Hansard -- Tuesday, September 20, 2005 a .m. -- Vol. 1, No. 10 (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


Committee of the Whole House		175
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 4)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		175
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 4)

Budget Debate (continued)		175
	C. Wyse
	R. Sultan
	R. Austin
	D. Jarvis

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; S. Hawkins in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 4, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

C. Wyse: It is my privilege to rise in the House as the member for Cariboo South. Election night in B.C., particularly in my riding, highlighted the fact that every vote counts, as the polls closed with a single vote separating me from incumbent Walt Cobb. Until the final recount almost two weeks later, I became known locally and as far away as Ontario as Landslide Charlie.

While many people called to say that they were responsible for that one vote, let me share with you one of the many stories that echoed across Cariboo South in the intervening days between May 17 and the final count announcement. As campaign teams across the province tracked their vote, my team in Cariboo South diligently checked and rechecked the voters list.

A call to one particular home went something like this: "Hi, I'm calling from Charlie Wyse's campaign headquarters and noticed that you've not yet voted. Since you are supporting Charlie, I'm wondering if you need a ride to the poll." "Yes, I do support Charlie, but I can't get out to vote. You see, I'm not finished painting my porch, and I promised my husband it would be done tonight." "We'll be right over," replied the caller.

Sure enough, a few minutes later, two workers showed up at the woman's home, one to drive her to the polls and the other to paint the porch. While the final count in Cariboo South was more than one vote difference, this story illustrates the commitment and dedication of many voters who were heartened by the NDP message that everybody matters.

Since those whirlwind days of campaigning and vote recounts, I have been very busy in my constituency. Thanks to the former MLA Walt Cobb, I was able to get my constituency office set up quickly, assuming the old contact numbers and retaining the office equipment. I extend my appreciation to Mr. Cobb for his efforts, which ensured a smooth transition for myself and the residents of Cariboo South.

In extending my appreciation, I would also like to thank every voter in Cariboo South who supported their candidate and made an effort to exercise their democratic responsibility to cast a ballot in the election. I would also like to publicly acknowledge the other candidates who were prepared to sacrifice their personal time to represent the people of Cariboo South. They are Walt Cobb, Mike Orr and Ed Sharkey.

Continuing on this theme, I am truly indebted to many, many individuals who supported me in my effort to be the next MLA for Cariboo South. I cannot name them all here, but I will always value their support and commitment to me and to the values of the B.C. New Democratic Party. I will work faithfully and diligently to fulfil their trust and promise to work hard to serve the needs of all the constituents of Cariboo South.

There are, however, two individuals I must recognize by name. The first is Bob Wanless. Bob drove me around the constituency, travelling approximately 7,000 kilometres and knocking on 7,000 doors with me during the campaign. His advice and support were invaluable.

The second person I wish to recognize is my wife Sheila. I am here today because of her love, her support and her understanding of my need to work for my community. Her sense of humour keeps me going and at times puts life into perspective. After a particularly long day recently, I called Sheila. After explaining that I was tired due to a 12-hour workday, she responded quickly with: "Now you know what it's like to be a primary school teacher."

While the days are long and the learning curve steep, I am committed to working hard for all the people of Cariboo South.

The last four years were difficult for my constituents. Let me explain. Last week in the House we heard one of the hon. members from Prince George tell us in his budget speech how the people of Cariboo South had benefited from the policy decisions of his government. At this point he paraded out statistics to support his claim. Let me now give you the picture that his statistics don't show. Let me illustrate how this government's heartland in reality became the hurtland. Let me show you how in my riding the men, women and children in it were abandoned and ignored by their government.

First, this government regionalized its services. As a result, hundreds of government jobs were transferred out of the Cariboo. The loss of this payroll left empty stores and offices in every community. It took our seniors out of the facilities they expected to live in and housed many of them in hospital wards. It left many of our most vulnerable citizens dependent on telephone message systems instead of talking to a real person. How did regionalization of services improve life for the people of Cariboo South?

Second, B.C. Rail was sold despite a promise — I repeat, a promise — by Premier Gordon Campbell that our railway would not be sold. Now only one train travels the tracks each day. We used to have three trains travelling these rails.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the use of proper names…. Use the member's riding name.

We used to have three trains travelling the rails between North Vancouver and Prince George, and now we have one. Rail workers along the line have lost their jobs, and the communities have lost those payrolls. Lumber mills cannot get enough railcars to ship their products, and the wood and log yards continue to pile up. In addition to this deterioration of a valuable service, the number of accidents on the rail line has increased. CN now intends to charge the owners of private crossings an annual fee of $500 to pay for the maintenance of these crossings. How did the sale of B.C. Rail improve life for the people of Cariboo South?

Third, this government made significant changes to the forestry act. Now access to timber and the number of mills are concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Trees are no longer milled near the area in which they were logged. Instead, these trees are loaded onto trucks and driven through the community for processing at far-off mills, taking the jobs and the payrolls with them. How has changing the forestry act improved life for the people in Cariboo South?

Despite the hurt in the hurtland, there is some hope on the horizon. With the world price of copper doubling since 1998, Mount Polley mine has joined Gibraltar mine in once more starting production. It's certainly good news for the people of the Cariboo. These resource-based jobs will bring payrolls back and infuse money into the local economy. But this money will be there only as long as the world demand for copper and gold remains high, and it's not as much money as we've seen in the past. Changes in legislation allowed Gibraltar mine to reduce its cost by reopening, using a labour pool that is paid significantly less than the previous workers were paid.

Another ray of hope shines from the government's recognition — long, long overdue — of the rights of British Columbia's first nations people. In Cariboo South there exist some unique situations. The Chilcotin first nations people are presently in court claiming sovereignty over their traditional territory. Regardless of this government's conciliatory overtures, it will be the courts that will ultimately contribute to the definition of this important issue.

First nations groups in Cariboo South have also voiced strong opposition to the proposed Ashcroft landfill site. Although a positive initial step has been made with the creation of the first nations trust fund, the first nations leadership is cautious, given the record of broken promises by this government.

As this government makes its offer of a new spirit of cooperation in the House, I respectfully offer some suggestions: first, that the Ministry of Education establish a fund to offset the costs of providing public education in rural school districts. Both school districts 27 and 74 have faced and continue to face the closure of schools due to declining enrolment. These districts, as do some others in the province, face huge costs associated with their climate and geographical dispersion. As suggested by the NDP during the election campaign, this fund would alleviate the pressure on school districts and ensure that our children could continue to be educated in their community school.

The government suggested improvements to Highway 97 during the campaign. This highway is the backbone of Cariboo South, and I welcome any improvements that would ensure the safety of the people who drive it each day. But there are two other main roads, Highways 20 and 24, which are integral to the economic health of Cariboo South. These roads, too, require capital work. Hooking the Chilcotin into the hydro grid and improving Highway 20 would encourage development west of Williams Lake.

However, my responsibility as MLA extends beyond Cariboo South. I am deeply honoured — I repeat, deeply honoured — to be the opposition critic for mental health. Since this appointment I have met with the CEOs of five regional health boards, have had discussions with community health groups and have met with doctors and health care providers for the mentally ill. I have also recently toured the Vancouver downtown east side.

I have learned, unfortunately, that there is no coordinated government plan to provide services for people with mental illness in British Columbia. In fact, in 2002 the government disbanded the ministry responsi-

ble for mental health and assigned those responsibilities to the regional health authorities.

Although mental illness affects all nationalities, both genders and all socioeconomic classes, there is no integrated, coordinated plan to deliver mental health services across all British Columbia's regions. The government has destroyed community support services while boasting about the money it is spending on redeploying the services provided by Riverview. This change simply relocates services and does not increase services for the mentally ill.

Homelessness and community support have been ignored by this government. The separate agencies such as social services, Ministry of Children and Family Development, the courts and the police are not coordinated to serve the mentally ill. The mentally ill are passed along from one agency to another with little support for the people who are sick or for the families who provide their support. This shameful practice must cease.

I am announcing today that mental health issues will be placed in the spotlight to receive the attention they deserve. Mentally ill British Columbians and their supporters will have an advocate in this Legislature. In the spirit of cooperation suggested by the Premier, I am asking this House to make this topic — the care of our mentally ill — a priority. I look forward to working with government in addressing each of our citizens in all of our ridings, because everyone matters.

R. Sultan: I'm honoured to be back in the Legislature for my second term. In the tradition of these inaugural speeches in the new session of the House, I want to thank the voters of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, whom I represent in equal proportion, for returning me with the largest plurality in the province. I will do my best to live up to their very high expectations, although I must confess it's a bit ego-deflating as I ponder whether they were really voting for me or against an alternative which, to be polite, they were not terribly keen on — although I could use stronger language.

This was brought home as my friend Russ Fraser — now I'm going back to the 2001 election — tried to introduce me to mainstreeting. He walked down Marine Drive, approached this well-dressed man and said: "Would you like to meet your next MLA?" This guy pushed past us, gave me the elbow and said: "I'd vote for him if he was a duck." Anyway, they did the job. We had a couple of hundred volunteers out working on the election. I am grateful to them and thank them.

I want to thank all the MLAs and would-be MLAs in British Columbia. In the spirit of the remarks of the member for Cariboo South, I would acknowledge the very brisk debate and competition which my opponent from the NDP party, Terry Platt, gave to us in West Vancouver–Capilano; the vigorous ideas advanced by the candidate for the Work Less Party, which had a superficial appeal, I must confess, in terms of the title at least; and the Marijuana Party, which I'm sad to say really didn't get as much support as I predicted it might.

All of them, in varying degrees of seriousness, I think, were willing to put their lives and their families and their hearth on the line to set up a separate household here in Victoria, a separate domicile, and to commute back and forth, back and forth — not quite as onerous as the nine-hour commute that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke described but, nevertheless, a sacrifice which is significant — all in the interests, regardless of political point of view, of a better British Columbia. I respect that. I'm proud to serve with all of you.

Let me turn to the 2005 minibudget. The budget presented by the Finance Minister last week lives up to my constituents' high expectations. It's a smart blend of economic incentives and social sensitivity. It is, at the core, a budget for seniors. For those of us on the North Shore, particularly in my riding, that's very, very significant.

The Finance Minister, as all the members know, but for the benefit of the millions watching on Global television this stirring debate…. It renewed and focused support for our seniors to the tune of about a quarter of a billion dollars. It made a significant new financial commitment to first nations. It introduced two new tax measures which will help keep our economy competitive, thereby generating further government revenue and, most importantly, jobs for our workforce.

The Finance Minister neither pretended nor suggested the government could do all the things it would like to do immediately. She indicated that this budget was merely the first instalment of the five that would be presented by the government in its mandate.

Maintaining a strong economy, of course, is a precondition to the government's social programs and agenda, and without it we don't have the wherewithal to pay. The government's policies have obviously succeeded dramatically. In fact, one Globe and Mail columnist of my acquaintance described it as an economic miracle, taking the wreckage inherited from the NDP in 2001 and rebuilding it into Canada's leading economy, whether measured by investment, growth, job creation or however in only four years — a remarkable transformation. Tax cuts, both personal and business, helped make that turnaround possible, and the government's 40-percent cut in red tape and regulation, however measured, also encouraged that turnaround.

The business and investment community applauds further measures in this September budget — namely, the further corporate income tax cuts down to 12 percent from 13½ percent, keeping B.C. competitive with Alberta and Ontario. Members opposite said: "Well, you know, they weren't even asking for it." Well, perhaps not, but I think the drain — the sucking sound of businesses and head offices continuing that flow over to Calgary and Edmonton from B.C. should we have failed to keep pace with the announced corporate tax cuts in Alberta and Ontario — would have been painful enough. I think it was very important to institute these corporate tax cuts to keep jobs and investment here in British Columbia.

The other very innovative tax measure introduced by the Finance Minister in this budget pertained to the international financial centre concept — the tax treatment of intellectual property. This is a little hard, sometimes, to get your mind around. It pertains to the commercialization of patents of research and development discovery, presumably, in the main through the massive investment British Columbians are making in things like biotechnology through the universities and the private sector and including, I might add, biotech applications in the mining industry, of all things. In the absence of such incentives to keep those businesses here once the intellectual property had been commercialized, there's every possibility that it would end up in Bermuda or some other tax haven. I think these are two important innovations that will pay off in the longer term.

Let's turn to the good things for seniors in this budget. Why seniors? Why focus on seniors? Well, in part, there are so many of them, and there's going to be a lot more in the not too distant future. If we define seniors — and that's a big if — as 65 and older, they are now one in seven of all British Columbians today, and 25 years from now one in four will be in that age category. If you define what I call superseniors as 80 and over, 25 years from now one person in 15 in British Columbia will be in that category.

On the North Vancouver side of my riding, the demographics on age pretty much resemble the B.C. average, but on the West Vancouver side, double those percentages. If you want to see our demographic future, come to West Vancouver and I'll show you around. Here we have a rapidly growing age cohort benefiting from healthier lifestyles, our excellent health care system — and it is excellent, believe me — our clean environment, the miracle of modern pharmaceuticals, vastly superior knowledge about the factors which shorten and extend life, and the wit to do something about it — a prescription, I might add, encapsulated in the Premier's Act Now program. Eat your veggies and fresh fruit, get more exercise, and you'll live a long and healthy life. Older constituents in my riding scramble up the Grouse Grind before breakfast.

R. Sultan: The member from Lynn Valley hasn't done that at a recent breakfast. But I'll have to take you up on that.

Let's count the ways in which this important, increasingly healthy and long-lived cohort is being benefited by the budgets — plural — of this government. First of all, in terms of the three important measures in the current budget announced by our Finance Minister, it commits $242 million over three years into three different measures: seniors supplement, SAFER and expanded seniors care facilities. On the seniors supplement the budget reinstates the previously phased-out seniors supplement, providing $50 a month to approximately 40,000 low-income seniors.

SAFER is an acronym for Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. This is a long-established program. It now has been enhanced by the government to make rental housing more affordable for low-income seniors.

We had a women's forum, sponsored by my office, on the North Shore in 2003 chaired by West Vancouver councillor Jeannie Ferguson. We asked this collection of civic leaders to identify the key issues concerning women on the North Shore. You know, it was a blank slate. You could raise any issues affecting women on the North Shore, and they raised many issues from women in political life to services of a variety of things from government.

The most important issue they identified — and I was surprised — was affordable housing. The most important issue for women on the North Shore is affordable housing. I have to admit that surprised me. As I thought about it and as I reflected on the people I talked to, rising house prices on the North Shore in particular may profit those who own those homes, but it sure can be a nightmare for the renters who are facing escalating rent on their facilities — many of them women, many of them elderly women who are being driven out. If you have to go, where do you go? It's a huge dilemma, and one that the women's forum identified.

So to help address this problem, this government's budget has doubled annual funding for SAFER and provides subsidies for lower-income seniors spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent. The budget puts an additional $90 a month into the hands of elderly renters and expands the rental subsidy to those living in manufactured homes or what we used to call, in ancient times when I was younger, trailer courts. Yes, we have people living in what we used to call trailer courts even in West Vancouver, believe it or not. Enhancements in the SAFER budget will apply to the 12,000 seniors already qualifying and open the program to an additional 7,200 persons living in manufactured homes.

The third element, the expansion of care facilities. The budget commits $150 million to update existing seniors health care facilities and to strengthen and modernize the full range of services available to seniors through the health authorities. It will assist them in living as independently as possible for as long as possible. Some of this money will ensure that the final stages of fulfilment of the 5,000 net new care home spaces promised some time ago — missed the deadline — are finally completed promptly.

We can move from the three items for seniors featured in this budget and now list a whole series of other things, some of them dating back to the February 2005 budget. In particular, I'd refer to tax cuts for lower-income seniors.

The opposition rails against tax cuts for the rich. Now, that's a catchy slogan. Everybody can get anger and jealousy and venom cranked up by saying: "Those people in Victoria are providing tax cuts for the rich." Frankly, it's balderdash. They have it upside down. It's the poor who have benefited from the really significant tax cuts under this government. British Columbians at lower and moderate income levels now pay the lowest income tax in Canada.

When in the spring session of the previous government the opposition rather forcefully denounced these tax cuts, I observed in the House that Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave to see members of the NDP stand up in this House and decry tax cuts for the poor. Goodness' sake. What's happened to this party of great social democratic tradition that we would ever see that done?

The February budget has eliminated or reduced provincial income taxes for almost three-quarters of a million British Columbians. Most individuals earning up to $16,000 a year pay no provincial tax at all, and those earning up to $26,000 will pay lower income taxes.

The fifth point: health spending. Since seniors are a disproportionately large consumer of health services, by some estimates consuming 40 percent of the budget as a class, they particularly benefit when health budgets grow. Again, over the past five years, B.C. Liberals have increased health care spending by 32 percent. Now, this is remarkable.

NDP supporters…. I pick up the ads. I see the lawn signs. I see the denunciations at all-candidates debates about how we have cut health care spending. Only NDP arithmetic could denounce a one-third increase as a cut. I've concluded that in this Alice-in-Wonderland world, the only way we would ever get some of our opponents to agree that expenditures were rising would be if we actually cut them. Then they might reach that conclusion.

Just to complete, another five seniors benefits that have been implemented by this government: a 50-percent increase in the refundable sales tax credit for low-income seniors; reduced MSP premiums for lower-income seniors and families; reduced prescription costs for lower-income citizens through Fair Pharmacare. Many of my constituents weren't particularly happy about that, but that was pure social democratic philosophy in action, believe it or not, for the benefit of those of you on the benches opposite. The seniors bus pass….

Finally, and most significantly for my constituents is broadened homeowner grant access through changing the threshold levels on the homeowners' grant. On the North Vancouver side, about 3,900 homeowners faced with either elimination or reduction in the homeowner's grant had it saved under the new thresholds introduced, and in West Vancouver about 1,500 homeowners, for a total of well over 5,000 North Shore residents — many of them seniors benefiting from the revision of the homeowner grant thresholds by the B.C. Liberal Party.

What's the impact of all of this on the typical low-income senior? Well, I'll repeat again the example given in the budget. A senior with an annual income of only $12,500 — and many people only have that — renting accommodation for $700 a month — that could easily be somebody on the North Shore — will now receive an additional $1,944 a year from SAFER and an additional $592 from the seniors supplement for a total of $2,500 and change. It's serious money, in other words. Low-income seniors should be pleased.

Do we have low-income seniors on the North Shore? You bet we do. Over 5,000 people on the North Shore, typically elderly women, receive the federal government guaranteed income supplement — 5,000 out of that hierarchy of hot tubs where we all sit around just lighting cigars with $50 bills. We have large pockets of people who are not leading that caricature of life on the North Shore. I must say I find myself getting weary explaining that.

Anyway, in the rebuttal to all of this wonderful news, our friends on the left have belittled the government's seniors care home construction promise of 5,000 new beds, saying it wasn't done on time, which was admitted. But we should recall that since 2001 the government has built more than 4,000 new, replaced or upgraded residential care and assisted-living units, and shovels are in the ground as we speak for another 2,100 today.

Let's turn the tables and ask what the NDP track record in this area looked like. Well, throughout what some in the House have characterized as the dismal decade in government, the NDP actually reduced the number of care beds by 18 percent. Imagine that. The source of that information was, impeccably, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. That's what they say — 18-percent reduction, you folks. They also allowed care bed wait times to get up to a year. They didn't invest in maintenance, which of course is what derailed our program, because we spent so much time just to patch up what had been allowed to decay that we didn't quite get on to the schedule to put 5,000 new ones in place within the time frame originally promised.

In the budget debate rebuttal, the NDP has also criticized the government's record of transfer payments to low-income seniors. They charge that cuts to seniors programs are forcing them to choose between food and rent or food and drugs. Well, I say nonsense. We all know people who are having to face tough choices, but to put all this burden on the back of a government, I think, is quite out of line. Programs for low-income seniors in terms of transfers from government were not cut. Of course, now, with the increase in the supplement, they are increasing.

By contrast, I'd point out that throughout their dismal decade, the NDP didn't add a single cent to the SAFER program — not one red cent. In their final budget, they actually imposed a $517 tax increase on a seniors couple earning $30,000. I guess I'd have to say it seems the NDP never saw a problem that a tax increase wouldn't solve, particularly imposed on couples with moderate incomes.

Well, I presume I'm rattling on too long. I haven't seen the green light come on yet, so let me just make a few closing remarks about a slightly different topic, but certainly related to the budget. I would like to just say a few words about transparency.

The British Columbia government accounts for about one-quarter of all the activity in the province. I mean, this is a big operation: a budget of almost $35 billion; capital spending of $3 billion to $5 billion a year; 22 ministries; dozens of taxpayer-supported Crowns and institutions, universities, utility companies.

Riding herd on such an enterprise would tax the management capability of the most proficient. There

are certainly ample opportunities to fiddle with the numbers, if one were so inclined. It's amply demonstrated in other jurisdictions — fiddling. For example, prior to the last election the NDP Premier of Manitoba came out here to coach his west coast colleagues. Unfortunately for him, about the time his airplane was landing at YVR, the Auditor General of that province released a report detailing how his government had resorted to some last-minute creative accounting, and presto — a Manitoba deficit had become a Manitoba surplus. Did the Premier include a few pointers on how to fix up the books in his briefing? I'm curious.

Let's give credit to the NDP, and I say this sincerely — all kidding aside. In their last term of office the NDP passed the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act of July 6, 2000, with, I am sure, the wholehearted support of the then B.C. Liberal opposition. Fudge-it budgets were outlawed, and everyone learned from the mistakes that had been made. It was a very important path-breaking piece of legislation. I think persons on both sides of the House should be proud of it.

The B.C. Liberals have taken this piece of legislation with gusto. Now budgets are so transparent that their documentation threatens to collapse the bookcase in my office. But more than the sheer volume of paper and numbers and service plans, British Columbia — uniquely among Canadian governments — now publishes a set of financial accounts that in the same time frame and on a very timely basis encompasses every government-controlled enterprise, including schools, hospitals, utilities and universities — rolls it all up into an aggregate balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement, which is what any, say, large multinational enterprise would do when it reports results to its shareholders.

It's unique among Canadian governments. We in British Columbia perhaps don't appreciate that we are viewed by the rest of Canada as extraordinary leaders in this field. They come to British Columbia to see how we do it, because that's not how they do it. We see in Ottawa what happens when you've got hidden reserves and money being shifted here and there. Off-book transactions can be perpetrated in a non-transparent atmosphere. Mr. Gomery will undoubtedly enlighten us on that whole subject shortly.

I'm not saying it could never happen in British Columbia, but certainly the legislation put into place in 2000 and the spirit with which it has been implemented and the traditions that are now in place make it very, very unlikely. Let us hope so. We are world leaders, and it's something to be proud of.

Are we getting to the situation where accounting can actually be sexy and interesting? Well, you know, if you read the business press, financial reporting and financial accountability are in fact a pretty hot subject and continue to be rather lurid. Fudge-it budgets in Manitoba and British Columbia. Global accounting firms such as Arthur Andersen basically being driven out of business. Senior executives, many of them Canadian, heading for jail. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States requiring CEOs to now sign off on the veracity of their financial accounts — and if not, we'll send in the FBI or somebody like that.

The credibility of financial reporting has been challenged worldwide. In that milieu, I think what British Columbia has accomplished is all the more remarkable. No doubt, because of all this stuff, cynicism about politicians and business people in particular has been encouraged. I believe this government's planning and financial-reporting thoroughness is setting a benchmark for clarity which should discourage such cynicism.

To commemorate what was achieved two years ago, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the governing body for all chartered accountants in the land, honoured the then Finance Minister Gary Collins for the accounting rigour of what had been achieved. Their chair, Mr. Pierre Brunet, came to Vancouver from Montreal and presented him with, appropriately, a clear glass obelisk and a caption which read: "B.C. has taken a leadership role in committing to transparent financial reporting based on independently set standards. The CICA and the Public Sector Accounting Board, PSAB, recognize the minister's and the government's significant contribution to the advancement of excellence in public sector financial reporting." In the press release the CICA said as well: "The government of British Columbia became the only senior government in Canada to formally adopt in legislation the generally accepted accounting principles, GAAP, as set by the CICA."

For the first time, tried-and-true and well-developed accounting concepts such as depreciation and capitalization of capital assets have come to the government's books, and the books now actually add up. You can trace that dollar paid to the bookstore at UBC all the way up, and somehow it appears in the P and L statement for the province as a whole. Most B.C. taxpayers would say it's about time.

To sum up, where do we go from here? In keeping with British Columbia's strong economic growth, the updated fiscal plan presented in this Legislature by the Finance Minister forecasts healthy surpluses this year and beyond. Surpluses reduce our infrastructure borrowing requirements and improve our debt outlook. The government's combination of expenditure restraint — and certainly restraint remains — tax cuts and good fiscal management allows us to spend more on such needy sectors as, for example, low-income seniors — what I would judge to be the dominant theme of the recently introduced budget. It's a win-win all around.

Congratulations to our new Finance Minister, to the government, to the discipline and hard work of all British Columbians and — I might emphasize again — members on both sides of this House, which made this great performance possible.

R. Austin: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House for my first time to comment on the recent minibudget as well as to introduce the new members of this House to the riding of Skeena and the issues that are important to them.

Congratulations, first of all, on your election to the position of Deputy Speaker. I trust that, along with the Speaker, you will be able to keep me in line so that I can participate with the highest level of political debate and the least amount of political rhetoric, notwithstanding of course the theatre and performance of question period.

I'd like to begin by recognizing the important contribution that my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Roger Harris, made to public life and the hard work that he put in during the last four years. I was reminded in listening to the speech from the Minister of Forests and Range that in many cases members give up a great deal to do this essential work. That was certainly the case with my predecessor.

I would like to remind members here that just a few weeks prior to the election, Mr. Harris suffered a heart attack, had to have a triple bypass, and he still came back to do what he believed was the most important thing — namely, public service. I'm happy to say that he is fit and well, and we look forward to his contributions on economic development within our community in Terrace.

I would like to thank my family, my wife Colleen and my two children for encouraging me to enter public life, and I'd like to acknowledge the sacrifices they are making to permit me to play this important role in representing the people of Skeena. I was very happy during the election to actually have my two children accompany me going door-knocking, which I think was an exciting experience for both of them. One is in grade 12, and one is in grade ten. I think it's an important thing for our children to take some of the lessons they learn out of the socials class and actually put it into real life.

I would also like to thank my campaign manager and the many volunteers who gave up their valuable time to work to get me elected. My campaign was not rich in terms of our financial resources, but we made up for that with the passion and commitment of so many people who assisted me, a political neophyte, to get my message of hope out in a riding that has yet to see the light of the golden decade shining upon it.

Finally, I would like to thank the people of Skeena who have bestowed their trust in me, and I pledge to work hard on their behalf to bring their issues and concerns to this House.

For those of you who have never been beyond Kamloops — which, unfortunately, is probably the majority of British Columbians, including myself until ten years ago — I would like to give a quick overview of my riding. It consists primarily of two large communities, Terrace and Thornhill and the city of Kitimat; two smaller communities, Rosswood and Cedarvale; and five first nations communities. They are Kitsumkalum and Kitselas, which are adjacent to the city of Terrace; Kitamaat Village, which is across from the Douglas Channel from the city of Kitimat; as well as two communities, Gitwangak and Gitanyow, approximately one and a half hour drive east of Terrace. These bands represent three different nations: the Tsimshian, the Haisla of Kitimat and the Gitxsan further down the Skeena River.

We've heard, this week, many people make the contention that their part of British Columbia is the most beautiful, but I am here today to assure you that Skeena is a riding right out of Beautiful B.C. magazine. In fact, it is an area reminiscent of many of the ads used by the B.C. Liberals to get them re-elected. Unfortunately, the ads that portrayed B.C. as the best place on earth to live did not tell the full picture, which is why I'm here today.

I was actually worried that the heavy advertising prior to the election without any substantial response from the NDP would help to get people to forget the last four years. But they probably worked in my favour, as many people felt that the apparent boom of the lower mainland economy somehow was shielded from them, and they were left paying a lot more and getting a lot less in terms of government's responsibility to all of us up north.

The two primary concerns of a general nature are the lack of employment opportunities and the pulling-out of government support systems that we all thought were there for areas of this province that were going through hard times. The lack of employment opportunities resulted in a litany of problems, from low school enrolment, rapidly diminishing property prices, families split up to earn a living, family breakup due to financial stresses, to business bankruptcies that have meant that many people have lost everything — including their credit rating and their chance to start once again.

I'm not solely blaming the government for this state of affairs because, frankly, things were not good in my riding at the outset of this administration's first mandate — at least from an economic point of view. We were most definitely in a recession that was hitting our economy very hard, in large part due to the softwood lumber dispute — which is still not resolved today — as well as to the challenges along the coastal forest sector and in our area, which borders it and has many of the same economic difficulties.

Where I do want to hold this government to account is in their reaction or supposed solution to the downturn in the northwest economy that was already in place. Rather than alleviate our situation, the problem was compounded by this government by taking many well-paid government jobs and moving them to Prince George or the lower mainland, or providing access to government services via a 1-800 number or via the Internet. It was further compounded by the shutting down of programs to help people who needed support and by changes in eligibility rules that removed the most basic supports from the most needy in our society.

The inability of the formula to fund schools did not take into account the challenges of a region that had such a large population outflow that our district had to resort to a four-day school week, making our children second-class citizens and creating difficulty for parents in terms of day care — not to mention the larger class

sizes that resulted in the stripping of teacher contracts throughout the province.

As a former special services assistant, I must mention how our district balanced its books on the backs of the lowest-paid workers in the system — essentially on the backs of CUPE employees — which resulted in demonstrably harder classroom environments for both teachers and families whose kids have identifiable special needs.

Our forestry sector continued with its troubles as the former Skeena Cellulose was sold at a bargain price to a man who kept all the northwest economy dangling for three years while he bargained for concessions from workers — and concessions from municipalities in terms of forgone taxes — while he surreptitiously used the new forest practices changes to sell wood from the formerly attached timber licences offshore, in the form of raw log exports. He now is probably doing very well, sipping martinis in the Bahamas. We, unfortunately, have the remnants.

We in Skeena have historically been a contributor of raw resources, and that is how we have survived. Tens of millions of dollars in stumpage fees have flowed to the provincial coffers in return for locally created jobs. In Kitimat the economic advantage of cheap hydro power that stems from the use of a public water resource at Kemano helped to build one of the largest heavy manufacturing bases in all of B.C., namely Alcan and all that that contributes, as well as the Eurocan pulp mill and, for many years, the Methanex plant — which, sad to say, is now due to close at the end of this year due to high gas prices.

At one time there was an unwritten social contract, which basically stated that the vast rural areas of this province would permit the local resources to be extracted for the benefit of all British Columbians in exchange for local jobs. This government has chosen to break that contract, as it has chosen to break any contract that does not fit with its agenda of giving away our citizens' assets for private profit.

The most obvious example in my riding is in the case of Alcan, where the government has abrogated its responsibility by not upholding the citizens' side and allowing Alcan to try and sell itself as a power producer, or an independent power producer, rather than an aluminum company. For over 50 years the vast water resource of the Nechako Basin has driven the generators of Kemano that provided the cheapest source of electricity on this continent. This electricity was then to be used by the company to produce aluminum for export all over the world.

This was an example of the foresight of previous governments that realized that B.C. could use our natural resources to both provide profit for companies and fuel industrial activity that brought the benefits of highly paid jobs.

If in the past our government had decided that creating a manufacturing base in the northwest of this province was not a worthy goal, then it could have licensed this resource to B.C. Hydro and simply used it as a source of cheap electricity that, once again, all B.C. citizens would benefit from. Instead, we now have a situation in Skeena where our valuable industrial base and the huge economic benefits that come not just to Kitimat and Terrace, as the centre of the northwest service sector, but to the entire northwest are now being put at risk.

This government has decided to benefit Alcan shareholders at the expense of B.C. citizens. I want to be clear on this matter. The people of Kitimat do not blame Alcan for this situation. They blame this Liberal government for not upholding the interests of British Columbians in the administration of this important contract. As the member for Nelson-Creston so eloquently put it the other day: "What has suddenly changed in this long-held social contract where we exchanged resources for jobs?"

It was good public policy under Wacky Bennett. It was good public policy under his son, the slightly less wacky one — or slightly more, depending on your political philosophy. It remained good public policy under Bill Vander Zalm, as well as Dave Barrett, Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark. But this government has decided to give away those resources, leaving the northwest reeling from lost jobs that are the mainstay of our economy. Even the business people, who normally support the Liberal ideology of a laissez-faire approach to the economy, have had enough. Contractors and senior staff people who work for Alcan voted NDP privately for the very first time in their lives.

In Terrace many small businesses have suffered as they rely on the dollars that come up Highway 37 from Kitimat to fuel their businesses and provide income, as they compete with the big-box retailers that are one of the mainstays of the Terrace economy. This change in public policy has impacted the Terrace economy very badly, but it is also curtailing B.C.'s ability to diversify from selling natural resources without adding value to that resource. The aluminium industry is a viable, highly profitable and — using our hydro power — relatively green method of making one of the staple products of this industrial world.

I would like to make a few comments now about corporations and corporate responsibility. I have heard in the last few days many speeches that very much pit our side as those who would look after just big labour and that side as those who just look after multinational corporations.

I would like to inform you that I myself am a product of the corporate world, having worked for many years for large corporations. I grew up as a child in a corporate world, and my father worked for 35 years in the oil and gas industry as an executive. I take it as a bit of an affront to be constantly lectured on basic economics.

I would like to say that in the old days, prior to globalization, corporations recognized they had a responsibility that went beyond that of just being to their shareholders. My father worked for 35 years for the same company, and they treated him well, as they did many other people. But the new world has increased competition for capital. All that matters now in the new globalized world are profits and the stock price.

We have a new wave of corporate responsibility that doesn't recognize there are multiple responsibili-

ties. I believe that corporations should look after their stock price. They should look after their employees. They should look after the consumers who purchase their products. They should look after the communities in which they do business, in which they operate. They should also look after the wider environment so they do not cause damage. This can be achieved. Many companies realize that these goals are not separate from making profits and can, in fact, lead to making better profits.

Since arriving back in the southern part of British Columbia to take on this job, it is interesting to be involved in the issues that are important to the lower mainland. Inevitably, this is where the majority of people live, and my challenge, like so many others in rural ridings, is to not get swamped by that fact.

In listening to the debate on the RAV line or on the twinning of the Port Mann, I can't help but feel a bit, like my learned colleague was mentioning, like a character from Alice in Wonderland. The population here in the south struggles with too many people and an inability to build more road space. I think the Port Mann Bridge is coming in at maybe $600 million or $700 million. Of course, if that does go ahead, that road space will be jam-packed within 18 months if we're lucky — or three years — if not earlier.

You can't build schools or hospitals fast enough in Surrey, one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. As a former resident of Surrey, I feel compelled to mention the need for more facilities there. Plus, being from the NDP, I always think of Surrey Memorial Hospital. Meanwhile, the quality of life is deteriorating here in the lower mainland due to pollution, due to the many hours that people spend commuting rather than as quality time spent with family, and just the general rush of big city life.

Meanwhile, in the north and in many rural areas of B.C. we, of course, have empty hospital beds due to understaffing, empty school classrooms due in part to low enrolments and a surplus of road space on often crumbling roads due to a lack of investment. Yet I am sure we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to compound your problems in the lower mainland — and make ours worse in the rural areas — at the same time as we continue to deconstruct the industrial land base of our province by continuing to encourage people to move from rural areas and join the population crush in the lower mainland.

Can you imagine what an investment of $700 million would do to rural B.C.? It might even attract people out of the lower mainland; rejuvenate our economies; free up many hospital beds that are badly needed in the lower mainland; take cars out of lower mainland traffic jams; make use of our empty classrooms; and in short, reinvigorate many small-town economies so that providing high levels of public services such as health and education will not be the challenge that it has become.

That, of course, is just one rational suggestion or point of view. I am here to work in the realm of politics. I can only hope that these two solitudes are not mutually exclusive.

I would like to address a few issues that, as a new member, I think are a very positive step. We are beginning with a new spirit in this House that I have not seen in many years while observing the workings of this House from afar. I commend the Premier for recognizing that the rules that govern this glorious, marbled sandbox have changed.

I was listening to the Minister of Forests and Range talk about the changes that his government has made in terms of working conditions for members. It came, frankly, with a sense of relief, because it was the fixed calendar and the notion of not working on Good Friday that enabled me to convince my family that this job was worth doing and that the sacrifices would not be onerous.

I also applaud a fixed election date, as it takes power away from the Premier of the province, and I believe that any reduction of power from the centre is in itself a good thing. I like the efforts to bring about change in our electoral process, as I believe that while much is good in the Westminster form of government, first-past-the-post belongs in an imperial era and not in a modern post-industrial economy where the greatest wealth is now generated by manipulating information in some capacity.

I stand firmly in the fold of some form of proportional representation and would like to note that even in Britain the debate on electoral reform is beginning to take hold. It is particularly commendable that a sitting Premier advocated and put in place a forum for public debate that could inevitably take power away from him and his party. You do not often see a politician start a process that leads him or her to redundancy or early retirement.

I hope that in the coming months and years this House will develop the kind of working relationship where we can acknowledge that no one on either side of this House has a monopoly on the best ideas. We should listen and acknowledge each other's ideas that benefit all British Columbians. I heard the member for Vancouver-Burrard speak yesterday in a passionate way about coming here to speak the truth — or at least the truth as he sees it. We now live in a post-modernist world, and I think we need to recognize that there is no single truth but, indeed, there are multiple truths that somehow need to coexist.

Members on the government side and those in my caucus all want the same thing. The great goals, or the marketing of them, while a source of great amusement to my colleague from Nelson-Creston, are still worthy ideals. The trick is to figure out how our political lens and the government's political lens can somehow be superimposed so that we can see a similar colour and make this a better place for all British Columbians to live in.

I thought before coming here that I would have very little influence, as our model of government gives all power to the winning side on election day. But I see that I was wrong. As a neophyte politician, I would like

to publicly acknowledge that I was wrong. There. I said it. It is now out of my system. One of the things that I heard a lot on the campaign trail was that politicians are never able to admit that they are wrong.

I'm referring to the opportunity to try and resolve the dilemma stemming from promoting a sustainable aquaculture industry while maintaining a healthy wild fishery, as well as managing the commercial and sport fishing industries, and together also take care of the share of fish stock that first nations are entitled to, so that all people can benefit once again from a prized public resource that is part of the historical bounty of this province.

As the fishery critic, I look forward to seeing what the mandate of this committee will be, what resources will be given and what commitments the government will give to following through on its recommendations. I do not want to pre-empt these negotiations, but one thing I do know as I try to encourage public debate on this contentious issue is that one cannot look at aquaculture without looking at the wild fish, and all British Columbians do not want one at the expense of the other. No one wants to put our wild salmon at risk only to be replaced with a cultured product, however tasty and nutritious that product might be. That would simply be, once again, an example of the privatization of a public resource.

Twenty-five years ago I was living and studying in Glasgow, Scotland, and this debate around aquaculture was taking place then. I think it's incumbent upon all of us here to look outside of our area and find the best practices from other people's mistakes. In Scotland many, many rivers that were salmon-bearing were destroyed as a result of the policies that they took. I hope that we can learn from them.

As an MLA with a large first nations population, I would like to make a few comments. A hundred million dollars to create capacity in the recent minibudget is a positive thing. But all too often we see large sums of money going into a program and little to show for it at the end of the day. Many of the first nations who have come forward to engage me in dialogue at the doorstep as well as at the political level believe strongly that the system is set up to fail them and that they are still orphans under the control of the DIA and the Indian Act.

A few weeks ago I went to meet with the band council at Gitwangak, which is about an hour-and-a-half drive east of Terrace. They told me the story of their mill. They were given a licence several years ago that had permitted them to take use of the forestry resource for a period of six years. When they went to the bank to try and borrow money to get their mill going, the banks were reluctant to give them the kind of capital needed as a result of the fact that they only had the use of the resources for six years. I think that is an example of where we are not doing service to our first nations. In order for them to succeed, they need to have certainty.

Small communities are all trying to create their own economic base. This is a very, very difficult thing for them to do. In our democracy we regard one person, one vote as an essential element. Who can argue with that? But we must note that in small communities where first nations live, this is often very difficult because when they go up to vote, they are often voting for their auntie or their uncle or a cousin. This lessens the value of democracy for them, when conducted in a fish bowl such as that. It makes every decision one that by necessity becomes embroiled in the ties of kinship rather than rational thinking. A meritocracy that I'm sure we all believe is necessary for good governance cannot develop under those conditions.

While we are looking at spending $100 million to increase capacity, we had better be aware of the reality on the ground, and as political leaders have the courage to speak things that are not politically correct but which many people know to be true.

I would like to bring to people's attention the difference between political leadership and the leadership of hereditary chiefs, who by virtue of their historical status are the guardians of the first nations cultural values, which often supersede the primary values which we regard so highly.

An example of our values would be for one of us to travel to a spectacular part of the province and once we arrive there conclude something like: "Wow, that's a nice piece of land. I wonder how much it would be worth if we could get a building permit and put 100 condos on it."

The first nations that I talk with always emphasize to me that our view of stewardship of the land and the resources that lie within it or around it are very different from their more long-term holistic approach. Political leadership often speaks to short-term expediency. Look at our own attempt to show political leadership. I ask you: how often in our deliberations do we think beyond the next political cycle? Hereditary leadership speaks to long-term, historical and cultural responsibilities.

I think it is important to engage both political as well as hereditary leadership in order to forge any kind of new relationship with the people who have lived here for thousands of years before European contact. If we need any current example of this, we need only look at the situation in Tahltan country, where the hereditary chiefs and much of the community are at odds with their political leadership.

The courts have made several decisions that reflect our historical treatment — or better, our mistreatment — of aboriginal rights and title. Let us remember that these courts and their system of justice were set up by us and use a Eurocentric judicial system, so no one can argue that somehow we are giving too much to the first nations.

All the first nations people who have spoken to me simply want a share of what resources this province has to offer. They want to become part of the mainstream economy and not feel left out in their own land. As political leaders, it is up to us to bridge this gap in understanding so that all British Columbians learn about our history and do not have some revisionist theories replacing the truth or the reality. We still have

a great divide that needs to be bridged, and obviously, this government, after its disastrous beginning with the referendum on minority rights, has come to this realization and, hopefully, will now do the right thing.

We are fortunate in that so many centuries of oppression have not hardened the majority of first nations people. They value forgiveness, respect, sharing — in a sense all things communitarian by nature. Perhaps if this government really means what it says and can by its actions demonstrate an honesty that has hitherto been lacking, then who knows? We may be able to make headway on one of its great goals. As my colleague from Nelson-Creston mentioned the other day, rather facetiously, while alluding to Mao Zedong, we might even achieve a giant leap forward, and goodness knows the first nations certainly need that.

Finally, I would like to congratulate all members on both sides of this House for their successful elections and look forward to making whatever contributions I can while representing the people of Skeena.

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my congratulations to you on being elected and also being appointed as Deputy Speaker.

I'm rising to speak about the throne speech, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance that her first budget was very exceptional, as far as I'm concerned. I also want to thank the citizens of North Vancouver, and North Vancouver–Seymour in particular, for once again electing me as a member of the Legislature. This is my fourth term, and it's been a lot of years behind me. Their strong support is epitomized by the fact that I actually increased my personal vote — one of the few in the province.

D. Jarvis: Four more terms, yes. Voter turnout in my riding was 76 percent, which was the largest in British Columbia. That was pretty good, especially when at the time there was a lot of apathy out there towards getting out to vote.

My North Van constituents, as I said, voted 76 percent — the highest in British Columbia. I'm very proud to represent them once again. I also want to thank my wife of 46 years as of yesterday — I may add that she has told me lots of times that I am wrong — and my two children, Catherine and Dan Jr., who both got out and worked really hard for me during the election. I guess they wanted to see their father leave town.

I'm sure this goes for all the MLAs here: to be proud of their positions. When you consider that since 1871, which is the…. On the plaque that's just behind that wall right there — our first government was elected when only 30 MLAs were elected at that time. Over the next 134 years, there have only been about 850 to 900 MLAs in this province. Again, when you think of the millions of people that have come through this province — you know, come and gone in British Columbia — it is quite an honour for all of us to be here and to represent those people of our province, regardless of our political stripe.

Some say politics is the art of the impossible, so when we see what this government has done over the last four years and will continue to do over the next four, this far and above exceeds what the opposition believes it did in the '90s. The old standby of rhetoric of cut, cut, cut coming from the opposition is simply not true. The health care budget was increased, we know, from $2.8 billion in 2001 to $3.83 billion today, which is up about 32 percent. The education budget was increased from $4.8 billion to $5.1 billion. Even at the time when the population of the students was decreasing, from 2001 to today, by in excess of 20,000 students…. I don't know how they say that we have cut, when we actually increased the spending, in view of the number of students being decreased.

The cost of governance is increasing, and every ministry has received its fair share of these increases. To say we cut the funding is fundamentally a misconception. That is why the opposition is in opposition. I watched the opposition — what they did during the '90s in this House — and for ten years they systematically destroyed the mining industry. Tens of thousands of men and women lost their jobs. Small communities across this province felt the wrath of their policies and left for jobs in other jurisdictions.

I wanted to maybe correct a couple of misconceptions put forward by a couple of members across the floor of the House, namely the gentleman from Nelson-Creston. In response to the throne speech, he said that there was no mention of mining in our throne speech. He used, of all things, the 1983 Social Credit throne speech as a comparison. He failed to note, or even mention, the dark decade of the 1990s, when his government systematically destroyed mining in British Columbia.

The member for Cariboo North, I think, said Mount Polley was a great thing to see happening, and the fact that they're opening. It more or less…. Well, I don't know if he took any credit for it, but I want to tell this gentleman that Mount Polley, several years ago, ran out of ore. That's why they closed down. If it hadn't been for this government putting through the flow-through tax incentives, they wouldn't have been in the position to have gone out and actually found that new vein of ore. They're going to be mining that during this next year.

When this government took over in 2001, one mine was in the environmental process in this province. Today 15 are in that pipeline. There's even a suggestion that a smelter might be put in, in British Columbia. The investment and development in the mining industry has more than doubled in this province since we took over in 2001.

Madam Speaker, things are good in British Columbia. We see employment, revenue and investment increasing as never before. We have a new tone in this Legislature, so I'm going to look forward to seeing the results of some of our parliamentary changes proposed by this government to try and create, as I say, a new tone.

I have seen a considerable amount of angst over my elected period of time in this arena, if you can call it that. I also can visualize one of my first trips to Victoria a few years back, when I came in and sat in the House here. I sat up in that balcony there and listened to W.A.C. Bennett socialize B.C. Electric and put it into a Crown corporation. Mr. Strachan, the leader of the CCF at that time, was not pleased, to say the least. There were great discussions going on in those days. If we can come to some degree of getting along a little better, the better it will be for all of us and for all the citizens of the province.

The reforms put forward by this government have been considerable. All the measures on health care, education, seniors and transportation, of course, cannot be improved on without revenues. So where do we get this money? That is why we must continue to run our resources to provide the revenues required to improve our health care and our education systems. Resource extraction and development can be done in a responsible manner. We all agree it must be done.

Environmental management is a primary factor to ensure that our province will maintain its "Beautiful B.C." image. If you travel B.C., you will see that mining, for example, is not the big bogeyman that you may think. They are now under better resource rules and regulations. The imprint of mining on this province is less than 1/10 of one percent of all the land in British Columbia.

A little disturbance has actually occurred. There are always a few glitches, as in the past, and they are presently being remediated — for example, at Britannia Beach just outside of my riding up the coast towards Whistler. It's going to be turned into something that's quite attractive, I believe.

A strong economy is paramount to a healthy society and to an educated workforce. I am here not to sort of criticize or bury the opposition party, but I do praise them that they are an excellent opposition party; at least they have been in the past and will no doubt also be in the future. Whilst twice they have become the government of B.C. and twice the province has gone through or experienced adverse economic times, I know this opposition party across here did not mean to mismanage our health care or education systems. I know that the opposition party did not mean to bring B.C. from first place to last place in all measures of economics across Canada, but they did — all this while they were the government. That is why I feel they are a good opposition party and should stay so.

I do want to correct a couple more statements made by the opposition party. Except, as I said, for a few blips, the member for Nelson-Creston was complaining, I believe, about free trade. Well, free trade has enriched Canadians unbelievably. I was somewhat concerned when he attacked the Kinder Morgan offer to buy Terasen Gas, showing a complete lack of understanding of public policy and regulations and the industry.

It is the policy of Canada and British Columbia to export energy. Alberta has become filthy rich because of exporting gas and oil. B.C. has collected millions and millions of dollars over the years and will continue to do so, doing the same thing. Also, the huge benefits and investments in jobs and physical plants are a result of our exporting energy out of this province.

However, I want to tell them, for example — and a lot of people don't really realize this — that Terasen does not export to the United States. It's a local company, and they deliver gas to the people in the lower mainland here and some areas of the southeastern part of B.C. It's like the milk company. All they're doing is delivering the milk. They don't produce the gas, they don't produce the oil, they don't have investments in that end of it, but that's what they do. Their rates are set by BCUC in order for them to make money. They try to keep their costs as reasonable as possible, and that is by storing gas in off periods. I don't know if any of you know it, but they store that gas, to the benefit of British Columbians, in the United States because British Columbians don't want gas stored in B.C.

Another point, for the gentleman from Castlegar, is that they don't receive their gas and electricity from Crown corporations. They get their electricity from WKP. That's old West Kootenay Power. It was sold to Aquila in the States, but it now has been bought by Canadians. I believe it's a New Brunswick outfit that's bought it.

It goes on and on. I get quite upset sometimes when I look around and see that the gas that comes into the southeast section of this province comes from inland, and lately it's been bought by Terasen.

You look around the world, and you see things that are really quite exceptional in a sense. When you look at the exchange in the latest financial statements or books that came out, Canada has bought almost 2-to-1 businesses in the United States. In the last quarter they bought 32 American companies, worth about $7 billion. The Americans bought something like…. I think it was 14 or 16 Canadian outfits.

When it was suggested that we are exporting our energy, I think you have to really give consideration to the whole picture, in the sense that Enbridge Pipelines connects the lakehead system into Michigan and down into Ohio. Cushing Enterprises was acquired in '03 by Canadians, and it sends gas down to Oklahoma and Chicago. These are Canadian companies. These are oil pipeline companies that are owned by Canada. Mustang Pipe Line sends all its gas into Delaware. Frontier Pipeline goes into Wyoming. Canadian outfits are working in the United States, buying American companies to ship Canadian gas in there. Chicago Pipeline does all of the Chicago area. Again, Enbridge Offshore Pipelines supply gas to all of Louisiana and Mississippi — a Canadian outfit doing that. Alliance Pipeline, as we all know, is about 3,000 kilometres, runs from Fort St. John right to Chicago and feeds all these other…. It's a Canadian outfit. The Vector Pipeline looks after Chi-

I can go on and on. There are all sorts of them. We feed into California; we're feeding everywhere in the world. It's not just on the basis that…. It's Canadian companies operating and owning pipelines in the United States.

Politics is based on truth and rhetoric, actually, and I appreciate that. No one owns the whole truth. Something that we have to consider is what we are doing when we start complaining about business that is operating in Canada — for example, Kinder Morgan coming in to buy. It's going to be good for British Columbia.

Madam Speaker…. Oh, it is Mr. Speaker. How are you again, sir? Congratulations to you on your election and being appointed.

I want to say a few things about my own riding in the remaining ten minutes that I have. There's always a concern about what we are doing for seniors and, you know, these modern pioneers of this province. On the North Shore we have…. I will just read it out for the record. In accommodation there are 1,176 complex care beds in the North Shore, 48 transitional care beds and 30 assisted-living beds. There are 90 beds being built right now as we speak, to be opened in this '06-07 era, and 66 are in the riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.

On the North Shore we have 84.5 complex care beds per thousand people — the age appropriately being, say, between 60 and 90 years of age — while the province averages only 75 beds per thousand. So we are doing well on the North Shore, because we are prepared to look after, as I say, our seniors and the pioneers of this province.

We have increased our home care hours, including nurses, case managers and rehab. Last year we put 32,800 hours into home support in North Vancouver. I think that's quite commendable when you think of it. The health authority is investing another $900,000 to go into home care for the '05-06 fiscal year. We're well on our way to the 5,000 seats that we said we would build provincewide.

Another aspect on the North Shore is something that I want to thank the member for Comox Valley and the Minister of Children and Family Development for, because he gave great support to the North Shore. That was to a group of people in an outfit that's called PTAG. It's a remarkable group of parents that got together to deal with a project that quite concerns me. It was first outlined — well, it has been outlined for some time now — that there is a lack in our care for children with problems or disabilities who are 19 years or older. Up until 18 they are looked after by the ministry of children and families, but when they hit 19, they are ostensibly on their own. This is a real problem.

The previous government stopped them from going out and doing work under different circumstances, and most of these children have no training or whatever and are sometimes having difficulty getting trained. The parents were telling me that their children were either wandering the malls or staying at home watching videos all the time. So this group of parents got together. It is a parent transition advisory group. They've come up with an idea that will be of benefit to these children. It costs money, naturally. The parents are out there raising money on their own, along with Children and Family Development, through community services — putting money into it.

This is the first of its kind in British Columbia. You will be finding other areas, because it's going to be successful…. We went to our school board, and the school board in the North Shore has been willing — for a cost, naturally, because everything costs money nowadays — to rent one of the schools that has been closed. These kids will be looked after all during the day. These children are going to be adults but are incapable of stretching themselves further — as to earning a living. They will have after-school programs for them as well. We are looking at great things coming down the line on that. Again, I must say that the minister went all out for us, and we got some good financing.

Another thing I would like to talk about is the slide that we had last January. I mentioned it once before in the last session of the House. It was suggested by a member in the opposition, "Don't forget the proposed settlements to nine homes in the North Shore," and not to forget the 700-odd homes in north central B.C., I guess, up in the Quesnel area. Well, the difference was that the Quesnel area is an area that is, perhaps, going to have a problem, but these nine homes that were settled within North Vancouver–Seymour, in my riding, became uninhabitable because of the slide. In fact, there were several people that…. One was killed, and several were injured very seriously.

It was done through PEP, the provincial emergency program, which was enacted in 1993 under the opposition, which was a good thing. They came in on the day of the loss with the Vancouver urban rescue and pulled people out of the slide, the mud and all the rest of it. The district of North Vancouver came in, examined the situation and then called in the provincial emergency program, PEP. Since then, this government; the Premier; the old Solicitor General — he's not old, but just a young man — the member for Langley; and the present Solicitor General, the member for Chilliwack, have…. All three of them and the Premier have worked very hard to make sure that the people that were affected by the slide come out of it as whole as they were before the occurrence. I've got to commend them and the government for doing this.

It comes down to the last that I'm going to have to say about this at this point: traffic on the North Shore, transportation problems, about which I have discussed and complained to this government and to the people of this province for 14 years now. The Minister of Transportation came forward last spring with a $7 million program to help widen the roads and facilitate the traffic problems that were occurring on the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge, but it hasn't been done yet. I still have to advise the government and the Minister of Transportation that unless something is done soon…. The traffic there is getting worse and worse. Every time we have an accident, there is a complete breakdown of traffic, and not for just minutes or any-

For example, on the Second Narrows Bridge, which is the only bridge that's capable of taking buses…. Lions Gate can't take heavy buses. If we are going to move the traffic — which they're planning — up to the Olympics by buses, some 400-plus buses are going to have to come across that Second Narrows Bridge. I've got to warn the government that unless there is something done to alleviate the possibility of congestion or problems, or if anyone gets out there and wants to cause a problem, the whole world will be watching the fact that we cannot move people up to the Olympics. You know, all it takes is one jumper, and we've got deadlock throughout the North Shore. Not deadlock.

D. Jarvis: Gridlock — yes. I want to thank my associate for advising me of that error.

Anyway, I want to thank you for allowing me to get up to speak to the budget. As I said before, I think it's a grand budget. The new Minister of Finance has done a good job. I support it.

Before I close off, and noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

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