Hansard -- Thursday, February 27, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 2 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5101

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5101
	Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12) Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5102
	Federal government support for hepatitis C victims R. Hawes Juvenile diabetes awareness I. Chong Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows tourism K. Stewart

Oral Questions		5103
	Qualification for disability benefits J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail National sex offender registry I. Chong Hon. R. Coleman Future of liquor stores G. Trumper Hon. R. Thorpe Skeleem Recovery Centre J. Kwan Hon. G. Cheema

Tabling Documents		5105
	Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre Expansion, project plan

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		5105
	R. Sultan J. Les J. Kwan

Budget Debate (continued)		5115
	P. Bell D. Jarvis T. Christensen R. Hawes

Royal Assent to Bills		5128
	Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 10)

K. Stewart: Today in the press gallery we have a member of my community, the publisher-reporter of the local Neighbourhood Bugle. His name is Robert Prince, and seeing him in a suit here today, it was hard to distinguish him from the crowd. Usually he has the haberdashery of the Crocodile Hunter, and it's unusual to see him without his taupe shorts on. I would like the House to make him welcome here today.

Hon. R. Coleman: In British Columbia we are gifted with some of the brightest and best leaders in policing in the world. Today in the gallery I'd like to introduce a number of those people who are here as we move forward to revolutionize policing in British Columbia: Chief Constable Derek Egan of the Saanich police department; Superintendent Steve Ayliffe of E Division, RCMP; Chief Constable Paul Hames, Central Saanich police department; Chief Constable Paul Battershill of the Victoria police department; Deputy Chief Pat Fitzgerald, Port Moody police department; Kevin Begg, director of police services; Chief Constable Ian MacKenzie of the Abbotsford police department; Acting Deputy Chief John Schouten from the Vancouver police department; Wayne Plamondon, manager of the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia; Chief Ben Anderson of the Oak Bay police department; Assistant Commissioner Gary Forbes from the Surrey RCMP; Superintendent Rick Betker of the Courtenay RCMP; Chief Superintendent Rob Morrison of the RCMP; Superintendent Ward Clapham of the Richmond RCMP; Chief Paul Shrive of the Port Moody police department; Chief Jim Cessford from the Delta police department; Mike Ryan from the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia; Debbie Harris from the Ministry of Attorney General; Gary Briggs from E Division, RCMP; Sergeant Bob Gehl from the Victoria police department; Frank Potter, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; Kathy Vidalis from Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; Daryl Wiebe from the Vancouver police department. Would the House please make them all welcome.

J. Kwan: I'd like to introduce Karen Branscombe and some 20 other family members of the residents at the Skeleem recovery house and staff from that centre as well. As members of the House know, the recovery centre is set to close its doors at the end of February. I'd like the House to please make these visitors welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome some guests to British Columbia from the sunshine state of Florida. Will the House please welcome Dr. Elaine Lifton, Dr. John Hansen and Dr. Mary Ellen Bafumo. They are meeting with the principals of Etraffic Solutions, located in the riding of Saanich South. Of course Etraffic is an international provider of on-line content and applications for K-to-12 and adult learning. Welcome to Super, Natural British Columbia.

R. Hawes: Today in the House there are two constituents of the member for Delta North who also have some investments in my riding, and they're here to meet with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Could the House please make Pat Roche and Barry Lasko welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the pleasure of introducing two longtime friends from Kamloops. It might interest some of the members here to know that he was a grocer for many, many years, and he's known me since I was this high.

Al Perry and his wife Megan, and they are accompanied by Herb and Marjorie Henri from Kamloops. Please make them welcome.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: Today we revolutionize policing in British Columbia. In the throne speech, the government made a commitment to expand the police records and information management environment, or PRIME-BC, across the province.

PRIME-BC is a crime-fighting computer system that will enhance public safety and improve law enforcement in British Columbia. It is an on-line shared communication system that links every municipal police department and RCMP detachment in the province in real time, within two years.

We know that PRIME-BC works. For the last two years we have run pilot projects in three B.C. locations: Vancouver, Port Moody and Richmond. The real power of the tool will come as it goes into operation across the province. With PRIME, complex cases will be much easier to investigate. Serial killers, gang crimes and sophisticated thieves who move from one

Right now police departments and detachments use a variety of computer systems and databases. The amendments I'm introducing to the Police Act today will provide for the implementation, use, maintenance and good governance of PRIME and will make it the only information management system in British Columbia — no borders, no silos, only success in policing.

These amendments mark the first time any jurisdiction in Canada has taken steps to implement a provincewide, on-line police information management system. Our police lead the world in modernizing policing. I don't think I can emphasize enough how significantly PRIME will improve our ability to enforce the law in B.C. and make our communities safer. The only unhappy people today are the criminals in British Columbia. This is what law enforcement asked for. It is what they wanted. We are giving it to them. We are giving it to them across the province of 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 12 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.

R. Hawes: Diane Duperon is a registered nurse who lives in my constituency. A few years ago she began to feel ill. By early last year she was too sick to continue working. Diane has hepatitis C. She contracted the disease through a blood transfusion she had in the early 1970s. Unfortunately, her tainted-blood transfusion predates the date selected by the federal government to compensate innocent victims such as Diane.

The medical program authorized for those with Diane's type of hepatitis C is a six-month course of an interferon-centred drug cocktail. Diane is intolerant to this heavy dose and can only take half a dose. Thankfully, Pharmacare has agreed, under appeal, to extend her treatment by a further six months. Private benevolence has provided a drug not now covered by Pharmacare to help with the severe anemia brought on by her disease, but she's had no consideration or support from the government of Canada.

There are numerous innocent victims of tainted blood across British Columbia and throughout Canada. In selecting a date before which no compensation will be paid by the federal government, they have effectively turned their backs on many of these people. I'd ask today that all of us in this House urge the federal government to recognize all innocent victims like Diane Duperon, regardless of the date of their blood transfusion.

I. Chong: This morning I had the opportunity to attend the 2003 corporate breakfast launch to kick off the fundraising efforts on behalf of juvenile diabetes. Every year the Walk to Cure Diabetes is held, with the proceeds raised going to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, or JDRF as it is often referred to. Juvenile diabetes, or type 1 diabetes, is a chronic autoimmune destruction of the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. It primarily affects children and young adults in the prime of their lives, without warning, and leaves them insulin-dependent for life.

Taking insulin does not cure any type of diabetes, nor does it prevent the possibility of its eventual and devastating effects: kidney failure, blindness, nerve damage, amputation, heart attack and stroke. This morning I heard how this debilitating disease has changed the lives of three young people and their families here in Victoria. I was touched by their personal struggles, and I am amazed at their courage. Their zest for life is clear, and their determination to find a cure, infectious. That is where JDRF becomes so important to their future. Founded in 1974 by parents with children diagnosed with juvenile diabetes, they realized the only way to find a cure for this disease was through the support of research. With over 200,000 Canadians afflicted with juvenile diabetes, this health charity is dedicated to finding a cure.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is the world's leading non-profit, non-governmental funder and advocate of type 1 diabetes research. As they state: "We are in business to put ourselves out of business." This year the walk is being held at 31 sites in Canada, four of which are here in British Columbia. While I acknowledge there are many worthwhile events that all hon. members participate in during the year, I hope many of them will offer their support to help raise awareness of this disease and of the research needed to continue until a cure is found.

K. Stewart: My riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has to be one of the most beautiful places in British Columbia. I know this, and so does a newly formed, non-profit tourism organization in our community that aims to get the message out to everyone else. Tourism Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows is looking to develop and support our tourism potential. They will work closely with our local organizations to produce a comprehensive strategy to attract tourists to our area. I am more than confident they will succeed. Let's face it. They have a lot to work with in our area.

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is one the most scenic areas. These two communities offer an array of outdoor experiences second to none. We are home to nine golf

courses, six of them world-class. There are 55 municipally owned parks with eight major trail systems within them. There are two spectacular regional parks, one adjoining the tidal Pitt Lake, which is one of only two tidal lakes in the world. Then there's the famous Golden Ears Park, where you can rock-climb, hike and camp within miles of the trails, including specialized bike and horse trails. Alouette Lake is also part of the Golden Ears, a beautiful lake where you can swim, water-ski, fish, sail, canoe and kayak. In and around my own neighbourhood there are miles of dikes used for walking and hiking along watercourses and conservation lands that are ideal for the most popular outdoor recreational activity in North America: bird watching.

Tourism is the fastest-growing sector in British Columbia. Last year we hosted 22.4 million visitors; plus, these people spent $9.2 billion. I'm pleased to see that people in my community are working to position our communities so we can tap into our fair share of that market not only for the next two years but in 2010, when we host the Winter Olympics.

J. Kwan: Thousands of British Columbians living with disabilities are being put through an incredibly stressful process, tied up in a mountain of red tape, just to prove that they are disabled. Can the minister please tell this House what criteria were used to determine which British Columbians on DB-2 were asked to reapply for benefits? Does there have to be some evidence that upon review, they may no longer fit under the new criteria? Or were those people just sent the forms randomly?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the question. As of today, we have about 10,000 review forms in process. We've also received about 6,000 new review forms from people who want to have the designation of persons with a disability. As the member remembers, last year this government modernized — I would say — income assistance in British Columbia and changed the definition of "persons with a disability." We went through a process by looking at our records of all the people on disability assistance, and the people we needed increased information on — about 19,000 in the beginning and then 14,000 later — were sent review forms. Those review forms are coming in now. As I say, we've received about 10,000, and they are in process. We have about 4,000 more to come. Our staff are meeting with them individually, phoning them and doing house visits, so we can make sure all 4,000 of those people have a chance to have their designation reviewed. But I'm very pleased to see 6,000 new forms come in — 6,000 new people having the assistance that they need.

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

J. Kwan: I guess that's the new spin for the government. Cutting people off of income assistance is called "modernizing."

This week the B.C. coroner's office released a report into the tragic suicide of a Burnaby man. He's one of thousands of British Columbians who received a letter and a 23-page reapplication form. That letter told him that his file needed updating to confirm his eligibility for disability benefits. According to the new reports, he became very depressed, and as a result of that, he took his own life. The coroner's service contacted the Ministry of Human Resources, which said he was never in danger of losing his benefits. My question to the minister is this: why was he sent the letter and form in the first place if his benefits were already secured?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sorry to hear of that untimely death. The ministry has done everything possible to look after people, to make sure that individuals….

There are tens of thousands of individuals on income assistance and people with disabilities who receive support from us every month. During this review process, our staff have looked at contracts with Canadian Mental Health and others. We are going to do home visits. As I say, 6,000 new people have taken the opportunity to ask for the assistance they need, and we'll be providing that assistance. I think you'll find there will be more people on income assistance and more people receiving disability assistance after this review is done than there are now and were before.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: There had to be some basis to send this man a 23-page form asking him to reapply for his benefits — some suspicion that he may not be eligible, perhaps — but following his suicide, the ministry said his benefits were secured all along. In other words, he was being forced to reapply for no reason whatsoever.

The deadline for returning these forms is March 15, only two weeks away, and there are some 4,000 or 5,000 people left who have not yet filed. Can the minister tell these people why they should file, if the ministry has already decided who's going to get the benefits and who's going to get cut off? Why bother with the process? Why bother to make people go through the stress that perhaps they don't need to go through?

Hon. M. Coell: The reason for the review was that the files showed that we needed information on people who had been on DB-2. With the change of the designation, the change of the criteria, staff went through the entire caseload and decided that more information was needed on about 14,000 people. At the same time, new applications were opened up for people to apply for the designation. As I said, I feel that between now and March 15, most if not all of those applications will be in process and, I suspect, well over 6,000 or 7,000 new ones.

I stood in the House last spring and said to the member that we intended that there would be a broadening of the definition to include mental illness. That's exactly what has happened with the thousands of new people applying. As I believe I said further to the member at that time, we fully expected there would be more people on disability assistance in this province because of the changes we made.

J. MacPhail: There is nothing in the statistics from his own ministry to back up what he's saying. There are fewer people on DB-2 now than there were before this government took over. I'm not sure the minister gets the seriousness of this. We now know from a coroner's report released this week that there's at least the case of one man who was asked to go through this gruelling process for absolutely no reason. We also know that doctors are being paid to take time away from patients to fill out these forms. This minister is paying millions of dollars to doctors to fill out these forms.

Again, to the minister: what is the purpose of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, up to $2 million, to pay doctors to fill out these forms for their patients if the ministry has already decided their fate?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the member is wrong. There are 3,200 more people receiving disability assistance than there were when we took office. The actual budget has been increased by 7 percent, or $80 million, for people with disabilities in this government's mandate.

J. MacPhail: I wonder if the minister actually heard the question. One man, we now know through a coroner's report, didn't have to fill out the forms that he was sent, didn't have to do what the directive directed him to do, because when the coroner contacted the Ministry of Human Resources after the man's suicide, this minister's staff said his benefits were never at risk. That's what they told not the man having to fill out the 23-page form but the coroner.

One thing has become clear. The decision to force people to fill out these forms has been implemented in a haphazard and mean-spirited way, perhaps the most mean-spirited way possible, and I think it's safe to say that there are thousands out there who would say that it's typical of the government and of the way they treat the province's most vulnerable citizens.

J. MacPhail: Rather than putting thousands of British Columbians — the 4,000 or perhaps 5,000 left — through this kind of pain and anxiety, why doesn't the minister just admit that the implementation of the program is unnecessary and is a mess and scrap it before he causes more damage to people's lives?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the member, over 16,000 people have taken the time to pick up or have been sent a review form, and they have filled it out. Six thousand new people have applied for this designation. The budget in this ministry is up $80 million, or 7 percent, since the member was in government. As I said during the legislative session last year, we fully expect there'll be a continued increase in people with disabilities, but we want to make sure that the money that is spent on people with disabilities is spent on those who are eligible.

I. Chong: Sex offenders are released into our communities, some of whom have refused any rehabilitation or treatment during their period of incarceration. Many of my constituents believe there should be stricter conditions placed on sex offenders before they are released into the community. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents who decides what conditions will be placed on sex offenders before they are released?

Hon. R. Coleman: In some cases it can be as a condition of their parole. In other cases it can be that where they have done their full sentence and not taken treatment, they can actually be monitored under the direction of the court. We actually assess those risks in the communities. We track these offenders when they come out of jail. We also make public notifications where appropriate to protect public safety.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has a supplementary question.

