Hansard -- Wednesday, February 18, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 20, No. 9 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		8617

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8617
	Burgess Shale
	W. McMahon
	Youth programs
	K. Manhas
	RAV transit line
	G. Halsey-Brandt

Oral Questions		8618
	Organized crime and funding of police services
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. MacPhail
	Public forum on organized crime
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Addiction services in Powell River
	H. Long
	Hon. S. Brice
	Transfer of community living services
	R. Hawes
	Hon. C. Clark
	Student grant program
	H. Bloy
	Hon. S. Bond

Point of Privilege		8621
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)		8622
	R. Sultan
	P. Nettleton
	B. Kerr
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	B. Lekstrom
	K. Stewart
	S. Orr
	R. Hawes

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce today, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, 66 grade 11 students from Southridge Senior Secondary School, their teacher Mr. Julian and two adult chaperons which I doubt that they probably need at all. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: Today in the visitors' gallery I would like to acknowledge some special visitors from the Piemonte region in Italy. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Barbara Ramaglia — she's the consulente of the Regione Piemonte — and Claudio Barbero of the industrial union. This is the advance team to the visit of Enzo Ghigo, the region president, in late March. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to Victoria today.

B. Belsey: I have the privilege today to stand and introduce to the House a young fellow who was raised in Prince Rupert, who is now down here looking at the University of Victoria where he wants to take some geography courses. Would the House please join me in welcoming Andrew Cuthbert, a member from Prince Rupert.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is one of my newest constituents who is living in my riding and attending the fine University of Victoria, who has moved here from Prince George and who just happens to be the daughter of the Minister of State for Mining. Would the House please welcome one of my newest constituents, Donna Bell.

Hon. P. Bell: It appears we've been able to drag another northerner down south for a short period of time as well, although he doesn't want to succumb to the salt air he is being victimized with in this particular locale. He's a great friend, a great son and a great snowmobiling buddy, who gets me unstuck on a regular basis. Would the House please make my son Doug Bell very welcome.

W. McMahon: I am pleased to rise in the House today and introduce my colleagues and British Columbians to a hidden treasure in my constituency of Columbia River–Revelstoke. Yoho National Park in the Rocky Mountains is host to an amazing natural occurrence, the Burgess Shale formation. This formation, located just outside of Golden near Field, is without a doubt one of the most significant fossil deposits in the world, dating back to the middle Cambrian age nearly 500 million years ago.

The Burgess Shale is host to a diversity of soft-bodied fauna — early animal life — that allows us to study the evolutionary processes associated with the development of life on Earth millions of years ago. While these rare fossils are over half a billion years old, they can be dissected today to reveal their stomach contents and their amazing body parts.

The Burgess Shale fauna provide an unparalleled opportunity to glimpse into the window of ancient oceans and environmental conditions of another time. It has attracted so much attention and curiosity, of scientists and the public alike, that the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation was established. The mandate of this organization is to increase the public's science literacy.

The foundation offers a variety of educational hikes around the fossil beds and delivers a number of earth science education programs. Its vision is to create a facility, the first of its kind in the world, to interpret and display the Burgess Shale. This offers a great opportunity to not only showcase this amazing natural formation but also showcase the entire Kootenay region.

The Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation attracts thousands of students, teachers, scientists and interested observers from all over the world. Tourists come from far and wide to see the Burgess Shale firsthand. They gain an appreciation of earth sciences, and at the same time they experience one of the most beautiful regions of the province.

I applaud the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation for its commitment to the earth sciences and education of the public. Organizations such as this one contribute to the educational and scientific fabric of our province while creating innovative opportunities for employment and tourism in the Kootenay.

K. Manhas: I have risen many times in this House to talk about the Youth Matters! initiative that I launched in the Tri-Cities last year and its goal to increase positive youth development using the assets approach.

It would appear that this work is paying off in our local school system. School district 43 student leadership council recently declared this week, February 16 to 20, as assets development week. These students have examined asset-building opportunities appropriate to elementary, middle and secondary students and have distributed their recommendations throughout our school system. As a result of their work, our students, parents and teachers are gaining a better understanding of the benefits we stand to make by engaging our

youth. These students aren't alone. As I speak, there are over 20 organizations from across the Tri-Cities working together to improve the community for the youth growing up within it.

One of the priority goals for Youth Matters! has been to increase the way in which our community connects with and values our youth. Working together to build assets strengthens the bond between the individual and the community. It's unfortunate that many young people, especially when they reach adolescence, feel as if they're invisible to the adults around them. That's why adult mentorship is crucial to the success of our asset-building efforts.

I think many of us can look back to our days as teenagers and remember those few adults, those individuals who engaged us to be interested in something. It might have been a parent, a teacher, a neighbour or a coach who encouraged and took an interest in us to pursue something. Unfortunately, many of today's young people have gone their entire lives without having any of that kind of encouragement. I think we each have a responsibility to change these circumstances. Even a smile or a hello is an important connection that says to a young person: "You're important."

We also need to do our part to encourage youth to take action in their community when they see things they want to change. It was more than 200 years ago that English author Samuel Johnson said: "Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings." I want to congratulate and thank Tamara Ramusovic and the entire school district 43 student leadership council for their leadership in taking those words to heart for the benefit of all students and for increasing the awareness of each individual's role in building assets. Keep up the good work. Here's to the first assets development week.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Last week RAV Project Management Ltd., a subsidiary of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, released a summary of the range of options submitted by the three teams competing for the contract to design, build, partially finance, operate and maintain the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line. This line has been discussed since the mid-1970s and was constantly on the transit planning diagrams of the GVRD through the 1980s to nineties. Finally our government and our funding partners — the federal government, the Vancouver Airport Authority and TransLink — are bringing it to fruition in time for the 2010 Olympics.

This much-needed link between downtown Vancouver, the international airport and downtown Richmond is expected to have 100,000 boardings per day, carrying 26 million to 38 million passengers annually by 2010. In environmental terms, it is anticipated that the rapid transit system will eliminate tons of harmful air emissions and result in gasoline fuel savings of millions of litres annually. The three competing bids received last week all meet the terms of reference for the line. They provide travel times from downtown Vancouver to Richmond Centre in less than 30 minutes and to the airport in less than 25 minutes. Construction is to begin in spring 2005 with an in-service date of November 2009.

We look forward to a thorough review by the evaluation committee to be completed by April and then to have the two selected teams submit their final and best offer by this fall. While there is concurrence in a combination of tunnelling at grade and elevated line in Vancouver and at the airport, the question of whether the line should be elevated or at grade at No. 3 Road in Richmond still needs to be determined. My whole community looks forward to entering that discussion next month.

This is a rapid transit line that is way overdue. We are excited that its time has come, and I thank our funding partners and the GVRD communities for their continuing support.

J. Kwan: In the past five days there've been two shootings in the lower mainland and one assault. Organized crime activity is suspected in each. Crime, particularly organized crime, is causing enormous public concern. Can the Solicitor General confirm that these shootings and assaults are not random events but that they're related to organized crime activities?

Hon. R. Coleman: The hon. member across the hall knows that I don't comment on ongoing police investigations or the actual aspect of an individual case. I will tell you this, though, Mr. Speaker. We've identified the concern with regard to organized crime. We're actually moving towards creating an integrated organized crime unit by moving the Organized Crime Agency in with the RCMP and our serious crime people, which will find us an additional savings of $4 million that will go directly into investigations of organized crime.

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

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General's words ring a bit hollow. After the organized crime squad raided this building, the RCMP compared organized crime to a cancer growing on the moral fabric of our society. But apparently the Solicitor General didn't hear about that warning, because he continues to make it harder for the police to fight crime — $13.5 million in cuts to police this year alone. That was tabled yesterday in this government's budget.

J. Kwan: How can British Columbians have any faith in this Solicitor, any faith at all that the police are protected, when police services in this province are being served up to the Minister of Finance for cuts?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm really glad that member asked that question. I don't know where she's doing her research, but I suspect it's been from one of the dailies and looking at the budget.

Maybe the member might want to take this into consideration. Last year's budget included $10 million for crime, which was expended in last year's budget, that doesn't need to be expended next year. It included another $6 million in small capital, so we can reduce our costs with regard to small capital in outgoing years. It also included the cost of the Pickton investigation, which is winding down. Therefore, the costs will be less on this. When the member actually does the math and figures it out, she's going to find out that we actually invested more money in operational policing in British Columbia this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: The budget books don't lie. So says this government. According to the budget book that was tabled yesterday, it shows that $13.5 million will be cut out of policing. That's the truth, and this is the government who has yet to allocate the traffic fine dollars to local governments for policing in spite of their promise prior to the election.

According to the government's own numbers, the crime rate last year went up 8 percent. Gangland shootings are becoming a regular feature on nightly news. But the Solicitor General continues to ignore the problems that are out there in our communities. Yesterday the government announced it is spending $33 million on public relations and partisan advertising. How can the Solicitor General justify sitting at the cabinet table, signing off on millions of dollars for television ads extolling the virtues of his government, when he's putting public safety at risk?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's recognize one thing. This member was a member of a government for ten years that didn't so much as meet with the police and do any forward planning for law enforcement in British Columbia. They did not invest in any technology, which we did last year — over $10 million into crime — and they did not do. They refused to move forward on an integrated policing relationship that saves millions of dollars and increases the efficiency of law enforcement in British Columbia.

They also don't get it that we know there's organized crime out there. That's why we have strategies. That's why we are building our plans. That's why we have increased funding to these areas. That's why we've looked for efficiencies, and that's why, frankly, we're doing a great job and actually doing the job on behalf of British Columbians.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I sure hope the blue books don't lie, because the blue books from this government — the estimates book — say that there's been a $13.5 million cut to policing. The previous government set up the organized crime agency. The previous government set up community policing.

What does it take to get the attention of this Solicitor General? The organized crime squad was in this building searching through files. We've had two shootings in five days, but he stands there and blusters on, pretending that he's on top of it. Thank God he's not sitting on it. Well, he's not on top of it. We're losing the battle against organized crime, and his answer is to cut the budget for policing.

Not only has the minister cut funding to police, he's chopped $3 million more from victims services. That's on top of a $6 million cut from last year. How can the Solicitor General stand there, wave his arms about and tell the public he's getting tough on crime after letting the Finance minister raid his budget to pay for the Premier's image consultants?

Hon. R. Coleman: One of these days this member is going to figure out that sometimes you invest in one year to get savings in the next year, and it doesn't actually affect an operational budget. What we have done is some of the most innovative things in the history of British Columbia.

There are individual cases of violence in this province, and there are a number of factors that we would like to see improved, including penalties to people that are actually committing crimes in this province. The bottom line is this: the operational cost of policing has gone up and has been enhanced by this government. The dollars the member refers to are to investigations that had to have notional access to contingencies that will not cost as much next year, because they were individual cases like the Pickton investigation.

J. MacPhail: No, Mr. Speaker. Those are separate lines in the Estimates. I wish this government would actually learn what it's talking about. What he's referring to are separate lines in the budget.

J. MacPhail: Policing in this province has been cut by $13.5 million. The opposition has asked three times for the Solicitor General to call a public inquiry into organized crime. Every single time he hides, and the rest of his government laughs about organized crime — laughs about it.

J. MacPhail: He won't consult the public as he promised to do. He won't call an inquiry, and clearly he won't fight for new resources. He talks the talk on crime, but he won't walk the walk.

Let me give him another chance to take action. Will the Solicitor General listen to the public, will he listen to the police, and will he finally leave his comfy, soft chair and at least hold the public forum into organized crime that he promised almost a year ago?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's get a couple of things clear. This particular member has had an epiphany about organized crime that's happened in the last 30 days, because she failed to attend the Crown Corporations Committee when they actually talked to the Organized Crime Agency, as a member of that committee.

She's also had an epiphany all of a sudden about something I've been talking about for two and a half years and the fact that there's organized crime in British Columbia. If you sat down with law enforcement tomorrow and said, "Would you prefer we spend a few million dollars on a public inquiry with regard to organized crime, or would you prefer we gave you more money to actually fight organized crime," the answer would be: "Give us the money to fight organized crime."

Hon. R. Coleman: What this member doesn't get is that she's never had a plan for policing. Actually, when you sit down, you figure out the costs, you invest the capital and you plan it out, you can enhance the operational cost of policing by front-end lowering some costs that can move from one budget year to the next.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member just doesn't get the fact — and it drives her crazy — that law enforcement in British Columbia are finally supportive of a government because they stand behind them, plan with them and build for the future.

H. Long: My question today is for the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services. In the mid-eighties I worked with the New Life Society in Powell River to bring a contract for addiction services to our community. Recently Powell River people were told that the Vancouver coastal health authority has decided to terminate the society's contract as of March 31, 2004. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services explain how the cancellation of this contract is going to improve addiction services for Powell River?

Hon. S. Brice: Vancouver coastal health will now directly provide the programs and services offered by the New Life Society. This decision ensures that resources are used to the maximum potential in order to strengthen patient services. There will be absolutely no reduction in service or quality of care as a result of this move, and no client will lose services or be denied care as a result of this move. In fact, Vancouver coastal will be able to provide increased service from savings in administrative costs. The integrating of these services with mental health will provide more options, and this is another great example of how health authorities are improving service delivery and patient care.

R. Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. For a long time now, the ministry has been working with the community living sector on a new plan for the transfer of governance for people with developmental difficulties. Recently the ministry has announced it has postponed that transfer, which was planned for June. Now, can the minister tell my constituents, including Mr. Bryce Shaufelberger who served on the board as a self-advocate, if the transfer plan has now been abandoned? Or if it has not, has a new date for the transfer been set?

Hon. C. Clark: Indeed, we are still very committed to shifting to community governance in the community living sector. The reason we want to do that is this: it is the right, moral thing to do. Delivering these services

in communities, closer to communities where the people who receive them have some say over how they look, is the right thing to do.

I know the opposition doesn't care about this, but thousands of people have invested thousands of hours….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Would the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order and listen to the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: I know the opposition is not particularly interested in allowing communities to control the services that we provide in this ministry. I know, in fact, that the opposition has called for this to stop, but the reality is that thousands of people have spent thousands of hours. They have invested…

Hon. C. Clark: …their hopes and dreams in this. In fact, 14,000 people provincewide have participated in the consultation about how we can make this happen. We want to make sure that when it happens, it happens right. We want to make sure that the community living authority is on a solid foundation so that the people we're serving continue to be well served and continue to get every benefit that our society can give them. But we are committed to making sure that these services are delivered in the community, and we are committed to making sure that the community living authority is up and running on a firm foundation as soon as we possibly can do it.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. I have heard some confusion from my constituents regarding the transfer of funds from the student grant program directly to universities and colleges. Could the minister address the benefits of funding universities and colleges directly, and also assure my constituents that there will still be financial aid for any student in this province that requires it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

Hon. S. Bond: It is true we are converting student grants to a loan program in British Columbia. In fact, the dollars that go from that program will be sent to institutions that were, in fact, expecting fewer dollars to be transferred to them this year. The majority will actually receive as many dollars, if not more than they were anticipating. In fact, institutions will soon receive budget letters which indicate that they will receive dollars they did not anticipate. We expect that to provide benefit in mitigating….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. We'll continue when we have order in the House, please.

Hon. S. Bond: We expect the transfer of dollars to institutions to mitigate some of the tuition increases that were expected, and I expect institutions to look closely at their decisions about tuition based on the decision made yesterday.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I said that I was about to bring forward three motions of privilege. Here is the third.

During question period on May 29, 2003, the Solicitor General stood in this House and stated the following: "What we did" — and I quote directly — "is actually took gaming in this province arm's length from political influence, gave it to the corporation and said, 'You manage gaming within the capacity.' We identified that capacity, and the corporation is doing its job in the way it should be — without political influence, as some people maybe had seen in the governments of the past."

He then also stated: "The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a corporation that is operating without political influence and will do its business on behalf of British Columbians to the level it should be, rather than having — as in the past — political influence dictating stupid decisions in gaming."

His position, as stated in this House, is consistent with statements he made at an open cabinet meeting on January 16, 2002, where he stated: "After being the minister for six or seven months, it was abysmal how this sector of government was managed. That's why I've moved it to where it's very professional, arm's length from the minister. I don't make decisions on individual licences, nor do I ever discuss an individual licence."

Mr. Speaker, there are several statements of a similar nature in the popular media. I raise these matters arising from outside the Legislature only to substantiate the point that the minister did not misspeak himself in the Legislature. He deliberately made three separate statements in this House to imply that he had no involvement at all, no influence over decisions made by the gaming corporation and specifically regarding slot machines.

A recent statement from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast tells a different story. He is quoted in a December 23, 2003, Powell River Peak article, which has not been retracted, that reports the following: "B.C.'s Solicitor General Rich Coleman asked MLA Harold Long how Powell River would feel about having slot machines in the community. 'He asked if our community would be interested in slot machines in the bingo hall, where there is gambling already,'" said the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has identified, the Solicitor General is personally seeking out venues for the installation of slot machines. Erskine May, 22nd edition, page 63, quotes from the civil service amendment order-in-council 1995, which states: "…the following principles should govern the conduct of ministers of the Crown in relation to parliament…it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament…." That learned source also states: "Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister."

The same edition, on page 64, also states: "It was not intended to affect or derogate from the duties ministers owe to parliament in their capacity as members of one of the Houses, and imposing on ministers the additional duty to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister will not affect the right of either House to proceed against them in a case of alleged contempt, as it might proceed against any other member."

I argue, therefore, that there is a prima facie case for the Solicitor General to be found in contempt of this House and that this House has the authority to act on it. For your consideration I put forward a notice of motion for you to consider, and I also table for you the article that stands without retraction from the Powell River Peak and the open cabinet meeting minutes that I quoted from.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will take your comments and your submissions into consideration.

The Chair will now entertain comments or notice of comment from the government side.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I seek to reserve the right to make further submissions in due course.

R. Sultan: It's an honour to be asked to respond to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. He's presented a commendable — indeed, a remarkable — piece of work, for this is not merely a piece of paper, as someone recently called it. Rather, it's the culmination of a hazardous three-year project involving thousands of people, starting from an election promise, proceeding through core review via caucus committees into new law and public consultation involving the turning down of multiple screws, making agonized choices, requiring growth of thick skin and a fair amount of marketing, enduring legislative critique and opposition scorn and ultimately arriving at a balanced budget. Today we can celebrate the announcement of a balanced budget for fiscal '04-05.

One observer said to me: "These guys come across year after year as steadily steering a ship, and the ship's on course." In politics this is unique. The feds don't do it this way, and neither do the Americans. It's quite special and quite remarkable.

A balanced budget in and of itself is an unusual event in the history of this province. In recent years you would make money betting that B.C. would be in the red four years out of five. The party opposite could manage it only twice in ten years, and that relied on risky electrical arbitrage in the state of California, where the final accounting has yet to be done.

Proving that governments of our past held no monopoly on fiscal deficiency, balanced budgets are also becoming rare in that great empire to the south. In the United States, governments now contemplate deficits equal to 5 percent of their gross domestic product. By that yardstick, our Finance minister would be presenting a budget in the deficit range of $7 billion. Our Finance minister's and our government's local accomplishments here in this province are all the more laudable in light of what's going on in the good old U.S.A. Congratulations, minister.

Our friends across the aisle are the first to protest that the government accomplished this feat on the backs of the poor, the disabled, students and the sick. I say baloney to that. Let's look at the record.

In their final four years in government, the NDP increased health spending by only $1.8 billion — only $1.8 billion. Cheapskates, I say. In four years of B.C. Liberal government, health spending will have gone up by $2.2 billion.

In their final four years in government, the NDP increased education spending by only $822 million. Pikers, I say. In four years of B.C. Liberal government, education spending will have gone up by $932 million, even though the number of students has gone down.

In their final four years in government, the NDP increased social services spending by about $164 million. I say jobs are better than handouts. In four years the B.C. Liberal government will have reduced social services spending by more than half a billion dollars, and that's a lot. Over 85,000 people no longer rely on income assistance, and the majority — 60 percent, according to the surveys — leave for employment, earning two or three times what they were given by the government. The money saved is helping fund the

Getting a job is not a hardship, but don't expect applause from those who believe the ideal economy is one where half of the people are on welfare and the other half work for the government — and that seems to be the model that is frequently suggested — and who also, bald facts notwithstanding, prattle on endlessly about cuts to health care and education. I say: where are the cuts in light of the numbers I've just read to you?

Furthermore, of all the provinces in Canada, none has created more jobs than British Columbia. Surely this merits NDP applause and not their condemnation. To put it another way, this Finance minister has managed to maintain and even expand the government services network on which society relies, even while creating a more competitive free enterprise business and tax environment. Surely that policy combination is in the best Canadian tradition.

We're once more indebted to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for spelling out the alternatives — as, indeed, their charter suggests they do — and they've done it again. Just like last year, CCPA missiles again trundled through Red Square, but with a new leader, Carole James, in her greatcoat admiring it all from the reviewing stand atop Lenin's mausoleum. Let's give credit where credit is due. British Columbians should be grateful to the prior NDP government for sending a couple of hundred thousand dollars over to their friends at the CCPA, thereby preserving a living museum of socialist ideology which might otherwise have been lost forever.

Once more, we have a through-the-looking-glass glimpse of how life would be should the NDP be in power today. Lewis Carroll would marvel at their economic tonic, starting with the upbeat title of their report: We've invited the world. They're coming. And the place is a mess. To encourage tidiness, they will introduce three big measures. No. 1 is an incentive-based corporate tax system that rewards companies willing to meet provincial, economic, social and environmental objectives with "carrots and sticks" — their phrase — with the carrots and sticks no doubt defined by the CCPA team. Yeah, that'll do it — nothing tidier than a lot of empty office buildings downtown.

The second is a public investment bank — these people love banks — to provide access to capital, particularly non-profit and cooperative ventures. Yup, that'll do it. Under the new Carole James regime, there will be a lot of non-profit ventures — unfortunately, not all of them planned.

Finally, taxes up by 27 percent overall, on the optimistic assumption that taxpayers stoically sit there and just take it. However, British Columbians are mobile. Stock tip: buy WestJet.

But we must concede that the decreased traffic on our roads, the empty restaurants and the fewer kids to educate would certainly help fulfil the centre's tidiness objective. Here we see the proposed world of Carole James and the new NDP as advised by the CCPA. It features the highest tax rates in North America; a deficit budget for at least six years; income tax hikes of 40 percent for those earning between $32,000 and $65,000, squarely targeting card-carrying union members; and an adjustable-rate business tax, fluctuating with the tides of political correctness in Victoria.

Lest we forget, let's remember what happened last time when under the influence of this type of advice, the NDP ruled B.C. We had a forest industry hog-tied by David Zirnhelt's famous 12-foot-shelf Forest Practices Code. I see the minister smile. The mining industry fled to more hospitable Mongolia. Public servants were not granted raises for years under the influence of union bosses more interested in expanding the membership base than their salaries. Doctors and nurses were fed up with the above and demanded huge catch-up increases from the new government and got them. A health system was structured around 52 boards — well meaning but unworkable.

The economy, on most national indicators, went from first to last. Having done their best to promise everything to everybody, the NDP shovelled a whole bunch of money overboard as they headed for the lifeboats, attached this great big anchor of unmet promises to the sinking ship, tossed it overboard, paddled ashore and hid until the election was over. As a final legacy, the NDP left us with an economy in recession. We now know that in their final term, GDP shrank. In 2001 gross domestic product actually shrank for the first time in 20 years. It was a wobbly platform for the new government to build on and all the more reason to applaud the Finance minister's accomplishment.

As we head into another election, we will all be subjected to more rhetoric about this government's policy of tax cuts for the rich. The argument is made that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. I believe they do, in particular the 25 percent tax cut we gave to low-income persons — for example, resulting in persons earning $30,000 paying the lowest taxes in all of Canada. That's what it said in today's Province newspaper. Let's agree to call it the low-income tax cut from now on.

Do tax cuts like this pay for themselves? In fiscal 2000, the last full year prior to the election, tax revenues were $13.8 billion. In 2005 tax revenues will be $14.2 billion. We've caught up. The taxes have paid for themselves, I argue. Yes, user fees also increased significantly — can't deny that. But more important factors were more jobs — over two million for the first time. This translates into more taxpayers, encouraging people to come here instead of leave. Last quarter, for the first time, there was net in-migration from the rest of Canada into British Columbia instead of people leaving, encouraging higher-income people — and this is huge — who pay the lion's share of the personal income tax base, to move here and file income tax returns in British Columbia for the first time. Under this government's personal income tax regime, we can now recruit managers, academicians and scientists from

around the world but particularly from the United States. They're glad to move here because of not only the quality of life but a friendly personal tax environment. This is big stuff.

Another factor: encouraging businesses to stay instead of moving to Calgary or elsewhere. We've yet to see a surge of returning head offices, but at least the outflow has been staunched. Flight Centre is leading the way, and there will be more, I am sure — more tax dollars for the Finance minister. In short, tax cuts pay for themselves, and British Columbia offers the case evidence.

I was highly annoyed to pick up the January issue of a local business magazine featuring a picture of our Premier on the cover and the headline stating: "Where's the Prosperity?" What a curious question. Prosperity is all around us. Wake up. Evidence abounds that British Columbia is in the early stages of a massive economic turnaround, and we ain't seen nothing yet. I'll stake my Harvard degrees, my Royal Bank credentials and my Starbucks coffee mug on it. We all fall into the trap of looking for the blockbuster announcements: Glen Clark's three aluminum smelters — or was it seven? I kind of lost track — or, worse yet, his three aluminum ferries.

Forget the blockbusters. In the twenty-first century economic growth is achieved one dollar at a time. It's achieved by smaller enterprises. The relics of the past, such as the major steel companies — not to pick on them, but they do stand out — will soon be forgotten. As structural changes occur, the emerging smaller, more entrepreneurial, more agile enterprises are harder for the journalists to track. We can appreciate that, but maybe we should excuse them when enterprise growth is unnoticed.

The most compelling statistic telling us that economic growth is occurring is employment — not unemployment but employment. Unemployment tends to measure how many people come here sensing opportunity. You might even say that in British Columbia a high unemployment rate is a measure of success because people are here thinking they're going to find work — and of course they do.

Rather, employment. Jobs are growing, and hourly wages are going up. While individual month's statistics may bob and weave and may be used selectively to illustrate whatever point the speechmaker has in mind, the annual wage trend is quite clear. Average annual wage rates in B.C. have increased without interruption for over seven years and continue to do so. Furthermore, wage rates are increasing faster than inflation. So real wages are, in fact, going up. So let's just stop the debate right here. The NDP need read no further. The policies inherent in this budget are doing what the government set out to do: improve the lives of ordinary people here in British Columbia.

To illustrate the mechanism by which this is happening, let's take a quick tour around the province. Continental Airlines recently signed a ten-year maintenance contract with Abbotsford-based Cascade Aerospace, which will create an additional 200 jobs in the Fraser Valley. According to Deloitte and Touche, B.C. has 15 of Canada's 50 top growing high-tech companies. We're tied with Ontario in that regard. Electronic Arts out in Burnaby is adding over 35,000 square metres of studio space to its software operation centre in Burnaby — encouraged, no doubt, by extension of the research development tax credit. Red Chris mine near Iskut in northwestern British Columbia is close to entering the permit stage. It will employ upwards of 350 people, including many first nations.

The Ministry of Forests has awarded an employees' group the operation of the Skimikin Nursery near Salmon Arm, and they plan to expand this sapling nursery.

B.C. is back on the charts, attracting 43 percent of all immigrant investors to Canada — the highest since 1997.

Vancouver has become one of North America's leaders in biotechnology. In recognition of this, Merck Frosst recently gave a $31 million research grant to the Children's Hospital in Vancouver.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority has started construction of a new $9 million cruise terminal. Container facilities contemplated to service CN–BCR's new service from Rupert to the American Midwest and back again will, I think, provide extraordinary stimulus for Prince Rupert.

Harrison Hot Springs Resort is investing $16 million in improved facilities — just picking some examples at random.

Flight Centre is moving its North American headquarters here, as I already mentioned.

Dunkley mills north of Quesnel is investing $50 million to build a new 90,000-square-foot sawmill.

The Fort Nelson first nation has entered into an $8 million partnership with Ensign Drilling to own and operate an oil rig.

The greater Victoria film industry brought in $24 million of direct production spending.

In my own back yard, North Vancouver's $400 million redevelopment of the lower Lonsdale area business and residential core was recently announced by Mayor Barbara Sharp. This project has been in the works for many years, and we now see its culmination.

Over $5 billion of public infrastructure spending is taking off, ranging from the RAV line to the Sea to Sky Highway to the new Fraser crossing to the Kicking Horse Canyon portal from Alberta to new Olympic facilities to water treatment facilities on the North Shore, and on and on and on. I think I've probably underestimated the sum.

Finally, the sleeper in the budget is probably the new IFC legislation, which grants our province unique tax privileges — not available in Ontario at all, by the way; this is not very well understood — heretofore only available to Quebec. We've got it. We've got the legislation on the books. It will be shortly, and it's go-

ing to be a tremendous boost not just to Vancouver but to every community in the heartlands.

Headline writers take note: the economy cup is more than half full. It will soon be overflowing. The contrast with the dismal NDP years is so striking that I don't hesitate to judge that most of this is due to the policies and budgets of this government.

Now that the books are being balanced, it may do well to contemplate a couple of policy issues we'll have to face up to in the longer term. I won't dwell on them, but let me just flag them in passing.

The growth of the health sector. Health spending is growing at about 7 percent per year, maybe even faster in some years. That's the longer-term trend in recent years. The economy is only growing half that fast. The health sector continues to expand its share of the economy and its share of government budgets from the low of 40 percent. I heard someone speculate it might eventually reach 50 percent of the budget. Its share of the economy, now 10 percent or 11 percent in B.C., is already at 15 percent in the bellwether United States. Is that a harbinger of things to come? What are the fiscal and management consequences of a government that is half health care and half everything else? I don't believe we've begun to seriously consider the consequences, but it does illustrate that the system must change, and that is what we are trying to do.

A second issue that merits some sober contemplation — and one I know the Solicitor General has tried repeatedly to focus our minds on — is the growth of the underground economy, particularly the criminal underground economy, in British Columbia. The situation we face, if I could steal an anecdote from the member for Sunshine Coast, was reported in a recent newspaper story from that part of the world.

It seems a local member of the Sunshine Coast regional government — this is an elected official; this is part of our leadership in this province — noticed that logging didn't have the occupational vitality it once had. He suggested to the media that the police should back off to allow marijuana grow ops the full opportunity to fill the void in logging. This is what our leadership is saying up there. Expand this to approximately $5 billion, and the magnitude of this one underground sector…. It's by no means the only one. This one underground sector — unregulated, untaxed, dangerously criminal and illegal — is, in my view, both frightening and cause for longer-term fiscal reflection. This is a huge chunk of the economy, and it impacts all of us — but merely looked at in economic terms; forget about the criminal dimensions.

Summing up, as I contemplate the future, please forgive me if my thoughts turn again to Will Shakespeare. British Columbia is a small place — only four million people in a sea of 400 million on this continent, only 1 percent in a sea of four billion around the world, a fraction of 1 percent. What can this tiny enterprise we call British Columbia accomplish, and how?

We've already accomplished a great deal. We've created a quality of life ranked first in the world by objective observers. We've protected the unmatched splendour of our environment. We live healthy lifestyles which are the envy of demographers and health scientists around the world. We educate our people to first-class standards.

How can we create the conditions by which this small, talented, robust group of people assembled here from all over the world…? How can this group take on the world and win? It's a brave goal.

On another field, almost 600 years ago an English king rallied his heavily outnumbered troops with these words: "The fewer the men, the greater the share of the honour." Let this government be remembered for its valour, for the fights it has fought and won, and for the integrity of its purpose: to create a better British Columbia for ourselves and for our grandchildren.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to respond to the budget.

In his opening remarks to the budget speech yesterday, the Minister of Finance stopped short of declaring 2003 an annus horribilis. Instead, he said it was marked by an unforeseeable and unparalleled string of natural disasters. That was an understatement, especially when you include, as I will, the string of man-made disasters inflicted upon British Columbians by this government. Thankfully, they were forced to retreat from some of these horrendous decisions.

The Finance minister said that we had faced some of the toughest challenges we had ever seen. I'm wondering: is that an admission, or is he seeking sympathy for the government's mishandling of the various situations?

He went on to applaud the people of British Columbia for rising to the occasion. The same cannot be said for the government, except when they retreated in the face of a population angered at the war waged upon them by their own government, who are part and parcel of these hardships which they did little to alleviate.

This is not the time to turn back or change course, the Finance minister warned. What got us here were tough decisions, he maintained. I ask the Finance minister and the Premier: just where are we today? The people of B.C. will tell you. They have told you many times, but you won't listen.

Hard times are where we are today — not just yesterday, today. In this day of the so-called balanced budget, the Finance minister says: "That was what we inherited." I'm wondering: how long can this government continue to blame others for their mismanagement of taxpayer money and abuse of every British Columbian in this ideological war they continue to wage, where money is placed above the dignity and the rights of people?

The minister said that the story of B.C. today embodies the Spirit of 2010. Hopefully, the Spirit of 2010 will not reflect the spirit of 2001 through 2003. God forbid that should be the case.

This government likes to do something. It likes to turn the clock and the calendar back to 1999 and for-

ward to 2010, hoping the annus horribilis — that is the times this government has presided over — will somehow disappear. Steadily, under this government, each year has progressively worsened, despite their retreating from some of the mean-spirited decisions they have tried to force through. Now we are faced with more promises, as there were each previous year, and claims that the corner has been turned towards that elusive prosperity and the golden new era.

Government funding is increasing, we are told, but I note this is mainly to ministries that have failed to achieve their promised mandate or are in some difficulty. In fact, such bailouts are merely bucket brigade bailouts to stop those ships from sinking. What has happened to the across-the-board restraint and cutbacks that this government touted and proclaimed so arrogantly?

The original agenda is in disarray with no cohesive program to replace it. Mere paper and mere words, the Finance minister's prognostications will be tested when the rubber meets the road — out where the average British Columbian lives and works, including the so-called heartlands.

The minister says we have weathered the economic storms of the past few years. I'm wondering where he has been living — Hawaii? The only place the government has seen fit to hold the line of fiscal restraint is with those groups the polls reveal as being the least likely to have public opinion on their side. Health care workers and doctors are among these. It is a scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours government, emboldened by public opinion. The minister says no to teachers and yes to students, no to doctors and yes to patients, no to government workers and yes to the public. Great-sounding words, but I am not at all optimistic that students will find a "yes" to their needs in this speculative budget, and neither will the long-suffering B.C. public.

As a Liberal, I am shocked at the Machiavellian ideology this government has tried to implement, but not at the whirlwind these policies have been reaping even to this day of supposed budgetary success. It's like calling the rehabilitation of a bank robber successful because he no longer employs a gun but rather resorts to a knife.

With this government, I say, "I'm from Missouri," and I say: "Show me that B.C. is a better place for British Columbians today." Show me that this government has people at the heart of its policies. Show me that this government is rehabilitated and is now truly listening to the people as the Premier claims. No, I am forced to take a wait-and-see attitude to this budget and to the government that has produced it.

So, how good or bad is the economic situation in B.C.? Let's hear it from the horse's mouth. The following quotes are from the Minister of Finance as given in the budget speech: "We will have the balanced budget as promised by the Premier, in spite of a decade of decline and of people losing hope, of them giving up on British Columbia and of young people leaving the province. The Premier promised to turn this around, and he has," claimed the minister.

Despite all this negative news and the disasters that have damaged the economy, the Finance minister says he expects the government to end 2003-04 with a balanced budget and a deficit of, in his words "only $1.7 billion." This is the truth, he said in the budget speech, because the government passed a law that they have to tell the truth about how they handle taxpayers' money. He said: "There is no longer the ability in B.C. for governments to push a deficit onto Crown corporations or organizations such as school districts." Mr. Minister, how enlightening. He went on to say: "The budget we are presenting today shows the whole picture." Again, how enlightening — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Also looming above all British Columbians like a dark storm cloud is the spectre of the $39 billion provincial debt, which has grown by approximately $6.5 billion since the B.C. Liberals came to power in 2001. For a province of four million people, that is the most massive debt I have ever heard of. By the way, $39 billion is the same debt as the state of California with a population, in contrast to British Columbia, of 37 million people — which has crippled them. Their debt load is so heavy that they have called on Arnold Schwarzenegger to help lift it. We don't have an Arnold, so the heavy lifting is all up to the backs of the people of British Columbia. I very much doubt we have seen the end of that story.

I'm no accountant. The Finance minister, a former airline pilot and flight instructor, wisely relies on bean-counters and accountants to give him the goods. What does the average B.C. taxpayer do to get answers? Well, they rely in part on people like myself to ask questions in an attempt to hold this government to account. I tell you that they, too… Most of them are from Missouri when it comes to this legislative body. "Show me; tell me. Is it so?" Time will tell, and I would say that time is not on this government's side.

B. Kerr: I'm glad to hear that our member for Prince George–Omineca thinks debt should be reduced and the debt is a burden on our future generations, because that's one area where I do agree with him.

I've got a confession to make, because last night I was a lamb led to slaughter. Fortunately, nobody was watching. I was on the Moe Sihota show. He did what some of the other opposition members have done. He got into the minutiae of the budget. We were there for an hour, and he got in and started hammering us on the minutiae of the budget. Quite clearly, it was difficult. I didn't know some of the answers.

I would like to get on the record what I should have said, so I can get it off my chest and say it now. When he was asking me a question that was on a $2 million item on page 65 of the Estimates, I should have really stopped him right there. I should have said: "Moe, we have a $30 billion budget. It's balanced. It's going to increase the economy. It's going to create more jobs. It's going to put 25,000 more students back in university and lower the averages that they need to get into uni-

versity. We're going to put a billion dollars more into health care. We're going to put $300 million more to education. Why are you talking to me about $2 million?" That's what I should have said, and I didn't. Instead, I tried to answer the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: But the same number of viewers are watching this that watched last night.

B. Kerr: Well, that's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping the same number of viewers are watching this now, so I can say the right things and balance the record.

He asked me another question on unemployment. Instead I listened to him when I should have said, "Wait a sec," like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. "Let's talk about the jobs that are created. For the first time ever two million people are working in British Columbia. We are number one in new job growth. Don't talk to me about unemployment. Talk to me about employment and about opportunities in British Columbia." That's what I should have said. I didn't, so I apologize. Now I got that off my chest, and I feel much better. I hope the same number of people are watching that were watching his show.

I said before that every so often as I sit in this House, things are said or events take place which reinforce why I got into politics. The last time was in November when the member for Vancouver-Hastings railed on about the government because CN Rail might make a profit. She was prepared to forgo any economic development in the north along with added jobs, because CN was going to make a profit. That's what sets her government apart from ours. We don't agree that profit is a four-letter word. We believe profit or its potential is what drives business. When business sees the potential for profit, it invests. It's that investment that creates jobs and economic prosperity.

That incident is but one of many reasons why I entered into politics. Going back to the beginning, it was a lack of any desire by the previous government to manage the debt and balance the budget. Balancing the budget was foremost in my mind. It was the reason why I put my personal life on hold to enter into public life. So I'm relieved. I'm pleased. To quote my colleague from Prince George–Mount Robson: "I'm even excited that on this, our penultimate budget in our first term, we have balanced the budget."

When I say balanced, I mean this will be a balanced budget according to generally accepted accounting principles. This budget does not have any qualifiers like the last balanced budget of the NDP. That budget, buried away back on page 95…. The Finance minister at that time admitted that although the budget was balanced, meeting the goals of that budget could not actually be met. In other words, their budget, to quote the recent words of the president of the BCMA, was "just a piece of paper."

Generally accepted accounting principles is a very important concept. British Columbia is the first province to present its budget according to GAAP. What does this mean? This means that for the first time, the auditor general will not have to qualify his audit report in the consolidated accounts. It also means there could be no chicanery in the books. I remember a former government budget…. They brought $450 million into the books that really made the financial picture look much brighter. Under generally accepted accounting principles, this $450 million would never have shown in the books. As it was, the government was forced to write off that amount the following year. I believe this was the first fudge-it budget.

Quite frankly, these last few years have been brutal. It started with the recognition and the meltdown of the high-tech economy. Then we were faced with 9/11, the softwood lumber dispute, SARS and its effect on tourism, forest fires, floods and BSE. I know it's taken a tremendous amount of discipline to stay focused on balancing the budget. With all the excuses available it would have been easy to postpone it, but some government at some time must have the conviction, the courage and the fortitude to suffer the slings and arrows and do what is right, not what is easy. On behalf of my grandchildren, who will benefit from this budget, I would like to give my sincere thanks to the minister for showing such courage and conviction.

I served on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It was our responsibility to travel the province and seek out input on what the public thought should be included in the budget and what priorities the government should set when the money is available. We travelled through 11 different communities and received over 200 submissions from people from all walks of life.

What did we hear? First, we heard from almost every presenter to stay the course and balance the budget. Second, we heard them say stay focused on economic development. We also heard them say we must address the skill-shortage issue. Has the minister listened? Let's look at what's in the budget. To begin with, we did just as we promised and the budget is balanced. We projected $100 million surplus this year, and in fact we're not stopping there. We're projecting increased surpluses for the next two years. With only four balanced budgets in 24 years, we're very proud of our ability to hand down three in a row starting this year.

We're investing $1.3 billion to bring out the best in health care and education. We're putting more than $300 million right into education over the next three years. We're going to put $105 million into post-secondary education. This budget puts $1 billion into health care, over $1 billion into transportation infrastructure, over $170 million into our forests and $17 million into offshore oil and gas. It sounds to me like the minister was listening to British Columbians.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned there had been pivotal points to reinforce my decision as to why I entered politics, and I would like to compare our government's budget to the alternative budget that was presented last week. This was offered by the NDP

think tank. This is on the website; anybody can see it. Under their budget, taxes would increase to some citizens by over 100 percent. The deficit would carry on until 2010 and most likely beyond. Corporate taxes would increase considerably, with the proviso that tax credits would be offered for companies that follow the government's social program.

Didn't the opposition learn anything from their time in office? We have worked so hard to encourage companies to invest in B.C. We have worked so hard to bring investment back to the province after years of decline, and our policies have been working. Virtually every economic indicator is up. In most categories B.C. is first or second in Canada. If that's not good news, I don't know what is.

Our government has been a government of development and growth. Building permits are up. The value of building permits in British Columbia grew 13 percent in 2003, and that's well above the national average of 7½ percent. We are leaders in Canada. The value of residential permits is up 16.2 percent — nearly double the national average. That's exciting news.

We had almost $6.4 billion worth of building starts in B.C. alone last year. That's $6.4 billion of investment, $6.4 billion worth of growth. We're predicted to be the only one of two provinces in all of Canada expected to continue to grow in housing starts. We're anticipated to increase housing developments by 3.2 percent, and that's the most growth in housing in Canada. The best part of this is that the same survey predicted continuing growth right through 2005. We are growing, and it is not just a short-term thing.

There is only one reason that new homes are needed, and that's because more people are working and more families are growing. Since the end of 2001 there have been nearly 160,000 new jobs in British Columbia. This is the kind of news that tells us we're right on track. We set out to improve B.C.'s economy, to get people back to work and to rebuild British Columbia, and we're doing it. Because of the leadership of our Premier and his cabinet, we now have more people in B.C. working than ever before.

The economic recovery we have been experiencing is inspiring more than just me. Consumer confidence in B.C. is the highest in Canada. Despite having economic powerhouses like Ontario and Alberta to compete with, we are number one. And why not? We have vast resources that they're now allowing us to be developed. We have the most livable city in the world, we have the most beautiful parks in the world, and we have the most beautiful island in all of the Americas.

B.C. has everything to offer, and now that we've opened ourselves up again, the world is taking notice. In fact, 2003 was the first year in the last six where more people moved to B.C. than moved out. I'm so excited about this news; it's great to hear that B.C. is doing so well.

And 2004 is going to be another stellar year for B.C. According to TD Bank forecasts, we're going to have the second-highest GDP growth in the country. Some economists expect 3.3 percent GDP growth this year. That's $4 billion worth of GDP growth. We're well above the national average. This is just one more example of how we are taking the lead in B.C.

Small and medium-sized businesses play an exceptionally vital role in B.C.'s growth and are a large part of why we're continuing to grow so impressively. In fact, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, our small and medium-sized businesses are more confident than their counterparts in any other part of Canada, and that says a lot about the leadership of our Premier and our government.

When the people who take on the risk and responsibility of starting up and running a small business feel comfortable investing their time and money in B.C., it acts as an incentive for the larger investors to make that same decision also. Because of the growing confidence, the number of small businesses increased for the first time in 2002, after three years of back-to-back decline.

We should also make no mistake. Individual small businesses may be small, but small businesses play no small role in our economy. Fifty-eight percent of the jobs in this province come from small businesses. When small business does well, B.C. does well. Thirty percent of our GDP comes from small businesses. With 58 percent of the jobs and 30 percent of the GDP, it's hardly fair for us to call them small business. This entrepreneurial spirit is what drives B.C. to become the best province in the whole country.

Right here in Victoria we've seen record-breaking TV and film production. This is a 63 percent increase over 2002. That's $23.8 million invested right here in the capital region. It is undeniably that 6 percent tax credit for labour costs and filming outside greater Vancouver…. We are really bringing out the best in British Columbia.

We also believe in getting the government out of the business of running businesses. Our partnership with CN Rail to operate B.C. Rail is going to make B.C. the hub of trade between Asia and North America. Prince Rupert will be revitalized when almost all the trade traffic from Asia goes through it, but the benefits of B.C. Rail aren't limited to the North Coast. By paying off B.C. Rail's debt, it's going to save the province $30 million every year.

In B.C. we're excited about the 2010 games that are going to be in Vancouver and Whistler. With the development of tourism we're going to see as a result of these games, it is going to blow everybody away. I'm sure of it. The spirit of B.C. is evident in the growth we are seeing now and will continue to see over the next six years and beyond.

Vancouver is a world-class city in a world-class province. This province has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years and will continue to do so. I'm proud of the work done by our government and our Premier. B.C. is open for business, and the business is coming.

Now the opposition would chase these companies back across the border with their draconian tax cuts and their spend-deficit financing measures. During the

term of their office over 500 companies moved to Alberta. Alberta has far more head offices than B.C. Make no mistake. Head offices bring a huge advantage to their communities.

I would like to explain, simply, why tax cuts are so important. I would like to bring it down into the grocery business. Let's assume you run a small grocery store but find that because of the competition, high wage costs and possibly poor management, you are not able to show a profit. This means you can't expand or purchase new equipment to make your store more efficient.

You see, profits are necessary lifeblood for corporations. Without profits, companies can't survive, but that's not the point. My point is that if you were an NDP manager, you would merely say: "Well, I need more money, so why don't I raise the price of milk to $10 per jug and the price of a loaf of bread to $5. Then I will have all the money I need." Well, you know what would happen if you followed that path. Nobody would shop in your store.

It is no different for this province. If we raise taxes to corporations, why would they invest in this province when there are so many other places to invest? If we raise taxes to our doctors up to 40 percent as suggested by the NDP budget — and in some cases 105 percent — they'll go elsewhere. What about our nurses and teachers, who are also going to find their taxes taking a huge increase — up to 40 percent?

This doesn't include the huge hidden tax on our children by carrying successive deficit budgets year after year after year. Make no mistake. It is our children and grandchildren that will be paying the interest on those deficits, and that interest will have a huge effect on their ability to pay for the social programs they need.

I looked at the alternative budget they presented, even further. Mr. Speaker, they plan to set up a bank to compete with real banks. Didn't they learn from the Four Corners fiasco? They're now going to run a deficit so they can finance the bank. Private sector banks know their businesses — we all know, when you negotiate with your banker — better than any government could ever know the banking business.

That is the difference between them and us. They would raise taxes without considering the consequences. They would increase the deficit without any thought to the future. They would build a huge bureaucracy under the guise of social spending, without any thought as to how the costs would be paid by future generations. They would drive business from the province and slide us back to the decade of decline.

Under the proposed NDP budget, they would be increasing taxes and still be unable to balance the budget. Not only would they be unable to balance the budget this year, but not even next year. Under the NDP's proposed budget, they wouldn't have a balanced budget into 2010. I believe they would never balance the budget because they wouldn't have the courage and fortitude to do that. The NDP wants to tax and spend this province into fiscal oblivion. We've brought ourselves from last place to first place since the NDP left office, and I don't want to see us go back there.

Under the NDP budget the average family in B.C. would face up to a 40 percent tax increase. Under their budget they would take nearly $3 billion more in taxes. That's $3 billion of discretionary spending they're taking out of the economy.

We've had a huge increase in housing starts, and we've had huge housing sales. One of the reasons we've done that is because take-home pay has increased. What do young families do? They look at their take-home pay, and they say: "How much money am I taking? What's my mortgage going to be? I can buy a house." Take that $3 billion discretionary spending away, and we would have hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands, of families that would never be able to afford to live in a house or send their children to university. Access would be denied. That's $3 billion they're taking away from working British Columbians — so much for sticking up for the worker.

The NDP wants to raise taxes and increase the deficit, and that just doesn't make sense. It's not good enough for the NDP to make us pay for their waste; they want to saddle our children and our grandchildren with it too.

The path we've set out for ourselves is a path that has worked in other parts of Canada, other successful parts of Canada. It's hard to believe, but it wasn't that long ago that Canada's economic superpower, our neighbour Alberta, itself had a deficit. In 1993 when Ralph Klein took office, Alberta faced more than a $2 billion deficit. They promised to have a balanced budget by 1997, and in fact they had it sooner. Alberta's success is a testament to fiscal responsibility and staying the course. It's no wonder business left British Columbia under the NDP and went to Alberta.

When we came to office, we made promises, and we're keeping them. We promised to maintain health and education funding, and we have. We promised to cut red tape, and we have. We promised to make B.C. the best province in Canada in which to do business and to live, and we have. We promised to balance the budget, and as of yesterday we have.

I got into politics to help bring our economy back in line, and I have to say that today I feel pretty satisfied with the work we've done. We have some of the best-paid professionals in Canada, we have a world-class health care system, we have some of the best schools in Canada, we have the best cities and the best islands in the Americas, and we are truly bringing out the best in B.C. and in Canada.

I'm glad that the NDP gave us a choice by coming out with an alternate budget, because the choice is simple. I choose a balanced budget, freeing our children and grandchildren from the shackles of debt. I choose a budget that keeps our taxes at the lowest possible rate. I choose a budget that encourages business investment. I choose a budget that creates jobs. I choose a budget with a proven track record. I choose a budget

that has taken British Columbia from the worst position, under the NDP, back to first.

I choose a budget which will make British Columbia the best province in Canada to live, to work, to invest, to play and ultimately to retire. I choose to live in British Columbia because it is the best place in Canada to live, and I want to see that for my children and for my grandchildren and for their grandchildren.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and speak to the budget debate, for a number of reasons. I look back at when I first came to this House in 1996 through to 2001. I saw the inability of a group that probably never had to do anything more than collect a paycheque — never actually had to make a decision to make an investment or meet a payroll or decide how to make an investment — take my province and my future and my grandchildren's future and my children's future down the road to disaster.

When this government came into place in 2001, we had made some commitments to British Columbia, and one of them was to balance the budget. It was probably the cornerstone commitment to the people of this province.

Everybody knows that if you continue to spend more than you take in, you eventually go broke. Everybody knows that if you cannot find efficiencies in how you operate your business or your home or your daily life to meet what you have coming in and you're not prepared to make the changes to do those things, you find yourself in financial trouble. Everybody knows that you have to make prudent investments at the beginning of a plan in order for the end of the plan to work.

Could you imagine somebody today saying that they still wanted to build automobiles on the same assembly line as they built the Model-T, because they refused to change and modernize and make additional investments so they could improve their efficiencies and deliver their product to marketplace? Could you imagine that somebody said: "We're going to stay with wire and never do fibre optics because we only have wire and don't want to find anything new that we can do for efficiencies and improvement of our business"? Could you imagine if you never invested in your infrastructure? You just watched the roads go downhill, the rails go downhill and never actually opened an airport or made it larger so you can actually attract people to come to your country.

That's the philosophy of a socialist. The philosophy of a socialist is: let's take everybody else's money, give it to special interests and friends and insiders, and never actually do what is right for the future business plan of a province or a country or a community.

Back in 2001 we undertook a core review of government. It was no easy thing to do. We had to look at how government did business. We actually had to take a step outside the box and ask, first of all: is this program or this expenditure core to what government should be providing to our citizens? Then, once we made that decision: is this the best way to deliver to the people that are citizens of our communities?

We found a whole number of things out there that were being funded by the previous government in certain ways that had excess administration, excess overheads and very poor delivery on actual services to people in our communities. We saw that in such a way that we noticed that we had to actually change how the people did government. We did that as we moved forward to get to a balanced budget and at the same time try and find a way we can improve services and improve funding to our communities to build a strong future for the people of this province.

As you do that, there are a number of confidences you've got to bring back into your society. First of all, you have people internationally — whether it be bond-rating agencies or the banking industry or investors — who look at your jurisdiction and ask this: "Are these guys going to manage their province in such a way and change their structure in such a way that it makes sense for us to make an investment in their province?" When we became government, we had a high level of personal income tax, so we cut it by 25 percent. We had a punitive tax on investment, called the corporate capital tax, in this province which pushed people away from building a mill or making an investment in this province because of the ongoing cost. To tax somebody's actual risk money in an investment to create jobs in your jurisdiction is absolute nonsense as far as wanting to let people know that you are a place for business.

As we laid out our plan over the last few years and started to put in three-year plans in a cycle and build towards a balanced budget that in a three-year planning cycle is now going to be balanced in three successive years with surpluses, we did that knowing that if we did, we would start to have a whole shift in how people looked at British Columbia. The shift would be that investment would come back, that confidence in this province's ability to deliver on the international stage would come back, and that the confidence of its own people as we created jobs and saw an increase in jobs would come back.

More importantly, as we did that, we would also make the tough decisions that would allow us to revitalize our key sectors of forestry, mining, tourism and other job creation areas. You have to do that with the confidence that you know you're doing it right, with the confidence that you know at times you're going to have to adjust your plan, and with the confidence that you know at the end of the day your province and the people you represent will be better for it.

On July 2 one of the most significant international bodies in this world showed confidence in British Columbia, as the International Olympic Committee awarded the 2010 Games to British Columbia. Now, they awarded those games to this province because they saw a number of things. They saw a vision and stability in the Premier of the province of British Columbia. They saw stability in their government, and

they saw stability in the fact that we would actually be in a fiscal position through planning and balancing our budgets to make an investment in the Olympics and meet the commitment we made to them to pull off an international event.

By getting our fiscal house in order, we have actually saved our interest costs, we've lowered our bond rating and our interest costs, and that money can now flow to things like health care and education. I don't know that you would find a jurisdiction anywhere which, six years out from an international event like the Olympics, has already funded over 20 percent of its infrastructure costs, because they actually have some planning in place and they actually believe and know exactly what they're trying to accomplish.

What happens when you get this momentum with something like the 2010 Olympics is that along comes the 2006 World Junior Hockey Championship. What also comes along is the 2009 World Police and Fire Games — three significant international events to be staged in British Columbia in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In 2006 communities across this province will see international junior hockey in their communities, and three communities will host international games as part of the tournament. In 2009 the second-largest sporting event, by participant, in the world will come to Burnaby in the World Police and Fire Games.

I want to talk about that for a second, because I want to talk about two people — two firemen in Burnaby who put $2,500 (U.S.) on each of their Visa cards to pay the deposit to go after the World Police and Fire Games. They told their spouses after they did that. They then came to us as a government and asked if we could support them in the bid. There was support from the people at 2010, and there was support from the province. We met with the people, and they secured the bid. Over 13,000 people will come to participate in the World Police and Fire Games. The unique thing about that event is that most of them bring their family, because they turn it into their holiday for the year. In Barcelona there were over 12,000 people at the World Police and Fire Games.

This event will have a significant impact on the lower mainland, but it will also give us the opportunity to actually test our volunteers in preparation for six months later, the 2010 Olympics, which — if you can think about it — will be the most significant thing that can happen on an international stage for our province since Expo 86. There are opening ceremonies that take place at the Olympics. At the Salt Lake City Olympics there were two billion people that watched the three-hour opening ceremonies.

If you went to any international company, any business anywhere, and said: "How would you like to have a three-hour full-paid commercial to two billion people about your business…?" Can you imagine that? All of those people are going to be looking at British Columbia. I remember the day a week ago, when I was walking over to do an interview at a radio station, in the sunshine. It was the day that was exactly six years away from the opening ceremony of the 2010 Olympics. There was snow on the North Shore mountains, the sun was out, there were ships in the harbour, and it was one of the most spectacular sights you could ever see. That's what people are going to see when the 2010 Olympics come to British Columbia.

All of this is possible because we have been gifted with a leader in our Premier who can focus on the ball and actually reach the goal to achieve something on behalf of the people of this province and who does not go out and seek the accolades to do it but rather builds a team to make it happen.

The winning of the 2010 Olympics is no different than the balanced budget. It takes leadership, and that leadership comes from the Premier, who, along with the Finance minister, has stayed the course. Frankly, sometimes for a minister that can be frustrating, as you think of some little thing that you think is more important and you have to be reminded, as a minister, what the long-term goal of the province is and that you have to keep your eye on the ball. Sometimes you have to suck it up and make the sacrifices that are necessary so that everybody will balance their budgets.

But as you move forward and you do this, there are a lot of things you can do. If you actually take the funds you spend on something and retarget them, great things can happen. I want to use one small example. We had victims programs in this province when I became the minister and we became government. We were given the challenge to see if we could improve that program within the envelope of money that exists today. We looked at the duplication. We looked at the over-administration. As a result of thinking outside the box — like the core review and all these other exercises taught us — we were able, within the funding envelope, to create 18 new police-based victims programs, on top of the ones that were already being funded, and five to seven new specialized victims programs in communities of over 100,000 people. We're able to do that because we focused our eye on the ball. The eye on the ball was: how can we get the maximum number of services to the victim within that budget? Not the eye on the ball that in the past would have seen: "Let's give a contract to some organization that is a friend of ours."

As we move forward, we have to remember that everything we've done in the last two and a half years is setting the stage for a great future. To achieve that great future, we have to stay the course. We have to remember that our own fiscal responsibility as members of government will continue to be challenged as we make sure that budget is balanced and we reach our goals in the next three years.

As we do that, we will continue to see things start to happen in this province. We will see, on top of the already great increase in investment in the mining industry, significantly more increase in investment. We will see our competitiveness start to be relished by other jurisdictions as they see the impact of cutting one-third of our red tape and regulations in the first three years, as they see how by retargeting our funds we can actually invest in the future and deliver better

on programs, and as they start to see how those changes and that focus will actually bring us better health care and education for our citizens. It will also show people how you can get to low unemployment and how you can actually create jobs, because you let the power of free enterprise do it for you.

A mistake of socialist governments is that they think they're job creators. A mistake of socialist governments is that they think they just need to go out and tax you more, as Carole James has told the people of this province, so that they can give you more of what they think you need and so they can tell you how to live your life and spend your money back to you. But you know, if that budget of Carole James and the NDP were ever to come forward in this province, all those people that have had the opportunity of home ownership — as the growth in housing starts and sales has grown in the last two years — would be facing an inability to pay their mortgages, because somebody would come along and take between 40 percent and 110 percent of their income in increased taxes in British Columbia. That's not acceptable. Leave the money in the pockets of the people who can make the best decisions as to where their money should be spent, and you will reinvigorate the economy and create jobs in British Columbia.

As we've gone through this to this budget, this budget outlines the money we're prepared to invest in forests — money that is needed so we can expand and enhance our timber sales to put ourselves on a more level playing field in competition with our neighbour to the south and eventually get to a long-term solution to the softwood lumber deal. It also allows us to invest money in salvage operations, something that has been called for by small salvage operators since I was elected to this Legislature in 1996.

We're also going to build on the Premier's efforts and the efforts of my colleague the Minister of Forests to open new markets for British Columbia timber as we go forward to actually say to people — and hear this here: "This is not a sunset industry; this is a sunrise industry. It's important to the future of the people of British Columbia, and we're going to work with it to make it better in the future, because we can actually think outside the box."

When we were in opposition, investment in mining reached an all-time low. It was actually disgusting. It was disgusting that there was a government which did not recognize that an investment in exploration led to significant investment in mines, which created very good-paying and sustainable long-term jobs for people in British Columbia. They didn't care. Their attitude was that you weren't welcome here.

We had people in my riding, people that I knew, who had been involved in mining for years — still living in British Columbia — who were doing all their investment in Chile. They were actually doing their business in other countries around the world because they told me the worst place to do it was in the very province that they came from. They told me the best geologists and engineers were actually going offshore to other countries because we were the worst place to do business.

Well, it has taken a lot of work, but you now see today the investment and the exploration in mining going up. We've actually made some changes on flow-through shares that can help us attract back the investment in British Columbia, but there's a lot more work to be done. We're going to do it because it's actually good for the people of the province.

You know, it really strikes me as interesting when I drive through the lower mainland of B.C. and I look up on a hillside and see it covered in homes. Homes from door to door, from wall to wall, from ceiling to ceiling — basically, a clearcut of a mountainside. A residential subdivision sits in a larger footprint than a mine that can create jobs for 30 or 40 years in British Columbia and can be reclaimed at the end of its lifetime.

It strikes me as amazing that people don't get the fact that mining is environmentally sustainable. Not only that, its mark on the landscape is like a pinprick on the side of a mountain, when you look at the landscape and the size and the breadth of this great province of ours. So, we're going to attract that investment.

If you listen to the opposition — and even the member for Prince George–Omineca, who seemed to believe that we shouldn't go after the resources of coalbed methane, natural gas and offshore oil and gas — they seem to think we shouldn't have that investment attracted into the province so that we can create jobs and wealth, which creates more jobs, which also helps us sustain health care and education. What it is, I guess, is that they feel they could never actually accept that people of a free enterprise government could have a good idea, that they could deliver on something they couldn't even get out of the front gate as far as a discussion was concerned.

We're fortunate in this province because we have the leadership of our Minister of Energy and Mines, who has actually gone after the improvement of the oil and gas sector. We have a caucus that had a mining task force that went looking at how we can improve the investment in mining in B.C. — a group of people who have all worked together to actually enhance how we can get investment on the ground. And it's working.

It's working because something innovative happens here. You can actually come and speak to government. You can actually have a conversation, and if it makes sense and it is environmentally sustainable, that government will move forward for the benefit of the people of the province and not for some special interest group that is not prepared to put real science on the table to justify their position that is opposed to a development.

We also know that as we build an economy, we need to build our educational process. That's why in this budget over half of the new post-secondary education positions that were promised by the Premier in the throne speech are being funded into 2006-07. Let's understand something here. The cost of a post-secondary

education on the tuition level is one of the lowest costs that people getting a university degree actually spend.

I've had a child go through post-secondary education. I can tell you that the food, the rent, the transportation, the books and then the tuition are all combined in a cost of education. If you have to take a year more or two years more or three years more because there aren't the courses for you, every single year is an exponential cost to your education. The goal has to be to get people into our post-secondary institutions sooner and to get them out in an expedited time with their degrees, so they can get into the workforce and contribute back to society.

You can't do that the way the socialists did. The socialists thought: "Let's freeze tuition and underfund, not fund, our post-secondary institutions." When we freeze tuition, there is less revenue to the post-secondary institution, but you can't get any more money from us. So what you do to cut costs is cut courses. You cut access. You cut opportunity. We happen to believe the investment in post-secondary education should be an expansion of opportunity, so a person can invest in their education and have the expectation of success in a timely manner. That's what we're going to accomplish by actually having our fiscal house in order in post-secondary education.

I sat here and watched these guys in opposition, the former socialist NDP government. I watched them talk and talk and talk about things like literacy skills and early childhood development, and never make a move or take an initiative. I've actually seen, in this government, us move forward with a plan to improve on all of that for our young people and for the people in general in this province. That's because we actually believe in planning for those things and following through on what we've committed to do.

I've seen us, because we put our fiscal house in order, being able to put an additional $2 billion into health care. Remember this, folks. It's not just the dollar; it's always how you spend the dollar. You also have to structure and restructure and redeploy how your resources are used within the health care system to get the efficiencies. As you do that, like in any other kind of change — whether it be the changes I mentioned when you're talking about an assembly line or people that are working in health care today — they also have to start to recognize that in a modern health care system, you can't have processes from the 1960s and the 1970s. You can't have shifting in areas where you have no efficiencies. You cannot have work areas where you can't actually give people the opportunity to grow in their careers and in their opportunities.

It's going to be a continuing challenge for us in health care — whether it be this government or any other provincial government or the federal government of this country — as we go forward, because we have an aging society. The cost of health care will increase. As we move along and deal with that, we have to understand there's always going to be tough choices to be made, which can only come from good planning and understanding the industry that you're dealing with.

One of the issues that's out there these days in our province, no different than any other, is crime. Now, it would not be prudent of me to give a speech with regard to the budget in this House or the throne response when I do that and not actually mention crime, as a person who is responsible for the police in British Columbia. I want to make it clear to this House that we have had the best working relationship with law enforcement probably in the last 20 years, in a relationship with this government, as they build a five-year plan to police the province.

I also want to make this clear. We have never cut the police budget. As we moved forward with the entire operation of this ministry, not once did we take a dime out of policing to put somewhere else. As a matter of fact, what we did, because there was a thirst to build a modern police organization, is bit the bullet on some technology called PRIME, which the members of this House have talked about. We bit the bullet on actually making an investment in capital funds for the future of policing. As a result of that, today we can honestly say we deploy our people better. We have more efficient information available for people that will only get better as we move forward.

We are going to continue to enhance the ability of not just the RCMP as our provincial police force but as the municipal forces where they are and with the municipal forces in the municipalities that their own police forces in an integrated manner….

We are actually making the tough decisions to break down the barriers that existed between jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction prejudices with regard to the fact that they didn't want to cooperate many years ago. We have broken that down through PRIME-BC. We now have an integrated homicide unit. We're building an integrated drug unit. We're actually building an integrated organized crime unit and finding out of that additional money to go into investigations on organized crime.

When we talk about that, often people tend to say: "Well, what really is it? What really is organized crime? What is crime in the province of British Columbia?" It all goes from different areas, but it flows from our drug trade, which are the marijuana grow ops. It flows up in cocaine, speed, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, the gun trade. It flows down into people needing to support their habits by going into petty crime, auto theft and those areas.

Frankly, the jurisdiction to the south of us in Washington State has only one attitude, and that is that they want punitive penalties in their state so people go do crime in British Columbia. We do continue and will have to continue to pressure the federal government and other jurisdictions on the criminal justice branch to give us some assistance so we can push back on these crimes with penalties that are meaningful and will actually act as a deterrent in our society.

One of the things you hear about is an organization called the Hell's Angels. Some people actually look at

this group of people with some nice colours on their backs and motorcycles, and they think they're just rebels with a cause. Well, the Hell's Angels in British Columbia are the franchise in organized crime. Not only are they the franchise, but they're also in these following countries with chapters throughout these countries: the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, England and Wales, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Bohemia, the Czech Republic and Portugal. They have prospect and hang-around gangs in places like Chile, Russia, Croatia and other countries.

This is an integrated organized crime group of people that we will, as we get our breakthroughs — and we will get our breakthroughs with our integrated organized crime unit — have to prosecute and deal with and push back on, because we don't want the message going that they're welcome in our province. As we move forward, we are going to deal with those issues on crime collectively as we push back and start to get our judicial system to reflect the standards of our community.

On the other side you will see the birth and the growth of what will be the great part of our community — thousands of volunteers involved in the world hockey championships, the 2009 World Police and Fire Games and the 2010 Olympics. You will see community group after community group coming forward and getting stronger on what they want to deliver to their communities, because the spirit of volunteerism and belief in their province is only going to get stronger.

It is time for British Columbia's children to actually see that there's an opportunity going forward in the future. It is the opportunity, and it is now time for the parents of those children to do the most significant thing on May 17, 2005, that they'll ever do for their children. That's to re-elect a free enterprise, B.C. Liberal government in British Columbia, because it will send the message to the world that the economic stability, the belief in balanced budgets and the belief in actually delivering on a plan are strident positions of the people that live in this great province of ours. It would only send the message that our children's and their children's opportunities are greatest in one single place in the world — in British Columbia, in the greatest country in the world.

As our children grow into that realization and as we do our thing, which is our responsibility to continue with the plan and build a future, we're going to see the world come here. They're going to come here for events, and they're going to come here because they believe that we will stand by our obligation to do better for those who follow us than those who came before us.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise in the House and speak to the budget and, in fact, speak glowingly about a budget that takes us into the real world of balanced budgets and living within our means.

This was something that our Premier promised British Columbians during the election. He promised British Columbians prior to the election, when we were in opposition, that he would move forward to try and put power back into the people's hands, to put money back into the people's hands, to grow our economy in British Columbia and actually have governments start living within their means and start running their budgets similar to how we run our budgets at home.

Today, under the leadership of our Finance minister — and I give him lots of credit.… But let me tell you, had it not been for the vision, the drive and the hard work by our Premier, we may not be here today. I think we should all be thankful that we have someone with that kind of leadership capability in British Columbia as our Premier. It is great.

I was given the opportunity to be the Minister of Energy and Mines. I was ecstatic to have that given to me. I cherish it, and I respect it. It's a ministry that's small, but it's got an awful lot of punch in the province. It always has had, but it's starting to get a lot more recognition than it used to get. We've increased in the province not only investment in oil and gas and in mining but also jobs, economic activity and the stabilizing of communities in the northeast, in the southeast and in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is a great ministry that has a great future in British Columbia and especially under the leadership of our Premier.

There's been a lot of talk just these last few days about offshore oil and gas. That's another vision that our Premier had. He made the commitment in the New Era document that we would develop offshore oil and gas off the west coast of British Columbia only if we could do it as scientifically sound and environmentally safe. Those are the conditions we said we would look seriously at it.

There's a huge opportunity for British Columbia, an absolutely massive opportunity for British Columbia, to develop those resources off the west coast of our great province. We can do it as scientifically sound and environmentally safe. We commissioned a group of scientists from British Columbia, scientists that actually live here — our government, my ministry — to go out and do a study and to find the scientific gaps that had to be filled before we could move forward to do that kind of work.

They came back with a plan and a report that had 15 recommendations. Most importantly, they had a conclusion that said that with the proper regulatory regime in place, there are really no scientific gaps to move forward with lifting the moratorium. That was good news. That was a scientific panel totally arm's length from government who were asked to go out and look at all the science that had been developed over many years. There is a lot of science out there that had been developed prior to us being elected.

In fact, interestingly enough, when we listened to the leader of the opposition, Carole James, talk about a

dirty economy including coal, oil and natural gas…. She's leading a party that used to be in government. Thank goodness they're gone, but when they were in government, interestingly enough, they also commissioned a report on the science of lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. That was a report that was tucked away in the corner in the ministry, never to see the light of day under the socialists. That report also said that with a proper regulatory regime, the review processes you would do, you could do it safely — lift the moratorium and actually access that wealth for British Columbia.

It's interesting to listen to the leader of the opposition, Carole James, and the present two members of the opposition who sit in this House and talk negatively about those processes, when they were a part of it when they were in government. They just didn't have the guts to make it public. That was the only problem.

We've taken this seriously and have created a division in my ministry to move this file forward, remembering always the commitment that our Premier made — scientifically sound and environmentally safe. One would think that this is a new phenomenon, that it's never happened around the world. They've been drilling for offshore oil and gas around the world for a long time, because — you know what? — we all consume a lot of those products.

They've been doing it in the Cook Inlet just north of us, in harsher conditions than we have — ice — and they've been doing it for 40 or 50 years. They've been doing it in the Beaufort Sea for many years. They've done lots of seismic up there in some pretty pristine areas of Canada. We've done it on the east coast of Canada. In fact, Quebec is moving up the St. Lawrence Seaway and doing some more work there. They want to do some more drilling offshore. They've done it in the North Sea, the Shetland Islands, South America, Cuba, the Gulf of Mexico — the Gulf of Mexico, where all those people go.

I mean, there are thousands of Canadians that go to the Gulf of Mexico for a holiday. Isn't it interesting? Only in British Columbia would someone stand up and say you can't have offshore oil and gas and tourism. We do hear that. It absolutely astounds me how they don't work together, yet they work in the Gulf of Mexico. There are literally thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico where the cruise ships go through, and people continue to go there. In fact, it's a mainstay of the Florida economy, I believe, when you look at the cruise ships in Florida that go through the Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis — hundreds of them.

We have some people in the province other than the opposition who are also not so keen to see people having well-paying jobs and see British Columbia doing well. It astounds me that people would look at it in that light. We see the David Suzuki Foundation actually go around the province and tell people how terrible it is to have this dirty economy and that we shouldn't have it. It's always interesting to me how people like Adriane Carr — I believe she's the leader of the Green Party; that's part of the NDP — Carole James, the David Suzuki Foundation and a number of others that I won't mention talk about how we shouldn't have this and it's bad for us.

They will fly all over the province — in airplanes, helicopters — and drive their cars. They live in wood houses. They heat their homes with natural gas. Yet they tell us we shouldn't have it. One wonders what goes through their minds, how learned people could have that go through their minds: "It's okay for me to fly out there and tell you how bad it is."

You know what, Mr. Speaker? Maybe unbeknownst to those folks, what really makes that propeller turn or that turbine go around is a product called jet fuel. And jet fuel is made from oil. Interestingly enough, that's how you make jet fuel. Gasoline to power your car to get to the airport, the SUVs that some of them drive — my goodness, that's made from oil. Half the car is plastic nowadays. Guess what that's made out of. Natural gas.

Can you believe it? These people are saying we don't need these products. They get on the airplane. It's made out of aluminum. Guess what. That's produced from huge amounts of electricity. It comes from the ground; it's mined. It's actually smelted and then made into airplanes. These people that fly around in them — with their great, wonderful thoughts about how we don't need this — have not had one suggestion for how we replace it, other than…. Maybe they do have one, because some of them say: "Well, everything should be electric, because that's immaculate conception out there. That just happens in the sky and we capture it."

You know, it absolutely amazes me how some people can actually be so simple and so bright on the other side of the fence as to think that we don't need electricity, that we don't need oil and gas, that we don't need mining, that we don't need copper, that we don't need zinc, that we don't need all the things that we consume on an everyday basis — and some of them we even eat. If they would just come to their senses a little bit and start talking about the benefits of it — the benefits to the province of British Columbia, the benefits for jobs…. They're high-tech jobs, hugely high-tech jobs.

When you go out in the ocean or are onshore and you drill a well…. In the ocean they can drill in 10,000 feet of water today. They do it environmentally soundly and safely in the Gulf of Mexico, that great playground for cruise ships. They'll go into 10,000 feet of water and drill a well 30,000 feet into the earth and produce oil and natural gas. They'll bring it in on pipelines that are laid on the ocean floor, and then they process it on shore. Interesting. Can you imagine the jobs that creates? Can you imagine the high technology and the training that it takes to do that kind of work? It amazes me that folks wouldn't want to have British Columbia have that opportunity.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The average wage is probably about $100,000 or better. The average wage for mining

is right up there — the average wage — and they're good, solid, paying jobs. In fact, the member before me talked a little bit about how much of British Columbia has been disturbed by mining It's 1/10 of 1 percent of the land base of British Columbia. It's smaller than the city of Richmond. Now, who complains about the clearcut for the city of Richmond? Is anybody here from Richmond? There are probably a few.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I don't hear that. Who complains about the clearcuts…?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There you go. Who complains about the clearcuts in the Fraser Valley for people to build houses? You know what? One-tenth of 1 percent, since mining started in British Columbia, has been disturbed. Think about the wealth that's brought to the province.

You know what? It's not just the wealth. It's because we consume it. We consume those things on an everyday basis. Copper — my goodness, we consume a huge amount of copper.

Gravel. We probably sit in here, each one of us, and think we don't consume any gravel. But we consume tons of gravel, on average, per individual. When you look at all the roads that are built and when you look at asphalt…. By the way, you know where asphalt comes from? Asphalt comes from crude oil. It is the very dregs; it is the bottom of the barrel. It is the dregs of crude oil that you can't use for anything else. We mix that with gravel and make asphalt. Most of it is in the lower mainland, and none is in northeastern British Columbia.

Actually, I josh a bit, because the government has done a good job of paving roads, mostly in my counterpart's region south of the Peace River, but we're going to look seriously at that next year.

There are others that say we could have a catastrophic event with a blowout, anything like that. Yes, we could. We had a few catastrophic events last summer. That happens. We had forest fires that were huge in the province — Mr. Speaker, in the area where you come from, that affected your part of the province and the province hugely — and cost an awful lot of money and a lot of heartache in the whole province. So those things do happen.

But what people tend to forget is that along the west coast of British Columbia, before we even drill…. I talked about cruise ships and all those kinds of things that go up and down the coast. There's an awful lot of oil tankers that go up and down the west coast of British Columbia. They come from Valdez, Alaska, bringing North Slope oil down to refineries just south of us in Washington State. It's refined, made into gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, and then brought back to Vancouver to be consumed. There are, at a minimum, two to three tankers a day that go up and down the west coast. There's a tanker a day that goes through the strait of Juan de Fuca every day, seven days a week, and that's been going on for over 20 years. We've had one catastrophic event, and I believe that was because somebody had a little bit too much to drink that was in charge of a ship, unfortunately. Those things can happen. They can happen in our everyday lives, regardless of what we do.

It is a good industry; it provides a good living. It provides a good, solid background for communities in the heartlands of the province, and it provides a huge service to those people that live in the larger cities across the province, regardless of where they're at, because we all drive cars. I look around this room and I can't see a person here who probably doesn't have a car — maybe two. I'd be surprised if David Suzuki may not have one or two himself. I'd be surprised if Adriane Carr doesn't drive a car. I'd be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition that sits in the House here — I guess the member for…. I can't remember your constituency.

The said Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure, drives a car and flies back and forth on a helijet quite often between Vancouver and Vancouver Island. Now, all that is provided by the oil that's produced in the province and the natural gas that's produced in the province.

There's a huge reserve of onshore oil and gas, whether you're in the northeast, where there's an awful lot of activity this year — in fact record-breaking activity — or whether you're in other parts of the province where we have not yet accessed it. The Bowser basin and Nechako basin are two basins that we really want to get into to have the industry start developing oil and gas in those good, long-term, high-paying jobs. There's that opportunity here because we have a Premier with vision, a Premier that says he wants to move this province forward. I can see how we can move this province forward by using those reserves, developing those reserves for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We have huge opportunities in mining. When we took office, exploration was at about $20 million a year or $25 million a year. As the member before me spoke, most of the people…. There are so many people living in Vancouver that are very highly qualified people that work in the mining industry, yet do it in another part of the world because the past administration drove the mining industry out. We're trying desperately hard to bring that mining industry back to the province of British Columbia, to bring that investment back to the province of British Columbia, to bring those high-paying jobs back to the province of British Columbia.

It's not just because we think it's fun to mine for copper or gold. It's because we consume it. We consume it on a daily basis, each and every one of us. If you look at the computers right here today, the laptops

that are being used, there's probably a fair amount of copper in each one of those. You think about how many of those are out there in society, just in that one thing. We need those resources in British Columbia.

Mining has some of the highest-average paid jobs that we know of. They're well-paying jobs; they're long-term jobs. It's a sustainable industry, and we're blessed in this province with some of the best geological reserves of any jurisdiction in Canada. What we have to do is just be able to go out there and have the people that want to do it — not government but the people that want to do it, that want to develop these areas, that want to develop mines and create the jobs — and allow them the opportunity to do it.

Those people that live in Vancouver, that live in the lower mainland, that work in that industry — I'll tell you, they'd rather go to work in British Columbia than fly all the way to Chile on about an every three-week rotation. That's not what they like doing. They would rather be here. They would rather be with their families in British Columbia. And you know what? The Premier says: "I want you here too. I want you back in British Columbia." People are coming back to British Columbia and starting to create those long-term jobs in all natural resources, whether it's oil and gas or mining or forestry, because they're all items that we consume, each and every one of us. Young people that just walked into the House — they consume it also. We as a society consume this every day.

We have to start talking about how we consume this so people understand that we actually need it. When you talk to people like Geoffrey Ballard, the leader in hydrogen…. Hydrogen is something for the future, and we're working hard on hydrogen. The Premier's technology committee…. My ministry has a hydrogen division. We're world leaders in hydrogen right here in British Columbia, recognized world leaders. When they have a hydrogen conference in London, British Columbia is there. They're there because we're serious about hydrogen. We're serious about a hydrogen highway by 2010 to go along with the Olympics.

But unbeknownst to a lot of people, to create hydrogen you need a fuel source. Interesting. Again, hydrogen just doesn't come out of the sky, or over there you grab a little bit. Hydrogen comes from a fuel source. It really came to mind last year when we had an energy conference in Fort St. John, and Dr. Ballard got up and spoke about the hydrogen economy in British Columbia. He said clearly that for the next 50 to 100 years, we need fossil fuels to actually be a fuel source to create hydrogen. You know, that's a long ways out.

I don't know what's going to happen in technology over the next 50 to 100 years. Ralph and I aren't going to be here. But you know what? There are a lot of young people in this building today that will actually be involved in a big way in the hydrogen economy. It's good jobs. It's real good jobs, because we can use that hydrogen to do a whole bunch of things for us. Electricity generation, powering our cars, powering our industry — all those kinds of things, and all the technology it takes to get there. That's why we need young people trained in our post-secondary education system to be trained to know how to do that, to move it forward so it becomes economical for each and every one of us to be able to use it in our homes and our everyday lives so that we reduce our greenhouse gases.

There are ways that we will reduce our greenhouse gases as we move forward to that final, eventual hydrogen economy. That's by actually putting them back in the earth by sequestration, back down in the ground where they came from. That's possible. It happens now with acid gas in the oil and gas industry. We send it back down, back into the earth, where it came from in the first place.

It's good, solid industries that we have to look forward to in this province, and we have to recognize and understand that we need it. Our Premier came to the northeast, and I'm sure my counterpart from Peace River South may talk about this a bit too. He's travelled to the Peace River country many times, and I'm thankful for that. I know he used to hear from people, when he went there, that they'd rather be a part of Alberta — not from everyone, but you used to hear that because we're so closely intertwined with Alberta. It's the only part of the province that's east of the Rockies, and we are. We're over the mountains.

He often told me: "You know, I'd really like to see the time when I could be the leader, I could be in government, and I could come up here and hear people say they want to be part of British Columbia." He's hearing those things today. Some of the things that his vision had for British Columbia are expanding oil and gas, putting in programs that actually encourage drilling in the summertime instead of just in the winter, putting in programs that actually encourage going after marginal gas or deep gas, putting in programs where we actually build roads out into the oil and gas fields so we can go out there year-round and extract it. The $70 million, an all-time record in the province, was money spent on the Ministry of Transportation and highways in northeastern British Columbia this year. He wanted to do that because he wants people in the northeast to feel a part of British Columbia.

I know that just recently when he went up there and made a trip through some of the smaller communities, he talked to ranchers, to people in small communities and restaurants in both Peace River North and Peace River South, and he came away feeling pretty good about what's happening. Does it mean that we've finished the job? No, it means that we just started the job. We've got a long ways to go. But let me tell you, it's very good for the province. It's very good for the member for Peace River South and me when we have the low unemployment rates we have, when people are actually working. I'd like to see that happen across the rest of the province. There's no reason why we couldn't be drilling for oil and gas and producing it in the Nechako basin.

Do you know that we don't produce enough oil for our own consumption? We produce about 16 million

barrels of oil a year and consume somewhere in the neighbourhood of 55 million — a little shy. It's time we got up above what we consume. Natural gas is a different story. We actually produce just over one trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, in a yearly cycle. We consume about half of that at home, right here in this province. The rest is exported. Out of those two products, that brings in royalties to the province of just over $2 billion.

Along with that, it provides an awful lot of jobs and investment. The oil and gas industry invests in British Columbia about — get this — $4 billion every year in search of gas and oil. A lot of that money sticks in folks' pockets in British Columbia, and it's to our benefit to keep that up. We want to see that continue. But I'm sure the member for Peace River South would agree with me that we want to see that happen in the rest of the province. We want to see it happen in the Kootenays. We want to see coalbed methane developed in the Kootenays. We want to see it developed in the interior. We want to see it developed on Vancouver Island so that people can actually enjoy the benefits of it. We need to continue to explore and look for these items so we'll have them in the future, the same as for mining.

Energy. Electricity is huge in the province. We're blessed with our electrical system that we have. We've made some changes to it — all positive changes — that actually maintain B.C. Hydro as a publicly owned entity in the province, owned by all British Columbians for the benefit of all British Columbians. The face of B.C. Hydro may have changed a bit, but it's still there. People recognize it. They appreciate it, they know it, and they love it. We've got some of the lowest — in fact, we have the third-lowest — hydro rates in all of North America. That's not bad — right? Try going to Alberta. They'd be twice to three times as much.

Do we have an advantage? You're darned right we do. We have a whole huge advantage in British Columbia. When B.C. Hydro goes out and starts calling for tenders from independent power producers who we want to actually supply the new incremental growth going forward…. The last call we received…. Oh, about $800 million worth of investment would go into developing clean energy in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours, actually as long as you want, but I notice you're pointing at the red light. I appreciate that I've taken my full time, but let me tell you that I have the pleasure of being minister of a great ministry. I have the pleasure of actually serving the people of Peace River North and the Premier of the province, a gentleman that I know wants to lead this province forward in the private sector, creating jobs and wealth and a better place for all of us to live and raise our children.

B. Lekstrom: As one of my colleagues said, "The man with the asphalt." Yes, we've begun to rebuild the roads in the Peace area, and I can tell you we have a long way to go. As my colleague mentioned before, $70 million over this past year was invested in the roads in the Peace area. It's a great start. We have a long way to go, but the people are thankful for the recognition of this government.

I'll tell you, when we all run for office, I think there are some highlights. What we look for is to do the best we can, deliver and work on behalf of the people that put their trust in us. I think each one of us probably takes something to heart and wants to work towards that goal, and particularly for me it was getting to a balanced-budget position. I've watched our province, and I've watched it over my career in politics, going back to municipal government and now in the provincial spectrum. We do live in a great province. Our direction over the last decade was somewhat skewed. I've mentioned it, and you hear different ways to explain what took place over the last decade, but what we had was a government that thought they could deliver programs without having the money in the bank to deliver those programs. That's unsustainable — totally unsustainable.

That's why I got involved. I got involved for a number of reasons. You think about it. There's one major, very important factor that any government, any household, any business has to look at, and that's the ability to live within its means. That's the ability, if you're going to deliver a program, to make sure you have that money in the bank to deliver that program — not have the money in the bank one time but have it there so it's sustainable. We watched with windfall revenues, whether it be energy revenues…. The previous government received incredible windfalls of revenue, enhanced programs tremendously and spent that money, only to find out it wasn't sustainable because the following year those windfall revenues weren't there anymore. The hole was dug deeper yet again. We watched that year after year after year.

Has this been a challenge? This budget yesterday that the Minister of Finance presented in this Legislature is not just about our Premier or our Minister of Finance or my colleagues in cabinet or the colleagues that I sit with in Victoria. This budget is really about British Columbians. I think it was very clear during the last election that they wanted one thing, and that was some fiscal responsibility in the province so that we could build a future that our children aren't going to have to pay for. The future that we see ahead of us is bright.

Is the work done? As my colleague from Peace River North has just mentioned, no. I think it's just begun. We've made very difficult decisions. Not every day, you know…. I get asked this by people in my riding and people from around the province. I get asked it by my children, my two daughters: "Dad, are you having fun at your job? Is it fun?" When you answer, "Yeah, I enjoy my job…." Is it fun every day? Not every day, because there are some very, very difficult decisions that have to be made — decisions that affect people's lives — but those decisions are made so that we can have a brighter future.

I will not and will never stand in this House and support something that digs the hole of British Columbia's financial picture deeper so that my children have to pay for benefits that I'm greedy enough to realize today but know I can't afford down the road. That's not the person I am. I don't think those are the people that British Columbians expect to represent them in this Legislature. They expect them to make difficult decisions. Although people come to our offices and speak to us daily about what's going right, what they think has been difficult and decisions we've made that they may not agree with, they fundamentally agree with one thing — that you can't spend more money than you bring in.

We've heard a lot of talk about the alternative budget that was presented by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I encourage people to have a look at that document. It talks about deficit financing until 2010. It talks about raising taxes substantially. I have not heard anybody come to me and say: "I want you to raise taxes as my representative." I didn't hear that before I was elected to this job. I didn't hear it when I was the mayor of Dawson Creek or sat on city council in Dawson Creek. I didn't hear it when I worked for the labour movement — the Telecommunications Workers Union.

What I've heard all my life is that taxes are too high and services aren't good enough. We want more, but we want to pay less. But you know what? There's a reality, and I think many people maybe just have to take a step back and realize you can't have more services, enhanced capacity and more spaces while at the same time saying: "I want to pay less, less, less."

We incorporated tax cuts immediately upon our election, and you hear about that. It's caused the problem we've seen. It's put the challenges before us that we've had to look at — changing program delivery, service delivery, changing the number of employees. The facts are, and I hope people…. I would encourage them to go back and look at the numbers and the audited numbers of our province.

Without the tax cuts, British Columbia faced a $3.8 billion structural deficit. We made changes that attracted people back to our province. It stopped people from leaving. It encouraged business to bring their business back to British Columbia, and it brought a bright light for the businesses that were here, which weathered it out. They were able to stay and grow and create jobs.

I don't want to have anybody think that in order to get to a balanced budget, everybody in this Legislative Assembly was smiling every day, enjoying every decision. But I can tell you that the decisions made were the right decisions. We listened to the people of British Columbia, and we have delivered on a promise of a balanced budget.

Will we be able to maintain this? Yes, we can. This is not just about the budget that was introduced. We have a three-year rolling plan. We have three-year rolling service sector strategies in each of our ministries. We have a budget that you can look at not just next year or the year after but for three consecutive years. It allows British Columbians to see the direction of their province not one year at a time but three and beyond.

We have to stop thinking shortsightedly as governments, not just in British Columbia but in our country. We have to start looking three years, five years, ten years, 20 years, 30 years down the road. I think for a long, long time British Columbia has overlooked the need to do that.

I've heard some staggering numbers when you look at the last quarter century in British Columbia, and it came as quite a surprise. Out of the previous 25 budgets in British Columbia, only five were balanced. That's a staggering number — five balanced budgets in the last 25 years. I can assure you quite candidly that if you ran your house that way, if you ran a business that way or any British Columbian operated their financial picture that way, they wouldn't be in business, they wouldn't have a home, and they wouldn't be able to support their family, because it's unsustainable.

Do I think every government previous to us was devious and did this on purpose? My view is a little different than some. I think probably the biggest problem they had is that many times they knew people wanted something, and many times in order to get those votes they delivered it — only to pass the burden of paying for that delivery on to future generations.

When the B.C. Liberals were elected in 2001, I was very proud to be part of a group of people that said: "You know what? We will make tough decisions. We will turn this province around. It won't be easy. Make no mistake about it. We will make tough decisions that will affect all of us, but it's going to take every British Columbian to bring our province back to where it should be, and that's number one in this country." I believe we're there, and I'm proud to be part of that change.

We not only balanced the budget — and many times we've heard that over the years, whether it's in British Columbia or across the country — but we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to balance it using generally accepted accounting principles. That's very, very important. What that says to the people is that no longer can you come out as a government and say that we've balanced the budget by hiding money over here or shifting it over here, whether it be through colleges, universities, school districts or hospitals. This money is all accounted for. It's all there for every British Columbian to see.

We run a $30 billion business. I use the word "business" in this context, and some people come to me and say: "You know, it's more than a business." Our return as a business or as a government is not in dollars and cents. I believe I've said this in this House before. Our return to the shareholders is the service we deliver, because the money we spend is not our money. It's not government's money. It's your money. It's British Columbians' money. It's your money; it's my money. It's each and every person's out there.

Our return on investment is the services we deliver, how well we deliver those services, how effective they are. And are they meeting the needs of the people? Is there ever enough money to deliver what everybody needs? I think not. There's not enough in my house, I know. I don't think there's probably enough in most houses. The issue isn't how much money; it's how well you use the money you have. That is the key to good government.

I want to touch on a number of issues. Health care has been a huge, huge draw on the financial part of British Columbia. Health care and education were two areas we said we would not touch and would not cut in our endeavour to balance this budget. Not only did we meet that obligation to the people of British Columbia, but we have increased both of those budgets — health care by $2 billion and education by hundreds of millions of dollars.

When I talk about a $30 billion budget — and I can tell you it seems to roll off the tongue easier now than it did two and a half years ago when we were elected — it's a huge amount of money. What British Columbians don't realize is that out of all the programs we deliver, whether it be social services or transportation — I could go through the list — over 70 percent of that budget is eaten up by just health care and education — 70 percent. Health care and education, which is K-to-12 and advanced education, consume 70 percent of the provincial budget. That leaves 30 percent to deliver every other program that we all want, we all enjoy and we all expect. Is it a challenge? It's a significant one.

Having reached the balanced-budget position that the Hon. Gary Collins, my colleague and the Finance minister, presented here yesterday, it was a proud day. The work was very difficult to get there. I don't want to leave any of my colleagues or any British Columbian out there with the illusion that the hard work is done. There's much hard work still to go. The hardest work will be to make sure that we maintain the balanced-budget position we're in while at the same time delivering and meeting the needs of British Columbians, and we will do that.

Health care. We spend $10.5 billion roughly on health care, and we're increasing that. It will be increased incrementally over the next three years, as you can see through the three-year budget plan that has been put before us. Out of that, many people had talked to me about the MSP increase, medical services. "How much is collected?" they would come and say. "You must be collecting so much more now that you've increased it than health care costs."

We spend $10.5 billion on health care. Our MSP premiums, with the increase we had to incorporate last budget — not the one I'm talking about now — collect only $1.4 billion in all of British Columbia. That leaves a $9 billion shortfall. That's made up through all kinds of revenue — through oil and gas revenue and through all the others. There are many people — myself included, I'm sure — that have made financial comments without actually knowing the factual information.

I encourage British Columbians to visit their MLAs' offices. Talk to them about the budget document and the fiscal plan, so when they come with questions, it doesn't mean they have to agree with government, but they've got the factual information before them. It certainly makes for a much more interesting discussion, a much more fact-based issue, so that if ideas can be put forward to enhance what we're delivering as government, we can all talk from the same page.

Education, again — a $313 million increase. Significant. I know many of my colleagues have talked about this before, but I want to reiterate that the increases in education that our government has put forward are happening at the same time that student enrolment is declining. We will see a $532-per-student increase in education funding. That's very significant.

We've managed to do this, and you hear different things — whether it's different interest groups out there coming and slamming the government…. I always have been interested in how politics works. Regardless, the government in power comes out with a plan and a vision for their future and the future of the people they represent. No matter how good that plan is, it appears there's only one job of the opposition, and that's to slam it and pick it apart — not to say: "You know what? Maybe that is a good idea."

The type of politics that I grew up watching and, hopefully, am going to change one day — and that's another reason I'm here — is that…. When we elect a government, we elect them through a democratic procedure. I'm thankful to live in a society that allows that, because when you look around the world, there are many that don't. Rather than elect a government and then for four years just hammer the heck out of them, which traditionally seems to have happened in British Columbia… From my perspective, I often wonder what it would be like if we elected a government and, whether you're on the winning side or losing side, you made the decision that: "You know what? I'm going to make this work for four years. I may or may not cast my vote for that government four years down the road, but I'm going to pull together as British Columbia, and I'm going to make the best of it." It would just amaze me to see that, and I can tell you the potential that this province would see would be incomprehensible. Will it ever happen? I hope so, one day; I hope so. Will it happen in the near future? I have my doubts, but I hope so.

We've managed to go through some very difficult times in British Columbia, in our country — heck, in North America and around the world. We look at what happened on 9/11, the SARS issue, BSE, the forest fires, the drought, the softwood lumber dispute. All of those had a direct effect on the economic well-being of our province. Although they have all affected our economic well-being, we have managed to get to the balanced-budget position that we're talking about here today.

I want to focus in on one, and that's the BSE crisis — something that has affected the riding of Peace River South, a riding I'm very proud to represent. Whether it's Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, Taylor, Pouce Coupe or Dawson Creek, all of those communities don't survive on their own. They survive because of the rural areas surrounding our communities that make those communities their service centres.

These rural communities are full of the ranchers that this horrendous episode has created havoc for. BSE, or mad cow — we're talking about two cows — has cost hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of hardship to our ranching industry not only in British Columbia but in our country and in the United States.

This is an integrated industry and one that I think we've got to start thinking outside the box about if we're going to solve the problem. We work in a global environment, not just in the cattle industry or the finance industry. In everything we do today, we have to work in a global environment. Some people don't like that, but the reality is that it's there. We're not turning it back. It's called progress, and change is sometimes difficult for people to accept.

What I wanted to highlight is that although it is a crisis in our cattle industry and the hardship is there and we see it every day in our communities, the people and the businesses in these communities are working with our ranchers and with the industry to make sure they can try and make it through these very, very difficult times. Our government has stepped forward with funding to help. Again, is it enough? I'm not sure it's ever enough. Is it a help? It is a huge benefit.

As my colleague from Peace River North said earlier, the Premier was touring our area last week, and we had the opportunity to stop at a rural store on the way between Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. It's a place called Groundbirch. We had the opportunity to meet with some ranchers and talk about the issue of the BSE crisis particularly and everything that faces our agriculture industry and ranching.

I can tell you, I felt the people were well received. They know the Premier listened to their concerns, and that's what good government is about. It's not about just delivering, delivering, delivering. It's about the ability to listen — to listen to people's concerns, to listen to people's ideas and to be able to take those and digest them and turn them into a plan that helps. Our Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John van Dongen, has worked hard with my colleagues here in this House — people that have been directly affected. I want to thank him for the work he's done on this.

Taxes. As I indicated earlier on, can taxes ever be too low? I'm not sure they can be. Listening to my friends and to the people of British Columbia who always seem to want to pay less taxes and look to jurisdictions where they may pay a little less and say: "Why can't we be like that…?" I think our government has done an incredible job. People question the personal income tax cut we initiated immediately upon being elected. It was the right move. We've eliminated the corporate capital tax, machinery and equipment tax, and the list goes on and on.

I'm deeply concerned when I see a document that's an alternative to the budget we've presented, which talks about nothing but increases. I encourage British Columbians, as I said earlier, to read that document. Go through it, please. See if that's the type of British Columbia you want, which is tax and spend and deficit-finance, so that we can leave our children with a future that's virtually impossible to dig out of, as far as our financial picture would go. I won't do that. I'm unprepared to do that.

For the first time in six years — as many of my colleagues, as well, have talked about, because it is exciting — we have seen more people move back to British Columbia than leave. I think it's pretty clear to say that that means things are going right, whether it's the tax structure or whether it's our regulatory regime. I'm going to give some credit here. Is it good government? Yes, it is good government.

I want to thank the people who stayed here when they questioned the previous government's regime, whether they could maintain their business and keep the people working in British Columbia. I want to first of all thank them for weathering the storm, because the brighter future is here. I want to thank the people who have moved back to British Columbia, the children who left their families to go find work elsewhere that have moved back because the future is brighter. I welcome them back, and I thank them for coming.

I want to talk about our credit rating and how deficit financing and debt really works. British Columbia's debt — and I'm going to use rough numbers — is about $39.5 billion under the proposed budget that we have just put forward, which is a balanced budget. About $32 billion of that is taxpayer-supported debt. The remainder is Crown corporation debt, which is dealt with through the fees and services charged there. So $32 billion is taxpayer-supported under…. The payment comes from the revenue we collect from the people of British Columbia.

Now, when we go to borrow money, we have to ask people to lend us that money, no different than you or I. If I go buy a car or a house…. Well, possibly there are people that can pay cash for it. I'm not one of those. I actually go to the bank and ask my lender if I can borrow the money. They look at me and wonder what my assets are, how much money I make, what kind of debt I already have, and then they look to see what kind of a risk I am. If I'm a….

B. Lekstrom: Well, I'm a pretty good risk, I think. If the risk is too great, they don't give you the money. They tell you pretty straightforwardly: "You're overextended. We don't think you can make your payments. Sorry. Until you get your financial house in order, don't come and see us."

A province operates no differently. We managed to take our financial plan to our bond-rating agencies. They looked at it and thought it was a very important plan. You know, they didn't say they had some skepticism about whether we could hold to it. At least, I don't believe they did. What they said is, "If you meet your financial targets and balance your budget as you've committed to, we'll maintain your credit rating," which I believe, in British Columbia, is a double A–minus right now.

Had we not maintained that — and I want to make this very clear for the people, that we shouldn't have made the changes as quickly as we have or we shouldn't have looked at the financial picture in a term, that we had to balance the budget by '04-05 — we would have been spending tens of millions of dollars more on interest payments alone. That's tens of millions of dollars that can't go to health care, can't go to education or social services or to roads in the province. It goes to pay interest on the debt. Our third-largest expenditure in British Columbia is debt repayment, behind health care and education. We spend over $2 billion paying the debt. Up until this year when you deficit-finance and borrow money at the rate we've had to borrow in British Columbia, we're paying nothing but interest.

It's a proud day. It's a great day, not for government but for British Columbia — to know that as we go forward and as we make our debt payments, our debt will start to come down. It won't grow. It will start to come down as we have a sustained plan in place to deliver the services British Columbians want, to deliver what they need while at the same time doing it in a responsible manner.

I want to talk about transportation, on which the budget, I think, holds out great hope. Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion will be invested in transportation infrastructure over the next three years, of which $836 million will be spent in rural and northern British Columbia. Those are significant numbers, and I want to break that down a little further. My colleague from Peace River North, who had spoken about it earlier, mentioned that $70 million has been spent in the Peace River region of this province over the last year on roads. That is the most ever spent in a single year, and I can tell you that people of Peace River North and Peace River South are very happy with what's taken place.

Unfortunately, the reason that $70 million had to be invested is that for many, many years previous to our government, the roads were neglected. Again, I'm not pointing the finger. They were neglected. Whether it was lack of financial investment capability or whether it was higher priorities in the eyes of others, the roads were truly neglected. When you let a road go and the base starts to deteriorate, the cost of fixing that road increases.

So $70 million, as great as that was received and as much work as it contributed to our economic well-being in the northeast part of our province, is a beginning. It's a great beginning, and we hope to see that kind of investment year after year after year. As the roads in the northeast part of this province are upgraded and enhanced, just as in other areas, the economic sustainability of our province is enhanced.

The oil and gas industry is an industry that's going very well in the northeast part of our province today. As my colleague mentioned, over $2 billion in royalty revenues to British Columbia over this past year is significant.

We talk about oil and gas; we talk about agriculture; we talk about forestry; we talk about mining. All of these resource sectors drive the economic well-being of our province. They drive the job creation that takes place, because without resource industries, jobs aren't there. Although a well is being punched out in Peace River South or Peace River North, it doesn't mean that's only where the jobs are. We're very fortunate that we have many jobs, and the opportunities are many in the area of the province I represent. I can tell you that the oil and gas industry doing well in the northeast part of our province means there are jobs in the lower mainland. It means there are jobs in the Prince George area looking at new opportunities. It means there are jobs for the offshore oil and gas, of which I'm a full supporter.

It's interesting to hear the negatives, because I think no matter how good anything is, there is somebody who can wake up that day and find something negative to say about it. I find that about offshore oil and gas. Nobody in this Legislature has said: "We're going to plug ahead with offshore oil and gas if it isn't environmentally sustainable and if it isn't done with a regulatory regime that creates an environment that's acceptable to all." We're going to do it, but the people who oppose it — many of them sitting in their heated homes, many homes heated with natural gas from the northeast part of the province…. They seem to think it's okay to draw on that natural resource out of the northeast part of the province, but: "Don't come and extract it out of my area." That kind of thinking has to change.

I think the people on the west coast of British Columbia should be excited about the opportunities for offshore oil and gas, the opportunities it will bring themselves, their families and their children, and the opportunities it will bring the province — not just with the economic opportunities as far as the royalties that flow from that, but jobs, jobs and more jobs. I think it can be done. I think it will be done, and I think British Columbia will see huge benefits from the offshore oil and gas opportunities that are before us today.

I want to touch briefly on the 25,000 new advanced education spaces that we have announced. I'll touch briefly on them, because the red light has come on. In closing, I'll leave the 25,000 seats, as exciting as they are, to my colleagues that have yet to come.

I'm proud to be a member of this Legislative Assembly. I'm proud to have stood here and spoken about the tough decisions that have had to be made but that were the right decisions made on behalf of all British Columbians. I look forward to working for the peo-

ple of Peace River South in the years ahead, to working for the people of British Columbia and to creating an environment that only gets better and better and better each year, because we balanced the books, and by law, we'll maintain those books balanced forever more.

K. Stewart: I have the privilege to represent Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, an area of unsurpassed natural beauty, a community of amazing individuals and a region in transition due to rapid growth. I rise today to lend my support and endorsement of the budget. The Minister of Finance has accomplished what few before him in recent history have done, and that's balanced the budget. Although we don't have a huge surplus to work with, given the track record of the previous three years, this minister has bettered his mark every time out, and I am fully confident that he will continue this trend in bringing in a larger-than-forecast surplus.

Over the past three years we have moved to first place in a number of distinguished categories. We are now number one in job growth in Canada. We are now number one in new housing growth in Canada. We're number one in small business confidence in Canada and, again, number one in destination for new investor immigrants in Canada.

The results of being fiscally responsible over the past three years are now being felt in many positive ways. It's easy for me to get up and expound upon what a great job our government is doing. Maybe it's time to hear from some other people and what they have to say about what we're doing in British Columbia with this budget. If I can start first with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce…. They have a number of comments about our budget and the way we're operating as a government. First: "The multifaceted strategy of simultaneously firing up all the cylinders of economic growth with a watchful eye on social responsibility is working well for British Columbia." They continue: "B.C. is not just open for business; we are very much back in business." Finally they conclude with: "A government that is fearful of tough decisions is one that is more interested in keeping its job than doing its job. We applaud your willingness to tackle tough decisions since day one." That's from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

Another comment they had…. In talking about our social responsibilities, they highlighted five topics: a $2 billion increase in provincial health care funding over the past two years, an accomplishment we're all very proud of; several thousand new assisted and independent living units, either built or planned; a nearly thousand-dollar increase in education funding per student since 1998; improved relations with first nations, including forestry revenue-sharing agreements; a new era in federalism that has brought substantial infrastructure improvement grants, equalization payments; and a successful 2010 bid.

Obviously, there's an agency here that represents small business in British Columbia. They've been watching what we're doing, and they're very pleased with the accomplishments to date. Further on, I'll talk about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. What do they have to say about our government and our recent budget? "Recent survey results show that small businesses in British Columbia are now among the most optimistic in the country. This is due in part to a tax and regulatory relief delivered in the past few years." They're very confident in what we've done in the past.

Now on to comments by the Certified General Accountants Association of B.C. This touches on the process that we're using, the GAAP. "Finally a new era in fiscal responsibility and transparency has begun. We have a balanced budget based on generally accepted accounting principles." There we have an agency, and all they do is books. We all know how boring accountants are, but they, too, are watching. Sorry to the accountants in the audience. I understand they can be fun at parties, though, but generally speaking, in their workday world they're not the most exciting folks I've come across.

There's another group that we recently met with, and they had some very positive things to say about what we're doing as a government. That was the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. This is a group that represents Canadian security companies across Canada. Just a little bit of a longer paragraph from them, but I think it's very relevant.

"The budget documents released this morning" — yesterday — "confirm the province is on track to achieve its balanced budget target next year. The government has held to its three-year fiscal plan, despite coping with natural disasters of forest fires and floods, relentless spending pressures for health care and education, and measures to improve tax competitiveness in the province. The budget projects surpluses and a declining public debt burden over the next three years. These fiscal projections are grounded in conservative economic and financial assumptions. The IDA commends the government for delivering a balanced budget and three-year fiscal plan that conforms to GAAP accounting for more comprehensive and transparent public accounts."

One more line, if I can include it in there, is again from the independent dealers association of British Columbia. "The B.C. government has made significant progress in halting the ten-year slide in the province's fiscal position and the quality of government services provided to B.C. residents. The move to fiscal balance, conjoined with strategic tax cuts, has boosted confidence in the province and will promote economic growth." These aren't the words of this government. These are the words of those that have an interest in ensuring that British Columbia is on the proper track so that we have proper investment in British Columbia for the future stability of the people that live here.

Now that we've overcome the structural deficit problem that was left to us by the previous government…. As I say that, the previous government and opposition will argue that they had a balanced budget. It is true that for one year there was the reality that the

revenues did not exceed the expenditures. That was based on the fact that there was an energy crisis in California, coupled with a few other breaks that resulted in an unprecedented electrical demand. The price was an anomaly that certainly was unplanned and not very likely to be soon repeated.

The downside was that the water reserves, the fuel for hydroelectric generation that created this windfall, were reduced well below the recommended levels. This was against the advice of those that managed the water in our province. This cost us dearly. You always pay the price for an early fix, and that's what happened here, as the following years contained a drought in the Kootenays — less than average rainfalls in the catchment areas — causing us to be net importers of electricity to follow. There was a windfall for this one period of time, but it was followed up by a period of not being able to produce enough hydroelectric energy for the citizens of British Columbia.

Be clear. We're still feeling these negative effects of the previous NDP government budgets. If you have any belief that a future NDP government would provide a more stable budget than their historic disastrous budgets, I would direct you to some very scary reading. I have in my hand B.C. Solutions Budget 2004. I hope you all have a chance to read this, because you paid for it. Approximately $200,000 was given to this group, just prior to the defeat of the last government, for services yet to be rendered. I guess these are the services now being rendered.

This budget is the classic NDP budget. Anyone who follows the premise that anyone who robs Paul to pay Peter will always have Peter's support will be very encouraged by this. What it does is rob the future of our children and the future of the taxpayers of British Columbia in the short term to pay for services that in the past have shown to be delivered in a very inadequate manner. So I trust anyone that has the opportunity to really have some scary reading and can handle that…. Read that before you go to bed some night, and I'm sure you'll be up with your hair straight up for hours.

From our perspective, this balanced budget is a starting point for future aspirations, a blueprint for the future. With the three-year rolling budgets, this continuous process allows for future balanced budgets and prosperity. It's not just a one-shot, quick-term fix. This is looking out not three years in the future but continually rolling out three years, three years in the future, so we're always looking ahead.

As mentioned earlier, it incorporates generally accepted accounting principles. Now, I had the opportunity a few short months ago to take a course in GAAP. It was a very interesting course, and I got three business credits for it, so I was pleased to take it. But it also gave me quite an insight into some of the other ways that people do their bookkeeping, and some of it is kind of interesting. There are all kinds of off-book expenditures that can be left out there. GAAP is a process that's been internationally accepted. There are numerous webpages that can tell you all about GAAP, the reasons for it coming into being and why it's generally accepted by all accountants around the world. It truly is a clear picture of all your assets, all your expenditures, and all your credits and debts. There's no way, under GAAP, of hiding the classic off-book capital expenditures and debt.

Now, this was used quite handily by previous governments, even the Social Credit government when they formed the Crowns. This off-book financing was a very good way to do things like B.C. Hydro. It avoided the massive startup capital being on the government books. Now, though, what we have to ensure is that all this is accounted for. So if we're going to have any future large projects…. I think there's some discussion about the potential of a Site C down the road. This would be a massive project, and if it falls under the guise of B.C. Hydro, it will have to be included on their books, so the citizens of British Columbia can truly know what the costs of a project such as that would be. This also includes schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. Again, previously the liability of having this infrastructure and these organizations was quite often left off the books. When we look at the inclusion of all government assets and liabilities on the books, we get a true picture of what we're up against.

When we start talking about these rolling budgets, under some proper management conditions, upfront investments in technology, capital infrastructure and sometimes even additional employees can save you substantial future expenditures. So one may actually see a ministry that has a decrease in its funding and expenditures from one year to the next, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a decrease in service. On the other hand, it can quite often mean that because of some work done up front — some preparatory work with investment, some management changes, some delivery changes — you can see an increase in service but still a decrease in costs.

I know the members of the opposition had a hard time grasping that today, but it's very simple. If you plan for the future, you do the preparatory work…. It's somewhat like what I did for a living for a number of years — farming. You go out and spend a lot of money on plowing up your fields, planting the crops, fertilizing, praying for rain and doing all these things. Then what happens is, down the road, next year you've got yourself a nice crop. The cash comes in, and you can continue on. So sometimes, when we look back to some of the basics, good planning can often lead you to future savings.

Again, we always hear about these cuts. Cuts sometimes are a reduction in expenditures. Now, some will say that's a cut. Well, what you've done is reduced the expenditure, but have you necessarily cut the service? This is the point I'm trying to make. One of the things I always heard about governments is that they waste a lot of money. I must admit that I worked in the government system for ten years, and I saw a few things along the way that I thought if we maybe did a little differently, we could save a few dollars or provide a

little more service for those dollars that are being spent. So if we actually go out and do that, if we make government more efficient, if we actually do utilize our dollars more efficiently so that we don't have to spend the same amount of dollars to get the same results, is that a cut? Well, yeah. I guess we're cutting the amount of money we're spending, but we're actually delivering the same service, so we're just being efficient. I think that's good government.

I'll use some recent examples that we've been taking some criticism for. Let's take children and families, for example. There's been a reduction of youth in care. What that means is that workers — instead of hauling kids off to court, spending lots of money and taking them away from the families because there are some issues — are now trying to work with families.

Another course I took in the past was called "Children in Separating and Dissolving Families." One of the things I learned from that was that unless there is a threat to the child — both a physical and mental threat — in many cases, a child is much better being at home with their parents or single parent than being with someone else. People will say: "How can that be?" There's a natural affiliation for a caringness in the family that sometimes isn't duplicated outside of the family, and that natural nurturing process is enhanced by being with your true family.

I'm not saying this is the case in all situations, but let's just take this back to children and families. If we can actually keep people with their children and keep families together, we're not actually spending money paying other people to look after their children, and it might be better for the child. This seems like a pretty good process. Then we ask the question: why would we be spending more money if we're more effectively dealing with that child's needs and it's costing us less? Some people might just say that's a hurtful cut. What I say is that's a good thing for the children, a good thing for the family, and it's a good thing for us. What we have is a child that's now, instead of having a bunch of money spent on court and lawyers…. With all due respect to lawyers, sometimes that's not the best expenditure of money.

The issue here is simply that we can now direct resources to that family, where the issues are starting, where the problems are occurring. We may — and hopefully, in many cases, we actually do — have some positive effect on that family, on that child and on our budget. It doesn't always have to be a negative thing to redirect funds.

There's another area, of course, that I can use as an example, and that's Human Resources. People are screaming about the cuts in Human Resources. We have 87,000 people that have left assistance and gone on to jobs, work and other things — to school. If you have 87,000 people you no longer have to fully support, gee, you should spend a little less money, I would think. We're spending less money in that ministry. "Oh, that's a terrible cut." What do people want us to do — just keep throwing money in there even though there's not the need for those funds for the purposes they were originally intended? I think you have to be really careful when you talk about the term "cuts." Are we being more efficient and effective? I think in many cases we are. This is a positive thing.

I'm going to get onto the single largest expense in our budget: health care. I saw some immediate benefits of a balanced budget yesterday. One of our members quit smoking. He said: "When we balance the budget, I'm going to quit smoking." I'm sure our health care system is going to be saving money 40 years down the road for that decision he made today.

In reality, health care is a tremendous cost. I believe both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance should be credited for keeping B.C. at the top of the pack in health care in Canada, given the tremendous pressure we have on our health care system. With escalating costs to deliver services coupled with demographic changes, extreme challenges do exist.

In my community we're pleased to see a number of health care improvements and initiatives. We had a very recent addition of cataract surgeries into our hospital at Ridge Meadows, which allows for the operation of an additional operating room. They can now fully staff an operating room that had been left closed. I don't think it ever really opened since they built it. There are other hospitals. At Eagle Ridge it's the same thing. They're seeing the opening of hospital operating theatres that have never been opened, but they were built there when the hospitals were expanded.

In our hospital we've seen the addition of a CT scanner with digital storage. Plans are well underway for a new ER. All this was possible due to the great community support of our hospital foundation, the support of our local doctors and other health care professionals plus, of course, the funding from our local health authority.

We are seeing some improvements in health care. Those are some of the dollars we managed to redirect from other areas into specific areas of care in our local hospital. We also, in my area, have continued the support for the Asante Centre for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for children. It's a world-renowned organization in our community.

It's the growing numbers of seniors, as a demographic group is being defined, where a definite challenge does exist. To try and overcome that, I've conducted five forums to try and gain input from the seniors on the health care they have and the issues. It's a challenge for us, and it will continue to be a challenge, but we have to continue to work hard with our local community organizations, our seniors and our health care professionals to try and fix that.

Health care does need some fundamental changes, many requiring national changes. There are some reports that say radical changes in the way we deliver

our health care could increase efficiencies by up to 30 percent. At $1.2 million per hour under this formula, this would give us an extra three months of service at current costs. It's someone's opinion that those types of radical changes could increase it by 30 percent. I'm not sure that's necessarily achievable, but I'm sure there are some improvements that could be made by simple changes at the national level of our Canada Health Act.

As we look to the future, there's a world of opportunity for us. We have China and India, two of the most populated countries in the world, that we're now starting a better liaison and relationship with through our business activities. They have a rapidly expanding middle class, and with our positive economy based on sound fiscal policies, we can now challenge other jurisdictions of the world for these emerging markets. It's something that is available to us and that we should move on. We've always relied on the United States. The U.S.A. has been our senior trading partner and I'm sure will continue to be our senior trading partner, but we must expand these other opportunities. Having a balanced budget and a strong economy will give us the opportunity to move into these markets.

Again looking a few years out, we have the Olympics in 2010. The opportunities to showcase our provincial and local communities here are immense. We are very proud in my community and aware of the future tourism opportunities for both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, especially for the opportunities that exist before, during and after the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Pitt Meadows regional airport, which is already feeling success with a positive business climate in the air, will be further enhanced by its proximity to Whistler. It's one of the closest regional airports that have full helicopter facilities. This is an opportunity, along with many other local opportunities that I'm sure, as we move towards those Olympics, will be enhanced.

A balanced economy is the key to economic stability. I wholeheartedly support this budget, as I believe that's what it has provided for the citizens of British Columbia.

S. Orr: I want to start my budget response today by saying we promised; we delivered; we have a balanced budget. Come on. [Applause.] It's not only for 2004-05 but for '05-06 and '06-07. This is indeed a good day.

I want to start my budget response by going back a little in history — and this is very important — to a statement that was made by the previous Minister of Finance of the day, Paul Ramsey. On page 95 of his 2001 budget: "Funding all these pressures would not be possible given the forecast increase in revenue. This situation, typically faced by a government at the beginning of a budget process, will require difficult trade-offs."

The interpretation for those people who are a little like me and find bureaucratic-speak frustrating: "We have made many promises" — and Mr. Ramsey actually called them pressures — "which we think would be nice to have. We really do not have the money to pay for these promises, but what the heck. We'll talk about them. Anyway, we'll let the next government worry about them." That is exactly what they did and what we did. We worried about them. We had to worry about the horrible mess and figure out how to fix it.

Now you may say: "Why are you going back to the last government, the NDP, and harping on about what they did? Why don't you deal with what you have done?" This is the reason. I needed to put a bit of history into the whole picture to understand the challenges we were left with, challenges that the previous government knew we would have to deal with — after all, they left us with them, and they knew it — and what the then Minister of Finance, Paul Ramsey, alluded to in that budget on page 95.

We were left with this mess. We rolled up our sleeves, and we started by reviewing the entire government. We were left to clean up all the false promises and the expectations that had been made to the public, and then we had to work out what we really could afford given, at the time, the miserable and declining economy. Boy, it was not easy. In fact, it was difficult. In fact, it was brutal. I can tell you that I do not fear a challenge. I do not fear difficulty. I've had five children, and nobody in this room will know how that feels, given the gender that's in front of me.

It was tough. However, we promised to curb spending and get it under control and increase revenue. Do you know what? We did it. Yep, we actually did it. We did it just like the people of B.C. have to do with their own money. We had to plan. We had to stay within our budget. We had to make ends meet and then start saving a little to get ahead. With three-year strategic service plans and three-year rolling budgets and an enormous amount of hard work by everyone, not just the politicians — and particularly the Finance minister and his staff, who worked incredibly hard — but the public service. These people are the engine that drives this big machine, and they deserve a lot of credit for all their hard work. I want to commend them. They did a fabulous job.

Here we are, even with the beating we took last year — probably the worst ever in the history of B.C. It was the worst ever in B.C., with the fires, the floods, the BSE, SARS, West Nile and the federal government changing the equalization payments, and notwithstanding the previous years, where we had the Iraqi war, softwood lumber — and of course the tragedy of 9/11, and we must never forget that tragic day. But we still made it. We made it even with moving to GAAP. For those people, again, bureaucratic speak: generally accepted accounting principles. Please note: we are the only province to introduce a budget that complies with GAAP. With our new accounting improvements, budget days are now way more predictable.

We made it with projected surpluses of $100 million for 2004-05, $275 million for '05-06 and $300 million for '06-07. You know what? Balanced budget 2004 means we are able to invest $1.3 billion in health care,

education and other priorities. We made it with a projected cushion of $400 million in each of the next three fiscal years. We will protect, and that will protect, the balanced-budget projections.

Having a cushion is just smart business sense. Even in our own lives we know it is smart if we can put a little aside for those times when those unexpected expenses arise. We all have those. I had it last week with my van. We all know what that feels like when you get the bill from the car dealership and it says it's so much.

Let me equate all I've said with how it helps my riding of Victoria-Hillside. That is the most important part for me. The riding of Victoria-Hillside is my domain, and I have to look at everything to see if it is effective to my constituents. Here are just some of the examples. For the children that attend schools in my riding, balanced budget 2004 increases the education budget by $313 million over three years. This is to improve student achievement. As I am a parent, I'm sure all parents will agree that is what we all want.

Promote literacy. Let's get our kids reading even more. We all want that. Make our schools safer. We all know we want that for our children.

Safety in my community. This is a big issue in an urban centre like mine. Under balanced budget 2004 we have committed, in '05-06, to share 70 percent of all traffic fine revenues with municipalities to improve community policing and crime prevention. That is very important.

Health care. I live in a community that has good hospitals, good nurses and good doctors. We have already put over $2 billion into health care, and now we are putting in even more. This time we are focusing it completely on patient care.

Really good news in my community of Victoria-Hillside, as I have a high number of seniors on fixed incomes, is the homeowner's grant. There has been concern that some might lose their homeowner's grant as their real estate values have gone through the roof. This is a good thing — that our real estate has gone up. But it can be a problem for people who are on fixed incomes, and this has been addressed. We have raised the threshold for the grant from $525,000 to $585,000.

My riding houses at least 50 percent of all small businesses in the region. These businesses are the engine that drives our economy, and they create the most jobs. What have we done to help our businesses? I just want to give you a few examples. We have introduced 27 tax relief measures, providing $900 million in net tax relief for individuals and $350 million for businesses. We've raised the threshold for the small business income tax to $300,000 from $200,000. We've eliminated the provincial sales tax on production machinery, saving B.C. business $160 million a year, and introduced tax credits for the film, new media, digital animation and book publishing industries, which has a huge impact in Victoria-Hillside. As the person who was one of the founders of the Victoria film commission…. We started out with revenues of about $1.7 million, and this year we're going to cap $30 million. That is a wonderful business to have in a community, and we appreciate it.

We've doubled the threshold for the corporation capital tax to small trust companies and credit unions, saving them $2 million a year. We've increased access to capital to promote investment by increased available tax credits, amended the Small Business Venture Capital Act to give small businesses in B.C. greater access to venture capital, made the workplace more flexible, given employers and employees more flexibility by implementing programs like averaging agreements to work schedules that reflect the realities of your businesses, reduced the daily minimum call-out from four hours to two, and introduced the first-job wage to encourage employers to hire young people who have no work experience.

We are working on making the WCB more responsive and efficient by changing the WCB benefits structure. We have made changes that will bring WCB costs under control. We've passed new legislation that reduces the time for a decision on the 17,000 WCB appeals filed each year from an average of 35 months to a maximum of 15 months and restructured the WCB board with a mandate to further improve service delivery and focus on more consistent decision-making.

That's just a small amount of the things we have done. Think about how helpful that is to business. We are working on eliminating red tape, and believe me, that is not easy.

When we got elected, I guess we decided to count how many regulations. I think that was a way bigger job than we realized. We inherited, as we all know, 440,000 regulations. So far we have eliminated more than 70,000. We still do have a long way to go, but we will be there.

We have expanded the one-stop business services program so you can complete government forms on line.

Have we done all we want to do? Absolutely not, but our plan has resulted in B.C. being number one in Canada in job growth, number one in new housing growth, number one in small business confidence and the number one destination for investor immigrants. Thanks to businesses both big and small in our province, we now have two million people working — the most ever. Businesses of British Columbia, you all deserve a huge round of applause, and be assured we will always be there for you.

To make small businesses grow, you need people to buy your goods and services. We now have more people moving back to British Columbia than leaving, and we are totally committed to pushing our economic agenda to its very limit. With that will come more prosperity, and this will benefit everyone everywhere.

British Columbia is definitely the best place to live. We all know that. We are determined, as a government, to make it even better.

R. Hawes: It is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to stand and speak to this budget.

Yesterday, after the balanced budget was delivered, it took but moments for the usual suspects to immediately leap out and oppose what we're doing and decry everything that was happening and continue with their usual sky-is-falling rhetoric. The facts defy everything they have to say.

I would like my constituents to take a good look at who really is saying what and who benefits from what they're trying to say. In saying that, I would like people to remember who writes the paycheques. You know, the working families in this province depend on someone to pay them for their labour. The simple fact is that without a strong economy, without a strong free enterprise economy, those paycheques aren't coming.

I take a look at what the economic community has to say, and I want to give you a couple of the quotes. I just love a lot of these. These are not the usual suspects.

"The government has a consistently strong economic vision." Pretty good stuff. That's from the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Richard Rees, the CEO of the Chartered Accountants of B.C.: "Balancing the budget means we're no longer running up a tab and expecting our children to pay for it." I'm going to speak a little bit more about that in a minute, because that's something especially the seniors in this province get. The usual suspects who were out yesterday saying how terrible this is really don't get this. At least, if they do get it, it's not in their self-interest at this time, so they're going to speak against it.

"The stars are lining up quite favourably. The government has also delivered on the targets its set." Jock Finlayson, executive VP, Business Council of B.C.

Here's a really good one. "They did what they said they'd do. They've managed very difficult circumstances very well. They did what they said they'd do. That's a remarkable thing today in government, and that's exactly what the Finance minister delivered, just what he said." That was John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

"Small business will be delighted that the budget is balanced and with the continued focus on simplifying regulation." That's Laura Jones from the B.C. Federation of Independent Business. I wonder how many paycheques the members of her organization provide. It's thousands.

"What they inherited was a supertanker headed for the rocks. They stopped it. They turned it around." Dave Park, the Vancouver Board of Trade. It's a great comment, and very true. It was a supertanker.

Before I read any more of these, I just want to talk about that supertanker. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition get up here yesterday in her place and speak about how we had just, with this budget, managed to claw our position back somehow to where we took over from the NDP. That couldn't be further from the truth. When we took over government from the NDP, we were a ship headed for the rocks, and it was a supertanker. Government is a supertanker. Anyone who knows anything about something like a supertanker knows that you can't just put a new person behind the wheel and spin it around like that. It is going to carry on with inertia for a long time. We had ten years of building an inertia that was taking us straight to the bottom.

I've got to tell you that the work that was done by the Finance minister, by my colleagues, by the cabinet and by the Premier is exceptional in turning that ship around, that supertanker heading for the rocks. It was going rapidly for the rocks. We would be down right now if on election day three years ago the public in this province hadn't seen the light and made the wise choice to put this government in place. They did make that choice because they knew we were headed for the rocks. They knew we were a province that was run by the special interest groups, a province where the elected government had actually ceded their responsibility to govern over to others — special interest groups — in order to pander votes for future elections. It was shameless. We were heading to the bottom.

I would challenge the Leader of the Opposition. I think we've come a long way past where we were when we took over government. That would mean that we have now hit the bottom and moved way back up again, because I can tell you that supertanker drift took us a long way past where we wanted to go. When we did take office, I can tell you that the shambles we found the economic affairs of this province in was more than we had imagined, more than anyone could have imagined. Many of the tangled nightmares they left for us are still being untangled with just superhuman effort from many of the ministers and my caucus colleagues here.

This budget marks a significant turning point for B.C. For the first time in decades the province is on a path of sustainable balanced budgets, surpluses and competitive taxes. Competitive taxes — what a horrible thought. What a horrible thought that we would be on a tax basis competitive with our neighbours so that maybe we will stop businesses from running away to neighbouring provinces and states, which they were doing in such great numbers under the previous government.

In fact, I'm reminded of listening to the Premier give a speech in 1996 or '97 when he said the only growth industry in this province is the moving van industry, because it's moving people out of this province. I also recall the Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, nominating Glen Clark as citizen of the year — his economic development star — for all of the business that was coming to Alberta.

Business was leaving in droves, but that other government doesn't get it. They keep talking about the rich and big business and all the rest of it. Really, what they're talking about is people who invest in our province and provide jobs.

The balanced budget, first and foremost, is balanced using generally accepted accounting principles, including the SUCH sector — schools, universities, colleges and hospitals — for the first time ever in North America. Nobody does this. Every accounting institute,

At this point that means the people of this province can absolutely depend on what is being said in the books of the government. That's a first time in this province for many, many years — well, forever. We've moved incrementally towards it. I can tell you there will be no way that you will ever see a fudge-it budget like in 1996 again in this province.

"Mr. Collins's real achievement is that in terms of the bottom line, he has been able to keep his plan year after year. In doing so, he has restored B.C.'s badly shaken credibility." That's from the Vancouver Sun, an editorial. "B.C. has at last joined the ranks of the fiscally fit," Barbara Yaffe's editorial in the Vancouver Sun.

I've got pages of accolades from folks here who write paycheques for the average working person in this province. What they're telling us, and telling us in big numbers, is they are now encouraged to jump off their wallets and invest further in this province and create more jobs. People who have left the province are telling us they're coming back.

We're hearing from the investment community that internationally we are gaining a reputation as a place that does what we say and that can be depended upon. I think that's fantastic. What we're being told by the investment community is that as the rest of North America is in a sea of red, this is the place to come and invest money, and we are going to attract money.

The only obstacle is that lingering concern that on May 17, 2005, somehow that other government might come back, and that would be the biggest exodus — a huge door slamming. It will be a disaster. But I will also tell you that on May 18, 2005, after a majority government of B.C. Liberals is again re-elected, the floodgates will be open for investment money, for prosperity, for jobs. It happened in the seventies, when that last NDP government under Mr. Barrett was ousted, and the Bennett regime…. The second election is what it took, and that's what it takes here for many who have lost confidence under that previous government and are still a bit timid. They love what we're doing.

The other thing that I did want to comment on…. I heard this quite a bit on the radio yesterday as they were asking people: "Are you better off or worse off under a B.C. Liberal government?" Well, again, the usual crowd was phoning in. However, there were quite a few calls from people who would say things like: "I am a contractor. I build homes. I've never been so busy in my life. I've never made so much money in my life. But one of the problems I've got is finding skilled people to work for me."

I just want to touch for a moment on one of the things that we're doing as a government, and that is to completely revamp and revitalize the apprenticeship program in this province. I see the Minister of Education is here, and I know he would agree with this. Something like 80 percent of the kids, or perhaps more, that attend public school do not go on to post-secondary education. They don't go to university. We spend an awful lot of time talking about the universities and the kids who are going to go to university, but it's the vast majority who aren't going to university that we really need to concentrate on. We need to get those kids into skills, into training programs that provide them with marketable skills for life. That's where our future tradesmen should come from.

I can tell you that at one time not long ago, it was almost a bad thing to go into the trades. That was for dummies. Well, I can tell you that there's a looming shortage in the trades in this province. It's going to be disastrous unless we can turn it around, so the Minister of Advanced Education has a plan and has put the plan in motion that is going to create a tremendous new influx of skilled tradespeople. Our youth are going to have an opportunity to get into trades, to earn very good livings, to be very productive.

I just want to mention that in my own constituency in Mission, the public school system has opened a pre-apprenticeship school called Riverside. I've talked about that in this House before. Riverside takes kids who are identified early in their school careers — grades 9, 10 — who you know are going to drop out. They're definitely not going on to a post-secondary education at the university or anywhere. They're likely to drop out and be on the streets. These kids are being identified early, and they're being urged to move over into a pre-apprenticeship program that is run through a separate school that's opened in Mission.

This school has been opened — basically, funded — off the back of the administrator's desk. She took some money from here and there within their existing programs. It has not been directly funded by the ministry. There are several hundred kids attending there. Last year, from their hairdressing part of this school, they turned out something like 40 to 50 hairdressing graduates who are all now working in full apprenticeships. They've turned out people in the mechanics program, framing houses.

I just want to mention that the Minister of Advanced Education attended a graduation ceremony in Mission last year, and there were a number of these students who had gone through and got awards. At the end of the ceremony a woman ran over to me. I have to tell you that I was quite taken aback, because I thought she was going to start yelling at me for something. She grabbed me and said: "You know, my son is in Riverside. He's developmentally challenged and he can't read, but he has taken a framing course where he can now install windows and doors, and he's employable. He has a certificate that says that he's a certified door installer. For the first time, my boy has some hope, and I just want to thank you for what the government has done."

That's part of what we're moving towards, a program that's going to allow skills for young people who otherwise faced a very uncertain future to get a certain future. I think that's a wonderful thing. That's where we're moving. I know the Minister of Education is very much behind programs like that and is very much un-

derstanding that we need to keep kids connected and get them through school properly.

I want to close by saying that I know — I mentioned this the other day in the House too — for example, that seniors in this province are very familiar with what's called the reverse equity mortgage. That's where you take your house at a certain age, when your income goes down, and you put a mortgage that climbs on your house. As your income is down in retirement, you start living off the equity in your home. As you approach a much older age and perhaps the end of your life, you've used up much of the equity in your home. You've lived off it. Seniors don't go for that. They don't like that, because they're selling the inheritance of their kids. They're living on what they consider to be a responsibility for their kids. They're using that up, and they do not like it.

Living on borrowed money, as the previous government had us doing for so long, is exactly like taking a reverse equity mortgage on your home. It's selling the future of your children, and we've put a stop to that. We will no longer buy our groceries on our Visa card. We're not going to go further into debt for operating this government. I'm very, very proud to be part of a government that has accepted that responsibility and has gone through very tough times over the past few years to get where we are today.

I want to assure my constituents there is not a chance that we will back up and go back to the way we were. We have set a goal and a target. We're heading for it. We've reached a good part of it with the balanced budget. There's much more work to be done.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after May 17, 2005, as we come back here to re-form government, the greatest days of this province still lie ahead.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.