringing that vision to life; government caucus committees that include every private member on the government side.

Every private member is a member of a GCC. They also have the right to drop in on the meetings of any of the other government caucus committees. When they do, they have equal voice and an equal vote. We work hard with the cabinet in preparing their three-year service plans as outlined in the budget, showing British Columbia how we're going to get from here — what we inherited — to there: the best performing economy in Canada once again; a reliable debt service plan that pays off the debt; the elimination once and for all of deficits, which as you know, are going to be illegal.

How we're going to get from here to there. I served on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services last year. We travelled around this province in the fall, and we talked to the public about what their hopes and dreams and fears were. People were very fearful about the cuts they knew were coming, because no government can continue to spend more than it takes in in revenues without heading to financial disaster, as British Columbia already had. People knew that cuts were coming, and they were fearful. We heard the message repeatedly that they hoped we would be careful with regard to the most vulnerable British Columbians.

We brought that message back, and so did the government caucus committees. To their credit, the Premier and the cabinet listened. In fact, half a billion dollars was added back into the budget, somewhat reluctantly in that the deficit is larger as a result than it would have been, but it was added back to ensure that we protected those British Columbians who are most vulnerable.

With the budget that we're debating today, we turn the corner and begin to leave behind the problems that British Columbia has been suffering through. The pieces are already in place. They started day one with those tax cuts, and they carry on with the commitment to make this the most competitive tax regime in Canada and to eliminate unnecessary regulation, with a goal of eliminating one-third of British Columbia's red tape within the first three years, to take down those barriers that kept investors from coming to British Columbia and creating jobs.

We have our opposition. We keep hearing from the organized opposition around the province, largely headed up by the B.C. Federation of Labour and people like Mr. Heyman, that these have been giveaways to the rich, that somehow they don't see this as in the best interest of British Columbians — because those other folks love taxation. They love this idea of taxing the notional rich. When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, she was right into taxation. When it came to taxing the people she thought were the rich, she loved the smell of napalm in the morning and in that way contributed very much to the apocalypse which struck British Columbia.

That is all behind us now. It'll take a little while to complete the turnaround, and sadly, we are going to have, we expect, two more years of deficits before we get the province turned around. You see in this budget and in our throne speech the plan to deliver the results that we've committed to. You see in this House the people who are going to deliver those results.

I want to pause a moment to commend the Minister of Finance — a fine man, a man of integrity, action and resolve. We've come to know this man in our years in opposition as a person who is a superb strategist, a real thinker and absolutely dedicated to the course he sets himself. He has never wavered from our commitments.

He took kind of a cheap shot at the start of being Finance minister from an economist who proclaimed his own self-perceived status with a negative inference about himself having a PhD in economics and the Minister of Finance only being a certified flight instructor. Well, he is a certified flight instructor, and I've thought often of the analogy that economist drew, because British Columbia was on its way to a crash. Some would say we'd already had the crash, but if you'll allow the extension of the analogy a bit, we were well on our way to a crash. We couldn't afford the debt and can't afford the interest. Our population was in decline. We were facing structural deficits, meaning year upon year of deficits adding up. Sure, we'd had a government who, in the last year before the NDP lost power, in a great pre-election stroke of luck had a windfall revenue from an energy price spike and seized a one-time accounting manoeuvre to proclaim a balanced budget.

They had never managed, up until then, to spend under the province's revenues. With that windfall energy outcome, they did pull the plane's nose up for a little while and climbed, but it was unsustainable.

They had signed the so-called public sector accords. They had committed to outrageously expensive provisions in collective agreements where they gave away management rights and the rights of boards to actually deal with the problems they were tasked with, and they had beggared the economy. The plane couldn't continue to climb, and it didn't. The plane stalled, it turned, and it started to plummet. Who do you wish is in the cockpit when you're in a plane and the engine is stalled and the ground is coming up fast? Are you looking for a self-proclaimed PhD in economics, or are you looking for a certified flight instructor? I'm awfully glad we've got the certified flight instructor.

He has pulled us out of the dive. I can see that in my constituency. I can see it in news from all around the province. He probably received this letter from the British Columbia Real Estate Association. I think they may have sent it to all of us. They say that in January 2002 the Multiple Listing Service reported that six of the 12 B.C. real estate boards had residential home sales increases of at least 50 percent over January 2001, and four real estate boards saw increases of 75 percent or more. The B.C. Central Credit Union predicts housing sales will rise by about 8 percent in 2002. In my hometown the number of residential construction starts is double what it was last year. There is a spirit of optimism everywhere. This plane is climbing again. We're back on the way to where we ought to have stayed in the first place. We're not leaving people behind.

Once again we hear these critics of ours at their little podiums around the province trying to organize so-called protest rallies. They claim to be representing poor people. If their approaches were any good for poor people, why were we left with so many poor people when they were in power? The fact is that they robbed people of opportunity. They drove away people who would have created jobs. They destined British Columbians for a whole lot of heartache.

We've been very careful not to leave people behind. When we were obliged to increase MSP premiums, as we have in this budget, we protected 230,000 British Columbians either by dropping their MSP rates or by eliminating those rates altogether. When we had to end some of the supplementary health care benefits coverage from the MSP arrangement, we again protected people at the low end of the income scale. We've gone out of our way to ensure that vulnerable British Columbians are protected. We continue to fund women's shelters. We continue to fund legal aid for those who truly need it. We've been very, very thrifty, but very careful to protect the people who need protection.

We're thankful that our Premier has a vision and a rock-steady determination and that he has an exemplary work ethic. This whole process has been a bit frightening for some, but I ask people to look at the record, to look at that protection of vulnerable people, and see that tangibly, not through false talk, this government looks out for the people who need protection.

We hear from the folks shouting from the podiums of protest — Mr. Heyman, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Chudnovsky — that they don't agree with the direction we're taking. Where were they during the 1990s? They were at the wheel. They were the people who were driving the government.

I was at the Order of British Columbia ceremony when Glen Clark presented the Order of British Columbia to Mr. Georgetti, the then head of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He referred to him as the nineteenth cabinet minister. Their supporters had quite a chuckle about that because, of course, he was never elected as an MLA, let alone had a right to be in the cabinet, but he was treated with the deference of the Premier. He wasn't nineteenth of the nineteen either; he was first. I don't think anything happened on the NDP watch that the B.C. Federation of Labour didn't bless or at least allow.

These bad results that we inherited are their results. They're the results of the very people who now stand at the podium and shout their disapproval of what we're doing. They're the folks who drove our economy to ruin, and they're the folks who drove youth out of British Columbia. Their days of running the show, thankfully, are done.

Now they present themselves as the champions of the poor, but then they pushed us all toward poverty. With so many folks claiming that their programs benefit the poor in British Columbia, if they were all telling us the truth, how could there possibly be any poor left? But there are. There are many needy British Columbians.

As the speaker before me said — the Minister of Human Resources — there is no better defence against poverty than a job. We're opening up the job market.

North America, before the events of September 11, was in such a boom that in various states in the United States employers were having to bus in employees across state lines. McDonald's on the eastern seaboard was paying young people $10 an hour to start, as their workers, and paying them two hours each way to ride the bus to work. People were competing for the services of employees, because the big generation is retiring and there's a shortage of people at every level.

The member for Okanagan-Vernon referred earlier, in question period, to the issue of the critical shortage of skilled tradespeople in British Columbia. That's a real problem for all of us because it's not something that was addressed except through, once again, costly public service programs that didn't deliver the results during that unfortunate decade of the 1990s. As we turn this economy around, as we get investors coming back to British Columbia because we've taken down those barriers, jobs are going to be created, and employers are going to be competing for the services of employees. The six-bucks issue won't be an issue anymore, because employers are going to be eager to at-

That was a golden decade for North America's economy. It's an awful shame that we missed it, but the B.C. Liberal government has turned that around and is poising British Columbia to be in the vanguard of the recovery. Everywhere we see the indications that it's working. We've cleared the fuel lines of the plane, we've set the trim, and the plane is in very good hands. Mr. Speaker, I know you're a bit of an aviator yourself, and I invite you to capitalize on this theme and bring it on as you deliver your further addresses in this House.

K. Krueger: The Minister of Forests says my runway lights are on. I still see a white light.

Palindromes are kind of neat numbers, but when we look back at 2002, nobody wants British Columbia to be seeing the same picture at the end of the year that we inherited at the beginning. We don't want 2002 to look at all the same. We don't want British Columbia to even resemble the problems we've had by the end of this year. Maybe it's optimistic because it's a little soon, but I do hear everywhere I go that positive change is afoot and that people feel good about things. So much of the economy, as you know, is driven by optimism versus pessimism. People had reason to be pessimistic during the 1990s, and those reasons have disappeared.

I was at an economic forum in Kamloops over the weekend. Fine people from Kamloops came together, a panel of 27 people that had been chosen. Also, many members of the public came out to present their ideas about how Kamloops can lead the way in taking advantage of the economic opportunities out there. We're seeing that Americans view British Columbia quite rightly as a safe haven, a place where they are not only welcome but safe, a place where there is much to see and do, much to enjoy, and where everything is virtually a two-for-one sale with the mighty American dollar.

I've had the good fortune of being able to go skiing at Sun Peaks a couple of times this winter, and I meet American people who are just delighted with the place. They found out that they can get up to our ski mountain in three and a half hours from Vancouver. They find that a husband and wife can stay at Nancy Green's Cahilty Lodge for $67 apiece and their kids can stay for free — breakfast included, and so are their ski passes. It's a tremendous experience. And people are actually staying. They're buying their condominiums and sticking around. This past week I was delighted to see that the offering of the Four Seasons Hotel at Whistler sold out in five and a half hours, and it's only on the drawing board.

British Columbia is a great place to live, play and do business in. No place, Mr. Speaker, is better than Kamloops. Kamloops and the North Thompson and South Thompson valleys are absolutely delightful places for people to come and vacation and stay for a lifetime.

In Kamloops we have a marvellous cultural community. Recently that was recognized by the federal government, and a spokesperson from the selection process said this about Kamloops:

I'm proud to work with very progressive first nations bands in our area. The Kamloops Indian band is an exemplary operation. They're developing a 2,000-unit residential complex on the flanks of Mt. Paul. These homes are heated and air-conditioned by the geothermal currents within the Earth. Georg Schurian, the developer who's working with them, is a partner with the Doppelmayes family, and is skilled in development, particularly with ski lifts.

All of these operations in our area tie together in a very interesting way. The Six Mile Ranch project is coming on stream. The lots — for those inquiring of me, and there have been some — will start coming on stream for sale this fall.

We have tremendous fishing opportunities — 400 fly-fishing lakes within a 40-mile radius of Kamloops. Of course, you don't have to think very hard to recognize where the term "Kamloops trout" came from — a famous fighting rainbow trout.

We have incredible things to visit: the Lac du Bois Grasslands Park, the Wells Gray provincial park. I encourage all British Columbians to spend their dollars at par. Come on up to Kamloops–North Thompson. Visit our fine constituency. Spend your holidays there this year. Join your American friends who are joining us in droves.

A little bit of a commercial for my area, Mr. Speaker, but I think that all of British Columbia is going to experience a real boom over the coming years. I'm not at all certain that it's actually going to take us the time that we've set out to eliminate those deficits and begin paying off the debt. I hope that's true, because I'd be ashamed to leave a legacy of debt for my children and my grandchildren.

Let me say in the House that in August I'm going to be a grandfather for the first time, and I'm very, very proud of it.

K. Krueger: The member is right. I'm far too young, but it's just something that happened.

I'm repatriating my daughter and her fiancé from Alberta. They're getting married on June 1 and coming back to make their lives in British Columbia, as I hope all the young people do who moved away during the dark decade of the NDP. It's onward and upward.

It's been a pleasure to speak in this House today. I commend the Premier and the Finance minister for the budget — and the throne speech, since I won't get a chance to speak to that, I don't think. I'm proud to be a part of this team. I'm delighted with the private members in this House. It's a real pleasure serving with them. I've been listening to the speeches, and I'm very pleased to be working with all of these fine individuals. Thanks very much.

D. MacKay: Just to follow up for a moment on the comments of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson about being a grandfather. I know how exciting that is, being the grandfather to three wonderful grandchildren today, and the enjoyment that those grandchildren bring. I think that for all the right reasons, we are embarking on a process that will get this province out of debt and make it a better place for those grandchildren who are going to follow us.

We have to ask ourselves: how did we allow ourselves to get to the state that we are in today? We're $34 billion in debt provincially and $650 billion federally, in a country that is rich in resources and in dedicated, knowledgable people.

During the Second World War, Canada paid its way through its taxpayers by a temporary tax known as income tax, back in the 1940s. That was a temporary imposition in 1941.

I have to ask myself: how did we allow ourselves to get so far into debt in this wonderful country today? Did it start with the word "credit"? Did it start with the words "deficit financing"? I'm not sure.

For the first time, I got involved in politics, and I am now in this House representing Bulkley Valley–Stikine and having a look at it from the government side. I'm dismayed when I look at the debt that this province is carrying. It is huge; it's unsustainable. I have to look around and ask: how did we allow that to happen?

We saw what happened on the lawns of this Legislature on Saturday, just a short time ago — about ten days ago — when 20,000 people came and said they didn't like what we were doing to this province. I have to ask myself: how did we get here? I have to look inwards and ask myself the question: why did I, as a citizen of Canada and British Columbia, allow us to get so far into debt?

Perhaps it was ignorance on my part, thinking that governments had a pot of money that was overflowing and would never stop. When we started going into deficit financing, did we stand up as a group of people and say: "Stop spending beyond your means to pay for the programs that you're providing us"? No, we didn't. Politicians continued to spend beyond their means to provide people with programs that people wanted — not necessarily needed but wanted.

You know what happened. They did that in order to get re-elected. Isn't that interesting? Today we have a debt in this province of $34 billion. Who is to blame for that debt?

I would suggest that we are to blame for the debt. Those of us in this room who are old enough, who have enjoyed some of the things that previous governments have delivered to us, are to blame for the debt.

There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that we have a big financial problem federally and, more specifically, provincially. We have to ask ourselves: how are we going to get rid of this problem, this huge debt that is hanging around our head?

I would like to start by telling you that in April, one year ago when the NDP ran their mandate out to five years and had the courage to call the election, the B.C. Liberal Party was ready to tackle the problem that we face today. That problem was finances — spending beyond our means to pay for it.

In the New Era document, which was the platform for the B.C. Liberal candidates, were a number of items to address the problems that we're facing today. I'd like to read some of them to you. We said we would pass real balanced-budget legislation to make balanced budgets mandatory by our third full budget and hold all ministers individually accountable. Can you imagine finally having ministers accountable for the money the people of this province give them to spend on programs? It's about time. We also said that we would reduce the cost of government by increasing efficiencies and eliminating wasteful spending on government mismanagement, propaganda and business subsidies. We have started on that process as well, Mr. Speaker — long overdue.

We also said we would establish provincial health standards that ensure citizens in every part of this province get equitable health care, regardless of where they live. We said we would maintain this year's overall $9.3 billion budget for health care. Well, I want you to know we've increased spending by $1 billion. We are now spending $10.2 billion on health care. We also said we would provide the health regions with three-year funding windows, so they would know how much money they were going to get, and we would let them administer the delivery of health care without political interference.

We also said that we would pass real truth-in-budgeting legislation to ensure all provincial finances are fully and accurately reported under generally accepted accounting principles. We would also establish performance standards and targets for all government programs. Progress will be measured. Can you imagine measuring progress for a government program — audited and established in annual reports and on the Internet for all the taxpayers to see? That is there today for all taxpayers to see. We have a plan to attack this huge financial problem, and it's there for everybody to see, unlike the previous administration.

We said we would establish a fixed date for the tabling of the provincial budget and a set legislative calendar. We have started on that. We had the budget introduced in this House on February 19, and that's what I'm speaking in support of today, Mr. Speaker. In addition to what I've just explained to you, a lot of people, I think, got involved in politics for the first time out of frustration, out of anger. I speak for myself when I say that.

When you look at the ten northern MLAs, elected from the northern half of this province, you just have to look at the people. The member for North Coast was self-employed, and he was manager of maintenance and engineering of a pulp mill. The member for Skeena was self-employed. The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, myself, was self-employed. The member for Prince George–Omineca was a sitting MLA and a lawyer who was re-elected. The member for Prince George North was self-employed, and he was in small business, logging and some food franchises. The member for Prince George–Mount Robson was a school board chair. The member for Peace River North was a sitting MLA at the time and was re-elected. The member for Peace River South is a former mayor of Dawson Creek, and he was elected. The member for Cariboo North was a sitting MLA, and he was re-elected. And from Cariboo South, we had a former mayor who was self-employed, and he was elected.

From that list of ten northern MLAs, we have a good cross-section of people who understand economics and know that we could no longer continue to spend beyond our means to pay for it. The people in this province, on May 16, said: "We have to change direction . We want to change direction." We had the New Era document, we had the plan, and on May 16 they elected 77 B.C. Liberals out of 79 to represent them in this House.

To help us start scratching our way back to the surface, the Premier asked for an independent financial review of the province's financial state. I think everybody knows that report was not favourable. It was not sustainable. We had a problem with our finances. If we had carried on with the same status quo, we would have seen many programs disappear — social programs that people relied on. We would have eliminated some of them. We would have had to make some cuts to some of them, and in order to make those cuts we started a process called the core review, which looked at every program this province was delivering to the people. We asked ourselves: is it necessary that that program be there? Is it doing what was intended? Is there some way of measuring the results of the programs that are being delivered?

If the program was unnecessary, we would eliminate it. I think some of the programs have been eliminated, much to the chagrin of some of the people affected by those cuts, but we could no longer continue to spend money as we have in the past on programs that weren't achieving any results and that were not benefiting the people of this province.

Shortly after the election I was fortunate enough to sit on several task forces. The first task force I sat on was the pine beetle task force. That task force was the result of the Minister of Forests asking four MLAs to go out and listen to the people of the province as they discussed the problems faced in dealing with the health of the forest in the north-central part of this province and the large pine beetle infestation. We travelled through 11 communities in the northwest part of this province and listened to people who were affected by the downturn in the economy and this huge crisis that was facing our forest industry. We did a report for the minister, and I'm pleased to say that the majority of those recommendations we made to the minister have been implemented and are being acted upon to see if we can stop this wildfire that is consuming a large part of our province.

I also sat on the task force on aboriginal affairs. We travelled to different parts of the province and listened to a large number of people tell us what they thought about our election platform and our promise to the people that we would have a referendum and give everybody in this province a chance to have their say on aboriginal affairs by way of a referendum. That is in process today.

