Hansard -- Tuesday, March 4, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 5 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Budget Debate (continued)		5185
	V. Anderson R. Stewart B. Bennett Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills		5193
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 11) Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail L. Mayencourt I. Chong Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 3) Hon. R. Thorpe J. MacPhail I. Chong K. Manhas Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 8) Hon. R. Thorpe

V. Anderson: The budget speech means many things and different things to people throughout the province. I think of the different realities of one day, in a previous life, when I was visiting in a rural community. In the same day I went to one home, and they were so excited because they had just set aside the coal oil lamp which gave them lighting in their household. They had a new gas-burning lamp. For the first time it gave a bright light, and they were so excited.

By chance, a little later that day I went into another home, and they had just set aside their gas lamp, which sat on the table, because they had electricity. They had a bulb in the ceiling which gave light to the whole of the room, and they were so excited. That evening I was at another house, and they were so excited because they had a floor lamp which sat by their desk, and they had light not just in the ceiling but close to them where they were happening to read. Interestingly enough, each of those were just as excited because of a new improvement which had come to their particular household.

When we look at the budget, which we have been discussing here for the last few days, it has an entirely different meaning to each person who might refer to it. I'd like to go back and remind ourselves of the vision that was in that budget, the vision and the goals which were behind the budget numbers and figures that we have been discussing over these days.

The vision. British Columbia is a prosperous and just province whose citizens achieve their potential and have confidence in the future. The vision is about the citizens and the persons who live within the province — that they may have confidence in their future. There were three goals as part of that vision in this particular budget. The first goal was a strong and vibrant provincial economy. The second goal was a supportive social fabric. The third goal was safe, healthy communities and a sustainable environment.

I'd like to refer to the budget this morning from the point of view of the community in which I live and the people who have come into my office or who I've had an opportunity to relate to over the past few months. One group I think of particularly is a group of young people from our high schools who each year meet here in the Legislative Assembly. In the Legislative Assembly they meet so that they might discuss the activities of our Legislature. That is the Youth Parliament. It's been my privilege to have been with them almost every Christmas season, as they have met here over the last ten years. It's also been my privilege, just within the last month, to meet with the Vancouver Youth Parliament and to be their token, if you like, Speaker of the House for that occasion or their token Lieutenant-Governor.

To have the young people from the province or in my local community come together to undertake to pass legislation which would be relevant to them and to see the enthusiasm that they have in developing Camp Phoenix — the summer camp that they provide each year for young people, boys or girls, who otherwise would not be able to get to camp…. They raise the money, they do the planning, they staff the camp, and they carry out all of its relevant details.

One of the concerns in my community and many other communities is reflected by Sexsmith Community School. It's one of the community schools where they not only have the regular day school program, but they have programs after hours and in the evening and often on weekends for all of the people of the community — for the adults, for the parents. In a multicultural community, that is a very important undertaking. They bring together the people of the community, adults and children together, to interact and learn from each other, to meet the staff and the students and to be a part of a really thriving community.

It's a very important function within our community, and it's part of the function that the provincial government includes within its budget. How much they should include within their budget and for what purpose within education, including the aspect of the community school, is a very relevant and pertinent detail.

Another school process within my community which is significant — and there are many others, but I just sort out a couple for the moment because they're relevant — is the Glen Eden Multimodal Centre. This is a private developed centre which is able to take on the needs of young boys and girls who, for multiple reasons within their personal lives, are not able to find the kind of educational opportunities they need within the regular school setting. For that period in their lives, they need specialized care, they need individual care, and they need care which deals with the multimodal struggles they have within their own being. It's a school where the parents are very much involved, where the family is very much involved, where the interaction between teachers and family and the youngsters is extremely important.

That also is partially supported by private funds, but it's partially supported by the funds which come from one or another of the ministries of government. It's a fund that comes across ministry responsibilities and opportunities. It has health concerns; it has educational concerns; it has safety concerns; it has developmental concerns. All of these come together in a unique way within this facility in our community.

Also, the other day I drove by a new home that is being built within our community, a home that is being built by the Vancouver Resource Centre. This centre

has undertaken to find and provide housing for those would normally not be able to find the kind of housing that meets their particular needs. There are many such houses within my community, although most people would not recognize that they have a special place there because they fit in and are part of the community fabric.

This particular home has another specialty occasion. Within its building they're undertaking what's called a user-friendly approach. The wiring is built in such a way that it's easily adaptable to people with physical disabilities. The ledge at the front door is level so you don't trip on it when you go in. It's able to have a shower that you can walk into without tripping. It's a group of modifications which can be done in the building in the initial process for very little extra money but makes a significant difference to the value and quality of the home for the people who live within it.

I had a visit the other day from a member of family services in our community, who was concerned about the changes that are coming within government in many of its different ministries and the overlapping and sometimes conflicting effects of the changes that come within the ministry. It isn't that people don't want change, hon. minister, but they want change that enables them to move from one aspect of living to another aspect of living in a planned way that makes their livelihood more effective rather than less effective.

There is an uncertainty in the community as we move to make change — not in the specific individual cases so often but in the multiple effects that take place as a result of this. Family services are very concerned about the kind of changes that are made in our Human Resources, Children and Family Development, and Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ministries, because these three ministries overlap in the family concerns as we face them within our particular community.

An illustration of that is a group of two ladies who came ten years ago now with the concern that they have within their own particular families. The concern was that within their families they have adult members who have developmental challenges, which means they are not able to live independently and on their own. These adult members have continued to live within their family contexts over the years as they matured. Some of them are 40 and 50 years of age, and they're still living at home with their families. The families are responsible for their total care, upkeep and support. This is a great financial burden on many of the families. It's also a great emotional burden to have this continuous responsibility 24 hours a day, 365 days a year — one that you can never shirk, nor do you want to shirk, nor can you work away from it.

At the time they came to me, I indicated to them that there weren't a lot of resources available and that probably they would need to find a society of a community wherein they could work together with other families who are having the same concerns and the same responsibilities. Indeed, they looked and could not at that time find an association, so they undertook to set up a society of their own as an association in which they could bring together other parents who, like themselves, had this mutual responsibility for the adult members of their families.

Their stories are very, very touching because of the devotion that they have had. In many cases they have had to leave a job. They have had to sort out struggles within their families because of these extra responsibilities. They formed a society, a parents' support group for families of mentally handicapped children.

They came back in a week ago to say that they understood that some of the changes that were taking place within the ministries, particularly in Children and Family Development, were going to be helpful for some of the people in community living for whom these changes were particularly important. But in their particular case, in the group they represented — and they had just been meeting with others about this in the last few weeks — it was not helpful to them. Once again, they were feeling that just when they had got to the place where there were some support systems, where there was some opportunity and some chance for them to be able to relax a little, they were back into the fray again of the support systems being taken away from them, of the difficulties being put back in their way. They would have to start all over again to try to find the path that they had been over so many times.

It relates partly to the fact that they are a volunteer group working independently, on their own, and are struggling both to maintain their own personal family lives and support others who are in a similar condition in their family lives.

One of the realities we're finding is that in the redevelopment, if you like, of the social fabric in which we live, there is a struggle between the organized social living — the organized activities that government undertakes to support — and the informal activities of every community. In my community activities I used to talk about the informal and the formal organizations that I was a part of. Much of the ongoing neighbourhood support, much of the care and the support that people give to each other, is done informally. It's done informally across the fence when you talk to your neighbour while you're working in the back yard. It's done informally when you talk to the neighbour as you're cutting your grass together or as you meet them in the hallway or on the elevator if you live in common accommodation.

Often this informal activity runs in conflict with the formal events that are planned by government, whatever kind of government it might be. There's a continual struggle to balance the kind of neighbourhood support systems that are out there, which we call the non-profit societies, the volunteer community activities, with the formal community activities that are underway. You find that even in involvement in the United Way, because the United Way tends, over the

years, to bring together the formal organizations, to fundraise for them, to organize and to help them.

There are always areas in a community that are not being covered by the formal organizations, so a group of families or individuals come together, and they begin to work at that particular interest and find that they're running in conflict with your formal organizations that are there. One of the areas in which this has happened traditionally over the years is the area of child care and day care. When, on one hand, neighbour helps neighbour and they trade off with each other for an afternoon or a day if they need to go shopping or have a particular concern…. It may be that if one of their children is sick, they'll cover for each other at home if they have to be away. Then, over the years, the government has stepped in and said: "We will help. We will have formal day care programs or home care programs." In order to have those formal day care programs and home care programs, they set up standards, regulations and opportunities for people to have a process they can count on. That's good for those who can fit into the organization and the process, but there are always those who are just outside the limits of the organization and the standards that are accepted. There is an ongoing dialogue between them.

Part of this is now being formalized by this government in the budget in the area of early childhood development, because until recently everyone was at least partially aware of the significance of childhood development before they went to school — their early family years. In our modern urban culture, that has become a growing concern — that children are not getting the opportunity before they go to school because of family, community and business conditions. So our government has undertaken to make a major focus on early childhood development, to strive to develop community centres, family centres where families with youngsters can get the support and the educational opportunities, the play opportunities, and just the health and nutritional opportunities that they might need. That's a new item that is in our budget. Immediately, no matter what we undertake through the budget, the demand is far greater than the ability to respond to it.

Another opportunity that the budget refers to is a new respect and recognition that we are in partnership with our aboriginal community. In the past we did not listen. We did not understand the particular needs and desires of that community here as basic within our Canadian and British Columbia society. There's now a new willingness to listen, to understand and to share in a cross-cultural, multicultural way the activities that we share with one another. That's a part of the budget undertaking, and that comes not in one ministry but in every ministry of government, because the aboriginal community, like any other community, is involved in business development, forestry, fishing, mining, education, health and social services. It is becoming an opportunity to have an integrated approach to a common community, and that's part of our budget.

Then there are the mundane but very important things like earthquake preparation. My wife, who was a school principal, had a very interesting experience one day when they had an earthquake drill in their school. She happened to have an educational gentleman from another country — I think it was Australia — visiting the school to see how they worked and what happened. The earthquake drill came, and automatically both she and her visitor found themselves under the principal's desk. He was part of the experiment of knowing what to do. Interestingly enough, you understand that if it's an earthquake drill, you do one thing; if it's a fire drill, you do something else. They're two different drills because they're two different circumstances.

This kind of concern about the nature of our schools is part of our budget concern. Many of our schools — particularly in Vancouver and Victoria, which have a longer history than other parts of the province — were built back in 1912 or 1910, and they weren't built to current earthquake standards. There's real concern from the parents, students, trustees and the government about finding the funds to update those.

I had the privilege of chairing the Vancouver Food Bank when it started back in the eighties here in Vancouver. It's sad to note that over the years since that time, the need for the food bank has continued to increase year by year, and it is continuing to increase even now in our present circumstances. Now, this is something that the governments over the years have not directly supported, because this was a community undertaking. It was supported by the community, and the community accepted responsibility for it. But it does reflect upon us, and all of us have to be concerned about the continuous need of people in our community to have to go to a food bank to find their daily sustenance. That's right across the province and, unfortunately, right across the country.

It always seems strange to me and a challenge — it was back in the eighties and still is — that a country that is declared to be one of the finest countries in the world in which to live and a community like Vancouver, which is the second-best city in the world in which to live, still have food banks as a fundamental part of them. It's a challenge we have within our budget and in our planning to look at the whys and reasons for that and to find a way to respond to it. The community responded and is responding, and I want to thank them for their support of the food bank program.

There's a group like Aunt Leah's in my community, which is also responding to the needs of youth within our community. They get some of their support from government, and they appreciate that support very much. But they're also aware, as are like organizations across the province, that there are not enough funds to meet the needs of the youth within our province when they find themselves in certain difficult circumstances.

Just last evening here at the Legislature we had a meeting with the From Grief to Action group of parents. I had the opportunity of meeting, next to my own

constituency, parents on the west side of Vancouver — professionals, one of them a public prosecutor, others medical people themselves — whose youth and now adult children are caught in the grips of drug addiction. They struggle as loving, caring parents to work with their young people to support them and to help them find a way back to sobriety and full living once again. To discover that this isn't a one-occasion activity but, once these young people are caught in the grips of the drug addiction which is upon them, a lifelong concern they will never be separated from but will have to learn to live with. Not only will the young people have to learn to live with it, but so will the parents. As a family unit it will be with them, with their children and with their grandchildren.

All of these things are what the budget is about: how we relate to these everyday family, business and personal situations which are different for every family across the province and for which there is never only one answer. There is always a multitude of answers. Part of the struggle of a government or a budget process is to find a process in which there is a multitude of answers operating at the same time.

I want to commend our government for struggling with this multitude of circumstances within the community and for moving in new directions — and also to advise and warn ourselves that it can't be one new direction. It has to be a multiplicity of directions as we work with the community, the non-profit societies and the groups that are here working with us.

R. Stewart: This morning I rise to speak to the budget, a budget I believe will move us forward as a province into a much brighter future. I want to begin by speaking about two main groups that are addressed in the budget, to some degree, but for whom the budget really is focused upon. The two groups are seniors and youth.

The seniors of this province are the ones who built this province. The member for Vancouver-Langara spoke about many of these folks. For me, they were our teachers and our scout leaders as we were growing up, the parents of our schoolmates, the folks that really we owe a debt to today. These folks have some concerns — and we hear from them quite often — such as health care. In fact, that is probably the primary concern of many seniors: our health care system. They want to be assured, to some degree, that the health care system they helped build will be there to help them as they need it in the parts of the province they live in and in the way they want to access it.

Certainly, I think everybody in this House is trying to achieve that goal. The challenge we're facing, of course, is that health care costs in this province and in provinces across Canada have gone up much faster than the cost of inflation, much faster than our economies have grown, and in a way that is, quite frankly, unsustainable. As well, we've seen health care have its failures over the past decade. Often in the past decade we've seen a newspaper story about how health care has failed somebody in British Columbia. There are members in this House who have had personal experiences with their own family members in which health care has failed.

I believe one of the ways we must move forward to help the citizens of British Columbia, particularly the seniors, is to get a grip on the issues surrounding the health care system, and I know we are doing that. I know that the ministers responsible for health care in this province are setting out a bold course of action to move us forward.

Now, of course, of the challenges we're facing — and they're challenges I hear about in my riding — one of them is St. Mary's Hospital. The Fraser health authority has undertaken a review of St. Mary's Hospital to determine how it will fit in the health care system in the next decade. That review, of course, is going to create a lot of angst. There are a lot of people, myself included, who tremendously value the work that is done at St. Mary's Hospital, the professionals that work at St. Mary's Hospital in New Westminster, the community that has been involved in St. Mary's Hospital for 100 years and the owners of St. Mary's Hospital, which is actually not owned by the province. It is almost a private health care facility that is contracted to the province to undertake some outstanding health care.

Now, what is its future? We don't know right now, but we know there are concerns about that. The reason there are concerns is because there are some things we have to do. These aren't necessarily things that we want to do, but these are things — as I said in my response to the throne speech — that we have to do in order to make certain that our province's social network, our province's health care and education systems are sustainable for our future.

I said we owe a debt to our seniors, but we must make sure that we cannot pass the burden of that debt on to our children. Today's youth do owe a debt, but it's in a different way. We must not pass the debt that we owe to our seniors to them, because we already passed an incredible debt on to them. We, of course, in this province over the past decade have rung up a massive, massive debt. We have to understand that the people who will be paying that back are the youth of today.

I get frustrated when I hear opponents deride our government because we can no longer pay for a particular program. We quite often hear the Leader of the Opposition say: "But we paid for that. You're cutting funding of something that we paid for." Well, I want to stand up then, and I want to say: I'm sorry; you didn't pay for that. Ignoring for a moment the question that, in fact, the taxpayers are the ones that pay these things — ignoring that — you didn't pay it anyway. You borrowed the money from our children. There are all kinds of government programs where we're not cutting funding. We're just not borrowing the money anymore.

We've got incredible debt in this province, and it's been rung up by a government that kept saying they were willing to pay for something and then didn't pay for it. They just rang up the debt. They left the establishment without the bill paid.

Youth of today need opportunity, and they need hope for the future. This budget is tackling that issue. We must come to grips, primarily, with making government sustainable for their future.

My wife is a teacher. We have four children in our school system. I take my hat off to professional teachers in our system, because one of the things we must do for our youth is make certain that the education system serves their needs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the teaching profession is the cornerstone of the school system, and professional teachers should be valued and respected for the enormous responsibility they hold and for the professionalism with which they tackle their responsibilities.

At the same time, we must also work as parents to make certain our school system is sustainable. We must work as a community to make certain that our school system meets the needs of students across this province, meets their needs particularly in that we have to make certain we're directing the funding back into the classroom. We have to make certain that the funds we spend on education — and they are significant…. We have to put them into the classroom teaching students.

It's the same with health care. We have to make certain that every dollar we are spending on health care — and it's massive…. Almost 50 cents of every dollar we collect as taxes goes into health care. We have to make certain that we are able to move that money as much as possible into caring for patients.

My older brother is a driver with Coast Mountain Bus Company. One of the first actions we had to take was to order my brother and his colleagues back to work and impose a settlement. My younger brother works at St. Mary's Hospital, and as you know, the future of St. Mary's Hospital is currently under discussion. I mentioned that my wife is a teacher, and one of the actions we had to undertake was to order teachers, essentially, back to work and impose a settlement upon them. Admittedly, it was a significant settlement — the largest they'd had in a decade — but many teachers were still frustrated.

R. Stewart: One of the members asks what I'm doing for Christmas. Well, I'll tell you. The Christmas dinner is a small affair now.

Nonetheless, we have some things we have to do as a government. These aren't necessarily pleasant things. Unfortunately, these aren't necessarily things that are popular with everybody, but I know the seniors I speak to in my riding want us to have a government they can be proud that they passed on to their grandchildren, a government and a province that are striving again, that are working for the people of British Columbia and that present them with hope and opportunity, not just debt. I'm really proud to stand up and support the budget delivered a couple of weeks ago, the budget that moves us forward in that direction. I hope and I know we will be able to achieve that goal in the coming years.

B. Bennett: A lot has already been said about the budget. I'm going to focus my comments today on four issues: first of all, the effort the government has made to incorporate the views of the citizens of B.C. in the budget; secondly, the effort the government has made to communicate our vision and our policies to B.C.; thirdly, the value to British Columbians from our efforts to manage their tax dollars prudently; and fourthly, the special place that transportation improvements have in this budget and the manner by which this government has decided to pay for those transportation improvements.

Budgets involve choices. Budgets involve priorities — the selection of what is most important and what must wait. Determining these priorities and making these choices is difficult and necessitates balancing values. This means the government must try its best to know how the people balance these values in their own lives. I expect there's no limit to how much consultation the government could do with the public. It never seems to be enough, but we must continue to listen. I've seen committees of this government go out month after month since the election in 2001, and I have participated in some of those. There have been Finance committees, Health committees, the treaty committee, Education committees, forestry committees.

Members of this government have done their best to get out of Victoria and find out what British Columbians think and feel. The executive branch of our government has made a real effort to get out of Victoria as well. The Premier has travelled the province extensively and has been to every region of B.C., listening to what people tell him is most important to them. With the cabinet, it seems like we have a minister visiting our ridings almost every week. I think this connection between our constituents and the Premier and cabinet is outstanding. It gives government decision-makers an opportunity to hear directly from those affected by government decisions, and it shows our constituents that government is listening.

I've also had the unusual and important opportunity to be a member of a government that lets me have my say and, perhaps more importantly, gives me the information I need to make difficult decisions. Private members on this side of the House have the opportunity to know the information, to express ourselves to the minister responsible and to the Premier, and to debate amongst ourselves. And debate we do, sometimes for hours on end and often vigorously.

Each member finds his or her own place between the two functions that private members of government must balance: advocacy for our constituents and commitment to the platform we all ran on. Sometimes it's necessary to look at the bigger provincial picture —

that's part of leadership — and sometimes it's necessary to put your head down and fight for that extra yard for your constituency. That also is leadership, and it is accountability.

As I review the budget for 2003-04, I find I am generally pleased for my constituents. I see progress. I see displayed the courage and commitment to stay this difficult course back to hope and prosperity in British Columbia. No budget can provide all things to all people. During this transition back to economic health, it is of course disappointing that we don't have more money to do some of the things that every member of this Legislature would do if we had the money tree that some special interest groups believe grows in the Premier's back yard.

As an aside, in the election campaign and thereafter, I often spoke in my riding about the government having no money tree to fund the many programs that people want. Those wacky socialists in my riding decorated a little tree outside my office with Monopoly money one day. I thought it was quite funny at the time, but they never returned to clean up the mess they left, and just like what this government has had to do for the last two years, I cleaned up their mess. They have shown up a few times thereafter for purposes of expressing their Charter rights and their displeasure with me. They had their fun, and they left their trash on the sidewalk outside my office.

One day they protested about poverty and left Lipton soup packages all over the sidewalk. It makes you wonder: if you can leave perfectly good food on the street to waste, how can you hold yourself out as a poverty advocate? Again, we went out onto the street and cleaned up after them.

It would be great if we had all the money to do all the things that everyone in B.C. would like us to do, but that's where the exercise of making choices and setting priorities comes in. This government listens to the people, allows all members to participate in sometimes excruciatingly long policy discussions and then ultimately makes the decision that's in the best long-term interests of British Columbians.

The second point I want to raise is government's obligation to communicate our policies to taxpayers — that is, the actual facts of our policies, what the government is doing with people's tax dollars. I don't believe we've done a particularly good job of that to date, but then there's been so much misinformation out there for people to sift through. I would not have believed, before attaining public office, that there are people in this province who, to gain political points, are willing to frighten seniors and families with the most ridiculous rumours and despicable fearmongering. Single mothers have come into my office crying, very upset because one of our political opponents in a position of responsibility has told a lie about what our government is allegedly doing or not doing to the rules around social assistance.

Some of these rumours and conspiracies that I hear encouraged by NDP members of this House are so bizarre that they'd be funny, except that they scare people. Seniors in Fernie have been told by those who oppose this government that their hospital is closing, despite repeated statements by the health authority and government to the contrary. Seniors in the Rocky Mountain long-term residential care home in Cranbrook were told shortly after the election that the government was coming with a bus to take them all away. Twice this happened, and twice my office was telephoned by a representative of the Cranbrook seniors association, frantic, wanting to know what the facts were of this mass evacuation of seniors.

A father came into my office a year ago, who was very upset because he was told that his disabled son would get no help in school this year. This, of course, was false, and the person who provided the despicable information to this father knew it was false.

Those special interest groups who had power for ten years and who presided over the trashing of this province's economy; those who took us from number one to the bottom of the barrel, to being — in 1999 — a have-not province, and who now have the temerity to strut about and pretend to advocate for working people…. These phoneys are actually willing to scare seniors and frighten families. No voluntary 5 percent salary cut for the NDP members here. No, sir. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

I am encouraged by this government's commitment to this budget to provide the necessary information to the public from here on in. I am glad government will spend some money on communications in this upcoming fiscal year. Getting the facts out to people is important. It's a priority. Frankly, we wouldn't have to spend as much as we are if it were not for the doom spreaders and the Chicken Littles that are determined to win political points at the personal cost of the very people they claim to advocate for.

Sound fiscal management. Our government starts from two premises. One is that government resources are finite. Simple enough. You'd think everyone would recognize that, but former governments have not. Number two, taxpayer-supported debt should not be expanded beyond budget 2004-05. Last year at this time the so-called experts were saying that this government would never balance the 2004-05 budget. Now the Finance minister is showing British Columbians that in fact we are on line to do just that.

Is it a surprise? Not to us. Is it a mystery? No, it's actually quite simple. Every ministry in the provincial government is on or ahead of their budget. If this were my household budget, for example, it would mean that I am not spending more on entertainment, auto expenses and groceries than I budgeted at the beginning of the year.

I said it was simple. I did not say it was easy. This is what we meant, in the New Era document, by "sound fiscal management." Sometimes in my constituency I hear — and I know my colleagues hear this occasionally: "You B.C. Liberals, all you care about is dollars and cents." What these people do not get is that there are real dividends for real people from making the effort to manage taxpayers' money prudently.

This year, for example, the improved management of taxpayer dollars led to debt service savings of $200 million. That would have gone to the payment of interest. We can now apply it to the priorities of the people of B.C. rather than to the bottom line of international bankers. That's what comes from making difficult decisions: more resources to apply to the public policy items that are most important to British Columbians, like health care.

Last year our government invested $1.2 billion more into health care than the former government did in their last year. The political party that now stands in this House and rails against this government about cuts actually spent $1.2 billion less than this government did on health care during their last full year in government. So it's starting to work, Mr. Speaker. The efforts that the government has made to control spending are starting to pay dividends to British Columbians, and in the future they will pay even more dividends.

The final point I want to talk about is the huge investment that our government will make in transportation infrastructure and, particularly, how that investment will be funded. We could borrow the money; we could add the $650 million for transportation infrastructure to the budget, to the provincial debt. I heard an NDP apologist the other day on the radio saying that government has a moral obligation to pay for more stuff for people. What is so moral about passing on a crippling debt to our children and grandchildren? I continue to hear from my younger constituents, including my own sons, that they don't want their government to spend more than our ability to pay as we go. They quite rightly ask: "What is so moral about our taking what our generation wants — what we think we need now, today — and leaving the next generation with the legacy of a mind-numbing, accumulative provincial debt?"

This government will not be burdening our children with that $650 million for transportation infrastructure. We made the tough decision to raise fuel taxes by 3½ cents a litre and to target those funds to transportation infrastructure. I can say that a lot of my constituents are not really excited about paying more for fuel, but they do feel better when they find out that every penny of provincial fuel tax is put back into transportation. Paying a little more for fuel will be noticed, but allowing our transportation infrastructure to further deteriorate will be noticed a whole lot more.

How can we grow our tourism sector if tourists can't get around the province safely and effectively? How can we move people, goods and services in and out of B.C. without good highways, airports and ports? We are an exporting province. The heartlands provide roughly 70 percent of all of British Columbia's exports. The deplorable condition of our provincial highways interferes with the effective export of our goods and services. This, in turn, undermines the whole economy and leads to job loss. Past governments have shirked their duty to face up to the fact that transportation infrastructure in B.C. was deteriorating. This government has lived up to its obligation to find a way to make this critical infrastructure investment.

Some people have said to me: "Government taxes us enough already." "You should have enough to do the job," they say. That's an interesting but inaccurate view. In 1963 — when my namesake, W.A.C. Bennett, was Premier and Minister Gaglardi was flying high and building highways all over the place, and Premier Bennett was building the dams and the other infrastructure that B.C. is still receiving dividends from today — they paid approximately 12 percent of their provincial budget to health care.

This fiscal year we'll use 41 percent of our provincial budget for health care. To tell the truth, there simply is not enough money for transportation infrastructure today after paying out two-thirds of the provincial budget for health and education and the next largest amount in the provincial budget to provincial debt service — $830 million a year just to pay the interest on our deadweight provincial debt. After paying for health, education, social assistance, children and family services — all absolutely essential services — and interest on the debt, there just isn't anything left to the build the new highway through Kicking Horse, upgrade the Sea to Sky, expand the Cranbrook Airport and develop the Port of Prince Rupert.

Our children and grandchildren will thank us for building highways. They'll thank us for building bridges, for building tunnels, for building overpasses and for building ports. They'll thank us for building and fixing airports, especially the one in Cranbrook. They will not thank us for building more debt for them to pay off.

We have a job to do, one that we were elected to do, and this budget shows that we are on course. This government has not blinked, and we will not blink. On May 16, almost two years ago, the people of British Columbia voted overwhelmingly for change. It's true that some of these people, frankly, have discovered that change is not predictable, that change can be challenging and difficult, and that change is not just for the other guy. With this budget, however, the people of B.C. who wanted change and voted for improvement are starting to see some improvement. They're starting to see such things as investor confidence. They're starting to see new jobs created. They're enjoying the second-most competitive tax regime in Canada, second only to Alberta.

The Minister of Finance and the Premier have clearly stated that B.C. will compete for investment. B.C. will not let good jobs go elsewhere if there is a way B.C. can have those jobs here. B.C.'s been moved from tenth best, or worst, place in Canada to invest to third.

The Ipsos-Reid poll that came out in late February stated that eight out of ten small business owners say we're moving in the right direction, and even the NDP, I think, recognizes that small business creates most of the new jobs in the economy — 78,000 new jobs in

2002. That improvement is due to the 27 strategic tax cuts that our government brought in and also to the elimination of red tape. It's due mainly to our commitment to not load our kids up with yet more debt, as the NDP did for eight consecutive budgets.

This improvement in the provincial economy is due to the fact that this government is prepared to stay the course. The budget does offer some money for some important priorities such as health and education, but the budget does not spend more than B.C. taxpayers can afford to pay. It is pay-as-you-go here, not a hamburger today and Wimpy will pay you on Tuesday. Like Popeye, this government has eaten its spinach. We're up to the task, and we will finish the job. We will finish the budget next spring and move this great province forward to the stability and prosperity that British Columbians deserve.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to thank the member opposite for his speech. I've had the opportunity to either listen to or read most of the speeches that were delivered on the budget over the last couple of weeks, I suppose. I must say that there have been some excellent comments by members, some good insight into the process and some good insight into their constituencies, which obviously were part of the process in building the budget as well. I thank them for that.

I want to take a few moments in closing the budget debate to thank many of those who've participated in building this budget, because we have tried something a little different in this government. We actually involve every single member of caucus to a great extent in that process. Certainly, under the clear direction and the vision of the Premier, it's pretty clear where this government is headed. There was a lot of work done prior to the election in planning for the transition and in preparing for the outcome of our first term in office and then beyond that. I think people need to give the Premier an immense amount of credit for setting that vision, for being as determined as he has been under some pretty onerous pressure from the various interest groups — not unexpectedly, I might mention, but some very onerous pressure.

He has stayed the course. He continues to support the work that the caucus does. I appreciate the support he gives me in the work that I need to do. I know that, number one, we as a group wouldn't be here had he not helped us get here, and number two, we wouldn't be able to do the things we're doing in an effort to turn this province around without his leadership and his support. I just can't say enough about how much I appreciate the work that he does for all of us and for the people of the province.

I also want to thank the ministers for the work they've done over the last year. In preparing last year's budget, or the budget year that we're in right now, I know that ministers worked extremely hard in their ministries trying to put in place the service plans that would get the outcomes that we desire as a government, the outcomes that we committed to during an election campaign. I know that was not an easy process. I thank them for their planning and preparation and the hard work they did. More importantly, I want to thank them for staying the course and following through on those plans and getting that work done. There have been many governments over the years that have come forward with lots of plans, lots of restructuring initiatives and lots of new changes, but never followed through on them. I think it's important for people to note that they've done that. Ministers and their staff have worked extremely hard in the ministries to deliver on those service plans and those outcomes that we set. I think it's a true testament to their abilities that this year, every single ministry is forecast to come in on or under budget. Not only that, they're hitting their service plan targets as well. I think that is very, very important and something that's worth a thank-you and congratulations to them for their hard work.

I also want to thank the members of caucus. I mentioned earlier that we've done something a little different. We have government caucus committees. Each of the service plans that the ministries have put together over the last year or so go to those government caucus committees for review, for examination, for tough questioning, for amendment, for change. Without the support and the hard work of all those members who sit on those committees, there's no way we'd be able to put this together. Also, I think it goes a long way toward our being able to accomplish the tasks we've set for ourselves when everybody is involved in setting those tasks. As difficult decisions as some of them are, I think it's very important that members participate in that, make it happen, and also help us to follow through and hold us accountable for hitting the targets that they helped us set at the beginning of the year.

There are other people that are obviously involved in the budget process in this province. We have the Finance Committee, which tours the province in the fall each year to consult with British Columbians. I think they hit about 12 to 14 communities. They try to change those communities year to year. They hear from literally hundreds of individuals, groups and people representing associations, business or labour groups.

I think all of that input they receive is extremely valuable. I know it's very difficult for them dealing with that, because they are often very contradictory goals that you hear. With some of them you can achieve both. Some are mutually exclusive, and you can't do one without neglecting the other. I know it's a very tough task to try to put that together into a report to me, as Minister of Finance, and to this House that helps to guide the budget process. I thank them for their work. I know those tours can be excruciatingly time-consuming and exhausting, and I want to thank the members who took the time. Members of the opposition, as well, sit on that committee, and I thank them for the work they do in consulting with the people of the province.

Second lastly, I want to thank the people who present to those committees. It takes a lot of work. Some people do it off the top of their heads. They just come and want to talk to government. They've never had a chance to. In some communities they've never seen an elected official from the province who's come in to talk to them before, aside from their own MLA. I think it's really important that people take the time to come to those committees and present.

I also want to thank those who write in and give us written submissions, who perhaps can't attend or choose not to but want to get their opinions before the government and the Legislature as well and present in written form their thoughts of where they think the direction of the province should head. I want to thank people for doing that.

Lastly, I want to once again thank the people in the Ministry of Finance — some of the most dedicated, hard-working, talented people I've ever had the pleasure of working with. They work long hours. They are immensely dedicated. As I've said before and will say again, the people of the province should be very grateful and proud of the people they have working for them. I know I am, and I know others are very well served by the people in the ministry.

We've presented a budget. It's the second of our initial three-year plan. It is a budget that shows we are on track and ahead of schedule — something that many people thought we would not be able to achieve at this point. I think it is important that it indicates we are staying the course to get the job done that people of British Columbia elected us to achieve, but I don't want to leave anybody with the sense that this work is finished. It's year one of three years in an attempt to balance the budget and get us back on track.

A great deal of work has been done. A great deal of change has happened. Lots of restructuring is in the works, but there is more to be done. It is important that the public understand there is work yet to be done. We've achieved a great deal this year, but there is more to do. I know that the members of caucus and the members of the government, as well as the public, want us to stay the course and make sure that we complete this task.

I am very proud of the work the caucus has done in preparing this budget. I just get to hold the pen. They do the work and make many of the decisions, and I want to thank them. I know it's a huge task sometimes, and there are very difficult, challenging decisions that you often have to go home and explain in your constituency. I know that's tough. It's also important to remember you're doing the right thing.

We are on track. We are ahead of schedule. We're doing what we were elected to do. The people of British Columbia continue to throw their support behind us. Of all the people I'm grateful to, it's the people of the province who continue to support the agenda of change in an effort to get this province back on track.

We've embarked upon that course. We're ahead of schedule. We are on track to a course where our future becomes brighter than our past. I'm very pleased to be part of that. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is that the Speaker leave the chair to go into Committee of Supply.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, be now read a second time.

In addition to minor housekeeping items, Bill 11 includes a number of amendments that are deregulatory in nature. In keeping with our new-era commitment and with our general goal of making British Columbia a national leader in regulatory reform, many amendments in Bill 11 reflect our continuing review and upgrading of regulation. This ongoing review of

existing regulation is a key aspect of our deregulation framework, and this bill builds on our progress to date.

The proposed legislation repeals nine obsolete or redundant statutes administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The statutes proposed for repeal concern activities that either no longer fit within the core service areas of this ministry or, in some cases, may remain core services but can be administered under other ministry or government legislation. In some cases, revisions of bills that continue to have importance in circumstances where the balance of the legislation has become redundant have been moved, and the balance of the bill is being repealed because it is no longer necessary, because it no longer serves any significant public purpose.

This proposed legislation also makes statutory changes needed to implement government's core review of the field of regulated marketing. Amongst other things, that includes amendments to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act and the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act, which will merge the Farm Practices Board with the British Columbia Marketing Board.

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to clarify the timing of the application of generally accepted accounting principles to specific documents referred to under this act. In general terms, as I understand those amendments, they ensure that for those documents published after the end of a fiscal year which speak retrospectively about the fiscal year that has concluded, the coming into force of the application of generally accepted accounting principles to the government reporting entity will not affect the obligation to ensure that those documents are prepared in accordance with the accounting principles that applied prior to the expansion of the government entity. They are, in other words, purely technical amendments.

Amendments to the Emergency Program Act will recognize the vital role of public safety lifeline volunteers in single-subject emergencies. They will provide local authorities the same authority to recover costs for emergency response where there is a clearly identifiable act or omission, and they will streamline the disaster financial assistance appeal process.

The amendments to the Evidence Act will create clear authority for the use of video conferencing technology for witness testimony in civil and family court hearings. The amendments specify when the court can allow a witness to testify using technology such as video conferencing, the process to notify the court, the payment of costs and the oath to be used. Video-conferencing technology is already being used for witness testimony in civil and family court hearings. These amendments are intended to put that practice on a more secure legislative foundation that will, I hope, encourage legal practitioners, the judiciary and parties to civil and family court cases to increase their use of video-conferencing technology.

The cost savings to parties and to government that can flow from an effective and responsible use of video-conferencing technology are significant. I once had the occasion, during the course of a visit to Terrace, to see how video-conferencing technology in a criminal case managed to save both the cost and the personal trauma that might have been incurred by a witness in Nova Scotia whose evidence was required for the purpose of a preliminary inquiry in what I believe was a sexual assault matter. The fact that the witness was able to give that evidence without having to leave Nova Scotia and was able to have that evidence heard in a courtroom in Terrace in a way that maintained all the essential safeguards around the right to cross-examination and so on was, I think, very helpful to me in illustrating the success and the opportunities this technology offers. I know it is being used in civil cases and in family cases for the same general purposes and with success. I hope these amendments will ensure that more people, more lawyers and more parties feel there is a good opportunity to expand the use of this technology where appropriate.

Bill 11 repeals the outdated Holiday Shopping Regulation Act and makes consequential amendments to the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter. Local governments are in a better position to regulate business openings suitable to local conditions and practices. Repealing this act ensures that local governments can make the best decisions for their communities, and it also contributes to government's commitment to do away with unnecessary red tape and regulation.

Amendments to the Hotel Guest Registration Act will allow for the repeal of the Travel Regulation Act with no change in services to the public. There will be a net loss of some 21 regulatory requirements as a result of these changes. A consequential amendment is made to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999. The Hotel Keepers Act is amended to improve the ability of innkeepers to protect their property and reputation from disturbances created by unruly guests.

The new framework, I hope, will give innkeepers and others the tools they need to ensure that when there is a disturbance, the disturbance can be dealt with effectively in a timely way and with the minimum disturbance to others. Obviously, government's hope is that in admittedly a small but perhaps not insignificant way, this particular amendment will help improve the business climate in British Columbia by giving hotel keepers the tools they need to do their business more effectively.

Bill 11 amends the Motor Carrier Act to provide an effective deterrent against the illegal operation of taxis by substantially increasing statutory fines in some circumstances. There are several amendments in Bill 11 to the Motor Vehicle Act. In sections 41 and 42, the Legislature is being asked to authorize the expansion of the list of educational institutions in sections 21 and 34 of the Motor Vehicle Act to include private post-secondary education institutions. The objective here is to ensure that out-of-province students who attend private educational institutions have the same ability to

qualify for vehicle and driver licensing exemptions as out-of-province students currently do where they are attending public educational institutions.

The amendment in section 43 of Bill 11 allows for the extension, where warranted, of school speed zone hours of operation to accommodate school and school yard activities carried on outside of traditional school hours. This is particularly intended to respond to the possibility of expanded school hours as permitted in legislative changes made by the assembly over the last number of months and years. The amendment also provides that no speed zone can commence later than 8 a.m. or expire earlier than 5 p.m.

There's an amendment in section 44 of Bill 11 that is intended to protect doctors, psychologists and optometrists from being sued by patients whom they report to the superintendent of motor vehicles for having a condition that affects safe driving. As part of our commitment to improving road safety, it's important to ensure that doctors, psychologists and optometrists who determine that their patients have a condition that may affect their ability to drive safely feel confident in their ability to report that fact to the superintendent of motor vehicles without the fear of unreasonable reprisal. What section 44 is intended to do is to create that protection.

This bill changes the name of the Science Council Act to the Innovation and Science Council Act to better reflect this council's involvement in innovation and also to allow for greater flexibility in choosing an appropriate number of directors. There are consequential amendments made to the Financial Information Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

There's an amendment to section 7 of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. That amendment is intended to ensure that all types of criminal assets subject to forfeiture under the Criminal Code of Canada and related statutes are included in the provincial forfeited crime proceeds fund.

The Telephone (Rural) Act is an obsolete act, and it is here to be repealed, thus eliminating 49 regulatory requirements.

An amendment to the Water Protection Act is required to correct an unintended regulatory impediment to the operations of the greater Vancouver regional district, the GVRD. The act currently prohibits large-scale transfers of water between major watersheds of the province, including two major watersheds — the coastal and the Fraser watersheds — which are straddled by the GVRD. The amendment corrects this problem by amending the definition of Fraser watershed so that the Fraser watershed will include the area currently in the coastal watershed. The amendment will enable the GVRD to plan future upgrades to its drinking water supply infrastructure.

That is a summary of the provisions of Bill 11. As is often the case in miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, there will not only be an opportunity now to debate the issues of principle that members may be interested in, but of course, there will be the opportunity for full debate about the detailed provisions in the committee stage debate on this legislation.

J. MacPhail: Just to follow up on the Attorney General's final comments, I'll make note for him of the debate that will occur on which topics at committee stage. While not always the case, this is one example of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act where the debate will occur at committee stage.

Section 6, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The Emergency Program Act, sections 10 through 16. I'm just flipping through. The Hotel Keepers Act. I have some questions about that, particularly section 30, which changes section 6 of the Hotel Keepers Act. I have questions on section 31, the Livestock Act, dogs causing injury or damage. The Motor Vehicle Act, questions on sections 41 and 42. The sections I'm are referring to are the sections of the miscellaneous statutes bill. Section 44 of the miscellaneous bill changing the Motor Vehicle Act. Some of these questions will be questions of clarification. The Water Protection Act, section 67 of the miscellaneous bill. Unless something arises in terms of feedback from the public, those are the sections that I'll be debating in committee stage.

L. Mayencourt: I also want to raise for the minister that I have some issues around section 30, the amendment to the Hotel Keepers Act. Specifically, my concern — so that he's aware of that — is how this interfaces with the Residential Tenancy Act. We have a number of what we call SROs, sleeping-room-only hotels, in the downtown east side and, of course, in my riding in the downtown south. Sometimes the tenants that are in those buildings are ones that can be a little disruptive and raise some concerns. I just want to ensure that those individuals, who are often living with significant challenges, are looked after under the Residential Tenancy Act as opposed to the Hotel Keepers Act. I would like to just put that on notice and raise that at the appropriate moment.

I. Chong: I want to speak to second reading on this bill, as it is to discuss the principles of a miscellaneous statutes bill. I first of all want to say how important it is that when a miscellaneous statutes bill is introduced in this chamber, it is introduced to deal with miscellaneous items. Looking at all the acts that are being amended, I think this is a perfect example of how miscellaneous statutes bills should be introduced.

I know that in the past, as an opposition member, I would see the government of the day sneaking in what I think would be rather substantial changes to various parts of acts in hopes that they would be overlooked. We would call them omnibus bills, because they would contain so much information and would not be dealing with acts which needed to be repealed, amended and so forth. I do believe that our government, our new way of doing business, is not about the status quo. It is about changing things to make sure that members in this chamber participate in a more productive and effective way.

This miscellaneous statutes bill deals very much with housekeeping — repealing, amending, minor adjustments, things that will make the legislation that was originally brought in work better for the people of this province. I want to give credit, first of all, to the Minister of State for Deregulation, because I know he's played a large part in moving along our ministers and ministries to have a real firm look, a real scrutiny of their ministries to ensure that these acts, which have been around for years and have never actually been used, are in fact removed so that we don't have people in their ministries who are charged with pieces of legislation that they're supposed to oversee and never actually do anything about it.

Also, I do want to credit the ministers themselves for making these changes and having the time to look at these minor changes. Often we get very busy in our work here in the Legislature. We are consumed sometimes by large items, and it's the small things that sometimes get overlooked — small things such as minor amendments and changes. I'm very pleased about the way this bill was introduced, and I hope that in future, as miscellaneous bills are introduced, they will encompass the same framework to ensure that they are in fact miscellaneous items.

Just a few that I wanted to mention — the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which I note the opposition member has already alluded to and which she wants to raise questions on…. I would certainly welcome her questions and hear what they are and what concerns they are. I know that as our government moves forward, budget transparency and accountability are key in ensuring that, again, our government has the legislation and the tools in place to make sure that accountability and transparency are in place so that the people of this province do trust their governments to move items forward.

One of the largest changes that this government is doing, of course, is moving to the principles of generally accepted accounting principles — a major change. I know that in the past there had been suggestions on how to change it, and at that time they were called moving to generally accepted accounting "practices." I know that when I was in opposition, I took exception to that because it left the door wide open to what generally accepted accounting practices were as opposed to principles, which are, in fact, what the professional body of accountants adhere to. This change that is being made is necessary to ensure that we will fulfil one of the commitments we made in our New Era document. That is very, very important from my perspective, and I support wholeheartedly those changes that are going to be made there.

I notice that there are other changes being made, one of which is in the Emergency Program Act as well — another good change, I think, that municipalities will be very grateful for: the fact that they're able to recover emergency response costs incurred as a result of negligence. I think this puts a financial burden on our local governments.

Again, this shows that we're dealing with miscellaneous items that sometimes do get overlooked. It says that members in this chamber have brought forward ideas and raised them with our government ministers and their ministries. It's allowed an opportunity to look at things which, as I say, in the past have not really had any attention paid to them, and it now means that we're going to move forward and make those changes.

A number of acts have been repealed. Again, I've gone through them. I think they're wonderful changes. Some disparities in areas where there was, I guess, inequality have now been addressed, such as in the Motor Vehicle Act, where students from out of province who attended public post-secondary institutions were being treated differently than those attending the private post-secondary institutions. Again, they're minor changes, but it is about fairness, and it is about making sure that the people in this province are going to feel that the changes are going to be positive in the way they carry forward in their lives.

I note that there are many acts being changed here, but again I want to say at the outset and in talking to second reading — which is about the principles of a bill and which is about a miscellaneous statutes act — that I think this is a good step forward. I feel very confident that through a healthy debate in committee stage, areas of concern will be fully canvassed. Generally, I'm very much in support of Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

As the hon. Minister of Finance announced during his first reading, Bill 3 amends the Small Business Venture Capital Act to provide more access to seed capital for small businesses with less red tape. These amendments work for all small businesses and residents of British Columbia and are a key component of our heartlands economic strategy, as recently announced by the Premier. They are designed to provide venture capital for all regions of the province, not just the lower mainland.

Bill 3 builds on the past successes of the equity capital program but operates under the act. The program provides tax credits to investors to encourage seed capital investment in small businesses throughout all regions of British Columbia. Since it began, $400 million has been raised under the program for 575 small businesses operating throughout British Columbia. The program has led to the direct creation of approximately 11,000 jobs in value-added sectors that diversify the economy of British Columbia.

It's not just the high-tech sector. Some of these successful small businesses include the Wickaninnish Inn on Vancouver Island, the Vance Creek Hotel at Silver Star Mountain in the Okanagan, ALI Technologies Inc. in the lower mainland, Pacific Insight Electronics Corporation in the Kootenays and the Wells Hotel in the Cariboo. The success of these businesses can be attributed to the fact that the program investors, not the government, selected the opportunities. I'd like to point out that these programs represent sound taxation policy for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Effective April 2, with the introduction of an additional $5 million in tax credits for the thriving new media sector, the province will now offer $20 million of tax credits to resident investors who in turn will invest up to $67 million of equity capital into small businesses. Independent accounting studies have shown that the annual program investment of $67 million will be matched over five years with an additional $469 million of private sector capital investment in small businesses. Tax credits issued to the investors are recovered through increased tax revenues generated from small businesses within three fiscal years. That's sound taxation policy, which results in economic development and private sector job creation.

Here is a quick overview of the amendments to the act that will help build a strong partnership between investors, small business and the province. First, Bill 3 amends the existing legislation for venture capital corporations. These amendments will reduce red tape and address the concerns raised by investors and small business about the existing legislative framework. Some of these amendments include removing the arbitrary capital-raising limits for venture capital corporations registered under the act, cutting red tape by allowing investors to invest directly through their RRSP accounts and claim tax credits for the prior year, and by expanding small business financing limits to $5 million to allow small businesses to transfer their innovation to world markets.

The overall impacts of these streamlining amendments will be a level playing field for venture capital corporations with labour-sponsored funds when it comes to raising and investing capital and the formation of management pools of capital in the heartlands marked for the seed capital investment, where it is badly needed.

Secondly, Bill 3 oversees the introduction for the first time in British Columbia of a new direct investment model. This model will offer tax credits for investments made directly in qualifying small businesses and eliminates the requirements of setting up a holding company, a major accomplishment in the goal to cut red tape and cost when small businesses are accessing private capital in British Columbia.

Finally, Bill 3 outlines ongoing requirements for venture capital corporations or eligible business corporations to ensure program compliance or, simply put, that we continue to think like taxpayers. For example, the administrator of the act will now have the ability to revoke tax credits and extend tax liability in situations of program abuse.

The Premier directed us to consult with small British Columbia investors. Small businesses and the venture capital community have expressed their support for the changes to the Small Business Venture Capital Act, and this government has listened and responded. Passage of these amendments will contribute to a strong and vibrant British Columbia economy, private sector investment and private sector job creation. These amendments complement our government's competitive tax strategy developed under the leadership of the Premier and once again demonstrate his leadership and our commitment to revitalizing the economy, creating jobs and boosting the investment in small business throughout the province, especially in the heartlands.

I look forward to the passing of this legislation and to contributing even more towards small business innovation, investment, job creation and opportunity in British Columbia. I would also like to thank the employees in my ministry who have worked so diligently on this project and all those who consulted and provided input to us.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't going to make many comments on this legislation until I heard the minister's speech. Frankly, it's hard to understand what the minister's speech has to do with this legislation.

I do know that the message box now requires every Liberal MLA to get up and say that it's under the great leadership of the Premier that they did this, and I know that's damage control for the Premier's own personal situation. I also know that sometimes it's very hard under all governments to figure out what the comments from the minister have to do with the legislation, but this really is very interesting.

I'm not going to make a speech that is going to upset any Liberal MLAs, but I am going to put the minister on notice about some questions that need to be explored here. First of all, it is very hard to understand his claim that this cuts red tape. I'll be asking not just for generalities, not just for the government standing up and saying that this bill cuts red tape, because you wouldn't know it from the legislation. You wouldn't know it in terms of what's being repealed and what's being added. In fact, in my view, there's more regulation being added than cut, so the specifics of the minister's claim will be pursued by the opposition.

Secondly, the creation of the direct investment model and the creation of eligible business corporations that then receive tax credits directly is also one that I will be exploring at length with the minister — first and foremost, his claim that somehow this has to do with giving more investment to the interior and coastal communities. Let's just see the evidence. There's nothing in the legislation that would direct me to see that anyone other than sophisticated investors would benefit from this, sophisticated investors being an investing term. Sophisticated investors rest on Howe Street in Vancouver, so I'll be looking for the minister's proof that somehow this assists those outside of the lower mainland.

I will also be looking for the minister's assurances that the new model is based on experience elsewhere, what that experience is and if it's groundbreaking, because you can't tell from this document. You cannot tell from the legislation whether this is groundbreaking or not. You simply cannot tell. There are models with which I am familiar that may touch on this but are certainly much more tightly controlled than what this legislation provides.

I will be looking for the minister to give some very specific examples on determination of an eligible business corporation and very specific examples, based on either experience learned from other jurisdictions or their own safeguards, about how this legislation can be controlled in a way that works for the investors but also works for the taxpayer. There are many, many models of direct investment tax credits that have failed and failed miserably. Most of them are at the federal level, but I cannot think of one — I'm sure the minister will stand up and give it to me — where a direct investment federal tax credit has actually proved worthwhile.

There will be questions that will be explored by me, and if the answers are forthcoming, great. Those will be the three areas in which I will be exploring not only the contents of this legislation but the intent — with specifics. I need specifics.

I. Chong: I rise to speak to second reading on Bill 3, the Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 2003, and wish to speak to the principles of it.

I was actually amazed when I heard the opposition member say she wasn't sure what it was all about. To me, it is quite clear. It is about small business, which we have always said is the engine of our economy. As a government that is focused on revitalizing our economy, we have to start looking at our small business enterprises and see where and how we can help them.

When we were on the select standing committee — a number of us in the chamber were on that committee, and the opposition member as well — we toured a number of communities — 13, as I recall. We did hear from small businesses who said that access to capital was a problem and that they needed a government to listen to them and understand the difficulty in acquiring venture capital, particularly in the heartlands. It wasn't all about the lower mainland, as the opposition leader likes to say. It is about moving out into those areas of the province which generate 70 percent of the revenues that come down to the lower mainland and allow us to continue to protect health care and education.

The Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act is a good piece of legislation. It's going to ensure that our small businesses are going to be able to survive and thrive. What is it about? Well, it is about helping small businesses. It is about job creation. It is about investment in our province. I'm proud to support a bill that's going to encourage those things, because it means we're listening to the people we were elected to represent. It means that we're going to move into the twenty-first century.

Businesses are changing; technology is changing; the cost of doing business is changing. It is important that we change along with it. A government that continues to keep its head buried in the sand and not move forward is going to keep its economy going in a backwards direction. We don't want to be the number ten economy in Canada anymore. We want to be the number one economy in Canada, and this legislation is going to be one of the tools we're going to be able to move ourselves forward with.

I'm very, very pleased to finally see a piece of legislation come forward to deal with small business venture capital. I understand what small business venture capital is. I understand what venture capital is about, because when I was in opposition, anytime there was minor tweaking and changes made, I followed it very closely. Also, as a professional in the accounting field as well, before I entered into this profession, I heard from clients about the importance of venture capital. I spoke to many people — and I'm sure the opposition member did when she was in government as well — who used to come and say: "You need to make some changes here. We're not all large businesses. We're not all going to go for those large pools of money."

There's a section in this act that also increases the opportunity; I believe it raises the venture capital from a $3 million limit to a $5 million limit. Again, these are still small businesses, because they're growing at a pace that requires some investment. Their technology, as I said, has changed. It just means allowing us to work with them. It's a piece of legislation. It's another tool that's going to benefit the small business — the engine of our economy — the people who work in our heartlands, the people who depend on jobs and on whom the people in the non-heartland areas can depend to ensure that financial resources for health care and education continue to be protected.

K. Manhas: I'm pleased to stand up to support this bill. I think this bill is an important step in moving forward and dealing with the real problem within innovation in British Columbia and with the dearth of capital in British Columbia. We've needed to find new ways to provide capital for ideas in small business, to market their concepts so they can move forward so that small businesses can become larger businesses — to develop

their ideas so that small businesses can become medium-sized businesses and medium-sized businesses can grow into world leaders in British Columbia.

I think this bill removes some of the unnecessary regulation on venture capital to stem the amount of capital going into small businesses. I think that's a very, very positive step. It's a long-needed step, and I am pleased that we are moving forward with this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 3.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move second reading of the Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003.

The Employment Investment Amendment Act, 2002, was passed last year. It was an important step in building a stronger, more competitive economy that attracts and retains new investment in British Columbia. This bill enables competition and promotes fairness for all participants in the venture capital industry in the area of labour-sponsored funds.

Under the leadership of the Premier, our government believes that competition and equal opportunity are a cornerstone in building a competitive and dynamic British Columbia economy. This bill is helping create a level playing field in opening up new opportunities for business seeking financing and investors in labour-sponsored funds. As the Premier and our government committed, we are giving British Columbia businesses new opportunity to innovate and compete in a strong marketplace. It is providing choice, ensuring fairness and removing restrictions.

The amendments we are proposing today are housekeeping in nature and are intended to clarify and harmonize sections of the act, to streamline regulation and to ensure consistent treatment for companies and investors under the legislation. Essentially, they will clarify investment limits for labour-sponsored funds and other co-investing and, by doing so, increase the amount of capital available to small businesses. They will clarify the amount of cumulative equity that labour-sponsored funds can raise by eliminating the historical limit of $20 million.

These proposed amendments do not affect the government's ability to control the amount of equity a labour fund can raise annually, nor do they affect the annual tax credit pool. These changes will eliminate the ability of fund managers to manage more than one provincially registered labour-sponsored fund. These amendments will not preclude managers from registering funds in other jurisdictions.

The changes we're introducing today will also modify the time lines for cost-sharing requirements for all registrants slightly. Currently, businesses are able to claim up to 50 percent of eligible shared cost with the province to a maximum of $5,000 in any two-year period. The proposed amendment streamlines this process by allowing up to $2,500 per year. These amendments will also ensure that the definition of business control of the investee business is consistent with the definition in the Small Venture Capital Act and will eliminate the lifetime tax credit limit for employee investors who invest directly into their employees' businesses. This is significant, because it will enable business successorship and the continuation of the success of British Columbia's small businesses in circumstances where the current owner is retiring or selling the business. It will also harmonize the treatment of employee investors with that of investors of labour-sponsored funds.

Our Premier and our government have heard that British Columbia's businesses, investors and venture capital corporations want change. They want competition, they want consistency, and they want harmony. We committed to providing these choices. We need to ensure our rules are clear, fair, and encourage competitive business and investment practices if we're going to make British Columbia a North American leader in attracting investment and fostering innovations. These changes introduced in this bill will accomplish this. The results will be increased investment, enhanced competition and a stronger and more dynamic British Columbia economy that attracts new business from around the world and creates new opportunities, private sector investment and private sector jobs.

Finally, I would like to thank my staff in the ministry and all of those who have worked with the ministry in developing these changes. I'm pleased to now move second reading.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

	YEAS — 63

Falcon	Hogg	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Christensen	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY