Hansard -- Tuesday, February 24, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 20, No. 15 (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		8771

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8771
	Women in politics
	P. Sahota
	Literacy and books for children
	H. Bloy
	2010 Winter Olympics youth essay contest
	P. Wong

Oral Questions		8772
	Disability benefits eligibility review and auditor general's report
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Hagen
	J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice		8775
	Sessional order on public written questions (Motion 87)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins

Point of Privilege		8775
	J. Kwan

Budget Debate (continued)		8775
	Hon. I. Chong
	H. Bloy
	J. Nuraney
	D. MacKay
	B. Belsey
	Hon. P. Bell
	Hon. G. Abbott
	K. Whittred
	G. Trumper

Hon. G. Cheema: Today in the gallery I would like to acknowledge some very special guests from my constituency. Please join me in welcoming, from Boundary Park Elementary School, Mrs. Rosenthal and her class of grade 5 students and Mr. Dewar and his class of grades 4 and 5 students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Kerr: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine, a person who helped work on my campaign and is still on my executive committee — a self-confessed political junkie. He's been in the precinct many times, but I've never had the pleasure of introducing him to the House. Would the House please make Pat Hrushowy feel very welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House a good friend of the mining industry in B.C. and also a good friend of British Columbians. This individual is working hard to drive the mining industry back into B.C. and to see the kind of growth we would all like to have in our rural communities in jobs and employment. Would the House please make Gary Livingstone very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure today to introduce a couple of very important guests in the gallery. The first is one of the two finest constituency assistants in the province: Ashley Haslett from my office. The second is Berris Karden. Berris is the owner and executive director of Congo Communications and one of the guys that helps me film my video constituency report every month. Would the House please make both of these gentlemen welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I'd ask members to help me welcome Alan Winter, Bruce Schmidt and Hector MacKay-Dunn, all three of whom are involved in the biotech sector. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Sahota: In a by-election in 1918, Mary Ellen Smith became the first woman elected to the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. She achieved two firsts for women in politics. She was appointed minister in 1921 and served as acting Speaker in 1928, the first woman in the British Empire to be appointed to such positions. Today, of the 79 MLAs in the B.C. Legislature, 19 are women. Of the 301 MPs in the federal Parliament, 63 are women. Women constitute 51 percent of the Canadian population yet hold fewer than 25 percent of our country's elected positions.

One organization looking to bring balance to these statistics is the Canadian Women Voters Congress, a non-partisan, grass-roots organization that encourages women to participate and have their voices heard at all levels of government. This organization's goal is to balance the scales of political representation in the decision-making process, thus acknowledging that the way for women to be heard within the circles of government is to have more women elected.

Each year the congress, in conjunction with UBC, hosts a campaign school that prepares women from across the country for participation in all levels of government. It is the only non-partisan campaign school in the entire country. My colleague from Richmond East and a former member of this chamber, Penny Priddy, are the co-chairs for the conference this year, and I will be participating as a guest speaker for the fourth year in a row. Some of the topics covered in the three-day conference include firsthand knowledge on campaign strategies, fundraising and communication strategies. The campaign school teaches women the basic elements they need to know in order to run or take part in a successful campaign.

The strides women have taken in Canadian politics since Mary Ellen Smith was first elected are amazing, especially when you consider there was once a time when we were not allowed to vote. But there's still much more work to be done, and I want to congratulate the Canadian Women Voters Congress and UBC for carrying on this important work.

H. Bloy: It's my privilege to rise today to talk about how our government and I are supporting literacy and the objectives of the Premier's Read On B.C. program for my riding in Burquitlam. I plan to give a book to every kindergarten student in my riding. To ensure that these books are age appropriate, we will purchase books contained in the catalogue sent out by Scholastic books. Many of you may know Scholastic books from your children being in school and from the book fairs. I fondly remember my children saving their money, their allowance, so they could buy books and posters at the school book fair. The Scholastic corporation promotes literacy, providing a list of age-appropriate books to children in elementary school so that children can purchase these books.

I will spend time in April visiting each school in my riding and personally giving a book to every kindergarten child in those classrooms. I expect that about 700 books will be given to students in the riding. We'll also be giving them a letter directing them to the Premier's Read On B.C. program so the parents can help their children to read. I hope to see the same smile and eagerness to learn — and to have the ability to read — as I've seen on the faces of my own children. I am always thrilled to see a child absorbed in a book. I hope

that our program will encourage the children of Burquitlam and all of British Columbia to read.

P. Wong: I am pleased to recognize the passion and commitment of B.C.'s youth. The 2010 Olympic Winter Games are an excellent opportunity to showcase British Columbia and its people to the world. I am pleased to advise my hon. colleagues about an essay contest for B.C.'s youth. The riding of Vancouver-Kensington created four bursaries of $500 each, which will be awarded this Friday.

The content of the essays describes how Vancouver and British Columbia will benefit from the games. High school students were required to write about 300 words, while post-secondary students, 400 words. I am pleased to announce the winners of the contest: Leslie Hong, Caitlin Shaw, Silvia Huang and Tina Kan. All these students, who wrote fantastic essays, are very deserving winners.

As one of the contest sponsors, I felt that this was a great way to encourage B.C.'s youth, to get them thinking about the games while providing a growth opportunity. Being able to express oneself in writing while thinking globally about an issue is a skill that will serve these students well over the course of their lives.

The Hon. John Les, Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, will attend to give remarks on the games and the future and legacy of youth.

I would like to acknowledge the generosity of the contest sponsors: Mr. Michael Lo, principal of Kingston College; Mr. Bill Lim and Mr. Ting Chung Wong. Additionally, I would like to thank the contest judges: Dr. Shirley Wong of UBC and lawyers Mr. Joe Bernando and Mr. Bill Lim. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support and participation of the following high schools: Sir Charles Tupper, John Oliver and David Thompson.

This was a wonderful program with much community participation. Congratulations to the dedicated students. I am looking forward to meeting all of them this Friday.

J. Kwan: Let me quote a couple of passages from the auditor general's report into the disability review released today. From page 3: "We believe that a key assumption of the ministry in arriving at this decision was that a large number of recipients would fail to qualify…and the result would be significant cost savings to government…." But the ministry did not adequately test the reliability of this assumption, which — as the final outcome shows — was unfounded. From page 34 of the report: "We think that the ministry also expected many of the former recipients to have their disability status rescinded. Estimates ranged from 6,177 to 9,750 clients. The savings from cancelling eligibility was expected to help the ministry meet its budget targets for 2002-03 and through '04-05."

Can the Minister of Human Resources explain what motivated the government to waste $5 million — taxpayer dollars — on this ill-conceived review of the disability benefits? It caused enormous anxiety and fear amongst some of B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let's just refresh our memories on why this review was undertaken by the ministry. This review was not about decreasing costs. This review was actually about accountability to the public, which is something that the members opposite would have no idea about. The purpose of doing the review…

Hon. S. Hagen: …was accountability to the public and to make sure the funds that we expend, which are public funds, are expended to the people who need them the most.

There were two firsts that came out of this. This is the first time in 13 years that the ministry actually has the information that we need…

Hon. S. Hagen: …so that we can, with certainty, say that the funds that are being expended in this program are being expended on the people who need the funds the most.

Another major first is that persons with mental illness are now included in the eligibility category with persons with disabilities. That's the second first. The auditor general also complimented the ministry staff for carrying out the review in a very, very respectful, professional and thoughtful manner.

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

J. Kwan: The minister claims that this review was not motivated by cost savings. This is directly contradicted by the auditor general's report — all throughout the report. Is the auditor general a liar? No. The minister's spin doesn't hold water.

The Premier had thought thousands of disabled British Columbians were cheating the system. He assumed that it was an easy way to save a few bucks, and he directed the minister and the rest of the cabinet to find a way to cut them off. But the auditor general says that all the government had to do was a simple statistical analysis, and this government would have gotten

the same information for less cost and with less anxiety for those on disability.

Again to the Minister of Human Resources: can he tell British Columbians why his government fast-tracked the disability review using false assumptions and chose the most punitive, costly approach to review the benefits?

Hon. S. Hagen: I wouldn't call a report that took a year to do "to be done speedily" — okay? I wouldn't call that "speedily." I think it's timely. It's a very timely way because, you know, as members opposite sometimes forget, we're actually dealing with people here. We're not dealing with statistics or dollars. We're dealing with people. I just want to stress again that….

Hon. S. Hagen: The ministry undertook the report after consultations with medical professionals and community advocates, who agreed with them that the time frame was absolutely correct. The results are that we actually now know, for the first time in 13 years, that the people who are getting the money are the people who need it the most.

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

J. Kwan: It would do the minister some good if he actually stopped and took a moment to read the report and learn from its findings. Let me quote from the report, page 21: "The minister did not have an adequate analysis of the cost and benefits associated with each choice or adequate evidence to support his reasons for choosing option 5." That is the way in which the government chose to do the review of the disability approach. "We believe that a significant factor in the ministry's choice was the potential cost savings associated with the anticipated number of ineligible recipients. And if the ministry's assumptions were correct, it would realize those cost savings quickly."

J. Kwan: The B.C. Liberals have one motivation, and that is to save a few bucks on the backs of the vulnerable British Columbians. In the process, they blew $5 million on a review that found — surprise, surprise — that disabled British Columbians are indeed eligible for assistance without any cost-benefit analysis of consideration for the recipients. The B.C. Liberals just assumed that going after disabled British Columbians would be a cost-saving bonanza. They were wrong…

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Hon. members, address your comments through the Chair.

J. Kwan: Now the government needs to be held accountable for wasting millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, order, please. Order, please. Would you please put your question now, hon. member.

J. Kwan: To the Minister of Human Resources: given the auditor general's damning conclusions, will he finally admit that the only motivation for this review was to deny income assistance recipients who are disabled, to make budget cuts that have been dictated by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member opposite is wrong again. The NDP is wrong again. The review was never undertaken because of trying to decrease costs. If we had done that…. Since we became government, we now have 8,000 to 10,000 more people with disabilities on our rolls, so it doesn't add up.

This report was all to do about public accountability, because we know about public funds. The members opposite don't have a clue about public funds, when you look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that they squandered over a period of ten years.

This was all about making sure we are providing the assistance to the people who need the assistance the most, and that's what that report was all about.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I hope this is one report that the government caucus will actually read, because unlike the Government House Leader trying to say that it was others fearmongering, here's what the auditor general….

J. MacPhail: Here's the auditor general, one of his three key findings — what he said. He said that the review this government undertook "also increased

anxiety amongst its disabled clients." It is a conclusion that the auditor general came to. Let me remind….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: Let me remind the minister that the $5 million the government wasted on this review could have paid for more than 2,000 hip replacements, reducing the wait-list by 11 percent, and it doesn't require any more money. The previous Minister of Human Resources stood in this House last year and denied that the plan all along was to kick disabled British Columbians off income assistance. This report puts the lie to that denial, and it's time for the current minister to come clean. The auditor general says it was all about cost savings.

J. MacPhail: The auditor general's report — I'm coming to it, Mr. Speaker — points out that the ministry possessed other much cheaper alternatives to this waste of $5 million.

To the minister: after reading the report, will he now admit what the former minister refused to do — that the plan all along was to kick thousands of disabled British Columbians off assistance to help make the Premier's budget cuts, and the fact that there are thousands more now just proves how wrong the review was?

Hon. S. Hagen: I find it amazing that those two members opposite, who created all the anxiety…. They were the ones standing up in the House every day talking about the tens of thousands of people who were going to be kicked off. We didn't say that. The minister didn't say that. They fearmongered for weeks and weeks and weeks, just like they did with the time lines.

Here's how carefully the ministry staff dealt with this report. "They provided focused training and clear guidelines to staff involved in the review; they used appropriate quality control measures; they rigorously tested and evaluated the assessment form with external stakeholders" — including the medical community; "they called clients directly who were experiencing difficulty to offer assistance; they published directories to assist clients with finding physicians and assessors in their communities; and they established outreach services" through advocacy groups like the Vancouver coastal health authority and the Canadian Mental Health Association for clients requiring assistance.

These folks were dealt with, with compassion by my staff. They were not dealt with, with compassion by the two members opposite, who fearmongered for months and months about the numbers that were going to come out.

J. MacPhail: The minister is right about one thing. After the government used the exercise to say they wanted to save money on the backs of the vulnerable, did no cost-benefit analysis and sent the bureaucrats down the wrong path, the bureaucrats — even going down that wrong path — did act with compassion. There's no question about it. It was the government that was heartless and mean-spirited, and the auditor general's report reaches that conclusion exactly — that they had no cost benefit and had no reason to do the review in the first place.

Right now the Developmental Disabilities Association of B.C. is closing three group homes today, laying off more than 20 disability workers, because this government cut its budget by $1 million. The minister may want to shrug his shoulders and say that the waste uncovered by the auditor general was not factual, was wrong, but to the thousands of disabled British Columbians, that money could have been used to save their lives, make their lives easier, rather than be part of a mean-spirited attack on their credibility.

Again to the minister: have you read the report? And if so, I'll give you one more chance. Will you…?

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'll give the minister one more chance. Will he take responsibility for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars? Can he tell us now what specific steps he's taking to ensure that this cruelty never happens again?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't believe the money we spend on people's lives in my ministry is wasted. I can tell you that when you look at why this report was done and why we did all of the work we did, it was so that we could stand up to British Columbians and say: "We are dealing with your funds that you have entrusted with us in a very respectful way." And we now, because of doing the report we've done, can say to British Columbians: "The money is being spent on the people who need the money the most."

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, you are, of course, well aware — and for the information of the public — that this was an innovation established by the Speaker's office, by the Speaker in the chair, to allow for public input at a time when there were only two opposition members — there are more now — to this government. One of the points I want to make is that this motion being brought forward by the Government House Leader is, in a way, a step backward from the guidelines that you, Mr. Speaker, put in place, as I understand it, and it could be clarified.

Here's what it is. As I understand it, the question would be on the order paper for a week, and if the member from the constituency of the person who raised the question did not raise that question, then anyone would have an opportunity to put that question forward. Those time limits are not in here. In fact, it's quite unclear as to when a person other than the member from the said constituency could put the question.

I note that the question will sit on the order paper for two consecutive weeks now, Mr. Speaker, whereas before it would have been available for anyone to put that question after a week, given the former rules.

So I just make note that what was an innovative process to allow for some accountability with this government is now less so.

Hon. G. Collins: I am closing the debate on the motion unless others have something to say. All I'd say is that I'm not aware of any change. This is a motion that was presented to me. I thought it was the same as the previous one. I am certainly prepared to have the Speaker or the Clerks look at it to determine whether it has been changed at all. I certainly was not advised of that. According to my understanding, it's the same motion. But if it has changed, then I'm glad to look into that. If it needs to be amended in the future, then we can do so. I'm perfectly prepared to do that.

This has been on the order paper for some time, and if the member had an issue with it, she certainly could have come and….

Hon. G. Collins: Well, she certainly could have come to speak to myself or, as she mentioned, the Speaker, or….

Hon. G. Collins: I'm unclear on the confusion from the member opposite. But if she'd like to talk about it some other place, we're certainly glad to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if the motion requires an amendment, then I'm perfectly prepared to do that in the future as well.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your comments. I have put in place some guidelines that the Leader of the Opposition mentions. They're not in the motion, but if anyone wants clarification, please….

Mr. Speaker: No, the motion hasn't changed. But you could come to my office, and as the House Leader suggests, if members feel it requires an amendment to the motion, we can do so.

J. Kwan: Yes. Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege.

Hon. I. Chong: I am very pleased to be able to rise today and respond to the budget speech that was in-

troduced on February 17, 2004. It's no surprise to many members in this House that this is not the first time I have responded to a budget speech but, I believe, the eighth or ninth time that I've responded to a budget speech. I'm very pleased to be able to do so in this particular year, because it is about responding to a balanced budget for the 2004-05 year.

I want to start off by saying how very, very pleased I am not only for my constituents but for all of British Columbia, because a balanced budget was one of our planks in our election platform. It was one of the promises that we held for the people of this province to know that what we would do once elected was to get this House back in fiscal order.

It was so important that as I went out in my communities, I was asked time and time again why it is that there was mismanagement. Why is it that our provincial debt — which attracted interest — in the amount of about $2.6 billion a year, was having to be paid — and which amounted to about $7 million a day in interest costs? It ranked as the third-largest ministry, if you were to put all the public debt that we paid in one ministry, after health care and education.

It was so important that citizens of this province knew that when they went to the polls in 2001, one of the key things that we would accomplish — one of our goals, one of our objectives — would be to have a balanced budget.

On February 17 the Finance minister delivered on that. He delivered on that because under the leadership of our Premier, we were able to focus on spending. We were able to ensure that all disciplines of spending were adhered to. All members in this House — with the exception of a few — should be proud because we all contributed to that focus, to that discipline, of spending.

Budgets are not always about the revenue side of the picture, although some would like to believe that's how you create a balanced budget. The expenditure side is very important, particularly for the investment community and for those who would seek to lend moneys or offer to lend money.

In this particular case our spending was out of control. Our spending was mismanaged. Our spending was intolerable in the minds of many British Columbians, so we set out to get that spending under control regardless of what our revenue growth could be. Yes, it would be great if we have one-time surpluses of revenue like hydro energy amounts, but you cannot plan, you cannot prepare a budget for future years based on one-time pockets of money that flow into a province. What you must and should do is prepare your budgets to have a fiscal plan that will look at spending in a controllable fashion, in a managed way, so that you can sustain those programs you introduce.

Unfortunately, in the previous administration we found out time after time that what was occurring was that program spending was not monitored. Program spending was not necessarily effective or efficient. Program spending was never evaluated to determine whether the purpose for it as set out was actually being accomplished.

We undertook that process in 2001, once we were elected. We had a core review process. We examined the programs. We examined the spending. We had a look within government. Some members of the public sector, our public service, were a little surprised because this had never happened. But many of them, once they saw the objective, actually embraced the change. They saw that ultimately the goal was to ensure that the program would be sustainable — if the program should be continued by government — and the revenue stream or the dollars that would be allocated would be there for that because the purpose was meant to be there for that particular program.

After having undertaken that core review, government was able to remove those areas where we actually were competing with the private sector — the private sector who we always say are our job creators. We were able to then focus on what government needed to provide as core — what taxpayers knew where their taxpayers' dollars were going to. Once that was determined, it made it that much smoother in terms of a transition for the Finance minister and, indeed, for all ministers to come together and prepare their budgets and know that they could meet the targets they set.

It also allows in some areas where we would be able to increase spending or introduce a new program or initiative, if that was important. Indeed, it was in some areas. I know we have increased and provided funding for the area of mental health, an area that had been forgotten by the previous administration. In the area of early childhood development, the same initiatives that should have been introduced years ago we were able to capitalize and work on because we identified these as being core — core to our government as well as important for the future of our province and our citizenry, because it is about the future of our people.

I was very pleased to have been a part of this at the very early stages, having spoken about this in opposition and having tried to lobby the previous administration to at least listen to our ideas to have a balanced budget, a core review and a method by which we could control our spending. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. When we were able to elect the government and form government, we were able to move on that initiative, and we did just a week and a half ago — a balanced budget that all British Columbians and all members of this House should be extremely proud of, except for a few members, I know, who would rather see us continue in a deficit spending pattern, which has been explained by other members in this House.

Previous to my rising today they've referred to another alternative budget that was introduced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. As we know, this is the economic team that the NDP have been using or have been referring to when they have looked for an economic platform. While I'm not going to extol all the other parts of that plan, because members in this

House have already done so, I just want to say for the record that it is very unfortunate indeed that that centre would produce a budget that would see us in a deficit position until the year 2010. That's another six years out, and I don't think British Columbians want that. I don't think British Columbians accept that. I think British Columbians will reject that when they go to the polls next year.

It's pretty clear that an NDP government doesn't have what it takes to turn this economy around. It's pretty clear that their economic plan will be based on the same kind of mismanagement that occurred over the last ten years.

Mr. Speaker, that's what I wanted to bring to the attention of yourself and members in this House as well as those who may be watching or listening to these debates or who will refer to them in the future when they look at Hansard. Sometimes, especially in politics, it's so easy to forget what happened in the past. It's so easy to forget what the decade of decline was, and that's what we had from 1991 to the year 2001 — a decade of decline.

We had an NDP government and administration that made this province one of the worst-performing economies in Canada. We did go from the first-place economy at the beginning of that decade to the last-place economy ten years later, when we were able to form government. We were also, during that decade…. British Columbia was last in investment growth. I remember — and I spoke about this time and time again when I was in this House — meeting with a group, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. I met with them again this year, as I have every year in the last eight years.

I remember one particular meeting that I had with the Investment Dealers Association — the IDA, as they call it, initials that I rather like. They had said they would publish pamphlets that would explain the investment opportunities or the economies of the various jurisdictions in Canada — the ten provinces and, if they had time, the territories. They would go to these meetings where there would be national investors, international investors, and they would lay these brochures out on the table for these investors to look at. More often than not, in fact often, it was the Alberta brochure that was picked up. It was the Ontario brochure that was picked up, and a few other provinces as well. The one brochure that was always left behind in those last ten years, the one brochure that no one wanted to really pick up and have a good look at, was British Columbia. That was, well, disastrous. It was just not acceptable.

That's changed now because if you take a look around, if you speak to people in the investment community, they say that B.C. is the third province in terms of investor intentions. That means when investors are willing to open up their wallets, they are willing to put their money here in British Columbia, are willing to create jobs for the people in British Columbia, are willing to see this province grow so that the future generations — our youth — have jobs. They are willing to open up their wallets and invest in British Columbia as a place where people can work, where people can live, where communities can grow. Again, that's something we should be proud of. I am very, very glad to hear that once again our balanced budget is going to provide more confidence in investor growth.

I want to speak a little bit about the fiscal record of the previous government, the decade of decline, wherein they introduced eight consecutive deficit budgets. You will hear them lament that we had two deficit budgets, but compare eight deficit budgets to two deficit budgets — with a goal of having a balanced budget in year three, just as we promised. The opposition introduced eight consecutive deficit budgets. Every year, I remember, when I was on that side of the House, I'd get up and say: "Where are they headed? Where are they going? Are they ever going to introduce a balanced budget, and dare they introduce balanced-budget legislation?" Well, they didn't.

The fact that they introduced what they called their surplus budgets…. I will confirm that that is what happened, because the books say that's what happened. I still have to offer a caveat to that, because they were not surplus budgets in that they were planned for. They were not surplus budgets that they had any management control over. They were surplus budgets as a result of one-time revenue, spikes in energy prices that occurred, which allowed them to do this. If you take a look at their budgeting, if you take a look at their record, you know they were not headed for any surplus budgets. By the grace of good, high energy prices they were able to have those surplus budgets.

Again, if you take a look at the last budget that was introduced by the previous administration when Mr. Ramsey was the Finance minister, you would see very clearly, I believe, on page 95 of that budget that his projections would see that they would go back into deficit spending. They would go backwards because they had no plan.

When we were elected, we introduced our plan. We introduced a platform that said that after three years, we would introduce a balanced budget and thereafter surpluses. That's really key as well — surpluses next year, the year after, the year after and the year after. So long as we are in government, a Liberal government will continue to have surplus budgets because we've legislated that. It's mandated by law. We will not go back to deficit budgeting. It's very interesting when the opposition gets up and speaks about their surplus budgets — that they had planned for this or that it had anything to do with this — because I know, having been here, that that was not the course they had set.

I want to, as well, talk a little bit more about their fiscal record. Not only did they have these eight consecutive budgets, but when they did budget, they also missed their forecasts. They missed their forecasts; that was even worse. In other words, they spent more, and they very often had to come into this House and ask for supplementary estimates.

Supplementary estimates are when you spent more during the year because your program dollars ran out before the fiscal year, and you had to come back and ask for sort of a ratification of that spending. Therefore, what was inappropriate was that there was no debate on whether that money should be expended. That was wrong. We've eliminated those supplementary estimates other than for extraordinary circumstances whereby, for example, the federal government offers to share with us on some costs and we're able to put those dollars right back, such as in health care.

They missed their budget forecast. In cases where we've missed our budget forecast, it has not been to the detriment; it has always been to the better. We have, in fact, missed the deficit forecast, as we had in our first two years, by making it even better — in other words, by reducing that deficit. Again, it was not because we were prepared to spend everything we said we would in our budget. What we said we would do is that we would have this budget for the programs that we believe need to be sustained, but wherever possible we would control that spending and look for savings, and we did.

When we looked for savings in some ministries, in two in particular, we were able to put them right back into delivery of services directly to the citizens. Those two areas were in health care and education.

We said we would protect the budgets for health care and education. Where there were savings — and there were millions of dollars in savings — the ministry was able to redirect those savings back to patient care. The minister was able to redirect the savings back to student services. That's very important too, because it shows that when you do stick to a target and meet your objectives, you can find savings and you can manage better. You can have those savings, and you can put them back to services. That's what we must never lose sight of, because it is about taxpayers' dollars.

They want a government that is fiscally responsible. They want a government that knows how to manage. Then they also want a government that understands that where there are savings, they can be redirected and provide for additional enhanced services — not more of the same, but better for the citizens of this province.

We did have the worst fiscal record in Canada in the last decade. We suffered two credit downgrades. In our short time, in our 30 months or so in government, we have not suffered a credit downgrade, despite the opposition members having mentioned that we had two deficit budgets. Why is it, then, that those international bankers, those international investors, did not see fit to downgrade us?

I'll tell you why. It's because we had a plan. We had an economic plan. We had a vision for the future, and they saw that. They knew there was certainty in our plan. They knew we were going to stay on target. They knew we were going to manage the books of this province in the most fiscally responsible way ever, which allowed them to say: "Fair enough. Continue with your approach. We know you're going to reach your target. We will not do a downgrade on your credit rating."

Again, that in itself is not as significant as everything else we have done, which has allowed us to borrow, when we have had to borrow, at the best rate possible — once again, reducing the amount that we would otherwise pay in debt servicing and thereby putting those savings right back again into dollars for patients and students.

I do want to speak a little bit more about the budget and what it means to me. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm a certified general accountant. One thing that pleases me to no end is the fact that we have introduced a budget that was not only balanced but according to generally accepted accounting principles — GAAP. G-A-A-P, as people have mentioned. I will say that again for people who are non-accountants — what it is and how important it is. GAAP is the seven basic principles upon which the accounting profession is expected to adhere.

These principles ensure that things such as materiality are considered, that disclosure is considered. There's a matching principle so we have dollars of expenses and revenues in the same period, so there is no fudging of dollar amounts, as we know the previous administration did. It's very important that we adhere to GAAP because it sends a message to everyone else throughout the province, the country and North America.

No other jurisdiction has been able to do this, because for so long public accounting bodies would look at government and the way they kept their books and say: "Well, it's because you don't…. You're not a business in the same sense. You're not offering a service or a product. Thereby, you're not having to adhere to principles of going concern, matching or disclosure in the same way."

Governments all over got this free ride of not having to adhere to these principles. But we sat back and said that to be more credible, to strengthen our investor confidence, to have investor confidence return, it was important that we looked at GAAP. It was important that we consider how that might affect us.

The previous auditor general, George Morfitt, who many of us know was really a driving force along with our late member Fred Gingell, who represented Delta South…. He was an advocate for this. When I joined him here in the Legislature in 1996 and worked with him, I saw firsthand how passionate he was about moving towards a process where our books and our records would be kept in a way that people could trust, would know were transparent, fair and open.

So we went and embarked on this process. We talked to people, and everyone thought there was no way we would be able to do this, but we did do it. We're the first jurisdiction in Canada and in fact, I believe, the first jurisdiction in North America to proceed with GAAP. We're going to continue to do that, and I'll bet there will be other jurisdictions that will follow our lead. For a change, British Columbia becomes a leader once again as opposed to a follower.

There is so much to say, and I can't believe I've already probably used up a good portion of my time. I want to have a little more opportunity to talk about the wonderful things that are available in our new budget. It was also branching out on the theme that the throne speech had, which is about bringing out the best. Absolutely, bringing out the best of all British Columbians is a theme that we should be proud of. I'm so glad that the Premier saw a way to express this in such a positive way.

Bringing out the best means that our future generations know that we are planning for them. Bringing out the best in job growth. As it was, we were number one in the nation in job growth last year, the measure of that last year being 2003. We were also number one in housing starts and housing growth, and that goes a long way to endorsing and reaffirming consumer confidence. One of the largest investments a person ever makes in their lifetime is the purchase of a home. If a person who is working doesn't feel confident enough to make that large investment, to go out and borrow and to have a future in a position or a job, they're not going to invest in one of the largest investments of their lives, and that is in a house. Yet housing starts were number one in British Columbia, so consumer confidence definitely has been returned.

We were also number one in small business confidence — more incorporations than ever before in this province. That means people are coming back to this province. People are putting their dollars and investing in this province. With that, the small business sector…. It means jobs are created, jobs for small businesses. We've always said time and time again how small businesses are the engine of our economy. Small businesses create jobs; governments don't create jobs. We've said that, we believe that, and here we have the actual fact that the small businesses are returning. Small businesses are creating jobs and are, in fact, investing.

One of the key indicators of that, as well, is the net migration. I know it's been said in this chamber before, because I've heard other members speak about the fact that more people than ever before are returning to British Columbia. More young people are returning to British Columbia because they see a future, and that future is very important. Again, I know that when I was in opposition, I had to speak a number of times and I had to try to express in as succinct a way as possible to the members opposite, who were the NDP government at that time, that we were losing too many of our young people who took away with them their skilled trades.

I myself had friends — and they were all in their young thirties — who left British Columbia, who went to Alberta to find jobs. And then what did they do? They created situations where they became single parents. They left their wives, their spouses behind to take care of the children, and they went to work in Alberta. They weren't able to save much, because they then had to pay rents in Alberta and they had to pay for mortgages in British Columbia. That was not the best for families. It was not keeping them together.

So what we've been able to do in creating an investment climate, an economic climate that's friendly to business, that allows for opportunities…. We've had that opportunity for people to return to this province. Young people will come back with their trades and their skills.

On that note, I want to say we are acknowledging that we do need to invest in our skilled trades and occupations. That's why in the Ministry of Advanced Education there will be more dollars put there as well, not only for the post-secondary colleges and universities but all the institutes as well. That is critical as well. Our young workforce needs to be educated. Our young workforce needs to find skills and trades for the future of this province. As we are aging, we need to have young people come and fill our spaces as we move forward.

I can tell you that as the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services, I know seniors are aging at the fastest rate. That demographic age group is aging faster than ever before. It's hard to believe that in the next ten years, we will see the percentage of increase in terms of the aging population, the 90-plus…. That increase will be greater than those from 18 to 29. What that means is that we are going to have yet more demands on our health care system.

That is another reason why this balanced budget, this budget 2004-05, is good news for British Columbians. It indicates, once again, that we're planning out. We're planning to invest more dollars in our health care system because we know there will be demands on health care. We know the aging population is going to need more services, and we know we can't wait till the demands are there, because those demands would be too great for our younger generation. We need to plan for it now and spread out those costs as best as possible to allow for those dollars to be available to sustain a public health care system.

Something we said we would do, something the Premier said he would do and something all members of this House on this side of the House in terms of our government said we would do was that we would protect health care and would provide for more dollars as the economy grows. We're seeing that the economy is growing, and more dollars will be invested in health care.

The last note I want to speak about is tax cuts. I know our critics will say tax cuts don't work, but again I will disagree and I will disagree vehemently with them. Tax cuts are working. There are more dollars left in people's pockets. The disposable income increase we've seen in our administration versus the previous has been the largest increase ever. I have seen it in the stores. The retailers are finding that their businesses are in fact growing. That's because of consumer confidence. We are seeing people use their dollars where they think it is best available for them.

Tax cuts also are helping small businesses because of our incorporation numbers that are increasing. As

well, in fact, the elimination of the corporation capital tax — a very, very big move that we brought in and we staged over two years — allowed for investor confidence to grow. All these things are good measures. All these things will continue because as a government, when we were first elected, we brought in three-year rolling service plans. Everybody will now know where we're headed; everyone will now see where our targets are. It doesn't mean there can't be changes and amendments along the way. The idea of having a rolling service plan means we can do that.

I just want to say how pleased I am to stand up today in support of the budget. I know all members of this government are in support of it, and we should look forward to better days as we bring out the best in all British Columbians.

H. Bloy: It's a privilege and an honour to follow the new Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services. I congratulate her on her new portfolio and look forward to inviting her, shortly, into the riding of Burquitlam in the city of Burnaby to celebrate D-Day this June. There are many other activities. We look forward to working with the minister.

I rise today in response to the budget speech. The budget is a great accomplishment for British Columbia. We have finally balanced the budget. We have true transparent accounting principles working under GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles, that we can defend. We balanced the budget. At the same time, we've defended increased funding for health care and education. The Premier and members of cabinet should be congratulated on this achievement.

It was certainly not easy with the many factors we have faced over this past year, such as the forest fires, SARS, the softwood lumber dispute and mad cow disease. We heard many initials and names we had never dreamt of before, but we got through them, and we did balance the budget.

The reason we balanced the budget was that we set out with a sound plan to improve business, employ more people, reduce reliance on our social safety net and balance the budget. The budget is actually balanced, and it is the first to follow generally accepted accounting principles. We are the first province in Canada to adapt the GAAP procedures to our accounting, and because we are following GAAP, this is not a fudge-it budget like the former government's claim to balanced budgets. This is a true balanced budget.

The budget is not based on unrealistic revenue incomes from ICBC or B.C. Hydro or other organizations, which that government knew would never be achieved. Our budget is based on reality. We are following the sound principles laid out in GAAP, and my constituents are excited about this. The members of my riding know the abuses of the past and are satisfied with the measures we have taken to prevent these abuses from ever happening in the future.

The people of Burquitlam, unlike our predecessors, will not proclaim a balanced budget while the Crown corporation loses money hand over fist, year after year. The government is responsible for any shortfall debt of its Crown corporations, and it is only right that the government should include the Crown corporations and all their subsidiaries within our budget.

Prior to this budget our government has not only defended patient care by maintaining funding for health care, but we have actually increased health care spending by over $2 billion, and we've proclaimed in this budget that we'll put another billion dollars into health care over the next three years. This is a truly great era for patients and all British Columbians.

I remember the election when the party opposite said we would cut education funding, and we didn't. It was baseless fearmongering. They should be ashamed of misleading the voters as they continue to try and mislead the voters of British Columbia day after day with needless fearmongering. Their last one was on social assistance cuts, claiming 28,000 people…. You know, that's shameful of the members to say that, when in actual fact the numbers are closer to 349 people that may lose their assistance.

The Ministry of Human Resources is working with each one of these individuals on a job plan to get them to look after themselves. The best social safety net we can provide any individual in British Columbia is a job — a job where they bring in way more money than income assistance, a job where they can provide for themselves and for their families, and a job that makes them feel good about themselves.

This government talked about our cuts to education. Well, we haven't cut money from education. In fact, in K-to-12 we've added more than $500 per student than the last government saw fit to do. We've done that when the enrolment is decreasing. We've added over $300 million, whereas Carole James's transition team, which produced her budget, claims we're not giving enough for students. Well, we've given to students, and we're still giving to the educational system.

Our past minister and the present Minister of Education are continuing that program of putting more money towards student education in this province than ever before. How can the NDP say we're not spending enough when they invested far less in our children? Fortunately, the voters of Burquitlam see through the NDP's claim and know who really cares about providing our children with the quality education they need.

I remember the voters being told by the NDP that we would slash education spending. The member for Vancouver-Hastings said in a reply to the budget speech that the government cannot market the skills of our workers. She said we cannot market these skills because we are not properly educating our workforce. The members of my riding see right through that. Simon Fraser University has a provincial grant that was $30 million higher in 2002 versus 1999-2000. That is a 25 percent increase in grant money to Simon Fraser University in the riding of Burquitlam, above what the NDP felt was necessary. They froze tuition fees, but

they didn't even keep up the money to keep up with inflation to the university, and it fell behind. Class spaces were following. Students couldn't get the course requirements. Students, instead of a four-year program, were taking five and six years to graduate. It's really expensive for a student to have to pay housing and personal costs and entertainment costs for an extra two years to get their education. The head count at Simon Fraser University has increased by over 1,500 full-time-equivalents, a 14 percent increase in the last two years.

What the NDP thought was needed for our economy…. Education is important to all British Columbians, and I'm proud to be part of that government that recognizes the importance of education in British Columbia. My constituents are excited and happy about the prospect of more seats at institutions — at Simon Fraser University, BCIT, all the community colleges and universities. We as a government have committed to over 12,000 new seats over the next three years and 25,000 seats over the next six years. These spaces will help our citizens achieve the quality education they want.

We now have in place, on a go-forward basis, that any student in British Columbia who achieves a B average at school will have the ability to go on to higher education. We're one of only a few provinces that can offer that.

More than 150,000 new jobs have been created since we formed government. Business is going well for B.C. for the first time in ten years. We have more than 3,500 business incorporations per year. That's 3,500 more than what the NDP had in their years in power.

Finally, the people of Canada are starting to move back to British Columbia. We are in a plus position where more people, for the first time in a number of years, are coming back to British Columbia, because this is a beautiful province, and this is the place where they want to raise their children and work.

When you look at the achievements of this government…. When we talk about what a good social safety network is versus income assistance, it's jobs. We have created — or the business community has created…. We've only laid out the environment. Government doesn't create jobs; government doesn't make jobs. What government does is create the climate that will allow jobs to happen. Because of this government — our balanced budget, our tax reductions that we've done — we've removed over 87,000 people from income assistance. This is what government is about — creating the opportunities for the citizens of this great province. Now we have 87,000 more people working, earning an income, supporting themselves and their families. I believe and this government believes that the best social safety net is a job.

The NDP has a problem with this, though. Apparently the NDP doesn't like business or the employment it brings. They used taxpayers' money to fund a think tank. Well, this think tank is the transition team for Carole James and the NDP budget. They just want to play tricks on voters, but B.C. will clearly see through this. Can you imagine that the opposition doesn't want to balance the budget for another six years? Can you imagine that in the $30,000-to-$60,000 wage bracket in British Columbia, they want to increase their tax load by over 40 percent? If you are fortunate enough in this province to make over $65,000, they want to increase the tax load by over 100 percent. The NDP wants to kill business again by hiking their taxes. I find this unforgivable, and I'm sure the citizens of British Columbia will agree with me on this.

We saw a decade of decline shrink B.C.'s economy, and now that the CCPA is advocating that we return to NDP economics, the NDP-funded…. Actually, one of the last things the NDP did when they left power was give $200,000 to this think tank. Everybody else in British Columbia basically got the information for free, but the last government decided to pay $200,000 to continue to fund this think tank as their advocacy.

My constituents are worried that a budget like this would be foisted on the province. Burquitlam knows that if they were lucky enough to keep their jobs under this system, the NDP would hike their personal income taxes. The citizens of Burquitlam do not want that. The constituents of my riding do not want to pay higher taxes. They enjoy the fact that most people in the second-lowest income tax bracket in Canada are right here in this province. That's money in their pockets for them to decide how they want to spend the money, not for government to tell them where the money will be spent.

The people I represent also do not want to scare away business by jacking up their taxes. They don't want to wait till 2010 for a balanced budget. Since we announced the budget last week, I have had nothing but phone calls of praise and support in my constituency office.

It's not enough for the NDP to try and reverse the 150,000 jobs we have created and impoverish workers who will have to pay their taxes. Carole James and her NDP friends want to wait until 2010, as I have already said. They want to spend another six years of passing on our provincial debt to our children. They want to drown our children in further debt so that they can't afford the social programs that are required for this province. They want to make it harder for our children to pay for their education and health care costs by racking up even larger debts on the provincial credit card. I say shame.

I just want to remind all British Columbians that if you as a British Columbian had loaned all the money to our province as a debt…. I want to tell you how much interest we pay every day in the province — this is only interest on debt — mainly because of the NDP. We pay $7.2 million every day in interest. I want you just to think about what we could do with that amount of money, where that money could go — into health care, into education, into the social services — if it wasn't for the backward thinking of these two members and their old party with their old thoughts and concepts of spend, spend, spend. When you sit down

and read about the budget the hon. Minister of Finance put out with the full support of this caucus…. This is what will lead us on in British Columbia, and this money, as we reduce the debt, will start to go towards supporting more programs.

We are also taking care of social responsibilities that go beyond health care, jobs and education. In my riding the government gave the Tri-City Women's Resource Society $276,000 so that the society could offer such services and activities as counselling and temporary accommodations for emotionally and physically abused women and their children. I know this is supported. I know they would like more money. My wife works in counselling — many people in abusive situations. It's the government that we have here today and the long-range thinking that will allow us to be able to support this.

In my riding in 2002-03 we gave over $450,000 in grants to child care programs. These programs help the day care and preschool needs of our children. I am proud to be part of a government that has accomplished this.

This budget will be a legacy for our children. There will be $25 million for sports, culture, music and arts. This will also include funding for volunteerism, which is one of the pillars of society. I've always believed you can never thank a volunteer often enough. If it weren't for the volunteers in every part of this great province, we wouldn't have the communities and the lifestyle we enjoy today.

The government is preparing for the 2010 Olympic Games by investing over $50 million to construct some of our venues earlier than needed so that we will be ready for the games. Right in my riding we have the speed skating oval at Simon Fraser University. It will be the largest capital project for the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games are going to be such a bonus and benefit for all British Columbians, but I will tell you that the real legacy of the Olympic Games and the speed skating oval that will be at Simon Fraser University is the over 150,000 square feet of classroom and research space that will be built. That is the true legacy of what the games are going to leave. They're going to leave housing components in other parts of the province. They're going to leave facilities. Simon Fraser University is a leader in many health research areas now, and this will just be a bonus to them.

We are getting ready for the Olympics. The Olympics are going to create about 200,000 new jobs over the next six years. That's on top of the 150,000 we've already created in the past three years. These 200,000 jobs are only related to the Olympics. There are going to be hundreds of thousands more jobs made available.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the budget today. I am proud to be part of the accomplishments today as we continue to usher in an era for all British Columbians. I'm proud to be part of this government today.

J. Nuraney: It is my pleasure to rise here today and speak on the budget that was introduced by our Minister of Finance. What gives me even more pleasure is knowing that today I can speak on a budget that for the first time in the history of this province is balanced according to the generally accepted accounting principles. I would like to applaud this government for committing to fiscal responsibility and transparency, for staying on course and for achieving a balanced budget in just three years as we had promised.

I would like to emphasize the hard work and dedication it took this government to get to this milestone. In May of 2001, when this government came to power, we were facing an economy in recession, inflated spending and an overall state of chaos. Now we are leading the nation in job creation, and our economy is projected to be one of the best in the country, while British Columbians get to enjoy the second-lowest rate of income tax in Canada. Unfortunately, in order to get to this point, sacrifices had to be made — sacrifices that included reduction in spending, tightening the belt and correcting some artificial freezes.

Our critics, naysayers and opposition have been quick to judge that this government does not care for its people, that our mandate is to please just a selected few rather than the province as a whole. This could not be further from the truth. I would like to remind those people that $2 billion has been added to health care, $92 million more has been directed to education, and 5,800 new post-secondary spaces for students have been created. This list goes on and on. Those same people claim that the balanced budget is not important. They don't understand that by balancing the budget, we have established a discipline that we apply in our own homes every day. We spend only as much as we earn.

What does this mean for British Columbians? It means that we are freeing up money from interest payments on the debt load — money that can be better spent on health, education and social programs.

Now, for a minute let us consider the alternative. Let us consider the proposed budget of the NDP. This is a budget that is proposed as an alternative to our budget presented by the Minister of Finance. Under their proposal, they are suggesting holding off balancing the budget until 2010. This is a budget that will increase the tax rates for everyone from low-income families to seniors. They're suggesting an increase of 27 percent. This is a budget that will drive away investment. People from British Columbia also will leave in droves because of the highest tax rates in North America. Unfavourable business conditions will also drive away the investors. Finally, this is a budget prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the think tank of the NDP — who paid $200,000, by the way, to them when they were government.

This budget spells nothing but disaster. I ask you: does this sound like a responsible situation for NDP supporters? Does this sound like a party that has its people's needs as a priority? No wonder the people of British Columbia voted them out the last time around — to stop further deterioration of our province.

The real problem is that the NDP consider "profits" to be a bad word. It is a reality that success is measured by the positive results of performances. Under the opposition's plan there will not be any new investment in the province, and the high-income earners — like the doctors, nurses and captains of our industries — will leave to go where tax regimes are more favourable and where governments encourage success.

It is important for British Columbians to understand the difference between the philosophy of our government and that of the opposition. Let us look at what this government had promised they would do and what results that brought to British Columbians. One of the key promises this government made was to make taxes work for British Columbia. We started doing that since the first day in office. We introduced 27 tax relief measures that resulted in almost $900 million in tax relief for individuals and close to $400 million in tax relief for businesses of British Columbia.

The personal income tax rates were cut by 25 percent, increasing aftertax family income by 4.7 percent. It should be noted that this rise is the largest gain for British Columbia families in at least the last two decades, bringing the aftertax family income to an average of $57,581. These tax cuts were designed to encourage economic growth, put more money back in the pockets of British Columbians and promote spending and investment.

To foster the proper business environment we have eliminated the corporate capital tax. We have exempted production machinery and equipment from PST. These reductions in costs for industries, and allowing them to be more competitive, have spurred more investment.

To further enhance the competitiveness of our businesses, we have reduced the general corporate income tax rate and increased the small business threshold from $200,000 to $300,000. This government believes strongly in restoring the small business sector, since it accounts for 98 percent of all B.C. business and provides numerous jobs and benefits to our communities.

We have also doubled the corporate capital tax exemption threshold for small financial institutions from $5 million to $10 million, which helps small trust companies and credit unions. Furthermore, we have introduced new tax credits for the mining sector and the high-technology sector, contributing to the growth and investment of these key economic sectors.

Once again, our opposition have been quick to judge. They say that those tax measures didn't work, that they produced no benefits and that they were not needed. The facts prove otherwise. Investments in venture capital, mining, forestry, technology, and oil and gas have all seen an increase. Yes, those tax measures were needed, and they have definitely worked. They were implemented to foster investment, to foster growth and development, to revive the economy and to further its growth. Those doubting the results of our tax measures are obviously not well informed. All they had to do was look at what B.C.'s economic indicators have shown in the last little while. We are today leading the nation for the second year in a row with job creation. That job creation has reduced the unemployment rate, provided more families with a healthy income and helped to push the economy.

Perhaps they would also notice that for 2004, B.C. is forecast to have the second-highest GDP growth of all the provinces, at the rate of 3.1 percent. For the first time in six years, people are moving back to B.C., and they are moving back here because there are jobs and opportunities. They are moving back here to start businesses and to raise their families. They are moving back here because British Columbia is becoming the best province to live in once again.

I have experienced such a delight in my own family. My daughter, after having worked away from British Columbia for the past six years, has returned home with a much better business and better career prospects. People are building their homes here. The value of the building permits issued in 2003 was almost $6.4 billion, an increase of 13 percent since 2002. CMHC forecast B.C. to have an increase of 3.2 percent in housing starts, the strongest growth in the country.

Considering the mentioned factors, it's no wonder B.C.'s consumer confidence leads the country as well. B.C. was the only province in Canada where consumer confidence was on the rise in December 2003. This goes hand in hand with B.C.'s small business being the most confident in Canada. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has found that small and medium businesses in B.C. are most optimistic about the prospects over the next year, compared to anywhere in the country.

It is important to remind the opposition that these statistics don't come from us. These statistics are coming from accredited organizations such as the TD Bank, the Conference Board of Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Statistics Canada, B.C. Stats and various other councils. That means these are the numbers that are unbiased, proven, properly recorded and reflecting the true picture of our government's successes.

I can go on for much longer talking about the record-breaking TV and film productions in Victoria. I could also talk about the tremendous growth in residential real estate, or I could talk about the growth of small businesses. There are many indicators that British Columbia is starting to thrive and that many good things are now on the way. It is obvious our tax measures have done just what they were intended to do: revive the economy and better the lives of British Columbians.

This optimism is very much alive in Burnaby. Housing starts and housing markets are seeing a bumper year. Metrotown, which is one of the largest shopping centres in Canada, announced an expansion which will increase its retail space. Electronic Arts, a world leader and a major player in the video games business, is expanding its facility and will create 2,000

more jobs. BCIT has increased its capacity and has added more seats in its computer science and nursing programs, among others. SFU is also poised to become a site for our Olympic Games and has also undertaken expansion.

One of the movie studios, MJA Studio, is building a state-of-the-art film studio in Burnaby. They have already received production contracts before they are able to complete their facility. What an achievement. All this and other good news have become the order of the day.

I would also like at this time to touch on the issues of transportation and highways. It is important to note that B.C.'s airports, ports and highways handle more than $30 billion worth of exports and move 22 million tourists annually. That is why it is important that B.C. stays on top of its transportation challenges, upgrading and redesigning infrastructures to avoid delays in shipping and travel and to promote safety. Keeping that in mind, I'm glad to see the developments with the B.C. Ferry Services and the partnership of B.C. Rail. These modifications will revitalize services and provide new investment opportunities while being fiscally responsible and financially solvent.

I was also pleased to see the heartlands transportation investment providing $362 million to rehabilitation, $210 million to rural roads and $37 million for oil and gas roads. This project is vital to the development of our industries.

The strategic highway infrastructure program will fund $122.4 million to projects near Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Quesnel and Chilliwack, reducing the congested areas and increasing the flow of goods and increasing safety levels.

The transportation issue has clearly been neglected by the previous government, leading to accidents, congested traffic and shipping disruptions. It is disgraceful that the previous government allowed such disrepair and deterioration of our infrastructure, which is the lifeline of our resources and mining sector. I'm pleased to see that this government is addressing these issues.

Like I mentioned previously, by establishing a balanced budget we are demonstrating that we have the discipline, the foresight and the commitment to fiscal responsibility. We have committed to living within our means while concentrating on all the essential and important areas that will help British Columbians enjoy their lives with stability and sustainability.

We have accomplished a great deal in the past three years. Many British Columbians are seeing the benefits — higher wages, bigger paycheques, lower taxes, more jobs, lower unemployment, growing business, increasing investment, positive net migration, rising GDP, expanded infrastructure, more educational capacity, higher and more business optimism and consumer confidence, better commercial opportunities and many more.

Those are just some of the ways this government is making B.C. the best place to live and is, indeed, bringing hope and a new era to British Columbia. Bringing out the best in British Columbia is our aspiration and will continue to be our commitment. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what does it mean — what we just accomplished last Tuesday by introducing a balanced budget? I have to ask myself: did I really understand how difficult it was to get where we are now when I was outside of government in business or when I was serving with the force? I have to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea how difficult it was to get where we are today — to balance a budget on behalf of the people of this province.

I wonder how many people out there today who are listening or who may read Hansard later — but they should get a life — will appreciate what this government has done for the books and for the future generations of people that are going to live in this province. You know, with a $40 billion debt and — we've heard it before — $7.2 million a day spent on servicing that debt, just under $3 billion a year…. That's come to an end. There's going to be no further debt in this province under this government. We've committed ourselves, legislated ourselves to introduce balanced budgets now and into the future, with surpluses.

That is critical. That's an important thing we've done for the people of this province. We've done it with generally accepted accounting principles, the first government in Canada to do that. Again, that's a step in the right direction. I'm certainly pleased to have been a part of that. It's really good news. It's good news for those of us of our generation, and it's good news for the younger generation.

In hindsight, when I stop to think of what has happened over the last 20 years as this debt has now reached $40 billion, I feel somewhat guilty. We should all feel a little bit guilty. What we have done is like borrowing my son's credit card and maxing it out. We're spending his money. You can carry that further. I've been blessed with three wonderful, healthy grandchildren. When I go home and see those little grandchildren of mine, I feel somewhat guilty, because I feel like I've been going into their bedroom at night, emptying their piggy banks and looking under their pillows in case the tooth fairy came, and taking money from those children. That's what we have been doing. We've all done that.

D. MacKay: Shame on the member for North Coast for doing that as well. [Laughter.]

We've actually gone further. As guilty as we all are, we've gone one step further. We got ourselves involved in politics, and we got ourselves elected. We got ourselves elected on a platform. One of the conditions on that platform was to balance the budget by our third budget. We've done that. I forgive all those members that stole money from their grandchildren and their children, because we're all here and we're all part of a government that stood up and said: "Enough is enough."

I'm really proud to be able to stand up here and say that. I do hope the young generations that are going to follow will look back at this government of the year 2004 and say: "Thank you. Thank you for bringing the spending under control." That money does have to be paid back, and it's time we stopped passing it on to the next generation.

To get to where we are today has not been easy. It's been challenging. There have been difficult decisions, and it hasn't been fun. I don't think one person in this room has had fun doing what we've had to do to get to a balanced budget today. We imposed some pretty tough discipline on ourselves, on our government, through legislation — the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we have balanced budgets.

In spite of all the good news about the jobs and the economy, there are still parts of this province that have not yet recovered. I'm speaking mainly of some of the smaller northern communities in the area I represent, Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

The Hazelton areas. We're totally dependent on SCI, Skeena Cellulose Inc., which is still under CCAA protection. That community has been devastated by the loss of the forest sector jobs in the community, and they still haven't recovered from that. Skeena Cellulose, or New Skeena Forest Products, is still before the courts under protection. I do hope that is resolved shortly — put some of those people back to work.

The community of Terrace is another example that has suffered because of New Skeena's inability to get up and running. The sawmill there has been down for quite a period of time now. A number of jobs have been lost there. The pulp mill at Prince Rupert has suffered. The community of Prince Rupert has suffered greatly because of the downturn in the forest economy and has yet to recover. Smithers has also seen and felt some of the effect of the downturn from Skeena Cellulose's bankruptcy protection.

When I look at those communities, I can think of around 700 to 800 jobs that have left those communities because of the downturn in the economy. It's pretty well everything west of Smithers under New Skeena Forest Products that has suffered and has not yet recovered. They have not yet recovered, in spite of all the good news we hear from other parts of the province.

There are some good, strong indicators from the investment community that we are finally going to see some relief for the many communities in northwestern British Columbia. The investment community is here again because of what we have been doing to make our province competitive — competitive from a tax perspective and competitive through the regulatory reductions we've gone through. Those are critical, because the investment dollar is very mobile today. The mining industry is very mobile. They can jump on an aircraft and travel to another country if they want to invest their dollars. It is important that we do get the tax perspective and the regulatory perspective under control and once again attract. We have done that. We have done that well.

I just want to talk for a few moments about the forest industry and the confidence they're showing in the area I represent. The small community of Houston just recently went through a large upgrade at the Canfor mill there. They are now the world's largest sawmill. They produce 600 million board feet of wood a year. On top of that, I was talking to some people from West Fraser sawmills in Smithers and have been advised of about another $30 million upgrade to the sawmill in Smithers. There is confidence in the forest industry, and it's being displayed in Smithers and Houston and, hopefully, in other parts of the province before too long.

More specifically, what I would like to talk about right now is the mining investment. [Applause.] I see the member for Prince George North is paying attention. I'm pleased to see that.

The mining industry has in fact indicated a renewed interest in our province. Last year, 2003, saw a 105 percent increase in the amount of exploration dollars being spent in our province — a 105 percent increase — and 35 percent more claims are being filed and held onto by prospectors.

In Smithers in April of this year the Minerals North conference is going to be held from April 14 to 16. We're going to look at developing the opportunities. We've been exploring for a long time. Now it's time to develop the opportunities. We're going to develop the opportunities of mining and infrastructure in northern British Columbia.

The conference starts with the first session, entitled "The Panorama to Prosperity that Will Give a Broad Overview of Existing Mining Operations, Mining and Milling, Environmental Management, Impacts and Benefits to Local Communities, Mine Status and the Outlook for Four Mines." The four mines I'm talking about are Kemess mine….

D. MacKay: I think the Kemess mine is actually located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine, for the information of the member for Prince George North.

Also located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine is the mine called Eskay Creek, which is everybody's….

Eskay Creek is also located in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Huckleberry mine is another operating mine located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. We have another mine located just south of the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine called Endako. Endako was a molybdenum mine. That's a pretty tough word to say, isn't it?

Kemess mine, of course, is a gold-copper mine. Eskay Creek is a gold mine, and Huckleberry is a gold-copper mine.

Once the session gets underway in Smithers in April…. I've talked about the first session. The second session is entitled "Overcoming the Challenges," and the highlight we're going to be discussing is access. The first thing I want to talk about is the Bradfield Canal connector road. I just returned from Anchorage where I was talking to some people up there, and I found out that for someone to come out of Wrangell, Alaska, by ferry to Prince Rupert, it costs $850 one way to bring your car down on the Alaska state ferry. The people from Wrangell, Alaska, want road access to the province. At the present time there is no road access into British Columbia, yet half our border with Alaska is in the northern part of our province. We border the state of Alaska, yet there is no road access between the state of Alaska and British Columbia. The Bradfield Canal road is proposed to come from Wrangell, Alaska, up the Bradfield Canal and hook onto Highway 37. In doing so, it will open up some great mining exploration properties that are not available to the people right now because of the cost of getting in there by helicopter. If we put in a road, it allows exploration to take place.

The interesting part when you talk about the Bradfield Canal connector road is that it runs east-west. When you look at Highway 37, when you look at Highway 97 and when you look at the Alaska Highway, everything north of Highway 16 runs north and south. We don't have any roads going east-west. It is time we started opening up some roads running east-west to allow us to open up the province more. The Stewart-Omineca resource road is another road that would run east-west. It would bring all that mine product from Kemess mine, which is located in the Bulkley Valley–Stikine, out to salt water much quicker. That also runs east-west. We have to start building some new infrastructure up there to allow exploration to take place and for the movement of goods.

The other challenge that we face up north is the lack of hydroelectric power. The current hydroelectric grid terminates at the northern apex at Meziadin Junction. There is no power in the north half of this province. We presently have a project destined, and they have actually started doing some of the survey work last week. It's called the Coast Mountain Hydroelectric project. It's a $200 million project which should generate about 120 megawatts of power once it's up and running. It involves building a three-kilometre tunnel through bedrock, diverting some water and putting it back in the stream three kilometres down and generating 120 megawatts of power.

It's great news for the mining sector up north because one of the deciding factors they have to look at, one of the economic indicators they have to look at, is the cost of producing power because they consume so much power. This new hydroelectric project is great news for Red Chris, which is located about 100 kilometres north of where this hydro line will come out. It is also great news for Galore Creek property, which is looking at spending about $8 million on further exploration this year alone. They need power, and this is a great news story for them.

Also going to be discussed at that next session is the mining and fish habitat with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Goodness knows, that's been a problem for the mining industry for a number of years.

Those are some of the sessions that are going to be taking place at Smithers during Minerals North. The luncheon speaker at this Minerals North conference is going to be Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, who is the president and CEO of NovaGold Resources Inc. He's going to speak on developing mines in the North America cordillera in Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia.

The afternoon session will see presentations on new ideas and opportunities, including the following. The first one has to do with exploration for oil and gas in the Bowser Basin. The Bowser Basin is an area north of Smithers and has the potential to produce oil and gas in great quantities. I understand there probably should be some deep wells drilled there within two years to expand the knowledge that we already have on the Bowser Basin. We're also going to hear from some people talking about leading to new discoveries. The people that will be giving that session are from the B.C. geological survey branch — leading to new discoveries.

The province was developed on resource extraction. There is probably not a community in northern British Columbia or anywhere in the province that wasn't built in the first instance because of resource extraction, whether it be fishing, forestry or mining. That's great news for us as well.

Also going to be discussed at that session is a proposed Smithers school for mining. When you stop and think about what happened under the previous administration…. For every mine that opened, two closed. You don't have to sit down and spend much time figuring out it wasn't going to be too long before we had no mines at all. In doing so, half the miners, half the people that were involved in the mining industry in this province, lost their jobs. We've got some great mining opportunities coming up this year and next year, and we don't have the people trained to work in those mines. So we have been working with the Minister of Advanced Education on opening up a school for mining in Smithers affiliated with Northwest Community College, and hopefully we can get some of the mining industry to partake in that and help with the cost of running that.

It's interesting. I fly down here Sunday evenings, and if I happen to hit a weekend when there is a mine change at Eskay Creek, I'm absolutely amazed that of the miners that are coming out for their two weeks out, quite a few of them are from Newfoundland. That's how far we're bringing people in to work in the province in our mining industry. We're bringing people from across the country, so we do have to train more people from the mining sector.

Following that session, there is going to be a panel discussion on mining and sustainability of small north-

ern communities. I already spoke on how critical resource extraction is to small communities. We wouldn't be here in this province if it wasn't for the resources that we have.

Probably the highlight of the conference is going to be the keynote speaker for the conference. The keynote speaker is somebody we all know very well. The keynote speaker, of course, is going to be the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. The member has been asked to come up and be the guest speaker. He is formerly from the mining sector. He is very knowledgable in the mining sector.

I had the privilege of travelling with him last summer with the mining task force as we travelled around the province and spoke to the mining people about what more the province can do to make the mining sector get re-energized and come back into the province. He is a very knowledgable man, and he knew everybody that was involved in the mining industry. We had a lot of fun travelling, and I enjoyed working with him on that project. I enjoyed helping him as we worked our way through the task force report that was submitted to the minister. I look forward to the eventual outcome of that report, because I'm sure the mining sector will be very pleased with some of the recommendations contained therein.

Friday morning of the conference we will see presentations entitled "New Ventures on the Horizon." The first presentation is entitled "Exploration in Northern B.C. by Ministry Geologists," and that will be followed by presentations from Kemess North again. They are going to give a presentation on where they're going and what their future prospects are for mine life.

We're going to hear from Galore Creek, which is owned by NovaGold. I already told you about NovaGold and Galore Creek and how critical that hydroelectric project is going to be for that mine. It's a huge deposit. It'll probably generate 400 to 500 direct jobs once it's in operation.

We're going to hear from the Red Chris, which should be in operation by the last quarter of 2006. That's owned by bcMetals. That's an interesting prospect. It's a site that we visited as a task force, spoke to the people involved and spoke to the natives that will be working at the mine. Good news.

We're also going to hear from Klappan coal, who happen to have properties located right on the old B.C. Rail right-of-way. They're looking at developing that mine. We're also going to hear from Redcorp, who own Tulsequah Chief, a mine located south of Atlin that's been around for a long time. I was pleased to be present in Atlin when the province reissued the project approval certificate for that project.

We're also going to hear from another mining group fairly close to home, near the small community of Granisle, and that's the Morrison property owned by Pacific Booker Minerals. They're also getting very, very close to announcing an opening of that project. As long as the mineral prices continue to rise as they have, I think we're going to see a lot more interest in our province from the mining sector.

The Minerals North conference in Smithers in April, with its theme of developing the opportunities, will hopefully be a blueprint for the economy in the north and indeed the province. We hope and expect that the mining industry will provide sound dollars to provincial revenue and thereby protect the necessary dollars we need in education, health and the other social programs that people need in this province.

In closing, I would like to commend my colleague the Minister of Finance for his outstanding work in presenting this budget. You know, in spite of all the difficulties — 9/11, SARS, softwood lumber, BSE, fires and floods — the minister has delivered the balanced budget that we committed to, and he has to be congratulated.

B. Belsey: I rise in the House today to speak in support of what can only be described as one of the most exciting balanced budgets this province has witnessed in many, many years.

This is a balanced budget that is exciting, because it's balanced on the practices of generally accepted accounting principles. Many British Columbians have yet to grasp the significance of these facts, so it is up to elected officials, my colleagues in this room. We are obliged to explain the importance of this fact.

The members opposite tried for years to convince British Columbians that through their shrewd fiscal management, they were able to balance the province's budget. They ran an election in 1996 on a balanced budget. Soon after the election — it must have been in one of those caucus room revelations — they realized they were soon going to have to face British Columbians and tell them the truth. The truth was that it wasn't balanced. The forestry estimates they made were not correct. There were Crown corporation estimates that were not correct.

It wasn't long after the '96 election that the NDP budget house of cards collapsed. As well, let's look at just how shrewd and astute they really were. They claimed a balanced budget in '96 and again in 2000. I mentioned the earlier '96 claim and how short-lived it was. The 2000 budget was much more accurate, except for the fact that the accounting practices they were using were not generally accepted accounting principles. They just happened to find a billion dollars in a pension fund that helped to balance their books. They included a huge windfall from hydro sales to California. British Columbians clearly remember those power sales and that we're still waiting to get paid for them.

There was no level too low for the NDP when it came to fabricating their fudge-it budgets. The NDP misled British Columbians at every opportunity. However, it may not be fair to chastise these two remaining members of the former government. They're here to critique our budget, to examine in great detail each and

every line, to put forth their points of view, to put forth their political spin.

I remember last year when the member opposite got up in this House and went on a rant about the 2003 budget and that it was passed on voodoo economics. Voodoo economics, she called it. In this year's assessment by that very same member, she summarized her statement with: "This dog won't hunt." How profound. What an incredible critique of two very important pieces of information given in this House. Think of it — voodoo economics and dogs that won't hunt. That's how she critiqued our 2003-04 budget.

Surely, the British Columbians she represents deserve a better assessment of our Finance minister's budget than voodoo economics and dogs that won't hunt. I want to help my two colleagues over there. I want to pretend I'm with them, and I want to help all British Columbians understand the most important budget this province has seen in 25 years. I'll help that member opposite. I'll help her do the job she was elected to do. After all, I've got the same hair colour as one of them.

Now, where do we start? Let's start with taxes. Of course, the members opposite love to tell people that our tax policies won't work. Well, I can just see them looking through that budget book. There are no new taxes. There's no increase in taxes. There's no cut in taxes. We'd better not go there. We'll find something else.

Let's try health care. That's a topic they love to get going on and get people going on. The NDP love to rant about the cuts to health care. Oh, maybe they'd better not go there, because those bad B.C. Liberals have just committed another $1.047 billion to health care. Those bad B.C. Liberals have committed more to health care in their three years than the NDP did in the entire five years of their second term, so we'd better not tell the public that one.

Education. I can just imagine those two members opposite scheming as to how they can spin education spending so that it plays well with their remaining supporters. Maybe we'd better not go there either, because those B.C. Liberals have just increased funding to school boards by $313 million over three years. They're now funding at a per-level rate of $6,478. When the NDP were in government, they were funding at only $5,946 per student, so we'd better leave that one alone. We won't go there.

Now, I can imagine the members opposite thinking to themselves: "We can always scare the heck out of seniors, people with disabilities and the low-income families and individuals." Do you remember how they managed to scare the heck out of seniors when they told them that those B.C. Liberals were going to be kicking thousands of them off Pharmacare, because they wouldn't be able to pay the premiums, even though we put in premium assistance enhancements to protect those on low income from the premium increases? This resulted in either a reduction or an elimination of premiums for 230,000 British Columbians.

I'm sure British Columbians remember how the members opposite managed to scare the heck out of people with disabilities when they said that those mean-spirited B.C. Liberals were going to kick thousands of the most vulnerable in our society off the disability support that this government had in place, when in fact we added thousands to the disability list. That was hardly an act of a heartless, mean-spirited government.

The members opposite know that low-income families and individuals are easily scared. They like to rant about the provincial tax rates and how the disadvantaged, those on low income — that tax bracket — are paying higher taxes. One only has to look at the new budget book and see that the lowest-income earners of British Columbia are among the lowest-tax payers in Canada and that the highest-income earners in British Columbia are among the highest-tax payers in Canada. It's in black and white. It's clearly laid out. All they have to do is read that book.

B.C. Rail. I can just imagine the conversation over this issue, the B.C. Rail–CN partnership agreement. Now, there's a deal that their new boss, Carole James, wants squashed. Imagine supporting a deal that puts half a billion dollars into the hands of British Columbians — half a billion dollars. When they had that half a billion dollars, they sunk it into fast ferries.

Imagine Carole James forcing her two sitting members to stand up and speak out against a partnership agreement that put a $25 million endowment fund in northern development initiatives; four $15 million regional development accounts for Prince George, the Peace, the northwest and Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet; $50 million for cross-regional accounts; $15 million for first nations; $7.2 million for a container port in Prince Rupert; a $13 million contribution to the LegaciesNow fund; $6 million to the Asia-Pacific market outreach initiative…. And the list goes on and on.

I can just hear the two of them talking: "Gee, we'd better not let Carole James travel around the north now, telling northerners just how bad a deal this B.C. Rail–CN partnership is. If she does, she'll make a fool of herself." I can imagine the member for Vancouver-Hastings saying: "I know. Gas and oil development — now, there's one that nobody likes." Even her new leader, Carole James, her fearless leader, was recorded as saying: "Not now, not tomorrow, not ever will we have…." Carole James, the leader of the NDP: "Not now, not tomorrow, not ever…."

Imagine. Imagine going up to a community in which I live, Prince Rupert, and telling them: "Not now, not tomorrow, not ever will you have oil and gas development." It must have been a shock to them to see that we put $17 million into an offshore oil and gas team to pursue the goals of an environmentally sound industry.

Let's look at the gas and oil industry and their accomplishments in the northeast part of this province — the lowest unemployment, the fastest rate of growth, the record revenues. They should talk to Carole James. They might want to do a flip on this one.

Mining. I can imagine the conversation between the members opposite on mining: "When we were in power, we successfully drove that industry out of British Columbia." The two members opposite served in an NDP government and drove an industry down to approximately $19 million being spent in exploration in their last year in power. "But you heartless B.C. Liberals, you're going to ruin everything." The industry is now planning to invest upwards of $100 million in this province in exploration this year, just three summers after being elected. "That cannot be allowed to continue." Can you imagine the NDP thinking about that?

Before you know it, the mining industry is going to be back to the $300 million they were spending before the decade of despair. The mining industry is picking up strength, and it's a valuable industry we need in British Columbia.

Aha. They got one — advertising. Imagine: this government is going to spend money on advertising. That's absolutely terrible. I'm sure they don't want to see that. Imagine the B.C. Liberals going out there and telling the truth. Those B.C. Liberals are probably going to tell British Columbians that it was just fearmongering when they told everybody that 27,000 British Columbians were going to be kicked off of social assistance. I'll bet those mean-spirited B.C. Liberals are going to tell British Columbians that the NDP lied to them when they said thousands were going to be kicked off of disability assistance.

You know, I could go on and on, but that's enough. I'm starting to take the position that the NDP and Carole James, their leader, are taking, and starting to get facts. Facts are getting in the way of rhetoric. For three years now, I've listened to the members opposite respond to budget and throne speeches. I can't help but wonder if there is truly a relationship, that the NDP rhetoric is inversely proportional to the knowledge they have of the topics they talk about.

The fudge-it budgets of the past are no longer. This government has put in place one of our new-era promises for truth-in-budgeting legislation. All subsequent budgets must be balanced, and all budgets must be reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP as it is called.

Reporting within the new GAAP regulations ensures not only that government financial numbers are reported correctly but also that we report Crown corporations, schools, universities, colleges and hospital budgets. Never has a government been more open and more transparent than this government is today.

Our new-era promise to pass real balanced-budget legislation and to have a balanced budget mandatory by our third full budget has been kept. In the past, governments were able to have Crown corporations borrow money against their assets, give that money to government, and government could report it on their books as an asset. Then, in fact, that debt was not reported in every government's budget; it was buried in a Crown corporation's budget. That no longer can be done.

That was the old era. Our government's new era prevents this questionable practice from ever happening again. Our government's budget is now the most open, the most complete, the most accurate and in fact the easiest to understand. However, nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts the unofficial or most often the unidentified source, so I'd like to comment on some third-party validators. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that represents over 10,000 small businesses in this province, has found that there is widespread support within their membership for eliminating budget deficit.

This budget has eliminated budget deficits — this year, next year and years after. Optimism runs high in B.C.'s business community. The B.C. business community is among the most optimistic in the country, with over 60 percent anticipating a stronger performance in the next 12 months. Now, the naysayers out there might grumble; they may say that this government is pandering to business. There may be a little truth in that statement, because this government understands the direction our Premier believes in — strong economies — and we need that for healthy businesses.

Healthy businesses translate into higher personal incomes and more jobs and provide higher standards of living. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "A rising tide lifts all boats." Economists the world over have been teaching for years that prudent management of tax dollars, coupled with sound fiscal policy, is the fastest way to rebuild a nation. Governments ultimately do the right thing, often after exhausting all alternatives.

The government that preceded the B.C. Liberals tried. Some manipulated their budgets. Some reported only what they had to in their budgets and ignored Crown corporations, schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. As I said earlier, governments ultimately do the right thing but only after exhausting all alternatives. Well, this government has ultimately done the right thing.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I participated in the prebudget consultation process and travelled around to communities, listening to the views of British Columbians. This was a fascinating process that gave individual citizens, special interest groups, other levels of government and industry…. It gave all British Columbians the opportunity to voice their opinions and ideas as to the economic direction they would like to see the province go in.

This year, for the first time, the Finance Committee conducted site visits as part of its preconsultation process. Recognizing that the province has a diverse economy, we decided to learn more about local situations in resource-dependent communities in the heartlands. During the first two weeks of our provincewide tour

we participated in site visits in Courtenay, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek and Kamloops before conducting the scheduled public hearings.

On September 18 last year the committee visited Prince Rupert. Before the consultation portion took place, the committee was taken on a tour of Prince Rupert and the surrounding industrial sites. Like many resource towns, Prince Rupert has been hard hit by problems in the fishing industry and the forest industry, including the ongoing softwood lumber dispute and weak economic performance. As a result, the residents of Prince Rupert are looking for opportunities to diversify their economy via tourism, fish farming, oil and gas development, small business growth, value-added forestry, marine harvesting, expansion of port facilities, and a cruise ship terminal.

To learn more, the committee toured extensively the industrial facilities and infrastructures in the communities to see firsthand the economic challenges and opportunities that lay in Prince Rupert. Our bus tour included the Wedeene River sawmill, which was closed; the McMillan fish plant, which had been involved in a fire and most of it wiped out; the New Skeena pulp mill, which remains closed; and the deep-sea port in Prince Rupert and the underutilization of both the grain terminal and the coal terminal.

By far the most striking aspect of the tour was the lack of activity at the port of Prince Rupert. To see forklifts sitting idle on the docks was a dramatic reminder of the current economic challenges facing the north coast. At the same time, we were impressed by the amazing spirit and determination of the workers we met and talked to. They shared with us their visions for overcoming the city's problems and for reviving the economy of their community.

We learned that things are looking up. The cruise ship terminal that is being built in Prince Rupert has bookings for 2004 that are much higher than anticipated. Also on the horizon are the prospects for the new container facilities at the port of Prince Rupert. The potential benefits for offshore oil and gas were also discussed.

This preconsultation process and the meetings undertaken led to a number of recommendations that reflect the common themes heard from the hundreds of presenters, letters and e-mails the committee received. I would like to share with this House the recommendations that form the backbone of the report that was put together.

One common theme we heard over and over again was: "Stay the course and balance the budget." Patrick Rogers of Kamloops said to us: "As a private citizen, the main concern I have is that everybody's wanting more money. My message is: don't keep looking for places to spend money; look for places to save money." The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia presented. They said: "You made a promise, and we believe you'll stick to it. The single most important outcome of the 2004-05 budget is a set of balanced books. Your commitment is to be applauded. Our support for you in this regard is unwavering."

A second common thread was: "Stay focused on economic development." Gordon Stamp-Vincent from the Prince Rupert and District Chamber of Commerce told us: "We don't want handouts. We believe that government's role is to referee a level playing field, facilitate a positive business environment and then step back and watch us grow."

Another common thread was: "Carry on cutting red tape." The B.C. Fruit Growers Association told us: "We strongly support the focus on reducing regulations, but we would still like, of course, to see some of them changed. The one we feel is a bit of a nuisance is that any worker under 15 years of age must get permission from his school principal and not his parent in order to work on a farm. We feel that rule is unreasonable, so we would like that one changed for sure."

Advanced education and training was another important comment we heard a number of times. From Prince Rupert Grain: "We have been trying for a long time to attract quality skilled people to our company, and our situation is no different from the rest of the general skill-shortage issues you will be hearing. But where we are lacking is that the training resources for these skilled people are not close at hand."

From Northwest Community College we heard: "Opportunities are emerging, but we need to invest in the development of local workforces. Industries such as value-added wood manufacturers, specialty agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas, mining, tourism and transportation represent significant growth potential in this area. We cannot sustain long-term meaningful rural development and build strong local economies if we parachute in skilled workers from elsewhere to meet the workforce needs of these emerging industries."

In closing, I'd like to point out that we have two types of governments. One is prepared to build for a future and to make tough decisions when necessary. The other is based on every decision being short-term — short-term gain and always looking at the next election. I'm proud to be a member of the former type of government, a government that is prepared to work for the long-term benefit of British Columbians today and our children and grandchildren in the future.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased today to speak to this truly historic budget, the first budget in all of Canada that was actually balanced according to generally accepted accounting principles. That, I think, is truly a significant accomplishment, and I am proud to be part of a government that was able to achieve such a feat.

The balanced budget is significant because, as I said to my kids when I went home, it was the first time in British Columbia that we could actually go to our kids and say: "We're no longer going to ask you to pay our credit card bills." We, as a generation of baby-boomers, have accepted our responsibility to actually pay as we go for the services we require and demand, not burden the future generations with increased debts.

As we all know, the provincial debt has climbed from something in the order of $2 billion just 25 years

or so ago to something pushing $40 billion today. That is going to have to be paid, and it's going to be a burden carried by the young people today. I think it's truly significant that the Minister of Finance and the Premier have had the vision to encapsulate this year's budget and create the piece of legislation that was necessary in order to manage our government in a balanced-budget situation going forward. I think it is a significant move. It's significant for another reason, and that is because as a province, as a community, as individuals in the province, we have some of the lowest overall tax burden of any individuals, any constituents, in all of Canada, and in fact have the lowest personal income taxes for the bottom two of our tax brackets of any government in Canada.

That is completely unlike the opposition that we are faced with today, with Carole James and their political and financial advisers, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who are recommending significant increases in taxes should they become the next government. I think it's great that constituents actually have an opportunity to compare the two.

I think it was an opportune time for Carole James and her financial advisers to produce the sample budget that they did, because now everyone can compare the two, and they can make choices. I think the choices are pretty clearly defined. There's not much in the middle here. You can have amongst the lowest tax rates of any province in Canada, or you can have the highest tax rates of any province in Canada. You can make that logical decision. You can make the decision of a balanced budget going forward, or you can make the decision — under Carole James and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — that would say they aren't going to balance their budget for another five or six years, and continue to accrue that debt and continue to ask our children to pay that debt going forward. As people have an opportunity to look at those two different regimes, it's going to be pretty clear, in my mind, what people are going to decide going forward.

You know, oftentimes we hear the opposition say that we gave away all of the tax reductions that we had earlier on with other forms of taxes, but let's actually analyze it and see if that's factual. When you accumulate all of the various taxes that are associated in the province of British Columbia and do the analysis and compare it so that you're actually comparing apples to apples with all of the other provinces in Canada, you'll find that we have the second-lowest overall tax burden in all of Canada when you combine all of the individual forms of taxes and fees.

Contrary to what members of the opposition will often say, our tax breaks have worked. We've been able to produce the services that people demand, because the Minister of Finance along with the Premier have been able to target the resources in the key areas that are necessary, as was quite ably pointed out by my colleague the member for North Coast. He was very eloquent in his remarks in pointing out that we've actually added substantially to the health care budget. We've actually added substantially to the education budget. We're creating new opportunities in advanced education.

In my hometown of Prince George, I can tell you that under this regime and under the leadership of our Premier, health care has improved substantially. In fact, at Prince George Regional Hospital this year, there will be an additional 36 percent more procedures performed in the operating rooms than there was just last year. I had an opportunity to speak to the CEO of the northern health authority recently, and he indicated to me that they are receiving so many applications for physician positions in Prince George now, because of the opportunities around teaching at the northern medical program, that he's just overwhelmed. He's no longer in a situation where he has to go out and actively recruit. Physicians are now coming to Prince George because of the things that have occurred within this government and through the Minister of Advanced Education, my colleague from Prince George–Mount Robson, and the initiative that she has pursued with the northern medical program. It has been very, very positive.

But it hasn't been easy getting to where we are today, Madam Speaker. You know, when you think about it, there have been so many accusations. I hate to use the term, but you know, "crying wolf" certainly comes to mind for me by what the two members of the opposition have done — and some of the folks that live in my hometown, who seem to report to these two opposition members. Certainly, there's a small group of people in Prince George, who call themselves advocates, who claimed there would be thousands and thousands of people kicked off of social services or welfare because of some of the changes we have made. The reality is that 80,000 people have left the social services rolls because they found work. They've changed their marital status; they've gone back and got a better education. Those people have left voluntarily.

When people say the budget has dropped in that particular ministry, I say thank goodness, because there are 80,000 fewer people on the rolls than there were just two and a half years ago. There's a really good reason why that ministry should not have as much money as was necessary in the past.

As the member for North Coast pointed out, there are significant increases in the average number of dollars spent on each student in the K-to-12 school sector. Those kids will be receiving close to $7,000 per pupil in another year or two here, up from just $5,500 a few years ago — significant improvements there and significant improvements in health care.

As I said, tough decisions. You don't get to a point in a balanced budget from an almost $4 billion structural deficit in three short years without having to make tough decisions. At the end of the day, I'm happy to be evaluated on those decisions, and I think people will find significant improvements in their lifestyle.

There are some things I can point to in the Prince George area that are very, very significant, like an un-

employment rate that has dropped six points in half a year. We went from 15.3 percent and bottomed out at 9.3 percent at the end of 2003 — a pretty significant reduction. Oftentimes you'll hear people say, "Yeah, that's because there are call centres and Home Depots opening," and those are very important and significant jobs and ones that I certainly don't want to turn away. Oftentimes I wonder, by the remarks of some of our opposition members, if we should turn away any job that doesn't pay at least $20 an hour and require you to sign a union card. That seems to be the tactic that occasionally has taken place by opposition members.

There are other significant jobs that are taking place in our forest industry in the Prince George area; in the mining industry in the Prince George area; in the energy, oil and gas exploration industry in the Prince George area; and then in all the associated service industries and heavy equipment and production, and so on, that are associated with those industries. We've seen significant job growth.

In about 1998 or 1999 under the previous government, Canfor closed down a sawmill in Prince George. Under the new regime and the new policies put in place by our Minister of Forests, that mill has reopened, and now we have about 150 employees working in that operation, albeit under different ownership. The exciting thing about that is it's new investment occurring in the province.

Just a few weeks ago we had an announcement of a new oriented strand board plant in Fort St. John, a $200 million investment — one of the largest investments that has taken place in British Columbia in quite some time — again under the leadership of our Minister of Forests, who has been very, very thoughtful in how he's proceeded through these very challenging and difficult changes. But at the end of the day, even though they're difficult decisions, those decisions are decisions that the people of British Columbia elected us to make. That's why we've had to pursue this and why we've had to make these decisions.

I want to talk for a few minutes before I close off about the mining industry — something the Premier has asked me to take an active role in, in revitalizing the mining industry and bringing it back to the province. I think it's always worth taking a look at the past and thinking what the mining industry once was in this province before the decade of decline and the previous NDP government.

You know, Madam Speaker, in 1990 we had 30 operating mines in the province. In 1990 we had over 16,000 employees, and those were all employees who made very, very large incomes. The average income in the mining sector today is $89,900. Let's round it off and call it 90 grand a year — the average salary in the mining sector. Those folks all spend those dollars, by and large, in rural communities throughout British Columbia.

Here are these two members of the opposition who so often say we don't care about the heartlands. I challenge that. I believe we do care about the heartlands, and I believe it's them that drove away the jobs and the wealth that mining created in the heartlands. I say shame on them for those decisions in the 1990s. It was absolutely shameful.

There was so much opportunity there that they didn't all leave. A lot of them left. A lot of the folks left the mining sector in British Columbia through the 1990s. We had 30 operating mines at the start of the 1990s, down to 12 operating mines now.

The number of jobs in the mining sector — over 16,000 in 1990 and under 8,000 today. There is a spinoff ratio of about 6 to 1 in the mining sector, so that's 48,000 jobs in the heartlands of British Columbia that were driven away by the policy decisions of that government of the 1990s. But that can all change, and it's changing quickly.

There's great news out on the horizon. I, along with many of my colleagues, was able to attend the Cordilleran Geology and Exploration Roundup that's put on by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and you could literally feel the electricity in the air when you walked around the roundup. Two years ago just 2,200 people attended the roundup. Last year there were almost 3,000. This year just under 4,000 people attended the roundup, and that's really reflective, I believe, of the interest in the mining sector. There's huge interest in exploration opportunities this year and good growth last year — a 50 percent growth, as the member for North Coast pointed out.

We've been able to drive exploration from just over $20 million to about $55 million last year — about a tripling in the last three years — but even more exciting are the opportunities looking forward in mining and in exploration. There was a time in British Columbia when it was not unusual for the mining industry to spend $200 million in exploration activity in the province. In my discussions with the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine…. I should clarify that although the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine did say that Kemess North was located in his riding, you would have to actually redraw the riding boundaries for that to be an accurate assessment. I would lay claim to Kemess North being located in Prince George North.

When I was chatting with the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, he was remarking last year how one of the local motels in Smithers was booked solid all summer as a reflection of people that were exploring to the north of Smithers. I know this year, as I walked around the Cordilleran Roundup, one of the common themes I was finding was that there was no one else in the drilling industry who had capacity for this coming drilling season.

That industry is just booming right now. There are huge opportunities for people to expand into that business. Certainly, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines believes that there will be at least $75 million. I'm confident the number will grow over the next few months and we'll see that, in fact, it will be higher than the $75 million. We're not going to stop at that — $75 million is not enough; $100 million is not enough. We believe there's the opportunity for $200 million plus to be spent

Now we are at a fortunate point in time. Although last year we had earth, wind and fire take place in the province — with the forest fires, the floods and all the difficulties we had with BSE, SARS and so on — we are very fortunate this year in that we've seen significant increases in mineral prices throughout the world. I am told that's likely to hold going forward. I'm told China will continue to drive that marketplace.

If we could get the Minister of Forests to work just a bit harder on that, he might get as much benefit from China as the mining industry is getting. I know he's working hard at it, but we're going to drive him a little further forward on expanding the forest industry in China. In fact, we might even take him over and help him out a little bit in that.

Certainly, the Chinese marketplace is consuming large volumes of concentrate. That, and the activity that is taking place in the Chinese marketplace, is what is driving mineral prices today. That, as I said, is likely to continue for quite some time. So the interest around extraction of minerals is very, very high in the province right now.

The other day I was on a talk show in Prince George. A fellow phoned in and was criticizing the mining industry in B.C. for not being sustainable. He said: "How can you claim that mining is sustainable — in the sense that once you've removed the mineralization from the ground, it's gone and there can be no more mining on that particular site unless there's another vein found?" I said: "You know what? Let me ask you this question, sir. If you were walking down the street and you saw a $20 bill on the sidewalk, would you bend down and pick up that $20 bill?" He said: "Of course I would." I said: "That's not very sustainable either, is it? But you know what? There are $20 bills and $100 bills and $1,000 bills lying all over this province on the ground every day, and I think it's this government's responsibility to bend over, pick up those bills and put them into health care and education, social services, police infrastructure and transportation infrastructure. I think that's what we were elected to do." I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Exploration is up. There is just so much good news around mining that's going to continue to take place this year — the changes that were made early on in our mandate by the Minister of Energy and Mines, along with the Premier, in terms of introducing a 20 percent flow-through share credit, the elimination of PST on production equipment and machinery. We've certainly worked hard to develop a two-zone concept. We're going to continue to work on that. The elimination of the corporate capital tax was significant for the mining industry. The introduction last year of the $2.1 million Rocks to Riches program that helps further develop our geoscience, I think, is very, very positive.

There's much, much more good news on the horizon. In the coming year we're going to be pursuing an active mining action plan. We're going to take some of the hard work of the mining task force last year and translate that into actionable steps. I look forward to working with my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano and all the members of the mining task force on that.

We're going to work hard with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to do a better job clarifying the two-zone land use principles and ensuring that mining has access to as much area as possible in the province — excluding, of course, parks. We're going to do a better job marketing the business of mining. There's a lot we can do to ensure that the world understands that B.C. is mining-friendly and that we want the business back in the province.

I would far rather have mining taking place in our province than in some of the other countries in the world that are not as environmentally focused. When you look at a global perspective, I think we can do a far more effective job.

Some of the good news that's out immediately on the horizon — certainly that I'm thinking about — are mines such as Gibraltar and Mount Polley, which, although closed today, we believe have an excellent opportunity of opening in the very, very near future. Western Canadian Coal has just entered the permitting process at Tumbler Ridge. Here was a community that was all but shut down just a year ago but has very, very serious opportunities ahead of us — not just from Western Canadian Coal. There are other developers looking in the Tumbler Ridge area as well. Certainly, we've got Tulsequah Chief on the horizon; we've got Kemess North, as well, and the Afton pit where there are more opportunities. We have Red Chris. There are just tremendous opportunities for us in terms of further exploration and extraction.

One of my goals and objectives is to see more mines operating at the end of this year than there were last year and to see more operating at the end of 2005 than there were at the end of 2004. Although that sounds like a relatively simple goal, it would be the first time that happened in British Columbia for a long, long time. So I think it's a worthy goal; it's something we need to pursue.

Just before I close, there are a couple of other things I want to touch on that I think are significant. Last year, a little over a year ago, there was a set of regulations brought into place around coal-fired electrical generation. That is particularly significant, and it's something that I think we need to pursue aggressively. Coal-fired electrical generation can be very clean. We can produce electrical energy for a long, long time in the province, and we can maximize the value that we have out of our existing power-generating facilities if we can have a consistent, reliable source of electricity through coal fire. It also brings more coalmines into an economic operating position, where they can use their waste product and their tailings to generate the electricity that they need to continue to operate in the mine. Electricity is one of the most significant costs for any mine to operate on an ongoing basis.

The tools provided to the mining industry through these new regulations are something that…. I hope a few companies take up the challenge and pursue that aggressively. I know we have an opportunity here on Vancouver Island — in fact, it might be in your riding, Madam Speaker, or close to your riding — where they are looking at coal-fired electrical generation. I think that's a great opportunity.

A second-last point I'd like to make is that mining is really about the heartlands. It's really about developing an economic base and developing diversification. My colleague the Minister of Forests has had to carry the ball far too long in the heartlands for developing an economy. We have relied on his ample skills for a significant period of time, but we need to take some of that burden off him now and allow industry to develop into the other sectors, into mining — allow mining to become a major force in the heartlands again.

I eagerly await the time, as I pointed out earlier, where we could see the opportunity for the 48,000 jobs that we lost through the 1990s in the heartlands to come back to the heartlands. Really, I think that is a key initiative. They're high-paying jobs, and they provide the diversification that we need so that we can weather the storms of challenging times in the forest sector.

Just to close off, I want to make one final comment. I think this is most significant. When I was offered the opportunity and asked to take on this challenge by the Premier, I took some time to talk to some of the staff in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the folks that are specifically targeted at mining in the ministry. I can tell you without qualification that we have some of the best staff throughout government working for us in the mining division of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. These folks are absolutely committed to driving this industry forward — people like Geoff Freer, Sheila Wynn and Fred Hermann. These are quality individuals who understand business. They understand the dynamics of the mining industry, and they are eager to see the industry grow back to the point it once was.

We have excellent staff, we've got a great policy regime, and we've got an industry that's excited and wanting to grow the business. I'm confident that we're going to achieve our goals and objectives of growing a thriving mining industry and bringing them back to British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in the budget debate here today. Certainly, everything I have seen in the budget related to the work of this government is commendable. I certainly want to rise and recommend this budget to my constituents and again thank them for the opportunity to continue to serve in this Legislature.

We have had, as a government, a spectacular opportunity since June of 2001 to reshape the future of this province. That hasn't always been easy. There have been a lot of tough choices that have had to be made over the last two and a half years, but in the budget that the Minister of Finance recently tabled, I think we begin to see the product of a lot of that effort, a lot of those tough choices. I think, as the Premier has said and as the Minister of Finance has said, we're beginning to turn a corner in British Columbia, and we can start to look forward to the dividends, to the better days that flow from good fiscal management and the kind of tough choices that we've had to make in recent years.

If there is a most important or defining feature of the budget that was tabled, it is that in both the accounting sense and in the social sense, it's a balanced budget. It is the first of at least three consecutive balanced budgets which this government is going to produce for the people of British Columbia.

That's no small feat. We've had to work very hard. We've had to work very hard to produce those balanced budgets. They have been rare as the whooping crane, the elusive whooping crane. They've been as rare as the Vancouver Island marmot, really, in terms of their appearance in the Legislature of British Columbia, but now we're going to see them….

Hon. G. Abbott: Good species management, as the Minister of Forests would say.

We're going to be seeing balanced budgets on a regular basis here in the Legislature of British Columbia, and that's a great thing. I know the Minister of Forests and I, among others, regularly mocked the former NDP government for their inability to produce balanced budgets, and I'm glad to be part of a government that now is committed to balancing the budget not just this year but on an ongoing basis into the future.

Now, it's interesting that we have — and I don't mean our government; I mean governments generally in British Columbia — for a very long time, for decades and decades, required local governments in British Columbia to balance their budgets, but we've never imposed that kind of fiscal discipline on ourselves. Again, I'm proud to be part of a government that at last is putting the kind of fiscal discipline that we expect from local government onto the provincial government as well.

Balancing a budget is never easy. Certainly, that's been my experience both in local government…. I had the honour of actually spending 17 years in local government, as a councillor and a regional district director and regional district chair, prior to being elected to the provincial Legislature. It's never easy balancing a budget at any level. When you get up to a very large organization like the government of British Columbia, it becomes rather more complex, rather more difficult. But it's never easy at any level, regardless of whether you're a school district board or a local town council or a regional district board. It is never an easy task to balance a budget.

One has to make difficult choices between the possibility of raising or maintaining taxes at a certain level versus the services you can offer, the staffing you can offer. All of these things come into play, and the decisions are never easy. I am gratified and proud that the long efforts of our Premier, the long efforts of our Minister of Finance and the long efforts of all members of this government are coming to fruition in the form of a balanced budget here in British Columbia.

The achievement of a balanced budget has been particularly difficult given some of the challenges that have faced this province and, indeed, other provinces — and indeed, in some measure, the world — in recent months and years. The disaster — the tragedy that was September 11, 2001 — while it happened primarily in New York City, had a definable impact on British Columbia as well. I recall, as the minister responsible for the Royal B.C. Museum at the time, that after September 11 there were dramatic reductions in visits to the museum and drastic reductions in tourism dollars coming into British Columbia as a consequence of that tragic episode in our lives.

The softwood lumber agreement, as the Minister of Forests knows all too well, has had a kind of wet blanket effect particularly on the heartlands of B.C. but on the B.C. economy as a whole. BSE — mad cow disease — SARS. All of these things, which even a year or two ago we had never even heard of, have had quite dramatic consequences certainly for people who've been involved either in ranching in the case of BSE or in tourism ventures in the case of SARS. Both of those things had dramatic consequences, and they affected the revenue stream of the province. Again, the already difficult decisions we had to make were made even more difficult. Finally, of course, there were the drought and fires that were characteristic of the summer of 2003 — again a very dramatic bottom-line impact to the province.

Notwithstanding that, we have been able, through fiscal discipline and through careful management and through sacrifices, frankly — not on our part all the time but by the people of British Columbia as well…. We have been able to manage through and still be able to produce, notwithstanding those challenges, the first of many consecutive balanced budgets here in the province of British Columbia.

When one contemplates balanced budgets, I think it's important to ask again: why balance the budget? Perhaps when we get to May 2005, we may have a very spirited debate about this with the New Democrats — about the wisdom of balancing budgets — so I think it's important to ask why we do it. There are a lot of reasons why. I mean, one could cite, for example, the availability and cost of borrowing to the government. That has an impact. The most important reason — the broad, sweeping reason why we need to balance our budget in the province — is that not doing it clearly undermines both our fiscal strength and our fiscal flexibility as we move forward.

If not balancing the budget produces one thing, it's that it takes away choices from government and takes away choices from the people of British Columbia as a consequence. We find that precious dollars that we might otherwise devote to maintaining quality health services, maintaining quality education services, expanding the post-secondary system or any other number of very beneficial enterprises are lost, because we are devoting an increasing amount of our revenue stream to simply servicing the debt that we have in this province and in this nation.

What we've done here in balancing the budget is a very, very critical part of reversing that, of getting our fiscal house back in order and moving forward so that, again, we can make the choices that are important to the people of British Columbia today. That's going to allow our children, when they assume the mantle of government some years hence — and maybe very soon — to have the opportunity to make choices because they won't be saddled with an inordinate debt load that strips away their opportunities to make decisions for their generation. And it won't strip away opportunities for our grandchildren either.

Again, it's not easy. Everyone in this government and everyone in this province has had to make some difficult decisions about services and about taxes. Those haven't been easy, but they have ensured that we have a great future in British Columbia and that we haven't gone the direction of some other places in the world where they've lost the capacity to manage their own futures. I'm proud to be part of a government that has made the decisions to ensure we do have control and management over our own future.

A balanced budget is really all about opportunities for British Columbians. The Finance minister and the Premier have talked at some length about those opportunities, which our first balanced budget provides and which future balanced budgets provide as well. A balanced budget is only in very small measure an accounting exercise. A balanced budget is really about the opportunities that are produced, for example, for our health system. Now, I mercifully haven't had to have a lot of encounters with the health system of British Columbia. I know my parents have, but I haven't. But I do know we have a great-quality health care system, which many people think we can improve and which I think, actually, we can improve. Everybody wants to work toward that, so through a balanced budget we've created some opportunity to do that.

One of the things our government is doing, which I think has immediate and quantifiable impact on the quality of our health care system, is that we are training more nurses and training more doctors than any government has ever done in the province before. We have made a huge investment in producing more doctors and more nurses for the people of British Columbia, and I think we should be proud of that.

Do we need to do more? Yeah, I think we need to do that as well. Every member of this government, regardless of whether they're the Health minister or a private member or anyone in government, knows we always need to be striving for quality improvement in

health care. We are going to be putting our money where our mouth is with a billion dollars in additional investment in the health system in British Columbia by fiscal '06-07. Given the constraints that the government faces, this is a huge investment in our health system by the government on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Of course, that billion-dollar investment we're making in the health system is also going to be complemented by $260 million that is flowing in from the federal government — again, a product of some hard work by the Premier and the ministers of health to ensure we can get some additional resourcing from the federal government as well. Given that health care is probably one of the most important things to the people of British Columbia, we're making a big investment there. Good fiscal management allows us to make that investment without incurring an expense that our kids and our grandkids will have to be paying off in their time.

The other area, along with health care, where people want us to do a great job and ensure that appropriate resources are available is within the education system. There we are investing, as you know, an additional $313 million over the next three years, and that's just in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system.

I've had three kids work their way through the public school system in British Columbia. It's a great public school system, but I think we always want to be conscious of ways that things can be improved. Now, we're making that $313 million investment notwithstanding the fact that student populations in the K-to-12 system are actually going down. I'm not sure who's responsible for this, but it seems that our kids are not producing babies at the same rate that we produced them, or something like that.

Hon. G. Abbott: At least that's, I think, the general theory. And the member from West Van says, "Shame," because he was prodigious in his production of children during his time.

But now we actually see school populations reducing. That produces a great set of challenges as well. Notwithstanding that reduction in student numbers, we're actually bumping up by $313 million our investment in the public school system in British Columbia. I think…. In fact, I don't think but know that school districts and school boards across the province have been wrestling with declining school populations. This will be one way to help through some of the difficult choices they have to make moving forward as they see student numbers reduced.

We are also — and I think this is a guarantee of the importance of education to this government as the tool for economic development in the future of the province — investing an additional $105 million in advanced education. That's huge. It's going to make a great difference to what we can do at the post-secondary level and ensure that our kids are going to have the opportunity to be trained up or educated for jobs in the future that will help build the economy of the province in the twenty-first century.

The Premier committed to 25,000 new post-secondary education spaces by 2010. That is a huge commitment, and one that we are on our way to honouring. We're going to see more seats in all institutions across the province. We're going to see more programs. Those two things — more seats, more programs — ensure that my kids, as they move from the public school system of K-to-12 into the colleges and universities in this province, have an opportunity to get their education in a timely way without having to wait extra years for programs. It's going to make a tremendous difference to families all across this province as we make that additional investment.

At this point in my life, I've got two kids in university — one at UBC and one at Simon Fraser. My third child is in grade 12 in Salmon Arm. Next year I'm going to have three kids in post-secondary education — a daunting thought, I can tell you. The money signal goes up and it is a challenge.

One of the things it's reinforced for me is…. I know tuition tends to be a bit of a focal point for some students in terms of the cost of university, but in actual fact there are far more difficult costs to manage in securing a university education than just tuition. Simply the costs of living away from home — rents and transportation and food and all of those things — are in fact the drivers that make post-secondary education a challenge. Again, I think by ensuring that we have seats and ensuring that we have programs, we are in fact doing far more to ensure that our students get a quality post-secondary education than any of the nonsense about freezing tuition.

I actually have a little bit of personal experience in this, having been an instructor at Okanagan University College back when the NDP government brought in their first tuition freeze in the province. That would have been probably about '90, '92, '93 — somewhere in there. The immediate consequence of a tuition freeze, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, was that the faculty began talking about which programs they were going to have to eliminate. I know the NDP always loved it as a kind of piece of political propaganda, but the immediate consequence and long-term consequence of those tuition freezes was a reduction in access to students across British Columbia.

I think we're now moving towards getting it on a sustainable basis and one where every kid in British Columbia is going to have the opportunity to ensure that they get the kind of quality post-secondary education…. Whether it's academic or technical or vocational doesn't matter. What's needed is the opportunity for kids to get that education that's going to allow them to be a productive member of our society and help move this province, this great province that's given us so much, forward economically and socially in the twenty-first century.

I won't try to enumerate them all, but another area where I think we have made some great successes is in

the area of transportation. Again, what we saw under the NDP was simply a lot of long-term borrowing to do projects. We've now got transportation infrastructure improvements on a sustainable basis. I'm proud of that. I'm very proud that in the current budget, we're looking at $836 million in transportation projects. One of them is not too far from our Shuswap riding. The Kicking Horse Pass has long been identified as one of the most dangerous stretches of highway not only in British Columbia but in Canada. Along with the federal government we're making a huge commitment to ensuring that when all those tourists from Alberta come out to the Shuswap to enjoy their summers, it's going to be safe — or safer than the road is today. There's going to be a huge improvement there as a consequence of the huge investment that's being made by government toward that.

I know, as well, that in the Shuswap — whether it's Carlin Hill, with its $13 million project to ensure that kids coming and going to Carlin Elementary School on school buses or in cars have safe access to Carlin school, or the junction at Swan Lake, right at the junction of North Okanagan and Shuswap ridings…. About $22.5 million there is being invested to ensure that we have a safe and efficient interchange at Swan Lake to move forward in the future as well.

I know there are going to be lots of other announcements from the Minister of Transportation in the weeks and months ahead. It's going to be an exciting time.

As governments learned, particularly in the 1950s, there are enormous benefits from opening up this province to more resource extraction. When you open up the province, when you strengthen its transportation arteries, the province as a whole benefits enormously from that investment. I'm very proud to be part of a government that's investing so much in transportation, because it is going to yield enormous results for people right across the province.

I do want to note, before I leave the benefits that flow from a balanced budget, that it also opens up opportunities for helping the government protect the vulnerable in our province. Not everyone can participate in the economy the way we'd like, and certainly people with disabilities are a group that we have to be very concerned about as a government. I know that while the opposition may attempt to articulate a different view, it's simply not the case.

Whether it's in housing, where we invest $153 million a year, or whether it's in providing supports to people with disabilities, our government has worked very hard to ensure that we do give people an opportunity and give kids in those families an opportunity to be fully engaged in our economic and social life. I'm sure it wasn't easily done, but we are investing an additional $80 million in the budget for people with disabilities. I think we should be proud that we're part of a government that not only has an economic agenda but also has a social agenda which includes people who are among the more vulnerable in our society.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, when my constituents and your constituents and people across the province look at our budgets, they see not just an accounting document. What they want to see are results — results that are produced by the difficult choices that went into the budget. They want to see results from the wise investments we have made in this budget and the wise investments we have made in previous budgets since June of 2001.

Where we part paths with the NDP is around the issue of the role of government. We don't believe that government creates jobs. What government should do is create a favourable environment — economic, social, environmental and otherwise — where people will want to invest and create jobs. Government itself is a remarkably poor instrument for creating jobs, as a decade of New Democrat ministers and leaders proved. The best thing government can do is create an environment where people have confidence in investing.

Just as we have turned a corner with this budget in producing the first balanced budget of many to come, we have also turned a corner in terms of getting a favourable environment in place where we're starting to see the benefits, first of all, of getting British Columbia's taxes back on a competitive basis. Regardless of whether you have a $30,000 income or a $60,000 or a $90,000 income, we have put British Columbia on a far more competitive basis in relation to Alberta and Ontario, and so on, than has certainly been the case for a long, long time — if ever — in British Columbia. We've got that competitive tax environment where people want to live and work and invest and produce and expend energy and are rewarded for it here in British Columbia.

Through the efforts of the former Minister of State for Deregulation and all the ministries of government, we have reduced the regulatory burden in this province by some 90,000 regulations at this point. People I talk to today say they actually feel the impact of that as they look at investing in this province. The combination of a competitive tax system and reduced regulatory environment are key to producing that favourable economic-social-environmental environment where people want to invest.

What's the result? People always say, to use the old cliché: "The proof is in the pudding." Well, you don't need to look any further than the number of jobs that have been created in British Columbia in the last two years: close to 60,000 — 160,000. I don't want to undersell it — 160,000 new jobs created in the province in the last two years. That's an amazing record — certainly number one in Canada — and it's something we have to be very, very proud of. I even recall that at one interval, British Columbia saw more new jobs than the United States. That's not something we're going to do at every interval, but I do know we've moved ahead greatly in that regard.

Housing starts — 26,000-plus last year. We're expecting at least that and more in the year ahead.

We're not, however, content with the results to date. We do want to do more, and we need to strive to

do more. We want to lead in economic growth. We want to lead in new investment. We've got great resources in this province. We've been enormously blessed, as a province, with resources. We've got great people. We just need to continue to add on that positive, constructive public policy which is the value-added that government can bring to that mix.

We've got rivers, lakes, mountains, oil and gas, minerals, ports, farms, a great tourism industry, great forests and great hydroelectric power. With the great people, the great resources and beneficial public policy, there is no reason why we can't again lead the nation, why we can't again be the envy not only of the great nation of Canada but of the world.

K. Whittred: It is indeed my pleasure today, as the representative for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, to rise in this House in support of the budget. I first of all want to say that I'm now going on eight years, I think, representing North Vancouver–Lonsdale, and I'm going to spend a significant amount of my time today actually shining the spotlight a bit on my home community.

I also want to say that I'm very proud to be a member of a government that is, in fact, laying a foundation for renewal of hope and prosperity in this province. As the speaker before me so eloquently said, a balanced budget does indeed afford us the opportunity to make our own choices rather than always being faced with what I call choiceless choices.

The theme of this year's budget is about bringing out the best in everyone, and I want to relate that particular theme to my own community. The North Shore is a strong community. It is a community with strong networks, strong organizations and strong institutions.

I'd like to start by paying tribute to one individual who was honoured this past year with the Order of Canada. Stella Jo Dean was a councillor in North Vancouver for many years, and I congratulate her on her achievement.

I'd like to take just a moment and single out a few of the organizations that contribute so much to my community. The Royal Canadian Legion fundraises tirelessly and donates to so many worthy causes. The Kiwanis Clubs of North Van contribute and have, in fact, many buildings of seniors housing. They are, I think, the biggest provider in North Van of affordable seniors housing, and for that I thank them. The North Shore Neighbourhood House in lower Lonsdale provides a variety of services — child care services, services to seniors, settlement services for new immigrants — and they do a masterful job year after year.

The North Shore Disability Association, as the name suggests, offers programs for those in our community who are not as able as some others. In fact, this last year we had the opening of a new housing development called Quayside, which is really quite an amazing home to visit. It is a place where people with lesser abilities can live independently and enjoy community life to the fullest. For that, I really do reward them.

Finally, the multicultural society works with the various groups, particularly new immigrants. In my community it's largely the Iranian or Persian community who are new and who often need a little bit of a bridge to help them acclimatize to the new society. I'm happy that I'm also able to work with that organization.

Then, of course, we have the chamber of commerce, which works with businesses, as we know. Recently the chamber of commerce had an event where they honoured the outstanding business people in the community. I'd like to just read into the record those people: Mr. Bob Putman, Mike Violette, Karim Chandani, Suzanne Laurin-Seale, Bus Fuller, Chuck Chamberlain, Chris O'Donohue, Terry Hiskra and Allison Andrews. All of those individuals were honoured with various business awards from the chamber.

Now looking at the institutions in my community. First of all, Lions Gate Hospital is, of course, the heartbeat of our health services. It is the heart of North Shore health care. It has been for many years, and I'm sure it will continue to be. I'm proud to be a member of a government that has invested more than $2.5 billion by the end of this budget cycle over and above what was there in health care when I started. Some of that money has in fact gone to Lions Gate Hospital.

A few weeks ago I was honoured to be toured to the new MRI which has recently been installed and is now treating patients at Lions Gate. It is, in fact, the most advanced clinical unit of its kind in western Canada. The machine is capable of producing more detailed high-resolution images than any other machine in the west. The Ministry of Health Services contributed a total of $5.5 million to this project. In addition, $2 million was contributed to purchase the MRI and $3.5 million to construct the new diagnostic wing. I also want to give credit to the Lions Gate Foundation, which added money to upgrade some of the technical support around this. That is one way in which our health care has been enhanced.

Together with the other North Shore MLAs, we had the privilege last week of visiting Lions Gate Hospital. It had an open house. I want to give credit to the North Shore health board, or the North Shore portion of the Vancouver coastal health board, for doing this open house. I didn't know, but I learned that this was the first time in the history of Lions Gate that there has been an open house held. It was very interesting. It was extremely well attended.

We had the privilege of seeing several new and very advanced treatment centres. One of these was a new chemotherapy lab that will be available for patients who are suffering from cancer. We also saw a newly refurbished rehabilitation ward that is there for people who have had strokes or other debilitating illnesses. They are there, of course, in rehab until they are able to go home. Once again, I wish to single out the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation, which has been instrumental in putting the funds together for much of the upgrading in addition, of course, to what the government has contributed.

The other major institution in the community or in any community is education. Once again, I want to point out that this budget gives $313 million more in K-to-12 investment. I want to say that I'm very proud I've been able to work with the school board and the Ministry of Education to successfully get a new feasibility study around the replacement of Sutherland Secondary. I must say that it certainly does need a capital upgrade. There's been a committee formed now, and I'm very pleased. The community is involved. They are looking at the possibility of actually replacing the school rather than trying to upgrade it as it is almost beyond repair.

I want to shine the spotlight a little bit on a few other educational programs in the community. One is at the other high school in my community — the chefs training program. I'm very pleased that it seems every time I go to a meeting or an event in North Van — and my North Shore colleague will share this with me — we are treated to a lunch that is, in fact, prepared by the chefs training program.

One of the things we're very proud of on the North Shore is that we do have a very close ongoing relationship — the MLAs with the school board — which shows the strength of our institutions. Twice a year we treat each other to a meal, and it's the Carson Graham students who prepare that meal.

Last week I had the pleasure to accompany the new Minister of Education on a visit to Queen Mary School in my riding, and it, too, was a distinct experience. I had, of course, been to that school before. Queen Mary is a school that serves a broad diversity of cultures, many of them first nation. It is a school in my community that serves a fairly low-income group, and therefore it has all the appropriate programs that go along with that. Certainly, the minister and myself were very warmly greeted by the students. In fact, I would say that we were basically accorded rock-star status. That was really a very pleasurable experience.

We not only have K-to-12 schools in my riding, but we have advanced education facilities as well. Capilano College, of course, is the community college for all of North Vancouver. Once again I point out that this budget, which is balanced, has $105 million earmarked for advanced education. I know, from speaking to people in the community, there's always a need for new spaces. To that end the government is committed to 25,000 new spaces by the year 2010.

I would also like to point out that I know the Premier is interested in looking at the areas where there will be further degree-granting institutions. I know that Cap College is very high on the list and has been working to that end for some years.

I'd like to just focus the spotlight again on a couple of Cap College programs that are of particular interest, given the community and the industries we have. One is the motion picture and video production program. The movie industry is one of the major employers in my community, and it's only fitting that Cap College is a leader in this area. Its reputation is well founded in providing this particular learning program.

Another program that Cap College has made very successful is the Asia Pacific management cooperative program. It's a business program. Usually it attracts people who already have degrees in business and wish further specialization in dealing with the Pacific Rim. Over a period of years it's been very, very successful.

There is another advanced ed institution in my riding, and that is the BCIT marine campus. I'll bet you there are a lot of members that didn't even know this exists. It used to be the Pacific Marine Training Institute years ago, but it's been part of BCIT now for ten years. It's closely integrated with BCIT, and it's the only place in western Canada — again, befitting our seacoast status — where you can study to be a master mariner, a chief engineer. It has a fairly new program they call their cadet program, and that is a degree program, a four-year program in nautical science and marine engineering. All of these people, when they graduate, are accredited with Transport Canada. It's a program and an institution in my community of which we are very proud. If any members in the House are ever down near the Lonsdale Quay, you might want to walk just a little bit west, and you will see the BCIT marine campus.

Now I want to shift gears just a little bit, because I would be remiss if I suggested that there are no challenges. My colleague who preceded me spoke about having to make hard choices, and I think the most beneficial aspect of finally balancing the budget and promising to balance it year after year is that, as I said, we now get to choose where we are going to put our resources.

Certainly, we have challenges in North Van, particularly around health care and education, in spite of the wonderful job that our institutions and the people that work in those areas are doing. Quite simply, it really gets down to one thing. You know, we have on one side of the equation, in health care, a population that is aging, and when it comes to education, we have a population that is diminishing.

In my community at the present time the school board is in consultation with parents, and I want to congratulate the board. They have put in place an admirable consultation process, but they are looking to perhaps close as many as four schools. Certainly, in my office this is the area where we get the most calls.

Now, there is a relationship between those two particular areas, and I call it the demographic challenge. We are changing, as a society, demographically. The picture of our population is changing. We are moving from a society that we have known — and when I say "we," I don't just mean us in British Columbia; I mean really all of Canada, in fact all of North America — from one that had lots and lots of young people and fewer old people to one where we're going to have more equal numbers. We're moving very rapidly from a society which was largely young to one of older people. In health care that's going to mean we are going to have to shift from a health care system that was largely focused on and devoted to acute care is-

sues, or issues that affect younger people, to those that are related to chronic care issues, or those that affect older people.

In education we've had a system where the K-to-12 system always grew. Well, it's not growing anymore, and we're going to have to look perhaps at lifelong learning experiences. We're going to have to look at how we provide workers with new skills. We're going to have to ask questions about retirement. We're going to have to ask questions about how long we work in the workforce. Those children that are not entering the school system today are going to be the workers who are not entering the workforce 15 years or so from now, and somebody is going to have to continue to fill those jobs.

It's also a challenge because in communities the fact that our demographics are changing is really creating a number of what I call vicious-circle kinds of problems. In a community like mine, for example, which is a fairly compact urban area, if a school closes, nobody's going to want to buy a house there if they have children. What happens over time is that you have a community with no children in it, or you have a community where families don't want to go. You have a community where houses are really too big for the elderly people that occupy them.

What does all this have to do with government? Probably it's a challenge for government because those are complex problems that require long-term planning. Those of us that have been in government for any length of time know that change does not come easy in any community. To that end, I want to commend the Premier and the government and encourage them to continue to dialogue with communities, to continue to have people in place that can do this kind of long-range planning so that ultimately we can make the choices that are going to be good for all of our communities.

I pointed out earlier that the theme of this year's budget was bringing out the best. I want to conclude today by talking about the lower Lonsdale area, because this truly is a microcosm of what we have been trying to achieve in this government. If you scan the horizon of the lower Lonsdale area, which is my riding, you will see nothing but cranes. Every place you look, there are cranes. It is a perfect example of a climate of investment. Certainly, the most exciting project in that area is the redevelopment of what was the old Burrard Drydock shipyards, more recently Versatile Pacific. That whole area is now being redeveloped with a whole variety of amenities and infrastructure.

It will, upon completion, be an exciting place to go. It includes a maritime museum, pedestrian bridges and walkways, and refurbishment of an old existing pier. It provides public access to the North Shore waterfront for the first time in a century. It will include a whole variety of condominium towers, eight in total, with a thousand residential units. It will include a hotel with 20,000 square feet of convention space. It will include office buildings. It will include retail shops and galleries. It will include more than 20,000 square feet of recreation and clubhouse facilities.

The heritage portion of this is the restoration of the historic shipyard buildings and the revitalization through the museum and various restaurants and shops. This area, interestingly enough, is going to be called "The Machine Shop." I have to confess that I'm a little bit disappointed. Anyone who has ever driven down St. George's Avenue knows that at the foot of St. George's there was a great big sign that said "The Erection Shop." That was, however, dropped several years ago and is no longer a tourist attraction in British Columbia.

As I was saying, this is a particularly exciting project. It is, in my opinion, a microcosm of the project. At the height of history in North Vancouver, that particular block of land employed 2,000 people, including hundreds of women who worked there in a massive shipbuilding effort.

I had the pleasure a year or two ago, actually, of being present when they brought in one of the original vessels that was built during the war and actually cut the bow, I think it is, off the ship. That is sitting there now, and it's the plan….

K. Whittred: I'm told by my colleague that it's the stern. All right. Anyway, the stern is sitting there now temporarily housed, and it will form the facade for the maritime museum. It's a very, very exciting project. This is, as I said, a microcosm of the environment that we have created in this province for development, and it's all there for everyone to see in lower Lonsdale.

I will conclude by saying that we have brought a budget together that illustrates job growth. The project that I have mentioned is going to create over 500 new jobs just in that one area. This is an example of the success of our financial decisions. We're number one in housing growth in British Columbia. This project in lower Lonsdale is going to provide over a thousand residential units. It in itself is an example of this budget at work. We're number one in small business confidence; this is an area of small business. We're finally, after six years, bringing our people home.

Nothing demonstrates the theme of bringing out the best in everyone other than the events of last summer. I am reminded, first of all, of the success in July of the Olympic bid. We all shared in that, and surely that was one of the most exciting mornings of our life for most of us. Certainly, it was for me when that announcement was made.

Then we had the summer that none of us will ever forget. We had forest fires. We had SARS. We had mad cow disease. Once again we came together as a province, and in my particular case as a community, to work together to address those issues. In North Van-

couver businesses got together and entertained ranchers from the interior with a great big barbecue at the Lonsdale Quay — all of this to promote beef and try to end the effects of the mad cow scare.

In August we had a variety of activities that came together to fundraise for fire victims. There were firefighters who went to help out in the Okanagan. Local businesses donated. Elementary schoolchildren collected pop bottles. All sorts of people helped in every way they could.

As I go about my business in the community, I am constantly reminded to stay the course. I congratulate the Finance minister for laying a firm foundation for solid economic growth and look forward to a decade of growth and opportunity.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to the balanced budget of 2004. This budget is balanced. It was a commitment that we made when we were elected. It is done under the generally accepted accounting principles, and that is a first. What we are saying is that no longer can we continue to spend more than we are able to afford and let someone later, our children and grandchildren, pay our debt.

We all know, as responsible adults, that we manage our own personal finances, so we try to balance our chequebooks. To not do so ends in endless debt that eventually consumes us. There are frightening statistics out today that have been published, which outline how many middle-class families in North America are in debt and the amount of debt they carry and how many are facing bankruptcy.

Governments must not be allowed to spend your tax dollars rashly and end in debt. This budget and policy are based on sound fiscal management, which is the foundation to a sustainable future.

I just want to touch on a few changes that have taken place. For instance, in 2001, if you were a two-income family and you made $90,000, you paid $10,307 in taxes. In 2004 you pay $8,700 — a total tax cut of $1,607. If you're a two-income family with $30,000, in 2001 you paid $3,739 and in 2004, $3,540 — which is a savings of $199. This includes MSP premiums and the raise in gas taxes. People do not realize that with the changes we made in taxes, there was money left in their pockets.

The changes that we have made, too, in tax relief for business…. Businesses in one of my communities, Qualicum, tell me that business has improved. Out on the west coast they tell me that tourism is up, and they are doing well from that. I certainly would be remiss not to say that in Port Alberni it's tough, with the changes that have taken place over the last decade and with the downturn in the forest economy. But we have a new mall going in and the prospect of a big-box store. We have one of our other stores in town that is about to embark on enlarging and having a much larger store. Now, in a bigger community these may seem like small items, but they're big items to this community. It does mean that people have faith and look to see that they will be profitable as they start the businesses, and they do see that there has been an improvement in their business plans since we came into office.

I want to talk a little bit about health care. It's a constant challenge to all provinces in Canada. When Alberta says it has problems, you know that we all have problems. There is not one province that is not struggling with health issues. As we increase surgeries, demand still grows. We are an aging population. Twenty years ago, hip replacements were rare. Now the number increases as we grow older. We have increased the number of spaces for doctors at universities — and more space for nurses, technology improvements. New drugs come on the market. The challenges continue to grow.

When I was younger I developed scarlet fever, which meant three months in an isolation hospital, and some of my friends had polio, which was a terrible disease at that time. Today in the western world those diseases are nonexistent, but there are other diseases that have become more prevalent: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's — terrible diseases for the individual and the families. There comes a time when their families can no longer look after them, and we as a society and government have to provide the services so that they can live in dignity. All these issues are new challenges for our health systems.

We have a growing number of young people who are overweight and at a young age are developing diabetes 2. With changes in lifestyle, we see ourselves not looking after our health. We do not have enough exercise, and we eat too much fast food. We need to focus on preventative health care. We must make sure that every penny possible is targeted both to the patient in the hospital and to preventative health care. We need to have preventative health care taught in our schools and our communities. To not change the direction that health care is going will consume 50 percent of our budget in the next few years.

Serious discussions about health care talk about money, but over the years there's been a reluctance to discuss the need to reform health care, despite the fact that everybody recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable. I have looked at other systems in the world, and many of them have good policies.

The United Kingdom, which over the past years I've actually had to deal with…. Under the national health system, they have an excellent emergency program. They also have what is known as BUPA, which is a private insurance company — which, I might add, most unions in the United Kingdom have in their contracts. The emergency system is excellent — to the state that for my parents in their eighties, coverage was no longer necessary — but it is needed for the other areas of health.

In Australia and New Zealand they have part private, part social health care systems. We need to look at how we can change health care, how we can make sure that we will have the health system that is sustainable in the future. We do, as a country and in British Co-

lumbia, have to have the foresight and the vision to look at reforms in the health system.

We must be innovative and make sure that surgeries are available for patients. We must, as a nation, put more emphasis on preventative health care and community health care. This is what this government is trying to do. And it is tough trying to change the direction of a huge ship which has been going in one direction for so many years and to try to bring it around so that it can go in the direction that we want it to go so that we have health care for the future. I am proud to be part of a government that looks at the long term, not the short term and what is popular as another election comes up.

Canada has the reputation of having the highest number of seniors living in institutionalized housing, which I don't think is particularly a reputation to be proud of. That is why we've been looking at a need for different types of housing — for those who maybe are just lonely, some who are able to take care of themselves, some who need a little help with medications, some who need some physical help and some who need 24-hour care. That is what this government is trying to put in place so that our seniors can live in dignity.

Education is the best tool that we can give our children for our future. The budget has been increased over the three years, and our aggregate per-pupil funding will rise to $6,478, which is an increase of approximately $500 since 2001.

Mr. Speaker, there are a great number of issues that I would like to continue to discuss in speaking to the budget, but noting the time, I will adjourn debate.

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