I also travelled throughout the province, more particularly through the northwest part of our province, with the Offshore Oil and Gas Task Force chaired by the member for Peace River South. We listened to a large number of people express concern about the lack of jobs and the lack of opportunity, and we also heard from the other side when people spoke about the fear of the unknown, the fear of something happening should we proceed with the oil and gas. We are waiting for the results of that outcome.

I also sit on the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process, a process that is underway and will be for several more months.

The one thing we kept hearing was that people wanted to go back to work. When we look at what we have done as a government to date, I think it's very admirable. We have put a lot of people back to work. We have a large number of people interested in coming back into the province with their investment dollars and creating employment in power production, aquaculture, methane gas and mining. Even the mining people who were chased from this province by the ten years of overregulation and taxation are making noises

I ask myself: are we doing the right thing? You bet we are. We're doing the right thing for a large number of people and, more particularly, for the next generation that's going to follow us. I want to make sure British Columbia is a better place for the next generation once I'm finished my job as an MLA and can sit back with my feet up and enjoy the few years I have left.

Since the inception of our cuts that we've had to make to ensure that the funding we do have is sustainable, I've had a lot of phone calls and a lot of letters — a lot of people who are angry at what we're doing, and they've let it be known. On the other side of the fence, I'm also hearing from a lot of people who support what we're doing. They think we're doing the right thing, and they're not afraid to come out and tell us.

I'd just like to read a few of those comments to you. This is a quote from an e-mail I received:

This one is from a gentleman in Burns Lake whose signature would suggest he is getting quite elderly. It's very difficult to read his signature. He says:

I have countless other letters of support here from people. It's interesting when you stop to think about it. People that take time from their day….

It has been said that for every one of those people who sits at home and takes time to say we're doing a good job, there are probably 15 people who support that letter. I have to think that is the case and that we are, in fact, hearing from the majority of people who are saying we're doing the right thing.

My little community of Hazelton, which is 45 minutes' driving time west of Smithers, has been devastated over the years partially by the downturn in the forest industry, the softwood lumber agreement and the Skeena Cellulose situation, but they're a hardy bunch up there. They manage to survive.

I was up there last Friday, and I was speaking to a young woman who was in charge of a group called the Hazelton Economic Action Team, also known as HEAT. She said to me: "If I had known the B.C. Liberals were going to do what you're doing, I would have voted for you." She didn't vote for me, but she supports what we're doing. I think a lot of people support what we're doing.

On behalf of my generation, my children's generation and the next generation that's going to follow, I'm pleased to stand up to say we are doing the right thing to make B.C. a much better place, and I speak in support of the budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

R. Sultan: I rise to respond to the budget and fiscal plan presented to this House by the Minister of Finance on February 19.

This year's British Columbia budget and fiscal plan is a remarkable document which future students of public administration will want to study both for its content and for its process of getting there. I would like to explain the significance of the ambitious process underlying the document. As it points out, this budget represents a significant change in the nature of decision-making and planning.

For the first time, three-year forecasts are set out for each individual ministry, major Crown corporations, major revenue sources, capital spending and debt. Ministry spending plans have been developed after extensive review by Treasury Board, core services review and government caucus committees. As an aside, the Premier has deeply involved all 77 of us MLAs on this side of the House — a little-noticed but extraordinary innovation in parliamentary tradition.

Crown corporation forecasts have been approved by their respective boards of directors. The budget is accompanied by three-year service plans detailing what is to be accomplished — not just the numbers. The budget and fiscal plan is also consistent with the government's strategic plan. This government's strategic plan is a sharp departure from the past. That's quite a menu.

Let's draw a private sector comparison. We have here a B.C. government, in size, comparable to one of the top 100 private organizations on this continent. You might say that eight months ago this organization had a change in ownership. We have a brand-new crew which adopted a new strategic plan; set performance

targets for each of its 22 major divisions; integrated capital budgets with operating budgets for the first time; implemented three-year profit forecasting, division by division; and adopted new funding strategies after consultation with the capital markets. All the while it was downsizing most of its operations by one-quarter and announcing plans to lay off up to one-third of its staff, while subjecting each division going through all this to external review by independent boards. By the way, it was embracing accrual accounting in its fullest scope — and all of this pretty much for the first time — while fighting off well-planned, deep-pocket assaults from competitors.

So I would ask: has any comparable private organization done what this government has done in the last few months? I don't think so. The Minister of Finance, the civil service, the executive council and private members all had ample reason to look a bit weary at the end of the road. The fact that most did not illustrates the feeling of enthusiasm and accomplishment that all of us shared.

What's been the end result? The resulting plan and fiscal blueprint has many pages and many dimensions, and it would take at least a week to describe it all. Let nobody claim B.C. Liberals are not operating with a full and candid — some might even say overexposed — degree of disclosure. Fiscally speaking, we have this horrendous $4.4 billion deficit next year, barring some miracle of economic recovery — the biggest deficit in our history by a wide margin. That's the bad news. We will balance the books by '04-05, consistent with our election promise. That's the good news.

Can we do it? Skeptics abound. I was a bit skeptical myself. To satisfy myself, I built my own little economic model of our government's revenues and expenses using data from the last 17 years. Here's what I learned. Over the past 17 years — through the dying days of the Bennett government, the Vander Zalm and Johnston eras and throughout the decade of zealous NDP "tax the rich" — guess what. The share of the provincial government in the B.C. economy barely budged, hovering between 16 and 18 percent.

Admittedly, the socialists managed to get the government's share of the economy as high as 18.5 percent in 1995 — more or less the peak of their power — but then it declined. Did it decline because the NDP cut taxes? No. It declined because taxpayers simply moved out. The socialists never did figure out that without a Berlin-style wall right around British Columbia, the safety valve of Allied Van Lines defeated their tax policies much quicker than the B.C. Liberals ever could.

It's almost as if British Columbians have developed a self-governing appetite for a certain level of taxation and a certain size of government. If you exceed it, the important taxpayers move on. However, reduce it too far, and voters take their vengeance too. Let's remember that.

Meanwhile, over the past six months our B.C. Liberal Party and our Minister of Finance, in particular, have been roundly criticized for suggesting that tax cuts pay for themselves. One bank economist, in particular, brandished his Yale University PhD — that other place — in economics as validation of his superior judgment in this regard. As a former bank economist myself I'm reluctant to disclose the dirty secrets of our trade, but I'll let you in on one of them: the insights of bank economists are not automatically superior to those who don't have a scarlet academic gown feeding the moths in their closet.

I'm thinking of those friends with whom I drank beer at Gilligan's Pub in Sechelt a few weeks ago. I assure you that a couple of smoke-filled hours at Gilligan's amongst the laid-off miners, the laid-off forestry workers, the WCB scammers, the retired UBC geologists chased off the land and not inclined to pursue their careers in Peru and other similar roustabouts, not to mention visiting MLAs, will give you more practical insight into what's really going on in our B.C. economy than all the lifetime of bank economic briefings you'd ever want to sit through.

Do tax cuts pay for themselves? Yes, they do, as a matter of fact. How do we know tax cuts pay for themselves in the longer term? We know it from looking around the world and seeing that governments which burden their citizens with high taxes are invariably poor, as are their citizens too. You don't need a PhD in economics from Yale to understand the futility of trying to buy a bar of soap in Havana or to understand that British Columbians grew steadily poorer, not richer, under a decade of socialist taxation.

The NDP believes it is better to raise taxes while the economy shrinks, to tax more and more of less and less. Most of the rest of us think it's better to tax less and less of more and more — a much better formula.

How do we know tax cuts pay for themselves in the short run? Reviewing the data, I'm persuaded that about 30 percent of the recent $1.5 billion B.C. personal income tax cut of last year was returned to this government in about a year. It was returned in two components. One component derived from taxes paid on increased spending by cash-strapped lower-income British Columbians who were given one of the largest retroactive pay hikes they will ever see in their lives by our government last June. The other component derived from taxes paid by those who heard the tax-cut news just as they were preparing to load up the van and join the trek to Alberta. They changed their minds. However, it seems one of the most vociferous critics of "tax cuts pay for themselves" didn't get the news. He moved to Calgary, thereby undercutting his own argument.

In my firsthand observation, the other 70 percent of last year's tax cut was translated into comparable spending cuts. Having observed the decision-making up close, it's clear to me that without the tax cuts, the impetus for the spending cuts would have been much, much weaker.

Through a combination of tax flow-back and spending cuts, the tax cuts indeed paid for themselves, even in the immediate short run and notwithstanding the catastrophes of September 11, the commodity price collapse, the American softwood lumber embargo which our minister is valiantly fighting, the Asian slowdown, and so on.

Those inclined to argue the point, in my opinion, fail to ask the right question. The right question is not: did the minister balance the books? The right question is: would the deficit have been smaller or bigger even in the short run if we didn't cut taxes? I believe the answer to this one is "bigger" — that the personal income tax cuts of last year did pay for themselves.

While cost-cutting and smaller government play a vital role in reducing deficits in the shorter term, let's concede that in the long run cost-cutting can be a mug's game. In 1998 a gentleman named Albert J. Dunlap, commonly called Chainsaw Al due to his mass firings and company closure policies, was himself fired by the board of directors of Sunbeam Corp., which owned Wichita's Coleman Co. Inc. Chainsaw Al's fate reminds us all that while periodic downsizing, rationalization and removing the accumulated layers of dead wood are vital steps in the renewal of any organization, they are no substitute for growth and market development in the longer term. The New Jerusalem lies on the sales side, not on the cost side of the ledger.

I think all of us agree that, longer term, we have to look to growth and market development if British Columbia is to prosper. The numbers confirm our plan to restore balanced books through growth. The Finance minister has predicted more vigorous revenue growth, and praise be, our biggest customer, the American economy, seems to be stirring itself to deliver just that. For once our timing looks pretty good. Historically, about three-quarters of changes in the government's revenue growth can be explained by fluctuations in our gross provincial product — very much tied into the American recovery — by population changes, by changes in the unemployment rate and by variations in housing starts, which are really a proxy for North American monetary policy.

The way the numbers work is if we can grow our GDP by $4 billion or $5 billion a year, if we can get B.C.'s population growth back to where it was by attracting all those young people back from Alberta and the United States, if we can knock three percentage points off our unemployment rate — which is temporarily high because of softwood lumber and therefore, I think, quite feasible — and if we merely maintain housing starts at about where they are now, then the marketplace will work its magic on tax revenue and fulfil that side of our balanced-budget promise.

However, let's not assume all of this will happen through serendipity. It requires implementation of each of the B.C. Liberal new-era promises, and in that regard we're already well along on our way to accomplishing the Premier's goal. British Columbians, who overwhelmingly voted us into office, are today telling us to stay the course. Despite periodic hullabaloo on the front lawn, we must not slacken, and we will not slacken, in our resolve.

While our new-era program will facilitate growth and renewal in the B.C. economy, we will have to work around two important roadblocks. One roadblock to renewed growth, and I'm speaking very candidly, is the bureaucracy. As talented and educated as many of them are, as devoted as they may be to the future success of our province, there remains in some quarters, after a decade of NDP rule, an attitude that government is good, business is bad, and development is damnable. Furthermore, I'm told that some believe this current crop of MLAs, like others before, is simply another transitory invasion to be endured, and all things will pass.

Where such attitudes exist, I theorize that they derive from years when officials suffered one assault after another by the government of the day, circumstances in which no decision was a good decision. Perhaps they also derive a little bit from an environment mellowed by island time. I think such attitudes will have to be replaced by a sense of urgency and decisiveness if we are to quickly attract enterprise back to B.C.

As things stand today, too many project applications have a tendency to fall off the corner of the desk. One highly placed business person on the mainland went so far as to observe to me last weekend that we got it all wrong. We should have left the demonstrators on the front lawn and moved the legislators back to the mainland.

A second roadblock to renewed growth in B.C. is access to the land, the sea and the resources which have been the traditional birthright of all British Columbians. Recent B.C. Court of Appeal decisions cast doubt upon access to resources in the face of aboriginal appeals. The Redfern Tulsequah Chief mining project is stalled while cabinet takes into consideration the aboriginal rights of the Tlingit nation. Extending the court's reach beyond mining, in BCCA 147, Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., in connection with tree farm licence 39, the court ruled the government must take Haida rights into account. I presume we had not done so.

As journalist Vaughn Palmer aptly noted, however, if you want to make your fortune in British Columbia, the land claims industry — negotiating, consulting, lawyering and judging — looks like a far better bet than forestry or mining. Forestry and mining have been mainstays of the British Columbia economy.

It's ironic that Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Supreme Court of Canada should make comment hard on the heels of these B.C. court decisions which affect our economy so deeply. She complained that erosion of funding of legal aid programs across the country threatens litigants who are not represented by lawyers, as well as the evolution of the law itself. However, the courts have made access to resources more complex in British Columbia, seriously affecting the government's cash flow. It is time for the judicial system to facilitate resolution of these complex issues with clarity and cer-

tainty, since confusion and uncertainty have seriously impacted our ability to fund all sorts of programs, including legal aid.

Well, if officials unduly delay investments and if court decisions force Weyerhaeuser to rethink their future in our wood industry and Redfern to rethink their future in our mining industry, can British Columbia point to any bright spots? Thank goodness, we can. I would like to complete my remarks by considering two industries unfettered either by courts or by bureaucrats. They are financial services and technology.

In financial services, British Columbia has recently had delivered two special opportunities: the opportunity to revise the Company Act, or should I say the corporations act, and the opportunity to revise the Securities Act. Take the latter first.

Only a few days ago the B.C. Securities Commission delivered a report suggesting a new world of securities regulation in B.C. This new era of securities regulation would be characterized by continuous disclosure of material information in lieu of prospectuses; less reliance on prescriptive remedies and greater onus and liability placed upon securities issuers, their agents, officers and directors; greater enforcement through private litigation instead of commission police work; and reduced red tape. It's a farsighted document. These recommendations, if implemented, would go far to restoring the prominence of the securities industry in B.C. and the unencumbered flow of finance. These recommendations also contain the seeds of a national model for regulation, which Canada has long lacked. In our individual solitudes each province across our country, including B.C., has regulated its own securities markets with one-off sets of rules defying homogenization with one another, not to mention with the world outside.

What potential issuer of securities, faced with this mulligan stew of local laws, local regulations and local bureaucrats, would want to touch Canada with a ten-foot spoon? Well, they don't, and they can't be forced to. The market actually pays a premium to foreign firms, including Canadian firms, who list in the United States. We lost the VSE to the CDNX in Calgary, which is in the process of being absorbed by the TSE in Toronto, which itself is in a desperate battle to avoid complete absorption by New York.

If we don't begin to behave less parochially and appreciate what is happening continentally and internationally, we might say sayonara to Canada's security industry. Homogenization and international laws and rules are in; provincialism, parochialism and one-off laws and rules are out.

As a matter of fact, the same conclusions apply to B.C.'s 15-year saga to reform an ancient statute called the Company Act. Here the emerging debate, once again, pits internationalists against provincialists. If the provincial view prevails, I fear the consequences. Does anybody ponder the social embarrassment of throwing a party to which nobody comes? I won't dwell on these points further, since I've already done so in my recent response to the Speech from the Throne.

Suffice to say, our destiny in British Columbia, as a small, open economy trading with the world, lies without and not within. If we play our hand with skilful acknowledgment of the world beyond these narrow fjords in which we dwell, a new B.C. Securities Act and a new B.C. corporation act can interact to form the basis of a vigorous financial services sector right here in B.C. Perhaps then all those hundreds of bankers will come back home from Calgary, and they'll tell us that Whistler skiing truly does beat the icy trails of Lake Louise.

Mr. Speaker, I will wind up these remarks by describing the wonderful success story which is the B.C. technology industry. I'll do so by quickly describing four typical companies, and I don't own stock in any of them, I assure you.

Tantalus, a homegrown B.C. company started with only $1.2 million of venture capital — sales now of $4 million — manufactures and exports devices for electrical load management within the home from a central dispatch wirelessly. As North America struggles to meet its environmental commitments, load management at the consumer interface will, it is estimated, allow us to reduce power consumption by 10 percent per household. In addition, it will allow utilities to recapture the 6 percent of their power which mysteriously disappears. In B.C. we have our suspicions about how that stolen electricity is being used.

Kelsan is another homegrown B.C. company, which manufactures proprietary polymer devices which lubricate railcar wheels, reducing friction, wear and noise. It's said to have made SkyTrain neighbourhood-friendly through eliminating the squeals that otherwise would have made SkyTrain intolerable. Fuel consumption savings of 10 percent are again promised and routinely delivered. With sales of $4.2 million, mostly export, Kelsan was funded by $7 million of venture capital from WOF, Future Fund, Business Development Bank and Discovery Capital — four prominent local sources of venture capital.

Gemcom Software International, a third company, with annual sales in the $10 million range, is another Vancouver-based success story. It has offices in China, South Africa, Russia, South America and the United States, and is partnered with De Beers, the diamond people. Gemcom is in the business of ore geometry delineation, mine planning and blast quality mapping. You have to understand the mining business a little bit to understand what that's all about. While the B.C. mining industry has yielded ground at home, its people travel the world, bringing Canadian technology to more sympathetic environments.

Finally, consider what's happening in biotech. My former Discovery Enterprises colleague, Bob Rieder, dramatized B.C.'s biotech boom by observing that the $4 billion market capitalization of only one of our new British Columbia stars, a company called QLT — at the time he made the speech at least — was larger than the combined market cap of the entire British Columbia

forest industry. One company had a market cap — they hadn't even sold anything yet, as a matter of fact — bigger than all of MacMillan Bloedel's, Canfor's, etc., combined. Since that eye-opening peak, QLT's stock prices settled back, but the message is clear. Biotech is big, and it's growing fast in British Columbia.

John McKercher, former chair of Children's Hospital, points out that Vancouver is probably the fourth- or fifth-ranked biotech centre in North America, a phenomenon we should celebrate and support.

Rieder believes that worldwide, B.C. biotech has accounted for the creation of 9,000 companies, more than $50 billion of raised capital, more than $200 billion of market cap and more than 250 drugs in clinical development. These are amazing statistics. Let me remind you that we are talking about British Columbia, the home of Skeena Cellulose. The contrast could hardly be more striking.

How did it all happen? Well, I see the Minister of Advanced Education opposite me, and I think the capital markets would credit the beneficial interaction of the University of British Columbia, which is emerging as one of our most important economic engines in the province; Children's Hospital and other like institutions; funding via the National Research Council, Genome Canada, Genome B.C. and the Science Council of B.C.; a lively venture capital tradition; plus our B.C. lifestyle, which helps hold people here.

The point is that here in British Columbia we've become world leaders not only in the creation of this science-based technology but also in its commercialization. Let us pour support into these stars whilst those of yesteryear fade away.

A final point. This government is now also considering various legislative and regulatory proposals for restructuring and improving the effectiveness and breadth of the venture capital industry in B.C., the industry which underpins the four companies I have just described and many others. This is yet another example of the importance of the financial services industry, which, through reform and support, can provide an even stronger base for B.C. technology, B.C. jobs, B.C. prosperity and B.C. government tax revenues.

As the economy grows and as tax revenues grow with it, the Minister of Finance will be able to report fulfilment of the ambitious targets which he, his hard-working officials, the executive council and private members all working together have defined in British Columbia's budget and three-year fiscal plan. It's a good one.

R. Stewart: I'm pleased to introduce some students and their teachers today. These students are from Carson Graham High School in North Vancouver. They're hosting l'École Polyvalente Hyacinthe Delorme, from Hyacinthe, Quebec. I had a chance to speak with these students and their teachers outside. It's a pleasure to have them in the House today. Their teachers are Ms. Kim Abdurhaman, Ms. Madeleine St. Jean and Mr. François Ibrahim. Would the House please make these students and their teachers welcome.

T. Christensen: It's indeed a privilege to rise today and have an opportunity to speak to the budget speech and in support of the budget speech of February 19. As other members have indicated, this is a historic budget, both for what it says and for how it was prepared. I suspect that in the long term, as we look back ten or 20 years from now and see the trend this budget preparation process may have established, this indeed will be a very historic budget.

This is a budget that's been developed based on the input of MLAs from every single corner of this province. It's a budget that's been prepared based on ministry service plans, three-year service plans for every single ministry of government. Government has looked at each portfolio and asked those ministers to review in detail what their ministries are doing and what their ministries should be doing to set targets and then develop a plan in order to meet those targets. Each of those service plans in turn has been reviewed by a committee of government caucus MLAs who have had an opportunity to provide input from each of the regions in this province and to massage those service plans to ensure that we come up with an overall plan for government that meets the needs of British Columbians.

It's been a very collaborative process, requiring considerable give-and-take and a very honest assessment of the challenges facing this great province. I think that most who review it objectively and in detail will agree that the end result is both thoughtful and well considered. It is a difficult budget. It certainly includes measures that many of us would prefer we did not need to take, but such a budget is long overdue in the province.

For a decade government ignored the fact that budgets cannot simply be planned from year to year on a hope and a prayer that revenues will increase to cover ever-increasing spending commitments. Most recently, when this province benefited from unusually high gas and energy revenues, spending was ramped up to spend those dollars as fast as they came in, without any thought or planning as to how that spending could be maintained when those unusually high gas and energy prices plummeted, as government should have known they inevitably would.

This B.C. Liberal government knows that you can't simply budget on a hope and a prayer for revenue. This government recognizes that the best way to support the programs and services British Columbians

desire and need is to encourage a thriving economy so that revenues will consistently be there to sustain important services. This government also recognizes that we must be vigilant in ensuring programs and services provided by government are effective and are obtaining the intended results.

Last May, which certainly seems a long time ago now, British Columbians overwhelmingly voted for change. They wanted a government that would work to encourage economic growth, to attract investment to British Columbia and to get our financial house in order. They voted for a government that would plan ahead and address the need for effective government services, particularly in health care and education.

The need for planning in this province has never been greater. Over the last number of months, on a couple of occasions, a number of other MLAs and I have had the opportunity to hear the presentation by a demographer, David Baxter. Every time I hear it, I'm always fascinated by the trends he points out.

I'm also terrified, because when you listen to Mr. Baxter, the statistics he presents all make perfect common sense. You see very quickly that particularly in the area of health care spending, our costs are going to increase significantly over the next two decades as our population ages and grows into that age where, as individuals, we consume the greatest amount of health care dollars. At the same time, that cohort of the population that is of working age and will be paying the income tax and driving the economy to support the many important government services, including health care, isn't growing nearly as fast. The end result is that demand is going to increase faster than we care to see, in many cases, and at the same time we're going to have to work very hard to ensure we have an economy that's providing the revenue to meet the demand.

If we're going to improve on the status quo and prepare for the future, it's pretty clear that we're going to have to make some changes. As we all know, changes aren't easy, particularly when they're combined with the fiscal constraints that British Columbia must currently deal with. One thing I learned very quickly as a novice MLA is that there's no shortage of demands on government funding. I'm never at a loss to find somebody who would be more than happy to tell me where to spend taxpayer dollars.

If you sit down and look at the challenges facing any single ministry or any single area of public policy, you can often come up with some very creative ways to solve some of those challenges and with wonderful programs that would meet the needs or desires of many British Columbians. You can't look at a particular ministry or a particular area of public policy in a vacuum. It's much more challenging when you need to look at all ministries and all areas of public policy and balance the many demands and priorities requiring attention.

This government very clearly set out its agenda during last year's election. We're maintaining the commitments made. We committed to maintaining spending in education and health. Notwithstanding some very creative attempts to suggest that we're not following through on that promise, the numbers in the budget speak for themselves.

In his budget the Minister of Finance indicates that we'll be spending $4.86 billion in the Ministry of Education. That, in fact, is small but nevertheless an increase over the budget last year. In Advanced Education we'll be spending $1.9 billion — again, small but nevertheless an increase over last year.

In health care where the pressures are particularly acute, given the need to recruit and maintain highly skilled nurses, physicians and other health professionals, we've actually increased the budget by $700 million from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion this year.

We rattle these billion-dollar numbers off like they're old hat. Really, what we should all do from time to time is actually write them down and look at how many zeros are there and try to fathom what that number really means when you put it in day-to-day terms. The funding that government spends in these very important areas is absolutely astronomical, and I think it's incumbent upon government to insist that it's getting good value for the expenditure of those dollars.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of months government has presented a number of steps that we'll be taking to bring spending under control. It's abundantly clear that we must reduce spending, and we will. Those types of changes are not often met with cheers — certainly not cheers in the street. I know that I, along with many other MLAs, have been looking forward to the good-news stories that the hard decisions will foster in the future.

I've got at least one very recent good-news story. Last Friday, at home in my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon, I had the pleasure of attending the unveiling of an unprecedented $75 million upgrade planned for Silver Star Mountain Resort. This is the largest single-season resort upgrade ever undertaken in the interior of British Columbia. The upgrade to Silver Star has particular significance for me because I've been skiing at that mountain since I was five years old.

T. Christensen: Yeah, about ten years ago. A little longer than that, unfortunately.

It's certainly somewhere I expect, in the next few years, that my children will learn to ski. I can remember skiing there when you had the nice, slow chairlifts, and they were just named by their colours rather than by some fancy name to evoke images of the exotic — little lifts that sort of dragged you up the hill as you dragged along the snow, rather than actually riding. And there was no night skiing. It was actually quite peaceful and nice.

When I was a teenager, the village developed so that there were hotel accommodations, and night skiing developed. When I was in university, the back side of the mountain opened, which added some much-needed, more difficult terrain.

Now we see an expansion that's going to include two new high-speed chairlifts — one of them a six-passenger chairlift. When I heard about it, I hadn't even known such a thing existed. One of the nice things about going to the unveiling is that they actually had one of the chairs there. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, even as tall as you are, you could lie down on that chairlift and have a nice nap on the way to the top. Unfortunately, in terms of napping, it only takes six minutes, which is a good time if you want to be skiing.

It also includes the development of over 600 new acres of skiable terrain. Most important, in terms of the impact on the local economy and local workers, is a $50 million expansion of residential real estate that's going to be developed by Concert Properties.

Those of you who have been to Okanagan-Vernon, and to Silver Star in particular, will know that it's less than a 30-minute drive from downtown Vernon. There's no question that an expansion of this magnitude is going to be of huge benefit to the local economy. Both Silver Star and Concert Properties are committed to using local suppliers as much as they can.

This expansion comes on the heels of Silver Star having been recently purchased by the family that owns Big White mountain near Kelowna. That's very good news. But to those of us from Vernon who have always enjoyed the rivalry between Silver Star and Big White, now that they're owned by the same people, we feel some affinity and camaraderie with the folks at Big White. It's nice to see the owners finally saw fit to buy a mountain that really has some world-class skiing. Unfortunately, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country isn't here to debate that with me.

In any event, these folks truly have a vision for the Okanagan. They have done incredible things at Big White over the course of the last decade in terms of expanding that hill. They have a vision to make the Okanagan a world-class ski destination to rival Colorado. If you look at what they have done over the last decade at Big White, I have little doubt they will go a long way and be successful in doing that.

The North Okanagan is shaping up as a major resort destination, anchored by Silver Star in the winter and Predator Ridge Golf Resort in the summer. The communities in my constituency are tapping into the great tourism potential of the area. The village of Lumby is examining a potential road to the back of Silver Star to complete a circle route that will allow people to drive from Lumby to Silver Star to Vernon without having to backtrack. It would indeed be of great benefit to the tourism potential, particularly in Lumby and east to the Monashee area.

Over the last six months Vernon has celebrated a number of good-news stories. We celebrated the opening of a new Vernon multiplex arena that was long overdue and that the citizens of Vernon and the surrounding area voted for overwhelmingly in a referendum. We also celebrated the opening of a state-of-the-art performing arts centre by Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, one of her first official acts back in October. In fact, I think it may have been her first official foray out of Victoria as Lieutenant-Governor.

We've also seen the development of significant commercial real estate or retail space at the north end of town. With a little less fanfare but certainly as important, the city of Vernon along with the neighbouring district of Coldstream are moving along with plans for a new water system as well as new sewer works.

In short, the communities in Okanagan-Vernon are preparing for the future. They know the future looks bright, and they're working to provide the foundation for economic growth and a vibrant community life for all the citizens of the North Okanagan. My constituency certainly knows British Columbia has many more good-news stories to come.

I remember people telling me during the election campaign that they weren't sure the B.C. Liberals were prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to get this province back on track. The B.C. Liberals and the vast majority of British Columbians are not content to see this great province languish in have-not status while those looking for a brighter future and opportunity flee the province in droves. We are making the tough decisions, and I'm confident we will continue to make the tough decisions necessary to maintain this province on course to a new era of prosperity and hope.

B. Bennett: All that talk of skiing makes me want to go back to the Kootenays. I was on the hill yesterday in Kimberley. We also have some excellent world-class ski hills in the East Kootenays, in Kimberley and in Fernie. I understand we also have a six-person chairlift coming to Fernie soon, so I guess we're rivalling what they have in the Okanagan.

I'm speaking on the budget today. The theme of my comments is around change and the need for change. The budget deals with rebuilding our economy here in B.C., with restoring responsibility to our fiscal management and finding ways for patients and students in B.C. to receive a larger portion of the public dollars that are being spent on health care and education.

A lot of people are asking: are we going too far? Are we doing too much? Why is this radical change, as they characterize it, necessary? I came across an interesting article by Michael Campbell in the Vancouver Sun on the weekend. He compares B.C.'s performance over the past decade with the states of Washington, Oregon and California and the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. He states that gross domestic product per capita is how we measure the size of the economic pie. He says: "Why is something technical like that important?" Well, it helps us measure whether our individual standard of living is increasing or falling. Over the past decade, our GDP per capita grew at 4.3 percent.

It sounds okay, I guess, as long as you don't put it into context with the other jurisdictions: 4.3 percent

compared to Washington and Alberta, where it grew by 22 percent; Ontario, where it grew by 21 percent; California, where it grew by 18 percent; and Oregon, where it grew by 40 percent. Clearly, we need to know what they're doing in Oregon, and we need to know how we can apply that knowledge to B.C.

The growth of the high-tech sector in Oregon and also in Washington, apparently, is a very big part of the answer to that question. In the budget we talk about the Premier's Council on Technology and this government's commitment to make B.C. a top technology centre by the year 2006. In the Kootenays there is a Columbia Basin Trust initiative which we refer to by its acronym, CMON, which stands for Columbia Open Mountain Network.

This initiative is, as I said, on behalf of the citizens of the Kootenays by the Columbia Basin Trust. It will connect all of the people in the Kootenays with high-speed Internet and allow us to continue on with projects such as the one the Minister of Health Services was involved in the other day, the telehealth project from the Cranbrook Hospital and VGH in Vancouver.

This type of high-speed Internet would also help us in East Kootenay to connect students in schoolrooms, as it would in other rural areas of B.C. I have municipalities in my riding that are fairly small. There are students in places such as Elkford who want to take grade 12 physics. They can't, unless they want to move to Sparwood or Fernie or sometimes even Cranbrook. Some of them even have to leave the province in order to take some of the courses they want to.

With this high-tech, high-speed Internet, we could connect their classroom in Elkford, in Sparwood or in Fernie with a classroom someplace else in the province, and they could get their grade 12 physics.

In 1991 the average disposable income in British Columbia was $958 more than the Canadian average, so we were doing fairly well. I think we all remember those days, the good old days. At the end of the decade, however, our average income was $577 below the Canadian average. We are all aware of these facts, and sometimes maybe we get tired of talking about them as we all reply to the budget and to the throne speech.

I think it's important that we do this, because we need to explain the foundation upon which we have based our decisions. We have fallen a long, long way in British Columbia over the past ten years. Our disposable income was falling, and our neighbours in Washington had their disposable incomes rise over $2,200 per person. It's no wonder that nurses, doctors, high-tech employees, entrepreneurs and other people with talent wanted to sell their services or at least toyed with the idea of selling their services in the U.S. or perhaps Ontario and Alberta.

Of course, it was the NDP's anti-business policies and what I would call economic terrorism of the past ten years — fast ferry economics, red tape — that created this situation where we've actually lost ground. This government, in the past less than ten months, has done many things to fix what it took ten years for our predecessors to break.

I have to say that I don't think the people of British Columbia are particularly accustomed to government fixing anything or perhaps even doing anything. After ten years, I think they're somewhat shocked to have a government that actually thinks about what they're going to do, plans out their activities, plans out their public policy and then executes it.

Here's what our government has done so far. The first thing we did, of course, was to lower our base personal income tax rate on the first $60,000 of income. I want to address that, because I've heard in this House from members of the opposition and have heard, certainly, in my riding at some of the rallies I've attended and in some of the discussions I've had outside my office on the street that we lowered taxes for the rich only and that the rich benefit the most. That actually is, of course, not true.

I came across another really interesting and rather humorous article by a fellow in Salmon Arm. His name is Ron Adams. He writes a regular column in the Salmon Arm newspaper. He's a financial adviser, and this is what he says in terms of our government's personal income tax cuts:

And if I might add to the article, there are also Washington, California, Oregon, Alberta, Ontario and many other places they can go to if they wish.

Some of the things we have done, which I think have gotten lost in the shuffle, we did prior to this budget. We reduced corporate income tax from 16½ percent to 13½ percent. We've made ourselves competitive with Alberta and Ontario, so that fellow who had to pay $52 for dinner won't leave. We've decided to reduce corporate capital tax on non-financial institutions on September 1. That's a tax on investment, as we all know, and it was discouraging businesses and individuals from investing in our province.

We've eliminated PST on production machinery and equipment. We've reduced domestic jet fuel to help our province's airports. We've helped the cruise ship industry by eliminating 7 percent tax on bunker fuel. An initiative that helps the rural ridings a fair bit is that we have created a 20 percent flow-through share credit for mineral exploration.

In this present budget, which we announced on February 19, we've also done some things that are going to address our former uncompetitive business climate here in British Columbia. We've increased the small business income tax threshold by 50 percent from $200,000 to $300,000. I recall that when I practised law in Cranbrook, I represented corporate commercial clients. One of the most often-asked questions I received was: why should I incorporate? Of course, there are reasons of liability, but there are also some very important taxation reasons, one of them being that the first $200,000 of income is taxed at a greatly reduced rate. Now that will be the first $300,000 of corporate income. That should help us regain some of those businesses that moved over to Alberta from the East Kootenay and the northeast part of our province because they were simply paying more taxes in British Columbia.

We've also raised the sales tax credit for low-income earners by 50 percent — from $50 to $75. That doesn't sound like very much, but when you think about it, if a low-income earner spends, say, $15,000 on taxable items, that means he's not going to pay any income tax with this increase to the sales tax credit. Once again, I think this government is doing its best to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

What else have we done to revitalize our economy? We're trying to reduce the red tape in B.C. I had a meeting with the Minister of State for Deregulation. I was going to say the minister of red tape. I noticed that in a speech the Premier gave a few days ago, he talked about a regulation that auto repair shops have to deal with. Apparently, they are required to dust their blinds on a regular basis. That would seem to be something that the government of British Columbia wouldn't need to be involved with.

We've eliminated business subsidies. That's a good thing — put everybody on a level playing field.

We're consulting on changes to the Employment Standards Act, which is a very important initiative in rural areas of B.C. that depend a lot on the tourism industry. I have situations in my riding where a guest ranch operator or a fishing lodge operator would like to have more flexible arrangements with employees. I have situations where the employees would like to have more flexible arrangements with the employer, but they can't do that under the present Employment Standards Act. We need to do some work on that act.

The Energy Policy Task Force has been consulting with the public and will be issuing its final report in March. I wanted to say just a few words about coal as a part of that Energy Policy Task Force. I haven't talked about coal yet today, and I'm feeling a somewhat strong inner urge to speak of it just briefly.

I hope that our provincial Energy Policy Task Force will include coal as an important component of our energy plan for British Columbia. We have some of the most abundant resources of high-quality coal in B.C. that exist anywhere in the world. We have a lot of high-quality, low-sulphur coal that's clean to burn. Right now in British Columbia we don't generate any of our electricity with coal. Of course, the U.S. generates a lot of theirs with coal, and Alberta generates 80 percent of theirs with coal. It's a good question as to why we don't generate electricity in British Columbia with coal. We have to get in the game, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to create employment. It can be done in an environmentally responsible way, and we should get at it.

Recently the Premier gave a speech in which he referred to a four-letter word and said that this four-letter word is the silent killer of all public services. Of course he was talking about debt. We talk about restoring sound fiscal management in British Columbia. Our spending increases are not sustainable, and I think this is sometimes a communications challenge for all of us,

ministers and private members alike. When we say we're not cutting health care budgets and we're not cutting the education budget, people say, "Yes, you are. You're changing this," or "You're changing that." Really, what we're doing — and we all try to explain this — is not cutting the health care budget. In fact, we've added almost $1 billion to it. We're not cutting the education budget. What we're doing is finding places in those two budgets where we can take those existing dollars and redirect those dollars to either patient care or students. We were elected to do that. That's why we're doing it.

Health care, obviously, is the biggest challenge we have. Health care is also the source of the greatest increase in spending over the past three years here in this province.

In doing the difficult things we need to do, we all have to be cognizant — I've heard some of my colleagues refer to the most vulnerable in society — of our duty as elected representatives of the people of British Columbia to ensure that in making the important changes we're making, we do protect the most vulnerable. We have, I think, done a good job of that.

We may have made some missteps. We have maintained the seniors bus pass so that our seniors can travel in their communities. Perhaps it was a misstep to consider getting rid of that, but we've done the right thing.

We've protected funding for women's shelters and transition houses. We've increased funding for monitoring and protection of drinking water by an additional $1.5 million. We're increasing the number of student spaces for nurses and residential care aides by 1,400 over the next three years. Even after our reductions to legal aid, which we have all heard a lot about and have great sympathy for, we're still the third-highest per capita on legal aid in Canada.

Even Pharmacare. We've made some changes to Pharmacare, but we still have the most generous coverage in Canada. We publicly fund the highest percentage of drug costs of any province: 52 percent versus the national average of 43 percent.

I referred to our task as government to use dollars more wisely. I attended a labour-organized rally about a week ago in my riding. There were, depending on who you talked to, either 300 or 500 people there. There were a lot of people. It was at the theatre in Cranbrook. The East Kootenay District Labour Council had organized it. There were nine panellists including myself, all of whom, other than myself, took issue with what we're trying to do in British Columbia.

I was caught by the constant reference at that labour rally to working people. Everyone that stood up and asked a question or made a comment referred to working people. We don't represent working people, is what they said. This government doesn't represent working people.

When I got my chance at the microphone, my spouse — brave soul that she is — insisted that she go and support me. I think I had three people in the audience who supported me that day. I said to the crowd: "What is a working person? Who are working people in British Columbia?"

My wife works for an accountant. She does bookkeeping for small businesses. She works from eight in the morning until five at night. She gets a half hour for lunch. She doesn't make a lot of money. She doesn't make very much money at all. I've told her employer that many times, but she gets the going rate for that type of work. She doesn't even get a coffee break.

I said: "Is my wife a working person?" Is she a working person? It seems like she's a working person. I bet she feels like a working person. In fact, I know she does. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of private sector working people out in British Columbia who can't understand why all the fuss. Nurses were given 21.5 percent across the board, at least on average; teachers, 7.5 percent. That's a heck of a lot more than the former government ever gave them. Paramedics were given a pretty good increase. It looks like we're going to be giving the doctors a pretty good increase. Why all the fuss? What are they so unhappy about? Private sector working people would be overwhelmed if someone said: "Hey, we're going to give you a 7.5 percent increase over the next three years."

Well, as you might expect, those comments at that rally were not particularly well received, but that's okay. I think we're on the right track with this government. We're doing the right thing, and we recognize that we have to revitalize our private sector economy. We've been weighted too heavily in our public sector economy. We're going to have to fix that, and we're going about doing that.

Health care, as I said, is the largest challenge we face as a government. We've got health care pressures and health cost pressures on us right now with the increase we've just recently given to nurses, who I have a lot of respect for — some of my closest friends work as nurses in the Cranbrook hospital — but we have to pay for those increases. It looks like doctors are going to cost us about $392 million; paramedics and other professionals, about $213 million.

The total wage pressures within the health care sector amount to $769 million, so this government chose to increase the health budget to meet those challenges. We increased the health budget by $750 million, after already increasing it after the election.

We're also doing some other important initiatives to get health care reorganized and have it work better for the people of British Columbia. We restructured the way health care services are delivered in B.C. a while back.

I have to say that in the East Kootenay, where I'm from, it looks very promising. We now have one regional authority to make decisions that will impact the people of the East Kootenay. Prior to this restructuring we had six individual health councils in the East Kootenay, populated by very well-intentioned volunteers, but quite often those six health authorities would be working at cross-purposes. We had situations where, in one hospital, they would have a piece of

equipment that they were not using, but it could not be transferred to another hospital in the region where it would be used, because the two health councils couldn't get along well enough to make that happen. Now we have one health authority looking after the whole interior of B.C. and a subauthority looking after the East Kootenay. By all appearances, it's going to work very well.

My friend from North Okanagan–Vernon referred to David Baxter and the Urban Futures Institute and the presentation that he gave at the provincial congress about demographics and their impact on British Columbia and on government. Whether it's us or someone that comes after us, we're going to have to deal with the fact that more people are getting older. There aren't as many young people coming forward to pay taxes and support health care and education and the other social costs in our society.

With all these challenges, B.C. has the most promise of any province in Canada. We've got the natural resources, the location to the Pacific Rim, a fine education infrastructure, the talent, the innovation, the climate, the environment and the capacity to attract talented people and investment. I've been to Alberta. On my way here to B.C. from Ontario ten years ago I passed through Alberta. Frankly, I'd rather live in British Columbia. I think most people feel that way.

Yes, change is difficult, but to bury our heads in the sand and pretend we are living in the past — to continue to spend more than taxpayers can afford, and to spend unwisely, without proper planning — is irresponsible and just plain wrong.

A year ago I heard people ask: "Is the Premier going to be tough enough? Are we going to be tough enough?" I think this is tough love. We are being tough enough. It's difficult for everyone, but I am proud to be a member of a government that's willing to make difficult decisions and to plan for the future of our children and our grandchildren. I also believe that most British Columbians are with us in this difficult but ultimately rewarding battle to rebuild British Columbia, and I thank you.

W. Cobb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the budget that was brought down on February 19. That was a historic day for British Columbia. Finally, after years of overstated income figures and account juggling, we have a budget that sets out a plan for the next three years. We now have a plan that clearly explains to the people of British Columbia where we are going, how we are going to get there and how long the trip is going to be.

We have had report after report, including the auditor general's report, and for the most part they all pretty much agree that we are facing some serious challenges and that without drastic changes in direction, B.C.'s finances are not sustainable. The independent financial review panel made it perfectly clear that we cannot continue down the same path. The path that was so well travelled by the previous government led us to have-not status in Canada. That should concern and embarrass all British Columbians. For the first time in almost 40 years B.C. may be taking equalization payments.

The B.C. Progress Board's report gave us all a vivid picture of the challenges that lie ahead. It showed how British Columbia has slipped economically. The board's chair, David Emerson, put it well: "Ultimately, B.C. can and should rank number one or two on our core targets by the year 2010. While there is a lot of hard work ahead, we believe the targets are achievable."

It's time to look forward to what we can achieve, and that's mostly what I want to talk about this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. However, it is always instructive to go back and see what causes these situations.

The last decade of mismanagement brought us to the edge of the cliff, and we're turning that horse around and heading for safety. As a province we have been sliding backward, and there is no better evidence than looking into the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, which were picked by the previous government. Over the last decade British Columbia's average annual take-home income shrank by $11,000. Alberta's and Ontario's both increased. To me, that is wrong.

We are now working towards — and actually have a plan for — the revitalization of the economy, but there are some tough decisions to make yet. No one enjoys making tough decisions. Everyone wants to be loved, but by making these decisions, we are creating a brighter future. It reminds me of when my kids were younger. They might not have liked the curfew I put on them, but in the end they thanked me for caring enough to give them a solid foundation.

I know that we will most likely continue to have our plans picked apart by the naysayers. They are only looking at their individual interests, not at the bigger picture. They suggest that tax cuts were only for the rich. Wrong. We now have the lowest rates of personal income tax for the first $60,000 of income. They suggest that we have doubled MSP for seniors and low-income people. Wrong. There have been MSP premium reductions for 230,000 low-income British Columbians. They suggest that MLAs are receiving big salary increases. Wrong. Our federal counterparts got an increase, while we got a 5 percent reduction in our salary and will in fact make less than the MLAs did five years ago.

One of the comments I most often hear from my constituents is: "We agree with what you're doing, but because you're moving so fast, it's hard to keep track of everything." This is creating some uncertainty, and I appreciate that, but it is important to remember that we laid out a three-year plan. For the first time in B.C.'s history, each ministry has said what it plans to do and how it wants to get there. Notice the key phrase that seems to be continually forgotten: it is a three-year

plan. Our opponents make it sound like everything is being done right away, but we are taking a measured approach, one that is thoughtful and targeted. We are moving fast, though, because British Columbians can ill afford to wait. There are some lost opportunities because the red tape and regulations are still strangling many job creation projects — in particular, in my riding. We will find the right balance and make the changes necessary to get our finances in order and get B.C. back to work.

We promised during the last election to get British Columbia to a position where it had the most competitive tax regime in the country. We've done that, and I'm proud of it. We cut personal income tax, we cut corporate income tax, and we are reducing that further over the years ahead, so we can be more competitive with other jurisdictions. We eliminated the tax on investment. As of September 1 this year there will be no more corporate capital tax on non-financial institutions.

We know what drives British Columbia and its business. Government doesn't drive the economy, and we're going to create a tax regime that allows business to thrive and develop jobs. For our economy to recover and be revitalized, we have to be productive. We eliminated the tax on machinery and equipment, which will encourage productivity improvements with the purchase of better equipment. In my part of British Columbia that was good news, as we are very dependent on the resource industry. This tax break was good news and a sign of good faith, a signal that we now have a government that supports business.

We implemented the new 20 percent flow-through shares tax credit for mineral exploration, so we can reinvigorate the mining industry. The mining industry lost one out of two jobs over the last decade. We want those jobs back. We want that investment back so that our communities have a long-term future. Again, in my part of the province this is welcome news. We have a government that understands where the money comes from, that we have to support these industries.

We also reduced the tax on trucks, which was holding back families in resource communities across the province. All these reductions added to $600 million in the economy.

This budget has laid out a three-year plan to get our house in order. Now, this sitting of the Legislature will begin the work to get the regulations and laws reconstructed so business and investors will return, so that we can afford the services we so much need. There must be an overall strategy in any business plan for it to succeed. We cannot just look at one segment of the plan and make changes without affecting the whole strategy.

We will continue, and we have appointed a Minister of State for Deregulation to focus on that attack. We know regulation is one of those hidden costs that has been discounted. We have over 400,000 different regulations in British Columbia. As mentioned, we have regulations that tell automobile repair shops how often they must dust their blinds. It's not necessary, it's not required, and we are going to eliminate that kind of regulation.

Many of the decisions being made are not easy, as they impact the entire spectrum of our society. Everyone can make a strong argument on why their program is worth saving, why we can't do without this or that program. There are a lot of worthy projects, but the reality is that if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we will not be able to afford any of these services that we hold near and dear.

My riding of Cariboo South is a very diverse riding but is dependent on the natural resources and access to the land — whether it's tourism, ranching, logging or mining. The north is the producer of the majority of the wealth of this province, and although we are only 25 percent of the population, we create over 50 percent of the GDP. We must now put policies in place that will allow those producers to prosper, or everyone will suffer.

My two learned colleagues from the opposition are regularly heard saying: "Do more with less." Well, if we continue down the rocky road they were leading us, we would need a budget that would require doing more with nothing because that is exactly what we would have for health care, education and the social services — absolutely nothing.

The education service plan proposal allows for maintaining funding. Although it will be a challenge, we have allowed local teachers, parents and school districts to develop the plan that best suits their needs. Yes, our local board in Williams Lake — in particular, school district 27 — has been under attack because of enrolment decreases. Of course, the funding decreases as that enrolment decreases. What the service plan does is allow the board some flexibility to meet those challenges. We've had some school closures. God forbid, we won't have any more. As the funding is developed around enrolment, many of the costs of operation do not decline in relation to the student decline.

Some do not have a lot of faith that the boards have the ability to meet these challenges, but we have also put in place benchmarks and goals that they must meet, and they will be held accountable. As someone who has seen education struggle in Cariboo South, I am optimistic that our board will now be able to make decisions based on the needs of our students.

The crisis we are experiencing in health is compounded in rural B.C. because of the distances between facilities. The new regions must address the geographic problems as well as the service delivery issues. The service delivery centres must be established soon. When we are well, we do not have a lot of concerns, but when we become ill, the added stress of not knowing whether the care will be available does not help. We must help to rebuild the trust in our health care system.

I am encouraged by the fact that our government is moving toward putting decision-making power in the hands of people closer to the ground, which is where it should be. The opposition likes to say we're trying to

deflect attention. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are trying to create a health care system that can respond quickly to the local needs and demands.

An example of one of those issues that must be addressed at the local, regional level is the ambulance service. When we transfer patients longer distances, as is necessary in the Cariboo, we must give them the tools and the training necessary to perform their duties.

On the forestry side, we are proposing some major changes to forest practices, forest policy and stumpage review. Although in the end, the forest practices will still require environmental standards to be met, it will be a less onerous and less costly administration. The forest policy review is a very complicated technical review and cannot be rushed. We need to get it right, and we must take into consideration all segments of the industry and develop it with expansion and value-added in mind.

The more I learn about the differences in the forest region, the more I realize there's so much more to learn. I have a pretty good understanding of what would work in my riding, but it is worrisome to see how developing those policies affects forestry in other regions. We must remember — and it has been said many times: one size does not fit all. We may need to develop a flexible system, and it may need to be different for different regions.

The two major stumbling blocks, of course, in the industry right now are the softwood lumber dispute and the pine beetle infestation. I am confident the Minister of Forests is making the right choices. He's moving swiftly to deal with the mountain pine beetle, and he's being firm in negotiations with the United States over softwood lumber.

The changes we have already made in the mining industry, with the flow-through shares and the capital tax changes, are showing promise. This industry is so much dependent on the world prices, we can only hope that the upward trend will continue. To reopen the two mines that have been closed in my riding and start construction on the new one would be a plus for all of B.C.

The ranching industry is not experiencing much change and is relatively stable. Some streamlining of regulations and permits should assist this industry. The tax threshold changes for small business should be of benefit to them.

Talking about the food industry, we will soon be lifting the moratorium on fish farming. One would think that way in the middle of the province, in the Cariboo, this industry would have no effect on my riding, but one of our local businesses has the opportunity to expand and hire up to 11 new employees to provide services to that industry. This is not a large number, but it has the ability to create as many jobs as were reduced in the realignment of the public sector in the community of 100 Mile House.

Aquaculture spinoffs for the Cariboo prove how the world economy affects all of us. As good as we are in the Cariboo, we are not an island unto ourselves.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin has the most beautiful scenery and the best fishing lakes in the world. The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has a goal to double the $9.5 billion tourism industry. This can only enhance my riding and let the rest of the world know the beauty and the diversity of Cariboo South. The back-country experience is becoming more and more popular, and we have an abundance to offer.

In closing, I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement these plans. Although there is a lot of work to do, we in the Cariboo are accustomed to doing that. We now have hope, and we are willing to work for that prosperity.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues with the Minister of State for Mental Health.

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I'm very excited about my participation in the budget debate. I do have about five to seven minutes, and I just want to address a couple of issues which are very important to me.

In this budget we have increased health funding. Part of that increase in health funding is the funding for the mental health plan. I want to say thank you to the Minister of Finance and thank you to our cabinet for approving this mental health plan funding. This plan was announced and reannounced by the NDP. I'll read from a Vancouver Sun article of April 1, 2000. It says: "The announcement in the provincial capital two years ago was a classic example of the New Democratic Party government's style of policymaking: big, brassy and ultimately bogus."

Mr. Speaker, we made a promise during the campaign to fully fund and implement this mental health plan. I am so excited and positive about this plan. For the first time in this province the mental health patients will be receiving quality care. This plan will help us to provide the best possible new way of delivering mental health in this province. This year alone we will be funding over $17 million in new community services. We will also be spending over $19 million in new capital funding this year for mental health. This is fulfilling our new-era commitment. This is great news for mental health in this province.

I just want to go over the NDP's record on mental health. The NDP promised $125 million, and only $10 million was delivered. The NDP promised specialized residential care for 244 patients; zero was delivered. The NDP promised 30 new day-hospital programs for up to 1,800 patients; zero were delivered. The NDP promised 2,600 housing units; only 132 were delivered. The NDP promised more community-based psych sessions; zero were delivered. The NDP promised 2,900 spaces for rehabilitation; only 50 were delivered — 50 out of 2,900. That's not a very good record. The NDP promised respite care for 12,000 families; zero were delivered.

We made a promise during the campaign, and that promise has been fulfilled. I just want to commit to the people of this province: this government, when it makes a promise, keeps its promise. I just want to read

one letter from the B.C. Mental Health Monitoring Coalition. This group represents most of the mental health organizations in this province. During the last campaign they gave a failing grade to the NDP. Their slogan was: "The NDP made the promise, and that promise was broken." They made the promise for mental health, and we are keeping that promise.

This $125 million mental health plan will deliver the best possible services in this province. Part of our plan is going to be building a new facility in Kamloops, the 84 beds. Part of that facility is going to be 44 specialized beds; 40 will be for acute care. We have recently opened a facility at Riverview Hospital. That's a 20-bed new facility. That's a new way of delivering mental health in this province.

We will also be opening a new facility in Prince George. That's a ten-bed facility. That's also a part of the mental health plan. All these things are being done to ensure we have quality mental health in this province. This is so crucial for patients with mental illness. They deserve care and respect, and this government is providing that.

Over the next few months we'll be dealing with a number of other issues which are of concern to mental health patients. I just want to reassure the people of this province that we are going to be very caring and compassionate, and we will continue with the policy of looking at health care in the best possible setting.

Health care is more than a hospital, more than a physician and more than other health care providers. We are going to be focusing our health care dollars on the patients. This budget clearly outlines how we want to move forward.

We have increased the budget to $10.2 billion for health care in this province. That's almost 38 to 39 percent of the provincial budget. We are spending money, but we need to spend it in the smartest possible way. We need to be innovative; we need to be leaders in this country. What we have seen in the past ten years is that we were not performing in the best interests of the patient.

This is the first time we are examining all components of health care in this province. With the new restructuring we will have a definite plan; we will have clear goals and objectives that will be met to meet the needs of the patients in this province. This will be the first time we'll have clear goals and objectives for mental health in this province. We will ensure the patients receive the money they deserve.

The community-based component of mental health is an essential part of our plan. As we continue to focus some resources on patients, we will be able to work with all the health care providers. We are working with all the health care organizations.

Above all, we are concerned about the patients and their families. For mental health, the families are the most important part of health care delivery. They are the ones who end up taking care of the patients. Most of the time people don't pay respect to them. We want to ensure that not only the patients but the families get the respect and the care they deserve.

Part of our mental health plan will provide respite care for the families so that the families can have some time off. It's so important for them to be healthy so they can take care of their loved ones.

For me and for this government, the most important thing is to provide the best possible care. We want to lead this country by providing a model way of delivering mental health in this province. It looks like my time is up. I just wanted to say thank you again to the Minister of Finance. He has worked very hard, and he was able to provide funding for the mental health plan in this budget.

Mr. Speaker: The budget debate continues, and the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. G. Collins: I just have a few moments to make a few comments as we wrap up the budget debate today. First of all, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for her comments in response to the budget. While I don't agree with them, I appreciate her taking the time to make them. I'll certainly listen to her comments with great interest in the months and the years ahead.

As well, I want to thank my colleagues from right across the province who helped put this budget together through examination of the various spending plans through the government caucus committees. The time they put in was valuable, much appreciated and very helpful. We made sure we had input from every single community and every single region in British Columbia as we put together these three-year service plans, which were part of the budget that was tabled on budget day. I want to extend my thanks to my colleagues and, as well, thank them for the time they've spent in participating in this debate. Their contributions, their advice, their suggestions and their hints over the last number of months have been very much appreciated.

I also want to take a moment to talk, if I can, a little bit about what's happened during the course of this debate since the budget was introduced to this House on February 19. A couple things have happened. First of all, at the time when the budget was introduced — in fact, about two weeks prior to that at an open cabinet meeting — I made reference to the fact that it appeared to us at the time as if British Columbia, according to the numbers we'd been calculating in the Ministry of Finance, became a have-not province in the fiscal year 1999-2000. At the time, we thought the transfer, the equalization payment, we would probably receive was around $30 million. It's the first time ever, based on the way the equalization is calculated now, that British Columbia has fallen into the category of a have-not province.

I know it came as a bit of a surprise for many people. In opposition, I know we made reference to the fact that we were close. We knew British Columbia was getting ever closer to the line as our economy lagged behind the rest of the country and as British Colum-

bia's economic clout started to decline and deteriorate. We certainly became aware that British Columbia was nearing the precipice of becoming a have-not province.

When I made the comment at the open cabinet meeting, I recall the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the leader of the NDP, saying something. I can't remember exactly what her quote was, but it was something to the effect that I was like Tinkerbelle dropping pixie dust in people's eyes across British Columbia and trying to convince them of something that simply wasn't true.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on February 28 the federal government released its numbers for equalization, its readjustment, and it turns out that, yes indeed, British Columbia did become a have-not province in the fiscal year 1999-2000. As a result, the province will be receiving an equalization payment of about $94.2 million for that year. At the same time as the equalization payment is made to British Columbia as a have-not province, our CHST, our transfer payments, decline as well.

The net impact isn't a lot of money — it's $12.3 million — but it is still a huge problem for the people of British Columbia to realize they have become a have-not province. It is something I don't think most British Columbians believed would ever have happened, given the people who live here — the talented people we have, the highly skilled workforce, the resources we have. I think people were fairly surprised when that information was confirmed.

It turns out that the year after, when we had that very large revenue spike as a result of the energy sales to the United States and the energy crisis in California, British Columbia was able to sell our downstream benefits for a significant amount of money. As well, B.C. Hydro was able to make quite dramatic profits based on their ability to trade energy, to buy energy at night and close the dams off, to store the energy and then in the morning start selling it when the demand was there. As the prices went up, they were able to experience pretty dramatic profits as a result.

In the year 2000-01 British Columbia came back up to the threshold and nipped back into the have status, but immediately, when that one-time spike in energy revenues disappeared in 2001-02 — the fiscal year we're in right now — all indications are that B.C. slipped back into have-not status.

At this point, although these numbers will change over the years ahead as they go through a fair number of iterations, the preliminary estimate for the fiscal year we're in right now is that British Columbia will receive $132 million in equalization payments. For the fiscal year coming up, which starts April 1, British Columbia will receive $326 million in equalization payments from the taxpayers in Alberta and the taxpayers in Ontario. Again, those numbers will net out to something less than that.

While it's nice to have a little bit of extra revenue in the coffers, it's certainly nothing I think any British Columbian would be proud of — that with all our resources and our talents, this province has lagged behind the country for so long over the last decade. We are now a have-not province along with some of the prairie provinces — Saskatchewan, Manitoba — and Quebec and the Maritime provinces.

I just wanted to put this out there as some of the information that has come to light since the budget debate started. It certainly presents a fairly big economic challenge for the government in the years ahead to try and restore our province and get us back on track. We'll be doing that.

As well, in the moment or so I have left to me, I want to make mention of the fact that since the budget came out and we laid out the economic forecast, we have heard from the Conference Board of Canada, which has numbers for the out years which are a little higher than what the Economic Forecast Council had, which in turn were a little higher than the forecasts I put in the budget. That's a positive indicator as well.

I also know that there have been a number of companies in the last little while who have announced investments. One of them was the new charter airline that is due to start up sometime this summer out of Vancouver, which I think is encouraging. In their comments as to why they chose Vancouver, location and competitive tax structure were some of the key indicators.

While, yes, there has been a tough time — it's been a tough year for people — all indications are that the future will be brighter and that British Columbia has a very positive future in the years ahead. We have some tough times to get through yet, but I know that given the challenges we all face and given the ability of British Columbians to rise to that challenge, British Columbia will do well, and we'll have this province back on track in the months and years ahead.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Premier, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, a division was called on private member's Motion 4 earlier today. This is the time when we will put the division. You all have the motion in front of you.

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMaho
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. J. Murray: My husband, Dirk Brinkman, and my sons, Baba Brinkman and Eric Brinkman, are in the House this evening. Will my colleagues make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'd like to take this opportunity today to respond to the Speech from the Throne made by the Lieutenant-Governor on February 12. I would specifically like to talk on the subject of salmon aquaculture and start with a quote from the Lieutenant-Governor's speech: "My government is also acting to facilitate investment and job creation in the salmon aquaculture industry. Recent changes will ensure that this sector is enhanced with the toughest environmental protection framework in the world."

The Premier has given clear direction and support for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to renew the fisheries sector, including wild salmon. He has also given clear directions to our ministry to find ways to improve the financial viability of the aquaculture sector and to explore how to expand the aquaculture sector in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts.

Today I would like to talk about our work to expand aquaculture — specifically, the salmon-farming industry — in an environmentally sustainable way. I am concerned about the amount of incorrect information and misrepresentation that we are seeing and hearing from some people in public forums.

On January 31 our government announced that new, comprehensive environmental standards are being established to allow for the managed expansion of B.C.'s salmon aquaculture industry. We will have the regulations in place by the end of April of this year. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will invite public comments on the draft waste management regulations up until March 8. Once the new regulations are finalized, by April 30, the government will consider applications for new salmon aquaculture sites.

I want to make it very clear that we are not opening up the floodgates. We are not encouraging a gold-rush mentality for uncontrolled expansion of finfish aquaculture. We will not compromise our environmental standards to attract investment. We are taking a responsible approach. Any new applications that we receive will be rigorously assessed by two levels of government. The process for approval of a farm may take over a year, and compliance assessment costs could be as much as $250,000 per application. This decision has been carefully weighed, with the needs and concerns of B.C.'s wild fisheries, environmental protection, community concerns and industry viability all being considered.

For more than four years government has exhaustively reviewed the scientific work done on salmon aquaculture issues. An environmental assessment office scientific review completed in 1997 was the most rigorous and comprehensive in the history of the province. It concluded that the risk of salmon aquaculture to the environment at current production levels was low and that if we implemented the recommendations, it would be further reduced. Other studies have also supported this conclusion, including a recent study done by the University of Washington for the United States government.

During this time the government drafted and implemented the salmon aquaculture policy framework, building on the reviews — 49 recommendations — and

developing stricter regulations. Since 1999 government has been working with industry to improve its performance under the policy framework. Poorly sited farms have been identified for relocation, performance-based waste management standards are being established, escape-prevention regulations have been put in place, and fish health management and reporting issues have also been addressed.

Fish farmers have become much better at what they do, managing and feeding fish to minimize waste and optimizing fish health through nutrition, vaccines and targeted medical treatments. They have adopted improved farm structures, nets and anchoring systems to be more resistant to storms and predators. The industry has also adopted a code of practice, and some companies are already pursuing the international ISO 14,000 certification.

I want to emphasize that these strong environmental standards will be backed up by the most comprehensive compliance and enforcement regime of any jurisdiction in the world, as set out by the Lieutenant-Governor in the throne speech. The province's aquaculture inspectors and conservation officers will continue to ensure that farms are in compliance with all regulations. On February 28 the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection issued their annual compliance reports for salmon aquaculture. The Marine Salmon Farming Compliance Report and the Second Annual Inspection Report on Marine Finfish Aquaculture are now available on the government's website. I encourage people to review the progress that is being made.

Our ministry has improved the aquaculture regulations to standardize and improve escape-prevention practices across the salmon-farming industry. The percentage of escaped fish compared with the numbers produced has dropped dramatically. We will continue to minimize the risk of escapes, even though there is clearly a low possibility of escaped Atlantic salmon establishing themselves in Pacific waters. In other words, the risk of colonization by Atlantic salmon is low, as set out in a number of comprehensive scientific reports, and the risk of hybridization — that is, of Atlantic salmon interbreeding with wild Pacific salmon — is zero.

Disease issues are being carefully addressed, and fish health professionals in both the federal and the provincial government tightly control the use of antibiotics and conduct regular inspections to ensure a safe and high-quality food product.

Our approach is based on effective regulation, ongoing research and adaptive management. We will continue to monitor the industry and its impacts on the environment. If we conclude that unacceptable results are emerging, we will modify our approach in order to achieve the appropriate environmental results.

To achieve these goals, the provincial government will continue to work closely with the aquaculture industry, environmentalists, fishermen, first nations and local governments. We will also look to the scientific community to make informed decisions based on relevant research and sound science.

We realize that for the salmon aquaculture industry to get the confidence of the people of British Columbia, we put a lot of responsibility on the government to provide an effective environmental framework. We will do our part to put these measures in place, but there will be a lot of responsibility on the industry, as well, to be excellent stewards of the environment, so they can continue to operate in the marine environment.

I also intend to work closely with the federal government and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to negotiate a better definition of our respective authorities and to make it clear how best to work together. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a role to play in aquaculture issues, and I am appreciative of the progress we are making in collaborating on these issues.

I am also working with my colleagues in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to address the issues related to aquaculture together. This includes clearly defining regulatory responsibilities for resource management, environmental protection and regulation. We will move from prescribed regulations to outcome-based standards that will be enforceable by effective monitoring and compliance programs. We will also integrate and streamline the tenure review and allocation process to reduce costs and improve investor confidence.

It is important for the industry to work with communities in British Columbia to build support for salmon aquaculture. Growth of the industry will require new business relationships between first nations, aquaculture producers, communities and local suppliers. It will also require a major investment in training people as the industry evolves and grows. We are moving forward to realize a vision of an industry that can be financially viable but within a strong framework that protects our natural environment.

I want to assure British Columbians that this government is not abandoning the recreational or commercial wild fisheries, which have been an important part of this province's history and our first nations. The province has an interest in the sustainability of all fisheries sectors. We see aquaculture as complementary to the development of a diverse and healthy fisheries sector. We are confident that the wild fishery and aquaculture can coexist very well. We see the need and strength of diversity in the overall fishery.

In conclusion, I want to say that the future of aquaculture in British Columbia has great potential, but it must be environmentally sustainable. A well-managed aquaculture industry can bring important economic benefits and jobs to this province, particularly to hard-hit rural and coastal communities and to first nations.

Aquaculture can give coastal communities the hope and the certainty they are looking for. Our government intends to have a viable aquaculture industry in a way that protects our natural environment and the wild salmon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to comment on the throne speech and our government's strong commitment to good environmental stewardship.

Hon. C. Hansen: I wanted to use this opportunity tonight, with response to the throne speech, to talk about some of the challenges we're facing in health care and some of the things this government has done to address some of those challenges.

We've heard a lot about the cost of health care rising at such unsustainable rates. We've seen health care costs going up in British Columbia at more than 10 percent a year now. In fact, if you go back to 1995, the health budget in this province has increased by $5 billion over that period of time.

When I was sworn in as Minister of Health Services on June 5, there was a budget of $9.5 billion for health care. Within a week of my assuming that responsibility, I was in a discussion with the then Deputy Minister of Health Services, who advised me that already at that point, only a few short months into the fiscal year, they were projecting not to come in at $9.5 billion. They were already running $400 million over budget. That clearly demonstrated for me that health spending in British Columbia had been out of control for some time.

I want to talk about two big threats to health care in British Columbia. I'm going to start with the second-biggest threat first. The second-biggest threat was the legacy that we inherited from the previous government, a legacy of no planning. It was a legacy of a total lack of direction and a legacy of health care spending that was totally out of control. They were simply pumping more and more money into the health care system to try to put out the fires, without any sense of what they were trying to accomplish in terms of better health outcomes. It was as if putting more money into the system, hiring more employees and paying higher wages in the health care sector was somehow going to solve the problems of good patient delivery in British Columbia. Clearly, that was not the solution.

It's like they say: if you don't know what road you're taking, any road is going to lead you there. Well, quite frankly, we were going nowhere under that previous government and the lack of direction that was there. The other thing that came out of the discussion with the deputy minister that day was that she pointed out to me that there had not been one senior official in the previous Ministry of Health dedicated to planning. Is it no wonder that we're in the mess we're in, when we took over as government, given the lack of forward planning by that previous government?

The second part of this challenge we have in health care is huge, unreal expectations on the part of the public. The general public has a sense that health care is free, and clearly, we know it's not. We have to make sure we take steps to encourage the public to understand that the health care system is a cost, and it's a cost to them and their pocketbook when there is misuse of a health care system. It's not unique to Canada. Certainly, across Canada there is the sense that health care should be all things to all people and that somehow it's all free.

I want to just go back 40 years to talk a little bit about the history of medicare and how it's evolved. When medicare was first brought in 40 years ago, it was designed to cover the catastrophic financial hardship that necessary health care would place on families who couldn't afford it. When medicare was brought in, it was saying to all Canadians, regardless of their income, that they were going to get access to the doctors' services they needed. They were going to get access to the hospital services they needed.

At that time, what could be done within medicine was really only limited by medical science. No longer, after medicare was brought in, was a family limited for the necessary health care they needed because of the size of their income or their financial status. We were in a situation where medical science was advancing rapidly, and we found out how to cure new diseases. Life expectancy in Canada increased significantly. Infant mortality dropped. Morbidity from chronic diseases was reduced. We made some really significant strides, and those strides in health care were to the benefit of all Canadians regardless of income.

Things have changed in 40 years in Canada, and suddenly medical science is no longer a limit in what health care can do. We can cure the incurable, and we can diagnose disease before it even happens with some of the new technologies that have been developed. The whole concept of eternal life is something that becomes more plausible, even for the agnostics in society.

What is now becoming the limiting factor in what the Canadian medicare system can do is not the family income, as it was 50 years ago. It's not medical science, because that has changed so dramatically, and there are new inventions happening every day. The new limiting factor that we have to come to grips with as a society is the ability of our entire society to cover the costs of some of these new technologies and new medicines that are coming available.

Some of the new medications being developed are phenomenal wonder drugs that can do things nobody could have imagined five or ten years ago. They're coming to us at a huge cost. We wind up with new therapies that can prolong a person's life by one year but at a cost of $35,000 to $50,000 a person per year. We wind up with new diagnostic procedures.

Case in point is the genomic research being done, which has huge potential in terms of what medical science can do but also with a very large price tag attached. There is lots of talk among health policy-makers across Canada of how new medications are being developed not for individual consumption but

for governments, because only governments would have the budget to afford them. Individual families could not afford them.

It's a big change in terms of how health care costs are going to be driven. At the same time, in our society we're facing aging demographics. We're facing increased cost pressures on our health care system at the same time, as the cost pressures themselves are rising because of these new therapies and medications that become available.

We have met some of these challenges in some very significant ways. First of all, it's time we let the public in on the debate around health care. In this province we have always had, for the last several decades, a Select Standing Committee on Health as a standing committee of this Legislature. It had not met since 1993, at a time when British Columbians were having increased anxiety about their health care system. They were watching it really deteriorate around them during the 1990s.

The committee that should have been tasked with the challenge of listening to British Columbians was never activated by the previous government. One of the first things this government did was put in place the Standing Committee on Health and give it the task of going out to British Columbians and meeting in communities all over this province with front-line workers, community leaders, patients, the general public, parents anxious about the health care their children would get, and sons and daughters anxious about the care their elderly parents would get. It was the first time an exercise like that had been done in this province by a government for many, many years. It was long overdue.

When we were in opposition, we also went out to the public with our dialogue on health care in the fall of the year 2000. In the same notion, we went out and listened to British Columbians. We got the ideas. We got the input from front-line workers and from individuals in communities throughout the province. A lot of the themes that came out of those two reports were much the same.

We heard loud and clear from British Columbians that they wanted to make sure we had an adequate supply of nurses in this province, that we needed to ensure they were properly remunerated so we could recruit and retain the nurses we needed. But we also needed to have better programs so we could educate our own young British Columbians to become our nurses of the future. We should stop relying on nurses from other jurisdictions to decide they would like to come to British Columbia, although that's obviously an important component of how we will meet our needs in the future.

We set out last summer to significantly increase the number of nursing spaces in this province. We also set out to make sure nurses were supported in the workplace; that they were given the in-service training to develop the specialty skills that were in short supply, because there is a shortage of nurses generally across the board. It's particularly difficult in certain areas such as critical-care nursing, emergency-room and operating-room nursing. Those are the areas where we've said to existing nurses: "If you're prepared to go back and take those courses, we will support you." We will provide for the tuition and the training while they undertake that extra training.

We've seen some encouraging results already from the initiatives that were brought in by this government last August. At that time, we were facing over a thousand vacancies in nursing positions around British Columbia, a thousand vacancies categorized as difficult-to-fill nursing positions. Today the number of vacancies is down to about 750. It's a significant decline in a very short number of months. I think that can largely be credited to some of the initiatives that were taken by this government last year. We're seeing some very significant results already.

Another message that we got loud and clear from British Columbians and from health care professionals around the province was that they felt we had too much administration in health care. It wasn't just the number of administrators. It was the duplication of administration between the Ministry of Health Services itself and the regions.

When regionalization was first brought in, it was a great idea. What it meant was taking the administration of the delivery of health services and decentralizing it from Victoria to the regions in the province. It also meant getting rid of the stovepipes in health care, where you had the administration of community care programs being administered ultimately out of Victoria. The administration of the delivery of mental health programs was administered ultimately from Victoria. At the community level, you wouldn't wind up with the integration of those various components of health care delivery which are so vital to that continuity of care we need at the community level.

Regionalization accomplished that, but the intention of actually shifting administration from Victoria to the regions didn't happen under the previous government. What was put in place was a whole new layer of administration at the regional level. Not only that, but the previous government put in this complex myriad of health authorities, where we had 52 different health authorities in this province ranging in size from one health authority that had a population in excess of 600,000 to other small CHCs, community health councils, that in one case had a population base of barely 2,000. Then you had this overlay in the rural and remote parts of British Columbia, the community health service societies delivering the community care — this mix of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibility. Every one of those 52 health authorities had their own administrative structures, duplicating an administrative structure that still remained at the ministry.

One of the first things we did was set out and say: "How do we streamline this? How do we make sure that we put in place administrative structures that work for patients in British Columbia?" That's the bottom line. How do you start with patients and say:

"These are the patient needs. These are the professionals that we need to take care of them. These are the facilities we need in place. Yes, you know, we need good, competent administrators to make sure that this whole system works, but we don't need more administration than is necessary to deliver on that good patient care." As a result of the changes we made, we've been able to start streamlining in those areas.

In the Ministry of Health Services we send out a very strong message that we want to cut the cost of administration right at the ministry level itself, so the core administrative costs of the ministry are being reduced by 41 percent over the next three years. We've said to the health authorities in the province that we expect them to trim their administration costs as well. Not only that, but we've developed ways that we can actually measure what is administration cost in a consistent way across the province so that you can compare from one region to the other which is doing the best job in managing their administration costs.

I was encouraged to see one of the health authorities actually make a statement that they're setting out to have the lowest administration costs as a percentage of their budget of any health authority in the province. I think that's the kind of competition that's healthy in this province — that we can compare and drive costs down and make sure that every dollar saved gets focused in on better patient care.

The other thing we heard from British Columbians was that they wanted to get the politics out of health care delivery. There's obviously a role for politics when it comes to developing health policy, when it comes to developing the accountability mechanisms and making sure that the appropriate budget levels are allocated, but when it comes down to managing an effective health care delivery system, we have to make sure that is driven by good, competent administrators. It should not be driven by political objectives.

We have put in place a process of developing accountability frameworks for each of the health authorities. We've got measurable standards that they are going to be held accountable for. Then, once we set up those provincial standards and those performance contracts, we're going to get out of their way and let the managers manage, but we're going to hold them accountable. We're going to hold them accountable for good patient outcomes. We're going to hold them accountable for the effective management of the budget. In the end, we are the ones as the legislators in this province, and we are the ones as government in British Columbia who have to in turn be accountable to the people of British Columbia in terms of how their health dollars are spent.

We've made some good strides in meeting the goals that have been set for us and the concerns that were set out for us by British Columbians, but clearly we have a long way to go yet. We have to make sure that our health care system is redesigned in a way that truly meets the needs of patients in every single community around British Columbia. The message that came through loud and clear was that the status quo was not working. People felt that there was more and more money going into health care, and yet they didn't see any measurable benefit, advantage or improvement in health care. In fact, they felt the opposite was taking place. It was a deterioration of the health care they could expect for themselves and their families.

We are now setting on a course that is going to ensure we get better health care for British Columbians and better value for every health dollar that is spent, because we know that it is not a bottomless pit and that our ability to continue to pump hundreds of millions of dollars more into a health care system is not sustainable. It is also clear that we're going to face increased cost pressures in the years to come.

We're going to face that aging demographic where we're going to see the baby-boomers start to hit the retirement years. They're going to hit the years when they become high consumers of health care services in British Columbia. It is clear that as a government we have to be preparing now to meet those challenges of the future so that the health care system is there for the next generation of seniors in this province.

That brings me to what I think is the number one biggest threat to the future of public, sustainable health care in British Columbia. That threat is a weak economy. We cannot sustain a publicly funded health care system if we don't have the strong economy to support that. Yet we went through a decade where we had the lowest productivity growth of any province in Canada. We had the lowest growth in private sector investment of any province. We had the lowest growth in per-capita GDP of any province.

You know, we as British Columbians like to think of British Columbia as being the number one province, and we were in the 1980s the number one economy in Canada — number one in job creation, number one in economic growth. That's the British Columbia that I feel proud to be part of. Yet we saw that slip away in the 1990s because of a government that basically destroyed the economic underpinnings of this province and at the same time destroyed this province's ability to sustain a publicly funded health care system into the future.

The Minister of Finance pointed out that if we had only been average in economic growth during the 1990s, there would today be an extra $4 billion of revenue coming into the provincial coffers every year. Think about what we could do across government with an extra $4 billion of revenue. Think of what we could do in terms of children and families. Think of what we could do in terms of making a better education program for our students and our youth, for the future generations. Think of what we could do in health care to start pushing the limits of what's possible, if we had an extra $4 billion. And that's if we had only been average in Canada. It was the previous government that squandered that opportunity for us to be number one.

There are lots of things this government is doing to make sure we can revitalize that economy, to get us back to being number one again. The first thing this

government did was bring in a significant income tax cut. I certainly heard from doctors and health professionals around this province that it was high income taxes that were driving them out of the province. When they started looking at jurisdictions that were in need of doctors and comparing tax rates there to tax rates in British Columbia, those other jurisdictions started to look pretty attractive.

We changed that, one of the first acts of this government, by bringing in a 25 percent cut in personal income tax for every British Columbian so that we can keep not only those health professionals we need but also the entrepreneurs. We can keep those who are going to build the economy for us. Governments can't do that; only individuals can do that. It's the investment dollars we need, the managerial know-how we need and the entrepreneurs we need in order to make sure that our economy can get back on the rails again.

We made a commitment in the election that we were going to bring our tax structure into line with other jurisdictions. Again, we have delivered on the commitment to eliminate the corporate capital tax, which was a disincentive to investment. That will be gone as of September 1. That will allow us to bring back the investors we need to create the jobs, to drive the economy, to produce the revenues to government that will in turn fund the health care system we need in the future. We've eliminated the sales tax on equipment, which was, again, a big impediment to investors coming into British Columbia to create those jobs.

We set out with a significant program of cutting red tape — deregulation. Let's make sure we've got the right levels of regulation in place so that our economy is protected, consumers are protected, and we have environmental protection in place. Let's eliminate those unnecessary regulations that are simply strangling the economy of this province.

Already we're seeing some very encouraging signs. We've seen consumer confidence at all-time highs over the last number of months. We've seen housing starts that had been strangled by the previous government hitting new records. We've seen job creation on the increase in last month's reports. We've seen very encouraging economic forecasts in terms of what will happen to this province towards the end of this year and into next year. We've seen the initiatives of my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines around methane extraction, which have people excited about investing in this province again. They want to come back. They want to spend those investment dollars. They want to create those jobs. That in turn is going to result in the economy that we need for the future.

Those are the two big challenges we have. We've inherited a health care system that was in a mess. It had no planning, and we're putting that in place. We're putting the strategies in place to make sure we get better value for every health care dollar that's available. We're also putting in place the economic initiatives that will allow us to ensure that we can actually regrow our economy. We can get it back on the rails. By doing that, we're going to have the revenue into government that we need to meet the challenges of the health care system in the future. We can't have one without the other. I think people will recognize that this government is on the right track to making sure both health care and the economy are going back to being number one in Canada very soon. Thank you very much.

R. Visser: Good evening. I have to get started to work here now. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I think it is a document that outlines the way forward for our government and ultimately this province.

It's been a few weeks now since the Legislature was recalled and the throne speech delivered, and many things such as the budget have come to pass. Tonight I'd like to take some time to speak to a number of these undertakings and themes that have been brought before the people in the last few weeks. I think it's been a real time of incredible change for this province, and I think the people of certainly the North Island, where I come from, are starting to be very excited about some new opportunities that are developing.

Ultimately, the throne speech is about restoring economic prosperity to this province. It's about making this province the most vibrant and dynamic economy in this country. But before you know where you want to go, you need to know where you are. More importantly, in order to know that you're getting where you want to go, you need to have some checks along the way. As the Minister of Health said, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.

One of the first things the throne speech talks about is the B.C. Progress Board. I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the things that were outlined in that over the last couple of weeks.

Headed by Dr. David Emerson, the CEO of Canfor Corp.…. I think this is one of the most important documents that this province has seen. I think this is some of the most important work we've done to date, because it will allow us to keep track of how we're doing, how the policies that we institute as a government can measure up to the goals that we set as a government. The Premier has asked the B.C. Progress Board to identify those goals and to measure us along the way. I think this is part of this new era of openness and accountability that allows the people of this province to see exactly what we're doing and really measure the successes that we're going to have as a government.

They talk about six areas that are important. We want to talk about economic growth, the standard of living and jobs. We want to talk about environmental quality, health outcomes and social conditions. We've set benchmarks for where we are today, and we've set the targets for where we want to be. The B.C. Progress Board has set targets for where they want this province to be in 2010.

I think this notion of competitive benchmarking, as they call it, is fabulous. Not only have they measured us against ourselves, but they've put us in the context

of the jurisdictions around us: Alberta, Oregon, Washington, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the other provinces in Canada. It's a first, I think, to measure and compare ourselves, in this global economy, to jurisdictions on our immediate borders to the south, up to and including California.

They noted some alarming things, though, as they went through their dissection of the state of British Columbia's economy. They say that in 1991 the real GDP per capita in British Columbia was $1,781 above the national average, in 1997 dollars, and that by 2000 the province had slipped to $2,251 below the Canadian average. That is an incredible loss of wealth, and I think it's shameful that happened over the decade.

We went from having a real GDP per capita of $2,951 below that of Alberta at the start of 1991, and we're now trailing our neighbour by a full $9,371 a decade later. That's another shameful figure, Mr. Speaker. Our government has laid out some policies that are going to put some quick, corrective actions to the economy so we can start closing that gap and rebuilding this province.

We were fifth among the provinces on the core target for job performance, the employment-to-population ratio among those aged 15 to 64. We ranked a mediocre fifth in terms of productivity. We were eighth in the country in raising our level of productivity from 1991 to 2000. Conversely, we had the largest jump in average hourly earnings over that same period. We paid people more and haven't seen the productivity gains in the economy to match that. That's one of the big reasons we are so far behind now.

In terms of investment, we stood sixth in fixed business investment as a proportion of GDP in 2000, and we were sixth in research and development spending to GDP.

The Progress Board laid out some tough goals for us to meet. They want us to move from a mediocre fifth and sixth to first or second in economic growth by 2010. They want our standard of living to increase to first or second by 2010, from a mediocre fourth or fifth. In jobs, we want to be first or second by 2010. Those are some very tall orders for us to meet. I think the throne speech and some of the stuff that this government has laid out will get us there and get us there promptly.

The throne speech goes on to lay out a number of other structural changes we're going to make. These all help turn the economy around. We're going to introduce new legislation this year on the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act, the Labour Code, the Company Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Waste Management Act. The Attorney General is taking on a project called the administrative justice project. We're going to review and modernize the Residential Tenancy Act. We're going to look at all those things that we do from an administrative point of view, and we're going to streamline them. We're going to make them responsive to the economy and more responsive to the needs of the people of this province.

I was very pleased to see in the throne speech — and reiterated by the Premier time and again — that the Premier is going to hold a series of round tables on small business. This is a part of the economy I know very well. It's the one I came from. As a province and as a government, we know small business is the largest creator of jobs in this province. We know what these folks can do. I know what these folks can do. I know what they mean to this economy, and I know what they mean to rebuilding this economy in the province over the next few years.

I'm very happy that the Premier is going to convene these round tables on small business and bring us all together so that we can hear what small business needs to make it successful. It's small business that reinvests in itself more often. It's small business that hires new people. It's small business that finds innovative and new productivity gains.

They invent the new processes. They find the niches in the marketplace. They are the dynamic and exciting ones. I'm very proud of the Premier for undertaking this initiative, and if it's as successful as some of the other initiatives he has brought forth, which I'll speak about in a minute, these are indeed exciting times for small business in this province.

I was also pleased to see in the throne speech some discussion about the Premier's Council on Technology, which he convened within the first 90 days of our being elected. In my home town of Campbell River, we have a small fledgling group of technology people who have come together and talk amongst themselves, trying to share ideas and generate what the industry calls a critical mass up there for new technology.

In Port McNeill we have a small business that has developed unique and interesting interactive software, Internet-based, for tracking and inventorying seedlings for the forest industry. They're starting, you know. These are bright foresters who have taken on the challenge of new technology and are trying to innovate and produce what are productivity gains for the forest industry through technology use. I think those people need to be listened to and rewarded through a vibrant forest industry and a vibrant economy. I'm very glad to see that we are going to move forward and that the Premier has made technology such an important part of this province's future.

One of the other things in the throne speech that I think has taken on new excitement is the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games. I know that our recent successes in Salt Lake City as a nation and certainly as a province have given new life and new energy to this idea. I think all Canadians but certainly all British Columbians and all Vancouver Islanders want us to aggressively put forward a successful bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

I know that the folks at Mount Washington, the ski hill just south of Campbell River, are very excited. They made a significant multimillion-dollar investment in their Nordic facilities. That's the fastest-growing part of their business on the ski hill. As our population ages, as those baby-boomers move up into the fifties and

They're witnessing enormous growth, so they built a new facility. It's beautiful; it's absolutely beautiful. They've made a commitment to the North Island, to the Comox Valley and indeed to the Island, and they are going to aggressively seek participation in this bid. I hope they're very successful, because it is a well-known truth out there that Vancouver Island has some of the best Nordic skiing conditions in North America.

I look forward to the energy and excitement that the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games generates in this province. If it was anything like Expo when I was much, much younger, I'm very much looking forward to that kind of excitement being brought back to the province.

Because I'm from northern Vancouver Island, I'm also happy to see extensive comment on the government's Energy Policy Task Force. It is very important for us because, as the Health minister said earlier, we can't just keep going down any old road anymore. I'm paraphrasing now. We need a plan. The Energy Policy Task Force has said that Vancouver Island could well be out of power or at a brownout stage by another three or four years. That is not acceptable, so I'm glad we have an Energy Policy Task Force out there reviewing what we're doing and trying to build an energy sector that encourages independent power producers to come and invest.

Independent power production is one of the most exciting investment opportunities we have for northern Vancouver Island. Right now on the books there is a proposal to generate 45 megawatts in Gold River on the old Gold River pulp mill site. If they're successful and as that business matures, they think they can create another 50 megawatts right on that site. There is another idea in Gold River of generating 25 megawatts in a rather spectacular run-of-the-river project. There is 2.5 megawatts to be built for which some applications have come forward in Tahsis and 22 megawatts in a wood-fired cogeneration facility on a brown site at the former Utah Mines in Port Hardy and another 7.5 megawatt run-of-the-river project in Port Hardy.

These are all concepts. These are all people who are bringing ideas to this government and to the Minister of Energy and Mines and to the regulators. They are asking if they can find access to the grid so that they can sell power both domestically and internationally. I think it's very important that we have this Energy Policy Task Force and that we build a system where we can attract that kind of investment. Those are the jobs of the future for Vancouver Island. It's part of our pie, and I like that part of the pie very much.

Certainly, in Gold River there's all kinds of talk about spinoff stuff. They talk about fish-packing plants and greenhouses and all kinds of interesting and wonderful things. I know that folks in Gold River are very excited about these kinds of opportunities being able to present themselves. Certainly, I'll work hard on their behalf, and I hope we can bring some of these projects to the light of day.

Another one of the things that the throne speech mentions — and this is one I talked a little bit about in my response to the budget, because we talk about it in the budget as well — is coalbed methane. There is a well-known and well-exploited coal seam that runs from Ladysmith to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island. It is estimated that there is between 500 billion and one trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane trapped in that coalfield. Its value, once we release it, could be as high as $500 million. Today in a farmer's field just west of Courtenay, they're busy exploring for this coalbed methane. They think they can bring it on stream in a fairly prompt manner. I know, from living in those communities and travelling through those communities, that coalbed methane is generating some excitement that I haven't seen in quite some time.

Again, it's part of that pie. It's just another little thing that we could be doing. There's not going to be a coalbed methane plant with 10,000 workers there, but it's part of the pie. It's another few jobs. It's another bit of economic activity for Vancouver Island. I know that many of these people are very, very excited about all these kinds of opportunities being able to present themselves now.

The throne speech goes on to talk about another one of my favourite things: offshore oil and gas. I was fortunate enough to be attached to the northern caucus as we went around consulting with the folks in coastal communities as to how they felt about development of offshore oil and gas in the Hecate Strait between Vancouver Island, the mainland and the Queen Charlotte Islands. It is one of those things that people see as the golden opportunity. In Port Hardy you don't stay in that community very long without somebody mentioning it to you, saying: "How are you doing on offshore oil and gas? When are we drilling? How's it going? Can we do this? What did the scientific panel say?"

Well, I know that the Minister of Energy and Mines is working incredibly hard on trying to balance the environmental needs with coming to a real good understanding of the scientific basis.

R. Visser: I know. Right now he's in here working hard — yes, sir — poring over reports, trying to balance good science with good environmental stewardship. I know the people in Port Hardy who are watching this right now are excited that he's here working so hard on that issue.

I think offshore oil and gas is…. You know, there was a lot of concern amongst the people of the coastal communities. They want to know if this is something that as a government, we can find some way to engage in — to lift the moratorium, to move it forward and to enter into discussions with the federal government over their interests in the project. If we start early, earnestly, honestly and openly consulting with first na-

tions in the coastal communities, I think this is a great opportunity for British Columbia and for coastal British Columbia.

I look forward to the debate, and make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a debate. But with good science and open, honest and careful communication, building trust relationships with folks in those coastal communities, I think we can deliver, from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, some very significant economic benefit to the province. I look forward to getting on with that project very soon.

The throne speech goes on to talk about the softwood lumber dispute — my favourite hobbyhorse these days. Time is running out. On March 21 the Department of Commerce will issue their final determination on the duties that they may wish to impose, ever so egregiously, on this country.

This has been a tough, tough time for the people of the North Island who work in the forest industry, and it's not just the loggers who go out to work in the forest industry who are suffering from this. It's the suppliers. It's those folks who build the hydraulic cylinders that fit on the machinery that does the harvesting. It's the folks who supply the gloves and the hardhats to the industry who are suffering. It's the folks who provide the fuel and the lubricants. It's the folks who provide the accounting services — all those people. The ripple effect on my communities of Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Gold River and Campbell River has been tremendous. I want to take a little bit of time and thank those folks for their patience.

Under the guidance of both the Premier and the Minister of Forests, for the first time in the probably 200 years that this dispute has been going on, we have built a truly national position. I think that is a testament to their leadership. We have built a provincial position for the first time in many years. I'm glad we'll be going to Ottawa again to negotiate this tough stuff.

We've put a lot on the table. We've put a lot of domestic forest policy reforms on the table that are very difficult for some folks to understand or to abide by. They have mentioned those to me on many occasions. I hear what they're saying, but the next thing we talk about in the throne speech is how we're going to rebuild this industry, and I think those are exciting times.

We're going to get through softwood. Either way, within the next two weeks it's going to be done. We're going to be tough in negotiations. We're going to be diligent in making sure we get open and unfettered access to United States markets so we can get this issue behind us. We are going to use every tool available to us to make sure the people of this province get a fair shake in these hearings and in this action that is, in my mind and in the minds of all British Columbians and indeed all Canadians — and in fact many, many Americans — ridiculous, egregious and insulting. I'm looking forward to getting this behind us so we can get on with forest policy adjustments, so we can get on with rebuilding this industry.

Before my very eyes over the last decade in my community of Campbell River and in the other communities around me that I represent, we have watched this industry not only have its wheels fall off but the doors fall off and the trunk come open and the engine fall out. It's dragging its muffler, and it's come to a sputtering halt, and it's our job to start putting it back together again.

What are we doing to do? Well, the minister is going to introduce some market-based stumpage system. We're going to finally tie the rent we collect as a government to the price that gets paid for wood in the marketplace. I think that's long overdue, because we have not been able to adjust our stumpage fast enough to meet the market demands and to allow those producers and harvesters the flexibility they need or the reaction to the marketplace they need to be successful. I'm looking forward to that.

We're going to work on things like cut control and utilization. Those are the tough things we've got to do. We're going to rewrite the Forest Practices Code. We're going to make it results-based. We're going to make those professionals that work in the industry, those registered professional engineers and foresters, responsible for the actions they take on the land. We're going to set the highest standards in the world for forestry, and we're going to expect those people to meet them. That's called results-based. We're not going to make them fill out 17 metres of paperwork trying to figure out how they're going to meet it, and then we decide within those 17 metres whether that plan is good or bad. We're looking for results, and I think that's a new and innovative way to approach this industry. They're waiting for it, they want it, and they need it if we're going to be successful.

We also said — and this is a commitment the Premier made a year ago at the truck loggers convention in Vancouver — we're going to commit 1 percent of direct stumpage revenues to international marketing campaigns. We're going to go out and do two things. We're going to sell B.C.'s environmental policies, B.C.'s environmental record in forestry and B.C.'s forest policies to the world, but we're also going to go out there and create a wood culture. I think that is something this province hasn't done or has done a disservice to.

We need to build things out of wood. We need to encourage wood construction for aesthetic reasons, for engineering reasons and for economic reasons. There's all the reason in the world to build with wood, and we've just forgotten about it. We need to bring….

We need to bring some sense back to this. If we're going to be the leading edge of forest policy, the leading edge of forest production in the world, we had best be at the leading edge of using wood as a primary building material and a primary aesthetic building

material in this province. I'm looking forward to the benefits that's going to bring to this industry.

This throne speech just gets better, because we move from forest policy reform to one of my other favourites: the salmon aquaculture industry. I have a lot of favourites.

R. Visser: I do have a lot of favourites. That's why I ran for public office. It's because there are a lot of favourites in this throne speech and a lot of things we can do to get the economy in my part of the world, the north end of the Island….

I heard the member for Cariboo South, whose home is in Williams Lake, speaking about a company in his community that's benefiting from fish-farm salmon farming. I'm not sure how that happens, but what the heck. I think that's wonderful. The more we can do to bring this industry to the forefront, the better the economy in this province is going to be.

The salmon aquaculture industry has come a long, long way. I think that when we bring in the policy reforms, the results-based regulation — the toughest results-based regulation in the world for aquaculture, fish health, the code of practice for fish health — and waste management regulations that are the toughest in the world…. They're on their way now within the next few short months. We're going to build an industry second to none that I think will be the envy of the world when it comes to the production of salmon.

That bodes well for communities like Campbell River and Port Hardy, where there are thousands of people now employed in those industries and investment dollars waiting to be spent.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I know the members would like to see you speak on for hours, but we are running short of time.

R. Visser: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has come to an end. How unfortunate, because I'm only on 13 of 22 good things that were in the throne speech.

L. Mayencourt: If parliamentary tradition would permit it, I would gladly yield the floor to my colleague from North Island, but I understand I cannot do that.

I've got here a copy of the throne speech, which is literally just a couple of weeks old. It's already made some history, and it has set a course for where our government is headed over the next year. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to it at this time.

Before I begin, I want to also acknowledge the fact that we had the Hon. Robert Rogers and Ms. Jane Rogers here in the chamber for the Speech from the Throne as well as the Hon. Garde Gardom and Helen Gardom. It was wonderful to have them here as the new Lieutenant-Governor assumed her duties here in the Legislature.

When we started off with the throne speech, I think I mentioned in my comments to the budget the other day that there were a number of individuals the Lieutenant-Governor was kind enough to mention. I just wanted to thank her very much at this time for remembering those people who have contributed so much to British Columbia.

As the Lieutenant-Governor mentioned, a lot has happened since the election of last May. One of the most important issues that we have had to face, of course, was the very devastating effect of the terrorist attacks on September 11. Those have truly hit British Columbia hard. They have really shifted the landscape for us economically and have had a profound effect in every home in British Columbia and on every person and every business.

The Finance minister brought in a budget which spoke to some of the changes that British Columbians are going to face and that we will face together as a challenge. I think it's important to note that while change is never really easy, there are times when change can be very, very good for us. Last spring, when we were elected as government, we were given an overwhelming mandate to bring in change. I am very proud to be working with government to build a solid foundation for renewing British Columbia's economy and for bringing forth social change.

In the throne speech I was grateful to hear about our government's vision and our commitment to stay the course to bring about a new era of hope and prosperity for all British Columbians and a new era in public service. I was delighted to hear that, and I'm proud to be part of a government that has decided it will not waver, that it will stay the course. You see, we weren't really elected to do more of the same. We were elected to replace a government that had wasted a decade. A decade of great opportunity for all British Columbians was wasted. There has been a true cost for that past decade. I look forward to working in this government as we move forward, bringing about positive change.

We set out a course and a direction that we are sticking with, and it is to revitalize British Columbia's economy. It's to restore sound fiscal management to our government activities. It's also to protect the needs of patients and students in our province.

Our central mission, of course, is to revitalize British Columbia's economy. We have to do that quickly, and we have to do it now. The reason it's so important to have a good, solid economy is that when our economy is doing well, we have the ability to reach out and help people in society that are most vulnerable. When our economy is suffering, real people pay the price. People lose their jobs, and the dreams they have are gone. They lose their homes. When all that takes place, we start to lose the ability to provide public services because we don't have the revenues to provide for them.

No economy is going to be totally immune from what's happening in the world. The effects of September 11 affected people in Washington, D.C., in New York City, in the North Island, in the Peace Region and all across this province.

This hit British Columbia particularly hard in a couple of areas. One of those was the resource sector, and the other was in tourism. Nevertheless, our government is working very hard to make sure our economy is more competitive, diversified and attractive to investors.

I'm really proud the government I'm part of was able to act upon all the commitments it made in its first 90-day agenda. I was really proud to see us be able to do that on time. I think it sent a very strong message to all of British Columbia that this government meant business, that we are going to get down to the very tough choices and the very important choices we have to make in order to ensure that British Columbia restores its rightful position as the best place to live and to work.

Within our first 90 days we cut personal income taxes. We reduced corporate income taxes, and we eliminated some other business taxes that were really slowing down our economy and that were discouraging businesses from investing and discouraging job creation in our province. Those are very important things.

I've heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant talk about tax cuts and whether or not they were a good idea. I want to point out, as I did a couple of days ago when I was talking about the budget speech, that in the month of January alone we created 27,500 jobs in British Columbia. That's a pretty incredible accomplishment for this government. We've only been here for eight months, and we created over one-third of all the jobs in Canada last month. They were here in British Columbia.

That reflects some of the things we've done. Those personal income tax cuts meant people could buy houses and meant people started building houses and condominiums. I think I've talked about some of the effect happening in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard, where you can literally go anywhere in the downtown core and see a crane in the sky building another tower, residential building, school or community centre. There's a lot of activity in British Columbia and in my own riding that is a firm validation of the fact that we were wise to bring about tax cuts for people and small businesses and to reduce taxes that were causing people to stop creating jobs.

We're going to do something else in British Columbia, and that's reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. That's a very important point to think about, actually. I hear from small businesses in my community that they've been choked by the regulatory burden. I've had the opportunity to work on the Finance and Government Services Committee and travel across British Columbia meeting with people in various communities. I just hear from small businesses that we've really tied their hands. We've made it just impossible for them to do business and to thrive. When those businesses are thriving, they're creating jobs.

I think when we talk about reducing the regulatory burden on small business or reducing the tax burden on small business, it's important to realize that most of us, most British Columbians, work for small businesses. We don't all work for large companies. We work for small mom-and-pop operations. We work in companies that have ten or 20 employees, so when we go about changing the regulatory burden and reducing the corporate income taxes, we're really affecting the small businesses that drive our economy.

I'm grateful to the member for North Island for mentioning another initiative our government has undertaken, and that's the B.C. Progress Board. Many of us were present last week at the provincial congress, which brought together British Columbians from all different levels of government. We had people from the federal Parliament. We had Senators. We had elected first nations leaders. We had civic politicians. And of course we had many of the members of this Legislature together.

One of the most compelling presentations we had was from Mr. David Emerson, who is the chair of the B.C. Progress Board. This is a group of individuals that come from business. They're volunteers. They're helping us, through the B.C. Progress Board, to get a handle on how British Columbia compares or how it measures up to other jurisdictions. Why is that important? Well, it's important that we look at where we are today so that we can measure whether or not we've made any progress in future. We need to take a look every once in a while to see if government programs, if the services that we're offering, are of value — if they do something for people, if they move us ahead.

I was really struck by the fact that British Columbia has done very, very well on many of those scores. In fact, in many of them we were number one or number two in the ranking. I felt a great deal of pride for British Columbia, because it's important to me that we do well. But I also saw that we did very, very poorly in terms of education, in terms of the number of kids that graduate from high school. That troubled me. I was also concerned because we did very poorly on crime in terms of the kinds of crime that affect every one of us. I wonder if we might want to make a commitment as a government to do something about those two.

That's really what the B.C. Progress Board is about. It's about taking a measurement or a snapshot in time that says: "This is where you are today." Our government is saying that we want to do better than that. We want British Columbia to be way better than that. What we're doing with the B.C. Progress Board is having a chance to look at that on a quarterly basis. I salute the work of David Emerson and his volunteer committee.

They're truly great British Columbians contributing to making our province much better.

I mentioned that one of the things that's happened in our provincial economy is the increase in jobs. I want to point out that of 27,500 jobs we created in British Columbia last month, 10,000 were in the construction trades. That's a really interesting figure for me, because I think that what it says is that people in British Columbia are buying houses. That means they're buying houses with more disposable income that we've helped to provide them through our personal income tax reductions. It also says that we're creating high-paying, high-quality jobs — jobs in which people have good disposable incomes, where they can save for their futures, ensure that their kids get the education they want and need, save for their retirement and have a good life in British Columbia. The first thing that tells me is that we've done that.

In fact, the largest increase in housing sales in all of Canada for the month of January belongs to British Columbia. Earlier today the member for Kamloops–North Thompson mentioned that he had received a letter from the B.C. Real Estate Association saying that British Columbia was breaking all the records in terms of housing starts and housing sales. I think that's really important. I think that's telling us that our tax cuts are working and that it is worth it for us to stay the course on these initiatives.

We also saw retail sales in British Columbia really increase at a faster rate than the national average. I live in Vancouver-Burrard, and, you know, retail is a big deal in my neighbourhood. I've got the people on Denman Street. I've got the people on Robson, on Granville and in Yaletown. They're really feeling the effects of the changes that we're making. They're seeing the effects of people deciding to spend that extra income they have in buying things in their stores — in fact, not only doing that but creating new jobs in my community. I'm really proud of that.

I mentioned that we're going to be making some amendments to legislation, and I note that we are making changes to the Employment Standards Act. I am very glad that we are going to be taking a look at and making adjustments to the Workers Compensation Act. As a new MLA, I have been absolutely blown away by the number of problems that we have with the Workers Compensation Board. I mean, it is the number one thing that people come to me about. So many people, both workers and employers, come to me with problems, and they say: "Can't you get that straightened out?" Well, we're going to be making some changes, and we're going to be sensible about it. We're going through a core review of that agency, as we are others. We're going to make that agency accountable and have it work for the employers and the employees of this province.

We're also going to be making changes to the Labour Code. We're going to be making those changes, and they're going to be initiated over the next year. They're there to provide flexibility, fairness and efficiency for the employers and employees alike.

As I mentioned, the Premier held a provincial congress this past week. I was really delighted that the provincial congress took place in my home riding of Vancouver-Burrard. We have a wonderful facility there known as the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. It's part of SFU's downtown campus. I was really delighted that the provincial congress took place there. The Premier has made a commitment to hold round-table discussions with small businesses from around the province, and they're going to take place at that particular facility. I'm really delighted that this wonderful facility that's built in my community is going to be serving the province. It'll be an opportunity for people to meet and have a conversation with the Premier and other legislators from British Columbia to say how we can do a better job with small business.

There has been a great deal of success in British Columbia and, in particular, in my riding in the technology sector. I am so proud of the work we have been able to accomplish in my riding. I'm also delighted that the Premier has assembled a technology council. It's already up and running, and it's showing great positive leadership. They have an objective of bridging the digital divide in British Columbia. What that means is that in my riding, I can hook up to Shaw Cable or Telus, and I can get high-speed Internet connections. In other communities I do not have that. That inequity is not fair to British Columbians who want to be able to access information over the World Wide Web — to find out what's going on in the rest of the world or to enjoy access to better education, or for whatever reasons. We think it's an important goal that this government has set and one that will help us make British Columbia a leader in the technology industry by 2006.

Another area that is very important and was mentioned quite prominently in the throne speech is the involvement of the private sector. As I have heard from the Finance minister and from so many other members that have spoken before me, government does not have the capacity to do everything anymore. We need to recognize that we're going to need partners in that. We're going to need people from the private sector to join us and form a partnership so that we can create infrastructure, so that we can create something that government just doesn't have the capacity to do anymore.

A case in point, which I want to bring to the attention of this House, is the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is a wonderful, wonderful undertaking that I really believe needs to happen in my riding. Why? Because in order for us to compete on the worldwide stage for trade and convention centre business, we have to have a big enough facility to accommodate that, and we don't. That's a real problem for us.

The other side of this is that it's not just about a building, and it's not just about dollars. It's about jobs. What I really like about the idea of the Vancouver

Trade and Convention Centre expansion is that it brings us the ability to compete on a worldwide stage for that convention business, but, most importantly, it means jobs for British Columbians — not just jobs for British Columbians in Vancouver-Burrard but jobs for British Columbians all over this province. I've talked with people at Tourism B.C. I've talked with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise and with many members of this government about the effects of the trade and convention centre business. The fact of the matter is that when the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is thriving, British Columbia is thriving.

The Lieutenant-Governor mentioned in the Speech from the Throne that British Columbia is aggressively supporting the bid to capture the 2010 Winter Olympics. This is a very, very important initiative from this government and one that is really important to my riding, because once again it means jobs and opportunities and an ability to put British Columbia, Vancouver and Whistler on a world stage.

I was very fortunate to be able to work at Expo 86. Expo 86 was an opportunity that we had to showcase British Columbia to the world. I was very fortunate. I had a couple of little retail outlets that I was working in for a company that had some stores on site. I had two stores in this zone. We had some pin carts, and we sold thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of pins and T-shirts every hour, it seemed. I can remember being at Expo 86 in the third or fourth week, and we ran out of employees. We ran out of people to work at Expo. I remember calling the Ministry of Human Resources — I believe it was called that at that time — and getting them to send people to us, people that were on welfare who hadn't been able to work or hadn't been able to find jobs up until then. We brought in hundreds and hundreds of people who had previously been long-term recipients of MHR benefits.

Today I still run into people who worked for me at Expo 86, who got their first opportunity to work and be part of something good, great and excellent for the very first time through Expo 86. I've always felt this great sense of pride about that because for so many of us, until we have an opportunity to experience a little bit of success, we don't really get to expand our own horizons and dreams. For me and for many hundreds of British Columbians, perhaps thousands, Expo 86 provided that opportunity.

Together with the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre and some of the things like GM Place, B.C. Place Stadium and, of course, the Olympic bid…. I think we are in a state where British Columbians have an opportunity to create some real, great prosperity in this province through a successful bid. Now, I know that there has been a lot of talk about how many billions of dollars this brings in. Basically, I guess what it comes down to is that it's the kind of money that British Columbia needs to get our economy started again. It's also the kind of jobs that we need in British Columbia to create a better economy and more hope and prosperity for all of us.

I'm glad that the Premier and the Minister of State for Community Charter are working very hard on the Olympic bid. I know they've got a great group of individuals working on the board as volunteers. I'm sure they will work very, very hard to make sure that we do very well on the bid. I wish them great success with that.

I noted when I came in here tonight that the Minister of Energy and Mines is here with us. I'm grateful that he's here, because I wanted to talk for a moment about some of the initiatives that he's undertaken in the past little while.

I find it really strange that this province is about 130 years old, and up till now we haven't had an energy policy. I find that really surprising. I just think this is really something that we've missed out on. It means that we haven't had a comprehensive look at what we need in British Columbia. We haven't taken advantage of the enormous opportunities that we have before us. We haven't been able to concentrate on the investment and job opportunities that are there.

I note that the Solicitor General is in the room as well, and I don't want to leave him out. I wanted to talk for a minute, because he's undertaken a very important initiative. The minister is responsible for gaming in the province. Speaking of things that have sort of gotten along by guess and by golly, the gaming policies of British Columbia have been nothing short of woefully inadequate for the last 15 years or so. I want to salute the Solicitor General here for bringing in Bill 6 today. I know that he's going to be speaking about it tomorrow.

It's really amazing to me that we had four or five different agencies monitoring gaming. We had five acts that handled everything for horse racing to horse-racing taxes, the Lottery Corporation Act and all that. I'm delighted that the minister has brought some common sense to the province and has introduced Bill 6 to this Legislature. I'm delighted that he's going to be sharing more of that with caucus members and anyone that cares to know about it.

As many of the members of this Legislature know, I'm the founder of a non-profit agency in British Columbia. My agency basically raised its money from private sources, with the exception of some very wonderful assistance from gaming dollars. I'm delighted that there's finally been some common sense brought to that, and I salute the Solicitor General for doing that.

I want to just go back for a moment to the Minister of Energy and Mines, because there were some important things that I wanted to talk about. As the member for North Island was saying, the minister has brought forward some initiatives to help us make the most of a very important resource in British Columbia: coalbed methane. British Columbia is blessed with a lot of wonderful resources, but this is one that makes sense because it's going to generate jobs in regions throughout the province from the Kootenays to Vancouver Island to areas in the northeast. Also, the member for North Coast and others have talked about the Minister of Energy and Mines putting together a task force on offshore oil and gas.

I was greatly honoured, as the member prior to me mentioned…. The minister put together a northern caucus to go and visit the communities of the North Coast, to talk with people about offshore oil and gas development. Although I'm not a member of the northern caucus, I was allowed to join with members from that area and spend a bit of time with the people who live up there, people who were talking about the need for economic development and wanted to have schools built and hospitals available to them. They wanted jobs for their kids and stuff. It was great to go up there and be a part of that.

I know the minister has received our report, and I know he is at this time also viewing and reviewing the findings of a scientific panel. I believe there's some great hope for the people of the North Coast and for British Columbia in general with the efforts we've undertaken to find an environmentally safe way of providing economic development through the resource industries up in the North Coast.

I also wanted to talk for a moment about the softwood lumber industry and the softwood lumber dispute. This is something that has really knocked the wind out of our sails right now — this unbelievable situation with the Americans and the softwood lumber agreement. I know the Minister of Forests is working diligently with the member beside me — the member for Alberni-Qualicum — and the member for North Coast and many others who have been affected by the softwood lumber industry stuff.

I know they're working very hard to find a solution. We must do this. We have to put ourselves to the task of solving this very troubling problem. At the same time, what we have discovered coming into government and what I'm learning now is that there were some problems in British Columbia about the way we were running the forest system. One of those problems is that we needed to do some structural reform.

That means changing British Columbia to market-based stumpage. We need to look at the forest policies we developed and go through that incredibly complex thing and try to find a way of making it more commonsense. I am confident our government has made a commitment to redouble its efforts to make sure that British Columbia succeeds in this undertaking with the Americans on the softwood lumber agreement.

One of the key things I wanted to say about the Speech from the Throne is that British Columbians can expect us to fulfil our commitment to restore sound fiscal management. We got a clear message that came through to all British Columbians from that last election. They elected us to make the decisions necessary to make sure we have the ability to pay for all those wonderful things we consider important.

I would love to continue on, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Chilliwack-Sumas down the way here made me promise as I came in that I would leave a few things for him to say. I would like to thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to the throne speech. Thank you, and I'll yield.

Mr. Speaker: The Address in Reply continues with the member for Chilliwack-Sumas.

J. Les: It's a delight as usual to be able to rise in the House and reply to, in this case, the Speech from the Throne. Many members have preceded me, and yet it seems to me there are a few areas that are still open to comment.

The Speech from the Throne was, I thought, a particularly heartening document. We all know in British Columbia that we're going through some difficult times courtesy of a hard decade behind us. Yet when I read through the Speech from the Throne, I think there are lots of reasons why we can take courage, can take heart that there is a plan in place that's going to get this province back on track.

I would go so far as to say that the Speech from the Throne is in fact a document of hope — hope for the future, hope for our children, hope for sustainable health care, hope for a first-class education system in this province. This is indeed a document of hope, and I'm sure that as the months and years ahead unfold, this hope will be validated and this document will be the foundation that will lead to ever greater and better things for the future of British Columbia.

Sometimes that hope is overshadowed by the fear that is propagated by those who have another political agenda. In the weeks and months behind us, people have been trying very diligently to ensure that they instil, or try to instil, a lot of fear in British Columbians. I think that is regrettable. Certainly, there are people who have a particular agenda, but to attempt to instil fear where that's inappropriate, where there is no cause for fear, I think, can be extremely counterproductive.

There is no question, as we unfold the future, that changes will have to be made. At the same time that those changes are implemented, of course, people will be apprehensive. That is a normal part of the human condition. Change is sometimes very challenging, and people become apprehensive about the fact that change needs to be made.

On the other hand, the need for change is why this government was elected. We were not elected to maintain the status quo; we are embarrassed about the status quo and about what has transpired in the decade past. Clearly, we want to make change, and clearly all 76 members of the government caucus are more than determined to ensure that we fully unlock the potential of this great province of ours.

I was very fortunate to have been born in British Columbia. I never strayed too far; I always lived in the Fraser Valley. Yet, when I travel the province — which is in fact one of my favourite activities — and enjoy the different parts of the province, I understood and appreciate the potential that exists in each of the areas of our province. The Fraser Valley, where I'm from, is a particularly beautiful place. Of course, members will forgive me if I'm somewhat partial to the Fraser Valley.

Look at Vancouver Island, for example — the sheer scope of the place and the natural endowment that

exists on Vancouver Island. Go up to the northwest of this province — the rugged beauty that exists there — or to the Peace River country with the wide expanses of land and the resource wealth there. Go into the southeast of this province — just to pick an area, the Creston Valley, for example. The beauty of that area….

I could name so many other areas of this province. The only thing that occurs to me every time I visit a different part of this province is: "Wow. Look at this potential. Isn't this a remarkable place?" It doesn't matter where in British Columbia you go, the potential exists to grow a future, to create a future for generations coming behind us that will truly be the envy not only of this country but of this world.

I'm particularly delighted with a number of the initiatives outlined in the throne speech that can help us get to the future that this province is capable of. I just want to talk about a few of those things, starting with economic growth itself. The throne speech makes a statement that says: "Economic growth is the bedrock for prosperity upon which all public services depend." Clearly, the role of this government and any government should be to create the economic climate wherein economic growth can most successfully happen.

I believe we have started to do that with the first action undertaken by this government on June 6 last year, which was a major and dramatic income tax cut. In one fell swoop, that instilled so much hope — hope of opportunity — in our business community in British Columbia and in individual wage-earners as well.

Some of the fruits of that tax cut are starting to show. During the Christmas season just past, for example, spending increases were higher in British Columbia than in any other province in Canada. Some people are saying, of course, that tax cuts don't work, but if you really start to look for the evidence, I think some of the early evidence is coming in that in fact the tax cuts are working.

More recently, we have evidence now that the residential housing market in British Columbia is booming as it seldom has in the past — certainly, as it has not done in the decade past. We'd have to go back into the late eighties and very early nineties to see that kind of activity in the real estate market.

People who are buying homes are people who are confident about the future. People who are about to give up on the economy are people who would normally leave the province. People are moving in and investing in new homes, and I think that is a direct expression of confidence and, I think, another indicator that our economic policies are starting to work, starting to take hold. Again, the housing industry, as we all know, is one of the major drivers of a successful economy.

Those in the House who know me well also know that I'm a real advocate of public-private partnerships. The throne speech makes reference to that. Again, I'll quote: "Another exciting new area of opportunity for private sector investment and involvement is in the wide range of possible public-private partnerships." There is no truer statement in the entire throne speech. Public-private partnerships are not new. They have been in use in different countries around the world for years and years and years, but they were out of favour for a long time here in British Columbia.

They do represent a remarkable opportunity if we come to understand that government needs to ensure that public services are provided but does not need to be the provider of those services. It does not need to be the builder of the infrastructure that is required. It does not need to be the owner of those things. More often than not, the expertise and the ability and the financing exist in the private sector to ensure that those services are provided and that the infrastructure is provided. Government's role then becomes one of a regulatory body to ensure that standards are met and that the public is well served.

In my previous public career in municipal office we employed P3s, as they're called, to a very significant degree. I'd be the first to admit that the municipal world is a much smaller one than the provincial world, but I have seen firsthand how it can work hand in hand with other initiatives to ensure that taxes are reduced, that debt is reduced, that economic confidence is increased and that you create a very welcoming environment for new investment, new jobs and new growth and opportunity. That is the future I envision for British Columbia as well. I think we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we take advantage of every public-private opportunity we can possibly lay our hands on.

It is clear that having run up the debt as we have collectively as a province over the last decade or so, we're not about to go out and borrow another huge amount of money courtesy of the provincial government. Clearly, that is not on. But the private sector has access to a lot of investment, particularly in an environment where interest rates are at a historic low. That, too, opens up opportunities, but it also opens up opportunities where people are looking for places to invest their money at a relatively moderate rate of return. That money can be invested in the provision of infrastructure all over this province.

We all know that given that not much infrastructure renewal or provision has been provided in the last decade, there is opportunity all over this province to provide roads and bridges and transit and water and sewer plants. There is almost limitless opportunity for the private sector to invest in these things. I want to encourage all members of the House to keep all our options open in that regard, because that is how, in spite of the fact that we're looking at a $40 billion-plus debt, we can still ensure that the infrastructure that's going to build the economic bedrock of this province is going to be provided.

I talked a few minutes ago about the fact that the economy of British Columbia seems to be reviving — and a couple of indicators I used. Another one in my riding is the fact that a tremendous number of new jobs

have come to my riding over the last year. I'm not sure of the exact count, but I know that in my riding for sure in excess of 1,200 new jobs have been created in the last year alone, with every prospect of a lot more jobs coming our way in the next little while. I will keep members of the House happily informed of all of those new developments when they occur. Some of them are indeed the kinds of jobs that have not previously been seen in our province. They're leading-edge, technology-based jobs and some manufacturing and service industry jobs as well. Every one of those new jobs that is created is good news. Those jobs are the kinds of things that support families and allow them to go out and become fully participating consumers in our economy.

Another one of the mentions made in the throne speech is the upcoming referendum on treaty principles. That is a very exciting opportunity which will be offered to British Columbians to engage themselves in the treaty process in terms of the guiding principles that should inform the provincial position at the treaty table.

I was the Chair of the select standing committee last fall, as members of the House will be aware. I was struck by the enthusiasm that people showed. Some 500 people spoke to the committee in various ways. As I said, I was struck by the enthusiasm that was shown in terms of wanting to engage in the discussion and the debate in a respectful way. Everyone is certainly seized with the fact that we need to conclude this area of public policy at some point in the not too distant future. The referendum will engage British Columbians in a way that will make everybody far better informed as to the issues at stake. Once the referendum is complete, government will have a good set of guiding principles, as directed by the public of British Columbia, that will help us to better achieve the treaty objectives that have been so elusive in the past.

Beyond treaty-making, however, I think it's also important for us to understand that we need to find ways and develop mechanisms to help the aboriginal people of British Columbia engage in the economy of British Columbia. It's not necessarily the case that treaty-making in and of itself will be the vehicle to help aboriginal people do that. If we look in other provinces of Canada, for example, that have had treaties for decades — perhaps a century or more in cases — the argument can be made that they have not necessarily done well economically as a result. We need to ask ourselves why that is, and we need to develop solutions so that we here in British Columbia can do much better than that.

I have visited many provinces — I think, all provinces across the country. For example, I've visited Manitoba, where treaties have been in place for a long, long time. I would argue that the average aboriginal person in Manitoba is no better off than the average aboriginal person in British Columbia in spite of the fact that there have been treaties there for a long time. Why is that? I would venture to suggest that the Indian Act, which is federal legislation, is one of those things that acts as a barrier to the ability of aboriginal people to fully engage in the Canadian and, in our case, British Columbian economy. Those issues need a lot more discussion so that we might include aboriginal people fully in the economy.

I'm reminded of a statement once made by a sociologist at the University of Calgary who said that until aboriginal people succeed economically, they are unlikely to succeed culturally. I'm sure that of all the statements I've read, that was probably one of the most cogent. There's a lot of truth in that.

Moving on to the areas of health and education, I want to touch on those just briefly. Those are very important areas of our public policy preoccupation. They consume between them some three-quarters of our provincial budget. In health care, it's safe to say, we have an enormous number of challenges. As outlined in the budget on the 19th, health care spending will run about $10.4 billion this coming year — an increase of $800 million over the year that we're now finishing up. That is a health care system that, unfortunately, I would have to characterize as still being somewhat out of control and still growing at a rate far in excess of the growth rate in the economy.

We have a lot of work to do in terms of health care. Here again, there's an awfully great opportunity for the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of services. Again, our detractors will be very quick to set their hair on fire and accuse our government of wanting to provide only profits for the rich at the expense of health care for us all. Nothing can be further from the truth. Competitive forces in the provision of almost any service can be a major benefit. It is only when the profit motivator is absent that sometimes government becomes very sloppy in the utilization of its resources.

We have to take a step back, think about what it is we're trying to do with our health care resources and think first of all about the patient — focus on the patient because that ultimately is what health care is all about. It is not about how many nurses, doctors or health care support workers we hire. We start with the patient, and then we develop around that patient the resources required. We develop those resources in a way that we can be most efficient. Often that is done through the utilization of private sector resources.

It seems to me we need to remind ourselves from time to time that we use an awful lot of private sector resources today in the provision of health care services. When we go to visit our doctor, most of us go to visit a privately run office owned and operated by a doctor who's in private business and who, of course, gets his compensation from the publicly funded health care system. Quite often when you get laboratory work done for various tests, that laboratory is owned and operated by private business people who provide that service, again, compensated by the public health care system.

What happens in those cases is that there is that ability for those people I've just mentioned to compete with one another on the basis of excellence of service.

We can certainly encourage more of that ethic to be brought into the provision of health care services.

I will use an example that I've probably mentioned to individual members of the House in the past. About a year ago now I was speaking to an ophthalmologist in the Fraser Valley who has a clinic where he conducts refractive laser surgery. Apparently, that type of procedure is much the same as cataract surgery, which many — particularly elderly — British Columbians require. In his clinic he provides this refractive laser surgery, and the average procedure takes 12 minutes. On certain days of the week he will then go to the nearby hospital and perform cataract surgery. As I said, this is a similar procedure.

In the hospital, however, with all the fuss and to-do that seems to surround the hospital experience, the average procedure there takes 43 minutes. To me that begs only one question: why in goodness' name are we not referring all those cataract surgeries to this man's clinic? We could get the job done more efficiently, probably with less trauma to the patient and likely a lot of money saved for the provincial taxpayers. The waiting list, which is now eight months long, could be drastically reduced if not eliminated.

I put that out as a classic example of how we can far better utilize the resources available to us and ultimately provide better service to patients at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. There are many, many examples like that. Medical care has changed. What used to involve days and days of staying in the hospital is often a short visit to a clinic today. We need to take advantage of that.

For example, I know of a person who had a hiatus hernia operation about ten years ago, I think, and was in the hospital for almost two weeks. A friend of mine underwent that operation just three or four weeks ago. He came out the next morning, went straight to work and hardly missed a beat. That is how medical care is changing today.

Knee replacement operations, for example, are going to become increasingly common in our aging society, and yet I've seen people come out of hospital in very short order. A few days later they throw the cane or the crutch away, and they're as good as new.

Technology is improving enormously. The ability to deal with these issues has improved so much that how we deal with them needs to improve as well. I think we need to involve the private sector. We need to engage and utilize the private sector in every way we can so that the patients benefit and the taxpayers benefit as well.

Just touching briefly on education, I'm very proud of the initiatives this government has undertaken so far in the field of education. In spite of the very rough economy we're saddled with at the moment, we were still able to give the teachers of this province a 7½ percent wage increase over the next three years. I think that is a very laudable achievement on behalf of this government. That puts our teachers amongst the highest-paid in the entire country.

At the same time, putting the requirement for class-size limits in the School Act was, I think, an absolutely appropriate move. These are the things that belong exactly there in the School Act and ought not to be an ongoing political football every time contract negotiations are required.

There is now the ability for school boards to exercise better judgment and better flexibility as they deploy the resources made available to them. Again, that is as it should be. Any time I've been around elections at the local level, and having been part of school board elections, I've seen a whole bunch of people running for office who are interested in kids' education. Unfortunately, however, in past years we have allowed them to become nothing more than people who design school bus routes and not much more beyond that. Everything else was very carefully prescribed, and really they became the eunuchs of the education system.

We have certainly given them the tools to enable them to be true school trustees and to enable them to take pride in what they do. I'm sure that as the months ahead unfold and they again become used to utilizing those tools, they will take new pride in their position as a school board trustee in British Columbia.

I heard today about somebody — I talked earlier about fear and how some propagate fear — who was trying to instil fear in British Columbians by saying that our government's agenda was going to result in closed schools. You know, I thought back. In my area the closing of schools has been a regular routine for many years. Right off the bat I can think of five schools in my community that have been closed over the years. This was not as a result of reducing student populations; this was as a result of the changing demographics within the community.

When we were a little light in our school-aged population in one area of the community, the school board looked at that. They looked at how they could best deploy the resources they had, and they decided to close schools, including one of the schools I used to go to as a kid when I was in elementary school. It's closed today.

In my current riding there will be a school closed as of this September, and it will be combined with another school. That is the best decision we could make at this point, with the education and the welfare of the kids who attend those schools in mind. It is absolutely the right decision.

Schools have closed forever in British Columbia, and schools will close in the future. That is not news, and that is not necessarily the end of the world as we know it. It is simply about using our resources as efficiently as we can and at the same time providing the best quality of education that can be provided to kids anywhere.

Now, I also want to talk about the University College of the Fraser Valley, because that is an institution I am very proud of as well. Historically, in the Fraser Valley we had very low post-secondary education participation

levels. With the advent of what was the Fraser Valley College, now the University College of the Fraser Valley, and the ability to grant bachelor's degrees at the university college now, it has served enormously to improve the access to post-secondary education for our young people in the Fraser Valley. I cannot overemphasize the benefit that has provided to our young people in the Fraser Valley.

We all recognize that the future does lie in education, if we look at the economic miracle that is represented by the country of Ireland, for example. People who are familiar with what's happened there will tell you that one of the major building blocks that was utilized there was improved education. I'm very supportive of any initiative we can utilize to provide more resources to our universities, particularly to our community-based institutions like the University College of the Fraser Valley, like the SFU campus that will now be

provided in the city of Surrey and many of the other post-secondary institutions around the province.

Anything I can ever do…. Is that northern lights waving there? Anything I can ever do to assist the Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education to improve the education system in this province, I would be more than happy to do.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a whole bunch of things here I would like to continue to talk about…

J. Les: …but being a rather sensitive fellow, I gather my colleagues in the House would like me to wrap it up, so thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that this assembly support her on her Speech from the Throne.