I. Chong: Last fall the Solicitor General attended a federal-provincial-territorial meeting in Calgary, where the federal government agreed to implement a national sex offender registry. Since then, we have not heard much about what progress has been made in implementing the national registry. My question to the Solicitor General is: can he provide my constituents with an update on the status of the federal government's sex offender registry and how it will protect our citizens?

Hon. R. Coleman: During the enhancements being done to CPIC right now, we are working on a national sex offender registry. There are a number of issues in and around that registry, which we brought to the table in Calgary — basically to tell the federal justice ministers and other ministers across the country that failure to meet our needs as British Columbians and other jurisdictions that had it…. We were prepared to go it alone.

We want a number of things. First of all, we want all sex offenders on the registry. We want this thing

retroactive so we can track all sex offenders that have committed these crimes in our country. There is some discussion with regard to that, and some legislation may be required. We also would like to have some GPS mapping, so that we can know overall where these people are in communities at any given time and so we can track it relative to future offences. We want photographic evidence within there, so that we're able to identify them not just by photograph but also by location.

We have made it clear to the federal government that it must be a national integrated system, just like we're integrating information and management in policing in British Columbia. They should step up to the table and be modern like the rest of us are in this province, lead the way and get it done so we're globally moving forward in the same direction on a sex offender registry.

G. Trumper: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Many people are saying that the province is only partially getting itself out of the retail liquor sales business. Specifically, it is being said that the biggest, most attractive specialty stores will remain while smaller stores will be replaced by expanded beer and wine licence holders, who will presumably be able to carry more spirits. Therefore, many people in my constituency feel that smaller communities are being treated unfairly. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise provide some clarity for my constituents in terms of the future of liquor stores in all British Columbia communities?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government took our liquor policy and the future of retailing, warehousing and distribution to an open cabinet meeting on July 24 of last year, where we declared that it would be a very thoughtful and deliberate process. That is how we are proceeding. We have chosen not to do what they did in Alberta and blow the system up overnight. We have decided to go through in a thoughtful, deliberate manner. What we are going to do as new licences come on stream — new private sector investment in British Columbia, creating new private sector jobs in British Columbia — is review, on a community-by-community basis, to ensure that choice is there for consumers, that service is there for consumers and that competition is there for consumers.

J. Kwan: On January 27 the Skeleem Recovery Centre gave notice to shut down operations by the end of February. The families of these brain-injured residents, and not mentally ill residents, were consulted about this change and now face losing the only program that has been available to them to give their loved ones rehabilitative services to assist them in gaining any kind of independence and improved quality of life. Why is the Minister of Health Services allowing the Skeleem Recovery Centre to close when there is a clear need for their services, the clients with funds attached and a waiting list that people are still trying to get in?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let's be very clear. The Cedar Lodge Society, not the government, made the decision to close this private facility. The provincial health services authority provided a substantial funding contract, which was more than sufficient to provide the services needed. The provincial health services authority has found good placement services for all patients. In fact, we will not be losing capacity. We are in the process of taking care of patients, but not taking care of private facilities that have failed.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise to table a major capital project plan as required by section 14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. As another demonstration of this government's ongoing commitment to openness, transparency and reporting, this plan clearly sets out the objectives, costs, benefits and associated risks of the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion program. I have said before in this House that an expanded convention centre is good news for all regions of British Columbia. Over 100 organizations in the lower mainland, Victoria and the heartlands of our province support this project.

Hon. G. Collins: I call continued debate on Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

R. Sultan: I rise to respond to that important moment in the Speech from the Throne when the Lieutenant-Governor said: "Coalbed methane has huge potential for the Kootenays, the central interior and Vancouver Island. Opportunities for job creation in that new enterprise will be pursued with new vigour, supported by new legislation."

Those of us with a background in mining and energy applauded. Her message signalled the government's thrust into a new energy and mining sector with great potential. Here's what it's all about. In North America we just love to burn oil and gas. It's relatively abundant, relatively transportable and relatively clean. Until the 1970s, until something called OPEC came along, it was relatively cheap and relatively secure. For years, as desert sheiks grew rich on nature's bounty, we in the West were comfortably cynical about our increasing reliance on Middle East petroleum.

A dozen years prior to OPEC, one of my professors offered the opinion that it was rather convenient to pay for America's oil in kind with advanced fighter aircraft for the Saudi air force, since they became obsolete and crashed so frequently. In the 1970s near panic replaced that sort of cynicism. For example, the former chair of the Alberta Energy Conservation Board, in a study which I was guilty of commissioning, predicted that oil would soon hit the range of $90 a barrel, and that's U.S. dollars. That certainly got financial institutions' attention. To resurrect a memorable phrase from this place, the banks began shovelling money off the back of a truck into oil and gas deals.

In those wild times I was a senior officer in our largest financial institution, and I had one hand on the shovel. At the end of the day, oil-patch entrepreneurs taught financial institutions a lesson or two, and unfortunately for many of the deals, the energy price spike went away.

Nevertheless, while wild times lasted, much money also slopped over into energy alternatives: solar, hydrogen, wind, conservation and coalbed methane. The foundations of the alternative energy industries, and in particular coalbed methane, were put into place.

History could repeat. We're once again disturbed by the reality that much of our continent's energy comes from far-off desert lands that are increasingly unstable. We're mobilizing for war. Special forces gather in the Gulf. Prices at the gas pump have climbed about 25 percent. Home heating bills have climbed to a point where Canadians wonder whether global warming would be such a bad thing. Under these circumstances, it's clearly in our interest to enhance both the quantity and security of Canadian energy supply.

Enter coalbed methane. Methane is adsorbed as a molecule on the surface of coal molecules and is released as a gas when high underground pressures are relaxed. Too much methane carelessly managed can cause lethal explosions in an underground coalmine, and I have my personal nightmares to live with on that front. But when energy prices climb and when security of supply becomes a higher priority, coalbed methane is transformed from a potentially lethal nuisance to an abundant energy source.

British Columbia is richly endowed. Across large areas of this province, stick a borehole in the ground and you'll hit coal seams — some tiny, some immense. The unique Hat Creek coal deposit, located between Lillooet and Cache Creek, is hundreds of metres thick. Compare that to the Welsh coalmines of yesteryear, when brave and grimy coalminers lay on their sides with a pickaxe, hacking their way into an 18-inch coal seam.

As a rule, when you have coal, you've got coalbed methane, although geological circumstances are highly variable. It's just a question of how much methane and whether or not it can be economically extracted.

Our British Columbia geologists, highly skilled world-beaters in their profession, estimate we have 90 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane gas. That's the estimate of the resource, not all of which may be economically extracted. In fact, if we ultimately and commercially got our hands on even 10 percent of it, that would be extraordinary. But if we did, that nine trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane could supply all of British Columbia's natural gas demand at the current rate of consumption for about 20 years. It would approximately equal our current reserves of conventional natural gas. Coalbed methane is simply another form of natural gas — not identical, but a close approximation.

One hypothetical field on Crown land in British Columbia might involve a $150 million investment, might generate $600 million worth of natural gas over ten years and might generate close to $100 million of royalty payments to the government. A hundred million dollars will pay for a lot of health care and education.

The resource is scattered around all over the heartlands. Much of coalbed methane is most easily accessible in the Kootenays, where we find most of British Columbia's producing coalmines today. Some of it is found on Vancouver Island, where we have a long history of coalmining up through the Quinsam. We also find coalbed methane in Peace country, where such names as Bullmoose and Tumbler Ridge remind us of the vast treasure this province invested in coal.

We find coalbed methane in the ridings represented by the able and hard-working member for Skeena, the able and hard-working member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and the able and hard-working member for East Kootenay. I could go on. My goodness, I suspect we could even measure microscopic quantities of this stuff seeping up from the ground underneath our chairs.

Capturing it, selling it and consuming it sounds easy, but in practice it isn't. Step one….

Step one: drill into a coal seam, not too shallow and not too deep. Step two: pump out the water for maybe a couple of years. Step three: capture low-pressure, slowly flowing gas for what we hope might be 30 years. To make a gathering system worthwhile, one might possibly drill dozens of wells into a field 15 kilometres by 15 kilometres square.

This is a young industry. Technically, our grasp of reservoir technology and recovery still has a ways to go. Environmentally, there are often wastewater issues. Economically, we are hard-pressed to estimate costs and revenues with any certainty. All of this will take time, patience and production experience to sort out, so let's not get carried away with the royalty arithmetic. We have a lot to learn on the fiscal side as well.

Furthermore, unlike conventional natural gas, coalbed methane fields start slow and, hopefully, stay that

way for a long time. Conventional natural gas fields usually start big and then decline, sometimes surprisingly fast. Look at our own hugely productive Ladyfern field in Peace country, already suffering from sharp decline after only a few years.

This production profile means coalbed methane money must be patient money. The producer gets his or her investment back slowly. Slow means risk; slow means caution. Slow means government should try to create certainty at the front end.

What has British Columbia done to create greater certainty? Well, I did my own research. I travelled to Calgary to talk to old friends in the oil patch, as well as newcomers to the business. I've been briefed by our officials. It's reassuring to report that this government has done a lot of things right.

Here's my report card. Our technical support gets a 10 from industry. Our environmental support, and this may surprise some people, also gets a 10. Our royalty structure gets a 10, and our vision gets a 10. So far so good — in fact, excellent. One would expect energy companies to be storming in here. To a certain extent they are, but not totally. There was still the little matter of title; in other words, who owns it?

Of our estimated 90 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane resource, an estimated 14 trillion cubic feet, or about 15 percent of the coalbed methane, is tied up in coal deposits which are owned freehold. The balance of estimated coalbed methane, the other 85 percent in British Columbia, is tied up in coal deposits which are owned by the Crown — 15 percent freehold and 85 percent Crown. Those are important ratios.

Now, we're so used to the Crown owning all the land in British Columbia — all of anything beneath the surface and, for that matter, all of the stuff growing on the top — that the many socialists among us, when informed that 15 percent of any resource is privately owned, are inclined to ask: how the heck did that happen?

Private ownership got its start when the railroads punched through the Rockies and also when a private rail line was built to run up and down Vancouver Island. Railroads were rewarded with freehold title land and minerals, particularly coal which, of course, was fuel for the locomotives. Private railroad land in the Kootenays and on the Island was later carved up and sold in thousands of individual transactions and then resold again and again. Over 125 years the land and the coal underneath it developed a very complicated real estate history.

There's no serious dispute about who owns the coal on that original freehold railroad land. The freehold landowners are also invariably the freehold coal owners. It's their private property. The big question has been: who owns the coalbed methane? That's a question which has the potential to tie up dozens and dozens of well-paid lawyers, geological experts and land title specialists, not to mention judges and courthouse staff, for several decades. Litigators from both sides could toil their way up well-trodden paths to the Supreme Court of Canada, cite precedents running from Virginia to Victoria, from Powder River to Pincher Creek, from the C molecule to the CH4 molecule, and never, ever run short of material. Which side would win? It seems to be a 50-50 game. To the lawyers this means committed clients and long-run, hard-fought battles — great for the law firms, not so great for the rest.

Since early railroads ran through the coalfields of southeastern British and the coalfields of Nanaimo and Comox, that's where we find approximately 15 percent of coalbed methane, which is freehold — or at least freehold as the property owners would view it. The Crown tends to have a different point of view. The Crown is inclined to say: "It's ours."

I think it was my friend and former Forests minister David Zirnhelt, a good and true British Columbian, who became famous when he said, "Governments can do anything," and so they can. Whether the world will applaud when governments do anything is another matter.

Certainly, the infamous government preceding the one we have now demonstrated that it would do anything, and much of the smart money and many of the smart people fled the province. That's, in part, why Calgary looked stunningly prosperous and busy when I went over there a few weeks ago to check out the coalbed methane scene. A lot of hum is generated by former British Columbians. While the hon. Zirnhelt can say, "Governments can do anything," Calgary viewed the world differently when he said that.

One important difference concerned private property. The rest of the world is not always so sure private property gets the respect it deserves in British Columbia in view of the fact that government owns 95 percent of the land, that the communal first nations, not to be outdone, have overlapping claims on 120 percent — or is it 150 percent? — of it, and, furthermore, that government seems to have a lot to say with respect to how private landowners sell their logs. Even today we ponder legislation to clean up land titles reached through private agreements which officials believe are untidy.

We've grown used to all this. Others find it unusual, if not alarming. Economic historians have shown how critical the institution of private ownership is for the development of the economy. Hernando de Soto has demonstrated how the absence of property rights in the Third World inhibits credit growth and, consequently, economic development.

British Columbia still has its citizens who regard private property with suspicion. Perhaps the economy would benefit from a clear assertion of our commitment to private property.

Now the good news. Even if some among us don't always appreciate these economic basics, our Minister of Energy and Mines understands them full well. I believe our minister has demonstrated that he has little time for policies that cast doubt on the legitimacy of private property. Furthermore, I'm told that the freehold-versus-Crown coalbed methane controversy that had been building — and which had legions of lawyers beginning to dream how they could better finance col-

lege for their kids and put a new wing on that house — is now in the process of being resolved. Thank goodness for that. Thanks to the minister and to the others in leadership who ensured that result. It's something that everybody in British Columbia should celebrate.

Where do we stand today? It's early days in the coalbed methane industry. Encana, a major player in the Kootenays, is well into its first development program, and others are leasing up their lands, but there's still much to learn. Resource money is mobile money. It can be switched from British Columbia to Colorado to Kazakhstan in the blink of an eye. Under the previous government, lots of eyes blinked.

The window of opportunity may be limited. Look ahead ten or 15 years, and perhaps LNG from Indonesia or elsewhere may become the most competitive alternative, not necessarily coalbed methane. We are encouraged when the ministry and the minister say: "Let's get on with it."

The previous government generated a lot of one-way traffic out of here on WestJet. I believe the current government's coalbed methane program, and its newly confirmed respect for private property, will help reverse that flow. British Columbia's energy security and energy supply will be the big winners. It will help us travel faster along the road to a new era of hope and prosperity.

J. Les: It's indeed a pleasure to follow my distinguished colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. His always insightful remarks are perhaps a difficult act to follow, but I will do my best in replying to the throne speech that was delivered just a few weeks ago by Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

The throne speech, as always, is a seminal event in the legislative year, and this year was certainly no different. The throne speech that Her Honour read was full of hope and anticipation of a bright future for British Columbians. The government's vision, as set out in the throne speech, was to open up every region and every community to new horizons of hope. I want to underline that particular statement because that, I think, summarizes the aspirations of many of us in this place. It indeed probably defines why we're here. We're here to unlock and unleash the potential that we believe exists not only around the province but also within each of the residents of this great province.

If indeed there is no hope, there is not too much of anything else. Indeed, if you look back at the last decade, throughout the nineties you saw hope being extinguished almost at every turn. But happily, as a result of the policies of this government, we've seen renewed hope and renewed opportunity, and that, I think, is something we ought to celebrate.

We now see British Columbians looking forward and realizing that the potential they have seen for many years is now within their grasp. In the forest industry, for example…. We have said in the throne speech that this is going to be the year of the forest in British Columbia. I know that for men and women everywhere throughout British Columbia who are familiar with this industry, who have worked in this industry for many years and would like to work in this industry in the future, the statements we have made in the throne speech resonate with them. They are very much anticipating the changes that we are about to bring forward with respect to the forest industry in British Columbia. There is not an industry that has been more important in the past in this great province, and it has indeed a large role to play in the future economy of this province as well.

I know the Minister of Forests has been working extremely hard in the past months to chart the course for the future in a responsible way, so that the forest industry we know in British Columbia, which is productive like almost nowhere else on earth, is organized in such a way that the economic forces within the industry are properly harnessed. The incentives will be there for entrepreneurs and workers not only to look after that resource in an environmentally sustainable manner but also to extract from that resource as much economic potential as possible. I'm certainly looking forward very much to the legislative initiatives to come from the Minister of Forests to once again realize the full potential of this industry in British Columbia's economic life.

Similarly for the mining industry, another industry that has a proud history in the province. Unfortunately, in the years gone by, it has been neglected and worse by the governments of the day. Today it is, sadly, a mere shadow of what it once was in this great province. That is not to say that there is no future left for the mining industry in British Columbia. No one convinces me that all the minerals that were to be discovered in British Columbia have been discovered and that there is nowhere else to go.

I believe, rather, that we have only scratched the surface, and that there is indeed a vast mineral resource waiting to be discovered by British Columbians who, in fact, are very good at this. Sadly, many British Columbians today live and work abroad in the mining industry. I believe we can repatriate these people, bring them back home, bring their expertise back here to British Columbia, where they can prospect and learn of new locations for minerals, where British Columbians can go to work and create wealth for many of their fellow British Columbians.

This is an exciting industry that has, as I said earlier, a long and proud tradition in British Columbia, starting with the gold rush of the mid-to-late 1800s and carrying on through to this very day. It is an industry that has provided many, many well-paying jobs for British Columbians through many years. I'm certainly hopeful that we can again rekindle that once-proud industry in our economic mosaic within this province.

I certainly would be remiss if I didn't mention the oil and gas industry, although it has been referred to by several of my colleagues in the throne speech debate thus far. This is an industry that has enormous poten-

tial. It is providing today a huge amount of revenue to the provincial treasury, which is absolutely critical in support of the important social programs such as health care, education and social services, which are critical to British Columbians. As much as that industry has grown to a considerable magnitude today, almost on a daily basis new resources are being found. If you just take the mid-range of the potential resources that are still there, we have years and years and years' worth of resources left in the oil and gas industry in British Columbia, to say nothing of the huge potential that exists in the offshore oil and gas fields and, as my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano referred to earlier, those resources that exist within the coalbed methane resource.

We are indeed well endowed in British Columbia with resources that not only support our own lifestyles and our own industries but also provide for a tremendous amount of export opportunities on which the treasury of the province of British Columbia will be able to earn significant revenues and royalties to support those important social programs that I talked about earlier.

Departing from that theme of hope for the future of this province, there is a tremendous amount of hope that can be delivered in the area of tourism. We have a province that when others visit here, they always comment on the sheer, rugged beauty of this province. We have it all. We have deserts; we have a marine climate; we have mountains; we have plains; we have steppe climates. We literally have it all here in British Columbia — to say nothing, of course, of the very important resorts that we have developed such as Whistler and many others around the province, where people can enjoy an experience that is unparalleled anywhere in the world.

Of course, the major opportunity before us in the tourism-related industry is, in fact, the 2010 Olympics. The 2010 Olympics is more than a 17-day event. It represents, in many aspects, a huge opportunity to take the tourism industry in British Columbia many steps forward, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and all British Columbians in the days, weeks and months ahead to ensure that come July 2, 2003, in Prague in the Czech Republic we will be awarded the 2010 Olympics. In my mind, there is nothing that can do more to enhance the long-term prospects of the tourism industry in British Columbia.

There are many other emerging endeavours on the economic landscape of British Columbia. I would like to mention just a few at this point. It wasn't that many years ago that the winemaking industry in British Columbia was considered to be in some difficulty. In fact, it was not a very imaginative industry and was losing market share to the extent it had gained market share. There was a lot of speculation that British Columbia really couldn't compete in the winemaking industry. Well, that situation has certainly turned around in the years that have gone by. Growers in the Okanagan in particular but in other parts of the province as well, including the Fraser Valley, have replanted the different varieties of grapes.

Today the winemaking industry in British Columbia is fast becoming a world-class industry, I'm happy to say. It supports many farm families throughout the Okanagan Valley in particular, but also in the Fraser Valley and even in some of the Gulf Islands and here on Vancouver Island. The resulting wines being produced here in British Columbia are amongst the finest anywhere. Particularly in the Okanagan just this past week, the growers were delighted to see the temperature finally dip below minus 8, which allowed them to harvest the grapes for the icewine industry. The one or two nights of cold weather indeed was extremely important economically in the Okanagan, as I'm sure you recognize, Mr. Speaker, being from that area as you are.

Other areas that have become increasingly important in the last number of years are the high-tech industry and the biotech industry in British Columbia. I will mention just two examples of outstanding companies that are doing world-leading research in each of their separate areas.

Ballard Power is the acknowledged frontrunner in research in fuel cells around the world. Although the technology is not yet at a point where it is commercially viable, it is certainly coming closer to that day where fuel cells will take their place in a commercially viable way. I expect the world is going to be referring to Ballard in years to come as the General Motors of the fuel cell industry, at least. Right here in Vancouver and more recently in Burnaby is where this company is located, and British Columbians particularly ought to be very proud of this world leader in this emerging technology.

Similarly, QLT Phototherapeutics is another one of those companies that is a world leader — in the biotech industry, in this case. QLT has pioneered a number of leading-edge drugs. Probably the best known at this time is Visudyne, which deals with macular degeneration. I know that QLT will be heard from again many times in the future, as they have a number of other drugs in the pipeline. As they continue to lead in that field of endeavour, I know they will continue to employ many highly educated British Columbians in carrying out their research and their marketing.

The value-added wood industry is another one that holds great promise, particularly as we reform the forest industry. As we restructure the forest industry in British Columbia, we're going to be able to ensure that more wood actually flows to those areas where the wood will create the greatest amount of value. I know we have a lot of creative British Columbians who would like to participate. We have as never before in British Columbia, for example, many companies that are creating and building log homes and exporting those all over the world. I have several of these in my riding, and they provide not only a lot of jobs in my riding but a great amount of export value that is very valuable for our economy.

Another area I want to comment on for just a few minutes, in terms of hope for the future, is enhanced prospects in terms of our democratic institutions. Typically in this country and in many other parliamentary democracies, the opportunity for all members of a government to participate in developing the agenda of a government is very limited. Due to the leadership of our Premier, there is a greatly enhanced opportunity for all members of government to participate in the policy-making process.

I think we have perhaps been remiss in not referring often enough to how our processes here in Victoria have changed from what was before. We have, for example, established the government caucus committees, which allow all members of caucus into the policy-making process, providing direct input to cabinet in the legislation-making process and providing input in areas of expertise that each member of this House brings with them to this place. I think that has been an extremely healthy evolution in terms of our democratic processes, and it has been an extremely beneficial innovation in terms of allowing all members of the House to make important contributions to the future of this province.

Similarly, we have other commitments we have yet to fulfil within this particular term. One will be to develop a system of workable recall. The second will be to form a citizens' assembly that will fundamentally look at how we are all elected to this place and whether there are perhaps better mechanisms that could be employed to ensure that the wishes of the voters are reflected as accurately as possible in the results of the elections. That work will be commencing very soon, I am sure, and I look forward to the results of the process. Indeed, it is something that has not been attempted in exactly this way before in our history in this province.

Another area I was pleased to hear of in the throne speech was the hope that is held out for the future of first nations people in British Columbia. I was pleased to hear, for example, that this government has finally done what, frankly, should have been done many, many years ago. It has openly stated that many mistakes have been made previously in the relationship between first nations and others who now live within the province.

Indeed, we went further than that. We have openly said we regret many of the features that have described the relationship between first nations people and others. There have been many unfortunate interactions between first nations and other people, and our government is perhaps the first government in Canada that has openly acknowledged those painful truths and expressed our regret in an open and sincere fashion. I think this was an important statement on behalf of our government, and hopefully it will play some small role in enabling us all to move forward together having recognized the past and learned from it, and enabling us to move on constructively.

The Attorney General and his ministry have, I know, been hard at work with a number of the first nations leaders. This House previously has established funding for economic measures in relation to treaty negotiations and other initiatives, and I am very hopeful that that will produce the kind of results we need, which give hope to first nations people that they can finally take their place in a real way in the economy of this province and can become part of the future in a way that they have not been able to do before.

It is not necessarily the case that treaty-making is the only vehicle that will deliver that hope to first nations people. I want to draw attention once again, as I think I may have done before, to the Osoyoos first nation, which is one first nation that is not in the treaty-making process and yet on the other hand is achieving tremendously well on the economic front. The Osoyoos first nation is a medium-sized band in the southern Okanagan of British Columbia. It has ten or 12 very significant businesses that are very viable, are doing very well and are employing all of the people in the Osoyoos first nation, including a winemaking industry — in conjunction with others — that very soon will be western Canada's largest winemaker.

I think it's important to recognize a success like that, and I believe it, too, can provide hope and encouragement to others to take advantage of opportunities that exist now rather than waiting for the sometimes very long-term arrangements such as treaty-making, which can take a long time. In the meantime I think it's important to take advantage of opportunities that are there now and can produce a lot of employment, a lot of investment and a lot of integration of first nations people in our economy today.

I think that more so than perhaps has been the case for some time now, there is hope for a sustainable health care system in British Columbia. We have, in fact, a world-class health care system in British Columbia in many aspects, certainly in terms of the level of expertise and care that is available in the various specialties. I refer, for example, to oncology, the treatment of cancer, which in British Columbia is almost unparalleled anywhere else in the world. British Columbians today can be confident that if they were to be so unfortunate as to contract this disease, they're better off in British Columbia than almost anywhere else in the world — if not, in fact, anywhere else in the world. That is very comforting to people.

What we need to ensure here in this House and here in this government is that we are able to sustain that level of expertise and that level of leading-edge technology. I can't help but think that it is, therefore, very important that we ensure that our economy continues to perform and perhaps even, certainly in the short term, outperform the national economy, so that we can rebuild the economic foundations that are important to an endeavour such as health care — which is, granted, extremely expensive but is very important to enable us all to reassure British Columbians that health care will be there for them when they need that important service.

It is all well and good to say we have a great health care system, but for each of us, the day we get sick or the day we need the health care system is when the rubber really hits the road. That is when we really want

to experience in a personal way that, yes, the health care system is there and those health care practitioners are there and will be able to provide that service to us.

I want to talk about education just for a moment almost in the same context. Again, education is a very expensive endeavour. It consumes nearly $5 billion of our resources in British Columbia, and yet it is fundamentally and vitally important to the future of our young people in particular. Here again, a strong economy is critically important to help us deliver this very important service many years into the future.

In the Fraser Valley, in the past we have been somewhat unfortunate in that our post-secondary education participation rates were lower than they were elsewhere in the province. But through the years we have seen an evolution to what is today the University College of the Fraser Valley. That has become a remarkable institution available to all residents of the Fraser Valley. It has enabled literally thousands of people to earn diplomas and degrees which they might otherwise not have been able to achieve, given that education at the University College of the Fraser Valley is available at a much cheaper rate than it is, for example, at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University or some other institution outside of our borders. I will be working wherever I can to enhance the prospects of the University College of the Fraser Valley. It is a wonderful institution. Today it offers bachelor's degrees in a range of subject areas. Frankly, I think its potential in the Fraser Valley is literally limitless.

To summarize, the throne speech that we heard a couple of weeks ago gives us all lots of scope for hoping for a sustained future in British Columbia, a future that is going to allow British Columbians everywhere to develop their potential to the maximum and in a way that is supported by government — but where government doesn't get in the way and where government doesn't suppress the potential that is within, I believe, all British Columbians.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate around the throne speech. I want to thank my colleagues in the House this afternoon for being so kind as to listen to me.

J. Kwan: I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne. This throne speech is about the desperation of this government — a government that's desperate to re-earn trust after many months of scandal and drift, a government that's desperate to ward off the threat of recall in constituencies all over the province, a government that's desperate to appease angry citizens who feel betrayed by countless broken promises, a government that's desperate to put a positive spin on a promised economic recovery that never seems to materialize, a government that is desperate to find new sources of revenue to pay for the cost of political redemption.

That effort to find a way to pay for high-income tax cuts that never did pay for themselves…. That is the underlying theme of the throne speech, the budget and virtually everything this government will do this session. Remember that promise? At every stop on the campaign trail, at every interview, every time the Leader of the Opposition then — the now Premier — had the opportunity, he said as loudly as he could: "Tax cuts will pay for themselves." It didn't matter that it didn't add up. It didn't matter that respected economists like David Bond said it wasn't true. It didn't matter that finance officials said it was pie in the sky. The Premier believed it with all the fervour of a true believer, and he gambled his credibility and his entire agenda on that simple prescription.

As we know, after only a few hours on the job, the Premier gave the biggest tax giveaway to high-income earners and big corporations in its history. Now, almost two years later, the results are in: personal income tax revenue down by over $1.2 billion; corporate tax revenue down by $299 million; revenue from the corporation capital tax down by $358 million. All told, those tax cuts that were supposed to pay for themselves have resulted in revenue loss of over $1.8 billion.

I'm sure that perhaps many in this House will say: "Hey, that's fine. Tax is just another form of theft anyway, so what's the problem if government loses the money from that revenue source?" That argument would hold water from a consistent, ideological position, I suppose, if indeed taxes had gone down in British Columbia. It might even be defensible if the result was a roaring economic boom. On both counts that's not been the result.

The economy is staggering, lagging far behind the rest of the country, and British Columbians are paying more in taxes and fees than ever before because this government hasn't cut taxes. All they have done is shift the tax burden onto the backs of the middle class and the poor.

The numbers are clear. While revenues have declined from personal and corporate taxes, they have gone through the roof for regressive taxes. Revenues from the sales tax that the Liberals hiked last year are up by $370 million; from the fuel tax, up $151 million — and that doesn't include the new 3½-cent-a-litre gas tax that takes effect on this coming weekend, which would amount to approximately an additional $200 million a year; and from MSP premiums, revenues are up $516 million.

Of course, there have been a huge number of other fees and licences and cost increases that are too many to detail. Taken together, the picture is clear. Government is counting on big increases in regressive taxes to meet its balanced-budget target. That means middle- and low-income British Columbians pay a bigger share than ever before.

In fact, I have a document here which illustrates the percentage of that shift. Progressive taxes include personal income, corporation income and corporation capital taxes. The Liberal government has shifted that tax burden from 26.8 percent of total revenue in the year 2000-01 to 21.5 percent for this year, '03-04. Then, if you look at the regressive taxes, which include things

like MSP premiums, fuel taxes, the PST and the like, that shift went from 22.5 percent in the year 2000-01 to 29.4 percent in this year's budget. The shift is clear; that has gone to the people who are middle income and lower income. They're the ones who get hit the hardest.

That's not accounting, by the way, for all the fee increases that this government has foisted onto British Columbians. It doesn't account, for example, for the driver's licence fee — another $75 increase. It doesn't account for the Pharmacare increase that is going to take place very, very shortly for many people. It doesn't account for ICBC premiums that are going to go up. It doesn't account for the hydro rates that are going to go up. There are many, many other fees and licences and costs that we have not accounted for in the regressive tax, and already the shift in the tax burden is overwhelming for the middle income and low income.

Let's be clear about what the Liberals have accomplished. They have cut taxes. They have not cut taxes, I would argue. They have simply shifted the burden of the taxes onto the people who have the least ability to pay. They have done so at the expense of hope, security and economic opportunity for the vast majority of British Columbians. From those just starting out to those who are in their senior years, most British Columbians have less money in their pocket and less to look forward to.

Just think of what a young student must now face with tuition fees going up every year by 30 percent. They went up last year on average by about 30 percent, and this year the same thing. Or a man who has worked all his life and hopes to save a little money when he turns 65, who must now spend more of his savings on drugs he needs to stay healthy…. Or a single mother who's trying to balance home and work, who must now choose between the two…. She is no longer eligible for the child care subsidy because the child care program, as we know from the budget, is being reduced by some $10 million.

These are the stories of the new-era agenda of the Liberal government. This is the reality of the Liberals' failing adventure. People are frustrated all over British Columbia. People feel a sense of betrayal. People feel that they're not being listened to, that their concerns are not being represented in this Legislature. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition and I travel across the province, we hear countless stories not from our constituents alone but from constituents of government MLAs, Liberal MLAs. They cannot even access their MLA to raise their concerns.

In fact, I received something interesting from a community, the community of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who sent me these two letters attached to a pink slip. It is addressed to me, and it reads: "My name is…." I'm actually not going to use her name. I wasn't sure if she actually….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I think you're aware that this sort of thing is not allowed in the House.

Deputy Speaker: I think you are aware that what you have there is considered a prop.

J. Kwan: My apologies. It's a document that was sent to me from this individual.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, but what you have attached to the document is not allowed in the House. It's out of order. I would appreciate it if you would remove it, please.

J. Kwan: Okay. I will think of how I can detach the pieces and put this away so I can actually read the attached document that she has requested me to present to the House. I will do that.

The letter attached to the two pink slips, which I've been asked to put away, reads as follows. I think I can actually use the name because the individual wanted me specifically to present this in the House.

There are cartoons, amongst other things, attached to this documentation as well.

People are looking for different ways to express their displeasure, perhaps most importantly to express their sense of betrayal and their inability to have a voice in this Legislature. To that end, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition and I receive lots of information — letters and innovative things like the document that I just read out attached to the pink slips — to illustrate the point. This is the reason why B.C. today is a more polarized, less confident and less prosperous society than when the Liberals were handed the reins of power.

This throne speech, like the ones that preceded it, is long on rhetoric and short on specifics. But this throne speech is unique in its detachment from the daily real-

ity of most British Columbians and for the fundamental dishonesty of a central claim that the new era of hope and opportunity is upon us, when many people can see, and what they see are darkening clouds.

The throne speech goes on to talk about the importance of reconciliation with the aboriginal people, the first people of this land, the people who have allowed us to be here today to stand on their land as we engage in debate. It is important to note that while the government MLAs are praising their government's action on reconciliation, the leaders of the aboriginal community have other thoughts.

I thought it would be worthwhile to actually read onto the record a press release that was sent out by the UBCIC, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and what they think. I think it is essential that the people who are impacted by this government's action and also previous governments' actions — what they think and what they have to say — ensure their voice is heard in this Legislature and not just by the government bench Liberal MLAs, who say everything is grand and things couldn't be rosier. Once again, when you talk to real people outside of the chamber, they really do have a different point of view, and I want to make sure that view is reflected here.

This press release was sent out by the UBCIC, dated February 12, 2003. It headlines: "Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' Response to the Throne Speech."

"Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs stated: 'Although we appreciate the government of British Columbia's admission of historical wrongdoing, generally speaking, the UBCIC is not overly impressed with yesterday's Speech from the Throne.'
"Chief Phillip continued: 'Yesterday's so-called statement of regret is obviously part of a public relations strategy designed to convince the general public that the government is committed to reconciling aboriginal title interests and Crown interests.

This is on the website of the UBCIC, from an aboriginal community leader representing UBCIC, who has strong views about the throne speech.

For all the rhetoric that's written within it, I think Chief Phillip had actually raised some very important issues that I hope the Liberal MLAs will take note of. As he calls it, the table scraps that are being thrown out come with conditions. Those, of course, would be the funds — the economic measures fund, the first nations fund — where the aboriginal community would have to relinquish their rights on the ground or in the courts. If there is a disagreement, they have no other recourse in order to get those table scraps. Those conditions are important items for the Liberal MLAs to note when they pound their desks and say how wonderful their government is.

These are the same Liberal MLAs who last year pounded their desks when the Attorney General brought forward a referendum to question aboriginal people's rights — to put a minority rights issue to the majority for a vote on basic, fundamental issues that the courts have already established, including aboriginal titles and recognition as one example, and issues of resource distribution and access to those resources, which is basically economic recovery not just for the aboriginal community, but economic recovery, stability and certainty for all British Columbians.

Those questions were put out to a referendum even though the aboriginal community spoke against it, even though the opposition spoke against it, even though it was a clear discriminatory approach in terms of subjecting minority rights to the majority for a vote.

Words don't count when your actions speak otherwise, because action speaks louder than words. To date, I would argue that there's been very little goodwill, if any, by way of action by this government to show the aboriginal community they are indeed sincere in their words and in their rhetoric around reconciliation.

Now, I hope I'm wrong. I hope this government will indeed move forward and reconcile the historical wrongs, because for too long we have seen too much devastation that has taken place in the aboriginal community. The time has long come where it must stop. It's up to this government to move forward instead of backwards. I'm sad to say that so far, I've seen very little action, if any, of this government moving

forward. Words are cheap; action counts. I hope the Liberal government will move forward for the aboriginal community.

I want to just touch on the issue around education for one moment, because the throne speech also had some nice words to say about education and how this government's doing all these fantastic things. But the reality is this. The reality check is, it seems to me, what we've always got to do now. When the government says one thing, you've got to actually do a reality check because what happens in these chambers and what words are spoken by the government MLAs don't actually reflect what is really going on.

In the area around education we know that the Liberal government, the Minister of Education, has frozen the education budget. In reality, what does that mean? It means that education services, services in the classroom, have been cut — make no mistake about it. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It's because costs have gone up, and these are fixed costs. Fixed costs have gone up.

This government legislated the teachers back to work. You know what? This government never paid the school boards the money for the increase in salaries for the teachers. This government this year is increasing gas prices by 3½ cents per litre. Those costs will increase costs for the schools in their heating bills and anything where they would require gas in order to keep the building running and operating and warm. Those costs are not covered by this government in their budget. Those increased pressures will be there for the school trustees.

Inflation is going to go up. Those costs are not paid for by the government and not accounted for in the classrooms. The Minister of Education can wax eloquent about how she is protecting education. The truth, in reality, is far from it. The reality is that we see cuts in the education system directly in the classroom. We see school closures happening across British Columbia. We see children being bused from British Columbia into Alberta — the first time ever in the history of B.C. where children have to go to another province to get an education.

Then the minister and the Premier, in his infomercial, went on and on about how he's increasing the education budget by some $100 million. Reality check. There is nothing in the budget line to show a $100 million increase. It's worse than that. If you look at next year's budget, you will see that the only base increase in education is $50 million, and that's been counted twice over two years to say that there's $100 million. Even then, that supposedly good news does not reflect the truth and the reality. Don't take my word for it. Check with the BCSTA, and they'll tell you that is exactly what has happened with the education funding.

While the throne speech can wax eloquent about how great everything is and that education and health care are being protected, the reality is completely different. Just today we had families of residents of Skeleem who came down because the recovery centre there for brain-injured residents is closing at the end of the month. You know what, Mr. Speaker? The families of these residents weren't even consulted on it.

Then the Minister of State for Mental Health, who got up to respond to the question even though it's not part of his portfolio, said: "Don't worry. Everything is fine." Well, tell that to the families of the residents who have not been consulted. They don't feel very fine about it. That's why they're down here raising the issue, protesting. There were only about 20 people who were allowed into the visitors' gallery today. There were another 20 who weren't allowed in the visitors' gallery and who were outside, hugely concerned about this issue.

Once again, when you use the litmus test of reality versus what the Liberal government says and versus what the MLA of the government says, you see a completely different picture. What is the responsibility of MLAs — of all MLAs? It's to use that litmus test and bring reality into this House and be a voice for their constituents. That is their job, first and foremost. Backbench MLAs for the government should not just be sitting here echoing what the Premier's office told them they have to say. They should be held accountable and be responsible to their constituents and voice their concern in this House. I hope to God they will start to do that, because democracy depends on it, and it is, after all, their job.

Deputy Speaker: That completes the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

P. Bell: It's a real honour for me to think that, in what appears to be a short period of time in my life, this my third response to three budgets. It really demonstrates that the new era is moving forward in British Columbia. Finally, we're starting to see some of that growth and opportunity that we did not see through the 1990s. I'm excited to speak to the budget speech for 2003.

Before I get into the actual budget, I'd just like to congratulate a few individuals from my riding who recently won the Queen's fiftieth anniversary medal — five very deserving individuals from Prince George North, including a good friend of mine, someone who has worked tirelessly in the Prince George community over the last 25 or 30 years, Mr. Ron East. Also, an individual who has worked incredibly hard in Prince George, who was largely responsible for the University of Northern B.C. and I believe was one of the first chairs of the board for the University of Northern British Columbia, an individual who ran Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd. for many years, Mr. Horst Sander.

Another individual, very deserving again, a tremendous contributor to the community and someone I refer to as the Miss Hart Highway, is Shirley Gratton, who has put in an incredible amount of work in youth sport, in community council, and has really been a huge contributor. Two other individuals are Murray Sadler, a lawyer in Prince George — again, very, very involved with the early development of the University of Northern British Columbia; and a very good friend of mine from Mackenzie, Mr. Tom Michael, who actually flew Spitfires in World War II and continues to be a councillor in the community of Mackenzie. I believe this is around his third or fourth term, at the ripe old age of 81, I think. I'm hoping he hangs on for the next provincial election. He certainly did a great job getting me elected this time. Those five individuals are very deserving of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

Moving back to the budget, you know, this is truly an exciting time in the province of British Columbia. For the first time ever that we can tell — certainly since 1951; that's as far back as we could check — in 2002-03 every single ministry came in on or under budget. That's just exceptional, in my view — to have a province with the size of budget that we have, to have a ministry like the Ministry of Health Services, as an example, that has a budget in excess of $10 billion and is able to manage that budget effectively. Historically, the Ministry of Health has been unable to keep itself within target, especially for the last five, six or seven years. Certainly, I congratulate all of the ministers on the other side of the floor for their efforts in ensuring that their budget was brought in on or under their targets.

You know, the great thing…. I'm really talking there about last year's budget. You know, there are some detractors who will say that no, it wasn't under budget, that there were a few items that were taken out of contingency. That's what contingency is there for. When you have a missing women's investigation that costs literally tens of millions of dollars, which could not possibly be anticipated, that's an appropriate use of a contingency fund. When you have the provincial emergency program and you have large-scale flooding in different areas, as I did in part of my riding…. I had a number of roads washed out, and my riding was one of the beneficiaries of the provincial emergency program. To spend money on the provincial emergency program makes a great deal of sense. That's an appropriate use of contingency funds.

Some people say that the $10 million that was spent at the University of British Columbia in the library was not an appropriate use of funds, but I say that any time you can get $10 million from the feds for contributing $10 million from the province, that's a great use of money. I think that was a sound financial decision. I might add that if my father were still alive here today, I'm sure he would support that decision, since he was the associate librarian at UBC for many, many years. I'm glad part of his vision has been carried forward in the expansion of the library at UBC.

To the detractors that say we went into contingency funds, I say: that's what contingency funds are there for. It's a prudent use of those funds, and I believe the Finance minister made the right decisions in terms of making appropriate use of that money and leveraging that money for those uses.

You know, when you come in on or under budget, it actually gives you some choices for a change. It's choices we didn't always have in this province. Certainly for the last ten years, we were making those choices and those decisions before we could afford to make those choices and decisions. Like any family, there comes a point in time when the credit cards are maxed out. You can't lever the debt up anymore, and you're forced into taking tough measures. This government, through the leadership of the Premier, has made those difficult decisions that we've had to make over the last year and a half. The fact that we made those difficult decisions has given us some choices that we haven't had.

I can tell you, government is not about making easy decisions. Any government, anyone, can make easy decisions. Oftentimes you hear people in different communities saying: "Why are we having to make these difficult decisions? Why are we actually having to tighten our belts somewhat to ensure that we can afford to have a bright future for our children?" Well, you know, it's pretty simple math in my view. It's simply a question of "pay me now or pay me later," and we've been using the philosophy of "pay me later" for the last ten years in this province.

I really admire our Premier for following up with the types of decisions that he's had to make. Really, it demonstrates to me that he is a man of courage when

he's prepared to make those decisions and take the type of heat that he's had to take in the public for making those decisions.

But 30 years from now, just as W.A.C. Bennett is viewed now as a visionary — by our very critics, I might add…. Our very critics today oftentimes say that if we didn't have a man like W.A.C. Bennett make the types of decisions around B.C. Hydro and the infrastructure of the province when he did, we wouldn't be where we are today as a province. Well, they didn't do anything to help us for the last ten years; that's for sure. Certainly, I think that 30 years from now our Premier will be viewed very fondly throughout British Columbia as well, because he made those tough decisions.

I certainly was fairly young, as were many of my colleagues, although I do know the odd colleague has better memory than me of the W.A.C. Bennett era.…

P. Bell: And there are several that weren't born, actually. But my recollection of those W.A.C. Bennett years is that there was a whole bunch of upset people. There were people saying that we shouldn't build the dams, that we shouldn't invest in our future. In fact, the people and the rhetoric that carried on during that period of time are very similar to the rhetoric that we hear today. The fearmongering that's going on…. In fact, I recall that at the time, W.A.C. Bennett was accused of selling our future to the Americans. I believe that was the statement of the day — and I see that my friend from North Vancouver is nodding; he would be the one that would perhaps know the best — that we were selling our future. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you would recall that as well, possibly. He would recall it better than you.

But I'm sure that was the quotation — that W.A.C. was selling away our future. You look today at the people that hold him as an icon, and they're the critics that are accusing our Premier and our cabinet today of making the tough decisions. I congratulate our Premier and all of our cabinet for making those difficult decisions, and I think they've done that with a tremendous amount of courage and vision.

When we came to office, it became absolutely clear to us that we had to get business back in British Columbia. There's no question that we drove business away. We drove the mining industry away from the province. We drove the forest industry out of the province. We drove technology out of the province during the 1990s. We have had to reverse that trend, and it hasn't been easy.

I come from the business world, and I can tell you that money is very portable. I can invest anywhere I choose to invest, whether it be in British Columbia, in Canada, in North America or in the world. There's nothing that prevents my money from flowing across boundaries. When you ask people how they make their investment decisions, generally they want to get the best return on investment that they can.

I want to share a little story with you, if I may. I had a couple of folks come into my office, and they happened to be from the teaching profession, actually. We were discussing the changes to the education system, and they were concerned that we were not putting more funds into education, even though we had put a tremendous amount in.

I asked them if they had any RRSPs or investments, and sure enough, they were planning for their future. They were planning for their retirement. They had some money tied up in RRSPs. I asked them the question: "How did you make the decision in terms of making your investments?" They said: "We went to an investment counsellor, and we told them what level of risk we were prepared to accept. Then we said to them that we'd just like them to make as much money as they can, given that level of risk." I thought: well, that's interesting. I said to them: "Do you know where your investments are?" They said: "We've got a little in Standard Life, and we've got a little bit of gold." I said: "No, no, no. Do you know where the companies that you've invested in are doing business?" They said: "Actually, no, we don't." I said to them: "Do you care where they're doing business?" They said: "Actually, no, we don't."

That's the point. People don't care where they do business. What they do care about is the best rate of return they can get. If we don't provide that return for them in British Columbia, they won't invest here. If they don't invest here, we won't create the wealth and the employment that we need to create to provide the social services that people are looking for us to provide.

This government really has focused on two areas so far and will continue to focus on those two areas. The first one is the level of taxation that we have in this province. I must say that the Premier and cabinet have been bold in their steps towards improving the taxation environment in our province. Not only do we have the lowest rate of income tax for the first two brackets of income — for those making under $60,000, the lowest tax rate in all of Canada — but we've also taken significant steps toward reducing taxation for various businesses.

We have a business tax rate that is competitive throughout North America now. We've removed that as a distraction. We've removed that from the reasons why businesses may choose not to locate in British Columbia. That's been very helpful. There are a number of other things that we've done as well. We've removed PST from production equipment and machinery. We have a 20 percent flow-through credit for mining. So there's a whole bunch of things we've done to create a competitive tax regime.

The other key thing you have to do is reduce the regulatory count, because regulation gets in the way of people doing business. Every day in our constituency offices we find more and more of this. It's not unusual for me — and, I'm sure, all of the various MLAs — to

have constituents come in and talk to us about things they've come up against that just seem silly.

I had an individual come in the other day, who wants to purchase some mountain pine beetle timber. He's a willing purchaser, he has an incremental use for the fibre, and he is willing to pay market value for the fibre. But because of the environment we've created, we find it difficult to actually sell him that wood. This is with the mountain pine beetle running rampant in our northern forests.

Fortunately, we're working through that process, and we're finding a mechanism. We've deregulated much of government, but we need to continue to work hard on that. I fear that one-third may not be enough in terms of removing needless regulation, but certainly it is a step in the right direction. I'm confident that the Minister of State for Deregulation will ensure that we have the appropriate regulations in this province in order to stimulate that growth.

What has this done? We've made changes in our regulation. We've made changes in our taxation regime. What benefits are we seeing? Last year, for the first time ever, we had over two million British Columbians working in the province. That's a significant step — over two million people working and 78,000 new jobs. Often I hear the chorus line from my seatmates to the left of me…. Not only physically but politically they're to the far left of me, I might add. I often hear: "They're part-time jobs." That's not true. They're good-paying jobs. There are many new folks working out there today in high-paying, family-supporting jobs.

Oftentimes people say those jobs are all in the lower mainland; they're all down in Vancouver. I hate to tell them this, but that's not the case. I have a few examples I'd like to read out for the record, because there are some significant ones. This is just the Prince George area I'm talking about. There's one company, Dollar Saver Lumber, which is a small manufacturer that does some value-added work and produces a nice quality product. They have employed 75 people over the years. They've been in business for 25 years. Thanks to solid support from Canfor, they're able to move from two shifts with 75 people to three shifts, so they will be employing over 100 people. Actually, I believe they're up and running with their third shift now — a nice little bump in employment in Prince George.

West Fraser Timber has started up a third shift, as well, just outside of Prince George, and there's upwards of 80 new staff working at that. This is all just in the last few months. There's a new call centre in Prince George. LiveBridge out of the United States has been attracted to Prince George. They have something in the order of 200 to 250 staff working there today. Certainly by the end of this year they will be up to 350, and they anticipate within two years over 1,000 new jobs in Prince George. That's huge. It's extremely important.

I can go on. That's not all of the examples. There are many, many more. There is a sort yard in Prince George that brings in fibre and logs, sorts them to their highest and best use and then resells them to various manufacturers. At the same time, they produce unique products for specialty markets. They're quite interesting. This little company here…. I'll tell you the employment numbers in a second, and that will put the lie to saying it's little, because it's not. One of the markets this little company has developed is the production of rough-cut lumber for movie studios and movie sets. Their lumber has been featured in various movie sets around British Columbia. It's found quite an interesting little niche market. At that sort yard there are over 40 staff working. They're good, high-paying jobs. In fact, they've been so successful that they're putting on an addition to their milling operation, and they'll be hiring another ten staff who are probably working there already. Again, it's a nice little business that's growing.

I'm going to continue in this vein, because I think it's important for people to understand that these are good jobs paying high wages, and they're spread out throughout the province. Another example is Brink Forest Products in Prince George, which has been manufacturing finger-jointed studs and various other commodities for a number of years. I believe they have about 80 or 90 staff. Mr. Brink is putting the completing touches on an additional 20,000-square-feet building. He's opening up another whole finger-joint line and adding 40 more staff. These staff are making in the $18-to-$22-an-hour range. They're high-paying jobs, and he is very optimistic. Mr. Brink has, in his vision, a view to move forward and start manufacturing furniture in Prince George as well — a very exciting option.

I'll briefly go on here; I could do this for my full half hour. Carrier Lumber has opened up Cheslatta Forest Products in a joint venture with the Cheslatta first nation and the residents on the south side of Francois Lake. They employ 40 to 50 staff. Canfor is adding a third shift at Fort St. James. That's another 40 or 50 staff. West Fraser, as I had indicated earlier, has added staff. A small value-added manufacturer in Prince George is producing landscape ties. That's employing 13 new staff.

Quite often the opposition members refer to these as meaningless jobs or part-time jobs. The thing that is important to note is that the average wage in British Columbia in the past year has increased by 5.1 percent. What does that actually translate into? Well, 5.1 percent is significant by anyone's measuring stick. That's a pretty healthy number. The national average is only 1.6 percent. It's significant that our average wage has increased over three times as much as the Canadian average. We've started to grow back to the point where we're starting to look at Alberta again. We're starting to sneak back to where we were. We lost our position in the 1990s as the second-highest wage anywhere in Canada behind Ontario. Alberta moved into that position. There's been lots of good news for us in the heartlands and in the north.

Speaking of the heartlands, I'd like to move on to our heartland strategy, because I think that's significant. Although we have been successful in creating some employment and some new investment in the

heartlands, I think there's much more to do. Clearly, this government has heard a very strong message. The Premier and all of cabinet have come to the table, and they understand the implication.

Three significant reports, in my view, have sent this message to us. One would be the Baxter report. The second would be the Progress Board's report on area code 250, and then certainly the Select Standing Committee on Finance chaired by the member for Peace River South also sent a very strong message. The message was pretty simple: for too long the heartlands were left on their own to survive.

The members of the opposition are constantly referring to how the current government members don't represent their ridings. Nothing can be further from the truth. I've lived in Prince George for about 14 or 15 years, and I can tell you that we were left on our own through the nineties. These two people here, the last of a struggling party, who refer to us as not representing our…. How dare they? They're the ones who made all of the regulatory decisions that drove mining out of this province, that drove forestry out of this province, that made it so difficult for people to survive, that took Prince George from a community of 80,000 people down to a community of 71,000 or 72,000 or 73,000 people. They devastated our heartlands. How dare they say we're not representing them?

This government has been very, very proactive. Despite the fact that it's politically not expedient to try and help the heartlands, the Premier has shown tremendous courage in moving forward with this strategy.

Some of the real key points…. When we think of our heartlands strategy and of what the significant components of the heartlands strategy are, certainly one of the things we have to do is ensure that we have stability in the heartlands around the land base. When you're talking about stability, you're talking about first nations, treaty-making and land use certainty. The Attorney General's office, through the treaty negotiations office, has been very, very proactive in working ahead and trying to get out in front of some of these treaties and settle some of the difficult decisions we have facing us. There's been a $30 million, three-year economic measures fund put forward to develop capacity in first nations. There are opportunities for revenue-sharing. There's a whole bunch of good things in terms of building that certainty around land use.

There are significant transportation opportunities. I want people to be absolutely clear on this, because oftentimes I hear editorialists in my community commenting on how we'll never get our share out of this new 3½-cent gas tax. We're going to get all our share and then some. In fact oftentimes, as we're down in the lunchroom these days, I can tell you that many of us from the heartlands are having a tough time with our urban MLAs asking us: "How come you guys are getting so much up in the heartlands and you're leaving us out to dry?" Perhaps it's time for that to turn around, but this time the heartlands really are being looked after.

Mr. Speaker, $650 million collected over three years — that's what that 3½-cent gas tax will actually generate, and 100 percent of that money is going to go into a transportation infrastructure fund to be held in a Crown corporation. So every penny of that $650 million is going to go back into roads. That's what people expect, that's what they want, that's what they've told us, and that's what we're doing.

Out of that $650 million, $362 million is going to be spent on northern and remote roads, so in excess of half of that money is going to be going into northern and remote roads. Another $210 million of that goes into resource roads, which are very important in my riding. I have many, many roads that have not been looked after over the years. People were not expecting the types of volumes of wood to travel across them. It's very important that we reinvest in those roads. There's another $37 million for oil and gas roads to expand the drilling season so that we can capitalize on that huge market. Instead of having a three-month window for drilling for oil and gas, we'll be able to extend that season out and actually capitalize on that investment and create more employment for people. That's $609 million out of a total of $650 million that's collected over a period of three years, and that's all for the heartlands.

There's a real significant opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill giving me the evil eye and saying: "How come we don't get any of that money in Victoria–Beacon Hill?" I feel for him, and I appreciate the 3½ cents that's coming to the heartlands from his riding. I can tell you that we all appreciate that. I congratulate him for agreeing to forward that money on. It's significant.

How is this money going to be spent in our area? There are lots of different opportunities. A transportation advisory committee will be set up, a group of citizens and locally elected officials who will be able to establish priorities for the moneys that are available in each given area. I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense. Hopefully, it takes some of the politics out of how we spend that money.

I can tell you about some of the areas that are significant for me in my particular area. The Chief Lake Road is consistently having problems. Highway 39 into Mackenzie is a key highway that has not had money spent on it for a long, long time and desperately needs improvement. Highway 16. Highway 97 through the Pine Pass still needs significant work. A second bridge across the Fraser River in Prince George or a twinning of that bridge and the old Cameron Street Bridge in Prince George I think would be helpful. There's a number of significant investments that we could make there.

Moving along the road into the heartlands strategy here, beyond simply infrastructure there's also tremendous energy opportunities in the north. It's not just energy opportunities specifically in the Peace area, but there's the new untapped basins — the Nechako basin,

the Bowser basin — and coalbed methane throughout the north. There's the offshore opportunities and a clear commitment from this government that it wants to be in the ground or, I should say perhaps, in the ocean by 2010. So there are significant opportunities.

You know, we have always invested from the north into urban British Columbia. A good example of that is that 45 percent of all the dollars that are invested in the Working Opportunity Fund in British Columbia come from the heartlands, come from people who are investing from communities like Prince George or Qualicum or Port Alberni or Vernon — and I'm looking around the room — or Merritt. Forty-five percent of the dollars that go into the Working Opportunity Fund come from the outlying areas. Yet only 12 percent of the money is returned to those areas, and that's something we have to change and improve upon.

I'm going to wrap up by just saying that education clearly is a key priority for this government. We made a commitment in '01-02 of $42 million. We've added another $50 million to that this year and another $107 million in '03-06 — significant dollars. That translates into about 5 percent more per student in the next three years.

We've worked hard together as a team. I'm very proud of the involvement I've been able to have, as all my colleagues have, in how we've moved forward. I congratulate the Premier and all of the cabinet for their vision, their guts, their determination and their hard work.

D. Jarvis: It's my pleasure to rise in response to Budget 2003. Somewhat like my throne speech, I said that this is my thirteenth budget I have spoken to in this House, only because one year the previous government — probably due to the condition that they were in — had two budgets in one year.

As a result of the previous government's lack of fiscal prowess, this province went from a leader across Canada to a have-not province, one that other provinces now have to contribute money to. In other words, we are in last place with an extraordinary debt and a daily payment of interest to the bonded bank-holders outside of our borders of close to $7 million to $8 million a day every day of the year.

Millions are being paid out to pay the interest only on our debt, and that's ostensibly because of the previous government — nothing off the principal, just interest. If people can imagine: every day, 365 days a year, we send somewhere between $7 million and $8 million out of this country. That's literally millions and millions of dollars lost every day. Today we are still paying that debt and the interest — two years after the NDP, as I said, were ousted overwhelmingly by the people of British Columbia.

Today we are now, without question, committed to fully reversing this past decade of decline. We are hearing from the previous government's supporters, the naysayers across the floor, wondering why we have to tighten our belts the way we are doing and why we are not still continuing to spend, spend, spend — recklessly, as they did before. The answer is that you just do not turn the ship or this province around overnight. There is such a thing as fiscal responsibility. I find it hard to comprehend that there is so little understanding out there with some people. You just don't stop paying money on what you owe or what you borrow, especially after you borrow it.

This is exactly what we did in this province between 1986 and 2001. We borrowed billions upon billions of dollars. As I said earlier, we only paid the interest — hundreds of millions of dollars per year, every day, every year, just wasted, straight into interest payments; no reduction of our capital costs on that. You cannot do that in your personal life, so I wonder why the people and the naysayers expect the government to be able to do it. If you continually spend more than you earn, without paying back any of the principal, and you keep doing it every year, year after year, you eventually go into bankruptcy. It's as simple as that. That is just where this province was going — towards bankruptcy — until we became government. Then we put in a sound fiscal plan, an approach to managing the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

I'm still amazed at the lack of understanding by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, as she was part of the government which created this mess that the taxpayers of B.C. find themselves in. I would remind her what Tommy Douglas, the old sage of the NDP-CCF party, said about debt: "If you have to borrow money from the banks, you owe your souls to the banks." He did not believe in debt, whereas I guess the previous government failed to realize the disastrous ideology they were going through and destroying this province with — jobs — and putting us into a large uncontrollable debt. The lack of jobs was caused by the philosophy of this previous government, especially in our resource areas.

The member across the floor should have realized what she was doing. She was part of the government that was doing it. She was at the helm of that ship of state and at the helm of the three fast ferries, as well, that put us in such a bad position.

I was mentioning the fact that in the last ten years, we had a lack of jobs in this province and unemployment was rising. I noticed just lately the latest volume of Economic Analysis of British Columbia by the savings and credit unions of British Columbia. In it they say, if I could read it into the record: "B.C.'s labour market outperformed expectations in the year 2002." Now, this is a year after we've taken power in this province. It says: "At least in terms of job growth, total employment bottomed out in December of 2001, after falling steadily in the last year and a half. In short, the provincial government's restructuring and consumer spending and residential property investment, as well some rebound in exports, were the key factors in shaping the last year's provincial employment picture." We created ostensibly 70,000-plus new jobs.

The time has come that we have to pay the piper. We're trying to do so in perhaps the softest and most

reasonable way, and, believe me, the results will be better in the long run. It's tough sometimes out there to do what we're trying to do, and we appreciate that some people go through a few problems. Nevertheless, it will get better. But first your spending must be controlled to the point where your outgoings are within reach of your incoming revenue. We the present government are taking a prudent approach to the management of the taxpayers' dollars now.

One of the problems with B.C. is that the political choice of the previous government was that they trashed our resource industry. The risk-takers, the ones who do the investing and developing in B.C., fled this province for other jurisdictions. The government of the time only encouraged those risk-takers to go elsewhere, as they — the government of the time — just loaded more taxes and applied excessive rules and superfluous regulations on those that were producing revenue in British Columbia.

Those rules and regulations were based mostly on philosophical reasoning rather than rational thinking. Now we have to go out and encourage those risk-takers to come back to British Columbia. It won't be easy. In doing so, we have to reduce many of the redundant rules and regulations, and we have done that — for example, to the mining industry of this province.

We have given them some tax incentives — for example, flow-through taxation. It's because of this flow-through taxation that we are now seeing…. I was talking to a gentleman just a short while ago, who was creating a mine and doing exploration up in the Toodoggone River — isn't that a great name? — area way up in northern B.C. He said: "We wouldn't be there today, investing in this province, if it wasn't for that flow-through tax credit." There's another mine going in north of the Revelstoke area, and it will probably have 200 or 300 men in it.

We still have a lot of work to do. B.C. needs to be an attractive place to invest, create wealth and produce jobs. Getting the conditions right for such long-term benefits just does not occur overnight.

I'd like to bring to your attention and read into the record a fax I got from the president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia, Mr. Gary Livingstone. I thought, as an urbanite, that there are people in the heartlands who might like to hear this read out. He said:

We are being prudent now with our responsibilities, as this budget shows, and the bankers see that as well. They see B.C. is now being fiscally responsible, and our credit rating is better than it was before. As a result of this prudent handling of our taxpayers' dollars, we are now seeing benefits come back to us — not big benefits, not great savings, but savings of some type anyway. It's the start of a much-needed recovery in this province.

We're following exactly our plan that we related to the people of British Columbia in our election platform, when we said that we would focus on our finances and put the moneys where they would do the most good. The bankers see that this is happening, and the rates are being adjusted in our favour accordingly.

An example of this is in education, which is part of our restructuring program, where we tried to get the runaway costs under control. There were some tough changes and belt-tightening in that ministry. The school districts were and still are faced with great challenges to meet the tight fiscal restraints that we put before them. All the while, this government said that when money becomes available, it will be going to education first. The base funding of about approximately $4.8 billion has not been changed, and it won't be changed until the year 2004-05, I believe, and then you'll see more increases.

However, when surpluses did become available, the government put them into primary areas like education. Last year we put two one-grant amounts totalling just over $109 million into the education system. This year we put another one-time grant of $50 million into education. The Premier just announced a further $107 million over the next three years that he is going to put into education. You can see that in the midst of the fiscal restraints, if there is a surplus, we are not forgetting the importance of education.

Still further, you can see, if we did not have any debt, what could have been done in this province. Imagine: no debt. Just think of what that money would have been available for in the education, health care and social services. Millions of dollars every day would have been freed up.

Health care had a budget of approximately $9 billion when we came to office in the latter part of 2001. Knowing the importance of health care and its costs and the fact that they were running out of control, we still managed to put another $1.1 billion into the budget. Twenty-five years ago the cost of running the province's health care plan was $3.5 billion. Today it's over $10 billion and rising, an enormous increase and still growing.

On a per-capita basis, what we spend on health care is maxed at approximately $2,289 per person. We're actually, at this point, number three in Canada but are behind the number one province in Canada by only $51, which is probably just an average prescription. But we are trying, and we are getting good to get better, but first we must get our house in order. Again, you've got to think of the benefits to health care that could have been, right now, and to education, right now, if we did not have to pay out millions and millions of

dollars every day to the bankers that we basically owe our soul to, as Tommy Douglas would say.

We value the doctors, the teachers and the nurses that are the professionals who teach and care for our children and ourselves, and we pay these professionals as one of the highest groups in Canada. Those that are in these professions should not be complaining about the state of health or education, as they are being well looked after — very well looked after. In fact, their salaries represent the largest factor of the percentage that is available to run those ministries. For example, in education, salaries in my riding amount to 93 percent of the budget.

First and foremost, we need to get the facts straight. Many people, for example, say we cut education, when we actually have put more money in than was spent in the 2000-01 year, before we took over. The same goes for health care, when everyone forgets we put $1.1 billion into the system and criticizes us continually for cutting health care.

The restructuring of this province is not an easy thing to do, and some of the choices we have to make are difficult ones, but we must strengthen this province's economy. The president of the CGA association is quoted as saying, "These guys are good," in reference to this government presently in power in this province. The CGA association said, "The Finance minister is quickly putting B.C. on a solid footing," and they applaud the fiscal restraint shown across all sectors of government.

Now, I was also going to put into the record a couple of articles from the local papers. For example, in the Vancouver Province on February 19, it said: "There were few glitzy giveaways in yesterday's provincial budget." But it said: "In the meantime, prudent fiscal management is enabling Victoria to protect health care spending as well as to ensure that every dollar in a new federal transfer payment will wind up there in health care."

The Vancouver Sun said on that same day, February 19, that…. No, it was a quote from Darcy Rezac of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Mr. Rezac called Victoria's effort boring but positive, giving it top marks for holding the line on spending and managing the provincial debt. "This is perhaps not as exciting and melodramatic as some previous budgets we have had in B.C., but a little conservatism is just what we need right now," he said. Well, that's a good statement, as far as I'm concerned. Mark Startup, president of Retail B.C., said: "For our members and those in the lower mainland communities, investment should result in jobs, and jobs will be good for consumer confidence in British Columbia."

It's not that we, as a government, are mean-spirited. We are not. The debt is a responsibility we have that we just cannot leave to our children and grandchildren to pay. Still, we are going to have to work harder to make this province a better place to live in. Our standard of living has slipped in the nineties, and we are now below that of the provinces and states that we trade with, being our own closest neighbours as well: Alberta, Washington, Oregon, California.

B.C. has the highest personal property crime rate, which is really disturbing — not only in our trade area but across the Prairies, Ontario and Quebec. Our rate is between 24 and 65 percent higher than in those various jurisdictions.

The progress report came out with such things that…. Where we are number one, for example, is in parks and protected areas. That's all very well, but they cost us money — a great deal of money. We're also number one in our environment principles and the qualities of our province. That's good, but it costs us money.

I keep going back to why we have lost jobs and why our revenues have gone down, and that is partially because of the mining industry and the fact that it was forced out of this province in a big way over this last ten or 11 years. We have to remember that mining is not like forestry. Minerals are subsurface. You can't see or count the minerals, like you can with trees. The same goes for oil and gas.

Our natural resources are going to get us out of debt in this province. Alberta uses its resources to the fullest. They are now saying that this year they're going to have a $2 billion surplus due to a dramatic growth they are having.

It's hard to comprehend that we were doing very well with a mining and a full-blown forest industry, but things have changed. Subsequently, it's affecting our main ministries of Health and Education.

Debt is not good. As I said earlier about what Tommy Douglas said: "If you are responsible, it must be paid back." As a result, other programs that fall under government responsibility must do less for a period of time, as our strategic plan said.

We have to be accountable. Fiscal management is a primary thing, but we still must focus on people's needs and, hence, phase spending reductions. We are on track to a better future not only for ourselves but for our children's children. That is why I'm prepared to stand up and support this budget of this year.

T. Christensen: As always, it's a privilege to rise in the House and address anything that we're debating, but certainly this year it's a particular privilege to be able to respond to the budget speech delivered on February 18 by the Minister of Finance.

Firstly, I do want to extend a quick thanks to my constituents, particularly for their faith in giving me this position for the last 21 months — it has certainly been an adventure so far — as well as to the many constituents who do get hold of me at the constituency office and provide their input, suggest things that might be done better but generally do have some good insight into some of the challenges the government's dealing with and some suggestions as to how those issues can be approached. I do always appreciate hearing from constituents, and it certainly helps me when I come down here to Victoria and have to work with the

government to address the challenges that the province does face, including those in my own constituency.

In my view, this is likely the most important budget of our four-year term of government, both for the results that it shows from last year and, in particular, for the path that it maintains for the future. A year ago when the Minister of Finance and the government were delivering our first full budget, we knew it was critical that we move to control spending and that last year's budget reflected the difficult choices that were there and continue to be necessary to get the provincial financial house in order. Having worked through those difficult decisions over the last year, the challenge for this year's budget was whether to stay the course to continue the path towards balancing the budget in 2004-05 or lose sight of the importance of staying on track and perhaps shift in some way to satisfy very short-term political concerns. Thankfully, the Minister of Finance, cabinet and caucus have kept focused on the big picture, the importance of having stability and sticking to a well-thought-out plan. The budget presented on February 18 clearly maintains this government's course towards balancing the budget in 2004-05.

You don't stick to a plan just for the sake of sticking to a plan. You need to be sure it's working. The Minister of Finance's review of the last year's results clearly show that this government's plan is working. Every ministry is forecast to come in within its operating budget. Economic growth last year was three times the rate that had been predicted by many private economists. The deficit is expected to be at least $600 million less than forecast, and hopefully, by the time the fiscal year ends in about a month from now, we'll find that the deficit is in fact more than $600 million less than forecast.

The provincial debt that my children and, in fact, my grandchildren will still be paying for is going to be $3.5 billion lower at the end of this year than was forecast a year ago. Many people may say: "Well, that's fine and dandy. You know, economists can get excited about those sort of numbers and what all that means, but what does it really mean on a day-to-day basis in terms of how the province functions?"

I think we need to remember that in this province, the ministry of debt is the third-highest area of spending after health care and education. That's a lot of money that really is simply going to bankers and those who hold our debt rather than going into services that benefit British Columbians. Once we get to a budget that is balanced and the debt is no longer increasing, then growing revenues that would otherwise be spent on growing interest payments can be freed up to be used for the benefit of British Columbians.

I think we'll all recall that at the same time British Columbia's budget was being presented on February 18, a budget was being presented at the federal level in Ottawa. What was interesting in looking at what was happening there — and I haven't seen it that closely or reviewed it that closely — was that it was pretty clear that as a result of some pretty tough decisions made in the mid-1990s by the federal government to get their spending under control, they are now reaping the benefits of having a very considerable surplus on a year-to-year basis and dealing with the debate of what you now do with that money.

B.C.'s budget projects a small surplus of $50 million in 2004-05, growing in years after that. I can tell you, as a member of this House and as part of my role of representing my constituents, I'm very much looking forward to the day that we sit in caucus, we sit in different committees, we go to visit different ministers, and we have a debate about: now that this government has a surplus, what do we do with that? What programs do we see as priorities that that money can go towards? Should it go towards more tax relief? Should it go towards health care? Should it go towards education? I'm sure we can find a broad and wide diversity of opinion as to where that money should go. The key element there is that you actually get to have that debate, because you've got your financial house in order and you're running surpluses.

Spending is just one side of the issue. A balanced budget relies on spending not exceeding revenues, so the revenue side is equally important. To be quite frank, I think we've had some significant challenges on the revenue side. We've certainly seen a slowdown in the North American economy. We've seen impacts because of the softwood lumber dispute. We've seen a reduction in revenues that arose from strategic tax cuts where revenues haven't grown as fast as we would have liked, to make up for the tax reductions.

Now, the naysayers, as we all know, will cry out: "Oh, your tax cuts aren't working." I strongly disagree. Increasing government revenues is dependent on increasing economic activity in the province. If we want to attract economic activity to this province, we're going to need to have a competitive tax system. More importantly, we need to send a message to individuals and businesses who are looking to invest or build their business that the government of British Columbia welcomes them and is committed to providing a competitive business and investment climate for them to succeed here. It's as simple as that.

Where is the evidence that it's working? Let's review some of the provincial indicators of increased economic activity. B.C. wholesale sales increased faster than in any other province in 2002, rising 8 percent compared to 6.2 percent nationally. New motor vehicle sales in B.C. in 2002 increased 13.1 percent over the previous year, a more than 50 percent stronger growth than the national increase of 8.5 percent. Residential building permits issued in B.C. increased over 2001 at a faster rate than the national average. In 2002 B.C. had a net gain of almost 78,000 jobs, again a growth rate higher than the national average. Home sales were up, with the most units sold in one year since 1993.

What was it that happened in the early 1990s in this province, which might have affected home sales and created some negativity around the economy? I think what happened was that we had an election back in the early 1990s, and it went the wrong direction.

Housing construction was up 25 percent over 2001, which surpassed the forecast of the provincial government, CMHC and the government's private sector Economic Forecast Council.

A poll by the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that 59 percent of B.C. small businesses expect their business to be stronger over the next year; 91 percent expect to increase or maintain their number of full-time employees, and more than 76 percent say that the government's personal income tax cuts have had a positive impact on their business.

That's all very good news, but while I'm impressed with the provincial results, what I'm really interested in, in fact, is what the provincial government's economic strategy has meant for my own riding. What's happening in Okanagan-Vernon? The city of Vernon and the North Okanagan regional district were kind enough to provide me with building permit summaries for the past few years. Here's some of the information I found. In the year 2000 — which, as we all know, was the last full year under the NDP government — the value of new residential building permits issued in Vernon was just under $14 million. In 2002, the first full year of a B.C. Liberal government, the value of residential building permits was just under $21 million. That's a 50 percent increase simply by virtue of a change of government and new policies. The value of new commercial building permits in Vernon was $12.2 million in 2002. That's an increase of 50 percent over 2001 and almost six times as high as in the year 2000. A little east of Vernon, in Lumby, the number of building permits issued has tripled since 2000, and the value of those permits is up six and a half times. In the North Okanagan regional district as a whole, the number of building permits issued in 2002 was up 17 percent over 2001 and 26 percent over 2000. The value of those permits was $73.5 million, a 31 percent increase.

I was also able to obtain some information from the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, and what I found there really told me the tale of the devastating impact of the policies of the former NDP government on housing activity in the North Okanagan. Their statistics went right back to 1987, and what you could see in the latter half of the 1980s was that sales steadily grew year over year. In 1991, when the NDP was first elected, there were 2,356 sales in the North Okanagan. People remained pretty optimistic, and it went up to about 2,500 in 1992. But then, as NDP policies started to come into effect, well, guess what. We saw a dramatic drop to 2,100, and it just kept going down until it was down at about 1,400 sales in 1995. Then, people knew there was an election in 1996. They got optimistic, certainly, in my part of the province. We were pretty confident that a B.C. Liberal government was going to be elected in 1996, and we kept our fingers crossed. That confidence…. Sales went up to about 1,750 in 1996. The election occurred. Down they started to go again, steadily downward until in 2000 we were down around 1,375 sales.

Guess what. We had an election in 2001. Up they started to come, so we're almost at 1,600 in 2001, and now in 2002 we're up over 1,900 sales. In 2002 real estate sales had increased 20 percent over 2001 and a full 39 percent over 2000. Among residential sales we saw an 18 percent increase in 2002 over 2001, and sales were up 29 percent over 2000.

That's perhaps a relatively long-winded and lots-of-numbers way of saying that in Okanagan-Vernon, we're seeing the same results that we're seeing throughout the province. The provincial statistics don't tell a lie in terms of what is happening in my own riding. Housing sales are a pretty good indicator of people's confidence in the economy and their future.

Beyond statistics I can also report some more anecdotal evidence of the positive impact of a government committed to getting the province's financial house in order and fostering a competitive business climate. Many auto dealers have told me they've just had one of their best sales years ever. People are confident about their future. They're making those big expenditures for homes and cars.

My former colleagues in the legal profession are busier than ever with new real estate developments and new business transactions, as people want to buy businesses and expand their businesses. Certainly my timing is impeccable, because of course I've come down here to Victoria to undertake this new vocation right at a time when the legal profession in Vernon is taking off, and I would have been busier than ever.

In terms of some of my local businesses, there are some new entries on the retail side of things in Vernon, with a significant expansion of retailers at the north end of town. Most telling is the capital investment being made by some of the larger businesses in my constituency. At Silver Star Mountain Resorts $10 million was spent this last summer to replace two chairlifts. There are considerable expansion plans for the resort, and significant additional residential and commercial development is anticipated this year.

Those driving up to Silver Star will pass by the newly built premises for Tekmar Control Systems Ltd., a Vernon company that is a world leader in the development and manufacture of high-tech heating control systems. With their new facility, Tekmar is doubling its space to allow for expansion of their research and development activities and manufacturing. In speaking with representatives of that company, they tell me the British Columbia government's commitment to a competitive tax environment for business is a major reason they've undertaken their expansion in B.C.

It's worth noting that Tekmar has a distribution centre over the border in Washington State. They could have easily chosen to locate in that jurisdiction rather than here in B.C., in my community of Vernon, if we weren't competitive. Their decision to expand in Vernon will give them the ability to double their workforce, to the benefit of my community and all of British Columbia.

Over on the other side of town, Vernon is home to the Okanagan Spring Brewery, the largest brewery of craft beers in British Columbia as well as the finest. Okanagan Spring is an exemplary corporate citizen in

my community, providing sponsorship to numerous events. At one of their events recently, the Vernon Winter Carnival, I spoke to the new managing director of Okanagan Spring, and this is what he had to tell me. Since the B.C. Liberals became the government in British Columbia, employment at Okanagan Spring has risen from 61 employees to 107. That's a 75 percent increase in employment. In addition, Okanagan Spring has invested over $6 million in capital upgrades in Vernon. I'm going to quote him directly, because he sent me a short e-mail. He said: "These initiatives can be attributed to the positive tax and investment climate the B.C. Liberals have created in the province of British Columbia."

Beyond that, Okanagan Spring plans a further $3 million in capital reinvestment in the Vernon brewery this year, with an additional estimated $4 million next year. Those are literally millions and millions of dollars coming directly into my community as a result of a competitive business climate in this province. You can see there are significant investments being made in the heartlands as a direct result of the economic policies of this government.

Of course, stewardship of the economy is only one part of the government's task. My constituents are still paying a lot of money to the provincial government each year, and they want to know what this government is doing with their money. The government of British Columbia plans to spend over $27 billion in 2003-04. I don't think any of us would disagree that that's a lot of money and that that money funds a lot of good things. Health care, education, child protection, child care, services to families, social assistance, employment programs, the justice system, environmental protection…. The list goes on and on. These are all necessary expenditures that make the province and all of our communities better places to live.

Government must balance the demands for spending in all of these areas, and I'm going to talk briefly about just a few areas of expenditure today. Last year the government increased health care spending by over $1 billion. That increased budget is going to be maintained into the future, and any new dollars coming from the federal government will add to the over $10 billion budget that health care currently enjoys.

If there's one thing I am certain of, it is this: many people will continue to say that more should be spent on health care. But it's critically important that government gets a handle on how we're spending dollars in health care. We simply can't continue to throw literally millions and millions more in every year simply because we think that will solve the problems. It hasn't solved the problems in the past; there is absolutely no reason to believe it's going to solve the problems in the future. What we need to do is figure out how health care dollars are being spent, spend them strategically to get the greatest benefits to patients and ensure that we're managing the health care system as effectively as possible.

We've made more progress in the last year than in the two decades previous, because government is looking beyond today's headline. It's looking at demographics and our changing population. It's projecting what future needs will be, and this government is planning ahead. We've had a consolidation of the health regions. While not without some bumps, that's resulting in significant reductions in administration and an enhanced ability to meet patient needs within a region.

In the interior health authority we're opening more operating rooms and providing more services like dialysis, MRI and CT scans to reduce wait-lists through the region. Residents of my own community no longer need to travel to Vancouver for an MRI scan, now that a new one has been located in Kelowna offering full-time access and an increase in the number of scans to 20 per day this year.

At Vernon Jubilee Hospital we now have a gamma-ray camera, thanks in part to the generous donations of the community through the Vernon Jubilee Hospital Foundation. That's going to provide about 4,000 scans annually to help detect certain types of cancer, and it's the only machine of its type, I am told, in western Canada. It's state of the art. The fourth operating room at Vernon Jubilee Hospital was recently opened for day surgery, which allows for an increase in the number and type of surgeries being done, reducing wait-lists for many procedures.

Shortly after I was elected, I remember meeting with some folks from the then North Okanagan health region who told me of the lack of appropriate care space for youth with acute mental health problems. At that time, such youth were either being admitted to an adult psychiatric unit or having to wait to be admitted to a youth unit down in Vancouver.

I also saw, when I was reviewing some statistics about my own constituency, that unfortunately we have a higher-than-B.C.-average suicide rate in my community. I think we can all agree that suicides are always a tragedy. If they involve youth, I find it hard to think of anything more tragic. The waste of opportunity and the waste of life that such an event involves is simply a failure on the part of society as a whole. I think, certainly from my discussions with the folks at the health region, that what we're now doing is addressing that problem. I am very pleased the government and the interior health authority have made it a priority to address mental health and that this April the IHA will open a new adolescent psychiatric care unit in the Okanagan to better meet the needs of the over 700 adolescents admitted to hospital through the IHA region each year for mental health reasons.

The government is also making significant progress in addressing the human resource needs in our health care system. We're moving forward with the training of medical students in Prince George, and by 2005 we're going to double the number of medical students training to be doctors. We followed through on increasing funding to allow for the training of an additional 1,400 nurses over three years. Between June 2001, when the B.C. Liberals became government, and last October there was a net increase of over 1,200 registered nurses

in B.C., and as many will agree, nurses are what keeps our health care system going on a day-to-day basis.

Within the interior health authority $430,000 has been earmarked this year for specialty training for nurses, including training in hard-to-fill positions in trauma, critical care, perinatal, cardiac care and emergency nursing. All of those things are going to better enable the health authority to meet the needs of the patients in the interior health authority region.

Are all the challenges in health care going to go away? We can only wish, but I think we'd be fooling ourselves quite severely. For the first time in a long time, the government of the province is confronting those challenges and is taking positive steps to address the needs of patients so that we'll have a health system that meets my grandmother's needs. We'll also have a system that's sustainable so that it's going to meet my needs as I get older. It's going to meet my children's needs as they grow up, have families of their own and get older. That is a responsible approach to the delivery of health care.

In education the government is using savings found within the ministry to direct an additional $50 million to school districts this year. That's exceptionally good news. That will add more than $800,000 to my own school district. That's $800,000 that can be directed to services to students right in my riding. From what I'm hearing from my constituents, I'm glad to say that school district 22 is doing a very good job of managing the delivery of services to students. I do hear some concerns about parents' ability to volunteer and help with their children's education, but I'm confident that over the next number of months those can be resolved.

I'm particularly pleased that over this last year, school district 22 was finally able to proceed with long-awaited renovations to Charles Bloom Secondary School in Lumby to expand the shop and student space and to provide an improved learning environment for those students. The folks in Lumby have been pushing for that project year after year. Finally, they were able to proceed this year. The budget also confirmed that the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to provide funding for school-based programs. The minister has more recently indicated he's going to be working with school districts, parents and teachers to ensure that funding is directed where it will meet the greatest need.

In my own community I've had the pleasure of visiting one of the elementary schools that benefits from the school lunch program. They also benefit from a dedicated principal, a dedicated PAC group and teachers who all work together to best maximize the students' learning experience. If we listen to those folks and we work with those folks, we'll be able to ensure that funding is available to assist in meeting those students' needs in the best way possible. The fact that the Minister of Children and Family Development has been able to maintain that funding and that the government has committed to continuing the funding this year is very good news indeed.

I certainly look forward to working with school district 22 over the next year to ensure that I have a good understanding of the issues they face in delivering services to students so that the provincial government can work with them. We're all maximizing student achievement and opportunity.

On the post-secondary front, I think this is going to be a very exciting year. The Ministry of Advanced Education is working hard on an improved model for industry training to complement the ongoing availability of traditional apprenticeship training. That's no easy task. Study after study indicates we're going to have a severe shortage of skilled workers throughout Canada in the near future. In many cases we already do. The Minister of Advanced Education is to be commended, because she's taken that shortage very seriously. British Columbia is taking bold steps to address it. Beyond hands-on skills training, this year's budget includes one year of targeted funding of $23 million to enhance research in universities and colleges, including an additional six B.C. regional innovation chairs in the college sector.

That's very good news for the Okanagan University College, which is quickly gaining a foothold and attracting research funding from a variety of sources. To date, research at OUC has contributed to economic development and environmental protection in the Okanagan as well as providing significant scholastic benefit to the region's students. I'm confident that as research dollars are made available, the past success of OUC in attracting those dollars is going to continue for the benefit of the whole of the Okanagan and the province.

In my own riding, OUC recently opened its new continuing education building at the Kalamalka campus. We can look forward to the use of a facility that's going to accommodate more students and programs and is designed to better meet student needs. You can see that it really is an exciting time for post-secondary education in the Okanagan as a whole. I'm looking forward to the year ahead as we continue working to find progressive ways of meeting student needs throughout the valley.

On an education-related front, I was very pleased to see that the budget included $10 million to establish an early childhood partnership fund in cooperation with the United Way and Credit Union Central of B.C. In my own community the United Way of North Okanagan–Columbia-Shuswap has already taken a special interest in early childhood development. They're currently involved in raising funds through the raffle of a 1956 T-Bird hardtop convertible, with all that funding then being dedicated towards programs in early childhood development. Certainly, if you would like that car, all you need to do is see me to get a ticket.

I think there's no other area of government policy where we have more exciting opportunities to really make a long-term difference than by investing in early childhood development. I'm certainly looking forward, over the next number of months, to working with the

Minister of State for Early Childhood Development on a number of initiatives that are strategic and that do bring results.

I spoke earlier of some of the signs of economic success that we're seeing in my riding, based on the economic policies of the government. I also want to talk a bit about some of the new economic initiatives announced in the most recent budget. Certainly, in forestry I think we can expect a few bumps this year, but I think it's a year that we will all look back on as being a turning point in forestry in this province. It does remain the heart of our economy, and my constituency is no different in that regard.

We made some progress last year with the Forest and Range Practices Act to try and deregulate some of the regulation under which the industry has to work and to allow them to use their innovation to meet the environmental standards that we all expect. We've released the discussion paper on the working forest that proposes to establish 48 percent of the province's land base as working forest. This session will move to reform tenure and to introduce a more market-based stumpage system. I was pleased that through the prudent management of the budget last year, we were able to set aside one-time funding of $275 million to assist in making these very significant changes in terms of how forestry is managed in the province.

On the transportation front, a number of my colleagues have spoken about that. Every single one of us has a transportation project that is key to their community, but I think we also need to look at how some of those provincial transportation projects affect our communities. That really hit home with me when, shortly after the transportation plan was announced and it indicated that the number one priority was going to be improvements to the Kicking Horse Pass, I received an e-mail from a good friend of mine and a constituent who said: "Yes, that's exactly the right thing to do." The reason was that this fellow used to live down in the lower mainland, and he and his family moved to the Okanagan. He has a business in my community and employs people in my community because of the Coquihalla Highway. When the Coquihalla was built, it gave him the confidence that he could get back and forth to the lower mainland and that the Okanagan was more accessible.

His message to me was that when the Kicking Horse improvement is made, we're going to see the same thing in terms of people being able to move back and forth to Alberta. Certainly, in my own constituency we have our own transportation priorities, and I look forward to working with the Minister of Transportation to ensure that those are high on the priority list and that we can see things moving ahead right close to my own home.

I firmly believe that we're setting the course for a stronger, more diversified economy in my riding and around the province, and this year's budget simply shows the plan as working. The Minister of Finance is to be commended for staying the course, and I very much look forward to the results we'll see this year.

R. Hawes: It's indeed a pleasure to add my voice to those of my colleagues speaking to this budget. I'd like to start by saying: what a difference a year makes. A year ago we all stood and spoke to last year's budget, and I have to confess that at that time we were beginning to realize just how deep the hole we were in was — the hole that was left by the last government that just got everything so wrong.

To look at our new-era commitments one year ago and to think about whether or not we could achieve those…. I have to tell you that I personally had my doubts, particularly around things like balancing the budget by 2004-05. What a difference a year makes. What a difference prudent financial management makes, and what a difference rebuilding confidence in the investment sector makes.

This year it's very evident we are on track to balance our budget. The naysayers in the press now are saying, yes, this budget shows we are on track and we will balance our budget. In fact, they've termed this budget boring. I guess they've termed it boring because there were no real surprises, which leads me to thinking about one of our new-era commitments that's often thrown back at us by the opposition and those who philosophically oppose where we're going. We promised to have the most open and accountable government in this country. Constantly we hear from the opposition and hear from their friends that we're, in fact, going in the opposite direction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason the budget is termed boring by a lot of the pundits is because we've talked about so many of the things in that budget. We've aired them in public; we've consulted with the public. Things like the Forest Practices Code, all the changes…. These are examples of consultation — the Forest Practices Code, the energy policy. There was considerable discussion around much of the energy policy. I think of the Community Care Facilities Act and the changes that were made there and the wide consultation leading to changes that were brought back — very, very wise changes — so that legislation could be implemented last year.

The community charter has been out for a considerable period of time, and that's going to reform how municipalities do business in this province quite dramatically. It's going to give them broad new powers, abilities to raise funds and, frankly, deliver better government. But some have criticized us because it's taken so long to get the community charter up and through the House and running in communities. The fact is that it's been out for a long time for consultation with UBCM and with municipalities all over this province, because we want to get this right. We are getting it right, and it is going to make a difference.

Pharmacare. The changes in Pharmacare have been out for discussion around the province for quite a few months. The opposition, for months, have been making statements like: "We're kicking seniors off Pharmacare." They've been out fearmongering all over the province. There have been demonstrations led by former mem-

bers and former heads of things like the B.C. Federation of Labour, people who philosophically oppose this government, who want to see their friends back so that the largesse that was bestowed upon them for the last decade can continue. The public now understands that what we've done with Pharmacare is make it sustainable.

The past government never considered what was coming down the rails at all of us. We are all getting older. The baby-boomers, within 20 years, are going to be such a huge percentage of the population of this province that those younger folks — our kids and our grandchildren who will be working trying to support us — can't possibly sustain the legacy we're leaving them unless there are changes made. Frankly, people understand that.

Once in a while I hear from seniors who are upset about the changes in Pharmacare, for example, who say: "Why should this happen to me? I'm a fairly high-income senior, but I've paid my way." The fact is that we're going to leave a huge debt for our kids because all of us, certainly my generation, have lived beyond our means for too long, have racked up a $40 billion debt for this province that we're going to leave to our kids, along with the responsibility to look after us as we get older. Frankly, they just can't do it. We haven't paid our way, and it's time now to pay our way. I know — I'm hearing from seniors — they understand this; they support this. It's fair.

These are examples of the openness that this government has demonstrated. We have moved to be the most open and accountable government in this province.

In the budget we've got a new energy policy. For the first time in this province we have an energy policy to guide where we're going now and into the future, to ensure that we have got a supply of energy for our kids and our grandchildren and we leave a legacy. Just as W.A.C. Bennett left a legacy for us with B.C. Hydro, we're ensuring that we will leave a legacy for our children.

That legacy begins by understanding what has happened to B.C. Hydro and ensuring that B.C. Hydro remains a central gem in our energy system in this province. One of the ways you do that is to again make B.C. Hydro financially viable and sustainable into the future and in the long run. What the previous government had done was milk every single dime that it could possibly take out of B.C. Hydro. In fact, it racked up a debt of close to $7 billion in B.C. Hydro. That is, frankly, not sustainable if B.C. Hydro is also to reinvest in itself, maintain its transmission lines and generation facilities, and make generation capacity in this province grow to keep pace with the rising need for electricity in this province.

We've taken a good look at that, and the first step is to do what's been happening all over the world. Outsourcing is the way of the world. We're looking at the front end — the support services around B.C. Hydro, the non-core services in B.C. Hydro — that we could get someone else to do for us and who is better skilled at doing that, can do it more economically and will in fact make money for us doing it. We'll save about $250 million over the next decade. That is money that can be reinvested into the infrastructure of B.C. Hydro to make sure that we do keep that legacy.

The naysayers are out there — the people who oppose everything that this government is doing because they want their friends back so they can continue to enjoy the largesse they had over the last decade. They are trying to say we are breaking down B.C. Hydro to privatize all of it. To them it doesn't matter how many times we've said that isn't so. It doesn't matter that in our New Era document, we committed to keep the core assets of B.C. Hydro in public hands. It doesn't matter that every single member of this government, in writing and verbally, has said the core assets will remain public. That doesn't matter. Facts shouldn't be introduced to confuse this. They want people to think that B.C. Hydro is being sold off, and somehow energy prices are going to soar through the ceiling — like that is what this government wants. That's what they're saying. Can anyone in their right mind think of why we would want to do that? That's just so preposterous. Yet they perpetuate this myth, and it's irresponsible.

Our energy policy allows the front end to be moved. At this time we're looking at moving it to Accenture, which is a very large international company that our opponents would somehow denigrate and say: "This company is absolutely terrible." If you go on the website for Accenture and look at where they're doing business and the type of business they're doing, you'll find they are doing this front-end service work for banks, credit unions, manufacturing companies and all kinds of large concerns all over the world. That's what they specialize in. They're very good at it. I think we're very, very lucky to have them as a potential partner, because that's what this is going to be. We will have a profit override.

The $250 million we should make from this arrangement is a minimum that we anticipate. It could be substantially higher as Accenture uses this as a foothold in this province to reach out to other parts of North America and other hydroelectric companies in North America to take over their front end as well. We would have an override on the profits earned from that. The energy side of this budget, and the energy plan that goes with it, is excellent news for everybody in this province.

I want to talk for a second about education. Many previous speakers have talked about the extra money that we have put into education, but in addition to putting extra money in, we are taking a look at the fairness of the education system. First, the funding formulas. How were school districts funded in the past? When one looks at that, and you look at per-student costs, I really don't know how many different permutations have gone into how the budgets were allocated. There were so many things — different plans that were put in place and then fell away, but the funding remained — that there were over 40, as I understand it, different reasons for the differences between per-student funding and school boards. Those were all lost. Nobody

really understood them anymore. You just had school districts that, for some reason, had a lot more money per student and others that had very little per student. It was just inequitable funding across the province, school district to school district.

We're moving to an equalized per-student funding formula, with differences only for things like distances that perhaps school buses have to go or climatic differences that will make a difference in heating costs. It's certainly a fairer formula. Today there are school districts that have had much, much more money than others. Those school districts are looking at perhaps less money per student, and others are looking at more money per student. Of course the ones who had much more money are very upset about it. We hear frequently from them how we're driving them into closing schools and everything else.

I'll speak for a moment about the two school districts that are in my riding, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and Mission. Both of those school districts have been operating at the lower end of the per-student funding spectrum. Both of those school districts have learned to do with less. They've found efficiencies. They've done exactly what you or I would do if it were a business that we were running with our own money. They have treated the taxpayers' money with a huge amount of respect, and they've got every single cent of efficiency they could possibly get from the money they received from government for their school districts.

Others, who receive so much more, weren't forced to look for those efficiencies, and that's not fair. Now what we have is a system of buffer grants, as they're called, to buoy up the money received by those school districts that had a considerable amount more in the past. Many of us who live in areas that had received less are urging, over time, to see full equalization. Hopefully, that's going to happen over some time.

One of the things in my own riding, in Mission, that school district 75 has formed is something called the Riverside Centre. It's an innovative new type of school that connects kids who have dropped out or identifies kids who are about to drop out and moves them out of the system, the academic track that they've been running on. It recognizes that there are a lot of kids not going on to post-secondary education, kids who for one reason or another don't do well within the existing system. The Riverside Centre, after recognizing these kids, gives them an option to move over to a track that's going to prepare them for when they're out of school, to give them some trades training.

It's a pre-apprenticeship school. However, it's now been expanded because of an agreement struck through Job Wave, which partners school district 75 with the Canadian Home Builders Association. School district 75 will now be running an apprenticeship program for these kids — again, because the Ministry of Advanced Education has taken a look at what happens with kids or anyone who is in the apprenticeship programs in this province. There have been huge dropout rates. That's being restructured to allow people to take modules and not be stuck in track in an apprenticeship that they can't complete and, after three or four years, wind up dropping out as a third- or fourth-year apprentice without getting a trades ticket and, really at that point, finding some difficulty in the working world. That's being adjusted.

That's something great this government is doing. I'm really proud of the school district where I live for tagging onto this innovation, for recognizing that all kids aren't going to go on to post-secondary, that all kids aren't designed to run through the school system perfectly. Those that could drop out, may drop out or in many cases have dropped out are being reconnected, being put into a trades training program in which they will get their grade 12 as well. It's a wonderful program, and I highly commend our school district for it.

One of the units of measurement that I use to determine whether or not we're doing the right thing in education, as probably many of us have, is to have touchstones within our communities. One of mine is a retired school teacher in Maple Ridge that taught probably most of the prominent citizens of Maple Ridge and some not quite so prominent, like the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Juanita Savage was, I think, that member's grade 1 teacher. He probably doesn't want to admit that now.

I spoke to Juanita the other day, and she tells me that what she sees us doing in education is exactly what should have happened years and years ago — more parental participation and far, far more autonomy for the school boards to do the job that they've been hired to do. When I hear those kinds of words, especially from somebody like Juanita, I know we're on the right track.

In health care we've got tremendous advances coming, both in acute care and in the…. Mr. Speaker, I see you're waving at me, but…. I thought you were trying to tell me something here.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching the buildings, and I would urge the member to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

R. Hawes: Noting that Her Honour is approaching the building, I would move adjournment of debate until the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the Lieutenant-Governor will be in the precincts within the next minute or so and urges everyone to remain in their place.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

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

	YEAS — 42

Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Thorpe
Hagen	Plant	Collins
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Orr	Harris
Belsey	Bell	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
R. Stewart	Christensen	Krueger
Bray	Les	Locke
MacKay	K. Stewart	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY