Hansard -- Monday, March 3, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 4 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5149

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5150
	Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill M201) J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5150
	Northern caucus committee activities R. Harris Work of volunteers V. Anderson Film and television industry growth J. Nuraney

Oral Questions		5151
	Qualification for disability benefits J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail Central Park Manor J. Nuraney Hon. K. Whittred International Financial Centre recommendations for business in B.C. L. Mayencourt Hon. R. Thorpe New hospital for Fraser Valley R. Hawes Hon. C. Hansen Government action on sea lice in fish farms J. MacPhail Hon. J. Murray

Petitions		5153
	J. MacPhail J. Kwan L. Mayencourt

Budget Debate (continued)		5154
	R. Hawes Hon. G. Plant H. Bloy D. Hayer K. Stewart K. Manhas B. Suffredine Hon. M. Coell L. Mayencourt P. Sahota

Motions on Notice		5182
	Committee of Supply to sit in two sections (Motion 91) Hon. G. Collins

R. Harris: It's my great pleasure today to introduce someone who's certainly no stranger to these buildings or to a lot of people that have been here for some time. He's a good friend of mine. He's down in Victoria meeting with ministers, working on behalf of his community — Mayor Len Fox from Vanderhoof. He's joined by his CEO, Joe Ukryn. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. MacPhail: I have two sets of introductions now and one later, if I may. First of all, I'd like to welcome Suzanne Connell with the Georgia Strait Alliance and Theresa Rothenbush with the Raincoast Conservation Society. They are here today, representing the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, to watch this afternoon's proceedings. Would the House please make them welcome.

It's a great day in the Legislature today, and that's because our interns have arrived at our caucus. I want to read to you the first memo that they received. This went: "Morning, everyone. Just so you all know, our group of interns for this session arrived today. Excellent. They are Cloe Rowbotham, Cara McGregor and Hayden Lansdell. They are currently setting up in room 356 — way, way up there. They're in the process of getting hooked up, but I'm told they have computers, Internet and phone numbers, but no phones. Ah, the joy of being an intern."

B. Penner: Earlier today I had a chance to field some difficult questions from a number of political science students — 23, in fact — who are visiting us here today from Western Washington University in Bellingham. They are joined by their professor, Dr. Butch Kamena. I ask that the House please give them a very warm welcome.

S. Brice: Today in the House is a guest of mine, Jamie Boyd. Jamie is a first-year student at Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. She is going to be in this legislative chamber and these buildings for the week. I ask the House to make her welcome.

J. MacPhail: My third introduction is to welcome a constituent of the east side who is joining us today, Phil Traynor. He's an active community participant, and he's watching the proceedings today. Please welcome Phil Traynor.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to welcome to the House today two former constituents, Brent Loshney and Connie Kaling. They had to leave the beautiful Shuswap to go to Alberta to look for employment opportunities. They have heard, however, about the new era of employment in British Columbia. They're back, and I'm sure they'll all enjoy great success here. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: A ministerial assistant in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Valerie Hamilton, tells me that a friend of hers is here today, someone she describes as a very old friend. This old friend is Tamera Morrison, who works for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission in Kamloops. Would the House please make Tamera welcome.

D. Hayer: It is with a heavy heart that I address this House today. As many in this chamber are aware, early last week tragedy again struck my family. On Monday evening, one day after my son Alex's nineteenth birthday, the result of a routine blood test revealed he is suffering from an advanced form of acute leukemia.

He was immediately admitted to Vancouver General Hospital and is now in the leukemia and bone marrow transplant unit of VGH. Fortunately, his spirits are high. One of his biggest concerns is the number of classes he's missing in his first year at Simon Fraser University and time away from his new part-time work at Staples.

My wife, Isabelle; my children Sonia, Anthony and Katrina; our mothers Baldev Hayer and Consuelo Martinez; our families and I want to thank all those who have offered their prayers and best wishes. We most especially want to thank the exceptional caregivers at VGH, all those wonderful doctors and nurses and support staff whose work and abilities go far beyond the call of duty. I cannot say enough about their professionalism, their skills and most of all their caring attitudes. We are truly blessed in this province to have such people caring for us and our loved ones in times of grief.

I also want to thank all the members of this House, my colleagues, who have gone out of their way to express their sympathy and their support for me, for my family and for my son Alexander. Together we will fight this cancer, and we will win.

Last Thursday, en route to my constituency, I was diverted in Vancouver to the North Shore. On February 27, Thursday, at 11 p.m., my wife and I were blessed with the arrival of our first grandson, Eben. The parents, our daughter Richa and Kris, are doing well. Eben weighed in at only 4 pounds 11 ounces, but the nurses say he has vigorous lungs. We would like to thank all of the nurses, the doctor and the staff in labour delivery, special nursery care and maternity at Lions Gate Hospital for their care and attention. I would ask that

J. MacPhail: This bill amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the use of a new licence to fish farms unless the operation is a closed containment facility, meaning a solid or impermeable wall container which prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of bacteria, viruses, parasites, waste and other pollution into the surrounding marine system. The bill is not retroactive, in the sense that it does not impose the standard of closed containment upon existing operations, nor does it impact existing licences in any way.

A moratorium on the expansion of fish farms was lifted last fall. Even before that time, and especially since then, the science has increasingly supported the principles of caution that motivated the moratorium. Scientific study and evidence show that the threats of colonization and viral outbreaks are extreme. Also, we have learned that the transfer of sea lice has caused the decimation of wild salmon runs and that the waste released into the ecosystem by conventional open-pen farming is devastating to all adjacent forms of aquatic life.

Even as we speak, scientists in the Broughton Archipelago are finding young pinks and chums covered in sea lice. It is time to move forward. Here in the Pacific Northwest we have entrepreneurs like Mariculture, Agrimarine and Future SEA, which have already seen the environmental and economic advantages of closed containment as well as the sustainable jobs that alternative technologies provide.

This bill acknowledges that success and says British Columbians want to be part of that vision. With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 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. Harris: Since the last election there has been a change in the way British Columbia politics have been conducted. The north now has a voice. I have the pleasure of serving as the chair of the northern caucus, appointed by the Premier to bring a northern perspective to Victoria to ensure that northern concerns were not ignored when it comes to legislation and to provide access to the highest levels of government. I'm here to say that it's worked.

The B.C. heartlands economic strategy is a reflection of the importance of northern and rural B.C. The commitment of more than $600 million to repair northern and heartland roads is proof of the importance we as government put on ensuring that the entire province benefits from economic renewal.

The Premier will establish the mayors council to help create an efficient and effective B.C. Rail that works for all communities, which is clearly an example of responding to the needs of northern B.C. As a northern caucus, we all support and encourage the development of containerization in Prince Rupert. This is a project that is pan-northern in its benefits.

The north wants to be a full partner, and we have been given the tools to accomplish that. The elimination of PST on machinery, the raising of the luxury tax threshold on vehicles, forgivable loans for medical professionals who practise in the north, the results-based forest practice and the 20 percent flow-through for shares for mining are all just some of the examples that we are, in fact, making a difference.

Let me finish by saying I believe that the nine MLAs that make up the northern caucus are a strong voice for our region and are proud to be part of a government that is making investments back into the north again.

V. Anderson: I wish to publicly say thank you to a very important and very large segment of our society. These are those who are the first force in our communities, who have built the social life we all share. They're the volunteers who have been our Canadian pioneers, unsung and unpaid. They have voluntarily shared their time, their possessions, their friendship and their hospitality.

They are our community volunteers, neighbour sharing with neighbour. These are the quality builders of our communities of all ages and backgrounds. They are what we call the volunteer sector, alongside the private sector and the public sector. Some would call them the third force, but I prefer to call them the first force in our community-building, for without them, our society would not have the strength it does. They are the leaders, the members, the servants of our communities' support system.

In B.C. they are formally represented by the members of the volunteer bureaus across the province and now by the newly organized Voluntary Organizations Consortium of B.C. I thank them for their caring and sharing in their devotion to community service.

J. Nuraney: As many members in this House know, British Columbia has become a world-class destination for the international film and television industry. It now generates over a billion dollars in revenue, and it is therefore important that we support and encourage its development. These companies come here because of our tremendous diversity — diversity in geography and diversity in our people. We have developed a strong base of highly skilled labour in this regard and also the acting ability to meet all needs.

Our ability to be flexible and to accommodate the needs of this industry has also contributed to its success. My own community in Burnaby has benefited greatly from this thriving film industry. We are now home to more than half the film space available. Together with my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds, I've had the opportunity to visit some of these leading-edge studios in Burnaby. I have spoken to the people who work in this industry, and one thing I keep hearing is that the industry and the local studios are poised for growth.

All they needed was a tax system that would help attract more production in British Columbia. In this year's budget, the Minister of Finance announced tax changes designed to accomplish this goal. This will promote the growth and add incentives for regional television, film projects, digital animation and visual effects. These changes in incentives will no doubt increase the activities in this very significant sector of our economy, and we will indeed see this industry reach new heights to the benefit of all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Human Resources said this morning that 16,000 disability review forms have been received and approximately 4,000 are still outstanding. The minister has cut another $255 million from his income assistance budget to meet this year's budget target. How much does he expect to save as a result of the disability review?

Hon. M. Coell: The success we're having in finding people employment in this ministry is finding that people who were once not finding jobs under the previous government are now finding jobs. The actual budget for temporary assistance, which are people who are on employment, is going down at a high rate. The rate for people on continuous assistance, which is those on supplemental and disability, is actually going up since we were in government.

We're finding that the savings that are being made with putting people into employment — and success — are vastly improved over the previous government. I think you're going to see people with disabilities continue to increase, although they may be at a slower rate than under the previous government. There still will be an increase in people collecting disability assistance.

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

J. Kwan: The fact is that as a result of this process, thousands of the most vulnerable British Columbians have been put under enormous stress, and close to $3 million has been spent paying doctors to fill out the forms. If the minister can't say how much money he expects to save to meet his budget target, can he tell us just what is the purpose of the exercise? What was he thinking when he put enormous stress on the people who are suffering from disability? What was occurring in his own mind?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member probably remembers when the Legislature debated the new legislation for income assistance in the province. I said many times that people with disabilities will get the support they need.

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

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. When the minister announced he would be sending some 18,000 to 19,000 British Columbians a 23-page form asking them to justify their benefits, he did it to cut his budget. He assumed there was fraud. He assumed thousands of disabled people must be cheating the system. What he's found out….

J. Kwan: What he's found out is that their disabilities are real. The minister maintains he has received several thousand completed forms, no doubt some returned as early as October and November of last year. Can he tell this House how many of the submitted forms have proven to be ineligible?

Hon. M. Coell: The fact is that 6,000 new applications are in process right now. About 10,000 reviews are in process right now. I think if the member wanted to go back and read Hansard, she would find that we said we wanted to open up that category, and we specifically included mental illness. I think you'll find, if she goes back….

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member should go back and reread the debate, and she might have some answers to her questions.

J. MacPhail: When this minister started the disabilities review, he told advocates in the community that he expected 9,000 would be off the rolls. He did it. He put people through extreme angst with a 23-page review, and now he won't admit that he didn't expect to achieve anything.

J. MacPhail: Last week we asked the minister about a man who took his own life after receiving a letter from the minister telling him his benefits were in doubt. After he took his life, the minister told the coroner that his benefits were secure all along. Why did the minister not tell the coroner the truth — that this man's eligibility was being reassessed?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the fact is that the member is not willing to go and have a look at what she said in estimates and what I said in estimates about how we wanted to make sure that people with disabilities got the help they needed. We wanted to make sure that where people could work, we would help them to work. Where they couldn't work, we would make sure they had the third-highest rate of income assistance in Canada.

J. MacPhail: You know, these are real lives that we're dealing with. They're real people. Somehow the minister can't answer straightforward questions. I think maybe it's because the minister can't suck and blow at the same time. This man who took his own life believed that his benefits might be cut, because that's what the letter intimated. He got a letter from the ministry telling him just that.

Again to the minister: how would the minister know if this man's benefits were secure even before the man in question had sent back his form? Is it because, as many suspect, this whole process has been a sham from the beginning? Can he please tell us what motivated the minister to send out these forms if all along he just wanted to put more on the benefits?

Hon. M. Coell: The government wants to make sure that funds go to people who are eligible. We had a new piece of legislation with a new definition. What we did, and what we're in the process of doing, is making sure that people are eligible for the benefits they're going to receive.

I think the fact that the members have not listened for about a year…. They should go back and possibly reread…

Hon. M. Coell: …what I've said. The only people who have said that there are going to be huge cuts are them.

J. Nuraney: My question today is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. We have an extended care home in my riding called Central Park Manor, which received notification from the Fraser health authority that it will be closed in the next 12 months. There are 97 residents in this facility. My question to the minister is: what process is going to take place to make sure that there is enough consultation and a smooth transition for these 97 residents?

Hon. K. Whittred: As we move to modernize long-term care to ensure its sustainability, safe, appropriate care is in fact our priority. Central Park Manor is an old building, and it has been determined to no longer be adequate for today's complex needs. We know that transition is important to all citizens. It is particularly important to seniors. That is why the health authority will be working within policy guidelines, with families and with residents over the next 12 months to ensure that they have a safe and uneventful transition to their new homes and that all of their new homes will be suitable to their needs.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to our newest grandfather in the chamber, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Fifteen years ago we created the International Financial Centre in Vancouver, with a mandate to establish B.C. as a global competitor in the financial marketplace. Due to excessive regulation and high taxes under the previous government, B.C. dropped to the bottom of the list in Canada in being able to attract that private sector investment.

A recent report by the International Finance Centre suggests that changes to provincial legislation may be in order, in order to improve B.C.'s global standing. Will the minister please tell us what steps he's taking to improve the ability of the International Financial Centre to attract business to British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to thank the member very much for the question that….

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member for the question. It does affect many of his constituents in Vancouver. I met on February 5 with the chair, Ron Bozzer, and the new president, Bob Fairweather.

We are looking at ways, as we are charged by the Premier, to make sure that British Columbia stays competitive, that we attract investment and create jobs here. One area was the recent taxation policy changes to the film industry. One of the areas we're looking at is making Vancouver a film distribution centre.

There are many other ways. I've asked the International Financial Centre to work with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association and the Investment Dealers Association to bring forward to me a report by May 30 that will list a number of options in which we can enhance competitiveness in British Columbia, creating more jobs in your riding and all other ridings in British Columbia.

R. Hawes: Last month the province released a request for expressions of interest to build a new hospital in Abbotsford. This will be one of the first hospitals in Canada to be built through a P3. It's finally going to get built after a lot of false promises from the previous government. To the Minister of Health Services: what assurances can he give to my constituents and the residents of the Fraser Valley that this privately built facility will offer the same level of health care services that are currently provided at publicly run hospitals throughout British Columbia and that the fearmongering of the HEU is unfounded?

Hon. C. Hansen: Truly this is excellent news for the residents of the Fraser Valley, who have been given empty promises by the previous government for an entire decade. They are finally going to get their long-overdue new hospital. I can assure the member that this new public-private partnership is going to result in better value for the taxpayers of British Columbia. It's going to result in a state-of-the-art facility to serve the residents of the Fraser Valley, and it will provide the kind of high-quality public health care we know we're capable of in British Columbia. This is good news. It will be equal to or better than anything we have seen in this province to date, and I can assure you that the residents of the Fraser Valley will see top-notch public health care provided by that facility.

J. MacPhail: This morning we learned that the smolts going through the Broughton Archipelago are at least 50 percent covered in sea lice. Last week the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection allowed for the use of Slice, a neurotoxin. They refused to accept the recommendation of laying fallow all of the fish farms in that area during the period of the pink and chum salmon run. To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: will she now admit that the choice her government made to deliberately not fallow all of the fish farms has led to another detrimental destruction of the pink salmon run?

Hon. J. Murray: We are concerned about the pink salmon in the Broughton. The wild salmon are our number one priority.

Hon. J. Murray: That's why we had a conference of experts two weeks ago to discuss this exact issue. We are taking very progressive action. We are fallowing a number of sites. We are increasing our monitoring capacity. We are treating any infected fish. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is out monitoring the situation as we speak…

Hon. J. Murray: …so that we can take appropriate action that is based on science.

J. MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by 5,716 British Columbians who call upon the B.C. Liberal government to rescind all cuts to B.C. Pharmacare, to make public all hearings related to the broader review of Pharmacare — a review the government is conducting only to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical indus-

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition signed by 840 British Columbians who hold the Liberal government accountable to the people of B.C. for the destruction of the social safety net, the public education system and the health care system. They point out that this will result in widespread suffering among seniors, women and the disabled community.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to present a petition signed by 7,200 residents of my community calling on the government to replace the Robson Street liquor store.

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

R. Hawes: I rise today to conclude the comments that I started last Thursday. I know there are many of us here, especially on the government side, that want to get up today and speak to this budget, because it is indeed very good news for British Columbia. As I said last Thursday, it has shown that our government is on track to balancing the budget and completing the promises that we made in our New Era document, which we filed with the people of this province prior to the election.

On Thursday I spoke to changes that we've made to the education system. I now just want to touch briefly on some of the health care changes that are in this budget and that are continuing, which have been put in place since we were elected. When we were elected, we took over a province that had 52 different health authorities — a complete mishmash, a disjointed, non-communicating group, overly bureaucratic, far too much administration. Since then, that's been reduced to six regions to deliver health care in a more efficient manner.

Now, on this side in the government, there have been a number of advances put forward, by the Premier particularly, that allow us a great number of parliamentary reforms that would allow things like free votes in the House. In fact, dissent is actually encouraged here. If we are not in complete agreement with where the government's going, we're free to speak to any issue that we wish to speak to.

I have to say I've never been a fan of regionalization. I was a member of a hospital board in my community that ran a hospital very successfully. It provided excellent health care. Mission Memorial Hospital has always been referred to by the people where I live as the jewel of the Fraser Valley. Regionalization, when it came into place in the late 1990s under the previous government, kind of destroyed that. The services in our hospital began to erode very shortly after regionalization, and many of us have often referred to what we called the sucking sound that seemed to be the sound of our services disappearing into Abbotsford. That, actually, to a great degree has continued.

While I'm not a big fan of regionalization, I understand there's a road we've begun to go down that's very difficult to step back from. The reduction from 52 regions or different governance bodies in health care to six is a tremendous improvement.

While for me personally school is still out — I'm not yet convinced that regionalization was the way to go — I do realize that all of us have to get into the boat and kind of row in the same direction, or we're not going to get anywhere. I know I have tried in my own community to convince people that what we need to do is work with the region, work with the ministry and try to get to where it is that we wish, as a community, to arrive. Do we want our hospital to continue to be a very important part of our community, a central focal point for our community?

A lot of the services have now left our hospital — in fact, it's sort of a shadow of its former self — but in talking to the region, I know what's going to happen. As those services disappear, new services are going to appear in our hospital and, really, across the health region — services that perhaps weren't there before or that people had to travel quite a ways to get to.

What I'm trying to do in my own community is work with the city council and those that provide health care services to build a hospital that's going to be fully utilized. It's not necessarily going to provide what was there before, so there will be people who will be upset that services have disappeared. On the other hand, there will be new services that many people will be very pleased with. There's a balance here, and a lot of that is struck by the realities of what's going on around the world. The way the Health ministry has now taken the political side out of the provision of health care is, I think, a very intelligent way to go.

The decision of how health care services should be provided is left to the professionals, who better understand how to provide health care. Where services were delivered, how many services, etc., was kind of done on a political basis. If your riding happened to have somebody representing them that was on the government side, who perhaps could speak a little louder for their community than another, your community would

get services — sometimes services that weren't needed. There's evidence of communities around the province that had far more services than they could ever use. Others had far too few, and their people were imperilled.

A lot of that was determined because of the politicization of health care. That has stopped. The minister has removed politics and has allowed the management of the health regions to make decisions surrounding health care based on the needs of the regions themselves. Instead, what the ministry has done is put in place assessment tools and set standards to which the health authorities must deliver. That's an advance that is unprecedented in this country. I know there are some areas in the United States that have done this, but not to the extent that it's happened here. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is prepared to make those kinds of advances.

As you look around the world, health care is in a terrible state, really, internationally. This is not an isolated event that we're going through in this province, but I think we're a lot further along in the restructuring of health care here than other parts of the world.

I want to speak for a minute about one of the practices that had gone on for far too long in this province, certainly for the ten years that the previous government was in power. That's around the accrual accounting that went around health care benefits and costs that were part of union contracts. If one were to look at the union contracts that health care workers live under, you would find that there are things such as retirement allowances that allow all workers to get paid, on retirement, one week's pay for every two years of service once they reach age 55 and have ten years' service. For a retiring health worker with 30 years' employment, for example, that would be 15 weeks' pay, in addition to which there's a 40 percent payout of accumulated sick time. That works out to somewhere around 60 days for those who haven't used their sick time, which is about 12 weeks' pay. When you combine just those two, you're up to almost 30 weeks' pay — more than half a year.

That's a liability that was carried in almost every health institution across this province. None of that was ever accrued. There was nothing set up in the books for these liabilities. There was no accounting for how much could be owed. There was absolutely no way of knowing until we took office, and we have moved to generally accepted accounting principles. That would say that all liabilities like that have to appear in the books of the government. The government now has to do its books or is moving towards having to do its books by, I think, 2004 in the same way that every business in this province would have to do their books. In doing so, those liabilities have jumped out. It amounts to millions and millions — in fact, I think more than $100 million across the province, perhaps several hundred million dollars.

The problem is that the privately operated, non-profit care homes, that sort of thing…. No accrual was done for them and still has not been done for them. They continue to carry that liability on their own books. Although it's not on the books, they have to fund it. What happened previously was that if somebody retired — or maybe in a year, several people would retire — from a small care home, the non-profit society would pay out whatever it was they had to pay out, would just send a bill to the ministry, and a cheque would arrive to compensate them. There was no accounting for any of this.

There was no way of setting what that liability was going to be in your budget, which really is typical of the way government ran here for the last decade — with really no controls, no method of controlling, no knowledge of what was coming. In fact, if it were done in private business…. I would suggest to you that any business who conducted themselves in that manner would not be in business very long. They would long ago have been bankrupt. In fact, we've been driven very close to that point in this province by that last government.

We're trying to get a handle on that. I know the minister is wrestling with it with the health authorities, and they're trying to come up with a way to fund all of this, but it's a huge problem. It's another one of those ticking time bombs that were left to us by that previous government, where we have to try to figure out how to handle what's really a very large problem, and it's not an easy problem to solve.

We've allowed the health authorities to contract out support services. I spoke about that a few weeks ago here in the House — about the HEU contract, its cost to government and the way that it has, over the past decade, become far too expensive. Since I spoke in the House, I have received numbers of e-mails from HEU members who are very upset at the comments that I made. Unfortunately, they were characterized by the HEU itself — their management — as a gender attack on women. I do want to clarify that when I spoke in the House previously, I never mentioned gender. When I speak of benefits that are too high, it matters not to me the gender of the worker. Benefits that are too high are too high.

I have here quite a compilation of the benefits that are under that HEU contract. When I look through that, I see things like vacation time. Using that as an example, in British Columbia after 14 years of employment, a worker at any level under the HEU contract would get six weeks' annual paid vacation. There is no other province in this country — and I have them all here — that would pay that kind of benefit. The closest is Manitoba, which is after 21 years of service, and the rest of them are all over 24 or 25 years. In this province — seven weeks' vacation after 19 years' employment. No province in this country offers seven weeks' vacation to any health support staff. As your length of service with the government continues to climb, that seven weeks becomes eight weeks, nine weeks and ten weeks. Every five years it goes up.

I see the time is up. I just wanted to make sure that my constituents understand we are working on these problems. We are rebuilding trust in the private sector and in the investment community in this province, which is where the return to prosperity and the ability to pay for these services is going to come from. Our budget, again, is very good news. We are on track, and thank you for the time.

Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to and in support of the budget that was introduced a few short days ago by my colleague the Minister of Finance. In general terms, it represents a tremendously successful step forward toward financial responsibility, toward economic prosperity and toward that new era of hope we promised British Columbians when we were elected in the spring of 2001.

As a minister with responsibility for treaty negotiations issues and for justice issues, I wanted to spend a minute or two here this afternoon to talk about some of the things we've been doing in those ministries that government is moving forward on, initiatives that are supported by the budget and also supported by the throne speech which we heard in the early part of February, just a few weeks ago.

I wanted to begin by talking a bit about the treaty negotiations office. It is, from a budgetary perspective, much the smaller portion of my ministerial responsibilities, but I think it carries out a very, very important role in helping us move toward economic renewal in British Columbia. When we took office in June of 2001, we did so on the basis of a commitment to conduct a provincewide referendum that would engage the people of British Columbia directly in providing and obtaining from them input on principles to guide the province's approach to treaty-making. That referendum, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was conducted last spring.

I want to remind members present and all those who may have occasion to be watching this afternoon that we conducted this referendum for a couple of important reasons — at least a couple in addition, of course, to the fact that we had made the commitment and that I think it was good of us to keep that commitment. I think it was important that we engaged the people of British Columbia directly in the business of thinking about what they want to achieve from the treaty process.

Wherever we look around the province, this process that has been underway for a decade has involved meetings, has involved consultation, has involved a certain amount of public attention, but for whatever reason, it seemed to us that notwithstanding the best efforts of many people, the public was not engaged in the treaty process. In the long run, the treaty process will not succeed if we do not manage to engage the public in the important work we're doing. The referendum, I think, achieved that objective.

We had a very vigorous public discussion last spring. There were well over three-quarters of a million returned ballots, which I think is a very, very good number, given that it was, from a direct democracy perspective, an experimental exercise — the first time that a provincewide referendum had been conducted through the use of a mail-in ballot at a time that was outside the ordinary election cycle and on a basis that sought the input of citizens on eight different statements of principle. It was a new exercise in direct democracy but, I think, a very successful exercise.

We also undertook the referendum exercise because in addition to the need to just have the conversation, we thought it would be important to find out exactly what it is the people of British Columbia wanted us to achieve on their behalf. The eight statements of principle, I think, represent a very useful framework for us as government to take forward as we move through the months and years to come in the treaty process.

It's really important to remind members that the referendum was conducted on the basis that we were committed to the treaty process and that we would use it to reinvigorate the treaty process. That is what we have been trying to do in the months since the referendum. We've been moving forward in a number of ways to try to build on the momentum that I think was created by the referendum, to see if we can actually bridge the gap that exists between and among the positions of the different parties in the process — bridge it enough so we can actually produce some agreements.

The treaty process under the B.C. Treaty Commission has been underway for nearly a dozen years in British Columbia. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in negotiation expenses, and the outcome that the parties originally intended this process to have — namely, comprehensive settlement agreements — has thus far eluded the participants. While this is hard and difficult work, and it's bound to take some time, it is also time that we start to see if we can produce the very agreements that this process was originally intended to produce.

We've been doing some things to try to help achieve that outcome. We've tried to become a bit strategic, frankly. We have looked across the landscape of just over 40 tables that are notionally active. We've asked ourselves whether there are some tables where the promise of success is more real in the short term than perhaps it is in the case of others, and we have organized our resources within the treaty negotiations office to ensure that we can bring the maximum constructive energy to bear on those specific tables. We call those the "breakthrough tables," because that's what we're looking for. We're looking for breakthrough results. We're looking to achieve agreements, and I think we are on the verge of achieving those agreements.

I think we're on the verge of achieving some success stories in the treaty process in British Columbia, and I'm very hopeful that we may achieve some of those success stories in the year 2003, the fiscal year that is the subject of the service plans the Finance minister tabled when he made his budget speech on February 18. But we're not going to get the success without

stretching ourselves a little bit. The challenge, and it's both a challenge and an opportunity, has been to work within the framework that the referendum principles gave us and also to work within the objective of obtaining agreements to see what we need to do to bridge the gap between where we are and where we want to be. That work of bridging the gap is work that has to be done by all parties. First nations have to step beyond where they have been. Canada has to make some movement, and British Columbia has to make some movement. That's what negotiations are about. Negotiations are about give and take; negotiations are about compromise. We are looking for opportunities to achieve success where we build from the platform of principle that the referendum gave us, but we are also willing to work within those principles to take some new steps and perhaps embark upon some new directions.

We have been speaking about initiatives like revenue-sharing. Members of this House will have heard some reference to revenue-sharing in the throne speech. They will also see it in the budget that the Finance minister tabled. It's time for the people of British Columbia to realize that we need to work together to ensure that the development of the lands and the resources of British Columbia is something that takes place in a way where all of us, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can benefit from that development. That, in my view and in the view of government, involves opening ourselves up to the idea of revenue-sharing and sitting down at tables with first nations to explore ways in which we can share with first nations some measure of the fruits of success of the economic development of the lands and resources of the province. We're working now on developing the framework of principles that makes sure we advance provincial public interest objectives as we move forward to consider these ideas and that they become effective tools not just for building strong relationships with first nations but for ensuring that we can in fact grow the resources of the province.

Revenue-sharing is one idea we've been working on. We've talked about the idea of comanagement. We've talked about the possibility of introducing the subject of compensation into the treaty process, because those are issues that first nations have said they want to discuss in the treaty process. They have said for a decade that these are issues that are important to them in the treaty process, and yet for a decade the governments have said: "No, these issues cannot be part of these discussions." Sooner or later, when you hear somebody say at a negotiation table that they want to talk about something, I think there is a time and a place where the right thing to do is to recognize the importance of the issue and to sit down and see if we can have that discussion about those issues in a way that meets the broad objective of ensuring the treaty process produces agreements that are affordable, fair and equitable, that create certainty, that are final and yet also meet first nations' objectives — which, frankly, are quite similar to our objectives in respect to many of those issues.

We've said we are open to some new approaches on those sorts of issues. We've also said we think it's time to take a new approach to the idea of certainty, to take a new approach to the means by which certainty is achieved as a matter of law through the treaty process. We've said we're willing to explore new approaches to the legal technique of certainty because we think the best guarantee of certainty in the treaty process is not found in the precise words that are set out on a particular page of a long and complicated legal document. Rather, the best guarantee of certainty in a treaty relationship is found in the relationship itself. If the relationship is working, if the parties to the relationship are getting the benefits from the relationship that they believe they should get when they went into it, then no one is going to be looking for that certainty clause buried deep in the legal text of the document. The only time people start looking for the certainty clause is when something's not working and when people start to look for a way to get out of the agreement to avoid their obligations because the relationship is no longer functioning.

We've said it's time for the government of British Columbia to look for different ways to achieve certainty. We need to achieve certainty. The province is at the treaty table because we need to have a measure of certainty over the land and resource base of British Columbia. We need to have a measure of certainty around what it means — what aboriginal title and rights mean. We need to have a measure of certainty around what Crown rights and title mean. We need that certainty, because the investment community and ordinary citizens won't make investments in the land and resource base of the province without that certainty. We don't have that certainty today. The status quo today is uncertainty. We need to move towards certainty. As I say, the fundamental objective is certainty founded in a working relationship.

There is still important work for government to do in terms of sitting down and negotiating the language in an agreement that will help us achieve that certainty. What we have said, in specific terms, is that it's no longer appropriate for the province to be at the table demanding that first nations give up their rights — that they cede, release and surrender those rights. That has clearly been an unsuccessful objective on the part of government, and it is probably a wrong-headed objective. I think we can achieve certainty without demanding that first nations cede, release or surrender their rights, and that is what we're working to do at the tables where we're hard at work negotiating agreements.

We've talked a lot about government — how we can move forward with an approach to self-government that respects the very important interests and concerns British Columbians have in ensuring that government relationships are flexible, that governments are financially accountable and that they're democratically responsible to the people whose lives are

affected by them. We think we can make progress on those issues, too, in a way that is respectful of first nations interests but also ensures that the broader public interest of the people of British Columbia is satisfied.

In the throne speech in particular, there was emphasis on the need for a new approach to reconciliation — the recognition that there is much to regret in the history of our relations with aboriginal peoples in this part of North America. While it's probably an unhelpful exercise to think about who may be to blame or not to blame for the history, the fact is that our history does not leave us much to be proud of. It's time to acknowledge that reality, and it's time to move forward in a way that says that our objective is to reconcile our differences, to acknowledge the past and to see if we can build a new relationship. If we move forward in the months to come, both at the breakthrough tables that I've spoken about and also across the province generally, I think there will be opportunities for government to implement that new approach to reconciliation that was spoken about in the throne speech, which I think can be a critically important component of a strategy to achieve success at the treaty table and elsewhere in British Columbia.

The budget talks about the economic measures fund. That, too, was also spoken about in the throne speech. We think this relatively modest investment of $10 million a year on the part of government has a great potential to level the playing field across the province to ensure that first nations have an equal opportunity to participate in economic development, that they're not held back from their participation in the mainstream economy by the fact that they may not have the skills or the tools in their communities to do business plans or feasibility studies or to participate in economic activities with the level of training and technical expertise that's sometimes required. I think the economic measures fund is going to prove to be a very useful tool.

We are still in the first year of the fund. It looks as though we have now got up and in place something close to $13 million worth of projects. The good news in the throne speech and the budget is that the commitment of a year ago of $10 million a year over three years has now been extended by a year. I want to say to people who are as concerned as I am about programs like this that to make sure they work, we are going to be evaluating the results. We're going to be measuring our successes.

We're going to be accountable for the failures, if we have them, but I think that as we undertake that process of accountability, that evaluation, we will find some success stories. We may find a few experiments that did not succeed as much as we had hoped they would, but I know we'll find some success stories, and we can use those success stories as the platform to build further successes and to ensure that we work together with first nations to enhance the opportunity to create opportunities for first nations to be constructive, full participants in the economic life of British Columbia.

That is the key to the new relationship, in my view. Rather than seeing ourselves on an us-and-them basis, rather than seeing people as being either for or against our future as a province on the basis of assertions of rights and title, it is how we can reconfigure the relationship so that we see ourselves working together to build a bigger economy that will benefit all of us, whether it's in oil and gas or aquaculture or forestry or tourism or ski resorts in Kamloops. Wherever it is and whatever the initiative, I think we have great opportunities to reconfigure our approach to these things and move forward together.

The other area of my ministerial responsibilities is the justice system. That responsibility is shared by a number of different ministries. Of course, the thing that characterizes our justice system more than anything else is the impossibility of describing it as a system in any meaningful way. Really, our justice system is a collection of independent actors who function occasionally interdependently but who are themselves, each of them, within their own sphere, quite independent of the other in ways that are necessary to protect the fairness and impartiality which are essential attributes of our justice system.

The challenge we face is to ensure that that independence and the values it protects do not become unreasonable obstacles to reform which will ensure that the justice system, in fact, serves the interests of the public it must serve. We are looking at and have been working on a variety of initiatives that are intended to ensure that our justice system meets the goals of being fair, being affordable, being accessible and being effective — most of all, that it be the justice system that delivers justice.

Here, I think, is part of the challenge for all of us as participants in the conversation about how to make the justice system work better. When I talk about efficiency, people are inclined to hear that as a conversation about budget numbers or how many courtrooms. Maybe efficiency isn't the right word, because efficiency isn't a goal in itself. What efficiency is, is a key to enter the door of a quality justice system. When our justice system is inefficient, when our justice system allows for delay and for unreasonable expense to be incurred, whether by private sector parties or by government, that is what gets in the way of quality justice outcomes.

Delay affects the quality of justice, because the longer it takes to bring a matter forward for resolution, the greater the likelihood that witnesses' memories will fail, that they'll no longer be available, that parties will have forgotten that the original reason for the criminal process, for example, is a measure of accountability, which becomes ever more elusive as the months pass and people tend to forget what it was that got the process started in the first place. From the broad perspective of how we can make this system work better, how we can start to even introduce into the conversation the suggestion that it ought to be regarded as a system and that we ought to be able to talk about a

justice system, there are some things we are doing, and there are some things we need to do more of.

We have, over the last year, expanded by 14 the number of circuit courts in British Columbia. People who have followed the debate about courthouse closures will, I think, be glad of the opportunity to realize that while it is true that we closed some 24 full-time courthouses in British Columbia, at 14 of those locations we now have circuit court service — the same level of service to the public but at significantly less cost to government.

We are continuing to work in the bylaw reform forums. We are continuing to pursue the issue of two-tiered traffic fines and are hoping to expand the use of video conferencing. We've introduced fax filing. These are minor but, I think, not unimportant tools to help the justice system work more effectively.

Through the justice review task force, we have begun an important public discussion about whether or not we can unify the family courts in British Columbia so that the user of the family court system sees one court system and doesn't have to sort themselves out between the superior court or the Provincial Court. This is an experiment that has been conducted in other jurisdictions across Canada with a great deal of success, and we are moving forward to see if the same experiment can be conducted in British Columbia.

We are looking at changes. We're looking at becoming a more constructive participant and maybe a more vocal participant in the discussion about how to improve the criminal justice system generally.

Do we still need the preliminary inquiry? British Columbia has argued at the provincial-territorial-federal level that given the extensive requirement of disclosure that now lies on the Crown, an obligation that never existed to that extent a decade or more ago…. Given the extent of that disclosure, there really is no longer any practical need for a preliminary inquiry in all but the most exceptional cases.

We've argued, and I've argued here on the floor of this Legislature quite recently, that we ought to reform the law of conditional sentencing to ensure that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes of violence.

We're looking at ways in which we can accommodate the demand for increased legal fees by defence counsel in serious criminal cases without overburdening the legal aid budget. Frankly, that is as big a challenge as I can imagine. We may have to embrace that challenge. We'd better embrace that challenge if we're going to continue to be able to manage legal aid expenditures.

The challenge that I want to leave with members of this Legislature and the public generally on that issue — on the issue of justice reform generally, but in particular on the issue of our criminal justice system — is whether we need to talk about bolder reforms. This morning, for example, in the Vancouver Sun there was an article by the former Attorney General, a former member of this assembly, Alex Macdonald, who suggested that it was time for Canada to move towards a requirement on the part of defence counsel to disclose their case in advance of a trial in a criminal matter. Disclosure is required on all parties in civil cases. There is certainly a long history of reasons why we have not required defence counsel to make disclosure in criminal cases. Maybe it's time we start to look at those issues as we grapple with the fact that our criminal justice institutions are becoming more expensive and more complex. The cases are taking longer. The technology is imposing costs and also creating opportunities. It's becoming a huge and unwieldy creature, and if we don't start to talk about reform in a meaningful way, I'm afraid the public will eventually lose confidence in what we're doing.

That represents a brief outline of some of the work we're doing in the Attorney General ministry. It doesn't even begin to talk about the administrative justice project and other things that are important, and I'm sure that during the course of this session there will be other opportunities to talk about those things.

Let me conclude my remarks today by talking about one other thing, which is outside my ministerial responsibilities but is very close to my heart as someone who lives in the community of Steveston in Richmond. There's a place in Steveston called Garry Point Park. It's a wonderful place. It's really in just about exactly the southwest corner of Lulu Island. It sits on the river and on the ocean, and it's a place that most times of the year people visit to walk their dogs or go for a jog or fly their kites. Sometimes in winters unlike this winter, the firefighters will flood a portion of the park, and the water will freeze and kids will skate. Adults may also skate. It's kind of a neat place. Most of the time it's a pretty quiet place, even though there's lots of activity on the river. It's a place to go and get away from things.

It's also been a very special place. Last summer, in the first week of August, on a brilliant warm afternoon a bunch of us were at Garry Point Park watching tall ships sail up the river. There weren't just a bunch of us. There were actually nearly 125,000 people at Garry Point Park watching tall ships come up the river. It was the largest gathering of tall ships along the B.C. coast in more than a century. Over 400,000 people came to Richmond for that event during the course of the five days of the festival. It was a splendid opportunity to put Richmond and Steveston on the map.

I'll never forget the feeling I had when I stood on the point where I was and looked at the vast crowds of people, who were all having the time of their lives. No one sitting in Garry Point Park that afternoon was asking themselves tough questions about how much the festival cost, the 2,200 volunteers that were required, the extent to which businesses would or would not benefit from the festival. Everyone was just really excited to be there.

Everyone was just really excited to be part of an event that made them feel connected to their community, made them feel connected to their province, made

them feel better about themselves. For me, that was the moment at which I became as sold on the Olympics as you could possibly be sold, because, really, the Olympics…. You know, we need to know about costs. We need to know all about that important stuff. The members opposite need to hold government to account for budgets, for expenditures and facilities. We need to know about what they're there for, what good they'll serve, what is a legacy investment and what's not a legacy investment.

All of that is hugely important, but for me at the end of the day, when the Olympics come to British Columbia, it's going to be about making us feel tremendously proud to be British Columbians. It's going to be about that moment in the sun where we will all feel like we're a part of something that's important, where we will all feel valued as citizens. Everything we can do in this chamber to move us toward that day is, I think, work worth doing, and that includes supporting this budget.

H. Bloy: It is an honour and a privilege to rise today in the House in support of the budget. This budget is on track for a brighter future for all British Columbians. Our first full budget in 2002 introduced a three-year plan with three goals: to restore sound fiscal management, to revitalize the economy and to put patients, students and people first.

This plan is working. We will balance the budget in 2004-05. We have increased the overall educational budget by $143 million over the next three years. We're going to direct an additional $1.3 billion in expected federal funding to meet the health care needs of British Columbians. We're going to invest $650 million of new dedicated fuel tax revenue in transportation infrastructure over the next three years in the heartlands.

We will achieve a significantly lower level of debt than anticipated in the 2002 budget and fiscal plan. We are restoring sound fiscal management. We are keeping spending under control. We are revitalizing the economy — tax changes for growth and diversification, the opening up of B.C. heartlands to economic growth, opening up the heartlands through transportation, revitalizing our forest industry and construction to promote economic development.

We are putting patients, students and people in need first. We're preserving the Health Services budget. We're increasing the education funding per student. We're funding leading-edge post-secondary education, and we're supporting families and communities. The opposition says we are ignoring those in need, those that can't support themselves. Our opposition colleagues like to say we're the representatives of the rich. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant loves to stand up in this House and tell us the pain we are inflicting on low- and middle-income families in B.C.

I disagree. I contend that the track record of the two members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings lends itself to hypocrisy every time they speak in this House. The budget presented in this House on February 18 is protecting the members of society that cannot protect themselves and at the same time is continuing the progress we initiated almost two years ago.

If I can take you back three years ago, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a self-described social activist for the downtown east side, for all intents and purposes abolished the homeowners grant for people with disabilities. This member, who on a constant basis criticizes the well-intentioned responsibilities and effective fiscal policies of this government, should take a look back at her days as a minister before getting up in this House and accusing this government of ignoring the poor.

The opposition will try and has tried to accuse this government of hurting those in society that need the help the most. That is an outright lie. This budget, like the one before it, is setting priorities, putting money where it is needed and is, no doubt, on its way to a balanced budget in 2004-05.

I don't want to go back too far in history, but it helps to appreciate the fiscal responsibilities of Minister Collins in his recent budget. I recollect a certain Finance minister three years ago, who signed off on pension plans for two senior bureaucrats worth more than a million dollars together. This former Finance minister responded to questions of his responsibility by stating: "I don't have a clue." Let me tell you, this government has a clue. It knows where it's going. We have a plan to balance the budget and to see that British Columbia regains atop Canada, economically and socially, what it once had.

All our ministers came in under budget for the first time in recorded history. Is that not a worthy accomplishment? Of course it is. The money saved was redirected into programs that British Columbians asked for and needed. We are spending 41 percent of our budget on health care, 5 percent more than the national average. More importantly, more money is being directed at patient care than ever before. We have dramatically lowered income assistance caseloads. We have increased disability income exemptions. We have increased child care spaces by 50 percent in the coming year. Now, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to say that these are not constructive and compassionate programs.

We are on track for a brighter future; I am sure of it. The dark days of the NDP are gone. Responsibility and accountability are back in this Legislature. Unions are trying to tell us to turn back, to revert to the tax-and-spend decade that sunk this glorious province to the bottom of nearly all economic indicators. The head of the Business Council of B.C., Jock Finlayson, echoes my thoughts about this budget: "The government remains committed to the fiscal target laid out. We strongly support that. Unions say: 'Roll back the policy.' I say we're just starting to roll forward."

I take exception to comments made in this House just a few days ago by a former Finance minister. She said that this is not a stay-the-course budget, and I quote: "…anybody to be drawn into that misleading

statement is foolish." Well, as one of four million residents of British Columbia, I am offended. How dare the opposition leader, the interim leader of the NDP, insult the intellect of the people of British Columbia and the over 900,000 people who place their trust in the fiscal agenda of this government? I take exception to this comment and rightly so. On May 16, 2001, 57.6 percent of the voters of British Columbia gave this government an unprecedented mandate to fundamentally change the way government operates. We are fulfilling those promises, and this budget highlights those commitments.

Finally, I just want to express my annoyance at the repetitive theme within the Leader of the Opposition's speech, which was particularly hypocritical: "Stand up and justify…." Would the Leader of the Opposition like to stand up and justify the fearmongering of fallacies that she constantly spouts in this assembly? Would she like to stand up and justify the exploitation of the British Columbia taxpayer throughout the nineties? Would she like to stand up and justify the doubletalk and rhetoric that I hear from her nearly every day? British Columbia is once and for all back on track, contrary to what the member for Vancouver-Hastings likes to say. I am confident in this budget, confident in this government and absolutely confident in the future of British Columbia.

I'd like to talk about a little bit of good news in the riding of Burquitlam. It's the home of Simon Fraser University. Did you know that on top of Simon Fraser University, over the next 20 years will be built 10,000 new residences? It's called "UniverCity." There will also be retail and commercial space.

But that's not all that's happening in Burquitlam. The Olympics are coming to Burquitlam atop Burnaby Mountain at Simon Fraser University. The Olympics — I can envision it. They're going to build the skating oval at Simon Fraser University. It's going to be a magnificent building. It's going to have three ice-playing surfaces in the middle. It's going to have a long track and a short track. They're going to be presenting gold medals there in 2010. I can visualize it now, and I often do, seeing that first gold medal being put around the neck of a Canadian as O Canada is played. The Olympics is about sports, but the Canadian Olympic bid is for all Canadians. The real legacy that will be left from the Olympics will be the over 100,000 square feet of research and classroom space that will be attached to the skating oval. This comes complete with an endowment fund for the operation of this building. Simon Fraser University is going to become a centre for health and sport excellence in Canada. That is the true legacy of the Olympics in the economic plan of this government of British Columbia.

That's the good news from Burquitlam, and there's lots more good news. EBay is coming. The new laundry facilities for the Fraser health authority are coming. Abgenix has just opened a biotech lab next to Chromos.

But let's talk about some of the things that the NDP left behind. They left all these problems behind. I just want to mention a few of them: the Lillooet land resource management committee, the central coast land resource management committee, no energy policy in British Columbia, Burns Bog, Sumas 2 power plant, Skeena Cellulose, Carrier Lumber settlement. I don't think I have to describe each one of these. Every British Columbian has felt the pain from the NDP in ten years by not acting on many of these. Forest land renewal — spending twice as much as it was taking in. Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre — $75 million down the drain. Our Minister Thorpe has just announced the start of construction and bidding on the new convention centre.

They left behind fast ferries, a SkyTrain SAR lawsuit, the Lions Gate Bridge lawsuit, skyrocketing Pharmacare costs, doctors and nurses shortages across this province. In fact, with the NDP in power, the number of nurses graduating declined every year from 1996. MSP collections; a virtual ignorance of how business actually works; unfunded child care announcements; Munroe agreement on funded liabilities; mental health plan never in any budget; Forest Practices Code, an extra $1 billion in costs that didn't have to be there; unfunded tuition freezes; Tech B.C.; Surrey Place redevelopment; Woodwards Building; a $3.8 billion structural deficit; uncompetitive tax rates — those are just a few of the things that the NDP left behind.

The Leader of the Opposition never lets facts get in the way of her outrageous stories, and I'd like to quote some notes from her throne speech. But just before I do that, I would like to say that this is what I dream of for the future of British Columbia one of these days. I take this from the Vancouver Sun on Thursday, February 27, and I just want to read the title of this: "Alberta Likely to Enjoy $2 Billion Budget Surplus This Year." I'm sure that's the goal of this government.

Just before I get on to the remarks, I would like to comment on the Ipsos-Reid poll. The date here is within the last week — February 25:

I just wanted to respond to some comments that the Leader of the Opposition, the interim leader of the NDP, made in her throne speech reply. Hers were: "After almost two years in power, the economy is not well. The deficit is out of control. More debt is being added to the books than ever before. Our communities are being devastated."

I just want to point out the B.C. Liberal government record. British Columbians pay the lowest rate of per-

sonal income tax of any province in Canada for the first $60,000 of income. B.C.'s average weekly wage increased at more than three times the national rate and showed the strongest increase of all provinces in 2002. Home sales in British Columbia in 2002 totalled more than $19 billion, up 27 percent. B.C. gained almost 78,000 new jobs in 2002, an increase of 4.1 percent and well ahead of the national increase of 3.7 percent.

We have introduced balanced-budget legislation. We have a fiscal plan that is on track to balance the budget in 2004-05. Each ministry came in under budget this year, the first time in at least 50 years. The 2003-04 deficit is $600 million below what was forecast.

Again, the member for Vancouver-Hastings had this to say: "Less than two years ago the Premier won an overwhelming mandate on a promise of hope and prosperity, on a promise to restore confidence in the integrity of our political institutions. Not only has that promise not been filled, it's been broken."

Well, I want to correct the member for Vancouver-Hastings, and I want to let the member know what we have been doing. The Premier of this great province has established monthly open cabinet meetings and reactivated all-party committees in the Legislature. As a point, the member for Vancouver-Hastings was a member of the government for ten years, and they had select standing committees that never met — that never met. They did everything, hidden, out of the Premier's office. We have the most open government ever on record in Canada.

All government MLAs have taken a voluntary 5 percent pay cut, saving taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars. Did you know that we did that, but both NDP members of the Legislature refused to take that tax break? According to public accounts, the government caucus finished the first year $1.1 million under budget, and total spending on MLA constituency communications was $5.6 million under budget. Cabinet ministers have 20 percent of their salary held back, only to receive that amount if they meet their personal budget and, overall, only if the whole cabinet makes the budgets of their service plans.

Three-year ministry service plans established providing audited, measurable performance standards; passed real balanced-budget legislation; adopted generally accepted accounting principles for all provincial finances — this is the first province in Canada to do this, and it's about time — restored open tendering on government contracts; established waste-buster websites so that taxpayers can identify, report and stamp out government waste; and eliminated the use of special warrants to prevent government from spending your money without legislative approval. For most of the last ten years under the NDP, their spending was done by special warrant.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings continues to make remarks that are not true: "The Premier has made it clear. He's not going to do anything about campaign finance reform." That was a remark from the member — again, another untruth from the member. We repealed the NDP gag law that restricts third-party advertising during election campaigns. We amended the Election Act to eliminate loopholes and disclosures of financial contributors to parties and to include donations from labour. Can you imagine that? The Leader of the Opposition, the interim leader of the NDP, when she was in government, forgot to count all the money that came from unions. I just find that ludicrous.

Another comment coming from the Leader of the Opposition: "The government has also promised massive reforms to the way we extract wealth from our forests. Change is necessary, market reforms included, but once again the Liberals are putting the primacy of markets ahead of the needs of communities, tearing up the social contract upon which this province was built, with little thought to the ruined communities they will leave in their wake" — again, more distortion by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

What this B.C. Liberal government has done is introduced the Forest and Range Practices Act, beginning British Columbia's transition to a workable, results-based practices code with tough penalties for non-compliance. It cuts red tape, encourages innovation by skilled resource professionals and holds industries responsible for the outcomes.

The Premier and the Forests minister have worked tirelessly to see the softwood lumber dispute resolved. A new working forest policy has been proposed to provide greater land base certainty for forestry and help build a stronger economy. A new forest investment account has been established to focus resources on land-based activities, marketing and value-added growth.

This government has developed a workers transition program, compensation for taxes that workers inadvertently pay.

This government has allocated $20 million to international marketing and forest product development. The Premier has hosted a summit on softwood lumber. Trade missions to China to expand markets for B.C. forest products have taken place. The government has allocated $20 million in research to promote forest stewardship.

The government will be providing $275 million to help forest workers, contractors, industry and communities deal with the changes that must be made — more good news from this government.

Again, we have the member for Vancouver-Hastings making false statements. This is another one of them: "Rural B.C. is hurting. A change of name, to the heartland B.C., won't change a thing unless this government takes action. Rural B.C. is hurting. It's hurting in a way we haven't seen since the 1930s" — more outrageous comments by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

The B.C. Liberal government has created both a northern and a Kootenay caucus to ensure that the heartlands' issues have a strong voice in government.

The government has established a $146 million forest investment account to promote sustainable forest management in British Columbia.

This government has provided $2 million in funding to the University of Northern B.C. to research and develop a workplan that responds to the recommendations of both reports on offshore oil and gas.

This government has announced a new northern health centre that establishes Prince George as an educational centre for doctors. Interior health tele-imaging improves patient care.

This government has reduced patient wait times. This government has provided a $58.5 million package of benefits and financial incentives designed to attract doctors to rural areas.

We will be introducing new legislation that will support the opportunities for job creation in coalbed methane in the Kootenays, in the central interior and on Vancouver Island.

It just keeps going — more good news for British Columbia. I just have to get the truth out there.

The government will be providing $275 million to assist B.C. forest workers, communities and companies in moving to a more acceptable, sustainable Forest Practices Code.

The government is working to expand the Cranbrook Airport to open up the Kootenays to increased international tourism to allow those planes from all over the world to land in the Kootenays to enjoy the great skiing they have there.

The government will be building a bridge at Needles to open the Kootenays to the Okanagan. The government will be building a $670 million upgrade to the Trans-Canada Highway through Kicking Horse Canyon.

In the next three years we'll invest $362 million in rehabilitating the rural and remote roads infrastructure. Over the next three years we're going to invest $210 million in rural roads and resource roads and $37 million in roads that are specifically intended to meet the needs of our oil and gas industry. We're going to introduce enabling legislation aimed at encouraging mining and mineral development in British Columbia. Bill 54 removed the red tape and added certainty of access for mineral title holders. The Ministry of Forests eliminated the PST from production equipment for mining and oil and gas. As a result of a thorough environmental review, the Tulsequah mine was approved. Bill 38 enhanced B.C.'s natural position as a leader in coalbed methane development.

We have appointed a three-member scientific review panel to determine if offshore oil and gas resources can be extracted in a scientifically sound and environmentally responsible manner, and have created an offshore team that will work with first nations, coastal communities and the federal government to see a thriving offshore industry by the year 2010. This government introduced an energy plan to ensure secure and safe energy for British Columbians well into the future. The energy plan built on four cornerstones: low electricity rates and public ownership of B.C. Hydro; secure, reliable supply; more private sector opportunities; and environmentally responsible and non-nuclear power sources — and eliminated seven of 22 fees, or 31 percent, administered by the Oil and Gas Commission.

I could go on forever about the mistruths that are being spread by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, but I want to end on a positive note. This government is on track for a brighter future, and I am proud to say that I can stand here and fully support this government and the budget.

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege of speaking to this House on this year's budget.

It is the second full budget this government has presented to the people that meets all expectations. It's a good budget, it's a prudent budget, and it's shaping the way to the principal commitment this government based its election campaign on: the promise to balance the budget during the first term in office. In effect, if everything goes the way our hon. Finance minister predicts — and he is on record as saying his forecasts are conservative — we will not only balance the budget as early as 2004-05, we will have a modest surplus followed the next year by an even larger surplus. This is the way a government should be run — prudent fiscal balancing.

The people of British Columbia made it very, very clear in 2001 that they wanted a change. They wanted a fiscally responsible government. They didn't want any more deficit. They wanted the government to operate within its means. As we all know, two years ago this May people made a decisive change through the ballot box. They turfed the last government, virtually decimated the ruling party, and they sent 77 new government members into office. In doing so, they delivered that message of fiscal responsibility to all politicians.

Under the guidance of our Finance minister, his team has come up with a budget that not only can we live by, but we can take it to the people and show them that we have done as they asked us in May two years ago. We have returned fiscal responsibility to the government and to this province.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the most amazing things about this budget is the almost total lack of criticism from all quarters. I do not see the media attacking or ridiculing the government over this budget. I don't hear the people berating us. That alone tells me that our Finance minister has done the right thing. He and his team have come up with a document that we can not only live by and base our government plans on, but one that is pulling this province back on the right track for prosperity and hope for the long term.

It is a budget that is also protecting our most vulnerable in society. It is putting more money into the hands of school boards. It is maintaining our health system. It is creating programs that will see our much-stressed transportation system be moved into the twenty-first century.

Another significant effort of this budget is that it is aimed directly at trying to bring down British Columbia's overall debt. Because of that debt, over $1.5 billion of this province's revenues go every year into interest

payments. That is our third-highest expenditure behind only health and education in government spending. Just think what we could be doing with that $1.5 billion if we weren't spending it on the debt interest.

That said, I'm very happy with this budget, and I know that many others are too. In fact, right after the budget was prepared, our Premier spoke at a Surrey Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Over 300 business people, along with some union members, attended that luncheon. The room was full of enthusiasm, and the Premier received a number of standing ovations.

I am a former president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, and I know many of its members personally. After that luncheon, everyone I talked to had nothing but praise for what this government is doing and for the steps it is taking to return to fiscal responsibility and prudent spending and bring back economic hope.

To ensure that I've received full feedback on this budget, on Friday, February 21, I, along with my Surrey colleagues, convened a post-budget stakeholders meeting in my Surrey-Tynehead constituency office. Beginning at 8 a.m. and running right through to 8 p.m., we met with, listened to and received input from more than 18 of the most prominent groups within Surrey.

Many of the organizations and stakeholder bodies are from within my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, but I wanted to know exactly what everyone from throughout the Surry area was thinking. I think you should know who all these groups are, because they not only represent the complete cross-section of Surrey but are themselves truly representative of groups located anywhere in this province.

We started the morning off meeting with the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and followed with representatives of the Surrey Teachers Association; members of the BCGEU; the Surrey agricultural committee; the president and members of the Surrey district parent advisory council; Métis Family Services; Simon Fraser University Surrey campus; Whalley Business Association; Surrey Memorial Hospital; Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation; Fraser health authority; Surrey parks, recreation and culture committee; South Surrey Community Services; Surrey social planning committee; a group called Options — that's a community organization; members of the HEU; the Indo-Canadian Business Association; Peace Arch District Hospital; and Surrey Community Services Society.

These groups represent thousands of people and stakeholders throughout the province. They spoke eloquently about their desire and their demand for government to be good stewards for the taxpayers' dollars. They told me that to bring this province back to its former economic glory, government must be prudent with its spending. They were also very clear that we must not forget our social responsibilities either.

We must ensure that our educational system becomes the very best in Canada and that our health care services and supply system must be the very best it can be. Change is never easy, and not everyone agrees with all aspects of this government's steps to be fiscally responsible. We heard their voices too. We heard what everybody had to say — good and bad. I assure you, as I assured them, that I will share all that I heard with my caucus colleagues and this government.

I want to go on record that I believe government is only strong when it listens to and responds to the people. I think this budget is a response to what people want to see. They wanted a government that makes sure they can earn some money, feed their families, keep a roof over their heads, have good health care and education systems, and have hope for the future. This government is doing that. Many people have told me that loud and clear.

Many are saying that this government needs to stay the course and keep working toward a balanced budget and that surplus, though I am certain they don't want to see government piling up too much surplus. When our government gets to that point, we should ask B.C. voters what they would like to do with these surplus dollars. As this government demonstrated in the first act after taking office, a tax cut gives people more money in their pockets and lets them spend it the way they see fit. This helps to drive the economy even further ahead, and as our economy grows, we will be putting more money into education and health care, as this government has promised in its New Era document.

That said, I have also been told that the people will support some tax increases, and one in this budget is being supported. That increase is 2.5 percent on school taxes, and most people are supporting it. They are supporting it because they believe — and they have told us, the government, this many times over the past couple of years — that they want the very best education system possible for their children and their grandchildren, and they are willing to pay for it.

Another tax increase I have heard some complaints about is the 3½-cents-per-litre increase in fuel tax, but when I tell people that all of that money will be spent on transportation infrastructure and will get them to work quicker and home sooner, and commercial and industrial goods can get to markets cheaper, they understand it and they can agree with it. They accept it because they know it will help the economy of the whole province.

No one wants to pay more taxes, and no one in this government likes to raise taxes, but we did cut taxes 25 percent across the board as our first act in office. British Columbians in the lowest two tax brackets now pay the lowest provincial income tax base rate in this country. In fact, I would like to quote the Minister of Finance from comments he made recently on a radio station. The Minister of Finance said:

While this fuel tax may seem like we are taking it back, we are doing something very specific with that money. We will be fixing roads, making them safer and more efficient and making life easier for people throughout the north, the interior and the eastern part of this province — our heartlands. For too many years those roads have been ignored while their use has increased incredibly. They have deteriorated to the point that they are dangerous, they can't handle the traffic, and the movement of goods becomes more and more expensive. Something had to be done, and done soon, or the costs would be unmanageable.

Since the province derives huge revenue from the heartlands of British Columbia, which benefits everyone, it is only fair that all should contribute to the cost of revitalizing the transportation routes of our heartlands. Due to relatively small populations in the vast areas that create our forest wealth, our mineral revenues, many agricultural products and our tourism potential, it would be impossible to have a region-specific tax that would contribute in any meaningful way to rebuilding and restructuring the transportation routes north and east of Hope.

As I said previously, since all of us on the small but very highly populated lower mainland benefit from these revenues, it is only fair and proper that we contribute equally. Although not mentioned specifically in this budget, I know that sometime in the near future, we will see, if supported by the general public, tolls on the lower mainland to finance major new transportation improvements.

While some may not agree, I think this method of financing is good, because it is based on the system of user-pay. Tolls are not new. We have them on the Coquihalla. In a sense, we have them on B.C. ferries, and for those old enough to remember, we had them on the Lions Gate Bridge. Back then, interestingly enough, the Lions Gate Bridge was the only way to get across Burrard Inlet and to the North Shore without taking a boat.

If I may point out to those who think the new toll system will delay traffic because drivers will have to stop to pay, let me make it clear that in the future, tolling will be based on an electronic system. Vehicles will not stop, as they do now on the Coquihalla, but traffic flows will continue uninterrupted as the electronic monitors and perhaps cameras will record their passing. Cameras will record their licence plates passing and electronically levy the tolls.

I just want to mention one more transportation issue based on a meeting I had on February 23, 2003, with the representatives of the Abbey Ridge of Port Kells in my Surrey-Tynehead constituency. The residents are concerned about the proposed new crossing of the Fraser River between Surrey and Maple Ridge. They are concerned that any changes to the proposal may have a major effect on them and will not happen without their input. As a result of their concerns, I'm trying to arrange a meeting for them with the Ministry of Transportation's project coordinator and TransLink so that they can provide positive input and everybody can benefit. I believe this new crossing will be a win-win for everyone, and I want to ensure that everyone is happy with the final outcome with their input.

However, you have heard me talk about transportation many times before, and I won't dwell on the issue any further today except to say that I am eagerly waiting for the Minister of Transportation's vision for the lower mainland system, expected in the next few weeks. I'm also eagerly awaiting this government's next budget, when the Minister of Finance stands in this House and tells us we have achieved a surplus budget. It will be welcome news. We will know then that we have taken the right steps and that the Finance minister has done an exceptional job.

In fact, each and every minister is doing a good job, because for perhaps the first time in history, every minister either came in on budget or under budget. Also, for the first time in B.C. history, the Premier has allowed all government MLAs to have, through the committee system, full input into government ministry plans and direction. That tells us our fiscal house is getting in order and that we are doing the job the people of British Columbia asked us to do in May 2001.

The future is looking bright, and if we can ever get the Americans to drop their protectionism and deal with us fairly on the softwood lumber issue, then things will truly be good for all of us. At the same time as we are dealing with the Americans, I do believe we need to continue the strides we have made in creating and establishing new lumber markets in Asia. If we can diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the Americans and their protectionist politics, we may once again see stability in our forest-dependent communities.

I support this budget. Many people have told me we are on the right track and that we must stay the course to achieve the hope and prosperity that the people expect government to offer them.

K. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it's again my privilege to stand in this House to speak on the budget. One of the things I'd like to try and do today is reflect as to what this budget means to me, some of the areas that we're trying to cover in our budget and the processes which we take to accomplish those goals. I'd like to, in simplistic terms, put out what I believe we are trying to achieve with our budgeting process and, also, what that's going to mean to us as British Columbians in the long term.

First off, we're trying to balance the budget. Now, what does that mean? I think that for most of us who

run any kind of household finances or business finances, it's quite simple what that means. It means you have to balance the amount of funds that you have coming in with the funds that are going out. Basically, don't spend any more than you have. We're doing a fairly good job of that.

Another goal, of course, is to reduce the overall debt. The long-term goal is to reduce the amount of debt. Now, we shouldn't confuse debt with our current deficit. Deficit is the amount of money by which, in each year, you run over your budget. If you believe you're going to bring in so much money and you actually spend more than that, that's a deficit. As that accumulates, that becomes a debt.

K. Stewart: I know the minister of regulations found that quite enlightening. It's something that I'm sure he has to look at when he's looking at his regulations to ensure….

K. Stewart: Deregulation. That's partially difficult when we keep bringing in new laws to make things better because there are a bunch of old laws out there that we have to get rid of. I appreciate his comments on the subject, but I'll try and get back to my text here and move along with what the overall debt means to us as British Columbians.

In British Columbia every dollar that we have to pay on the debt is a dollar that doesn't go to programs. When we're now going to be sitting at approximately $40 billion worth of debt, debt servicing — depending on interest — is anywhere between $1.5 billion and $1.75 billion a year. That's a significant amount of money. A secondary goal for this government, once we do balance our budget, is to use some of the future surpluses to pay down that overall debt so that we can have more money to contribute to services.

Another thing that we need to do is have an accurate accounting of what our actual debt and financial status is. By moving to the generally accepted accounting principles, no longer will governments be able to hide behind shoddy or deceptive accounting practices. Fudge-it budgets will be a thing of the past. As a result of the generally accepted accounting principles being brought into this government, we will now see the true financial picture of our government, with all the good and some of the warts that go along with that.

Efficiency. It's a goal of mine and of our government to ensure that when a dollar is directed towards a particular program or project, as much of that dollar gets down to delivering the service as possible. That's the efficiency. We do not want to see, when we put in some of our budgets such as health care, $10.2 billion to deliver service to the people of British Columbia…. We want to see as great a portion of that money getting down to the hospitals, down to the patients, and try and reduce the amount of money that's lost in administrative and other charges on the way down. That's the efficiency we're trying to achieve, and I believe this budget works towards that.

Then there's the effectiveness. That's how effective these funds are, and the energies that are put forward to get the desired results, that can be utilized in a manner that has improved results. That is, once we are efficient in getting those dollars down to where those services are being provided, we want to ensure that those services are effective and that our public is getting value for money. There must be a quantitative value for the tax dollars that we extract from our taxpayers. We need measurements, benchmarks — and reflect those benchmarks not only in dollars but also in social expectations. We must ensure that we have an objective way of measuring what those benchmarks are and what those dollars and those energies that we expend are really doing for the people of British Columbia.

Now on to another concept: taxation. How do we collect those funds? Well, in Canada and British Columbia we've always followed through on a social commitment that those who earn more support those who earn less. That's one of the major social fibres of Canadian society — to ensure that those who need help get help.

There are a number of ways that we extract these funds or tax our citizens. One of the ways we collect fees to do the people's work is to have things such as general income tax. At that end of the spectrum, what we have is a type of funding that we all pay whether we use it or not. That's in our general taxation on properties. If you own a home, you pay tax. If you earn an income, you pay tax. Regardless of what you use or consume, you pay a portion of tax on those items — your income and your property holdings.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a user tax. Those things are similar to what we've just recently applied to gas. As unfavourable as it was for us to do that, we know that we have to tax in order to be able to have funds to improve our roads and highways. I'll get into that more, but that's an example of a direct tax. Your sales tax is another direct tax. You pay for what you buy, and the tax is based on your consumption and what you use.

In between there is a combination of taxation. Parks would be a good example of that. We have recently put a user fee on some portions of parking, etc., in some parks, but there's also a major portion of general income that comes through our taxation, which covers off the operation of those parks. There's a situation where we have a combination of a user fee and a general use of tax.

When we look at this, we have to decide why we are doing this. Some people criticize the fact that we reduced our income tax, especially in the under $60,000 income bracket, to the lowest in Canada — a 25 percent reduction in income tax across the board. What that does is give people an option as to where they wish to spend their taxes and their tax dollars and, of course, where they get to spend the money left in their pockets. It gives people a choice. If a person doesn't like the gas

tax, they can choose to do a couple of things. They can look to get a more fuel-efficient vehicle. They can look at ways of not travelling so much. They can look at supporting our other types of transit systems, especially in urban areas where we have SkyTrain, we have the West Coast Express, and we have a number of bus services. People may look at that and say: "Well, if I start taking the bus or another form of transit, I'll actually save money." In a sense, they have a choice there.

Appreciating the fact that there's some people that don't have a choice, those that are maybe the long-haul truckers, people who use the roads a lot…. But they will get the benefit. They will get the benefit of that 3½ cents per litre that will go directly to improving the roads. In the long run, what will that mean for them? That will mean more efficient times between their stops. It will mean that they can run their vehicles at closer to the speed limits on longer portions of their trips, allowing them to be more fuel-effective, and in the long run save them money on wear and tear of their vehicles. That's a way that the user who's paying actually gains the benefit.

That's just one of the philosophies that I like to support within this government: an overall reduction in our general tax, which did a number of things — including for our economy, the retail sector especially. When it was going through hard times all over North America and Canada, we had a real surge in consumer spending, and that was a direct result of that 25 percent reduction in personal income tax.

I guess the next question is: given that those are some of the concepts that we're trying to put forward in our budget, how are we doing? It's been almost two years now that we've been in government, and let's see what the pundits say. According to a recent Ipsos-Reid poll, 78 percent of small business owners say that the B.C. Liberals are moving in the right direction, 44 percent of this group believe B.C.'s already in better shape today than it was, and 66 percent are very positive that in two years the business climate will be better than it is today. That's very positive news. Many people know that small business is one of the main generators of the economy in British Columbia. These people are the small entrepreneurs that are starting all over British Columbia with new businesses, and they are now encouraged by what our government is doing with regard to the financial stability within this province.

There's another group of people. I mentioned earlier about the generally accepted accounting principles, which are the way of the future. What that does is protect the public from the types of scandals we've seen in the United States with some of the large corporations. It also prevents the type of misinformation that comes through the fudge-it-type budgets we've also seen in British Columbia. What does the Certified General Accountants Association of B.C. say of our budget? A direct quote: "These guys are good." I think it's been a while since that organization has said that about government: "These guys are good." What do they mean by "these guys are good"? They were more direct in their comments in saying, "Finance minister Gary Collins is quickly putting B.C. on a solid footing with a better-than-forecast deficit reduction and ambitious provisions for infrastructure upgrading and forest sector transition funding," — such bright words for our Minister of Finance from the accountant group of British Columbia.

The recent budget also tells us we're on track for a balanced budget in 2004-05. This tells us that we're moving again in the right direction, and B.C. will be in a position to pay its own way as it goes. Again, let us not confuse a balanced budget with the position of not having an accumulated debt. There is a significant accrued debt, but we'll finally stop the bleeding with deficit budgets, and we can now catch our breath and get on with it.

Since our first full budget in 2002 we have a lower-than-planned deficit, lower-than-capital funding and lower-than-forecast debt. The deficit is expected to be $600 million lower than planned, and if there are no unexpected events between now and March 31, the deficit could almost be $1 billion lower than forecast. Yes, we are on track in British Columbia, and the plan is working.

What am I hearing from my constituents? Most of the people I meet in the streets and at events are generally supportive and encouraging me to stay the course, for we are doing what we were elected to do. I also get the expected response from some of the public service union leaders, who have a definite vested self-interest in the status quo. They express no concern for the efficiency or effectiveness of your tax dollar expenditures. They are quite happy to continue on the plan of the previous government of spending what you don't have and letting someone else worry about it down the road. This is something we cannot afford to keep. We have to move on, we have to make those large government institutions more effective and efficient, and we are doing that. There's no question in my mind that we are keeping our financial commitment to the citizens of British Columbia, and this latest budget only solidifies that promise we made to them.

K. Manhas: I'm pleased to respond to our government's second full budget. Our budget last year was a difficult, but needed, blueprint for getting our province and our economy back on track. We are on track, and for the second year in a row the government has given more certainty, more accountability, more openness and a greater platform for planning service delivery through public rolling three-year service plans.

Critics, including our credible and forward-looking NDP opposition members, who did such a first-class job of fiscal prudence and long-term planning when they were in government — I'm being facetious, if you couldn't tell, Mr. Speaker — said, "We could not meet our targets," and they said that our plan was draconian. Well, our first full fiscal year is nearly complete, government is running better and more efficiently than in a decade, and there is nothing draconian about that.

We have planned, we have been smart, and we have carefully prioritized scarce dollars towards areas

that have the most impact. In short, we have been prudent and have managed public dollars well. The first great benefit of our prudent fiscal management was that we spent less on interest costs. Because of those savings we were able to invest more money in important public services like our education system. Because of our sound fiscal management, we were able to direct $142 million into the public education system. That's on top of the $50 million recently announced by the Premier. That's a substantial benefit to the young people in my community, whose futures we are planning.

In fact, although enrolment is declining, the budget for the Ministry of Education was kept the same, which means an extra $51 for every student who goes to school in Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain. That's in addition to the one-time funding of $50 million that was announced by the Premier, which translated into an extra $2.7 million for my school district and was allocated directly to the school board before the budget. Excluding one-time funding, the annual budget for the Ministry of Education is also planned to increase by $243 per student more than in the last fiscal year.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to offer the school-based programs like school meals and inner-city school funding that have been so important to children in need to help them succeed in the classroom and that have been used in several schools in my community including Central Elementary, Coquitlam Middle School and others. This shows the real benefit to sound fiscal management, and it shows our government's commitment to putting the interests of students first.

The budget also showed our commitment to putting the interests of patients first in the health care system. Our government increased health spending by 12 percent — that's $1.1 billion — to $10.4 billion. Those are sizes of dollars that most people don't often think about. That reflects roughly 41 percent of all provincial spending and the highest per-capita spending on health care of any province in Canada, according to a recent study.

We've also dedicated $8 million more to the Michael Smith Foundation to conduct research to improve the effectiveness of health care reforms so that we know we're getting the system right.

Health care authorities will receive $15 million more in grants to support the development of an electronic records system so we can deliver services more smartly and with greater efficiency, so British Columbians can count on the highest level of service wherever they are in the province.

B.C. is also moving towards increasing its complement of new doctors. The budget lays in place a plan to ensure that by 2009, our commitment of graduating twice as many doctors is met. That's something that people in my community, who currently face many difficulties in finding and accessing physicians, will greatly benefit from. That's something I hear from seniors and young people in my community, and that's something we need to tackle, and we are.

The other great thing that was announced in the budget was, in my opinion, an increase in the tobacco tax — a $2-per-carton increase in tobacco tax. Hopefully, we'll get more people to quit smoking — hopefully, reduce the burden on the health care system, take some pressure off the needed dollars there and make smoking something less palatable.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to address our government's support of the Romanow report. I've been asked many times about our government's stance, and I'd like to share with my constituents the real issue behind the Romanow report and the new federal funding that was based on it. Of course, we're all happy that the report caused the federal government to examine issues in health care. I do wish, however, that they had looked at the real needs and issues in each of the regions.

In British Columbia we have moved a long way to creating efficiencies and reducing administration in health delivery. That has given health authorities a very clear picture of need in this system. That, I believe, is true in every province. I agree with Mr. Romanow that there's a greater need to strengthen the public health care system to ensure it is sustainable. I believe in a strong public health care system.

The federal government has committed to new federal dollars for health care, but each province has different shortfalls and different needs. Health decisions and the dollars do not need to be micromanaged, and the time to build extra parts into a system is once the existing parts are off life support.

Our government funds the six independent health authorities to deliver care. That ensures politics are removed and that the work is focused on the delivery of care. The front lines know what is needed. What we need are more resources for the front lines — not new, separate boutique programs.

I was struck by a comment that was made by Premier Bernard Lord in response to new federal dollars announced, based on the Romanow recommendations. He said, and I'm paraphrasing: "Well, if the roof of your house is leaking and you need to replace your roof, and someone comes to you with some money, but they say you have to build a pool with this money, you say: 'Thanks for the pool, but the roof is still leaking, and it still needs to be fixed.'" That's the issue here.

We are grateful that there is going to be more money coming in, but we do have some serious issues in our health care system. Our government has committed to creating a sustainable system from a health care system that was, from all consensus, in crisis. We will continue to do that with this budget and whatever the federal government decides to do. In fact, every penny of the $1.3 billion of expected new federal funding will be used in the next three years to improve the health of British Columbians.

I read a recent column written for the Now community newspaper — one of my local newspapers — by

Seth Klein of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank. In it he claims that our government made a financial blunder when we gave the public over $2 billion in income tax relief. I think he's wrong, and the people of my constituency think he's wrong. But these aren't reasoned arguments; they are the hard-core, left-wing ideologues who are contracted by the previous government, who helped drive our province into the mess we inherited. They had an opportunity. I hope we never return to a provincial ignominy like that ever again.

K. Manhas: Far too much. Far too many public dollars were spent there — $200,000. These people that are out there complaining about the changing tax structure, spewing false rhetoric, like repeating the phrase "tax cuts to the rich," are the same people who thought the government could micromanage an economy. They are the same people who regulated and taxed the people of the province to death and worked hard to kill opportunity in this province.

Since we cut personal income taxes, since we started to make needed changes to ensure sound fiscal management, since we toiled to reopen this province for business again…. It's since we did all those things that investment is starting to return to the province, opportunity is returning, and young people have a future in this province, and they're staying in this province. And no, we won't get everything right the first time. After all, we've only been in government for just over 20 months. But the NDP had ten years, and all they did was make mistakes.

I think we're doing pretty darn well. The government has shown sound fiscal management. We have focused efforts on revitalizing the economy so people have jobs and a bright future in British Columbia, and we have put patients, students and people in need first. We have put our priorities on the table and made them public and made ourselves accountable for them.

There is no question the plan is working. Our deficit for this year is forecast to come in at $600 million lower than originally planned. We have been able to invest in health, and we've been able to invest in education, and we've been able to invest in services for people in need. The economy has shown positive signs of turning. The economy in 2002 has grown at almost three times the rate anticipated by independent forecasters. B.C.'s economy is expected to grow an additional 2.4 percent in 2003 and 3 percent in the following two years.

As a result of prudent spending control and sticking to our fiscal and economic plan, we are on track to balance the books by the next full budget. We are on track to achieve a significantly lower level of debt than anticipated in the last budget and last fiscal plan, and every government ministry is within its operating budget. The provincial debt is $3.5 billion — $3.5 billion — lower than anticipated a year ago. Government's prudent fiscal management and lower debt service costs have freed up almost $400 million in total program saving. That is the real benefit of the work that we have been doing and that still needs to be done.

Now, the opposition might try scare tactics to win cheap political points, but it's not working. The doomsday scenarios that the NDP opposition painted never occurred and will never occur, not as long as they don't return back to government in this Legislature.

We are on track to a better future in this province. That is something British Columbians can count on, and something residents in Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain can see. Citizens in my riding of Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain are seeing the positive effects of what we are doing. In fact, Port Coquitlam is booming. The fact is hard for anyone to ignore. The city's motto is, "By commerce and industry we prosper," and we are prospering. In fact, the local city council has taken the opportunity of the market surge and the unmistakable upturn in the local economy to put more land on the market and approve more building permits. In the February 26 edition of the Tri-City News, an article titled "Underdeveloped Poco is Booming" describes several of these new projects and explains that developers believe Port Coquitlam is underbuilt and are turning to the city because of the potential that they see.

In Poco the community has begun approving several developments. A 40-unit Grant Street condo development has just been approved by the city. That represents the first market condominium project in Port Coquitlam in five years. Another 31-unit mixed city-home, townhouse and apartment-style condo project on Welcher in downtown Poco was also recently approved by the city at the last council meeting. A 2,070-square-metre industrial building has been approved for Kingsway, just west of the new Tim Horton's and Wendy's at the Mary Hill bypass. The empty Joey Tomato's restaurant that has been sitting vacant right near my office will be occupied by a new and improved Bank of Nova Scotia branch that's looking for new space, modern digs, as they move from their tight quarters. That's on top of the Sears distribution centre going in on the bypass, the buildout of Citadel Landing on the Fraser River, which so far has sold faster than anyone would have imagined, a new Home Outfitters and a myriad of new shops, new buildings and new jobs in the Dominion Triangle. That's just the start.

In fact, there is so much development and interest in investing in Port Coquitlam that the mayor of Port Coquitlam has said that the city hasn't seen projects of this size in years. That is concrete proof that our economy has begun turning around, and it's working for citizens in Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain.

More and more technology companies are discovering the possibilities and advantages of operating in British Columbia. PeopleSoft recently announced the opening of an important R and D centre in B.C., and

eBay Canada announced a 700-person operation to open in North Burnaby. Those are just a few of the technology companies starting to come in and invest in British Columbia.

There are opportunities to attract these businesses to our community as well. We just need to sell ourselves. Areas like the Mary Hill bypass corridor, Kingsway, Broadway and the Dominion Triangle have great potential as job and technology magnets. These areas can help fulfil the demand. Coupled with Pacific Region Coquitlam, the development of a downtown core area around Coquitlam Centre and the opportunities inherent in Burke Mountain, our region can surely band together and create a strong cluster of innovations, jobs and energy.

Even now, Burke Mountain has not been left out of the economic surge — not by a long shot. In fact, another recent article in the Tri-City News explained that assessments are way up in northeast Coquitlam in my riding. Now, for some people, that might signify potentially bad news, in some cases, if taxes go up. The city of Coquitlam in this case has assured area residents that the mill rate for landowners in the area will be reassessed in May to take into account higher land values. In fact, Coquitlam's manager of corporate services explained that the mill rate, which is based on assessments and coordinated to match income set in the city's last budget, is set in May. If the average assessment is up, the mill rate will be adjusted down to reflect what council approved in the budget.

Taxes aside, it is great news for many area landowners who have seen the value of their land going through the roof. People in that area have looked towards this for decades. It has been a great investment for many of the area's families, and I've been hearing from many of them that they're pleased at the results. It signifies opportunity for the families living there.

The province is currently in the process of an open RFP to put onto market much of the Crown holdings on Burke Mountain, northeast Coquitlam, and the opportunities available in Burke Mountain add fire to the imaginative possibilities in the region. Already the city council's official community plan for northeast Coquitlam, for Burke Mountain, has won awards for the forward thinking that is going into planning a community up there.

Burke Mountain has tremendous potential for the area. With over 7,000 housing units planned in the first phase, housing for over 25,000 people and a projected billion dollars injected into the area's economy, the possibilities are huge. The dreaming has only begun, and the process has only begun. There's only good news for residents in Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Tri-Cities area.

In our areas we have our own successes in some burgeoning opportunities and many areas of technological innovation that still may be exploited. We need to capitalize on that and replicate that. We need to be a province and a community where we seize opportunity and see the possibilities instead of just problems and barriers. B.C. needs to become a can-do province, and we are on track to do just that.

This budget will help enable my community to deliver on those possibilities through several sector-specific tax changes that were introduced, aimed at encouraging further growth and economic diversification. Just to go through a few, our government announced a $5 million increase in venture capital tax credits that will attract as much as $17 million in new investment in new media companies. It's one of B.C.'s fastest-growing high-tech industries and a great opportunity for young people who live in this province and in Port Coquitlam.

We introduced a 15 percent top-up tax credit for productions using digital animation and visual effects worth $5 million to help that sector grow. Regional tax credits for television and film projects. Film projects and television projects have discovered the Tri-Cities area and the opportunities inherent in the area. That will surely help projects continue to locate in my community.

The budget for tax credits under labour-sponsored venture capital programs will grow by $4 million and generate up to $27 million in new investments. That's new capital, new investments for small businesses, startup businesses and medium-sized businesses that are located in Port Coquitlam and want to sell their ideas, want to move up to the next scale to market themselves to areas outside of our community, outside of this province, but want to be firmly rooted in the possibilities and the power here in British Columbia.

There are many, many different targeted tax changes, and they'll be worth a total of $29 million a year. Many of them will help my community focus on key strengths and businesses to help develop and attract business to the area. They are possibilities, they are windows of opportunity, and they must be seized. Tourism, technology, new media and film are all lucrative industries that Port Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities can begin attracting to the area.

These opportunities will be augmented by investment in our people. We've done that in our budget through higher education and research dollars. The Advanced Education ministry will target $23 million in funding to programs to enhance research in B.C., $18 million to the leading-edge endowment fund and $7.5 million to fund six new B.C. regional innovation chairs in the college sector — colleges including Douglas College in my community.

One-time funding will also support advancing the BCcampus model and accelerate the medical school program underway that I spoke about. That will help more people access higher education and capitalize on their possibilities. All of these initiatives will make higher education more accessible to students in Port Coquitlam and leap us forward towards the skills we need in this province to make sure that we can get ahead and that this province has a competitive advantage in the global market.

Jobs are growing and opportunity is growing. It's time now to market the potential of the area of my community of Port Coquitlam, of Coquitlam, of Port Moody and of the Tri-Cities area. That will happen when municipalities join hands and develop a coordinated marketing plan. A clear brand and clearly defined strengths will help. Each city in the area has different strengths and different potential. Port Moody will go after a different angle than Port Coquitlam, and Coquitlam will go after a different one still. Any business in the area, however, will benefit all of the communities, all of the residents of each of the communities. It will mean more jobs in the local area for residents of Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain and a critical mass of business in the region.

The more business we can attract to the area, the more will come. If a higher number of businesses locate in Coquitlam, that will certainly benefit and attract more businesses to us in Port Coquitlam and in Port Moody, and it will mean more jobs for residents in Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. It is imperative that the three cities work together, join hands and show leadership. We have the raw material. We need the selling package, we need the marketing strategy, and we need a strong brand.

In order for the region to achieve its economic potential, it must have a clear identity that draws people, tourism and investment. With a brand that is identifiable, each municipality can accentuate the individual characteristics that make them unique. First, we must get the attention of those outside. We need to brand the strengths of the area — what we're known for or what we could be known for.

We're also investing in the possibilities and economic possibilities of our area through transportation infrastructure, because we need to start moving on transportation now. We can't wait. We can't wait on building our future. Our infrastructure in B.C. is badly underdeveloped, and what is there is often in a poor state of disrepair. We will be investing every dollar of the $650 million of new dedicated fuel tax revenues in transportation infrastructure over the next three years into concrete improvements around the province.

In my community we already have close access to rail. The Fraser Port is considering setting up a facility close to the area. Now we need improvements to our choke points in road and transit infrastructure to service Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain. New infrastructure will have to be built with partnerships and fees so we don't burden future generations' abilities to manage and deliver public programs like health and education. However, there is certainly the need, and a great difference in the number of opportunities possible and the level of quality of life that result from making these transportation improvements if backlog routes and choke points like the Pitt River Bridge, the Cape Horn interchange, the Mary Hill bypass and mass transit to the Tri-Cities are addressed.

We are doing our part in B.C. What we need now is for the federal government to also come to the table with money for transportation. In fact, as we know, the federal government collects roughly $1.1 billion in gas tax and GST on fuel in British Columbia. Last year the federal government spent only $37 million on infrastructure in B.C. — $37 million out of $1.1 billion of taxes that should be going into transportation. In comparison, the provincial government has spent every dollar of the revenue it collects from gas on transportation and infrastructure, and it has done so for years.

There's no question that if we're going to make real progress in B.C., we all need to come together. The federal government, the provincial government, the regional governments, the municipal governments — we all need to come together to do our part, because there is incredible potential. Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain have the strengths of people, location, a competitive environment and, soon, a lucrative transportation environment if we can get our act together. We have started that on our provincial level. We just need to let the world know what we have to offer.

This budget also focuses on another kind of infrastructure. It also invests in key areas of social infrastructure. Our government has committed to investing $10 million in an early childhood partnership fund with the United Way and Credit Union Central and will invest up to $11 million per year on early intervention for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder. This has been a major issue for many children in my community and their families and is a new-era commitment of ours that I'm proud of.

The number of child care spaces eligible for subsidy assistance is going to be increasing in the coming year by 50 percent. Employment programs for people in need will receive $110 million extra next year.

The earnings exemptions for people with disabilities who receive income assistance will increase to $400 a month starting this spring. This is something that many people with disabilities have come to speak to me about. We have done that. We've made the change, we've shown that flexibility, and the exemption will increase to $400 a month.

Charity top-up grants to assist community organizations will continue. We've committed to continuing them over the next three years.

In a nutshell, this budget shows what good management can do. As I said, the government is forecast to be under budget by $600 million, and that money has been invested back into key priority programs like education, health and services for people in need. The government expects to balance its budget next year, and the year after that, a $375 million surplus after funding lifts for education, advanced education, social services and early childhood development that we've already announced, which we've already committed to moving towards.

We are planning for our future. We are working with communities, various levels of government and the private sector to all do their part and start planning for our future. A great symbol of that cooperation is our bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Our 2003 budget devotes $103 million over three years to the province's

bid to host the 2010 Olympics. The games could add more than $4 billion to the province's gross domestic product by 2020.

For the next three years the government is budgeting a total of $199 million of its $230 million commitment. In my own community, a 2010 Olympic spirit team was launched only a few weeks ago. The Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce and the ARC Arts Council joined with many, many people in my community to use the Olympic opportunity to create something special. They have brought together many people and organizations who otherwise would not work together and have joined together. They are creating bonds and creating a lasting legacy of understanding and strength in my community.

That strength will be leveraged into opportunity. In fact, they're continuing to leverage the opportunity not only in the Tri-Cities community but around the province. Just last week the Olympic spirit team launched a challenge to all communities in British Columbia. I'll read parts of the challenge that they sent to every arts organization and chamber of commerce around the province. It says:

That's very true. We need to make sure that people come together to make it happen. There is incredible potential. There is incredible energy. It's an incredible opportunity for young people and all people alike in our bid for the 2010 Olympics.

I see these Olympics doing so much for our city and province that can't be measured on any balance book. It will catapult our greater Vancouver area and British Columbia to a world scale that will help us achieve our dreams of opportunity and help fulfil the incredible potential inherent here. There's no question that once laid eyes on, B.C.'s charm and beauty are difficult to resist. In 2010 the world will see the charm in full force, and we will be better for it.

Vancouver is not a hidden city, but the more it is known and the more it is discovered, the better we can be. We want the brand of B.C. to mean high standards, competence, stability, environmental sustainability, supernatural beauty, unending opportunities, centres of ideas and thought, strengths of diversity, culture, incomparable people resources and a can-do attitude. Those are the things B.C. should represent, and those are the things that need to be our brand for the world. We can and will be a model for the world. Forget Italian or Swiss workmanship. I want to hear about B.C. workmanship.

The Olympics will showcase us to the world and showcase our strengths — innovations, businesses and culture — on the world stage. It will lead the way in sustainable planning. B.C., already a world leader in planning sustainable development, has built an Olympic bid already being dubbed the "sustainability Olympics." It will bring the city, the province and the nation together. It will give our people strength and confidence. It will showcase accomplishment and belief in our power. It will bring together and create understanding, and I think we can all use a little strength and understanding in our society today.

I know we are strong, and I know B.C. will show the wonder of this province to the IOC, who are currently in B.C. to evaluate our bid. I have no doubt they will be impressed with what we have to offer and will want the world to see, and I have no doubt Vancouver will be named the next Olympic city for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Let's keep alert to opportunity and seize our future potential. We'll do it with an open mind, strident effort and deliberate, coordinated actions. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I look forward to the opportunities in the year ahead.

B. Suffredine: It's an honour to rise in the House to respond to a budget as significant as this one. Some of those in the press initially described the budget as boring. They were some of the people, the same people, who doubted we could balance the budget at all. That skepticism was fair when you consider that for more than a decade, budgets were never balanced. I don't want to engage in NDP-bashing in saying that. Well, maybe I do.

The truth is that prior to the NDP, there was a long history of the budget not being balanced, although I have more sympathy for the government in the early 1980s when interest rates skyrocketed and budgets were simply out of control. No wonder there were skeptics, but now we're on track, and the plan is working. Prudent management is already producing results. We promised to invest more in education. That's happening, but we need to do more, and we will.

I want to briefly talk about the tax cuts. Our critics have said repeatedly that tax cuts benefited the rich only. They say that because, of course, if you make $50,000 and get a 25 percent tax cut, you get more than someone who made $25,000 or $30,000 and got a 25 percent tax cut. That's all true, but let's consider how we got the high tax rate in the first place and who was paying it.

The vast majority of taxpayers earn less than $60,000. For that reason, most of the income tax is paid by individuals and comes from people who earn less than $60,000. If we had raised the income tax on the first $60,000 instead of lowering it, the opposition would have been shouting at the top of their lungs that it was a tax grab on the backs of the poor. They would say that the bulk of the tax will come from low- and middle-income earners. For a change, they would be

right. But they can't have it both ways. The fact is that tax cuts are working. Job creation numbers, retail sales numbers and hot real estate markets are proof positive. Government doesn't create jobs; only the NDP thinks that government can do that. They tried to prove their theory by building fast ferries. Now, there's a success story if I ever saw one. Real jobs are created when government creates an environment where business and individuals are confident in the economy and are willing to take risks and make investments. Investors have confidence in B.C. again. Mining exploration and investment is coming back to B.C. When real estate values are rising, investors are showing their confidence. When retail sales are up, consumers are confident in the economy. We have all of that now.

New job growth in British Columbia exceeded all other Canadian provinces. In fact, we had more new jobs than Alberta and Ontario combined — all this only 20 months after people were leaving the province in droves, all as a result of a friendly investment environment. It is improving, but we need to do better. We need to stay the course financially, and we will, but let me move to some specifics.

In forestry, we are about to make the most significant changes in half a century. In 2001 we inherited a softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. that is a direct result of a complex forest system that no one really understands. We like to complain about the American tactics and sometimes call them bullies, but we have to recognize the fact that they have trouble understanding our system because it's so complicated that even we don't understand it. Changing the system so that it is market-based will achieve many things. First, it will ensure that we as residents of British Columbia get the maximum benefit from our resource revenues. We'll get the highest price for that wood. Second, it will ensure that everyone in the forest sector can get access to fibre at a fair price. Third, it will help end and prevent the recurrence of disputes with the U.S. now and in the future. The plan is ambitious, but it will pay a huge dividend for British Columbia.

Next I would like to comment on the heartlands strategy. I'm proud to be a member of a government that knows its resources. It is the resources generated by our heartlands that make our province the economic power that it is. I'm particularly pleased that it's our Premier who is driving this strategy and that he knows how important the heartlands are.

Politics is a team sport. I know how important it is to play on the team and to be a team player. The results of team play are becoming more important every day in the Kootenays as we see progress on things like the Cranbrook Airport expansion, the Kicking Horse Canyon improvement, the planning of the Needles bridge and the resolution of inland ferries so there are no tolls.

All this is achieved because we're working together, but also because we have a leader who knows how to lead. The new transportation strategy will see great things for the Kootenays, but the opposition can only think of ways to complain. For a decade they let the highways of B.C. decay while they squandered our taxes on bogus projects. Another tax is never what anyone would want to see, but the new fuel tax is the best way to get the job done. Dedicating this revenue to transportation improvements will actually generate jobs all over the province, and those will stimulate the economy more. The money will be used, as well, to get the federal government to the table to pay a share for projects like the Kicking Horse Canyon, Cranbrook Airport or even the Sea to Sky Highway. By partnering with the federal government we will double our transportation investments, and that will generate jobs in tourism, mining and forestry all over the province, but particularly in the heartland communities of the Kootenays.

I want to take a few moments, as well, to comment on health care. Immediately after the election we faced a labour dispute with nurses and then with doctors. These issues were settled at a cost, so the budget for health care was increased by $1.1 billion to ensure protection of health care.

There is an ambitious plan in place to change the system to improve delivery of health services. Now, change is never something people look forward to, and it certainly bothers them. But the concept in the health care plan is to design the delivery model to be the most efficient, so when people go to a hospital, the best possible range of services is there waiting for them.

The new Fair Pharmacare program is a good example. Because most of us are getting older, there are rising costs to providing a Pharmacare program at all. In fact, the way it is now, we just can't continue with the same program. The system is about to run out of money. What are your choices when you're about to run out of money? Do you borrow it? That's one choice. It's not fair or responsible in the current climate. That would leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren.

Do you cancel the program? That's another choice, and certainly not one I would like to make. Because we actually care about what happens to people, we have made a choice to preserve the plan and to make sure that the most needy are provided for. After all, what's wrong with asking those who can afford to pay, to pay a little more?

I had a call on the weekend from a lady who lives in Nelson and who's a single mom, working, with two children. She told me that she has a serious chronic illness, that she's struggling to get along on a single mother's income and that she pays about $2 a pill for a medication she has to take every day. She told me there were times when she wouldn't take her medicine and would tolerate the pain instead so she could buy food and clothes for her children. She was grateful for the new Pharmacare program, because, she said, she isn't a senior. She was very grateful that the new program now covers needy people, not just seniors. She thinks that we're on the right track with this program and that

I say it's fair that people who can pay a little more do, so those who can't afford it can have a decent living. A new plan has just been announced that is sustainable and that will ask people to pay according to their ability.

The opposition should be applauding this program. But no, they're trying to protect a few wealthy seniors who don't want to disclose their incomes. They object to people being asked to tell their net income from their tax returns. This is fascinating, since it was the NDP who required the same information in order to qualify for premium assistance. What is being sought now is absolutely nothing new.

The fact that 270,000 people will pay less under the new program is something they want to ignore. These are people who are the lowest-income seniors, and for the first time Pharmacare benefits will even extend to low-income families as well. I'm proud that we in our government care enough to make sure that our seniors and our most needy are cared for. In fact, high-income seniors will pay more, but with a deductible of only 3 percent of the income of the highest-income senior, this is truly a Pharmacare program that is fair to all British Columbians.

Back to the economy. Some people think that the phrase "stay the course" is boring. What do small business owners think? Small business is really the key to our economy. It is small business, after all, that creates the real, lasting jobs.

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll tells us something pretty interesting. In their survey, which just came out last week, eight out of ten small business owners think the government is moving in the right direction, 44 percent say the business climate is already in better shape than when we took office, and 66 percent think it will be even better in two years. That's confidence, and it's the confidence we need in the small business sector.

On the way home the other day, I passed a church. There was a sign out front. The sign said: "Fear can hold you prisoner, but hope can set you free." It's worth thinking about. A small business environment full of confidence and hope will be willing to make the investments that drive our economy and create jobs that last. Balancing the budget will give investors confidence that more tax hikes to pay interest or out-of-control spending are not lurking around the next corner. Staying the course, while boring to some, is the right thing to do. Slow and steady sometimes does win the race.

For those that think we're not winning, I want to close by highlighting the good news that we have achieved in just about 20 months. We now pay the lowest rate of tax on the first $60,000 of personal income.

The budget for health has been protected, and in the last year an additional $1.1 billion has been spent.

The budget for kindergarten-to-grade-12 education has been protected, and that is a real challenge in times of declining enrolment. I know in my own community right now there's a lot of concern about closure of elementary schools, where closures have been postponed for years because no one wants to make those hard choices about closing schools, and they don't want to face the facts that when enrolment declines, some schools will have to be closed.

An additional $23 million will be invested in advanced education and research in the coming year, as well as $18 million to be invested in the leading-edge endowment fund.

Starting April 1, there will be $11 million a year in additional funding for intervention for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder. I know that was mentioned a little earlier. That's very significant to me because I know of a particular case in Nakusp where I know they've been most unhappy that under the former government, there wasn't funding for autism spectrum disorder. After we were elected, this person in Nakusp came to me and was very concerned about whether it was going to change. It's been a lot slower than I hoped it would be, but it's an important development to see that we are now actually moving to help those people.

There's $110 million in employment programs for people in need in the Human Resources ministry. This year the earning exemption for people with disabilities who receive income assistance will be increased to $400 a month, on top of their assistance from the province. I am particularly complimentary to the minister in that regard, who listened well. I had a constituent who came and bothered me repeatedly during the election about the fact that the exemption was only $200. It hadn't changed in 20 years. In the last budget the ministry was able to raise that exemption to $300, and to see it go to $400 this time to people who are never going to be self-sustaining is most gratifying.

The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is increasing the number of child care spaces eligible for subsidy assistance in the coming year by 50 percent. Child care is a major issue in Nelson and the area I live in. That offers some real hope, I hope, to parents in my area who depend on quality child care.

The province is dedicating $650 million to implementation of a coordinated transportation plan over the next three fiscal years. That will mean new and rehabilitated roads in the interior. It will potentially mean an extended Cranbrook Airport if those negotiations finally complete and they get the involvement of all the parties necessary. It may include a major development of the Kicking Horse Canyon, which has been waiting decades, and with a little bit of luck, perhaps we'll even progress the Needles bridge a little further than the planning stage. I am a dreamer. Call me a dreamer. Most of all, our inland ferry will be toll-free, and that's a pleasure for me.

In the venture capital sector, it was earlier mentioned there is $5 million in venture capital credits for new media companies. One might think that isn't im-

portant, at least not to what are called the heartlands communities. I had a meeting on Friday night with people in Nelson who are involved in that sector. It's a fast-growing sector all over British Columbia. In fact, it's one of the fastest-growing sectors in British Columbia all around. That $5 million in venture capital tax credits may attract as much as $17 million in additional investment.

There's another $5 million in a new 15 percent tax credit for productions using digital animation and visual effects on top of existing film tax credits. Again, we have people in Nelson who do digital animation, so that is something that impacts heartlands communities.

There's an expansion of regional tax credits for television and film projects outside greater Vancouver to encourage more productions in heartlands communities. There was one of those set to go last summer in Creston. Many, many years ago, of course, there was the movie, which probably everyone in the House has seen, called Roxanne that brought many people to Nelson. Those are the kinds of things I'm hoping regional tax credits might bring again.

B. Suffredine: You thought I was in that? You saw the back of my head in Roxanne?

Also, the B.C. mineral exploration tax credit is extended for another three years to 2006. That's very important. When I came to Nelson in 1974, I think there were a number of operating mines. Some of them had been operating for decades. Now there are virtually none, at least not within my region.

Those are just a few of the highlights. The budget is indeed a plan for prosperity that is prudent, responsible and focused on the future. There are no simple ways to balance competing interests that are all valid and hungry for public resources. We must act now to balance the budget and build for tomorrow. We have made great progress. We are on track, we are even ahead of schedule, but we have just begun. We must be steady and stay on the plan. This budget is a giant leap in that direction, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the choices he's made, which are both compassionate and caring in staying on the plan.

Hon. M. Coell: It is an honour to rise today to speak in support of the budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing in a budget that is prudent, responsible and focused on the future. It is a budget that spurs job creation, builds on our new heartlands economic strategy and restores confidence once again in our economy. It is a budget that continues our task of setting government programs on a sustainable footing. It addresses the burden of debt, and it brings this generation and future generations of British Columbians closer to financial freedom.

We are doing what the Premier asked us to do when our government came into office. We are exercising sound fiscal management, revitalizing the economy and putting people first.

The Ministry of Human Resources is on track with its commitment to sound fiscal management. As you know, my ministry is the third largest in government in terms of its impact on the provincial budget. We are keenly aware that we are managing tax dollars, and we are determined to manage them effectively.

My ministry shares in this government's commitment to balance the budget in 2004-05. Not only are we on target, but my ministry is under expenditure by $164 million for this fiscal year. That's money that can be directed elsewhere for patients, for students and for people in need.

My ministry is on track with its role in helping to revitalize the economy. I am proud that this government has done so much already to reduce high business taxes, eliminate red tape and inspire new confidence in British Columbia. These measures, together with our commitment to transportation improvements, will go a long way to opening up B.C.'s heartlands for economic growth.

Thanks to the changes we've made in the Ministry of Human Resources, more and more British Columbians are able to participate in our improving economy. The employment and assistance legislation we brought in last year has refocused the ministry's resources on helping people to find sustainable employment. We are on track with our $300 million investment in job programs aimed at helping even more British Columbians benefit from sustainable employment.

In the past year our focus on jobs instead of welfare has resulted in 60,000 people who are no longer dependent on income assistance. That is a 24 percent drop in our temporary caseload in one year. Our exit surveys show that two-thirds of the clients who are leaving income assistance are leaving because they have a good, well-paying job — jobs in the cities, jobs in the heartlands of our province. There were 78,000 new jobs created in communities throughout B.C. last year, each one representing new opportunity and new hope. I'm proud that ministry clients can share in that hope and promise of a better future, and I'm proud that the skilled staff in my ministry around the province are helping to turn those hopes into reality for thousands of British Columbians.

I'd like to give you an example: a young man who has been out of work and on income assistance for seven years. Even though he had some experience as a baker, he was having a hard time finding employment. His employment and assistance worker referred him to one of the ministry's job placement contractors. The contractor helped him sharpen his résumé, improve his interview techniques, and helped him with confidence. They also matched him up with a job opening at a local Tim Horton restaurant. A few days later he was hired as a full-time baker. He says he's overjoyed to be working. His new job has given him confidence, motivation and direction. The restaurant owner says he's becoming the best baker in their franchise. The local economy benefits, too, by keeping skilled workers like this young man in this region — workers who contribute to

The Ministry of Human Resources is putting people first. Our shift away from a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment has led to better lives, more independence and a higher standard of living for many British Columbians. We have reduced the burden on taxpayers while protecting services for those most in need, including people with disabilities. We are providing more support than ever before for people with disabilities. In this budget we have committed more funds to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are met.

Since our government came to office, the disabilities caseload has seen a growth of 7 percent, or 3,200 cases. Currently, there are more than 46,000 British Columbians with disabilities and their families, who are receiving the highest rate of assistance this government provides and the third highest among Canadian provinces. Since September 30 we have received more than 6,000 new applications for the person-with-a-disability designation. This reflects the fact that the new employment and assistance legislation meets the distinct needs of people with disabilities, including their right to participate in the labour force, as one is able, without losing their disability designation.

What many people don't realize is that the disability caseload, like the temporary assistance caseload, is fluid. As we receive new applications, many clients with disabilities are leaving the caseload. They leave for a variety of reasons. They may have a new source of income, they may have an improved condition, or they may have indeed found employment. We have increased the spending on employment programs for persons with disabilities by more than $7 million to nearly $21 million, an increase of more than 50 percent. We are making this investment because many people with disabilities have told us that they are able to work and they want to work, but they need help overcoming the barriers presented to them. That's why we are expanding a range of employment supports and encouraging people with disabilities to participate in the workforce as their conditions allow. For example, the Premier, in his state-of-the-province address, announced that we are increasing the earning exemption for people with disabilities a further $100 — to $400 a month. I am delighted with that announcement, because I know the earning exemption will make a real difference in people's lives.

For example, it has made a difference in the life of a Victoria woman who has spina bifida. She is in a wheelchair. She has been on and off income assistance for 20 years. She has recently found work at a local company that sells scooters and wheelchairs. She handles customer service, reception, sales, billings, inventory and bookkeeping. It works well for her, and it works well for her employer. Her job provides her with some money, independence and a great deal of satisfaction. She benefits from the earning exemption, which helps her pay for some of the costs involved with holding a job. She's also able to maintain her medical services through the ministry. I am delighted that this client and other clients with disabilities are able to participate in the workforce as their medical condition allows, and I am pleased that she can count on the ministry programs being there if and when she needs them.

I am looking forward to even more options for them as we further develop the employment strategy for people with disabilities, a strategy that provides a range of employment and pre-employment supports. I'm also looking forward to the results of the ministers' council, which is looking at innovative ways to help people with disabilities overcome barriers to the workforce.

The Premier and the Finance minister have both said that the tough decisions we've made since taking office haven't been easy, but now they're realizing the benefits of the fiscal discipline. I have spoken today about those benefits that are being felt by people being served by the Ministry of Human Resources, and I am pleased that we are on track with our vision of a province where British Columbians in need can achieve their social and economic potential and where taxpayers are assured that their money is managed effectively and efficiently.

This is a good-news budget for British Columbia. Our government's fiscal plan is working. It sustains the social safety net. It is a plan for progress; it is a plan for prosperity. It is a plan that will open up British Columbia for a brighter future for all British Columbians.

L. Mayencourt: It's great to be back here and to have a few moments to speak to this year's budget. I guess it is appropriate to follow the Minister of Human Resources, because that is a gentleman I greatly admire, someone that has done a tremendous amount of hard work for my community. A lot of people in my community are affected by long-term disability. We have a lot of people there living with HIV/AIDS and illnesses like ALS, multiple sclerosis and others, who truly benefit from some of the hard work he has done.

It's really important, when we look at that ministry — just before I begin on my response to the budget — that the minister, through prudent management of his resources, saved a bundle of cash for British Columbians. He could have socked that away into some other program or some other thing, but what he's doing with that money is putting it back into providing long-term care for people with disabilities in this province. He's putting it into employment programs that help people get work. I think he's doing a great job. I just want to thank him very, very much for that.

Today we are facing renewed hope for the revitalization of this province's heartlands. The heartlands are every corner of this province, including the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. The budget confirms that we're on track. It tells us that we are going to balance the budget and that we're going to restore British Columbia to the prosperity this province richly deserves. What's more, it reaffirms this government's commitment to a caring

and compassionate society, one in which the value of every citizen is recognized and honoured, one in which the value of every community is considered and respected.

As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I had the great privilege of travelling to every region of this beautiful province. Our committee made recommendations that were initially questioned by the media. In fact, there was some criticism of our committee in that we might have been veering a little off the main plan for the government.

Today you can see that this budget incorporates the recommendations made by that committee. I'm really proud of that, because those recommendations came directly from the people of British Columbia. Our committee made strong recommendations that we must assist British Columbians living in the heartlands to secure investment and resources for those communities and to help reinvigorate those communities. This budget is consistent with the plan that was set out by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and it is, more importantly, consistent with the views of the people of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition has been clear in her criticism of this budget. She doesn't like it — not one little bit — and I wonder why. You know, she joined me on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. In fact, she travelled with me and the other members of the committee to every part of this province and shared not only in hearing from British Columbians but also in a very critical stage of drafting the report and the subsequent recommendations that were made to the Finance minister and which led to the drafting of this budget.

What is it about these recommendations that causes her such angst? Maybe it is what we heard from the people of British Columbia. Many concerned citizens came forward and clearly stated that they wanted our government to stay the course. They wanted us to continue to work towards balancing our budget and getting our fiscal house in order. The committee heard this message time and again, at every public hearing we attended. People said that our government has chosen the right path, the right track to achieve its goals of restoring sound fiscal management and to revitalize our economy. At the same time, they acknowledged that the government would continue to have to make difficult decisions concerning our spending priorities in order to balance our books by 2004-05 and to address the need for additional funding to soften the impact of economic uncertainty and government restructuring.

One person that spoke to us, whose statement I was particularly moved by, I want to quote. It was Terry Lalari. He said:

There was an overwhelming consensus among the witnesses about the need to allocate additional funding to the public education system above all else. We did not hear this just from teachers in the classroom or from the education sector. We heard it from the business community; we heard it from the labour unions; we heard it from concerned citizens — all of whom agreed that education is an essential service that faces significant challenge. They said that the investment in public education was the key to economic growth for our province, and in terms of program spending, their immediate and future budget priorities were in the K-to-12 system. I'm proud that this budget reflects an ongoing commitment to stable, sustainable funding for the K-to-12 system.

Across British Columbia a major concern of educators and parents was the uncertainty that was surrounding next year's funding for school-based programs provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Now, the ministry provides annual funding to local school districts for such programs as school meals and child and youth care workers. Both concerned parents and staff of community schools requested that these school-based programs be funded and that the government consider funding them on an ongoing basis. I'm proud that this budget reflects an ongoing commitment to stable, sustainable funding for vulnerable children in our school system.

The urgent need for skills training was another recurring theme that we heard. Several presentations by the business community urged the government to progress quickly on trades and apprenticeship programs in order to meet employers' future labour requirements. I am proud that this budget reflects that ongoing commitment they were calling for because, as the Canadian Home Builders Association pointed out, the housing industry alone is already facing a serious skilled trade shortage for electricians, plumbers and carpenters. We face a shortage of technicians to fill positions in the aerospace, retrofit and maintenance industries.

Labour shortages were a serious problem in the heartlands of British Columbia. In Fort St. John, for example, the local chamber of commerce made a very strong and impassioned pitch for locating the new technology schools in the north country so that the aboriginal population and other residents could be educated in their own back yards to work in the resource sector and other industries.

Representatives of the province's colleges and universities endorse the recent decision of our government to invest in capital projects at selected universities and institutions. The University Presidents Council of British Columbia and some individual students were also very positive about the lifting of the tuition freeze. In terms of spending priorities, the major message from the public post-secondary institutions was the need for

more operational funding to meet the increasing demand for access to colleges and universities. The province's universities also requested capital investments to upgrade the physical infrastructure, and they made a plea for more investment in research and development. I am proud that our budget today reflects this ongoing commitment to stable and sustainable funding for post-secondary education.

Investment in the transportation infrastructure to give B.C. a competitive edge was another recurring theme at every public hearing. Presenters clearly identified this as their top priority for capital spending and perceived this type of expenditure as a way they could enhance business activities in their own communities. The city of Fort St. John, for example, urged the government to focus whatever surplus resources are available on transportation infrastructure, whether that's the vital link provided by regional airports, B.C. Rail, urban highways or rural road systems.

Investment in roads was identified as a high priority in all regions of the province. Indeed, some witnesses firmly believed that the fiscal recovery was put at risk due to the lack of highway capacity as the economy expands. They saw the construction and upgrading of the province's highway systems as a key to economic development in all parts of the province to enable goods and services to move quickly and efficiently from region to region. I am proud that this budget reflects the ongoing commitment to stable, sustainable funding for transportation upgrades across this province.

Every community we visited was enthusiastic and wanted to be part of revitalizing the economy for British Columbia — every single community. People pointed to the obvious advantage of achieving a balanced budget through revenue enhancement rather than by simply cutting program spending. In fact, the Business Council of B.C. urged the committee to make economic growth a centrepiece of our report to government. British Columbians stepped forward to help us shape this centrepiece.

The public had many different ideas about how to promote economic development and generate additional revenues for government. With regard to marketing, people made the following suggestions: adopt a Buy B.C. policy for high-tech products developed locally, market the north as a world-class tourist destination, match the wine industry's investment of half a million dollars a year for market development and the promotion of a wine industry tourism industry, promote the province as a can-do place by working with local market experts and sell B.C. as a desirable location for the film industry by continuing to support the B.C. Film Commission in its mandate as an international marketing body by continuing to fund regional film commissions and by expanding regional tax incentives to create jobs.

Just a few days ago the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise stood in this House and spoke of three different communities where he was supporting the regional film commissions. I salute that. That's important. Filming doesn't happen just in Vancouver-Burrard. It must happen all across this province, and we can create jobs in many different regions and great opportunities for all communities.

To expand the resource sector of the provincial economy, we heard another similar group of ideas. Among those was adopting a five-point plan put forward by the mining industry so that they would spend more money on mineral exploration and improve the competitiveness of this sector — to collaborate with the upstream oil and gas industry, to find ways to encourage and fast-track exploration for existing and new basins, to mobilize companies that have excess manufacturing capacity, to become involved in the oil and gas industry and to develop a framework for first nations participation in energy exploration and development in other sectors of our economy.

To attract more investment, the business community put forward some other ideas. They suggested that we adopt a sectoral approach to regulatory reform, one that would identify on an industry basis the top three or four initiatives that would reduce regulatory impediments to new investment and the expansion of existing businesses; provide speedy access to venture capital for small, high-tech companies; redirect the small business venture capital programs into resource-based regions; and use flow-through shares as drivers for public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects and to encourage other kinds of investments.

The committee heard quite often throughout the public hearing process that people wanted the government to lobby the federal government, the feds, for more money for health care and for a more equitable share of the large sums generated by the federal excise tax on gasoline. We heard a lot about that this morning as we talked about the infrastructure and the need to support the transportation upgrades needed on the Kicking Horse Canyon. Requests were also made for the province itself to contribute funds as a partner in cost-shared initiatives, or P3 projects, in order to leverage additional moneys for the agricultural industry and the high-tech sector and for indirect costs of university-based research.

Simply improving dialogue and relations with Ottawa would also have spinoff benefits for the provincial economy. As one local mayor said, the federal government holds the keys to the expansion of B.C.'s aquaculture industry, the establishment of an offshore oil and gas industry, and to resolving the softwood lumber dispute — all of which are crucial issues that we must resolve in order to enhance the province's economic recovery.

After due consideration, our committee recommended that the government should stay the course and continue with our plan to balance the budget by 2004-05. We recognized that budget-making priorities involve making difficult choices at the very best of times and that the decisions we make today on additional spending in the next two budgets will have to be made within the framework laid out in the existing

fiscal plan, ministry service plans and spending targets. Nonetheless, we felt there was some fine-tuning that could be done, something to help resource-dependent communities to adjust, to help schools deal with new funding formulas, to secure investment for transportation infrastructure and to help the working poor with their child care costs. It was with that in mind that we made the recommendations that the government provide some form of assistance in the 2003 budget to resource-dependent rural communities affected by the softwood lumber dispute and during the difficult transition periods that they're facing. Our government is doing that with this budget.

The committee thinks the growing gap between the heartlands of British Columbia and the urban centres has to be addressed as well. The situation has become critical for resource-dependent communities that are hit hard by the economic uncertainty that faces our forestry and our mining sectors.

We recommended that the government give serious consideration to some additional transitional funding for the K-to-12 education system. During those public hearings, the committee was forcibly struck by how many financial pressures educators are working under in that system as they face new challenges in their school system. I'm delighted that through prudent financial management last year, the Minister of Education was able to provide an additional $42 million to school districts for transitional funding. This year she was able to save a further $50 million, and that was directly passed on to school districts in the variety of communities that we represent. In my own riding, that reflects an additional $5 million for this year alone.

We recommended that the government make the transportation infrastructure everyone spoke so passionately about a centrepiece and a place where we could do some capital spending now and in the future. We think it's essential to have a quality, integrated transportation network to serve as the backbone for our economic development plans for all regions of this province and to realize the full potential of this province's natural resources. The budget does that with the $620 million of infrastructure grants announced by the Minister of Transportation.

Finally, another fine-tuning adjustment was that we asked the government to consider raising the current income threshold for child care subsidies. We thought there was a strong case put forward for assisting families who qualify as the working poor with their child care costs. We are concerned that the recent reduction in the income threshold would act as a barrier or a disincentive to keeping a job or to securing high-paid employment for a significant number of people. For that reason, in this budget we've raised that threshold.

More than that, it is my belief that we should put forward a caring and compassionate agenda. We have with this budget adopted new measures to renew education, health care and services for people in need. We have introduced a new $7.5 million B.C. regional innovation chairs program that will be established at B.C. colleges, providing new resources for applied economic and social research. The Teaching Profession Act will be amended to enhance accountability and administrative efficiency while clarifying the role of the College of Teachers of B.C.

The new Fair Pharmacare plan introduced this month will allow 280,000 low-income families to pay less than they do now for the very first time. For the very first time, young families with lower incomes are being supported in their drug costs, and the vast majority of B.C. families will pay either the same or less than they do today for their prescription drugs in the future.

We are launching a new strategy for chronic disease management later this year, and we are adding new measures that will strengthen the B.C. Ambulance Service. A new provincial authority called community living B.C. will oversee the design and delivery of services to people with developmental disabilities. As I mentioned at the beginning when I was referencing the Minister of Human Resources, we've increased earnings exemptions for those people receiving disability benefits again in this fiscal year. We have in the last two years, in effect, doubled that earnings exemption to $400, and that's a great benefit for those people that can find the opportunity and the ability to get out there and be a part of the working community as best they can.

Before the end of this year, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is going to invest $10 million in an early childhood partnership fund with the United Way and the B.C. Central Credit Union as partners. That $10 million is yet another enhancement that has been made possible because of prudent financial management. Starting April 1, the ministry will also invest up to $11 million in additional funding for intervention for school-age children with autism spectrum disorder, and the ministry's budget will increase by $23 million in 2005-06.

Also seeing a rise in their budget is the Ministry of Human Resources, which will raise their budget in 2005-06 by $45 million. The ministry will continue to enhance the programs it offers now in the year ahead. It is investing $110 million in employment programs for people in need. It will also increase the earnings exemption, as I mentioned earlier, for people on income assistance. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is also increasing by 50 percent the number of child care spaces that will be eligible for subsidy assistance in the coming year.

The Solicitor General's ministry will continue to assist community organizations by maintaining the top-up grants over the next three years. That's very important in my community and in communities everywhere where that volunteer sector, the non-profit sector, makes such an incredible impact on the quality of life of communities and of people living there.

In addition, we're going to delay by one year a move to have the province's rural areas and communities with populations under 5,000 people begin to pay

their share of their policing costs. This will allow the Solicitor General to work with local governments to develop a broader policing strategy for the province.

After many years of the NDP misplacing their spending priorities and squandering taxpayers' dollars on all sorts of projects like the fast cats, this government is putting our dollars back where they are needed most: in our health care and our education sectors. For too long we were feeling the residual effects of this mismanagement of taxpayers' money. In this budget we're on track to give back to the families, to the seniors, to our vulnerable citizens and to the people of the heartlands the resources that have been unavailable to them for far too long.

P. Sahota: I have the honour of replying to the government's budget speech delivered by the Finance minister. This is a budget that stays the course, a budget that is on track with our projections. It's what we said we would do when we got elected on May 16, 2001.

This is a budget that speaks to our future. It is a budget that says: "If you work hard, you will get ahead." It is a budget that says independence is better than dependence, and less involvement from government is valued rather than feared. It is a budget that embraces the possibility of growth and prosperity.

It is a budget that says to the private sector: "Come and invest in this province, and help us create the kind of British Columbia we can all be proud of." And they have. In 2002, 78,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia. Mineral exploration is up. It was a record year for home sales. Housing starts exceeded forecast. Sectors such as the wireless tech companies expect to double employment.

Just last week it was announced that eBay would open its first call centre in Canada. They chose Burnaby, which a lot of world-class companies already call their home. That's 600 new jobs. The centre is slated to open in April, and employees are already being recruited. That's good news for Burnaby.

I have talked previously about the film industry, which is, again, an important sector for Burnaby. The film industry is alive and well. One of the studios in my riding will begin production on a film this month. That's more jobs in Burnaby-Edmonds. Film and television production in our province reached $1.1 billion in 2001, the second-highest total recorded. Of that total, foreign production reached a record high of more than $850 million, a 12.5 percent increase from 2000.

We know that B.C.'s film industry is a bright spot in our economy. That's why the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise announced that the government of British Columbia will offer a new tax credit program for motion picture production, Film Incentive B.C., and will continue to offer the production services tax credit.

This government does understand how important the film industry is not only to the province but also for Burnaby. In fact, B.C. is the third-largest production centre in North America after New York and Los Angeles. I'm not surprised, because our province has an array of wonderful locations from urban and small-town to wilderness and ocean settings. It is clear that our film industry is well positioned for growth. Its recent success in the face of less-than-ideal economic conditions demonstrates the strength and viability of expanding production further.

Not only are we trying to increase revenues to the treasury, but we're also trying to make sure that every dollar spent by this government is spent wisely. For the first time in a long while, every single ministry in government is either on budget or under budget. That hasn't happened in decades.

The opposition wants to be critical of this. They want to criticize the government for being on or under budget. I would expect nothing less from an opposition that left this province behind a long time ago, an NDP opposition that contributed to the decline of this province. Those two NDP members were part of a government where our tax regime became less competitive. You know what happened? When this province was no longer a competitor, people either went next door or went south. The two NDP members talk about people being left behind by our policies. I disagree. I say to them: it was their government that left British Columbia behind a long time ago.

The NDP government made sure this province went from first to last in this country. Their government made us a have-not province, where we now get money from the federal government. It was their government that left this province behind. We know the NDP let British Columbians down, and now we are tightening our belts. That's right. We're tightening our belts. We have to, because if we don't, there will be nothing left for our future generations. This government and this budget are about making sure that this province will not be left behind and that we put our province back to its rightful place, which is number one in this country. There is nothing wrong with pursuing that goal. We have to do more with less, and we have to ask for less from our government.

I know the NDP members had a choice while they were in government, but instead they decided to squander British Columbians' future. We're on track to change that. They chose to live for today and not plan for the future. Those two members decided it was in their political interest to plan a day at a time, and they chose to ignore the heartlands. They chose to make sure that our forest industry was brought to its knees. The NDP government chose to impose the Forest Practices Code, which cost our province thousands of jobs.

It was their bad choices, their bad policies that have forced this government to tighten the belt. Now they lecture us about the seniors, the poor. Well, they don't have a monopoly on caring for the seniors and the poor. It was their government policy, their lack of vision and lack of planning that have brought us to our belt-tightening measures that we see today. Still, they insist on using their measures to measure our performance as government. Their measures are different from ours. They look at how many people are on welfare rolls. We look at how many people have gotten off wel-

fare and are working. Not only that, we're looking at making sure our programs are sustainable and that we have a treasury that can continue to fund those programs that are most needed to take care of the neediest.

Most of us want to live in a province where more people are working in the private sector, but the opposition insists on wanting more people relying on the government and, in turn, the taxpayer. Our approach is a little different. We want people to be working in this province, so we're trying to create an investment climate in which more businesses will make B.C. their choice. This doesn't happen overnight. Do the critics and the opposition really think that the impact of the policies their government left behind are going to be reversed overnight?

It hasn't even been two years since we got elected. Since then, this government has made tremendous steps in the right direction. We have cut taxes and talked to the folks out there, talked to the people in the high-tech sector. When you give people an income tax break, they decide how they're going to spend their money — not me, not the Finance minister, not the cabinet, not the Premier. They decide how they're going to spend their money.

Let's talk about the tax breaks. Did they go to the wealthiest? I talked to my constituents. I talked to the taxi drivers and nurses. I don't think they considered themselves wealthy, but they got a tax break, and I know they're happy. You know who else got a tax break? Deb McPherson got a tax break and not only that, like all the other hard-working nurses out there, also got a wage increase. But she vehemently opposes this government at every chance she gets.

The average folks did get a tax break. The critics don't mention that. For some reason they seem to think only the wealthy got the tax break. Perhaps they should look at the facts. Let's look at the facts. A two-income family of four earning $60,000 will get a tax savings of almost $1,000. This is after adding up fuel tax, property tax and health care premium increases. We're still the second lowest in Canada.

There has been a lot of talk about the increased fuel tax. Sure, there is a fuel tax. We're not misleading the public about that. We have said we are going to invest every cent from the fuel tax and fund the transportation infrastructure in this province. How else do we pay for that infrastructure?

Our standard of living isn't free. Everyone pays for our standard of living. People want us to open up the heartlands. That's going to cost money. We need to open up the heartlands. We know that, and we have put in a strategy to do that called the heartlands economic strategy. We know the small communities are hurting. That's why we're doing everything we can within our power to reignite the forest, mining and natural resources sectors.

The reason this government is doing everything it can to reignite these sectors is that we depend on them for two of our most important social services: health care and education. I want to speak a little bit about these two ministries, because they consume over 60 percent of our tax dollars. This is where most of your hard-earned dollars go. These are important ministries. We have said as government that education and health care are our priorities. We will invest in these ministries because they're important to British Columbians, and they're important to this government.

I want to talk about health care, particularly in terms of what's going on in my city, in Burnaby and at Burnaby Hospital. In recent months I have met and spoken with the Fraser health authority representatives, with doctors and with nurses. There have been challenges, but I know the Fraser health authority worked hard with the doctors, nurses and the rest of the staff at Burnaby Hospital to address those challenges. I can report on the following developments at the Burnaby Hospital. Burnaby Hospital opened an urgent-care children's clinic this past fall. It provides specialized care. Four pediatricians are sharing rotations in the clinic, and support services such as laboratory and X-ray are readily available.

Burnaby Hospital will be the site of tertiary-level palliative care for Fraser north. This facility is slated to open in March 2003. Burnaby mental health services will begin moving to the Cascade building in the new year. Services will include out-patient services, day programs, community rehab services, a community residential program and a 25-bed in-patient unit. The emergency after-hours psychiatric program currently offered in the Burnaby Hospital emergency department will relocate to Cascade.

Overall, the government has injected $1.1 billion of additional money in health care. That's a 12 percent increase in the budget. How is that a cut in health care? Yes, people are paying more for their premiums, but let's ask where that money is going. It went to our doctors and nurses. They're now the highest-paid in this country. I talk to nurses every day — actually two, in particular. Both of my older sisters are nurses. One works in the operating room and the other in ICU. I know they work hard, and the dedicated lives health care professionals lead…. I commend them for it. People know that in Burnaby we have made tremendous progress. Together with my Burnaby colleagues, the hospital staff, the health care professionals and the Fraser health authority, we have made huge progress. But the critics would have you believe differently.

The critics continue with their destructive behaviour. Their latest was: "Let's tell the Premier to restore the health care services he's already slashed." What are they protesting? Are they protesting that under this government, our nurses are the highest paid in this country, that this government is doing everything about doctor shortages, that we're moving ahead with our health care reforms? What they need to understand is that the status quo was not good enough for this province, and we are making changes. We're moving ahead.

The critics would also have you believe that before May 16, it was nirvana. It was perfect in health care. Nothing needed to be done. The naysayers would have you believe that we had no waiting lists prior to May

16, that we had enough nurses and doctors. That simply isn't true. Reforms had to be made. The reforms were the only option. We now have the highest-paid doctors and nurses in this country.

There are people in the health care system that recognize our hard work. One of the doctors, Dr. Paul Wright, who works at the Burnaby Hospital, wrote: "I know the people of Burnaby sincerely thank you for your support and energy." Dr. Shelley Ross also wrote: "All of the Burnaby MLAs have stood up alongside the medical staff to keep Burnaby Hospital an appropriate care facility. All of these individuals deserve our heartfelt thanks for their efforts." That's from one of the doctors at Burnaby Hospital.

There are people that we know are working hard to do the right thing. Burnaby is the third-largest city. It is perfectly situated, close to the Vancouver International Airport and close to the ports. It has an encouraging film sector, high-tech sector. It has a world-class university and technology institute. Burnaby Hospital is second to none in this province, and I am proud of all those who have contributed to making it so. There are people in charge of Burnaby Hospital who know that they're doing and planning around our vision of a sustainable health care system.

I want to talk a little bit about education, another area where we have heard a lot of debate. The Premier has always said that education is a top priority of this government, and as revenues increase from an improved economy, we will put even more money into the education system. We know these are tough times, and we all need to find creative solutions to the fiscal challenges that we are facing as a province. We have done many things in the Education ministry. We have added a one-time grant of $50 million, which was achieved through prudent fiscal management and lower debt-servicing costs. It will be allocated on the basis of student population. Where did this money come from? The minister and the ministry were able to find savings within the ministry that now will go directly to the students. Imagine that. Savings from within the ministry are now going to go directly to the students.

Our education system has to be able to be responsive to the diversity of needs. I do believe that by giving the local school boards the flexibility, it will do that. We all know that the needs are diverse. For example, we know that more and more of our citizens have English as their second language. How do we make sure everyone still receives education that is second to none? The most recent census statistics show the lower mainland's immigrant population is on the rise. Chinese and South Asians top the list of new immigrants to our area. The range of people from different origins calling B.C. home is enormous. The stakeholders — parents, students, staff, administrators and teachers — must all work together to continue finding ways to deliver high-quality education.

We have many exciting opportunities before us. We're on the right track, and I am proud of the work this government is doing. Our province is on the road to better things.

Before I finish, I do want to thank my constituents for always keeping me apprised and briefed on issues that are important to them. I also want to thank my two constituency assistants, Jennifer Duke and Arlene Morris, who are the front lines of Burnaby-Edmonds. I am very blessed to have incredible staff and talented people around me. I know that without a dedicated team, it really isn't possible to do this job.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY