Hansard -- Wednesday, February 19, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 11, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		4877

Tributes		4877
	F.C. Austin Pelton K. Stewart

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		4877
	Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 8) Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		4877
	Long-term care services P. Sahota Heartlands economic strategy W. Cobb Olympic Games referendum S. Brice

Oral Questions		4878
	Purchase of liquor by restaurants J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Education funding J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark Health care funding and recruitment of nurses K. Krueger Hon. C. Hansen 2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C. P. Bell Hon. T. Nebbeling Ambulance payment for transfer of long-term care patient Hon. K. Whittred

Ministerial Statements		4882
	Tissue transplant safety and investigation into B.C. Ear Bank Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		4883
	Funding the Office of the Ombudsman, special financial report No. 1, February 2003 Office of the ombudsman service plan 2003-04 – 2005-06

Budget Debate (continued)		4884
	J. MacPhail R. Sultan B. Kerr B. Lekstrom M. Hunter G. Trumper R. Visser

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have special guests from Indonesia. Binarti Sumirat is the newly appointed consul general of Indonesia at Vancouver. She is accompanied by the deputy consul general, Bebeb Djundjunan. Today the consul general is in Victoria meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor and ministers of the government.

Indonesia is an important market for Canadian companies to invest in and is an export market for our mining, power and energy sectors. Please join me in giving her a warm welcome to this House and our Pacific province.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today are some wonderful people from my community who live at beautiful Somerset House on Dallas Road, overlooking the strait of Juan de Fuca. They're here today to watch the proceedings. I'd ask that the House please make them all very welcome.

B. Kerr: Included in that group from Somerset House is a person very close to me. She's taught me to balance life but live it to the fullest. At 89 years young, she has more energy than I could ever hope to have. I'd like the House to make my mother feel very welcome.

A. Hamilton: It's my honour to welcome to the House Duncan Malcolm, one of my constituents. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Stewart: It's with great sadness that I rise today to report the passing of a former member of this House and a past mayor of Maple Ridge. Mr. Austin Pelton passed away this morning at the age of 82. Austin represented the riding of Dewdney from 1983 to 1991 with the Social Credit government. He served as the Minister of Environment and was a longtime Deputy Speaker in this House.

Austin was a much respected and loved member of our community. He was in a very select group, one of only seven to receive the freeman status within Maple Ridge. An inspiration to many, including myself and to those who served with him — some who are still in this House today — Forbes Charles Austin Pelton was affectionately known as the Senator for his stately mannerisms and reflective views. I hope the House will join me in sending condolences to his wife Louise and their family.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R. Thorpe I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, the Employee Investment Amendment Act. The Employee Investment Act is the governing legislation for labour-sponsored funds and employee share ownership plans registered in British Columbia. The Employee Investment Amendment Act will harmonize the treatment of all registrants under the act and strengthen the competition in the labour-sponsored fund market in British Columbia. The amendments will make it easier and more attractive for employee investors to participate in business successorship investments by eliminating the need for unnecessary regulatory orders otherwise required for new labour-sponsored funds. This amendment supports the government's commitment to reducing red tape in making it easier for individuals and small businesses to succeed in British Columbia.

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

Bill 8 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.

P. Sahota: Long-term care providers in our province provide incredibly important services to our health care system and to our communities through the care they provide for our seniors. Last week I, along with my colleagues from Burquitlam, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Burnaby-Willingdon and close to 15 long-term care operators, owners and administrators, met with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

The minister heard their concerns and ideas for how this government can continue to develop the kinds of policies that best enable them to care for our aging population. They shared their ideas on how to

What we heard was encouraging. They told us that the changes we have made so far are working. The changes allow them more flexibility and, more importantly, make the facilities more responsive to seniors' needs.

They also encouraged us to do more. They have asked for more input in the planning process that affects how well they can deliver services to seniors. They asked us to work toward providing more options for assisted living that allow greater independence while ensuring that the level of care remains the same.

I am fortunate to have some of the very best care facilities in my riding from George Derby Centre to Normanna, the New Vista Society and the Nikkei Home, just to name a few. Every service is provided with an eye to making the facilities more home-like. For example, in the New Vista there is a community thrift shop and a community cafeteria. These are facilities led by incredibly dedicated individuals who are involved in some of the most innovative initiatives aimed at improving the quality of the life of the people who live there.

W. Cobb: The numbers for a decade of decline are well known to the people in my riding. We lost thousands of jobs in the forest industry. The mining industry saw employment cut in half. We saw population decline. Building permits for construction of residential units dropped by 82 percent. These are only numbers. What they don't tell us is the human side of the story about the people who had to leave town to find work. With resources as rich as ours, there is no excuse for people being forced out of the province in order to support their families.

We hear what the impact of losing families has on the education. Declining enrolment puts tremendous pressures on school boards, but it's also not easy for children who have to leave behind their schools, their teams and their friends. Working families deserve better. The heartlands economic strategy is designed to make sure that families can stay together so that parents can have good-paying jobs, so that teenagers can finish high school and then decide what steps to take next.

The investments being made in transportation are long overdue. Our roads and railways carry the wealth of this province, and they need to be repaired. I drive these roads every day, and that money will be well spent.

Extending the mineral exploration credit will see investment returned in this sector. Reforms to the forest sector, the creation of the working forest and the results-based forest and range practices code will help the industry remain competitive. Forestry is our number one industry, and it's about time we treated it that way.

Where are the heartlands, the opposition asks. That probably explains the neglect of this area for the past decade. I am proud to say I'm from the heartlands.

Our government understands the needs and the desires of those families. They want to work hard, live where they want and enjoy life with their families. That's what we want to give them.

S. Brice: Today I have a memo, and it's a memo to the folks living in Vancouver. It's from a riding outside the 2010 plebiscite area, and the subject is "Vote yes." We in greater Victoria and all the communities on Vancouver Island say yes to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic bid.

The memo goes on to say: "We ask you in Vancouver to use your ballot on Saturday to ensure that the IOC hears a strong, resounding yes coming from all corners of this province."

Those of us who live in greater Victoria know better than most just what hosting a huge international event will do for the city. We hosted the 1994 Commonwealth Games. We welcomed 63 nations, 2,450 athletes and hundreds of thousands of visitors to our games. The volunteers and the residents at large burst with pride at the amazing results of our efforts.

Oh sure, leading up to the event there were the usual naysayers, the gloom-and-doom crowd, but by the time Her Majesty arrived at the opening ceremonies, even the most fervent skeptics acknowledged that this was great for our city, great for our economy and great for our spirit. Vancouver, don't let us down. Don't let our young people down. Catch the spirit. Use your vote to help make it happen. Vote yes, and together we will welcome the world again.

J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise explain why he's threatening independent restaurants across B.C. with bankruptcy by taking away their ability to buy liquor on credit?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I take exception to the member's comments in using the word "threatening." What we are doing is making sure that the financial resources British Columbia has are directed to the priorities our government has established: (1) putting patients first in health care and (2) putting students first in education. Our government is committed to those principles, and this is what we're doing.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister didn't have time to pay attention to the question, and him taking offence at the word "threaten…." It's not my word. It's the word of restaurateurs I've been meeting with over the past few days. Apparently, what's good for the government

is not good for small business. It's fine, as we saw yesterday with the $3.8 billion deficit, for the government to use its credit card to rack up those record deficits, but small businesses — restaurants — are now, because of this government, not even allowed to buy a case of wine on credit.

As the minister should know, restaurants, even very successful ones, operate on a small margin. At certain times of the year, right now being one, they need credit to stay afloat. Restaurant owners are telling me this bone-headed Liberal policy is threatening them with financial disaster. Not my words — theirs.

Again to the minister: when does he plan to back off his policy and save thousands of small businesses in B.C. from financial ruin?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, our government has taken proactive action in making sure that businesses, small and large, and individuals throughout British Columbia can prosper and make their own decisions. The member may have forgotten. We've reduced taxes to small businesses. We've streamlined WCB. We've put flexibility in the Labour Code. We've reduced their personal taxes by 25 percent. We are making it easier and better to do business in British Columbia.

We are meeting and talking with the restaurant associations, both the Canadian and the British Columbia Restaurant Association. We will not be changing our position on taking $2.5 million out of education and health care and giving it in credit card discounts, but we have altered for 90 days the single-bottle pick for small restaurateurs around British Columbia, and they acknowledged to me last night they were very thankful for that change.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the restaurateurs that are watching the minister right now will be incredibly disappointed. This is supposed to be a business-friendly government. That's what they announced with great fanfare yesterday. As the minister notes, unlike any of their own rules around using credit, not only are they denying restaurateurs credit, but soon, as the minister notes, they're going to refuse to let restaurateurs buy anything less than a full case of one kind of wine or one kind of spirits.

I don't know about the minister, but there are thousands of restaurants throughout this province that cannot afford to do that bulk purchase. Yes, the minister backed off for 90 days. Why? Because of the huge outcry from restaurateurs. Instead of just delaying the pain until June, why doesn't he just stand up, admit that the policy was stupid and anti-business, and forever stop the policy — put an end to it?

Hon. R. Thorpe: With respect to the single-bottle purchase, we have amended that and extended that for 90 days. In the interim….

Hon. R. Thorpe: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. In the interim, we are going to enhance the private sector's involvement in….

Hon. R. Thorpe: The enhanced bottle pick has been extended for 90 days. We are going to ensure that the private sector can provide that service to the private sector. That will be done within the 90 days. The Solicitor General and I are working on that. That will be done.

Let us be clear here. Our government has had to make tough decisions because of the financial ruin…

Hon. R. Thorpe: …you left this province in — $4.4 billion. When I have to make the decision whether I'm putting dollars to health care or to education or to discounts for credit cards, I'm picking health care and I'm picking education — every day.

J. Kwan: For the Minister of Enterprise's information, the $4.4 billion deficit was his government's deficit.

In the Premier's infomercial he said education funding was going to go up by $100 million. British Columbians took him at his word and expected to see the money start to flow this year, but funding in public schools is going down by $13 million. Can the Minister of Education explain why parents and students have to wait until next year before there's some relief for the failing schools?

Hon. C. Clark: We just announced a $50 million injection of money into our school system. That's good news. Last year we announced a $42 million additional increase for school districts. The Premier announced a $100 million — and it's actually $107 million — in new base money that will be made available to our public school system.

Hon. C. Clark: The reason we have been able to make these savings and disburse this money to school

districts is because for the first time in two generations in British Columbia, we have a government that is managing prudently and that is making sure we have every ministry come in on or under budget. The dividend for that means that rather than paying an extra $200 million to the banks, we can pump more money into health care, more money into education, more money into early childhood development. That's the benefit of good fiscal management.

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

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister should actually look at the budget book, and she'll note that there is no increase in the education funding this year. Not only is the government cutting funding to the education system for public schools, but other education programs are also being impacted. The poorest and most vulnerable children are going to get hit the hardest. Funding for inner-city schools is being chopped by about $6 million — about the same amount of money, I might add, that the Premier plans to spend in extra spending for advertising, no less.

To the Deputy Premier: why is her government targeting the neediest children for deep cuts at a time when the Premier is boosting funding for infomercials, advertising, spin-doctoring?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, when that member stands up after ten years of the most irresponsible government in British Columbia's history, stands up here and says that our government — this government — is underfunding social programs, it is a disgrace. What we've done this year…

Hon. C. Clark: …we have saved $200 million that would otherwise have been going to pay the banks for debt service and interest costs. That's the result of good, prudent fiscal management. The Premier was very clear. We are going to continue to fund those important programs for kids who depend on school lunches, because we know that kids can't go to school and learn on an empty stomach.

Hon. C. Clark: We're going to make sure we continue to fund inner-city school programs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the opposition please come to order, and question period will continue when that happens.

Hon. C. Clark: Shall I start again? Mr. Speaker, I'll just conclude by saying this. It is a disgrace to hear that member get up and decry this budget, because what we've seen in this budget is the result of good, prudent fiscal management. For the first time in generations we are on track with our budget, and for the first time in generations we are seeing the educational dividend, the social dividend, of making sure we manage our budgets well. Yes, we've got an extra $200 million. If she'd been in government, she might have chosen to spend that on fast ferries or something else. We chose in this government to pump that money into education, to pump that money into early childhood development, to protect kids in inner-city schools…

K. Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. The B.C. Nurses Union is falsely claiming that, as part of yesterday's budget, the government is cutting back on health care across British Columbia. They also claim that these cuts will hurt patient care in the heartlands of the province. Once again we have the spectacle of a public sector union deliberately frightening vulnerable people, especially seniors. My constituents deserve to know the truth. Would the Minister of Health Services please set the record straight?

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, this government has added $1.1 billion to the health care budget since we took office. That's good news for all parts of British Columbia, and in particular the heartlands of British Columbia. What we have seen over this last year is a strengthening of services from region to region throughout the province as we consolidate services. That means we can actually do more in those regions

than we were able to do before. Fewer patients have to be transferred outside of those regions to come to Vancouver or Victoria, and that's good news for British Columbians in every single corner of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary question.

K. Krueger: The B.C. Nurses Union is also claiming that the government has no plan for recruiting registered nurses. The people of British Columbia….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. Order, please. The member for Cariboo South rises on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think we all would. Question period will continue in a moment.

K. Krueger: The B.C. Nurses Union is also claiming that the government has no plan for recruiting registered nurses. The people of British Columbia, certainly including every member in this House, esteem our nurses tremendously and know what vital services they provide. Could the Minister of Health Services tell us what the government is doing to increase the number of registered nurses in our hospitals?

Hon. C. Hansen: That, in fact, has been a tremendous good-news story over the last year and a half. The Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia produced a report a few months back which shows that between June of the year 2001 — which was the time we took office — and October 31 of last year, there was a net increase of 1,255 registered nurses in British Columbia.

The Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia also has recently done a survey of graduating nursing students from British Columbia. They did the same study in 1997, and at that time it showed that 18 percent of them were looking for jobs outside of British Columbia. Last year it showed only 10 percent were looking for jobs outside of British Columbia. It also showed that in 1997, only 25 percent of the graduates were able to find permanent nursing positions in this province. Last year when they did the same survey, 75 percent of our nursing graduates found permanent jobs in British Columbia.

P. Bell: Yesterday a certain member of this House didn't know where the heartlands were. I'm from the heartlands, and as a member from the heartlands, I hear from many of my constituents that they're concerned about the 2010 Olympics and that they'll divert important infrastructure dollars away from the heartlands into urban B.C. I think I speak for many heartlands members and as the northern representative on the Olympic live site committee when I say that all of B.C. must benefit from the Olympics.

Can the minister responsible for the 2010 Olympic bid tell us how he intends to ensure that all of the heartlands will benefit from the infrastructure dollars available?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, all British Columbians will benefit from bringing the 2010 games to British Columbia. I think that the best way to deal with the question is to refer the member to the throne speech and to the budget speech. You will see that the throne speech and the budget speech are full of good things for the heartlands and other parts of British Columbia as well.

The commitment that our province has made to start upgrading the much-needed routes throughout the province is a firm commitment. We will start with the first priority, which is the Kicking Horse Pass — $670 million. This will open up the Kootenays. That's a commitment by this province. It's a commitment towards public safety, and it's also a commitment towards tourism, sports and recreation opportunities, because we will open up Canada's route into British Columbia by this particular upgrade.

There's also a program that was introduced by the Premier during the UBCM. It's called the live sites program. We will make $40 million available for communities throughout British Columbia who can, if they're interested, get involved during the time the games are in British Columbia. The live sites will be provided with equipment. Some of the communities may choose the upgrade of a community hall. The whole purpose of this program is to make sure that…

Hon. T. Nebbeling: …the games through coming together as community members. That, again, is a great thing for the heartlands. What is good for the heartlands…

Hon. K. Whittred: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice yesterday.

Yesterday the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked a question regarding ambulance bills for the late Mr. Edward Laitenen. I am pleased to advise the House of the actions that have been taken since the member first raised that question last October.

On October 28, 2002, the member opposite first raised the question in the House. I advised her at that time that if she provided me with details, I would look into the situation. My office immediately contacted the interior health authority on Mr. Laitenen's behalf, and a patient advocate was appointed to resolve the issue of the ambulance billings. The office of the member opposite was notified.

On November 7 the member for Shuswap contacted Mrs. Laitenen to also offer his assistance. On November 19, 2002, the member for Vancouver-Hastings raised this matter in the House again, and I answered her question — contrary to her statement yesterday where she said I had taken the question on notice.

I followed up the matter with the interior health authority, and they were working with the advocate and the family to resolve the issue. As a result of that intervention and with the assistance of the member for Shuswap, the situation has been resolved. As stated previously, Mrs. Laitenen is not responsible for any ambulance bills.

Hon. K. Whittred: I have asked the B.C. Ambulance Service to notify Mrs. Laitenen of this in writing and to ensure final closure on this issue.

Hon. C. Hansen: A news conference was launched in Vancouver a short time ago to provide details around a Health Canada investigation into the operation of the B.C. Ear Bank at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. The review, which is still ongoing, has uncovered health and safety concerns that our government takes very seriously.

To some degree these concerns boil down to poor recordkeeping and a lack of clear documentation to show that appropriate screening of tissue donors and sterilization of tissue took place. While we have been advised by experts at Health Canada and by our provincial health officer that the risk to patients potentially impacted by this situation is extremely low, the damage to the credibility of all those responsible for safeguarding our public health care system over the past two decades is real.

In fact, it is clear to myself, my health care colleagues and the Premier that these issues undermine the public's faith in the operation, management and regulation of tissue banks not only in British Columbia but across the country. It is not acceptable to me, to the Premier or to our government as a whole, and I know it is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia. I want to make it clear today that we will take every action necessary to ensure that British Columbians have full confidence in the ability of our public health system to deliver safe, high-quality care and that their health and safety will be protected now and in the future.

Before I explain some of the elements of our action plan, I'd like to clarify some of the history around the B.C. Ear Bank and the chain of events that led us here today. The B.C. Ear Bank has been in existence since 1974, first operating out of the Vancouver General Hospital before moving to the former Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver. Responsibility for the bank was transferred to St. Paul's in 1993, and it relocated the actual bank to the St. Paul's Hospital site in 1995. It served as a combination teaching lab and transplant tissue bank under the medical direction of the University of British Columbia. The B.C. Ear Bank collected, processed, sterilized and stored bone and tissue. The bank then sent these materials to hospitals across the country that requested them for both teaching purposes and for use in transplant operations on patients suffering from hearing loss.

I understand that in September of 2002, administrators at Providence Health Care first became aware of concerns around quality control and standards of practice at the bank, and they began to gather the facts. By the first week of October, Providence had launched a more formal internal investigation and advised Health Canada of its concerns. Health Canada subsequently launched its own review. At that time, Providence suspended the B.C. Ear Bank's operations, and no tissue or bones have been collected or shipped since that time.

I am advised that there is evidence of concerns relayed between clinicians associated with the bank as far back as the early 1990s and again in 1998. I have also been made aware that broader concerns around the operation and regulation of tissue banks in this country are longstanding within the medical community. In fact, in recent days I have been advised by health experts that for years they have lobbied the federal government for a stronger regulatory framework in Canada and for clear standards to ensure that patient safety is protected. As far back as the release of the Krever inquiry report in 1997, Health Canada began looking at the risk of disease transmission from tissue transplants, and while the debate around standards has dragged on, the potential risk to British Columbians and patients across the country has remained.

On February 7 of this year Health Canada approached the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kend-

all, with preliminary results of its investigation, and Dr. Kendall launched a formal assessment to determine the level of risk to patients arising from Health Canada's concerns. Dr. Kendall immediately informed the deputy minister, who contacted me.

Since that time we have been working closely with Health Canada to assist and advise in the planning of the notification and recall strategy, which is being announced today in Vancouver. Once the risk assessment was complete, the Premier was given a verbal telephone briefing about the issue on February 14, and both he and I were clear to officials on the need for immediate action to ensure full cooperation with Health Canada's investigation and appropriate notification of both patients and providers.

The Premier also directed me to initiate a plan of action over the weekend to ensure that the situation was fully investigated, with paramount concerns at all time for public health and safety. The Premier was clear that this information is to be released this week, and that is what we are doing. We were to release it in a manner that was responsible and mindful of patient needs.

On Monday I met with the Premier, Dr. Kendall and ministry staff to discuss the situation. It was agreed that Dr. Kendall would develop a course of action, which I am sharing with you today. Dr. Kendall's action plan includes the following steps:

(1) that we call on Health Canada to launch a comprehensive review to ensure a clear and accountable regulatory and accreditation framework for tissue banks across the country;

(2) that we direct the B.C. Transplant Society, through the provincial health services authority, to prepare a plan to assume responsibility for the quality control and regulatory compliance of all tissue banks operating in British Columbia;

(3) that we request that the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons review the practice of doctors involved with the B.C. Ear Bank and develop professional guidelines for tissue bank physicians;

(4) that we appoint an independent expert team to review the circumstances leading to this investigation and assess the activity of other tissue banks in the province. The team would be expected to make public recommendations to government and the B.C. Transplant Society to ensure that these issues identified by Health Canada never occur again.

Finally, Dr. Kendall recommends the expert team also review the role of the University of British Columbia in overseeing clinical research relating to tissue transplants and ensure that appropriate transition plans are in place when research programs are transferred into clinical practice.

Our government accepts these recommendations fully and will take action on each and every one.

At the request of the Premier, I am also writing to the federal Health minister to ensure that an independent, comprehensive investigation is undertaken on this entire matter and to encourage swift implementation of any other measures they deem necessary to expedite this process and ensure that health of patients is protected. Clearly, this is a matter of national importance, and it is appropriate in this circumstance that the federal government, through Health Canada, take a leadership role on these matters while our own action plan is being implemented.

I want to make it perfectly clear that all of these actions do not preclude any other measures we believe may be necessary in the coming days and weeks to restore the public's confidence in our public health system. The health and safety of patients is paramount, and we will continue to work closely with Health Canada, our health authorities and our stakeholders to ensure the highest standards of patient care are in place and clear lines of accountability are drawn.

As this process continues, Providence Health Care has asked 87 hospitals across Canada and in two U.S. cities to return tissue and bone distributed by B.C. Ear Bank that they may have in their inventories. Physicians at these hospitals who used the materials are being asked to inform their patients about these problems and to provide whatever clinical follow-up they deem medically necessary.

Let me repeat: the risk of transmission to patients who received these products is extremely low, and there have been no reports to date of disease transmission attributed to any patient who received tissues processed or distributed by the B.C. Ear Bank. In fact, Dr. Kendall has advised that the actual risk of disease transmission attached to these close to 6,000 tissue samples identified in this investigation is about one in 100,000, and even though documents don't exist in every case, there is clear information that sterilization of tissues did take place.

We are fortunate the risk to patients is extremely small, but we cannot afford to be complacent. I can assure you today that this government must and will take action.

J. MacPhail: I want to thank the minister for briefing me on the subject matter earlier today. It is, indeed, a matter of concern for all British Columbians and those who are outside of this province who now rely on or have relied upon this service. The tissues are vitally needed for reconstructive surgeries and have played an important role in our health care system.

When matters of safety and security are brought to light, it is incumbent upon all of us to work together to address the current concerns quickly and restore public confidence. We from the opposition are ready to provide our support to the minister in his efforts to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: office of the ombudsman special financial report No. 1, February 2003, Funding the Office of the Ombudsman; and the office of the ombudsman service plan 2003-04, 2005-06.

Mr. Speaker: The debate on the budget continues. The Leader of the Opposition adjourned the debate.

J. MacPhail: Following on with my comments of yesterday, I continue in my response to the 2003-04 budget. It's interesting. I spoke yesterday about what was not in the budget.

Of course, today we see the Minister of Education admitting that the $100 million is not in the budget for this year, but that's only one of the things that the public was misled about by the Premier and the Minister of Education. Not only is there not $100 million extra in the education budget this year, but there are many other things in this budget that the Minister of Finance did not talk about.

Budget 2003 hurts the middle class, it hurts the poor and vulnerable, it hurts interior and coastal communities — no matter how much this government tries to rename those communities — and it hurts B.C.'s economy.

Six hundred million dollars in new taxes over two years — taxes that come directly out of the pockets of the middle- and low-income earners, taxes that come directly out of the economy, taxes that go to pay for the government's failing fiscal and economic agenda, taxes that break a fundamental promise the Premier made to lower the tax burden for middle- and low-income earners.

In his television speech in which he raised taxes, he promised British Columbians $100 million in education this year — and nothing. But the tax increases are real.

How did this come to pass? How has a government that told British Columbians that it would cut taxes for middle- and low-income earners turned around and raised them over and over again on those very same British Columbians?

It comes down to this. It comes down to the government's desperate attempt to reconcile its promise to balance the budget while giving the biggest high-income tax break, tax giveaway, ever in the history of British Columbia. That tax giveaway didn't do the job that the Liberals thought it would. It didn't spur the economy, it didn't drive business confidence through the roof, it didn't usher in a new era, and it most certainly didn't pay for itself. In fact, the third-quarter report that was tabled with this new budget shows that income taxes, both from corporations and personal income taxes, are even lower than the underestimate of the second-quarter report. Every time this government reports, income tax revenue has dropped even further than they estimated.

The tax giveaway blew a huge hole in the balanced budget that the government inherited, creating the biggest deficit in B.C. history. In fact, even the Minister of Competition has lost sight of the fact that not only did they inherit two balanced budgets and a surplus, but it is his government that now has the largest deficit not one year running, not two years running, but three years in a row. It's this Liberal government that has tabled the biggest deficits in history.

Now, I know you wouldn't be able to figure that out from reading the Vancouver Sun or the Province. They actually didn't report the deficit. I think they reported the deficit once, but you wouldn't actually know that the deficit is at $3.8 billion as we conclude this fiscal year and that it's going to be $2.3 billion next year.

Anyway, those are the facts. That is what happened because this government decided on day one to show, to demonstrate, no prudence but to give the biggest tax break to the wealthy in the history of British Columbia. At the same time, it added record debt to B.C.'s books. We didn't know that from yesterday either.

On track and on budget for this government means having the highest increase in debt in the history of B.C. as well. For some reason, that didn't get reported either. The Finance minister stood up and said, "Debt is down," and that's what got reported. What was missed in them being on track is the highest record of debt ever — the highest percentage ever as a percentage of GDP debt — in this province. That's what we're on track for. That's what they're celebrating as such good news.

Instead, the budget, the tax break given in the first day the Premier stepped over the threshold of his new office…. He was backed into a corner. That tax break forced him to implement a regressive program of harsh cuts to pay for his big mistake. Instead, his big mistake has resulted in a shifting of the tax burden directly onto the shoulders of those who can least afford to pay. It's the biggest transfer of wealth away from the middle class and poor in B.C. history to the wealthiest.

School property taxes are up. Gee, I wonder how the interior and coastal communities feel about that. Rural property taxes are up for the second year in a row. Sales taxes are up. Sin taxes are up. MSP premiums are up, and of course gas taxes have gone through the roof at precisely the moment when fuel costs are already reaching record highs.

This is not a stay-the-course budget. For anybody to be drawn into that misleading statement is foolish or deliberately trying to divert attention away from what's really going on here. This is an admission, a full-fledged retreat from the Liberals' promise to cut taxes, balance the books and maintain vital public service. Am I making up that little rhetoric? Is that rhetoric? No, that's straight out of the New Era document.

Here's how this government interprets staying the course. Taxes are up after they promised they wouldn't raise taxes. The budget deficit is at a record high after they said that they wouldn't run deficits, and public services are being cut to the bone.

Yesterday I heard a pundit explain where someone said: "Well, they're staying the course, aren't they?"

This pundit said: "You know, if your child steals your credit card and leaves a note saying, 'I'm going out, and I'm spending $10,000 on your credit card, and you can't stop me,' and she comes home on Monday with the credit card and has spent only $9,000, do you leap up and say: 'Hurrah! Isn't that great'?" That's exactly what this government's trying to convince British Columbians to do: to get praise for "staying the course."

Taxes up. Debt up. Deficit at a record high, and public services cut to the bone. Stay the course. New Liberalspeak again. Another addition to new Liberalspeak: stay the course. We have a list of new Liberalspeak now, and this will be added to it: stay the course. What that means for British Columbians…. But then again, what the government promised in the New Era document and what the government did after the election was safely behind them are two very different things.

The Liberals' faith in right-wing, trickle-down, voodoo economics, a faith that was kept under wraps and unveiled only after the votes were counted, has damaged B.C. in ways that will take years to come…. It has damaged B.C. in such a way that this government is now forced to attack small businesses, to attack restaurants to the point where they're facing bankruptcy. That's what this government is doing.

I've already talked about the increased tax burden borne by the middle class, but that alone doesn't capture the full magnitude of what this Liberal folly truly is. Not only are the middle class now expected to pay well beyond their means, they are also paying much more for much less in service. They're paying much more for a health care system that is not there where and when they need it. It was interesting to see the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care somehow say it was good news that because the opposition had raised a financial attack on a senior, it was now being taken care of.

Not once did the member for Shuswap go to the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care and say: "I made a commitment to have this bill paid" — this ambulance bill of a poor senior with Parkinson's — "and you haven't delivered." Not once did the member for Shuswap do that. He didn't follow up. It took the opposition to do that. In the coming days and weeks and months and years, you will see, over and over again, constituents being abandoned by their MLAs and, more and more, it being left up to the opposition to represent the interests of the constituents throughout the interior and coastal communities.

Secondly, British Columbians are paying more for a post-secondary education system where the price of admission is putting education out of reach for their children. Children who live in Trail or in Castlegar can no longer go to university or college, and they're paying more — much more. British Columbians are paying much more to look after their parents. They're paying more for day care. They're paying more for auto insurance, and they're paying more for everything from a driver's licence to a hunting licence.

When you add it all up, the small tax cut the government delivered on its first day in office to middle- and low-income families is gone. My tax break was gone a long time ago.

J. MacPhail: …my ICBC premium increases. When you add it all up, despite the hectoring…

J. MacPhail: …of this illustrious executive council, the small tax cut is gone, gone, gone for middle- and low-income families — up in smoke to pay for a massive transfer of wealth, opportunity and security away from the many and into the hands of the few.

This wealth and opportunity transfer is being felt throughout B.C. but especially in the interior and coastal communities, communities that have been rebranded the heartlands. The heartlands is the new name. It's now the name by the high-priced communications…

J. MacPhail: …advisers who, no doubt, are keeping their tax cut. No doubt Martyn Brown still has his tax cut.

No matter what this government tries to rebrand those communities, those communities are hurting — hurting in ways that we haven't seen since the 1930s. I'll give some statistics from the government's own book in a moment on what's happened to those communities under their own government. Instead of helping those communities through the tough times, the government is helping itself to as much as it can possibly lay its hands on, making it harder for these communities to get back on their feet and to take advantage of new opportunities to rebuild the economy.

Let me just demonstrate to all those who think their rebranding and their big tax cut for the rich would work. I want to talk about the Kootenays, actually. Since this government brought in their huge budget last year, how many people are working in the Kootenays? There are 3,600 fewer people working in the Kootenays.

How about the Thompson-Okanagan? There's another area that's been rebranded. How many people in

the Thompson-Okanagan are working now because of this government? The comparison is not to my government, because there would have been a lot fewer people working in the Thompson-Okanagan region. I've just compared it to last year — that's all. There are 3,700 fewer people working in the Thompson-Okanagan.

In the Cariboo there are 1,800 people who are now not working, who were working when this government took office. In the north coast and the Nechako there are 1,100 fewer people working now than when this government…. Oh, where's all the hectoring now?

Those are the statistics that demonstrate that this government has brought misery and hardship to the heartlands. Of course, the member who represents the Kootenays tries to justify it. Well, stand up and justify it. Stand up and justify why there are fewer people working now, since your government took over, than there were before. Just stand up. Tell the people of the interior how great it is for them.

In the cities throughout this province there are fewer people working as well. But does the Premier admit to that? No. The Premier obfuscates with statistics that are simply not true. If I hear the Premier one more time saying, "For the first time, two million people are working in this province," I'm going to have to stand up and tell him he's misleading the public. There are 31,000 more people in total working now than there were working at the beginning of their term — in one year — not the 78,000.

There are not two million people working. There are about the same number of people working in this province — around 1.9 million — as there were in 2000. That's it. There aren't 88,000 new jobs. There are 31,000 more people working, and they're not working in the interior and the coastal communities. They're not full-time jobs. There are 31,000 more people working at two and three jobs because of this government.

British Columbians living in the interior and coastal B.C. provide this province with its most important economic engine, but they're being treated like the government's personal bank account — withdrawing money at will to pay off the huge credit card payments this government has racked up to pay for a reckless, high-income tax cut, very, very little of which found its way into the pockets of interior residents.

The transfer of wealth and opportunity is also being felt by those who start life with the least of each and who have suffered the most as the government dismantles the social safety net. Unemployment amongst our youth is up dramatically since this government took over — up dramatically all across the province.

Child protection services for our youth have been cut by $136 million. Inner-city school funding is cut by $6 million — money to help kids who start life with the steepest obstacles to climb. Did we hear that in the budget yesterday? No. Just the same way that the Minister of Education wouldn't admit that there's no $100 million increase in education this year, she wouldn't admit that there's a cut of $6 million to pay for inner-city school funding.

I might add that there's less money now for inner-city school funding than the Premier has increased his own budget to pay for more advertising and spin. I can hardly wait for those members who represent inner-city schools to stand up and justify that. All those who were pounding on their desks yesterday with the good news, stand up and justify a $6 million cut to inner-city school funding while the Premier's advertisers get $6 million more.

Income assistance is being chopped by a further $255 million, but it will work out just fine. Unlike what the member for Cariboo South said in question period, there are more people leaving this province now than in the 1990s. They're leaving because they can't find jobs, and this government has ripped a hole so big in the social safety net that they can't feed and clothe their children. People are leaving British Columbia as we speak, because of the policies of this government.

Let me say today that those cuts are going to make the hard lives of the poorest children in this province — the British Columbians for whom we should be reserving our greatest compassion and generosity — much, much harder. I see it every day in east Vancouver — parents and kids ground down by poverty, exhausted, demoralized, frustrated. Now, once again, with this budget they are the ones targeted for more pain.

It's not fair, and it's not right to treat these people like they don't matter. You can't rename the poor. This government can't rename the poor and expect all the troubles will go away, like they tried to rename the interior and the coastal communities.

The way we treat the most vulnerable amongst us measures the limits of our moral imagination. Sadly, for this government, that imagination does not seem to extend beyond the narrow limits of its ideological preoccupations. As I said yesterday, the government's approach is creating a meaner, less cohesive, less fair and ultimately less prosperous society. If British Columbia is to flourish and prosper, we cannot afford to leave one person behind. Everyone, in every community and from every background, must have the opportunity to make the most of themselves, to realize their own dreams and to give their kids the best chance they can. If it is true that knowledge is the new source of wealth, then providing opportunity is the key to our future. What this budget does is draw a line between economic innovation and social justice when, more than ever, they need to go hand in hand.

Yesterday the government and the members still continued to say we're on track. We're on track. We're on track to what? I read statistics earlier from their own book. Let me read some more. Here's what has happened in British Columbia in the last year. Manufacturing shipments are down, exports are plummeting, housing starts are up — thank goodness for the consumer — but non-residential building permits are down by a whopping 17 percent. This government

would be dead without the consumer. So what do they do? They take more money out of the pockets of working British Columbians and thereby blow out the candle on the ability of a consumer to spend the money as the only group keeping this economy going.

As long as this government insists on separating economic innovation and social justice, the new era continues to pit one group against the other. As long as this government chooses winners and delights in making losers, the new era it promised — the hope and opportunity it says that it seeks — will continue to elude its grasp.

I had a chance to read this document, the budget and fiscal plan, cover to cover today, and it was interesting to note, as a former Finance minister, how much of the government's spin is in a government document for the very first time in budget-making. The public servants who used to work on this document deliberately kept things factual and to the point, but with this government, they've put spin and misleading statements throughout their fiscal plan, hoping that people wouldn't notice that debt is up the highest it's ever been, that the deficit is the biggest it's ever been, that the economy is not in recovery and that taxes have gone up. The new era has brought forward a group of people who feel it's okay to use this public document to spin a message that British Columbians simply won't believe when they check their paycheque and check to see what they've got left in their pockets.

There is so much that is misleading in this document and that was not told in the budget yesterday, but for the time being, it seems that the media at least — or some of them — are willing to give this government a chance to say that they are on track. Fair enough. It's hard to wade through a budget with an opposition of this size and with the government members merely going, "Aye-aye, sir; oh yes, there's more money for inner-city school funding; there's more money for education," when indeed there isn't. It's hard for the public to understand what's really in the budget.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will do our best during estimates to point out the hardship that is being foisted upon British Columbians, except those who are wealthy, and to try to give this government guidance away from their harsh ideological path toward one that treats and gives every British Columbian opportunity.

R. Sultan: I have the honour of responding to the Finance minister's speech outlining the government's budget for fiscal 2003-04 and its fiscal plan for the two years after that. The government's latest three-year projection pushes the numbers another year into the future. Such updating aside, the plan is remarkably similar to the plan presented last year.

Anybody looking for evidence to support journalists' claims that this government is shifting gears to tax-and-spend mode — recalling in one example Glen Clark shovelling money off the back of a truck or claiming in another example that the Liberals are "changing course" — is bound to be disappointed. It would be more accurate to say this budget and the government are boringly on course.

Meanwhile, from the other side of the aisle, we've just heard the Leader of the Opposition dissect the minister's numbers. The former Finance minister did her best ably but, in the time available, seemed to have trouble finding a handhold among the current Finance minister's numbers. It's too bad opposition parties don't have an obligation to tell us what their budget would look like. Then we could at least say: let the better budget win.

But wait a minute. We do have two budgets to compare: the minister's budget just presented to this House and another budget which is a reasonable proxy for what the other party's would look like. I refer, of course, to the three-year fiscal plan presented to the world a couple of weeks ago by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, otherwise known as CCPA. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in full Sunday morning rectitude, calls its budget "the path not taken." The path not taken is a detailed blueprint of what our province's three-year fiscal plan would have looked like if there had not been a change of government 20 years ago.

Its preparation has paralleled the government's own effort. Like the ministry, CCPA is staffed with expert economists. Like the ministry, CCPA has adopted the three-year planning cycle. Like the ministry, CCPA is funded by B.C. taxpayers. That's because the previous government, in its dying days, sent over more than $200,000 as a little grant among friends.

But there's one big difference. CCPA celebrates its unflinching — I would say aggressive; some might say unrepentant — skew to the left. Thus, it's reasonable to believe that the path not taken closely approximates what we would have heard from the Finance minister yesterday if government and opposition had suddenly switched places. This seems reasonable, since the path not taken was, in fact, the path taken by the previous government.

If there had been a sudden switching of places, what would British Columbians be enduring today? The centre's claims are hardly modest. Under their alternative regime, we would have an increase in tax revenues — in fact, billions more, relative to the government's own projections — lower MSP premiums, health care expenditures in lockstep with those demanded by the Hospital Employees Union, rising education expenditures in lockstep with figures presented by the teachers union, higher social services spending, lower debt service costs and a balanced budget in 2004-05 — just like the government.

Wow. You've got to hand it to these guys. They're fiscal geniuses. How do they do it? Easy. They cook the books. Now, hold on. Before you accuse me of resurrecting the phrase "fudge-it budget," let's look at their plan more closely. First, the spending side. Total spending in path not taken averages $2 billion a year

higher than in the government's plan. That's 8 percent more per year on average. Next the revenue side. How do they pay for all this extra spending? With higher revenues, of course. Revenues in path not taken average 12 percent more in each year than in the government's plan. That's an additional $2.8 billion per year they take out of the economy. Fiscally speaking, as my granddaughter would say: "Cool." Boost spending by 8 percent; boost revenues by 12 percent — ergo, balanced budget in a couple of years.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has once again demonstrated its famous trick of pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Given those kinds of numbers, Glen Clark would have immediately called an election. Well, it's simple enough to see where the CCPA spends its additional money. Actually, let's call it "the centre" from now on. The letters CCPA, unfortunately, remind me too much of those letters you used to see painted on the side of the Soviet Union missiles in the good old days of Stalin and Khrushchev going through Red Square in Moscow. I'm sure this was unintended.

Where the centre spends its additional money is primarily on wages and benefits for its pals in the public sector unions. Sure, they camouflage it by saying it's for the patients and the kids, but after ten years of in-the-face, unabashed public sector rewards, we finally figured out who gets most of the cash.

Where the centre gets its additional money is also simple to figure out. Relative to the government's fiscal plan, they raise 42 percent more money from personal income taxes and 120 percent more money every year from the corporate income tax. Since it's hard to believe that more people will rush to live in British Columbia under the centre's tax regime or that more corporations will hasten to set up business here under their tax regime, we can only assume the centre intends to extract that money from those existing hardy souls who are sticking it out in British Columbia — CCP missiles notwithstanding. Welcome to the new society, folks. Oh, by the way, we're raising your personal income tax 42 percent, and if you happen to own a small business, we're more than doubling your taxes too. Look at it this way. In three years we'll balance the budget. Those bond-rating agencies down on Wall Street and Bay Street, where all those nasty multinationals and transnationals hang out, will love it.

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with this picture is that it doesn't take account of human nature. In the centre's view, taxpayers are sort of like that horse in George Orwell's famous parody of socialism called Animal Farm. I'm sure many of you read that book. That poor old horse, a true believer in the socialist dream, just kept working and working, regardless of the burdens the party apparatchiks loaded on him, until one day he keeled over and died. Human beings don't behave that way. They move to Alberta.

Before we leave Animal Farm, I can't resist quoting one final sound bite from the centre's "The Path Not Taken" White Paper: "We need to use the tax system creatively, designing carrots and sticks." Well, we've already seen this bad movie, and it was a multibillion-dollar flop. It was called "Carrots for the few; sticks for everybody."

During the 1990s the NDP used the tax system like a stick to beat down our economy. While other provinces saw investments in their economy soar, investment in B.C. dropped to the bottom. B.C. led the country in bankruptcies. Tens of thousands of highly skilled workers and their families left British Columbia to seek better opportunities elsewhere. The carrots were reserved for the public sector unions.

Let's get back to the real world and consider the serious economic and fiscal situation the Finance minister inherited, which this government is doggedly determined to rectify. Let's look at the raw material he had to work with. The B.C. Progress Board, one of our Premier's superb innovations, is a blue-ribbon panel of distinguished private citizens advised by various experts. It does good work. It puts out an annual report card on how British Columbia is doing relative to our competitors in Canada and the United States measured in terms of the economy, innovation, education, environment, health and social conditions. I recommend it to you — 150 pages long, lots of statistics and advice to anybody who really wants to figure out what's going on.

While the Progress Board is oriented to the future, it also lets us learn from the past. It shows us where we've been for the last ten years. What does the report card say about this economy the government and our Finance minister inherited? It says that in 2001, B.C. ranked tenth among all the provinces for the annual growth of GDP per capita. It says that in the ten years leading up to the election, B.C. ranked tenth in Canada in terms of improvement in real disposable income per capita. In terms of job creation, in the ten years prior to the election B.C. ranked tenth in Canada. It says that when comparing with bordering American states — looking at ten indicators of economy, innovation and education — in none of them was B.C. in the "strong" category. To sum up, the Progress Board report card we brought home had "economic failure" written across it in big letters.

The failed policies that created this dismal track record are the same policies that the centre and the NDP are still advocating. Talk about slow learners. Could we suggest remedial studies in economics?

As an interesting aside, another NDP policy paradox is revealed in the Progress Board report, and at first glance it's a puzzler. In 2001, the report card says, B.C. lagged the national average in real personal disposable income per capita by over $500. But for six of the ten years between '92 and '01, B.C. had the highest real average hourly wage in Canada. How can this be? What it tells me is: elect the NDP, and they will boost your hourly wage, but guess what. Your average disposable income will go down. Great. That's just the program British Columbians have been waiting for to help pay the rent and groceries.

Moving into the future, let's consider economic performance under this new B.C. Liberal government. To borrow a phrase from the member for Peace River

North, every week there's more good news. Consider that during 2002, the economy created almost 80,000 new jobs. Since last year the number of people on income assistance has dropped by 55,000. More importantly, of those, over 90 percent indicated they either had found work, had gone back to school or were in improved financial circumstances. I think that's a phenomenal statistic for any government to report, regardless of political persuasion.

Because social assistance caseloads are down, resources have been freed for other productive purposes. For example, over the next three years almost a third of a billion dollars will be allocated to skills and development training for those still on income assistance. With the government's 25 percent income tax cut the first day on the job, British Columbians at the low end of the income scale now have the lowest base rate of personal income tax of any jurisdiction in Canada. Our opponents quickly glide over that fact when delivering their "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric.

Housing starts are up 25 percent, mineral exploration is up 25 percent, average weekly wages in B.C. went up three times faster than the national average, the health system has been stabilized, and so on. It's no exaggeration, in my opinion, to say that the public health system has in fact been saved. If it had continued on its previous path and broken through the ceiling of consuming more than half of government revenues, I think something would have cracked. While we're not yet out of the woods, we have put in place management systems that will ensure that health dollars will go where they're needed most and where they will deliver the greatest health care benefit.

Incidentally, those who think it was the folks in Ottawa who came riding to the rescue like the U.S. cavalry on the health care front the same day the minister presented our provincial budget should consider that the health care money B.C. has been so generously granted by Ottawa after all that huff and puff, all that royal commission, all that debate, will sustain our health system for all of 92 hours.

Despite the clamour from the public sector unions that this government is cutting health budgets, it is not. Someone once called this propaganda technique "the big lie," and I think the big lie is in evidence when they deny the reality that health budgets actually went up $1.1 billion last year alone, as everyone in this House well knows.

Turning to Pharmacare. The Pharmacare program has been saved. With costs going up 15 percent a year and the economy growing only 2 percent, figure out where we were heading with that one. The Health minister's new Fair Pharmacare program will see benefits going to those who need them most — the exact opposite of the mean-spirited, steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich story our opponents make up and, in fact, which we have recently been reminded of.

Under Fair Pharmacare 280,000 low-income families will pay less than they do now. This will affect all ridings. Were you aware that in supposedly fat-cat West Vancouver, 15 percent of single women over age 65 are on social assistance? So this cuts across all ridings in the province. Many young families with lower incomes will for the first time be supported in their drug costs, and the revised plan will end inequities where higher-income earners sometimes pay less for their drug costs than those with much, much lower incomes.

Let's consider next what's happening on the education front. Education budgets are being increased by $143 million over the next three years on top of a one-time $50 million injection of funds in '02-03. The "cuts" — and I put that in quotation marks — in education spending that the public sector unions keep screaming about turn out to be the difference between what they would like us to spend and what we actually intend to spend. That's their definition of cuts. What we actually intend to spend is a continuation of the growth in dollars per student of the recent past. Per-student spending has grown about 10 percent over the past five years, about in line with inflation.

Frankly, the big problem with our education budget is that we have this magnificent education system, and British Columbians are not having enough babies to fill it up, so let's get busy. The Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance and even a member of the opposition are doing their best, but they can't do it all by themselves. They need help from the rest of us, so pitch in.

On the advanced education front, $900 million has been committed to advanced education for access to research over and above regular colleges and universities funding. The government, in hard times — and we are in hard times; let's not kid ourselves — continues to fund our critically important investment in the knowledge society.

Finally, consider transportation and highways. At long last, the public embarrassment of the half billion wasted by the NDP on fast ferries will be behind us. I hope the auction recovers some portion of the taxpayers' money. The Minister of Transportation has a bold plan for highways reconstruction, new bridges and other infrastructure. Over $650 million of government money will be invested over the next two years, and that's just the beginning. All evidence is that British Columbians have endorsed the means required to pay for it.

Finally, the government has recognized the plight of the heartlands. I must say that thanks to my colleagues, I have been reintroduced to the heartlands myself, and it is a wonderful and educational experience. I think we too easily figure out what's happening in British Columbia is what we're happening to read in the headlines of the Vancouver newspapers that day, and that is not an accurate assessment of the genuine distress much of our heartlands has experienced. The government's new heartlands economic strategy will bring new vigour and hope to that half of British Co-

lumbia living beyond the enclave of privilege — at least as they would see it — which surrounds us here in Victoria and on the lower mainland. This is all, to borrow the phrase again, more good news.

Do British Columbians approve? Well, McIntyre and Mustel says so. Between December and February, through two months all the pundits described as punishing — and we know whereof they speak — party ratings soared, and so did the Premier's. How about that? More good news.

To sum up, the Finance minister has prepared in his characteristically competent and deliberate fashion a budget which stays the course, which will ensure that we have balanced the books beginning in '04-05 just like he said we would, which preserves our cherished health care and education systems, which offers hope to the heartlands — hammered by beetles, American protectionism and the NDP's legacy — and which, for the first time in living history, ministers actually pay attention to. Consider this: all 20 ministries and the Premier's office came in on time, on or under budget ? a first in British Columbia. For all I know, it may be a first in Canada, although someone said maybe Alberta beat us to it.

Beleaguered taxpayers of this province should say a little prayer of thanks to our Treasury Board officials, to the ministers responsible and to the custodians of the taxpayers' purse for making all of that possible. Under this minister, we have at least achieved credible expenditure control. Budgets are real budgets, and accounting standards, which…. Even the Institute of Chartered Accountants, a national organization, came out to Vancouver from Toronto recently and recognized the Minister of Finance as leading the nation in terms of the integrity of the financial reporting. More good news.

Now, there's no good reason the minister's budget over the next three years can't be achieved. I sense a renewed sense of confidence in that, even among those not in this Legislature. Yes, there are very tangible risks — softwood lumber, soft Asian economies, soft U.S. economy, rumours of war — not to mention coping with all that stuff pumped out by the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

These negative external factors will continue to be a drag, but despite these handicaps, British Columbia's track record in adversity is excellent. The government is doing exactly what we said we would do. We are going to balance the budget in '04-05. This is still the greatest place in the world to live, and thanks to this Premier, this minister and this government, all British Columbians have a new era they can be proud of.

B. Kerr: It gives me great pleasure to stand up this afternoon and address the budget and speak in favour of the budget. Like my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, I, too, went back and compared some previous budgets. Although I had no aspirations whatsoever for politics a number of years ago, I was involved with the executive of the chartered accountants, and I came over here to go into the lockup. In the lockup we get to review the budget before it's presented to the House, but because they don't want any leaks, they lock us up and let us review it there until the minister stands up to give the budget.

Now, this particular year it was very tough on my part. I had never been there before, so this was an absolute first thing for me. I didn't know how the system worked. This was a time that apparently there was a leak of the document, and we were given one hour to prepare our notes for that time. This was when, I believe, Elizabeth Cull was the Finance minister — I think; I'm not sure. I shouldn't say that. I'm not sure when it was. Nevertheless, I reviewed that particular document. I went through it, and there were certain things I was looking for — the same things then that I'm looking for now.

I was looking for a road, a path, to a balanced budget. I was looking for a debt management plan. I was looking for a reduction in income taxes. There were a number of things we were looking for to stimulate the economy and to show sound fiscal management. Believe it or not, that budget had those in there. I thought: this is great, and I'm going to give it 75 percent. I did. I gave it a mark, and the headlines came out, "Chartered accountants give budget 75 percent," and this was used in the House to support the budget.

The opposition member — I guess, the opposition Finance critic at that time, Fred Gingell — phoned me that very day and said: "Brian, I want to meet with you and your executive." I said, "Fine," so he came to meet with me the next morning and set me straight. I'll be quite candid with you. I was aghast. There were things in there that nobody would have included in revenue.

One of them was the downstream power to Bonneville Power in the U.S., where there was, I believe, $450 million in revenue that they included in revenue on a deal that I don't even know was a handshake. It was a deal where the revenue was supposed to come over a ten-year period, and they had plunked it all into the one year. I guess the Premier at that time had shaken hands or had said: "Let's do a deal." In his mind the deal was done, and let's put the revenue in one year. There was $450 million that, under generally accepted accounting principles, would never, never have been included.

There were a number of other issues, and so that budget became known as the fudge-it budget. I guess I was party to it. I played up to it. I felt quite badly about that, and it stuck in my mind for some time.

The following year I went back. The following year the budget came out, and I went back and again was in the lockup. I had a little bit more idea of what I was doing then, and of course once burned, twice wary. I took a much more careful look. Given that we had a little bit of extra time, we took a much more careful look at what was going on. I was in there with people from independent business, with economists, with certified management accountants, with general accountants, with us as the chartered accountants, with the

board of trade. There was a whole number of people that were in this lockup, and as we were progressively going through it sort of at the same time, what happened was there was a general sort of snickering in the room a little bit. With all due respect to my colleagues in the heartlands, some of us were saying: "What are these guys smoking?" Again, we knew there was no way they were going to meet that budget. I was a little tougher on it that time, and my comments weren't brought up in the House. That was my second time.

Then that was it. I had finished my term on the executive of chartered accountants, so I didn't go back. What happened in the interim was that I had grandchildren. My kids got married — young adults starting out in life. Then they had children, and suddenly we started looking, as grandparents…. For those of us who are grandparents here, we start looking at things in a different light. I started to think: what kind of a legacy are we leaving our children? When my little granddaughter, 20 years from now, wants to enter the workforce or wants to go to university, what are we going to be leaving for her?

Remembering back to what I went through and the lack of what I would call sound fiscal management, I decided to throw my hat into the ring to see if I could help and use some of my accounting skills to help bring the budgets under control so at least there'd be some transparency and accountability. This is what we were looking for.

In my nomination speech, which was way back in the year 2000…. In those days there wasn't a set legislative agenda. We didn't know when the election was going to be. It's something that's almost taken for granted now, I might add. We just know when the election is going to be. It's May 17, 2005. But in those days we didn't know when it was going to be, and of course, that could have all kinds of disruption in people's personal lives. I then mentioned the things my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned. We were tenth in GDP growth, tenth in improvement of wages, tenth in investments. I mean, we were down at the bottom. I said that they were making B.C. jokes in Newfoundland about us and that unless we were prepared to recognize there was a problem, we couldn't solve it.

The first step in this road to recovery would be recognizing that there's a problem. That's what I wanted to do, and I'm glad to see that's exactly what my colleagues wanted to do — particularly the Minister of Finance, who recognized the problem and was prepared to take the hard line to fix it so we can move towards a balanced budget, so we can move towards having some opportunity for our children and our grandchildren.

I'd like to mention what happened at the budget prior to the election, and I'll follow the lead of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. I went back, and I looked at the budget that was prepared prior to the election. This was the budget that was prepared, I'm sure, knowing that they would not be elected and would not be held accountable for that budget. It's a budget that we don't hear the end of. "We've got two balanced budgets. We gave you two surpluses in a row." Well, that may have been one surplus. I can tell you, the year they did have the surplus, the budget for that year did not show a surplus. The only reason they had a surplus was because there was this huge windfall profit from selling energy to the U.S. That's not there anymore.

The second year was a budget they prepared showing that it was going to be balanced. In that budget it didn't take into account the large increases that would have to be given to the nurses or the doctors or the softwood lumber problems. It didn't take anything into account.

What it did, buried way back on page 95 of this budget…. I want to quote from it, if I may. It said: "Government spending is primarily driven by inflation, population growth, rising per-capita utilization of health care and other social services, new government initiatives and interest costs associated with capital spending." That was sort of the recital to lead up to this part on page 95: "Fully funding all of these pressures would not be possible given the forecast increase in revenue." Wait a sec. This was the balanced budget, but buried way back in page 95, it's saying fully funding all of these pressures that he mentioned above would not be possible, given the forecast increase in revenue.

This situation typically faced the government at the beginning of a budget process and will require difficult trade-offs. What was he telling us? The same thing they told us in the fudge-it budget, the same thing they told us in the other budget and now this budget. We're going to give you a budget, but there's no way in heck we'll be able to ever meet it. That's what we were up against.

I want to just speak about sound fiscal management, because I think sound fiscal management is very important. I think it's absolutely critical if we want to accomplish any of our objectives. You can see that there was no sound fiscal management. The budget process, contrary to the opposition member for Vancouver-Hastings, was a spin document for the government at that time. That's what they used it for, because they had no intention of meeting it. In fact, on only one occasion did they meet it, and that was strictly by accident.

Again, as far as sound fiscal management is concerned, the auditor general looks over a lot of agencies and ministries, and I and a number of us on the Public Accounts Committee review the auditor general's reports. One of them was allocating resources in the Health ministry, and he looked at it and said: "There is no measurement or no reason to determine how they were allocating the resources in the Health ministry." In other words, they were expending money but had no idea why they were spending it and what the outcome was going to be or how to allocate resources. They were going on the philosophy, like the entire government was, that the way to solve the problem was to spend more money. The way to show success is to throw more money at it. Let's talk about inputs. I

know: we'll do a good job. We'll just give it more money, so it must be successful. Well, I can tell you from my business experience and from what we've experienced in the past, that just doesn't work.

I'd like to go and say what we've done, because I'm quite proud of what we've done. I'm very proud of what the Finance minister has done in revitalizing the economy by restoring sound fiscal management — the first step to revitalizing the economy. Firstly, we started and kept to the goal of budget accountability and transparency. Every minister was required to come out with a three-year service plan, moving us forward three years so we could look at what was happening. They were required to set up performance measurement goals. They were required to set up benchmarks so they could measure the progress, and we're moving towards GAAP so things can be measured on a consistent basis from year to year.

Just so you understand, GAAP is an acronym for generally accepted accounting principles. These accounting principles are laid out by the chartered accountants across Canada, and they have a whole compendium of accounting principles for within the public service. Now that we have that, we can compare performance from year to year to year. I think that's pretty critical when we're making decisions.

Not only that, they set some discipline into the process. The ministers put their pocket books in front of their objectives, because if they didn't meet their objectives, it was going to cost them money because they were having a holdback of the ministerial salary. I think that's great. There should be some negativism to force people to sit down and get it right. Sure enough, that's what they did to get it right.

Well, what was the result of that? Debt is lower than expected, interest is down, and the deficit will be lower than anticipated. We're on the trail to a balanced budget, which is exactly what we said we wanted to do. More importantly, for the first time that I can remember, every minister came in on plan, and that's just terrific.

I want you to read something that came out by the CGA Association. It's from the news release on the budget. It's a takeoff on the PGA slogan, and it says: "Hey, these guys are good." That's what you get for coming in on budget.

I want to thank all the ministers for showing that discipline and coming in on budget. That's so critically important for us, who are sometimes sitting on the sidelines, watching from the outside, rooting for you all the time to do it. We're glad to see you were able to put in that discipline and get the job done.

I would like now to talk about revitalizing the economy. That's the second step of the two things I wanted to talk about: sound fiscal management and revitalizing the economy. We came out with some tax cuts, and the tax cuts created a deficit. They increased the size of the deficit the first year. I must admit I was aghast, because I don't want to see a deficit. I'm not happy with a deficit. Then I thought: maybe I'll try to put it into some simple terms. Maybe I'll even try to put it into a context of the way I run my business, of what you have to do and why those tax cuts are important. Make no mistake: they were important. They had to be done.

As some of you may know, I own a grocery store. The grocery business is very competitive. If I started from the bottom line on my grocery business….

B. Kerr: Good for you. I have a colleague here who worked in a grocery store. That's where you really learned about hard work and initiative.

B. Kerr: Oh, an award-winning grocery store. Thank you very much for that recognition.

If I started from the bottom line to say, "Okay, what kind of profit do I need to lead my lifestyle, then what are my expenses, and how much do I want to pay my employees, and how much rent should I pay?" and then worked from the bottom line up and said, "Okay, in order to do that I need X number of dollars, and I serve this many customers and divide the customers into the X number of dollars," I could come up with a price for my groceries.

That's really simple. I can meet all my goals. All I would have to do is sell my groceries at this price, and that's very simple. If the price for those groceries were higher than what my competitor's store was charging across the street or down the road, would I get those customers, and what would happen? Well, no, I wouldn't, because people would walk with their feet and go across the road and do their shopping there. My revenue expectations might even be lower than what I thought they would be. They might be considerably lower than what I thought they would be because I wasn't competitive in the price that I was charging.

That's the same in taxes. We had one of the highest tax regimes in all of North America. We had a tax regime that was considerably higher than our next door neighbour, Alberta. It was considerably higher than our neighbours to the south in Washington and Idaho. What was happening as a result of that? I think in one year over 500 charters got up, 500 businesses got up and walked to Alberta. We lose all the revenue that we would get from those businesses and all the revenue that we would get from the employees that work for those businesses. Not only that, but people were leaving and going to Alberta. That's why the revenue in British Columbia became stagnant. That's why our province went from being one of the best provinces from an economic investment point of view to one of the last provinces, because our tax regime was just not competitive.

Now, we've heard about our reckless tax cuts. I'll insert this right now. I wasn't sure whether I was going to insert this. We've heard about reckless tax cuts, and

we've heard about how we've clawed it back, and the middle-income person isn't making as much money. Well, I can tell you that in the budget that was prepared before we were elected, compared to our budget now, for a family of four — it could be dual-income family that's making, let's say, $60,000, which is a decent income…. They're a dual-income family; they're not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Under our budget, compared to what the budget would have been, there's a savings of almost $1,000. Even after doing the user fees and various things that we had to do to carry on with the expenses we needed, individuals are still better off now than they were before.

So do they work? Do the tax deductions work? Absolutely they worked. I would like to quote you a few statistics to show you how well they worked. Residential building permits are ahead of the national average. We're up 37.4 percent. B.C. created 78,000 jobs in 2002. A record year for home sales. Housing starts exceeded forecast. B.C. wholesale sales lead Canada. Port of Vancouver shipped record cargo volumes. Wireless tech companies expected double employment. Small business optimistic and benefiting from tax cuts.

A recent survey of the B.C. chapter of Canadian Federation of Independent Business found 59 percent of B.C. small businesses expected business to be stronger over the next year. Fully 91 percent of small businesses expect to increase or maintain the number of full-time employees, and more than 76 of them say that the government's personal income taxes had a positive effect on their business. Mineral explorations are up 25 percent. That's what tax cuts have done. That's what our revitalizing the economy has done.

Now, I mentioned that I have a granddaughter. My third little granddaughter was born a year ago. At the christening, at the baptism…. My daughter is a teacher, so the godparents are in the teaching profession also. At least one of them was — the godmother. I didn't know her, but she came up to me and said: "Brian, Debbie says I'm not allowed to talk to you, but I just have to talk to you." Knowing that she was a teacher, I said: "Well, this probably isn't the most appropriate time, but okay, have at me." She said: "Brian, I just want to thank you" — something I wasn't expecting — "because we had moved to the United States because of the taxes down there. We were taking home more money. Now, with the tax regime in British Columbia…. My husband is a high-tech executive. He said we could now come back and work in the high-tech industry in British Columbia, so we're back at home with my family." She thanked me for that.

This morning the Leader of the Opposition was on one of the radio shows, and he asked her: "What would you do if it was your budget?" Well, we know what they would have done from my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano: tax and spend — absolutely. We know that. She said: "I would have consulted the province of British Columbia more. I would have gone out and consulted the people more, and then I would have come up with a budget." Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that she was on the same committee as I was on, the Finance and Government Services Committee. One of the jobs that our committee has to do is travel the province and consult the people of British Columbia because of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, and we did just that. We went to 16 communities from Fort St. John to Victoria. We listened to over 300 presentations from everybody coming down telling us what they would like to see. Then we put that in a compendium, and we presented that to the Finance minister.

I would just like to go over that right now, because contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition says, the Finance minister listened. He listened to the people of the province.

There are a number of themes that came out on this thing. The first theme was: "Stay the course on balancing the budget by 2004-05."

Theme 2 was: "Communicate your vision and plan more effectively to the public." Well, that's been difficult for us to do when we have 220,000 people out there going against us, giving us misinformation and half-truths and working to their ideology to show that no matter what we do, it's not right. We have to get out to the people, and 77 MLAs just aren't enough. We have to find other means of getting out to the people. This budget indicates how we're going to do that. I'll say this about this budget too: it is probably one of the most transparent…. Contrary, again, to the Leader of the Opposition, this budget lays it all out. That's how they're able to get the information, because they can see it all. It's all there.

"Ensure that government policies foster economic growth" — theme No. 3. Theme No. 4: "Address the growing gap between rural and urban B.C." The heartlands economic strategy is going to do that. Theme No. 5: "Continue to put education and health care first in line for additional funding."

Theme No. 6: "Invest in transportation infrastructure now and in the future." Boy, does this sound like he's been listening to us? I should think so. As far as the transportation infrastructure, we can tie that into Theme 4, "Address the growing gap between rural and urban British Columbia," because a good percentage of those dollars on our investment in transportation infrastructure is going directly into the heartlands.

Continue to reform the tax system to revitalize the economy. Theme No. 8: "Pay down the debt." I'm sorry that's one we haven't been able to do, but I'm sure that when we get that budget under control and get it balanced in 2004-05, that will be on the agenda.

So what conclusions do we draw from this? This is a public document. Anybody can read it. We recognize that budget-making involves terribly difficult decisions — choices — at the best of times and that the financial decisions about any additional spending in the next two budgets will have to be made within the con-

straints of the existing fiscal plan and the ministry spending targets. That says: "Stay the course."

We also said that the government provide some form of assistance in the 2003 budget to resource-dependent rural communities. A good percentage of our transportation infrastructure is going to be doing just that.

"That the government give serious consideration to providing additional transition funding to the K-12 education system." We'll be doing just that. We've done that now with a $50 million one-time grant, a $42 million one-time grant last year and, I believe, $143 million coming in the future — this in spite of declining enrolment.

The third recommendation is that the government consider making transportation infrastructure a top priority for capital spending now and in the future. The committee thinks it's essential to have a quality integrated transportation network to serve as the backbone for economic development in all regions of the province and to realize the full potential of the province's natural resources.

The Leader of the Opposition was on that committee with us, so I don't know where she was. Maybe she wasn't listening when we were hearing those 303 presentations. Those are some of the recommendations that we made to the Finance minister before he prepared the budget. I'm happy to say that he listened to just about every single one of those recommendations.

One of the things I'm hearing a lot about — and again it's something that people blow up out of proportion…. I just want to address it while I have the opportunity. There are two things I seem to be hearing time and time again. One of them is the huge, huge increase in the licence fee to get your driver's licence. I think that works out to 60 cents a month. Any way you cut it, 60 cents a month is not a large increase to me in driver's licence fees, considering we're looking well out into the future.

The other one is the 3.5 percent gas tax. We're setting up a $650 million program, exactly what the people in the heartlands wanted, exactly what the people in the lower mainland wanted — in the 604 area wanted — and that has to be financed. The best way to do it, the most efficient way to do it, is get a tax in there that can be collected by somebody else and given to the government.

Let's take a look at what 3½ cents per litre really is. If you drive your car to and from work, you're probably putting 7,000 kilometres on your car. That's $21 per year. It's less than the price of a cup of coffee per fill-up. For that they're getting an infrastructure that's going to open up the north, it's going to open up the heartlands, it's going to relieve congestion in the lower mainland, and it's going to make the economy in British Columbia grow so that we can have a good economy for our children to provide for education and health care now and well into the future.

What a small price to pay for that, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to do it, quite frankly. Fortunately, I drive a small compact car, so it's not going to cost as much. For those people that want to drive the big SUVs in downtown Vancouver, then they'll pay more, and they should be happy to do that also.

In summary, I'd just like to quote from my organization — the chartered accountants — from their press release that they sent out. It says:

They want to congratulate Minister Collins on listening to the strong message. "This budget is realistic, achievable and responsible. B.C. is on the road to recovery. The signs are everywhere."

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery Pam Gardner, a good community worker and a great Rotarian from my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Would the House please make her welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's certainly a privilege for me to stand here today and respond to our budget that was presented by the hon. Minister of Finance, Gary Collins. The issue that we're here to speak about today is one that I fully support, and that's the budget that was presented. I think the key issue for many people and many British Columbians is…. Over the years they've looked at budgets and tried to focus on one key issue over the other: what's good, what's bad, what's in this budget, what isn't in this budget. For myself and the people that I represent in Peace River South, the key issue here is very simple and straightforward. This budget reflects that our government is on track to balance the budget in 2004-05, and that is good news for the people of British Columbia.

I'm going to touch on a number of issues, and I'm going to start with health care. We hear all kinds of talk around the province about what the cuts are doing in health care, and I address that every chance I get. For anybody that can talk about cuts in our health care system, it baffles me; $1.1 billion of additional money is what our government has injected into health care in the last year. That's a 12 percent increase from the time we've taken office — 12 percent. How anybody can

stand and talk to the public or sit in a coffee shop and talk to their neighbour about a cut in health care is beyond me. It's wrong, and I make no apologies for telling these people that they should stand up and be accountable to the people they speak with. Speak with factual information — speak with the information that's right, that's in the budget, that's in the audited financial statements of this province — and then we can come to the table and sit down and discuss the issues. Far too often we have people that are out there spreading misinformation, and it's unacceptable.

Our government has done a tremendous job on health care. We have many challenges that we face and many that we have to overcome yet, but I can tell you that things are moving ahead. They're moving ahead in Peace River South, they're moving ahead in northern British Columbia, and they're moving ahead right across this province.

I'm going to touch on education — again, an area where we hear people talking about cuts to education. We've increased the budget to education. We've increased it substantially. Last year we had a one-time injection of $42 million to the K-to-12 education budget. This year we've injected another $50 million in a one-time grant. That's a lot of money — a lot of money by any account. For anybody to stand up and say we've made cuts to education, again, I just can't understand that. I would have to question their mathematics teacher and where they got to in school if a $50 million increase is a cut.

When we have a situation where our student enrolment is declining and has significantly over the last year…. Since 1998-99, we've lost 15,000 students in our province. We're projected to lose roughly another 4,700 students this year, all at the same time maintaining our budget. What that tells me is the per-capita student funding is on the increase, not on the decrease. That's something we should be proud of.

Can we do better? Can we spend more? When is enough, enough? All of those questions have answers, but when is enough, enough money? I think if we utilize the money that we have in the system — whether it's education, health care, social programs — and we use it responsibly and effectively, and apply it where it's needed to be applied, there is enough money in the system. That's one thing that I think all British Columbians have to come to grips with.

Families and communities — something we all are here to try and improve. We've run for this position — and I've said it many times in this House before — because we believe we have something to offer. What we have to offer is improving the quality of life for the people that elect us — the people of British Columbia, our families and our friends — and by doing that, we improve our own lives. That's the goal, I think, of any good society.

We are going to invest $11 million per year for intervention for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder — another terrific move by this government and something I'm proud of. You can never help a child in need enough. It's something a good society takes seriously and looks after and does the best they can, and this government, which I'm proud to be part of, is doing that.

Child care spaces eligible for subsidy assistance will increase by 50 percent this year. We hear people talking about child care and that we need to do more and that this government hasn't done enough. An increase of 50 percent is a significant increase in spaces and one that I think all British Columbians, again, should be very proud of.

People with disabilities. We've increased their earning exemptions. From $200 when we took office, we've doubled it to $400. We increased it $100 last year in the budget. We've increased it again this year by $100 — a pretty good, sound fiscal policy by this government to help those most in need.

I've had many people come into my office since I've been in the position that I hold, talking about the ability to look at increasing the earning exemptions. Once you get in, you learn a lot. I can tell you that as an MLA, not one day has gone by since I was elected that I haven't learned something new. When you get into the issues and start looking at them and you understand the people that are affected by these changes, it makes a person feel pretty good to be able to go back to them and say: "You know, the situation you brought into my office was addressed by this government. It was recognized by other MLAs. It was recognized that changes had to be made, and those changes were made." It's not always that easy, and it doesn't always happen that well, where you bring an issue forward and you can correct it. But in this situation, I can tell you, it's a very good-news story.

Other community issues we've addressed. We are looking at and have been working with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on policing costs. Presently in the province municipalities with a population of under 5,000 people don't pay anything for policing. Municipalities of between 5,000 and 15,000 people pay 70 percent of their policing costs, while municipalities of over 15,000 people pay 90 percent of those costs. Also, we have communities with their own police forces. They pay 100 percent.

We've been in discussions with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the affected parties to try to come up with a new plan. It was certainly my belief and our intent that we would like to implement that plan this year. We couldn't reach agreement, and we had some further work to do. Rather than trudge forward and implement something that wasn't going to work for everybody, we stepped back, and this year we've put that on hold. We're going to sit and communicate, and we're going to have some dialogue with the affected parties to find out what's the best way to implement this plan, because we do need to find a more equitable plan in British Columbia in how we fund policing. To think that communities of under 5,000 people pay nothing while our people who live in the rural areas pay very little under their property assessment tax doesn't make a lot of sense. We're all trying to build a better society. We're all trying to look after each

other, and that means sharing in the costs of providing that security in our society. We will come up with something that works.

This isn't a new issue. I've been involved with local politics for a number of years, going back to 1993. It's an issue that's been around since then, but it's not an easy one to solve. Communities that don't pay anything right now aren't jumping up and down to say yes, they want to pay, but what they do understand is that there is a need to find an equitable solution. Our government is working on that. I'm very happy that the minister responsible has recognized that we need a little more discussion on this issue, but we will be bringing something forward for future years.

Our forest industry. A lot has been said in the province about what our forest industry has faced over the last number of years, particularly since the latest episode on the softwood lumber agreement with our neighbours to the south. It's an argument we've won three previous times at the WTO, but here we are again, taking on the big power to the south.

While we take that on as a government and the governments sit down and talk, communities are hurting out there — people and families. People that have worked 20 and 25 years in the industry are out of work today. They've worked hard to develop their homes and raise their children and maybe try to put them into university or help them. They're out of work as a result of what's taking place in our forest sector.

In our budget and with speaking to British Columbians, there was a need to address what's taking place out there. It's nice that our government once again has recognized that need, has listened to British Columbians and has come up with $275 million in transitional funding to help those communities and those individuals in need. That says a lot about a community and a lot about a government that recognizes the needs of those communities.

I'm going to go on to the heartlands economic strategy. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition seems to want to make fun of the name of it. I live in the heartlands of British Columbia, and I have lived in the heartlands all of my life. I'm proud to be from there. It is a different way of life. Just as many people have lived in the lower mainland or Victoria, I'm sure they're very proud of where they live and where they've grown up and what they've been able to accomplish. Well, likewise in the heartlands of this province. We do live somewhat of a different life. I can tell you that getting up in the morning when it's 35 below and having to go out to start your vehicle just to get to work is somewhat different than getting up and going out to get in your vehicle while it's raining in the lower mainland. There are challenges we face.

Most importantly, every person I know — that I work with and that I am friends with — understands that we contribute greatly to the economic well-being of this province. We extract the resources from the heartlands. We process those resources. We ship them to the lower mainland. We get them to the ports. All of that derives revenue for the province of British Columbia, which helps generate the needs for health care, for education and for our social programs — and for years.

Nobody in the north or in the heartlands of British Columbia is saying: "We want to keep all that money. We want it all reinvested here." What we have said for many, many years is that we want a fair amount put back in. We want a fair amount invested in our infrastructure to help build the roads that have been devastated by the new industrial development that's taking place in our mining, in our forestry, in our oil and gas sectors, and in our agricultural industry.

It seems that people haven't listened. Governments haven't listened in the past. They have to a degree. I'm not going to say they absolutely haven't. To a small degree there have been some successes, but no success as great as what I see in this heartlands strategy that we put forward for the province of British Columbia. This recognizes the needs for economic development strategies, for transportation initiatives, for tourism initiatives, for all communities in the heartland — that we can survive and still deliver products to deliver the money to the government, that we can drive our economy and then provide the services.

It is a great day. It is a great year for the province of British Columbia and a great year for myself, to be able to go back and speak to my constituents about what this heartlands economic strategy is going to mean not only to my riding and not only to the northeast or the northwest or the Kootenays or the interior but to the entire province of British Columbia.

I'm going to narrow down my speaking on the heartlands economic strategy somewhat to one key issue, something I bring to the table every chance I get, and that's the need for transportation improvements in the heartlands of British Columbia. We have a commitment to spend $650 million to upgrade our roads in the heartlands of British Columbia and right around our province. The majority of that money is going to go to the heartlands, to rural and northern British Columbia, where for many, many years the roads have been neglected to the point where many are impassable after a small rain.

It's incredible to think that people live out there. They've generated their living. They may be a farmer; they may be a rancher; or they may have a small woodlot. They can't get to where they have to make their money so that they can provide for the families and help the economic well-being of our province.

We're going to correct that. We're going to spend, on northern and heartland roads, $225 million over the next three years. That's an awful lot of money, but money that will be eaten up quite easily with the needs that are out there.

For rehabilitation alone, we have $146 million scheduled to go into that. I want to touch on rehabilitation for a moment. In Peace River South many of our roads were built 50 and 60 years ago, at a time when our agriculture industry was much different. You didn't have the large trucks hauling the grain into the rail-

head in Dawson Creek, for instance. Our forest industry didn't transport the amount of lumber that they do today — or our mining sector or our oil and gas.

Over the years what we've seen are roads that were built and were suitable 50 years ago barely maintained at the existing status that they had, not upgraded to the point where we needed wider roads and better bases. When we talk about roads in Peace River South and Peace River North and all over our province that have been hammered out, it costs a lot of money to repair those roads.

No longer on many of our roads are we able to go in and top-dress them with a three-inch lift of gravel — much of what used to happen in British Columbia. What's happened now is that our bases have deteriorated beyond repair. Instead of going in and doing a three-inch lift of gravel, we have to go in, in the north, and dig that entire road base out — sometimes at double and triple the cost of what it would have been just to look after that road properly in the first place. That is why our infrastructure is in such dire straits today.

We're also going to invest in airports and ports for our province, something that we have touched on. The Premier spoke about the extension to the Cranbrook Airport that will open up the Kootenays. It's something that will help the Kootenays, but the goal — and I know it will happen — is that it's going to enhance British Columbians' economic well-being — something we all strive to do.

Our border crossing infrastructure is going to see an injection of $93 million. Again, many people say: "Well, maybe that's just going to help the people in that immediate area where the border crossings are." If our goods and services can't flow freely across these borders from British Columbia to our partners — whether it be south into the United States, east into Alberta or north up to the Yukon or Alaska — we have a difficult time in making the revenue and generating what we need to deliver for the people of British Columbia. It's going to enhance that.

We have a number of other projects that are included in that issue as well. We talk about looking after the Kicking Horse Canyon, something that is long overdue. We talk about the Sea to Sky Highway, and many people from rural and northern British Columbia — the heartlands of this province — question if there is a need there. I've driven the road. I've been on it a number of times, and I can tell you that although there are no potholes on it, there are many dangerous areas on that road. As a person that represents the far northern community and riding of Peace River South, I fully support upgrading that highway so no more lives are lost on it, and the people can move with some sense of security and not fear for their lives to get back and forth either to their homes or to destinations of their choice. It's something that's long overdue.

I want to touch on the 3.5-cent-per-litre gas tax that we have increased. Certainly, I'm sure that everybody in this room, everybody in this province, wasn't jumping for joy when 3.5 cents per litre had to be added to our fuel tax. But there's a reality, and certainly from my area, I can speak very long and in depth about the issue of roads. It's the most significant issue we face up there, and there's probably not a single person I've talked to on government issues that "roads" doesn't come out of their mouth. We talk about the need to upgrade them, we talk about the deterioration, and we talk about the lack of investment that's taken place over the last number of years. To date I've had two people call expressing a concern about the 3.5-cents-per-litre gas tax increase, and I can tell you that when we were finished talking about that, they were fully supportive — not jumping for joy, not saying it's a wonderful tax, but fully supportive of paying that tax because they knew that money was going to be reinvested in the infrastructure to repair the roads in northern and rural British Columbia and spread that money out.

This isn't money that's collected into some mysterious pot, like many would think, and spent on some things that they think don't provide services. All of the gas tax we collect in British Columbia is spent on roads and more — not less. That's got to be made very clear. I do have people…. And I don't expect most British Columbians to know the budget in depth or where each penny is spent, but I certainly take every opportunity I can to make sure they know some of the facts. I can tell you some of them are quite surprised when you tell them that if you take all of your gas tax and combine it, that doesn't come close to what we spend on the roads in British Columbia. They're shocked. I'm not shocked, because I know the need is out there.

Although it's a new tax, I want to tell you that I fully support it. Many of my constituents support it because they know what's going to take place and that money is going to be reinvested into the roads so rightfully in need of that money being spent on them.

We also have heard about the money that's being spent on an advertising budget. Well, I support that 100 percent. People can't have it both ways in British Columbia. We hear all the time: "We've heard you're doing this. Why are you doing it? I heard it in the coffee shop. Why aren't you out there telling us?" I hold town hall meetings, I hold public sessions, I go to town councils, and I'm in my office. I meet with different groups all the time.

I think it's the responsibility of any government to put together a communications plan so that they can talk to the people of the province they represent and let them know what the changes are and why those changes have to be made. I don't think that's wrong. I think it's the right thing to do, and I would fully support enhancing that. I can tell you one thing: communication is the backbone of any good corporation, any good government and any good family. You have to be able to communicate with the people. If you can communicate, it doesn't mean we all agree. What it means is that we've got the facts out on the table, so people can understand what decision has been made and why that decision has been made. I wholeheartedly support it.

For the people who want to oppose that, I have to ask the question: where do you want to get your infor-

mation from? Do you go on the Internet? Do you go to the coffee shop? Do you talk to your MLA? I encourage you to do all of those, but I also believe it's appropriate for a government to put money into letting the people they represent know what they're doing. I can't imagine that being a bad thing. It seems awfully smart to me.

I had the opportunity to chair the Finance and Government Services Committee that my colleague touched on earlier. It's interesting. There's a lot of skepticism out there — not just in British Columbia but right across our country — about how governments operate. I was included in that. For years I watched governments that went out and talked to the people. That's what they did. They talked to the people; they didn't listen to the people. In the case of the Committee on Finance and Government Services, we went out and toured this province at the request of our Minister of Finance, mandated by a piece of legislation. As my colleague said, we listened to over 300 submissions, written and personal submissions, that came forward to tell us what the needs were and what they thought we should be doing with the upcoming year's budget.

We asked a number of direct questions within the prebudget consultation paper. It was overwhelming, the number of people that came out and the passion with which they spoke to our committee. All of them, for the most part, wanted to improve British Columbia. I can tell you that. They didn't all agree with the direction we've taken. I think most of them approached the committee with respect and understanding. The ones that disagreed brought ideas forward. But as a legislative committee, it wasn't our job to go out and sell what the government was doing in the province. It was our job to go out and listen to British Columbians at this point. We asked questions under the paper, and we listened to the answers we got.

As a result of that tour and travelling around the province, we made four key recommendations which were adopted by this Legislative Assembly earlier. I'm just going to touch on those, and then I'm going to reflect on what this year's budget has actually shown. Number one was that the government provide some form of assistance in the 2003 budget to resource-dependent rural communities affected by government restructuring and the softwood lumber dispute during the difficult transition period. Earlier in my talk I spoke about the $275 million transitional funding that's in place to address exactly that. That's what people from British Columbia told us they wanted, and that is what has been delivered in the budget this year. I'm very, very proud to see that happen.

Number two was that the government give serious consideration to providing additional transitional funding to the K-to-12 education system. Again, I touched on that. Our second recommendation addressed again — over $40 million last year and $50 million this year injected into our K-to-12 system. Again, people of British Columbia are being listened to, and that's a good thing.

Number three was that the government consider making transportation infrastructure a top priority for capital spending now and in the future. I've just concluded a few moments ago going in depth about the amount of money we're spending on our transportation infrastructure system in British Columbia — three recommendations and three responses by our government, answering positively to all of those.

The fourth one. If we have the ability, another fine-tuning adjustment the government could consider making is to raise the current income threshold for child care subsidy — again, another issue we have addressed. These weren't easy recommendations to put forward as a legislative committee. We submitted these not because this is what we wanted to write; we submitted these because this is what British Columbians told us they wanted and needed.

It was not often, after presenting this report to the Legislative Assembly and having it adopted here, that I envisioned all four of the key recommendations being acted upon. We're well within our ability to balance the budget at the present time, but by injecting certain things — the wishes of British Columbians — sometimes you may have to step outside that, and we are not prepared to step outside balancing the budget by '04-05.

When the Minister of Finance took our report and utilized it as one tool in his toolbox in developing this year's budget, I can tell you, as the Chair of the Finance and Government Services Committee, I'm ecstatic to see the results of the work of my colleagues on the committee. More importantly, I'm excited for the people who took the time to come out and speak to the committee, to write in to the committee and express their views on what they thought was needed, and to stand here today and tell them that all four key recommendations that were their top priorities have been addressed. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for those people and this government to be able to say that.

Budgets come and go. I think sometimes people forget about them the day after. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we're elected to provide good governance for the people of British Columbia and to be fiscally responsible with the tax dollars we collect. There is nothing more important than getting our financial house back in order, while at the same time providing the services to British Columbians that are so important — health care, education, our social programs, our transportation network. The list goes on. But we have to be able to do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

I've yet to see the people that are opponents of this government come forward to say: "This is what you're doing wrong, and this is what you should be doing to improve that." Many times I get people that will come…. Again, I don't expect everybody to agree with us, but I've yet to have somebody come and speak to me and say: "I want you, and I expect British Columbia, to continue to spend more money than they make year after year after year." It's impossible.

By the time we balance the budget in '04-05 — and we will balance it in '04-05 — British Columbia will

have overspent for 13 of the previous 15 years. That's 13 of the previous 15 years. It's impossible to think that any of us, in our day-to-day lives or small business or large business, could operate that way. It's impossible. We're lucky at this point that our banks and our lenders haven't come knocking on our door. In fact, it's just the opposite. Due to our fiscal management, we're seeing some returns. We've paid hundreds of millions of dollars less because of what we're doing. We have to get our debt and our deficit under control. As I indicated, our deficit will be eliminated by '04-05. We can then start focusing on paying down the debt instead of building up the debt — something we've been doing. As the Leader of the Opposition points out, we have had to increase the debt as a result of deficit financing. But our commitment is, by law of this Legislature, that we will have it balanced.

In closing, I just want to encourage all British Columbians: if you have questions, speak to your MLAs. Bring those questions forward. You have the ability to write in questions to the Legislative Assembly to be asked during question period. First and foremost, get the factual information. I'm not asking you to agree with everything we do, but if you want to discuss something, if you want to come forward to put options forward, make sure you have the facts. It's quite incredible, once you start going through the documents, and we have a number of them. I know each of my colleagues has them in their offices. I encourage all British Columbians to go down, get a copy of the budget, get a copy of some estimates and sit down with your MLA so that you can understand it. It's a huge eye-opener, and I think most British Columbians would gain a better understanding of the challenges that their government faces, because the challenges are great. The solutions are tough to find, but we're committed to finding those solutions. We will find those solutions.

As proud as I am of this year's budget, I can tell you that come next year in the '04-05 budget, when we stand in this House and present a balanced budget, it's going to be a proud day for every British Columbian.

M. Hunter: It's my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the budget for fiscal 2003-04 presented to us yesterday by the Minister of Finance, and as my colleague from Peace River North would say: "More good news."

Government spending is back under control. Every ministry is on or below its target. The 2002-03 deficit is lower than planned by $600 million. We are on track to a balanced budget by this time next year. The financial discipline that we have imposed on public finances has been difficult. It is difficult, but it's a necessary discipline. It has meant taking tough action and taking difficult choices, but our determination is starting to pay off.

It pays off in the reduction in interest costs that comes from the presentation to the domestic and the international financial communities of a sound plan and the courage to stick to it. It pays off in the reaction of investors and ordinary working families and people who see hope again in this land of so much promise.

It's clear, from a look at the economic indicators, that British Columbia has begun the long climb back up the provincial standings — from dead last in economic growth to being in the top three, from trailing the nation in job creation to being amongst the leaders, from job- and incentive-killing tax measures and tax levels to applying the lowest or next-to-lowest tax rates in any province of Canada.

Do people know, I wonder, that senior citizens in our province who earn less than $30,000 pay less in income and consumption taxes than they would if they lived in any other province in this land? That is an achievement of which we should and must be proud.

Some 78,000 new jobs were created by private investment in 2002. That is a vote of confidence in our personal tax cuts and in our now competitive corporate and small business taxes. This budget really is good news for any British Columbian that cares about his or her tax dollars.

The budget reinforces the plans laid out in the throne speech and provides a solid financial basis from which to pay for those plans. But there are still voices in this chamber and outside that accuse me and my colleagues on this side of the House of being in the pockets of what they call big business. For example, the Leader of the Opposition, in her response to the Speech from the Throne, alleged that our approach is paid for by "this government's campaign backers, the same wealthy corporations, industries and individuals who now benefit from virtually every government decision."

Well, she went to the corporate sector for the financing for her failed leadership attempt for the NDP, so I guess that was okay. You know, the reason she thinks the way she does is in her own history and her own party. Her party was financed by and still is, as far as I know, captive of the B.C. Federation of Labour. That's who paid the bills while they were in office, and the paybacks were obvious.

I say: beware of the voices of those that lost the last election. They're the voices of those who would still prefer the NDP's successful small business plan. You know, they had a business strategy — the one which saw large businesses become small. These people are the ones that would have you believe and have me believe that the finances of this province were in great shape when this government came to power. In this, as in many other things, they are misleading British Columbians.

They tried to mislead our senior citizens about Pharmacare. They tried to mislead our fellow citizens about B.C. Hydro. To Jim Sinclair and the leadership of the B.C. Federation of Labour, I say: what part of no don't you understand? When we say no sale of B.C. Hydro, that's exactly what we mean. When we say we want business people to come to B.C. to invest in our province, in our resources and in our people, we mean

what we say, and we back it up with the kind of actions that this budget reinforces.

The Leader of the Opposition, in her response to the Speech from the Throne, sounds almost contrite, even almost apologetic. She admits how her party "played to the lowest common denominator, looking for the easy…and…quick headline." This is quite an easy task in B.C.'s sensationalism-oriented media. But you know, if that is her apology, it's way too little and it's way too late. She can't even acknowledge the damage she and her wrecking crew did while they and their public sector union bosses were in charge in this place.

It was the results of her policies that forced people to move to Alberta and to Ontario. It was her policies that drove business away. It was her government that helped create the so-called Alberta advantage by sending our best people across the mountains to Alberta. I do agree with her, though, on one thing: the public is fed up with the perception that governments are paid by special interests. Nowhere is that perception truer than the truly tragic descent of her once proud political party into abject slavery at the hands of the public sector unions.

I've risen a number of times in this House to speak about the part of B.C. I represent. Nanaimo is the centre of a growing and increasingly sophisticated mid-Island community. It is a place where we are in the process of forging a new relationship with our aboriginal neighbours and citizens, whose leaders show by their actions that — in the words of Snuneymuxw chief John Wesley — they want to become a part of the community in which they live. The Snuneymuxw's recent announcement of their desire to take a majority equity position in Nanaimo's planned conference centre hotel is truly an encouraging and exciting development and a reflection of their trust in this government's economic plans.

The area I come from, Nanaimo, has seen more than its share of bad times, but it's emerging as a key location of one of the world's favourite Island destinations in the early part of this century. It is a place with a huge community spirit. I want to remind people again of what happened last summer when Nanaimo hosted the 2002 B.C. Summer Games. These games were made possible not only by thousands of hours of volunteer time but also by the hugely generous financial support of business.

This is one more reason why it confounds me and it confounds British Columbians that the NDP and the Leader of the Opposition maintain — or claim to — such an anti-business bias. You know, I have no hesitation in saying that I appreciate big national companies like the Bank of Montreal or like Air Canada Jazz, who contributed to my community through sponsorships — generous sponsorships — of that community event, the 2002 B.C. Summer Games.

I appreciate local companies like Quality Foods, Nisa Internet services and a myriad of others who I don't have time to mention — local companies and national companies, large companies and small companies that made important contributions of money and their employees' time to this, the most successful of community events.

Am I going to support a budget that provides new and compelling reasons for these companies to invest and grow here in B.C.? Absolutely. You bet I am. But even the kind of boost to the community the Summer Games provided leaves some people pessimistic. One of my constituents wrote recently and suggested to me that Nanaimo was known as the poorest town in B.C. She complained that public service job losses just make things worse. Well, with respect to that constituent, I say: nonsense. Yes, Nanaimo has more than its share of social and poverty issues, and I have not shied away from informing government and ministers of that fact and working to try to make a difference and to change those numbers. Change it we will, by improving the economy, by creating more private sector jobs and by providing better education through improved high school graduation rates and an apprenticeship and training program that responds to the needs of today's economy, not yesterday's rigid workplace and training rules.

The suggestion that trimming public service jobs makes a city or a province poorer is a fabrication of the NDP and of their public sector union speechwriters. Yes, there are people in my community who have lost well-paid public sector jobs as the restructuring of government proceeds. I regret that, and I know every member in this House does, and I regret the impact these job losses can have on families. But when an employer, whether it's the province of British Columbia or a private sector corporation, is faced with huge financial problems, as we are, restructuring and downsizing are an unfortunate necessity.

Our workforce reduction was and is vital to the balancing of our budget and to the revitalization of our economy. The fact that employees who are no longer required are treated with dignity is a reflection not only of modern labour practices but also the mark of an employer, this government, that cares. I cannot accept the argument of the NDP and the public sector union bosses who say we should not be cutting government jobs, because to do so is to take income out of the community.

If you follow this argument to its rather absurd but nevertheless logical conclusion, it's to say that if everyone were a public servant earning $25 an hour, everybody would be happy. Certainly, the union bosses would be smiling and spending their members' money refighting political battles that they rather soundly and fairly lost. No, what this budget is about is a continuation of the job we started: to rebuild this province and restore it from its have-not status to a full contributor to the Canadian family.

The Leader of the Opposition wants the public of British Columbia to believe that everything was fine when she and her wrecking crew got thrown out on their ears in 2001. She continues to mislead the public,

to carry on the myth that government knows best how to spend your money. Tax and spend, tax more and spend more; that's her message. Well, it's time for me to tell her from this corner of the House that I've heard enough of her shrill whining and misleading rhetoric.

The Speech from the Throne, on a more positive note, talked much about the opening up of our province. What opening up British Columbia means is putting our natural competitive advantages back to work again. We do have some natural advantages that were eroded by the wrecking crew that operated around here for ten long years. We sit atop the continental United States, halfway between Europe and Asia, in a world that has undeniably shrunk in our lifetimes. We have spectacular geography, untold rich natural resources and the resourceful people to develop them. We have tough but fair environmental regulations. We have a competitive investment environment that enables investors to come back to B.C. to get the job done, and coming back they are.

I want to say, as my colleagues have, a bit about the heartlands economic strategy. This isn't just some motto that got invented. This is not something to ridicule, like the Leader of the Opposition is doing. This is about the serious business of making British Columbia, outside its southwest corner, a true part of the B.C. economy again. That's not to be mocked; that's to be taken seriously, applauded and supported.

When I arrived in this country as an immigrant in 1967, I learned how the west was won. It was won by a group of pioneer and sometimes swashbuckling leaders who knew what it took to turn British Columbia into an economic power in Canada. I think that it's time to invest again, to rejuvenate and modernize the legacy of those past great leaders of B.C. whose vision, courage and brute energy built our highways, our railways, our power system, our towns and our cities. It was their vision that saw the Cariboo trail through the Fraser Canyon transformed from a mule path to a paved highway connecting British Columbia with the rest of this magnificent country. It was their vision that built the railway from the coast to the heartlands and built dams that powered a generation and more.

The people and the times may have been wild and woolly, but at least B.C. did not stand still or go backward as it did under the NDP. The fact is that we in British Columbia have used up much of that past investment made for us by our parents and our grandparents and by those farsighted leaders to whom I referred. It's now time for us to invest for our children and for our grandchildren. I happen to be a person who believes in the constructive and prudent use of personal, corporate and government debt. I believe that normally, it makes sense to finance major capital investments that have a long life through debt. After all, that's the way we all buy our homes; I assume it is — through a mortgage. That's the way I bought mine.

But we have a problem in B.C. The last government, with today's Leader of the Opposition at the financial helm for part of the term, paid for current operating expenses through adding to the debt. Remember how a billion dollars was taken off the books at B.C. Ferry Corporation and added to our public debt? That was operating money that just didn't get paid, which got added to the debt. Remember how that debt doubled in the ten years of their mismanagement in the NDP? The debt, yes, is still increasing because it takes time, and it takes discipline. It takes a prodigious amount of hard work to get out of the structural deficit that we inherited.

Governments, frankly, have been financing current expenditures by debt for too long, and the piper must now be paid. Sensible, financially conservative British Columbia families know that we have no choice but to pay for current consumption from current dollars. They know that we've maxed out on our mortgage. They know that the debt being handed down to our children and grandchildren is already too heavy a burden.

Just about every British Columbian will wish it were otherwise, but they also know that a special tax to pay for the much-needed road and transportation improvements is a fair and acceptable way to move this province forward and to remove some of the serious obstacles to the fulfillment of our economic potential. Without new and fixed-up roads, we cannot move forward, and we cannot put our natural competitive advantage back to work. The time has come to say to the truckers and the tourists who travel the Kicking Horse Pass that it's time for your road and our main connection to the rest of our country to be safe again.

It's time to say to companies and families in the Okanagan that we recognize the pressing need for twenty-first-century roads in your valley. It's time to reduce the safety hazards that plague the Sea to Sky Highway. For my own constituents and those Nanaimo and mid-Island companies who have told me that the number one transportation problem on Vancouver Island is getting from the Tsawwassen ferry terminal to Langley and into the United States, it's time for new investment, and it's time for the federal government to provide a better return of the taxes we send to Ottawa so that British Columbians can have some federal spending, as well, on our critical transportation needs.

The heartlands economic development strategy is of enormous import. As I said before, it is not just a motto. While it's perhaps natural that the big cities, especially Vancouver, tend to get all the attention, the heartlands economic strategy says that this government knows that British Columbia is about more than Vancouver and Victoria. British Columbia is about the towns and cities outside our major metropolitan areas, where people work hard to create much of the wealth from which we all benefit.

One of our province's most colourful characters is a gentleman by the name of Jack Munro. Jack used to remind people, during his years in the forest industry — and I quote Jack exactly because I heard it many times: "Someone has to make the first dollar." Well, most often that first dollar is made in the heartlands of this province by people who work in forestry, fishing,

tourism, mining and a myriad of other economic activities. We should be celebrating their hard work. We should be celebrating their commitment, not apologizing for it. We need to go out and tell the world more about what we do, our world-class science-based management approaches to our natural resources.

The working forest initiative is just one way in which we're demonstrating this government's understanding of the importance of the heartlands and the people who live there. While my community is part of the heartlands, it also benefits from its proximity to the major metropolitan centres, particularly Vancouver. It's a community which, like every other in this province, is dependent upon sound and well-managed natural resource industries. I am excited that despite the difficult times that the coastal forest industry has experienced for too many years, forest companies with operations in Nanaimo are showing their confidence in this government's economic policies and the government's commitment to the forest industry.

In addition to the $275 million identified in the budget for restructuring, Doman Industries and Weyerhaeuser are just two of the major companies that are expanding their operations in my town. They have voted with their corporate chequebooks for Nanaimo and for British Columbia. Our local business community is poised to participate in and take advantage of the enormous potential of the coalbed methane and offshore hydrocarbon resources that we have in B.C.

Our tourism product is the envy of many, with facilities to serve the growing market in pocket cruises and with the finest cool-water diving sites in the world. Our local film industry will benefit from this budget's film tax measures, as will the high-tech and digital industry. Our local university college continues to break new ground, both literally for new buildings and in innovative financing and program delivery. Our health care facilities are improving, and extra funding can only help reduce surgical wait times, especially for hip replacement and other orthopedic procedures.

I want to say, on health care, how important the changes are that we have made and that are reflected in this budget. It used to be that the CEO of health care in British Columbia would go to the shareholders, the voters, every year and say: "Here's our AGM. We spent more than we thought we would. We can't tell you where we spent it. We have no idea what the results are, but please buy more shares. We need more money." Those days are over. We have a system in place that is going to see that health care dollars, perhaps arguably the most precious we have, are going to be spent in a way that produces results that we can measure.

Perhaps most importantly in all of this, what's represented in this budget is the key and clear message that this government is doing exactly what it promised to do. Now, I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like to hear how this is a government which keeps its promises. She's so focused on misleading people.

I ran for election on a platform that was clear, and I make no apologies to recall proponents for supporting this government's actions and the policies and legislation that are needed to restore British Columbia to its rightful place as a leader in Canada. To those who were happy with being at the bottom of the heap, I say: I was not. If you were happy with doubling the debt, I was not, and the majority agreed with me.

We said we would cut personal income taxes. We did, and the results are starting to show in increased retail sales, automobile sales, housing sales, housing starts and overall consumer confidence.

We said we would make our business taxes competitive with other jurisdictions, and we did. We eliminated the tax on capital. We removed provincial sales tax on equipment and machinery. We increased the small business tax threshold by $100,000 to $300,000.

We said we would focus public resources, taxpayers' money, on services for people who need the help the most. We have done that. We've increased the income exemption for people on disability benefits. We've doubled it to $400 per month. We've improved access to child care. We've helped thousands of people to find work or train for new work.

We've increased public education and health care spending, but in the topsy-turvy world of the opposition and the public sector unions, increases somehow become cuts. Some of these people actually teach your children.

We've transformed our income assistance program into a hand up, not a handout. The climate in British Columbia is positive. The glass is half full; it is not half empty. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in her response to the throne speech, has the temerity to stand in this House and say that the economy is not well. She says the deficit is out of control. She's wrong. She's misleading the public again, and she's doing so with deliberation and with malice.

She claims that we are rapidly losing our moral authority. What a monstrous fabrication. She's the one, along with her sidekick the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who knows all about losing moral authority, about the smell of corruption and about the neglect and abuse of taxpayers' interests.

The Leader of the Opposition says that this is a less confident province than it has been in recent memory. Maybe she should go get tested for memory loss. I and millions of other British Columbians remember all too well the low confidence level of a province that had moved from number one to number ten in economic growth in her ten years in government. I and millions of British Columbians are saddened and angered by the stewardship of governments in which she served, which led this wonderful province into the status of a have-not province.

She's simply not credible. It's she who has lost any claim to moral authority. That's sad, because the role in this place of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this parliamentary system is important and serious. She is trivializing that position, and she should be ashamed of herself.

This budget confirms that we are on the track to a balanced budget and the ability to start paying down

the public debt. This is a budget that continues our commitment to respect taxpayers' dollars. Contrary to yet more allegations of the Leader of the Opposition, we do not have a blind ideological commitment to a right-wing agenda. What we do have is a firm and public commitment to run the affairs of this province in a sound, responsible way.

The Leader of the Opposition says that this government is wasting B.C.'s opportunity to be an economic leader. I'm incredulous that she could stand here and say those things, given all the evidence set out in this budget and its accompanying analyses and the three-year service plans. It's beyond credulity that even this mistress of myth could stand here and say such things, given the record of her party in government.

Let me say it again: from first to last amongst the Canadian provinces, from a contributor to the Canadian family to a have-not province. And she proclaims to know about economic leadership? It's a joke.

The most important message in this budget is that in government, as in your personal or household affairs, financial discipline brings dividends. This government is on track to accomplish its key goal of restoring our economic health through sound fiscal management. This government has restored the confidence of the international financial community in British Columbia once again.

To get this far, every British Columbian is making sacrifices. I know, and my constituents know, that we have been forced to make tough choices, but this is a budget which shows that we will succeed.

G. Trumper: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget speech. I want to commend the Minister of Finance on his vision to have our province achieve a balanced budget for 2004-05 and to get control of our debt.

The 2002-03 budget laid out a plan to restore sound fiscal management, to revitalize the economy and to put people first. It was not easy. Some of the decisions that were taken by us were difficult, and for me, some of them were personally tough. However, by looking at all our services and the way they were managed, putting in place new directions and efficiencies in service, and prudent fiscal management, the provincial debt is approximately $3.5 billion lower than anticipated. This has freed up almost $400 million in total program savings, some of which will be used for the transformation forest fund.

We will be able to increase the overall budget by $142 million over the next three years. We have maintained the $4.8 billion education budget. We have added $42 million for children and another $50 million for next year. Children are our most valuable resource. If we can give them a good start in life, they have the basis to go forward and be successful in their adult lives. It is encouraging to see parents once again involved in the direction of the schooling and the schools that their children attend. I have received an e-mail from the district PAC chair, Natalie Van Viegen. The funding for school-based programs will continue, and they are very proud that their lobbying efforts for the needs of the children have been recognized. They worked hard and have been very diligent in making sure we heard their concerns.

The government has increased the income threshold for the child care subsidy, and last year the number of child care spaces eligible to receive operating funding grants increased from 45,000 to 70,000. This would not have happened if we had not had prudent financial care.

In my area we have school closures taking place, and for school trustees this is a difficult time. However, the school population is declining, and it is difficult to have to operate and maintain half-empty schools.

I also want to point out that due to good fiscal management on the part of the minister involved, we have been able to raise the allowance for people on disabilities so that they may become useful citizens and earn more money. In fact, we have doubled that over the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, for those who don't know where the heartlands are, my constituency is located on Vancouver Island and spans from Bowser to Qualicum to Errington, which is an agricultural area and has blueberry farms and garlic farms; to Coombs, where the famous goats live on the roof; to the Alberni Valley and out to the west coast from Hot Springs Cove, Tofino, Ucluelet and down to Nitinat Lake. Part of my riding has the new Island Highway as part of its transportation corridor, and I take pride in that.

In 1986 the mayors of Vancouver Island petitioned and picketed their then Minister of Highways for the long-promised improvements to the highway. I actually chaired that committee, and we were successful, with the help of mothers for safe driving — such as Morgan Ostler from Campbell River — in getting improvements started. You can tell by the improvements to that highway, which goes up the east side of the Island, what a difference it has made to the economy of the east side of Vancouver Island. The money that has been put aside for improvements to our highway system and transportation over the next three years is greatly appreciated.

I want to point out Highway 4, which is the forgotten highway that goes from Parksville through Coombs to the Alberni Valley to the west coast to Tofino and Ucluelet. It is a narrow, two-lane, winding, scenic highway, but it's built on old logging roads clinging in some places to the sides of the mountain. Transportation corridors are vital to improving the economy in any area, and we need to improve access to Alberni and the west coast.

With the $362 million designated for highways and rural and remote routes, and the $210 million to be spent on strengthening the resource infrastructure, I expect to see improvements in our region. For many years we have lobbied for a better access from the Alberni Valley to the Horn Lake intersection, which

would take ever-increasing industrial traffic off the highway going through Cathedral Grove. If improvements are not made, we will eventually lose part of Cathedral Grove, our old-growth forest which — unlike so many parks in B.C. — is accessible to all.

Qualicum has an airport, as does the Alberni Valley and Tofino, and improvements to all are needed, which would improve our transportation infrastructure. The Alberni Valley out to the west coast has produced huge wealth for the rest of the province, and I am excited with the economic direction for the heartland that is being proposed.

We have many services in this particular region which will help to broaden our economic base. We have, in Port Alberni, the port authority. The harbour welcomes freighters from all over the world to export our lumber, and last year the authority actually welcomed the tall ships as their first point of entry to Canada. NorskeCanada is the owner of the paper mill in Port Alberni, and they came because, as the president said at a meeting we held when they first came, the financial and tax environment in British Columbia had changed. The government change encouraged them to come.

This session we will be introducing a plan to create a working forest land base. This is significant in that it recognizes the importance of a secure working land base for forestry companies, forestry workers and communities throughout the heartlands of the province. This plan will put in place a diversity tenure and move towards a market-based stumpage that is regionally sensitive and socially responsible. This is to ensure that B.C. gets top value for every log harvested from public forests. More timber is available for innovative, smaller-based operators — and also for first nations — through the B.C. timber sales program, and the current restrictions on the export of raw logs from Crown land will be maintained. In the budget there is a $275 million forest transformation fund to help forest workers, contractors, the construction industry and communities to deal with these changes.

I want to point out the difficulties that the heartland, and particularly our region, has had in the last few years with some of the decisions that were made by the previous government to the forestry sector, which have made it incredibly difficult for the economy of those areas. I want to point out that many people in the private sector — be they the workers who work in the forest industry, be they people in small or private business — have not received any increase in wages for some time. They know that if the economy is not going on a full engine and they are part of it, there's not the money to pay. It's been very difficult for them. Some of them have had to remortgage their homes. Some of them have lost their homes. I know that we are looking forward to the changes.

In my constituency we have woodlot owners, such as GreenMax, managing their own woodlot in an environmentally sensitive way. There are ongoing projects between Coulson Forest Products and first nations bands in forestry. The Huu-ay-aht and the Uchucklesaht bands have just been awarded a portion of the undercut, and the Ditidaht and the Pacheedaht of Port Renfrew have been awarded, under the economic funding for first nations, funding to enable them to expand their sawmill. I would point out that one of the products supplied by the mill is lumber for large platforms to enable machinery to be used in the oil patch in northeast British Columbia during the breakup season.

There are also other forestry partnerships with first nations in the region, and I am pleased that in the budget, there will be $95 million budgeted over the three years for provincial revenue-sharing opportunities to increase participation in the forest industry for first nations. Over the years, the forest industry has had its peaks and valleys, and I am looking forward to its revitalization.

As you may know, my background is in health care, and I watch very carefully the health issues in my constituency. In Qualicum the average age of our citizens is the highest in Canada. Now, many of them have come from the heartland to another heartland to retire, but for them there is a shortage of primary care facilities and housing services for seniors, both supportive living and intermediate and long-term. The budget is being maintained, but changes do have to take place.

Everywhere in the world health care is under attack. We need to have and we want to have the services in place when patients need them. We recognize that when one lives in the heartlands, you cannot always be ten minutes from a hospital, for example, and we are putting more money into ambulance services. There is interest in Qualicum for new residential space for support care facilities for seniors, and innovative plans are being looked at by the health authority for a primary care facility in Oceanside. In the Alberni Valley we have a new hospital, which was mainly due to a dedicated group of citizens led by Mary Dyson. If you have not seen it — on a visitor basis, I might add — you should. It is truly a very interesting facility.

Throughout the changes and budget concerns to delivering health care on the Island, services to patients have been maintained at West Coast General Hospital and Tofino Hospital, which serve a huge expanded population in the summer months. In fact, the citizens in the Alberni Valley went out and recruited themselves a second surgeon. We now also have a urologist, and there's a neurologist who also comes to visit.

Health care is not all about hospitals. It is about doctors, it is about nurses, and it is about other professionals who serve the patients. It is about community health care and preventative health care and Pharmacare. Living in the heartlands, it is not always easy to access all services, but there is a technology now that allows a physician, for instance, in a small town to receive directions on television from a specialist in Vancouver. For someone in Tofino, that could be life saving. We look forward to the funding which will come from the federal budget and which will go to the pro-

I want to point out that there are many professionals in the health care service who provide services. One of them is a member of my family, who works long hours to provide service and runs her own business to provide the necessary health care to her patients. I know that what she is making is certainly well below what some of our employees in the health system make. I'm sure that probably she and many others in the same environment and the same business — the health business that she is in — are also in the same boat. I know that sometimes they look at what has happened to some of the employees in our unions.

They look at the money that is being paid there, and they know that they are 30 percent above what is taking place in the rest of the province. I know that sometimes it's very discouraging to know that you work five or six days a week to make sure that you are giving a very good service and, at the same time, managing your office and paying all the overheads. Sometimes I think people don't understand what people in small businesses go through to make sure that their doors are open, and the hours that they put in all the time. The new Fair Pharmacare program will not only help seniors on limited incomes, but it will help those families on lower incomes to receive help for the first time.

In the heartlands, due to the decision made by the previous government in forestry, the wind was taken out of their economies. Communities had to look at diversifying their economy. On the east coast of Vancouver Island tourism has had a huge impact on the economy. The changes that were made by this government to the taxation for small businesses have greatly improved their business. I hear frequently from that part of my riding that their businesses are up, and for the first time, they've had good years for a very long time.

As you travel to the Alberni Valley, the evidence that the community has been working hard at diversification is evident. Tourism is up. There are back-country tours. If you want to come to fish, come to the Alberni Valley where the sockeye run seems to increase each year, and July and August are the only times that you can walk on water in the inlet.

The small businesses tell me all the time that the changes we have made to their taxes have given them an opportunity to expand. Those are some of the businesses that are doing well in the Alberni Valley.

Through the changes to the tax regime, mining companies are coming back to British Columbia. Eagle Rock, a joint venture between Polaris — a company that has been in international areas for years and has just come back to British Columbia — and the Hupacasath and the Uchucklesaht bands, is in a joint partnership and will be exporting aggregate to San Francisco. That will be about 300 jobs. That mining company would not be here if we had not made changes. The community continues to work with investors on a proposed smelter, a very complicated issue.

Investors are investing in a new mall in Port Alberni. They see that things are changing, and they are positive. This is the one time that we have seen for many, many years in this area people wanting to put money into new shopping centres. The increase in investments is due to many of the tax changes and knowing that B.C. is open for business.

I also want to touch on investment in coastal British Columbia, which has become a controversial issue due to incorrect information circulating on the radio and from opponents. I'm talking about aquaculture. In fact, the debate that is taking place is becoming very familiar, like the debate and the forestry rhetoric that took place over the last decade. Salmon farming provides a majority of employment in Tofino. The investors are international in many cases, and they would not be investing in the province if the financial climate was not proactive. Obviously, scientific research continues. The Bamfield Marine Station is an excellent institution to be able to carry out some of the continuing studies. If you have an opportunity to visit Creative Salmon in Tofino — it is an environmentally conscious fish-farming company — do that.

There is also, I might add, a partnership on the west coast with one of the companies and the Ahousaht band. Ahousaht is about one hour from Tofino, and this is a great opportunity for them.

I want to touch briefly on the Olympics. In 1992 Port Alberni hosted the B.C. Summer Games, and we are still told today by many people that those were the best summer games that had taken place. But I want to point out to those people who are not in support of the Olympics that those summer games had a huge economic impact on our community. Since then we have had a multiplex facility built, and there is about to be another multiplex facility built in Parksville-Qualicum. People don't understand that those businesses and those events that take place provide employment for people. They open up more business opportunities. One of the most important things they do is vitalize our children to do the best that they can. I want people to recognize that and understand that when, on Saturday, they are voting in Vancouver for the Olympic Games. It isn't just about the games. It is about what it does for the province, what it does for the people, what it does for our children and the legacy that it leaves our children. Sometimes it's difficult for people to understand that if one's fiscal house is in order and the province is competitive with its neighbours, investment will occur and business will expand. Employment, education and health benefits will improve, and we will be able to maintain the social services required for those most in need. I often try to explain to those who don't agree with our policies that if you have a chequebook at home and you've used up all the money, your Visa card is extended to its limit and they tell you that you can no longer use it…. That's where we were heading. As a family, when that happens, you have to step back,

look at what you're doing and see what is necessary to be done and what you can do without. This is exactly what this government had to do, and we are doing it.

The direction the government is taking is for the benefit of every British Columbian, and if we stay the course, we will be number one again. When people say that we are not listening to the people…. The Finance Committee toured the province. It listened to the presenters and from that made key recommendations. They have been addressed in this budget.

I know that our Finance minister will continue on the road and that we will continue on the road to making sure this province is once again the most successful province in this country and the best place to live.

R. Visser: I want to start my comments with a small story that I've paraphrased from one of the history books. In the summer the Brethours and the Irvings continue with their plans for a railway to the townsite. During that time they hope to attract a new sawmill to provide much-needed economic stability. The railway and the sawmill were all the part of a greater plan that would see its forest and agricultural products transported to the local market and, in the case of lumber, overseas. There was every opportunity for success, and it was all before them. They had limitless stands of timber, a fine harbour and docks where logs could be brought from anywhere on the coast.

Doesn't that sound familiar? It sounds like we're talking about the heartlands, doesn't it? It sounds like an economic strategy. Well, the year was 1892, when the member for Saanich North and the Islands was but a young lad, and the railway we're talking about went from Victoria to my great-great-grandfather's farm in Sidney. That, in 1892, was the heartland of British Columbia. We were just opening up, just making this province big. We were just starting to come here and think. My family on my grandmother's side arrived in 1863, just as the gold rush was occurring, and they set up shop in Saanichton. You know, it was all before us, and it was limitless. To get from Victoria to where I live in Campbell River, you had to go by boat. There wasn't a road.

At the turn of the century, when there was a Crown land grant offered to people returning from the First World War through the late teens into the twenties, it took them months if not years just to clear the stumps off the ten acres that they got. These stumps were sometimes 20 feet across. The heartlands were limitless.

I think the heartlands are still limitless. I think we still live in them. I think that the connection now — that new railroad from Victoria to the north end of the Vancouver Island, the new highway that has become our method of transportation — and the new things we want to do with this province as a government are going to open it up again. We're going to start to have some of that vision that my forebears had about this province.

Now, mind you, they weren't all that successful. They invested in a goldmine on Saltspring Island. It didn't go so well, and here we are today. We wound up in Campbell River, but I'll tell you, that's why it's exciting to be part of a government that understands where it all happens.

The member for Nanaimo talked about the first dollar. Jack Munro talked about the first dollar. I think back, and you know ? having read the book Bull of the Woods by Gordon Gibson, H.R. MacMillan and all those people who opened up this coast, who created wealth, who created the foundation upon which we've been able to build this economy ? I want to be part of that same kind of thing. That's why I came to be part of this government. That's what I brought to the people and asked them to support. I think that's partly why I'm here, because we want to open up this province. We want to open up my part of the world, the North Island, again, and we want to become contributors, and acknowledged contributors, to this provincial economy.

In order to do that, you have to have a few things straight. One of them is that you have to have your financial house in order. I think the primary goals of this budget that was tabled yesterday — (1) sound fiscal management, (2) revitalizing the economy, (3) putting patients and students and people in need first — are the things upon which we can build this province.

I think things like discipline are important. I think the fact — and I don't think it should be lost on anybody in this province, not one person, and certainly it shouldn't be lost on anybody in this country — that having every ministry come in on or under budget is a monumental task in discipline, one that has not been seen by a government in…. Well, I heard 1952, but I certainly never have heard of it before. I think the executive council, this government and the Finance minister deserve great applause from the people of this province just for getting that far.

I'm a big fan of visions, and I'm a big fan of enacting visions. I'm a big fan of saying, "We're going to do this," and getting it done. The last eight days in this province have been pretty significant. We started with a throne speech that laid out the vision. We had our Premier address the people of the province, which helped with that vision. We had a budget that explained for people, all of us, in ordinary numbers — in what will become generally accepted accounting principle numbers that will be transparent for all time — what this government and this province will do for the next three years and how we'll get back on track and be able to take that vision in the throne speech, which is around the heartlands and around building this province — and move it forward. This has been a very good week for the people of British Columbia.

I think all of us have craved stability for a long time. I think we have wanted a government that would do what it said it was going to do. We have wanted a government that would be transparent, that would be accountable, and that would be open, available and disciplined. I think we're delivering on all those accounts. I think the things we do to build bridges be-

Legislative committees. The member for Peace River South chairs the Finance and Government Services Committee, takes it around the province, engages with people about their vision of the province and brings it back to this Legislature for us to acknowledge and understand. I had the pleasure of being involved in a small committee that went around and talked about forest practices — 13 communities across this province that wanted to spend the day with us telling us how they felt about the forests around them and the practices that occur in them. It's not a bad way to govern. It's open; it's accountable; it reaches out. Having been involved in the legislation and in the government and the way it works and budget-building and those types of things, I think it delivers for those people. I think they like it. I think they like what we're doing. I honestly believe that.

I think that things we have, like the provincial congress and citizen assemblies — the provincial congress, where we bring all elected officials in British Columbia and some large-town mayors and a few small-town mayors and provincial MLAs, the MPs, Senators…. What a marvellous idea. You know what? I don't think anybody talked to each other before. I don't think we were able to start to share a vision in this province before. I think we all ran off in a whole bunch of little different directions and never really paid attention to one another. That all changed. The Premier made all that change. That's a good idea. They're not going to write it — oh, they might mention it — in the history books some day. But you know what? They ought to mention it in the history book today. They ought to mention it today in celebrating what I think is a new province from a governance point of view.

The budget talks about a few things that are certainly important to me. One of the ones I am most proud of in terms of this government, having lived through many forest policy changes over the last decade, is the fact that we have booked — that's the accounting term — $275 million for compensation transition strategies as we move forward with forest policy changes in this legislative session.

You know what? The other band of thieves used to change everything, and when we were all sitting at home wondering where the heck the paycheque was going to come from, they said: "Oh, we didn't think that was going to happen. Oh. Well, okay…." Then they'd shovel money out of the back of the truck; they'd never pay attention to what it was they were doing. You know what? This province has needed forest policy change for 40 years.

At the B.C. Truck Loggers sixtieth convention this year the Premier said that 2003 is the year of forestry. We're going to make changes that we haven't seen in this province for 40 years. We're going to pay attention to the trees. We're going to pay attention to those communities. We're going to pay attention to those workers. We're going to make a difference in their lives. We're going to make them competitive. We're going to make them vibrant. We're going to make them energetic. We're going to make them enthusiastic about being in this industry.

It's just like what those folks, like my great-grandfathers, talked about when they wanted to build a railway from Victoria to Sidney. They went to Toronto, and they got an investor. They called it the Toronto and British Columbia Lumber Company. Clever name — men of limited alliteration. What the heck. They found the investors; they built a sawmill. The sawmill lasted until the twenties. It's that vision that we've needed, and it's that vision we have to impart to forestry.

You know, there's angst about the severing of the relationship between harvesting and manufacturing. It should have been done decades ago. It should have been done. We should have those people…. I have these folks that I represent. They live in Woss, Port McNeill and Campbell River. They live all over northern Vancouver Island in small communities. They see truckload after truckload of timber leave their community for a mill somewhere. We need to allow those people, through a number of initiatives, to start to understand their relationship to those trees in a much stronger way. We have to get them focused on growing more trees. We have to get them focused on investing in that land base around them so that we get more fibre. We have to get them focused on selling that fibre to the person that's willing to pay the most. That's called market principles, and they're an important thing. We've ignored them for far too long in this forest industry. The communities that I represent from the heartland of this province have suffered because of it.

We're not competitive anymore. We can't compete against the…. I mean, the Soviet Union has a vision too. They built a railroad from one end of their country to the other, and they log — no rules, nothing. We're up against those. We have the toughest environmental standards in forestry in the world, competing against people without rules in a cash economy — hard to do.

We've got to get smart. We've got to have value; we've got to extract value. The right log has got to go to the right mill for the right price. That's why this budget is important. The budget's important because we book in advance what we think it's going to cost to transition this industry. We book in advance our ability to make these changes. We're up front with everybody. The Forests minister has travelled this province now and is continuing to do so this very day, talking to folks about these changes. We put what we're going to do up front. I think that's a great idea.

I think we've made some commitments in this budget to first nations. It's time to bring them into this forest economy. It's time to acknowledge their connection to these trees. It's time for us to recognize their desire — and, frankly, at times they're right — to act in the forests and to become part of this economy. So you put the money in up front. What a novel idea. You acknowledge things up front, and you start building pol-

I want to talk a minute about the Olympic Winter Games and what they mean to this community, because there's lots of talk about the winter games in the budget. We know that as Vancouver moves forward in its plebiscite/referendum thing — whatever it's called — there's a huge and growing sense of excitement in the North Island. Do you know why? It's because we've got Mount Washington there. It's now one of the largest private sector employers between Campbell River and Courtenay. It is the third-largest resort in British Columbia. Who'd have thunk it a few years ago? I skied there on opening day when I was but a wee lad, sir.

Last year they opened the Raven Lodge, and here's why they're excited about the Olympics. You know why? Last year they spent $2 million and built something called the Raven Lodge, the Nordic ski lodge. It's beautiful. It's made of kiln-dried hemlock on the interior. It's a wonderful facility. In fact, it's one of the greatest facilities in North America for Nordic skiing. It's got everything you want for Nordic skiing. They're building new trails. People like Len Apedale from the Strathcona Nordics, a forester and an incredibly involved person up there, has been designing new trails, trails that mimic Olympic event venue trails. They're putting in circuits. They're talking about a big investment in lights so they can have night skiing up there, Nordic night skiing. These people are excited.

We understand the value that hosting the winter games will bring to this province. They understand it, and we understand it in Campbell River. We have this little thing called the snorkel tours. You get a wetsuit on, you put a snorkel and a mask on, you swim down the river, and you look at the salmon in September that are coming up the Campbell River. Some of them are this big, and every once in a while you come across a whopper that scares you out of your wetsuit. It's a riot, an absolute riot, and becoming one of those tourist attractions out there that gets written about in travel magazines, etc.

Do you know what would happen if, during the winter games — that 17 days — they took 30 seconds on one of those little vignette things they do on television, and they did a story about snorkel tours on the Campbell River? Do you know how incredibly important that is to our community? Amazing.

We're going to have a B.C. resort task force because we want to build on this. You can't lose your momentum. If you're going to go for the Olympic Games, don't lose your momentum. Let's use these natural resources we have. Let's build a working forest and include resorts in that working forest. Let's have a task force and make some plans to open up this frontier to the world and make some money doing it. Build the private sector economy.

Up my way, we've got the historic Tyee Club. For years they've been bringing people from around the world to chase this elusive Campbell River chinook salmon. Painter's Lodge; April Point; Dolphins Resort; Nimmo Bay Lodge, the fly-in helicopter facility up near Port McNeill; Mount Washington; Nootka Island Lodge, Telegraph Cove Resort, Strathcona Park Lodge…. The list goes on.

We've got natural assets that are incredible. The Cape Scott trail, the Nootka trail and the North Coast trail that we want to build from Cape Scott to Port Hardy along the Goletas Channel — they are phenomenal assets that need to be developed. We've got Kyuquot Sound, Quatsino Sound, Nootka Sound, the east coast of Vancouver Island from Campbell River to Port Hardy where people like Stubbs Island Charters and Telegraph Cove have tens of thousands of visitors a year to come watch the orcas.

When we talk in the budget about a transportation strategy and building a heartlands strategy, the Premier talks about: "Why don't we start planning now to see how we can get daily ferry service from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert?" Let's think about that, he says. Let's have a vision for that. Let's start talking about it now and start building that vision. What would it be like in 2010 if we got all these people coming from around the world, if we had what will become one of the great driving tours of the world to go from Vancouver to Victoria, up the Island, up the coast, across and down through the interior of British Columbia? We might even go to Terrace.

R. Visser: But not for long, because you know what? That's part of the vision.

Let's bring some of those 40-foot motor homes out of the United States and let them drive around the province for a bit. What a good idea.

You know, the budget talks a lot about health care. I'm just going to switch topics here for a second. We all talk about the $1.1 billion. That stuff's important, but you know what's really important? Somebody got a hold of this thing called health care and is actually trying to manage it. My God, what a good idea — let's manage it.

Well, there's a bit of a hue and cry out there about that, because things got to change. Well, that's what happens when you manage; things change. You manage when you start to manage the way we all manage

our daily lives, or we all manage our businesses if we came from the private sector. You start to look ahead; you look ahead. What's over the horizon? Good idea, so we do that.

What I know firsthand about health care is this: it works pretty well on northern Vancouver Island. The management. Great angst on the north end of Vancouver Island. Four hospitals up there. The Vancouver Island health authority sends in consultants. They have public meetings; they do all these things; they work together with everybody. They build a plan that works for those four hospitals: Alert Bay, Port McNeill, Port Alice and Port Hardy. They built a plan to deliver more services for a little bit less money to those people up there — not a bad idea. Management is not a bad idea. Who'd have thunk it?

You know, we have a pilot project that was opened. I got to watch them…. Well, I held the end of the ribbon; they haven't given me the scissors yet. They cut the ribbon on a new liver services society pilot project to deal with people with hep C. This is how they decide how this works. They look at the number of cases that are out there, they find out where the services can be delivered the best, they look at which community has already got some sense of infrastructure and which direction they're going in, they plan around that and provide that service there in a pilot project, and they give it every opportunity to succeed. And it's going to succeed. That is what health care is about, and that is good management, and the people of this province are well served by that.

You know, I'm pretty excited about a number of things. I'm excited about aquaculture. I'm excited about what those salmon farmers are up to. I'm excited about what those shellfish farmers are up to. I'm not particularly excited about what the critics are up to, but I am excited about what those folks do. You know what they do? They produce that first dollar. They produce that first dollar in our economy that allows our communities to grow.

I was up in the House a few days ago talking about a fire in Port Hardy. One night a couple of Fridays ago, 260 people lost their jobs when their plant burned down. Today is the first day they're putting fish through their competitor's plant — the new plant they have a partnership through to bridge them during the time of the rebuilding. You know what? In Port Hardy $700,000 a month in payroll and 260 people; 75 percent of those people were women, and 30 percent of them were first nations. Those are people that are getting up every day and going to work. Every time we turn on the television, every time you push the little dial on the car radio while driving in the morning, you hear that guy droning on about these evil fish farms with his other NDP friends. Lynn Hunter thinks it's real funny to tease these folks — real funny, ha-ha. You know what? Those are hard-working British Columbians that contribute to this province. They pay their taxes, they raise their kids, they go to work every day, and they earn that first dollar.

We have the toughest environmental regulation in the world in almost every aspect of salmon aquaculture in British Columbia. We haven't added one new farm site, unfortunately, since we became government. We have created all kinds of regulation for them so that we could build public confidence, and every day critics of our government and critics of that industry tear it down for no particular reason other than they think they can — and, frankly, because they think it's funny. That's shameful.

But we've got more good news on the horizon: offshore oil and gas. We want to have a producing industry by 2010. For North Island, that's very significant, and I'm excited about that. We've met with the Norwegians now. We've had a small committee that travelled around looking at this issue. We've got $2 million working up at the University of Northern British Columbia, studying the issue. I think we're going to do some good things with this. You know what? You've got to start down the road, you know? It might not happen, but you've got to start down the road. You've got to have that vision, and that brings me right back to where I started.

You know what? In 1892 a bunch of guys with a farm at the end of the road in Sidney decided they had a vision. They were going to take that farm and divide it up into little bitty pieces and sell it, and they were going to create a community. They needed a railroad, and they needed a sawmill. That's what this budget is about. That's what this throne speech is about. That's what the Premier is about, and that's what this government is about: a vision for British Columbia. I'm pretty darn proud to be part of it.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY