Hansard -- Monday, October 3, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 16 (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		313

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		314
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		314
	Union of B.C. Municipalities
	N. Macdonald
	Horse culture in Langley
	M. Polak
	Book by Clinton Elementary students
	C. Wyse
	Rights of victims
	D. Hayer
	Marj White
	J. Kwan
	Simon Fraser University
	H. Bloy

Oral Questions		316
	Call for reinstatement of children's commissioner
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Hon. G. Campbell
	A. Dix
	D. Thorne
	M. Karagianis
	Government policy on investigation of child deaths
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Call for reinstatement of children's commissioner
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Terms of sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan
	C. Evans
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Hon. R. Coleman
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Power sales from Alcan smelter in Kitimat
	R. Austin
	Hon. C. Hansen

Tabling Documents		322
	Chief Electoral Officer, annual report, 2004-2005

Petitions		322
	S. Fraser

Budget Debate (continued)		322
	V. Roddick
	H. Bains
	S. Hawkins
	J. Horgan
	A. Horning
	K. Conroy
	R. Hawes

Second Reading of Bills		344
	Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 2)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Kwan
	B. Simpson
	C. Evans
	R. Fleming
	M. Karagianis
	G. Robertson
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 3)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Chudnovsky

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		362
	Estimates: Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics
	Hon. C. Hansen
	M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Richmond: It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce Dr. Chiara Anselmo, who's in the gallery with us today. She teaches grades six and seven in Kay Bingham Elementary School in Kamloops. She's been a teacher in the school district since 1988. Would the House please make her welcome.

C. James: I'd like to introduce to the House today Stewart Soward. Mr. Soward is a teacher at Victoria High School, a high school that is in my riding and is also the high school both my children graduated from — a fine institution. He's here representing the alternative education teachers, and I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Les: I, too, have the pleasure of introducing a teacher this afternoon from my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas. Britt Hailstone is a teacher at Mount Slesse Middle School in Sardis. She not only teaches, but she also lives in my riding. I would ask members of the House to please help make her feel welcome.

J. Brar: I am pleased to welcome to the House an accomplished individual who has taken the time to be in the House today. Carl Beach is a resident of my riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. He's a teacher at the North Surrey Secondary School. He's visiting the House today as a representative of the BCTF Educators Against Racism, a professional specialists association. He has also served as a board member of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C., shortly known as AMSSA, and Vancouver Multicultural Services and is a sponsor of the Harmony in Action school club. He has also served on BCTF's social justice advisory committee.

In all of these roles Mr. Beach has done commendable work to promote multiculturalism and social justice while helping build bridges with people belonging to different places and cultural backgrounds. I would ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce to this House today some special guests and friends: Jessa Singh Grewal, Ajaib Singh Johal and Mohinder Singh Brar with his 11-year-old grandson, Gursimren Singh Brar. They are all from Surrey. Their friend Kuldip Singh Sandhu is visiting here from Toronto. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I note in the gallery today two of my oldest and dearest friends. Please welcome the president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, Jinny Sims, and one of the directors of the BCTF, Moira Mackenzie.

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to introduce a special guest who is joining us this afternoon in the public gallery. Sandy Morley is a long-time foster parent here in Victoria. Sandy and her husband Bob are among the outstanding people who open their homes to children who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to live with their own families. Unfortunately, Bob is unable to join us today. He is at home looking after the three children he and Sandy are currently fostering. Those children are among hundreds for whom Bob and Sandy have provided a nurturing, caring home over their 25 years as foster parents. Please join me in extending a very, very warm welcome to Sandy today.

I would also like to acknowledge October as Foster Family Month. This is a month-long opportunity to show our appreciation and thank the over 3,000 foster families across British Columbia who, like Sandy and Bob, provide care and support to children and youth who are unable to live with their own families. Foster parents are outstanding people. They open their hearts and homes to offer the kind of nurturing family environment that is so critical to children's healthy development and long-term success. Please join me in taking this opportunity to acknowledge and thank foster parents from across British Columbia for their invaluable contribution to the lives of thousands of children.

N. Simons: I would just like to call the attention of the House to a special guest from Elphinstone Secondary on the Sunshine Coast, a teacher who is also participating in trying to find some solutions to the current issues: Sharon Wood.

J. McIntyre: I believe that joining us in the gallery of the House today are Judy and Deane Wareham from Santa Barbara, California. I would like to ask you to make our neighbours from the south feel welcome today.

J. Horgan: I would like to acknowledge in the gallery with us today a number of teachers from across British Columbia. Leanne Buteau is a teacher of special education from Coquitlam. Ellen Bornowsky is a teacher of modern languages in Langley. Louise Gonsalvez is a teacher from Fernie, and Britt Hailstone is also a teacher from the Chilliwack-Sumas area. Would you please make those educators welcome.

J. Yap: It is my pleasure to introduce a constituent who is a long-time educator, a teacher at Grauer Elementary in my riding and a long-time social justice and anti-poverty advocate. Please welcome Roz Johns.

K. Whittred: I, too, have a teacher from my community to introduce today. It is my pleasure to introduce Ieke Giese. Ms. Giese is a teacher-librarian from Queen Mary community school. I have had the pleasure of visiting Queen Mary a number of times.

In fact, Ms. Giese has been good enough to invite me as a resource person into her class. I must say that

they asked some very challenging questions. Please join me in welcoming Ms. Giese to the House today.

J. Rustad: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House one of my constituents, Randy Henderson, who is visiting the Legislature for the first time since his graduation from the University of Victoria some years ago. Randy is the past president of the English as a Second Language Professional Specialists Association. I'm looking forward to meeting with him later this afternoon. Would the House please join me in making him very welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce my constituent Louise Gonsalvez who in fact, although she was introduced a second ago, is from Sparwood and not from Fernie. Sparwood happens to be the centre of the $1 billion coal industry in southeastern B.C. and home of the biggest truck in the world.

The East Kootenay had the highest graduation rates in B.C. last year. Sparwood high school's graduation rate was 96 percent, and Sparwood Secondary was ranked 21st in academic performance in all of British Columbia. Please join with me to welcome Louise Gonsalvez from Sparwood.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery Joy Wild. I would like the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Teachers' Collective Agreement Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Everyone in this House is aware that the B.C. Teachers Federation and their employers have been unable to reach a collective agreement. Students are once again facing the prospect of losing access to educational programs. I and the government are disappointed, but I cannot tell you that I am totally surprised, given the history.

Since 1993, successive B.C. governments have been obliged to impose settlements on teachers and school districts on numerous occasions — in '93, '96, '98 and then, most recently, in 2002. It's not a record that anyone can be particularly proud of.

The report of the fact-finder, Mr. Connolly, confirmed that we have a broken bargaining system and that we are not going to see a negotiated settlement until that system is fixed. Without any prospect of settlement, we could, as some have suggested, let the situation drift into strike or lockout. That, of course, would cause nothing but harm to students.

Regardless of what employers and unions do, we've made a clear commitment to ensuring that our children are not held hostage to labour disputes in the school system. This government is also committed to fixing the bargaining structure so that we will actually get to a point where government interference is no longer the norm.

Today I'm introducing legislation that will extend the collective agreement that expired in 2004 — between the BCTF and the B.C. Public School Employers Association — until next spring. All the terms and conditions of employment will continue on just as they have for the past 15 months. Later this week I intend to appoint an industrial inquiry commission under the Labour Relations Code to develop a new bargaining structure that will be in place in time for the next round of negotiations.

Extending the collective agreement will give both the BCTF and BCPSEA some breathing space before they come back to the table. By that time there will be a structure in place in which negotiated settlements can occur. Teachers will be in a position to bargain effectively for a fair and reasonable wage increase when bargaining resumes in the spring.

I am certain that no one set out to construct a bargaining structure that would fail, but that's what has happened. I will say in this House that I and this government will do everything we can to work with stakeholders in the weeks and months ahead to change that fact.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Teachers' Collective Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

N. Macdonald: It was my pleasure to attend the 100th anniversary of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities over the past week, this time as the NDP critic for local government.

I always leave these gatherings feeling it was a success, and this was the case again this year. I attended six in the '90s as a councillor and mayor. It was good to see many of the same people — in many cases, I hadn't seen them for years — and also to meet with new leaders in local government.

As a mayor, I always appreciated the formal opportunity to meet with ministers. I know for those across the floor who sit in cabinet that this was a particularly

long week. But it is an important thing to do, and it's an important tradition to follow, so I appreciate that.

I didn't come to the Legislature with a long list of things that I wanted to emulate from the Liberals. There is one. In the '90s I watched as the Premier built on strong UBCM roots in a very systematic and effective way. The official opposition also has many with lengthy backgrounds in local government. We come here through strong grass-roots organizations and recognize two things about the UBCM.

First, with an obligation and commitment to hold this government to account, we have and will raise community concerns. This gathering allowed us to match names to faces, to show our presence and to meet people who are going to help us in doing that. It was a chance to build relationships that we need to speak effectively.

Second, we have the responsibility as the official opposition to prepare to govern — to offer ourselves as the alternative. The relationship with local government, I believe personally, is crucial to effective governance, and we need to develop those relationships and that understanding now.

We had all 33 NDP MLAs in attendance. The words of our leader about the importance of the UBCM were matched by our actions.

N. Macdonald: Okay. We on this side look forward to the UBCM next gathering here in Victoria in October 2006.

M. Polak: The history of Langley is closely tied to the history of horses and those who love them. Langley is home to dozens of equestrian-related clubs, associations and enterprises, including the internationally renowned Canadian Clyde Ride.

Horses thrive in Langley amidst a geography that supports their physical well-being and a horse culture that nurtures the development of excellence. The horse industry in British Columbia — whether amateur, competitive or professional racing — provides thousands of employment opportunities and a broad range of other economic benefits, not only in Langley but throughout the province.

Those who interact regularly with horse people know them to be, first and foremost, crazy about horses. But they're also very committed to supporting their communities and striving for excellence. Most, like Joy Richardson, president of the Langley Horse Federation, recognize that their relationship with horses played a significant role in shaping their commitment to excellence and personal growth.

In recognition of the unique relationship that exists between man and horse, the Spirit of the Horse memorial garden was created. Located in Campbell Valley Park, the garden offers a serene environment in which inscriptions and personal messages convey the heartfelt sentiments of horse owners who support the garden's mission statement: to embrace the majesty of animals who have forged the lives of many and to employ their generous spirit to promote fellowship, hope, courage and strength within our community.

This fall the garden was host to an event that expanded on that mission. Four young ladies — Kimberly Heruing, Sara Sim, Ashley Livingstone and Amanda Ellison — were each recognized for their outstanding achievements in academics and equestrian prowess with a $50 award, and Rose Rogawski was awarded the inaugural Spirit of the Horse memorial scholarship of $500.

Through economic contributions and the commitment to the development of excellence, the horse community in British Columbia is helping us to achieve our five great goals. I hope the members of this House will join me in congratulating these deserving young people along with British Columbia's horse community whose history and future are so closely tied with those of our great province.

C. Wyse: I rise today to recognize a special group of students at Clinton Elementary in Clinton, British Columbia. Last year the grades three and four students at this school, under the guidance of teacher Jim MacQueen and his wife Linda MacQueen, created their own book telling an unusual story with historical links to the Cariboo. The children did their own research for the book at the Clinton Museum and through interviews with people in their community. Their story, Camels in the Cariboo, was written and illustrated completely by the students and won an award in the Kids Are Authors contest sponsored by the Scholastic Book Fair.

Their book chronicles the disastrous plan to bring Bactrian camels from China via the United States to be used as pack animals in the Cariboo gold rush. While the camels died in the inhospitable climate, their story ensures a successive generation of children will learn about B.C.'s gold rush history from a unique perspective.

Today, October 3, the students are receiving their award in a special ceremony in Clinton. Each child receives a copy of the book, a special commemorative medallion and a T-shirt. Their school receives a plaque and a $1,000 prize. But the more valuable prize is the satisfaction each child feels in being part of a literacy project that is relevant to themselves and their community.

I am grateful for the invitation to be part of this momentous occasion, but I'm unable to be with them due to my work in Victoria. However, I ask the House to join with me today in congratulating these future historians, authors and illustrators who have, through this project, developed an appreciation and understanding for the unique heritage of their community.

D. Hayer: I want to speak today on the rights of victims and how they must take precedence over the rights of criminals. Today many feel our rights are not in balance. They are tipped too far toward the criminals. The rights of the innocent, the victims and their families must be paramount in court and in our society. The punishment or the sentence that criminals receive for the often horrific crimes is nothing like the punishment that victims' families face. For many victims and their families, that sentence is for life, while the criminal essentially walks free.

I speak with personal experience on this. My family will never recover from the loss of my father, gunned down by criminals who have never been brought to justice. Almost everyone I talk to in society agrees with me that our courts and justice system are weighted heavily in favour of the criminals. We must reassert the rights of victims and establish that the time fits the crime and ensure that those who perpetrate these violent acts receive almost as much punishment as they inflict on their innocent victims. At times the punishments seem to have little relevance to the pain, injury and death caused to others. Families need to have the comfort that the punishment reflects almost the same pain they have felt.

Our society needs the support of all political parties to return balance to the rights of the innocent and to make our communities, our parks and our homes a safe place to be. We, as the lawmakers, must change the system and reassert the rights of victims as paramount. We owe it to our society, to our families and to the future of this province and our country.

J. Kwan: I rise in this House to honour a woman of great integrity, understanding and leadership abilities. Although small in stature, Marj White is a towering figure in my community and for aboriginal people throughout British Columbia. I had the honour and privilege to attend her retirement celebration recently. There were hundreds of people there to pay tribute to this amazing woman.

For over 35 years Marj has been a mainstay of the Vancouver aboriginal community. In fact, she has been instrumental in helping get organizations off the ground by lending her expertise to committees in their incubation stages.

A former citizenship judge, Marj exemplifies the values we as Canadians cherish — values of honesty, courage, community service and responsibility to each other. Not only did Marj live by those values, she challenged those around her to live up to them as well. She graduated from nursing school in 1957 and went to work as a nurse in Vancouver General Hospital, a remarkable accomplishment for a young aboriginal woman at the time. However, she found her true calling in working to better the lives of her people. In the late 1960s and early 1970s Marj was instrumental in organizing the Aboriginal Friendship Centre movement across Canada and was a key leader in the development of the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre.

Today she continues to provide many activists, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, with the benefit of her wisdom, leadership and experience. Marj has received dozens of honours and awards in her career, including the recognition as a Woman of Distinction from the YWCA. She also sits on many boards, including Lu'ma Native Housing and Access.

This is Marj's last week on the job, and she has done the work of many lifetimes. I would ask that the members of this House send our congratulations on her retirement and recognize her, her achievements and her outstanding contributions to our province.

H. Bloy: A great time was had by all last weekend at Simon Fraser University as it celebrated its 40th anniversary. Simon Fraser University is the heart and soul of Burnaby in the riding of Burquitlam. Designed by architect Arthur Erickson, SFU has grown rapidly over the past 40 years and is recognized around the world for its high academic standards and achievements.

Over the past four years I've had the pleasure of putting shovel into ground to help build some of those new buildings: the health sciences buildings, new resident building, a cafeteria, a new sports facility. There have been many other initiatives over the past four years.

The whole weekend was a success. The original graduating class was there, and the luncheon was oversold. Festivities continued throughout the day. Dr. Michael Stevenson, the president, spoke. Many departments and faculty held reunions. A dance featuring the band Wager, fronted by two SFU members, including vice president Warren Gill, played late into the evening.

At SFU there has been more than a fair share of luminaries over the years, including our Premier; our Minister of Transportation; other members of this House; Terry Fox, a Canadian hero; Barbara Mowat; Francesco Aquilini, co-owner of the Canucks; Peter Legg, an honorary degree who's leading a capital fundraising campaign with Brandt Louie for the Joe Segal Graduate School of Business.

I would ask the House to please join me in congratulating SFU for the first 40 years of achievement and wishing them all the best for the next 40 years of continued development and progress leading British Columbia into the future.

C. James: It was ten years ago that Judge Thomas Gove presented his report into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. Today would have been Matthew's 19th

birthday. Ten years ago the Premier supported every one of the recommendations contained in the Gove Report — every one. More importantly, the Premier supported the creation of a Children's Commission. My question is to the Premier. Why did the Premier support the findings of the Gove Report in 1996 and then dismiss them in 2002 by eliminating the Children's Commission?

Hon. S. Hagen: Today the Premier and I met with Justice Gove to discuss his position on child death reviews. While this meeting identified that we do have a strong system in place to review children's deaths, there may be areas where we can improve. Following that meeting, we as government have asked Justice Gove to sit on a panel with the children and youth officer, the chief coroner and others to be decided to look at the current process for child death reviews and the respective roles of all of those involved and to recommend any improvements.

This panel will report back by the end of this calendar year in time for any consideration, if necessary, for the spring legislative session. Our goal is to ensure the independence of these important offices and to make the best possible system to protect our kids.

C. James: I'm certainly pleased that finally, finally the government has sat down with Mr. Gove and has taken a look at the problems we see in the system today. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Judge Gove has made a recommendation that doesn't need another study, that doesn't need more people to review it and that could be implemented today if the government cared about children in care.

Again I ask the Premier: will he reinstate a Children's Commission as recommended by Judge Gove to resolve the issues facing children's deaths?

Hon. S. Hagen: This government will implement any recommendations that come from this panel when they bring forward the recommendations by the end of this year.

C. James: I'm continuing to hear from the minister the same kind of responses. The recommendation is there. We have a recommendation from Judge Gove. What has changed from the recommendations that came forward ten years ago to today? Nothing has changed. Those recommendations, as the judge has pointed out, are just as important today as they were in 1996 when the Premier himself said he supported every one of those recommendations, including creating a Children's Commission.

Again I would like to ask the Premier: will he show some leadership and reinstate the Children's Commission as recommended by Judge Gove?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition understands that many things have changed in the last ten years. First of all, I think what's important is that what Judge Gove recommended was exactly what we've got: an independent person who is there looking at and reviewing the deaths we have.

Also, what I think is very clear from my discussions with Judge Gove today is that he recognizes that as we move forward, we want to be as open as we can, we want to be as thorough as we can, and we want to make sure every child's death in British Columbia is properly reviewed.

There was a review that took place in 2001, which suggested there were ways we could do it that would eliminate duplication and that would add to the effectiveness of the review. And as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, there was to be a legislative review in 2007. There's no question that we can move that review up, and we will.

There is no question that Mr. Gove and the independent children and youth officer should be part of that, as should the chief coroner. There's no question that everyone in this House wants to be sure that we take care of children in care of the government and that we treat every death of every child in care in British Columbia with the kind of responsible, sensible and effective action that's necessary. That's our goal, that's our objective, and I believe that's what we can meet.

A. Dix: With great respect to the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition he said it much more simply than that. He said that when a child dies, investigate; when a child dies, care. There have been over 200 children who have died since he broke his word and got rid of the Children's Commission three years ago, and there have only been two public reports. We don't need another commission. We need legislation now.

I say to the Premier: will he act today to bring back an independent children's commissioner who will automatically review all child deaths?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the Premier said, many things have changed in the last ten years. We had a very, very good discussion with Justice Gove this morning. Justice Gove does not care what the position is called, as long as the positions are looking after kids. That's the purpose of the panel: to make sure that what we've done is what is needed. If there is something in addition that's needed, then the panel will bring forward that recommendation.

A. Dix: I agree that many things have changed. The government cut funding for the Ministry of Children

and Family Development more than any other ministry of government. They've stopped automatically reviewing child deaths and injuries. They've taken away the independence of that office. If the Premier needed an example of that, he could have seen his two ministers giving contrary orders to his so-called independent commissioner two weeks ago.

I ask the Premier…. He made the commitment to the children of British Columbia. He broke that commitment. It's time to come clean. It's time to respond. It's time to bring back an independent commissioner. Will he do that today?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying that I think the role the opposition has played with regard to this has been important and constructive. For an important and constructive conversation to take place, it is required that we all do our review of what the facts are.

The fact is that there are more dollars spent today on child protection than there were when this government was elected. The fact is that the independent children and youth officer is independent. In fact, the member opposite should understand this. Certainly, the member opposite should understand this.

The youth and child officer is appointed exactly the same way as the children's commissioner was appointed. There was an effort made to try and ensure that we did things as effectively as possible, and that we eliminated duplication so that we could in fact provide for systemic improvements and move those systemic improvements forward on behalf of all members of this House and all British Columbians. That effort will continue.

A full review by the panel, including the child and youth officer and Judge Gove as well as the chief coroner, will help do that. I welcome the opposition's comments and their concern, and I want the opposition to understand that we are all striving to achieve the best possible system for children in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: The minister continues to refuse to acknowledge the facts. The current child and youth officer can only act under the direction of the Attorney General. In an e-mail dated January 11, 2005, the child and youth officer responded to a question on whether she would investigate the tragic death of a child in Maple Ridge. She said: "There is no provision for me to investigate the death of any child unless asked to do so by the Attorney General."

All of this controversy and all of this confusion could be eliminated. Why won't the Premier reinstate the children's commissioner so that all the deaths and all of the injuries to children in British Columbia are investigated and reported automatically to the general public?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I am sure the member opposite knows that all deaths in this province are investigated by the coroner's office. That's a fact. The coroner's office is also independent, just like the child and youth officer.

We do welcome the opposition's comments on this particular matter. But you know, we have now asked Judge Gove and a panel to look at all of these issues. If there's something that is not being done under the present system by the child and youth officer and/or the coroner's office, then we welcome the suggestions that will come out of the panel.

D. Thorne: While we welcome the fact that Judge Gove is going to take part in an investigative panel, it doesn't make a lot of sense that we have to redo the work of Judge Gove when pretty much everybody in this House at one point in time agreed with his recommendations.

The issue here is the automatic part of an investigation. There were 200 deaths of children in this province. There were only two investigations since '02. That is shameful, and we should hang our heads in shame. We need automatic investigations. We need a children's commissioner in order for that to happen. The coroner's work, while good, does not take care of that issue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure if I heard a question there. I don't think I did, but I'd like to remind the member that the coroner does in fact investigate those deaths.

M. Karagianis: The bottom line here is that if the government hadn't cut the Children's Commission in 2002, we wouldn't be having the controversy that we see here today. I'd also like to add that in fact the government cut the coroner's budget as well. If the government had not cut the Children's Commission in 2002, we would have seen 237 reports on 237 deaths of children in the care of or known to the ministry.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will the minister agree that under the former model, all 237 of those children's deaths would have been reported out to the Legislature and the public? A yes or no, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: All of those deaths are investigated by the coroner's office.

M. Karagianis: Five of those deaths were homicides. This argument is not about the independence of the child and youth officer or about the coroner's report. This argument is about the fact that if the children's commissioner was still in place today, reviews of those deaths would be automatic.

Today I would like to ask the Premier, the Minister of Children and Family Development or the Attorney General: will someone stand up in this House and

show some real leadership and reinstate the Children's Commission immediately so that all of these deaths will be reported on automatically?

Hon. S. Hagen: All of those deaths are being investigated by the coroner's office. I know the coroner's office has in their plans to make regular or annual reports to the Legislature, at which time all of that information will come out. In some cases there may be an investigation, a criminal investigation, going on. They have to wait for that to take place.

M. Farnworth: The coroner reports on the cause of death, not on the role that agencies or government may have played in that. That's an important distinction.

What I want to ask the minister is this. We saw last week, day after day, the opposition asking questions of the minister and the Attorney General. Each day we saw the government move a bit. By the end of the week we had an expanded mandate and three investigations underway. Over the weekend Judge Gove, who founded the system we took so much pride in over the last ten years, came out with some recommendations and comments. Again, the government went into damage control.

Does the Minister of Children and Family Development believe that's the appropriate way that public policy concerning the safety of children in British Columbia should be conducted?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's why the Premier and I met with Judge Gove this morning. We can't take statements from Judge Gove as what's reported in the media. We wanted to meet face to face so we could have the discussion. We had a great discussion this morning. Judge Gove has agreed to sit on a panel together with the child and youth officer, together with the coroner and others — to be announced shortly. All we're looking for is to make sure that the system we have in place is the best system we can find to deal with children and families.

M. Farnworth: Again to the minister, it took four days of questioning last week. It took comments by Judge Gove this weekend to get the government to ask. It took four years since the cutbacks were made. Why has it taken so long?

My question to the Premier: why did it take the Premier four years to invite Judge Gove back to the table to discuss the problems in the system?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me state the facts about the budget for child protection in this ministry. Since we became government, we've refocused resources and changed policy to reduce the number of children in care by supporting children in their families, which all the research shows is the best place for them to be. We're supporting aboriginal agencies, and we're supporting adoptions.

Let me give you some concrete examples. For adoptions, for the term that we've been in office, we've increased the budget from $3.3 million, where it was when we started, to $17.3 million. That's a 400-percent increase. In out of care and alternatives to care — that is kith and kin and other tools for keeping families together, like counselling — we've increased it from $400,000 a year when we became government to $2.4 million. That's a 450-percent increase. For aboriginal services, from $7.8 million to $18.7 million — a 139-percent increase.

The results speak for themselves. We've had a 15-percent reduction in children in care, who now are staying with their families or with close families. That is compared to the 45-percent increase that took place from '95 to '01.

J. Kwan: Well, then, the results are clear, aren't they? Two investigations out of 237 deaths — that's the result of the policy of this government.

Let us be clear. Judge Gove was invited to meet with the Premier not because it was the right thing to do, but because this government wanted to fix the political issues that have arisen.

The children's commissioner had a clear mandate — when there was one. When a child dies, investigate. The government wants to remove politics from the process but continues, instead, to deal with the issue on a reactionary basis. Judge Thomas Gove said in the media last week: "That report would have been made public not in reaction to the front-page stories but as a matter of course." That is the issue at hand.

My question is to the Premier: will the Premier remove politics from the deaths of children and implement the Children's Commission — put it back in place where it was when it was recommended by Judge Gove back in 1996?

Hon. S. Hagen: Regardless of what the member opposite says, every member in this House and indeed all British Columbians care about kids, care about the safety of children. Nobody can take ownership of that, because we all care. Because of that, that's why we approached Judge Gove on Friday, last week, to sit down and have a discussion with him about his comments and to see if he would help us — as we're asking anybody who cares about this to help us — to make sure that we do have the proper system in place, that we do in fact have the best system in place to look after kids and to keep kids safe in the province.

J. Kwan: Today all the government has done is find ways to deal with the issue in a reactionary approach, ways to actually cover their political hide. If the gov

ernment wants to do the right thing, then reinstate the children's commissioner. It's that simple.

This government said they want to eliminate duplication. We have an ombudsman's report. We have two reports from the child and youth officer. We have a report from the coroner. Now we have another investigation involving Judge Gove. Which part of the piece doesn't the government get? The minister and the government could have eliminated all of this duplication if they reinstated the children's commissioner. If that was in place, this would have dealt with the issue that's been raised today.

Why won't the Premier do the right thing and reinstate the children's commissioner today?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's not about reinstating a position. It's actually about making sure that we cover all of the needs of kids in care. We want to make sure that between the child and youth officer and the coroner's office, all of the things that need to be done are being done. That's why we've asked for the panel to review what happens in the system. Judge Gove has said it doesn't matter what you call the position. It just matters that all of the things that need to be done are being done. That's all we're trying to do.

C. Evans: On September 9 this year a really unusual thing happened in Vancouver. I don't know if it had any precedent before. The B.C. Utilities Commission held a pre-hearing to decide whether or not to accept the request of a Texas gas company, Kinder Morgan, to be allowed to buy Terasen Gas of British Columbia without any hearings.

The Utilities Commission ordinarily would go to Fort Nelson, Kamloops, Kelowna and Vancouver and hold hearings to see what the people of B.C. thought. Kinder Morgan's lawyers got up and said: "We don't think there need to be any hearings from the people. We just want to have written submissions." On that day the Ministry of Energy sent an employee to get on an airplane, a floatplane, and fly over to Vancouver. He got in a taxicab, went to the office building, went to the front of the room, walked forward and delivered 29 words — a message from the Ministry of Energy.

My question is for the Premier. That civil servant's message was that the government of British Columbia, or at least the Ministry of Energy, had no opinion on whether or not British Columbians should be allowed to attend hearings to discuss the sale of Terasen to Kinder Morgan. Was that the Ministry of Energy employee's opinion? Or did you, Mr. Premier, and your cabinet take a government position on whether or not British Columbians deserve hearings on the sale of Terasen Gas?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would be pleased to take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Energy.

C. Evans: That's a great answer. I appreciate it, minister, because it means you might come in here tomorrow and say that it's not the government's position. You might….

Mr. Speaker: Member, there are no supplementals when they take it on notice.

C. Evans: I'll ask another minister. I've got a new question for another minister, and my House Leader says it's okay.

My question is for the Minister of Forests. Politics, especially international politics and trade, is a question of symbols and facts and timing. Hon. minister, we've got $5 billion trapped at the American border. We have this company that comes to Canada and says: "We want to buy your most valuable resource — energy." Wouldn't you agree that at this moment, this would be the perfect timing to send a message to Washington and say: "No, you can't buy our oil company and gas company until you settle the softwood deal"?

C. Evans: Hon. minister, stand up and say that you agree with the Minister of Energy and this can happen without any discussion, or have the guts to say: "Put it off for 90 days, until they solve softwood, before we talk about Terasen."

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for his question. I think he should understand that negotiations on softwood are at a very sensitive time right now. We have more back-channel things happening on that file…

Hon. R. Coleman: …than have happened in a long time. We have some very interesting opportunities in front of us, and we're not going to cloud the waters with some rhetoric from the member opposite.

S. Simpson: To the Minister of Environment, again on the question of the Terasen sale. The minister may know that Kinder Morgan has recently been dubbed the poster child for pipeline problems by the Pipeline Safety Trust organization out of Washington. They've received that moniker largely because, in addition to facing over $5 million in fines for environmental violations, the U.S. Department of Transportation on August 24 issued a corrective action against Kinder Morgan for 44 environmental violations and has directed them to take a number of actions to rectify that. If they don't do it within 120 days, they'll face $100,000-a-day fines.

Given Kinder Morgan's environmental track record and the latest actions of the U.S. government to protect their interests in regard to Kinder Morgan, my question to the minister is: does he agree that the environmental record of Kinder Morgan should be part of the B.C. Utilities Commission's review of the application to purchase Terasen Gas?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect the member opposite would know by now that any company operating in British Columbia, regardless of where they're headquartered, is required to abide by our strict environmental standards, which are among the toughest in the entire world. It is worth remembering, too, that the NDP had a record of interfering with the BCUC process during the 1990s. For example, they froze electricity rates at artificially high levels in the 1990s. They directed B.C. Hydro…

Hon. B. Penner: …around all electricity generation or lack thereof, preventing the public from having input into a public process like the BCUC when it came to important decisions around electricity and other energy issues in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: The minister may not find it important to protect the interests of British Columbians in this case, but we do on this side. In early August I wrote to the minister and to the Attorney General, who has responsibility for the Utilities Commission, asking them to do the only thing that we could do to get the Utilities Commission to look at an environmental question. That was to provide a special cabinet direction.

I didn't receive an acknowledgment of the letter from either minister, let alone an answer. What that says to me is that maybe this government doesn't place much importance on environmental considerations on these questions. I would note that over 2,000 letters have been sent to the Utilities Commission on this question — 2,000 letters opposed to the sale and not one letter in support of the sale.

My question to the minister is: can he tell the House why he didn't see fit to accept the request to provide a special cabinet direction to the Utilities Commission to do an environmental review of the Terasen sale? And if he isn't going to ensure that the Utilities Commission does that work, then just who is going to do the environmental review on behalf of British Columbians?

Hon. B. Penner: As I stated earlier, any company operating within British Columbia's borders is required to comply with our strict environmental standards, which are among the best in the world. The BCUC hearing is open to the public. I understand that a number of members of this Legislature are involved in that process, so it's an open and transparent process. The BCUC makes decisions based on the best interests of B.C. ratepayers.

Back when the NDP was in office and was busy interfering with the BCUC, they didn't just freeze electricity rates at artificially high levels in the 1990s. They actually directed the BCUC to approve the Vancouver Island generation project. They also directed the BCUC to approve the GSX pipeline. That's the kind of interference that people on Vancouver Island and across British Columbia didn't appreciate and don't want to see in the future.

R. Austin: Today in B.C. our precious natural resources are being sacrificed for international corporate profit. Alcan has an agreement with the province that allows them use of the waters of the Nechako River to produce aluminum in exchange for creating jobs in the region. But instead of using the power to create local jobs at its Kitimat smelter, Alcan is selling it off in order to reap windfall profits and invest in projects outside of Canada.

To the Minister of Energy and Mines: what is his government doing to ensure that local natural resources are benefiting B.C. residents rather than padding the pockets of multinational corporations?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sure the member knows that this is a matter that is before the courts and that therefore it would be entirely inappropriate for any member of executive council to answer that question.

When they were in opposition, the members opposite were concerned about the province's deal with Alcan. They wanted to make sure that local economic development and job creation came first. How times have changed. These cuts at the Alcan smelter in Kitimat spell big losses for B.C. Each year we lose $168 million in industrial output and $9.6 million in provincial tax revenue. All the while, Alcan reaps massive private corporate profits.

Again to the Minister of Energy and Mines: will he commit to putting B.C.'s jobs first and order, create, a review of all private power sales in B.C. — all private power sales?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, it would be inappropriate to respond, because that matter is before the courts.

I would like to remind the member that B.C. is actually leading all of Canada in terms of job creation. We see it not just in the northwest but in every single region in British Columbia. We're almost approaching

record-low unemployment rates — that have ever been recorded in this province.

I'm glad the member is interested in job creation. Let's celebrate the fact that for the first time in B.C. history, we have over 2.1 million British Columbians employed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for 2004-2005.

S. Fraser: I have a petition, if I may. It's signed by Vancouver Island residents, and the petition speaks to grave concerns about monopoly control of a water utility. It opposes the sale of the Breakwater Enterprise's operation to EPCOR North Island Water Inc. I'd like to table this petition, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: On orders of the day, for the information of members, I call continued debate on the budget.

Our province is now moving towards a golden decade and Balanced Budget 2005 and its update that will ensure all British Columbians share in the opportunities ahead. With long-term investments in our environment and our communities, new measures to strengthen the economy, new support for children with special needs and people with disabilities, thousands of new post-secondary spaces, the highest budgets ever for health care and education, the largest-ever annual reduction in provincial debt, income tax and MSP premium charges that over three years will leave $480 million in the pockets of those who need it most, the September budget update confirms all of the measures announced in the February budget, including a significant tax reduction for people with low and modest incomes.

Seniors, first nations and jobs have been initially targeted as step one in this four-year rollout vision. We now have the opportunity to build on social supports that many of our seniors depend on: seniors supplement, approximately $50 more a month; SAFER programs — Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters — $90 in all categories, $180 a month in high-rent areas; plus the opening up for an additional 7,200 seniors who own manufactured homes, recognizing that many pay monthly pad rentals.

We are on track to deliver 5,000 new residential assisted-living and supportive housing beds by the end of 2008. We have the resources and the added flexibility we need to support a smooth transition and to allow more of our seniors to age in place, where appropriate.

We are working to deliver on the government's commitment to build a new relationship with first nations which is built on openness, transparency and collaboration. We must reduce uncertainty, litigation and conflict — in other words, work together collaboratively. A strong new relationship based on respect will ensure we navigate that road together, to the ultimate benefit of all British Columbians.

Everything that we have been able to accomplish over the past amazing four years has been due to our success in keeping B.C. competitive and turning our fiscal position around. Since day one this government has worked to encourage growth and has taken steps to make B.C. an even more attractive centre for research and development. The tax changes in this budget update will save businesses almost $400 million over three years, supporting our goal to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

Jobs build communities; communities build our province. That is our challenge: to deliver infrastructure and services at a pace that meets people's needs without burdening future generations with a debt load we cannot afford. Each and every single constituency in our province faces its own unique challenges that will require innovative solutions, both social and financial, over the next four years and beyond. Whinging simply does not cut it. Working together does.

Delta South, for example, is facing several major issues. Power lines to the Gulf and Vancouver islands, Tsawwassen First Nation in treaty mode, Roberts Bank port expansion, agricultural bylaws, our overall health services, B.C. Ferries, massive transportation infrastructure, dredging on the Fraser River and last, but certainly not least, our beleaguered fishing industry. It is imperative that Delta maintains its local atmosphere while developing as a gateway to British Columbia and to Canada.

I, along with all my colleagues, will be working determinedly to deliver to the people of British Columbia, — i.e., the shareholders, our shareholders, the vision and goals put forth in the September budget and throne speeches. By working collaboratively, we can and will deliver.

H. Bains: Madam Speaker, I can't tell you enough what a humbling experience it was for me when I walked into this chamber for the first time on June 15 of this year — a moment I never even imagined was possible when I first arrived as an immigrant to this country. Today I want to tell you how very proud I am to stand up in this chamber as a worker, as a labour

I came to Canada in 1971. One of the first things I learned about our history was the work that was done by the labour movement and many others to help secure the right for Indo-Canadians, Chinese and other immigrants to participate as citizens of this province. For 40 years, from 1907 until 1947, we were denied the right to citizenship. We were denied the opportunity to exercise a fundamental human right, the right to vote.

Even after 1947 some covenants existed in some cities where Indo-Canadians and coloured people could not buy properties. As late as 1972 those covenants still existed, and it wasn't until the leadership of Dave Barrett's government that they outlawed those covenants.

As I was preparing to come to the Legislature for the first time as a new member, I reflected on that history of our province and the injustices that existed, but more importantly on the hard work of others in this House to bring fairness and justice. I thought about those legislators who came here before us and who helped enshrine those injustices in law and how, decades later, our history and our province's citizens judge them today.

I thought about the issues that will face us here in the Legislature and the ideas, values and vision that we will put forward. I hope we will stop to think and wonder and ask ourselves how we will be judged some 50 years, 100 years down the road.

What will be the lasting impact of the decisions we make in this House now? Will our children and their children and their children say that our great-great-great-grandparents who were in this House made those laws that embarrassed them some hundred years down the road?

It gives me enormous pride to stand here knowing that I can be part of that history and that I can work to make this province more just and more fair for all British Columbians.

During the election I pledged to the people of Surrey-Newton that I would fight hard for health care in our communities, that I would fight alongside other members from Surrey to ensure that our hospital has the resources it needs to meet the growing demands of our community. So far, based on the budget that this government has tabled, I know how disappointed my constituents are. I want to assure them that I'll continue to fight for the fair funding that Surrey Memorial Hospital requires.

I pledged to my constituents that I would be their voice, demanding that we improve the education system for our children. Instead, we're watching the government resist any meaningful mandate or talks with teachers — the backbone of our education system. Parents in Surrey are concerned at growing class sizes, fewer resources for students with special needs, more fees for textbooks and supplies, and fewer teacher-librarians.

The Premier talked about improving literacy. What the Premier didn't tell us was that only 2 percent of B.C. schools have a full-time teacher-librarian, and instead of putting together a plan to fix it, this government is more interested in picking fights with teachers. In Surrey we have more students than in 2001, and we have fewer teachers, fewer teacher-librarians and fewer teachers for special needs kids.

I heard the member opposite, the member from the government side, argue that enrolment is lower in the province, and that's why they closed schools. Come to Surrey. Talk to those parents. Talk to those students. Talk to those teachers. We do have growing enrolment in Surrey, but we have fewer teachers. So that argument doesn't wash in Surrey.

We are quickly learning that this government likes to set goals but won't put the plans and resources in place to reach them. Let's talk about apprenticeship. The Premier talked about apprenticeship and skills training — another great goal, but without a proper plan or resources to get there.

This government dismantled our trades training program. Apprenticeship completions are down, tuition is higher, and fewer classes at Kwantlen University College offer the courses that are required. In particular, with my background on the former board of governors of Kwantlen University College, I promised my constituents to contribute my knowledge and experience to the debate about the future of the post-secondary education system, because it is so important that all British Columbians have access to the skills and training that they need to succeed in today's economy.

We have a long way to go and a government that doesn't seem to understand the pieces that need to be brought together. Every day, families in B.C. bore the brunt of this government's actions — more and more fees for fewer and fewer services, paycheques getting stretched harder and harder, and real wages falling behind. Just talk to the volunteers at the Surrey Food Bank about the growing need and the lineups. Or talk to the senior that I talked to when I was door-knocking during my campaign, who told me that he has stopped taking a cholesterol-lowering drug because he can't afford it anymore.

I ask this government why it is forcing the most vulnerable in our society to make choices between buying food or medication for their ailments. Why? That's the question on the doorsteps of Surrey-Newton constituents that I heard day in and day out. Is it because they can give their millionaire friends a corporate tax break, to the tune of close to half a billion dollars, that they didn't even ask for?

This government budget surplus isn't even offering much support to those seniors. Now, the government claims times are good — good enough to reward the corporate backers with another big tax break but leave the working families in the cold. This government is riding the tide of commodity prices and more federal dollars than B.C. has ever seen. That's great. That is

great, but where is the economic vision that ensures opportunity for all, not just more big raises for CEOs?

This government talks about a gateway strategy for the Surrey area, but forget the gateway if they can't even solve issues like the south perimeter road. I see the pattern becoming clearer and clearer — big goals and lofty statements, but no plans or resources to back them up.

We will have an opportunity to showcase our province in 2010. If done right, we will show our strength in diversity and economic opportunity available to the rest of the world. However, I have my concerns on that as well — concerns around whether the economic benefits are realized by all regions of this province, not just the lower mainland or the Whistler corridor.

There are serious concerns of spending overruns on the Kelowna bridge, the convention centre, the RAV line. Now we hear that the Olympics spending is also going higher and higher. That's why it is essential to give the Auditor General the authority and resources to monitor and report back on Olympics spending.

This government is really missing out on the opportunity to deal with our skills shortage by not including apprenticeships in the construction of the Olympics. It's a real opportunity that we can use to deal with the shortage of skills in this province. The mining industry just told us the other day that it will be hiring 80,000 new workers in the next ten years. They said that out of those 80,000, 60 percent are skilled trades — skilled trades that we don't even have today. They're lacking enough to go around.

I come from the forest industry, working in the mills and then later in my union. In fact, many of my constituents also work in the mills. Talking to them, they seem to have a better sense of the B.C. economy than this government has.

They understand the connection between the lower mainland and our larger population centres with the people and economic activity generated by British Columbians in rural B.C., in the north and in the interior. They understand that it is the forest sector that helped drive the technology sector or the transportation sector. I know they are concerned that this government couldn't even put forward forestry as a standing committee of this House.

You know why? I think it's because years ago they decided to give that industry to their friends and multinational corporations through the so-called Forestry Revitalization Act. They justified at that time that it would enable the industry to reinvest in the mills and in the industry. Therefore, they would create jobs. That was then, but what followed was the story of thousands of forestry workers on the coast being laid off — community after community devastated.

Eleven sawmills have been closed in the last four years — 11. Two more have announced closures by the end of October. They said at that time that this new forest policy is good for B.C., good for B.C. workers, good for the forestry industry. They said: "Don't worry about it. We will look after you."

As a part of the Forestry Revitalization Act, they said that the industry, which will be losing their timber as a result of the 20-percent takeback, will be compensated. They said the workers, who will lose their jobs as a direct result of the 20-percent takeback, will be paid severances. They took away the social contract on the Forest Act, a social contract that requires that in return for our resources — our logs that the industry will be using to make profit — they will be creating jobs in the logging sector and manufacturing sector and providing community stability. That connection is gone now.

The companies are becoming log brokers rather than job creators in the forest industry. That is wrong. There was no intention, at that time, when we gave our resources to these big companies. There were safeguards put in place through the social contract, safeguards that would ensure that the forest-dependent, smaller communities will have certain activities year-round, even when the industry wasn't doing great. The minimum cut that was there…. They had to provide jobs for at least 50 percent of the workforce, or up to 150 percent if the times weren't great, but over a five-year cycle they had to be within ten percent. That connection is also gone.

Now what the companies are doing is shutting their operations down for two or three years, the workers are losing their seniority, and the industry goes back and takes all of its cut in the next two years. That is wrong. There was never, never that intention when we gave those resources to those companies. What that means is that we have given away the industry to the industry, the way they wanted it and how they wanted to harvest it. We have allowed the industry to do whatever they wanted to do — with no regard to the communities, no regard to the workers who are losing their jobs as a result of that.

Let's talk about the investment that was promised during the time when the forest revitalization was brought in. Did they invest? Yes, they did. They did invest. You know where? Does anyone want to take a guess? I'll tell you where: they invested in the United States.

Let's use Interfor for an example. The first thing they did was shut down a sawmill in the Fraser Valley, move 20 kilometres down south and open up an operation there in Washington, laying off hundreds of workers here and creating jobs in Washington. Then what they did was continue to invest because they were making loads of money as a result of our policy here. They again went south, under the leadership of this government that was supposed to be attracting investment into this province. Interfor took money from the industry here, went to Washington again and purchased sawmills in Washington, creating jobs in Washington, not in B.C. That's where the investment history of this province is in the forest industry.

At a time when the interior is also going through a major pine beetle infestation, the coast is going through a major transition, aboriginal land claims are unresolved and our province has no solution to the softwood lumber dispute — and has, I might add, given away all the cards in negotiations to the Americans — there's no forestry committee to deal with the single largest economic issue in this province — no forestry committee.

I referenced aboriginal land claims, and I do want to say that it is about much more than land. It is about building a new relationship. I want to commend the government on this one for some of the steps they have taken in this area. But I want to remind them that we will be watching, and so will the natives. We do remember this government's illegitimate attempt to hold a referendum on the question of aboriginal rights. We remember that, the people of this province remember that, and our aboriginal people remember that.

I want to come back to Surrey-Newton for a while here. I am optimistic about our province and where we can go, knowing that success only comes from working together. When I look for inspiration, I look to my riding, to the people of Surrey-Newton, a diverse and proud people — neighbours and families committed to building a strong, healthy community.

In particular, I look to our seniors and our young people. Far too often both of these groups are excluded from our discussions and consultations, and I know I will be working to change that. Because seniors built this province, we owe it to them to be mindful of the goals they set out, the vision they put forward. We need to measure ourselves against it. Our youth sure challenge us to think of new ideas and new ways of tackling what often appear to be very old or at least recurring problems that won't go away. They challenge us to look at the world in different ways — two generations that have so much to offer and, in my view, aren't heard from enough.

I'm privileged to fight for these issues and for social and economic justice for the people of Surrey-Newton and the rest of the province. I'm proud to stand here as a New Democrat, representing the party of someone like Penny Priddy, who fought so vigorously for the principles and ideals of social and economic justice. I'm proud to be a representative of the party of Dave Barrett, who led a government that recognized, among other things, the need to recognize human rights through legislation and to ensure that all British Columbians are treated with dignity and respect.

It is with great pride that I stand here as a trade unionist in the footsteps of a former MP from my union, Brother Frank Howard. I know, like he did, that my union, the IWA and the Steelworkers now, set the standard for me and for many others in this province. My union provided me not only with a voice on the job but also with great opportunities to learn and grow as a citizen. I was also fortunate that the members of my local union saw fit to elect me to work on their behalf for what I believe in and to help working people improve their daily lives. I am proud of my history in the union, and I want to thank my union for the support they have provided to me over the years.

I would also like to take a moment to pay my respects to a former MLA, Mr. Tony Bhullar, who spoke on behalf of his constituents while his party tried to silence him. I want to thank him for having the courage to speak against his own party because he recognized that they were moving in the wrong direction.

I would like to thank hundreds of supporters who showed confidence in me to be their representative and worked day and night to get me elected — three people in particular: Jessie Uppal, my campaign manager; Lambher Sidhu, my good friend; and Emily Zimmerman. They brought these hundreds of volunteers together, showed leadership and put on a campaign that was based on hard work and honesty, and I thank them for that.

Whether it's campaigns, my work in the union or standing here before you today, I know that I wouldn't be here without my family. I think we all know the enormous sacrifices we ask our families to make so we can serve in these offices, and my family is no different. I can't say that it's no questions asked, but my wife Rajvinder and my children Kulpreet, Jasmeen and Parveen are my bedrock. On top of that, I'm blessed to have my parents, my brothers and the rest of my extended family — there are about 2,000 of them around here in the lower mainland — always, always showing they are unwavering in their support.

In conclusion, I want to once again thank the people of Surrey-Newton for putting their trust in me to represent their interest here in the Legislature. I look forward to the responsibility and the opportunity of serving as MLA for Surrey-Newton.

S. Hawkins: It's a great honour to rise in reply to the budget update. First of all, let me offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very honoured to serve as your deputy this session. Congratulations to the Assistant Deputy that was appointed from the opposition benches as well.

I want to congratulate all of the members in this chamber, the ones that were re-elected and the ones that are newly elected. Certainly, congratulations to the new member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who is now my partner in Kelowna in representing that wonderful constituency. Thanks, as well, to all of the constituents of Kelowna-Mission for their continued support, for having the confidence in me to return me to this wonderful place as their MLA for a third term. I am very grateful to them.

I also want to thank my volunteers. I've heard it mentioned many times in this chamber how the democratic process works when we have people that give freely of their own time, and I certainly have people in Kelowna that are very loyal. I want to thank my riding association and my executive and my campaign team that worked so hard.

I, too, want to thank my family and friends. This is probably one of the few times I've had occasion to

stand in the chamber over the last year and a half. I was struck with an illness last year, and I'm grateful to family and friends who helped pull me through a particularly tough year and helped me get back on my feet and back to what I love and what I want to do.

Last but not least, I want to thank my two constituency assistants Del Scovil and Shirley Hut for their incredible public service and for their devotion to the constituents of Kelowna-Mission. They put in long, hard hours. I can't believe they've been with me…. We're going on ten years now, and I'm truly grateful, as I know my constituents are, for their loyalty, their dedication and certainly their friendship with me.

As we start this new parliamentary session, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues who I served with for the past four years. Many have returned, but I know that many have gone on to new challenges, and others fought an election campaign and were not successful. I want to say that all of them made an incredible and important contribution in putting our province back on its feet. If not for their hard work and the heavy lifting and the tough decisions we had to make over the last four years, we wouldn't be where we are today here in this province, leading the country. We're back on our feet, and I have to say I'm very grateful for all the hard work the members in the last parliamentary session put in, getting B.C. back to where it is today.

I don't think we can forget where we started in May 2001. We had deficit budgets. We inherited a province that really didn't have a plan. There was no direction. We had the worst economy in the country. We started in 2001 ranked number ten in Canada. We had high unemployment. We had low investment. We had low investor confidence. We had high debt. I can tell you that everywhere we travelled in the province, people weren't that confident and there wasn't a lot of optimism or hope.

You know, one of the things I think people were the most ashamed of, and you heard this when you traveled around the province…. People were not very proud of the fact that we had slipped into a have-not province status. In the last four years…. I can say they were not easy years. They were not easy years at all. We were all in tough times, and we needed to do something fairly bold. We needed to do things to make sure we dealt with the challenges we had facing us.

Then we had added challenges. I mean, we had 9/11, three or four months after we took office. We had SARS. We had the West Nile virus risk. We had BSE, or mad cow disease, as it's known. There were fires, floods and, of course, the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. But we came through the fire, so to speak, and I'm proud of what our government has accomplished in the last four very short years.

We have balanced our budgets, which have been based on generally accepted accounting principles. We're the only jurisdiction in North America to adopt this method and to be held accountable for it. I think that is something we can all be very proud of as British Columbians. We have three-year service plans for every ministry in government. Every ministry has to come in on budget every single year, and they have in the last four years. I think we can be proud of the leadership shown in each of those ministries to be able to do that.

We've been able to make our debt payments, and we've been able to lower our interest rate on borrowing. Our bond-rating agencies have approved our plan of fiscal responsibility and have given us upgrades instead of the downgrading we saw in the decade before we were in power. And we have the highest rate of employment in 20 years. We can all be grateful and proud of that.

In a word, our taxes are down, our investment is up, and our unemployment is the lowest in 24 years. Health spending is up. Education spending is up. Investing in children's health and literacy is up. Housing starts are up. People leaving B.C. — down. People moving to B.C. — up. We're seeing an amazing amount of in-migration. Business confidence is up, and I can tell you that optimism is sky-high. People are confident. They're moving back to B.C. instead of leaving this province.

I've only to look at my own neighbourhood and my own neighbours as proof. My new neighbours moved in last summer. It was a young family with four beautiful little girls. Steve, who's the father, works in construction as a framer. I watched this young couple with three little girls and a baby move in. He said that he and Brenda moved to Alberta five or six years ago when the NDP were running the province. There was no work. There was no investment. Both their families were in B.C. They really didn't want to leave. They didn't want the kids to be so far away from uncles and aunts and grandparents. But they had to, to survive, so they moved to Calgary.

The last few years he watched as the province turned the corner, and they returned because he was able to work again in B.C. They could make a living and a life here again. They're home, they're close to family, they're happy, and we are happy to have them back. They are contributing to our economy, and they're making us a province that's leading in Canada again. We are happy to have those kinds of workers back.

You can feel the optimism everywhere you go. There's hope. There's a feeling that we're going in the right direction. Every member who has spoken in the past few weeks — and I've listened intently — certainly has mentioned that this is a great province. Every corner of the province that people talk about, they say it's the best place to live, and I agree. I know, and I really believe, that we do live in the best place on earth, and it is found in every corner of the province.

Let me say that I do, as well, live in one of the most beautiful places in the world in the Okanagan Valley. It's an incredibly breathtaking place. We live on this fabulous lake. We're surrounded by vineyards, orchards, mountains, beaches. It really is paradise, and I

believe it's populated by the most generous, caring and supportive citizens you could ever hope to know.

I live in the city of Kelowna, and how lucky I am to live there. A working paradise is what I like to call it, really — a destination resort town. We lovingly refer to it as a year-round playground. We have, as I mentioned, ski hills, beaches, golf courses. We can often get a rise out of our relatives — and I've been guilty of that a few times — by telling them how we can ski in the mountains in the morning, water-ski around lunchtime and then golf in the afternoon. I know they don't want to hear about that, and I'm almost sorry I mentioned it.

Unfortunately, we brag too much about it, because the secret's out, and we've seen a flood of new people moving into our community and into our valley. The growth has been short of explosive. Kelowna's population is almost 106,000 people today, and that's up 10,000 in only four years. Really, our population grew by 2.4 percent last year, where the provincial average was 1.4 percent. So we have seen a lot of growth.

We have seen, as well, just incredible economic growth — 11.1 percent in 2004 — and it is growing. It's still booming. We have a very well-diversified economy, which includes manufacturing, tourism obviously, a wine industry, forestry, agriculture, high-tech, mining, a booming housing and construction market, just to mention a few.

But we have a huge problem. It was on the Noon News today, and I hope we can do something about it. I'm going to speak up about this problem, because it has a huge impact on my community. We have too many jobs and not enough workers. Can you believe that? The Okanagan is begging for jobs. You know, it's interesting. The reporter on the Noon News talked about the southern interior's retailers facing a huge problem with a shortage of employees.

At Orchard Park mall, which is a big one in the riding, there are 31 positions advertised, and many businesses have signs in the windows looking for workers, it says. They say it's hard right now, because there are lots of jobs. There's a lot of competition for workers. One company — Okanagan Fireplace Den — is offering its staff a three-day paid trip to Las Vegas as a bonus for their loyalty, and more than anything, the owner says the company offers the promise of long-term work in a well-paying trade with limited experience to get in.

Can you imagine? I love having that problem in the Okanagan. We really are an economic engine, and I'm really proud that our government has been able to turn around the economy in this province so that we can have a problem like too many jobs and not enough workers. I'm so proud of what our Premier and our government have been able to help me deliver in my community in the last few years.

Certainly, in the five years that I sat in opposition, we felt there was not enough happening and not enough attention being given to projects in the community that had been planned for a long time. But there was no plan for them, really, and there was no management of how the plan was going to proceed.

One of them, honestly, Mr. Speaker, is the new five-lane Okanagan Lake Bridge, and I can tell you that my community is so grateful that this government has got a plan and that the bridge is going to be built. We're going to be opening it in 2008. It's long overdue, and I can thank all of my colleagues and the government for getting that on line for us. We are very, very appreciative of that.

We also established a new world-class university in the Okanagan and a new college, so we've got UBC Okanagan and Okanagan University College in Kelowna, which is going to be adding 5,500 new student spaces. I mean, what an accomplishment. The constituents are absolutely thrilled about that. Our students get to stay closer to home. Again, their cost-of-living expenses, all that kind of stuff, are going to be a lot more affordable with a university finally close to home. We are very grateful for that.

We have seen in the last few years increased funding for Kelowna General Hospital. We've opened a ninth operating room. We've allocated funds for additional surgeries and procedures. We've added more renal dialysis machines. The new MRI now is fixed in Kelowna General Hospital. We've given an investment for digital imaging, which means that around the Interior Health Authority radiologists can look at computer screens and look at X-rays from patients that might be hundreds of miles away. It saves patients from travelling, and it certainly saves health care costs. We're very proud of that.

In November we will be opening a new adolescent psychiatric in-patient unit for our youth who have psychiatric concerns and problems. The community raised, I believe, $1 million towards this. The government also contributed, and the Minister of Children and Family Development also contributed. We are very, very grateful for this new facility.

We have added new assisted-living facilities for seniors. I can tell you that when we started in 2001, there were 200 assisted-living beds in the whole province. That was it. We felt that our seniors needed other options. We felt that our seniors needed the options of staying home and being as independent as possible. Then if they needed to be in some kind of a facility, it should be one that offers them a measure of independence. We feel that the assisted-living model is one that meets that requirement, and we are very proud of the number of beds that have been opened in our area.

In 2001 the option was basically: either you stayed at home, or if you couldn't stay at home, you went into a residential institution facility. So I think this is a great option for our seniors. I've been to quite a few in the last couple of years that have opened, and some very happy seniors are living in those facilities.

We had, in 2004, 2003…. I have to get my dates right. In 2003 we had a firestorm, and we had fires all over the province. It just shows you what an amazingly big province this is when you see floods on one end of the province and fires and drought on another. Unfortunately, our area was hit with fires. There was quite a

bit of building and damage repair to be done afterwards. Again, the assistance with post-fire funding for our sewer infrastructure, for fire prevention pilot projects and disaster recovery plans has been very gratefully received by our region. Certainly, the fire recovery plans for Okanagan Mountain Park and Myra-Bellevue Park have been gratefully received. This summer we reopened the Okanagan Mountain Park — the trails — and people had the benefit of getting back into that park and just seeing how it can come back to life after the fire.

The Myra Canyon trestle's reconstruction. Again, the government has given funding for that, and it's coming along beautifully. We had the Minister of Environment there a few weeks ago and were able to show the minister how much work has been done.

I believe about three or four trestles are now rebuilt and redecked. In 2008, I believe — it might even be 2007 — we will be opening the trestles again for the public. It's going to be just a fabulous asset for tourism and for historical purposes for our province.

We have also been generously given funding for an Olympic legacy aquatic centre and an all-weather, 1,000-seat stadium at the Mission sports field site, and our community certainly is embracing the opportunities around the 2010 Olympics. It's something our children and everyone in the community are really looking forward to and is quite excited about.

For K-to-12 we've seen school funding for new textbooks, new computers, Internet upgrades and computer pilot projects to improve student achievement. The funding was doubled for parent advisory councils. We now have the highest per-pupil funding in the history of B.C. in our school district.

In four short years I think that is an incredible amount of gain for our constituency, and we're still seeing some good things happening. I think the budget update is really good news for my constituents. It improves support for seniors, and I certainly appreciate that. I think a lot of the community sees that as a very positive step.

Renewing the seniors supplement will benefit 40,000 low-income seniors across the province. It also doubles the annual Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, which was the SAFER program funding. I think what's really appreciated is that it expands the coverage to seniors who own manufactured homes and face significant monthly pad rentals. With the increase in SAFER funding and increasing the seniors in manufactured homes, a total of 8,400 seniors will benefit from that. I think that's really important.

As I mentioned, the budget also, I believe, adds $150 million over the next few years to update seniors health facilities and to help seniors live as independently as possible. I just want to say a few words about that, because I know we did have a commitment to deliver X number of beds — 5,000 beds — in our first term, 2001. We were going to deliver them by 2006.

Frankly, when we got in — and I was the member of the health team that looked at that as Minister of Health Planning then — we found that there was never a real overview done of all of the facilities across the province. What we found was that there were a lot of buildings that needed to be refitted and a lot of beds that needed to be redone so that they actually met the requirements for delivering care and providing good care to seniors in the 20th century. Many of these facilities had bathrooms where you couldn't fit a wheelchair. There were a lot of problems with the existing facilities.

The funding and the plan was to make sure that some of the ones that could be taken care of would be rehabilitated and renovated, and the new ones then would come on line. Disappointing as it is, the 5,000 beds will not be met by 2006 but will be met shortly after that. I'm proud that the government was able to actually do a master plan and look at all of the facilities and look at which beds we could fix right away. Now we have a plan for the next three years to make sure that we're on line and that we deliver that commitment. It will be done. I'm very confident of that.

We have the lowest income tax for lower- and middle-income earners in this province. In fact, 330,000 people making less than $15,500 pay no provincial income tax at all, and 400,000 people saw their taxes reduced since the last budget. We've reduced or eliminated MSP premiums for low-income people. We've increased child care subsidies for 16,000 children, and we moved more than 40,000 income assistance recipients into jobs where they're earning two to three times what they earned on welfare. That's good news for people in this province.

In health care we're doing more surgeries than ever before. In 2003, 63,000 more surgeries were conducted over 2001. For example, knee replacements have increased by more than 65 percent, and hip replacements have increased by more than 35 percent.

You know, as a former nurse and someone who worked in health care, it is important to make sure that people are getting the care they need. In a population that is continuing to age and in a population that is growing, that demand is obviously growing as well.

I'm very proud of the Premier and the leadership that he showed last year in securing more health care dollars and securing a health accord with the other Premiers and with the federal government. We're seeing that money flow through now. Certainly, we're going to see the benefits of that to our constituents as well.

I was in the gym this summer working out, and one of my neighbours was in there. He's a senior. I believe he needed a knee replacement. He said to me: "You can tell this story because I hear all this about people waiting and not getting the care and that they're getting longer and longer wait-lists. I think it's important to tell you. Last winter I wanted to ski. The doctor said, 'It's going to take at least a year for you to get your knee

He said he had a winter skiing and went back in January and said to the doctor: "Okay, put me on the wait-list now." He said that the year before he would have had to wait a year. When he got on the list with the doctor now, he said, "I'm getting my surgery in June" — so in six months.

I know there have been improvements made. He noticed it himself, and this is a patient that needed the surgery. He said: "Actually, I'm glad I waited. I got another year of skiing." This guy is in his 70s, so he's quite an active senior. That's the other thing. Some of these surgeries we never did ten, 15 years ago. Our seniors are healthier. They're more active. They're out there doing stuff.

We're living longer, which is a good thing. I'm going to live as long as I can and enjoy that kind of stuff. The demand is there for more of these surgeries. I'm glad he noticed that when he went back to the doctor a year later, the wait-list had decreased. I hope that is the case for other people as well.

I know that our government has committed around $46 million in additional funding in 2004 to provide more heart surgeries, more orthopedic surgeries, more cataract procedures and the like, and more diagnostic procedures. Obviously, our commitment is to try and reduce the wait-lists in the areas where there is the greatest need. We've also committed another $100 million to reduce wait times in other key surgical and medical priorities.

I want to get back to the jobs again, because I think that's really important. When we look at how a person, how they go through their life and are able to contribute and feel good about themselves and have good health and everything else…. I think it's really important that they feel they have a way to earn their living and make a living. I think it's important to note that there are more people than ever working today in this province and that we lead the country in job creation.

I heard the minister just a little while ago saying that there were 2.1 million people working in the province of B.C. today. I think that is really good news. I think that's good news for everybody. Since 2001 we've seen over 238,000 jobs created in this province, and we now have the lowest rate of unemployment ever. In every region of the province we've seen good-news stories about job creation and low unemployment.

We have also had the greatest overall drop in consumer bankruptcies in the whole country in 2004. I think that's good news too. People are moving back to B.C. There are more jobs. There is more opportunity. I think we need to recognize that we are going in the right direction here.

The budget update. As well, I think it's important to note that it increases funding for K-to-12 education. Since 2001 our government has added to the education budget despite declining enrolment. I think people forget that. There are fewer students in the classroom, and yet we continue to increase funding and up that budget.

In this '05-06 budget school districts will see the single largest funding increase in a decade. There's $150 million to improve school libraries and quality learning resources for music and arts programs, and resources to support every special needs student. I think that's really important. The Advanced Education budget will see an additional $15 million in this budget. That's to help expand the number of post-secondary seats and to keep tuition fees affordable.

The budget update also keeps the commitment to provide $450 million over three years for student financial assistance, including loan reductions for students in need for debt relief, a loan forgiveness program and grants for students with disabilities. I believe the Minister of Advanced Education made an announcement today forgiving some student loans. Obviously, that program's on track as well. I'm pretty proud of that, actually.

The Health budget has seen an increase every year since we formed government in 2001. By 2008 it will see a $3.7 billion increase in health spending since 2001.

I see my time is running short, and I did want to mention, as well, that I'm very pleased with the $100 million for the First Nations New Relationship fund. I know that we will set up a partnership with them, and there will be consultation on how that will proceed. I'm looking forward to that.

On that note, in closing, I must say that I'm very proud to be from Kelowna, home of the Kelowna Rockets, the Memorial Cup champions.

I know you're going to tell me to be quiet, so I will do this in two seconds, hopefully. There is an Okanagan wine festival going on right now, and I invite all members to come and enjoy life in the Okanagan and see how we live.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have Mme. Sophie Bergeron. She's a francophone teacher in Coquitlam and coordinator of French programs for the Coquitlam school district, as well as being president of the French immersion and francophone teachers provincial specialists association. Could the House please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I still find it odd every time you say that — that I'm standing up. But here I am. I want to respect and honour your role now as Speaker of the House. You have done a fantastic job to this point in time, and I know you'll continue to do that through the term of this session.

It's truly an honour and a privilege for me to stand here today and address this chamber as the New De-

mocrat member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I want to take the opportunity to thank some of the many volunteers who helped me get here.

But before I do that, I want to acknowledge the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is sitting beside me. He and I met in the House of Commons almost 20 years ago, and at that time I never thought I'd be sitting or standing beside you. Good to see you.

I do also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the patience and contribution and love of my family: my wife Ellie and my two sons Nate and Evan. Like other members in this House, my family will be making sacrifices over the coming years. I'm hopeful that they'll bear with me, and I know that they'll want to help when they can and get out of the way when they can't. Thank you, Nate, Evan and Ellie.

I also want to thank Bruce Fogg for managing my campaign and working so well with the many dozens of volunteers who came to Langford and to other points in Malahat–Juan de Fuca to re-elect a New Democrat in this constituency. Over the course of the campaign I made hundreds of new friends, and among them was a young lawyer named Kevin MacGillivray. His passion and youthful exuberance were reminders to all of us of the importance of involving young people in the political process. His idealism and commitment to social justice and his genuine interest in seeing the democratic process from the ground up kept us all young over the course of the campaign. I want to thank him for that.

He became a fixture at my side, whether it be knocking on doors, attending meetings, handing out leaflets — and even the dreaded Burma Shave. We even actually got out on the highway and waved at people, and there were no accidents caused, I'm happy to say. The Minister of Transportation will also be happy to hear that.

I want to just thank Kevin again for all of his efforts and wish him well in his law career. He became one of what we called Horgan's heroes over the course of the campaign, one of the scores of people who gave of themselves so that I could have the honour to sit in this place and represent the people of my community.

There were many ups and downs during the campaign, as we all know. One person in particular was always there with his quick wit and his booming radio voice, and that was Richard Hughes, a former regional director in the Cowichan Valley regional district and our candidate for election in 2001. I want to thank Richard for his contribution to this campaign and his tireless work to get me into this chair. I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

If anyone was driving through my constituency from Duncan to Langford or Port Renfrew to Sooke in April or May of this year, they would have seen a sign or two with my name on it. My sign crew was extraordinary, many of them in their 70s. They answered the bell for the campaign, as they had time after time after time. They blanketed our constituency, as distant and diverse as it is, with my name. I'm told that you could even catch a glimpse of a Horgan sign if you logged onto the Ministry of Transportation website and looked at the Malahat webcam. They did their research, and they did the best they could.

I'd like to thank regional director John Middleton and Bill Nelson, who managed the south Cowichan portion of my constituency. Councillor Ed Cooper, Jack Howe and Russ Bertram handled the lookout of the Malahat down to Langford and through to Metchosin. Bobby Woodford, Bill Wilson, Howard Reagan and Frank Mitchell swung their hammers from East Sooke past Otter Point to Shirley and beyond. These guys did a tremendous job, and I want to thank them for helping me get to this place.

I could mention dozens of other Horgan's heroes. But I could not stand in this House without recognizing a pillar in our party and an inspiration to me and many others who have come before me.

Without the support of Kay Mitchell, I would likely not have sought the NDP nomination in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Kay has been working on campaigns and fighting for those without a voice all her life. She and her white-haired husband kept me on track and continue to remind me that the people who elected me are my first obligation. Constituency work is the primary job of an elected politician. As we all know, all politics is local. I intend to stay connected to the needs and views of my neighbours as my highest priority, and I hope I'll never forget that.

While I'm on the subject of Kay's husband, I'd like to acknowledge those that have represented our community in this Legislature over the decades. Most recently we were represented by Brian Kerr. Brian served from 2001 to the most recent election, when he retired to enjoy more time with his family. I want to thank Brian for his contribution to public life and to Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

From 1991 to 2001 we had a vocal and popular politician in this House, Rick Kasper, who worked tirelessly for the people of our riding. I am hopeful that I can make as much noise as he did and accomplish as much in my time here.

Before 1991 the riding of Malahat–Juan de Fuca was cut into two. The Cowichan Valley portion was represented by such notable MLAs as Sam Guthrie from 1937 to 1949; Bob Strachan from 1952 to 1975; and most recently Barbara Wallace from 1975 to 1986. Only three times in the past 70 years has the Cowichan Valley been represented by anyone other than a New Democrat or CCF member — quite a legacy.

The south of my constituency was held by Jimmy Gorst during the Barrett governments from '72 to '75, and before that the seat was held by Kay's husband Frank. Frank Mitchell was first elected in this constituency in 1951 and re-elected in the 1970s and the 1980s. At the age of 79 he and his sidekick, the mayor of Leechtown, Billy Wilson, kept me front and centre in the public mind in the communities of Sooke, Otter

Point, East Sooke, Shirley and Port Renfrew. They even had time for a cold beverage now and again, and I certainly was prepared to oblige.

Following Frank's retirement, the southern portion of Malahat–Juan de Fuca was represented by a fellow named Moe Sihota. That's a familiar name to many in this House. I can see the Minister of Finance shuddering at the prospect of having to deal with Moe Sihota. He's not here anymore, and I'm sure the member from Langara can rest easy for now.

At the federal level my constituency has been represented by two NDP Premiers: Dave Barrett for British Columbia and Tommy Douglas, who represented this constituency from 1968 to 1975. Also, of course, the riding was represented by my friend and former employer Jim Manley. The elected representatives in this riding have always provided leadership, a commitment to social justice and have been champions for their community. I am daunted by this legacy of outstanding Canadians, and I commit to give my very best to meet the high standards they've set before me.

I believe strongly in public service and the importance of collective responsibility. My world-view was shaped by my family, as many others in here will say. When I was growing up here in Victoria….

It's quite unusual for me to be here at all. It wouldn't have happened had it not been for the sacrifices of my widowed mother, my two brothers and my sister Kathy. They have been a constant source of inspiration to me and have made numerous sacrifices so that I could stand here today.

I want to thank my friend from Kingsway for getting me out of that one, and I will now move on. Thank you, family. I appreciate it very, very much.

From north to south, east to west, Malahat–Juan de Fuca is one of the most spectacular ridings in this province. I know we're all going to say that when we stand up. We've seen commercials over the past 12 months that tell us that this is the most beautiful place in the world, but you know, we all know it is, and Malahat–Juan de Fuca is the pinnacle. My caucus colleagues are tired of me saying that, but I invite you all to drive through to see some of the spectacular scenery and the cultural traditions of my community.

It's a rich and long history, going back millennia. The first people to settle in my region were the Salish- and Nuu-chah-nulth-speaking people. Today the Cowichan tribes to the north are the most numerous, and across the Saanich Inlet are Tsartlip, Tseycum, Tsawout and Paquachin first nations. Living south of my riding are the Songhees people, the Esquimalt people and the Beecher Bay band. In my constituency the people of Malahat, Sooke and Pacheedaht are proud and part of my constituency. I am committed to work with these first nations to improve economic and social opportunity in the South Island, as it has been ignored for far too long.

The government has initiated a reconciliation program in this budget to accelerate the treaty process that was begun by the Harcourt government, and I want to applaud the government for this about-face on first nations issues. The early days of the Liberal administration were tarnished by what appeared to me to be a racist referendum on the terms of treaty-making. This new direction is welcome, and I am delighted that the government has gone this course. But I put the minister responsible and the Premier on notice that those on this side of the House want to ensure that progress is made on treaties and other measures to address the long-standing issues of fairness and justice for first nations that they expect and deserve.

As I said, the Cowichan Valley is made up of several distinct and vibrant communities. Mill Bay is the northern terminus of the scenic Mill Bay–Brentwood Bay ferry route. Shawnigan Lake was once a holiday destination but has transformed into a vibrant year-round community growing faster than many residents would like. I recall my summers there, at the Hutchison property, chopping wood, swimming, canoeing — not a care in the world. I had no idea that one day I would represent that area in the Legislature, but my memories of that simpler time have shaped my perspective today.

Growth must be tied to the ability of the land to sustain that development. After I left high school, I worked in the pulp mill in Ocean Falls, one of the more interesting places I have laid my head over the years, I have to say. When the fibre supply dried up, the Social Credit government of the day shut the town down in 1979. Based on that experience, I should have had an inkling, when I lived in Cobble Hill in the early '80s, that a transformation was beginning in the forest industry. I worked summers at the Cowichan joinery as I went to university. At that time I had no notion that hundreds and hundreds of trucks of raw logs would be leaving my community. It seemed impossible at the time in a community dotted with mills and forest land as far as you can see, but that's the reality of today. That is what the forest sector faces in my community: trucks driving from the valley, not supporting millworkers, not supporting the community.

In the valley, in Sooke, in Jordan River, in Port Renfrew, fewer families are supported by the forest industry than ever before. The industry continues to make enormous profits on the coast but employs fewer and fewer workers. Instead of developing value-added industries and linking access to wood to increased employment, the current government takes donations from large operators and streamlines processes so profits can continue.

Growing up, I also marvelled at the vast tracts of farmland from Dougans Lake, just north of Cobble Hill, through to Cowichan Station and Glenora — all vibrant communities today. Again, I never expected to be supporting and representing agricultural communities. I've never been much of a farmer. My brother raised a few pigs in Cobble Hill back in the '80s. I

found that a challenge. They always got out; I could never get them back in the pen. I'm proud and honoured to be representing agriculturalists in the Cowichan Valley today.

The Farmers Institute is a vibrant organization. The 90th annual Cobble Hill fair took place this September. There were pigs there, and somehow they managed to keep them in the pen. I watched, and I just can't figure it out. It's beyond my capacity, I suppose.

There are new opportunities in the valley, new agricultural opportunities, vineyards galore — Malahat Estates, Cherry Point Vineyards — all doing very, very well and establishing a wine industry similar to yours, Madam Speaker, on the southern portion of Vancouver Island.

Agritourism is a new and exciting opportunity in the valley as well. Coupled with the lakes, rivers and trails throughout the region, the south Cowichan is one of the hottest tourist destinations on the Island.

The development of the Trans Canada Trail has opened up the region to cycling tours and other ecotourism opportunities. However, a major impediment to this is the historic-to-some, dilapidated-to-others Kinsol Trestle, which spans the Koksilah River just north of Shawnigan Lake. This gap in the trail is impassable, unsafe and in need of immediate attention.

Cowichan Bay, on the east side of the riding, is also rich in history and tradition. An abundance of salmon and shellfish make the waterfront the centre of activity during the annual spawn of the Cowichan and Koksilah rivers. On the highway you'll find the historic Whippletree Junction, a commercial area designed to take customers back to a simpler time. Cow Bay is also home to the famous South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club. Established in 1887, it is the last tennis club in Canada to still play on lawn.

The natural beauty and abundance of Malahat–Juan de Fuca is not limited to the Cowichan Valley, of course. Port Renfrew, at the mouth of the San Juan River, is the foot of the world-renowned West Coast Trail. I have committed to lose ten pounds so that my friend from Alberni-Qualicum can carry me on his back the length of the trail into his constituency in the town of Bamfield.

The Juan de Fuca Trail was created in the 1990s as a recreation area for locals and visitors to enjoy. French Creek, China Beach and other provincial parks in the Sooke area are highlights for anyone who is visiting the riding, and I encourage you to do so.

Similarly, surfing at Sombrio Beach attracts boarders from around the world. When I lived in Australia — I was doing my master's thesis there — I would go to Bondi Beach to do some surfing. They'd say: "Where are you from, mate?" I'd say: "I'm from Vancouver Island." They would say: "Do you ever surf Sombrio?" I said: "No, I haven't, and no, I won't." I've been there. The kids are good, boarders are plenty, and it's a contribution to the tourist economy in Sooke and regions around there.

A magnificent location, also, to look at would be Point No Point, or the Sheringham lighthouse in Shirley, and lastly, and most importantly to me, the newly created Sooke Potholes Regional Park. As a kid I used to go to the Sooke potholes and dive off the cliffs, and my children went there and wanted to dive off the cliffs, and I said: "No chance." My spouse, the great enabler, said: "Go ahead, dear. Your father's not watching." There they were, jumping off the cliffs.

It's a fantastic place, and I invite all members to take a trip to Sooke and visit the potholes next summer. We used to gauge our summer success on the number of times we were able to take a dip in the cool waters of the potholes. I now know that as an enshrined regional park, I will be able to spend my Julys and Augusts, well into the future, making my pilgrimages to the potholes.

Over the course of the campaign I made a pledge to the people of my region and constituency that I would work tirelessly and relentlessly to advance issues in their communities. I outlined some key objectives, and you'll all be aware that health care and education are foremost among those. I also focused a good deal of my attention on transportation infrastructure in the south Island.

Let's start with health care for a moment. It's easily the number-one issue facing our generation, and all of us in this House will have to work very, very hard over the next four years if we're going to be prepared for the bubble of baby-boomers wanting to access health care services into the next decade.

As our citizens age, the need for seniors care is increasing. In Sooke, particularly, community leaders have been seeking government commitments for extended care beds from VIHA and B.C. Housing for some time. This is not a spur-of-the-moment idea in Sooke. The Sooke Elderly Citizens Housing Society has been in existence since the 1960s. The Ayre Manor site now has 18 independent living units and there are plans for many, many more. Local government has waived development cost charges and other local taxes. Volunteers have donated time and labour. All of this is in aid of seeking some assistance from B.C. Housing, in particular, in a solid commitment to fund some of these beds.

Support for increased seniors housing is the highest priority I have in the community of Sooke, and dreams of a health campus and primary care and other health care facilities in that distant west coast community are also high on that priority list.

I have the honour of being the education critic for my party, and based on legislation tabled today, I suspect I will have a lot to say about that in the next couple of days. So I won't go on too long now, but I would like to mention one thing that is very important to me, my family and the people of Sooke, Langford and school district 62, and that is the urgent need for a new high school in our community.

My children are currently housed with 1,700 other students in a school built for 1,200. The situation is critical. School board plans are in place. Growth studies have been completed. Land acquisition is at hand.

What our growing community needs is for the provincial government to advance capital spending so that we can break ground earlier than the plan provides for. During the election campaign a Liberal candidate in the adjoining riding alleged to have extracted a commitment from the Premier to advance this project by one year, and I'm hopeful that the Minister of Finance and I will be able to have a discussion about that in the very near future.

Improved transit in Sooke, Langford and south Cowichan — very high priority for me. Linking the Cowichan and Victoria services is long overdue and will help reduce automobile traffic in our community. The growth in Langford over the past ten years has been nothing short of extraordinary. Every corner of that community is bustling with new subdivisions — thousands of houses in the east, thousands in the west, thousands in the north, thousands in the south. A vibrant and dynamic community led by a council that committed itself to growth and progress and perhaps has met the enemy of all growth, and that is chronic gridlock.

I know my colleagues from the city of Vancouver speak passionately about the important issues of transportation in the lower mainland. I believe that my colleagues are probably getting a little bit tired of me speaking about transportation issues in the South Island, but that's our job. That's why we're here: to advance issues of importance in our community. Nothing is more important in the South Island than addressing the growing transportation problems from Nanaimo, south.

As I said earlier, development cannot exceed the ability of the land to absorb change. That also means planning transportation before subdivisions are completed, not after. The time has arrived, I believe, for a serious assessment of rapid transit in the lower Island and the Western Communities of Victoria. The E&N rail corridor is an obvious starting point for commuter rail and rail service from south of Duncan into Langford and the downtown core. There is much work to be done, but a commitment from local governments and the province to an honest dialogue on this important matter is critical during this session of the Legislature. I'm ready to meet with the minister and his officials any time, anywhere, any place, to advance this cause, as are my colleagues from Esquimalt-Metchosin and Cowichan-Ladysmith.

You may have heard me speak — I know my colleagues have — about a certain portion of the highway in my community. That is the only portion of highway that connects the North Island to the South Island. I see the member from Comox here. He travels it regularly. I know he is as concerned about this issue as I am. As I say, my colleagues in caucus are also very much tired of me mentioning, but the Malahat drive is the single most important issue for me in this session of the Legislature.

I know the Minister of Transportation has begun a study. I'm very pleased by that. I spoke with him briefly in the corridor yesterday. He is committed to making that study as broadly based as possible so that we don't reduce our options but, in fact, expand upon our options.

I have no favoured position. I think it's important that I say that, based on the volume of mail, e-mail and telephone calls I've been getting on the question of the Malahat. There are a number of options available. I'm prepared to talk to my constituents about them, but I don't believe it's appropriate to rule issues out before we have a full costing and a full engineering analysis of what can and can't be done.

In the short term, of course, I want to appeal to commuters, transport companies and other road-users to slow down, obey posted limits, drive defensively and respect other drivers. Behaviour will solve some of our problems, but safety improvements are also critical. In the short term, I appeal to the Minister of Transportation to institute some safety measures like dividers at key points on the highway so that we can reduce accidents and save lives.

I have heard countless times during this short session about the dark decade of the '90s. I realize that members opposite are bound by their public affairs colleagues to spew that out from time to time, but I'm compelled to challenge some of that mythology here today while I have the opportunity, free from the heckling I'm sure will accompany my speeches in the future.

During the 1990s I was proud to have worked in the Premier's office, first as a policy analyst and later as chief of staff, helping implement what I believed at the time and continue to believe today was a positive agenda that was highlighted by such policies as hot lunch programs for inner-city schools; significant infrastructure developments like the Vancouver Island Highway project, which again, the member from Comox, I'm sure, is grateful for; comprehensive land use planning; the environmental protection act; the Forest Practices Code; the Columbia Basin Trust; the Nisga'a treaty; and many, many more issues that deserve more attention than they get in this House or in the media.

The annual growth during our time in government was over 3 percent. Real economic growth exceeded 3 percent in 1993, 1997, 1999 and 4.5 percent in the year 2000. The government of the day faced changes in the economy, as does the government today. The transition from resource dependence to a more diversified economy required tough choices, targeted investments and a commitment to see the projects through.

The decisions and policies of the NDP government of the day did not answer all of the problems of a softening export market in Asia or global restructuring, but it did get balanced budgets by the end of the decade and enormous growth in the service sector, particularly tourism, film and high technology.

While the economy grew, we invested in housing, social programs and built new infrastructure — new schools, new health facilities and new universities. You might think, Madam Speaker, listening to me talk now, that I was on the other side of the House, based on the

speeches we've heard about the past four years and the contributions and accomplishments of the Liberal government.

That's where I would like to focus my attention at this point, because there's not a great deal of difference between the people on this side of the House and the people on that side of the House. We were all elected to do the best we can for our community, but we can't get past this drivel. I heard the member for Burquitlam, yesterday or the day before, going on and on about "dark" and "shambles" — that British Columbia was in a shambles in the 1990s. Not true. Just not true.

Let's take that mythology, and let's put it in a little box and wrap it up and say: "Election rhetoric. Do not open until 2009." And let's spend our time in this Legislature tackling the real problems we face in our communities, the real issues that our constituents want to talk about. They don't want to hear about the dismal decade of the '90s, because they know that just ain't so. They don't want to hear every time a new statistic comes out and the public affairs bureau spins it out as the greatest thing that's ever happened in the history of British Columbia, because they don't believe that either.

I know the members opposite don't believe it. Why don't we all save ourselves a lot of trouble, take the rhetoric, wrap it up and bring it out four years from now? Let's spend our time in this Legislature talking about issues of substance, issues of reality, for the people we represent. One of those issues that I want to comment on is the SAFER program, which the Minister of Finance discussed in her minibudget. This is very good news for people in my community, particularly with respect to pad rentals in mobile home parks.

I have a number of mobile home parks in my community, and I know that citizens in my community are very happy to see that. I want to see the proof in the pudding, of course. I understand there are some issues around thresholds, and we'll have to work through that, but I know the member for Vancouver-Langara is going to be open and accessible if I find that her commitments in the budget aren't hitting the road in my community as she planned them to. I look forward to that discussion.

Let's go back again to the dismal decade of the 1990s just for a minute. Let's talk about the Tatshenshini Park in northern British Columbia, an absolute jewel and diamond in our midst, along with 345 other new protected areas and parks — and British Columbia again being the first jurisdiction in North America to reach the UN target of 12 percent of the land base protected for all time.

We expanded public transit; we invested in transportation. It was a decade of human growth and capital growth, regardless of what the PAB spinners will tell you. But while the government was investing in people and in the province, the federal government was yanking billions of dollars in transfer payments out of our budget, starving public education, starving public health at a point in history when the demand could not have been greater.

Was the decade perfect? Of course it wasn't. Was it dark? Was it dismal? Was it disastrous? Absolutely not, and I appeal to the members opposite. I appeal to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, whom I've talked to about this: leave the rhetoric in a box. Let's talk about the good things in 1990. Let's talk about the good things in 1995. Let's talk about the things we want to see in 2009. Let's not waste our time recreating history in a way that just ain't happening.

That was what the government inherited. You know, I'm reminded of Dickens. It depends, I guess, on who's making the speech: that it was the best of times, or it was the worst of times. My recollection is that it wasn't so bad, but maybe that's because we were on that side of the House at the time, and now we're on this side. The government on that side of the House inherited some very positive things from the 1990s. I want to touch on those for a moment.

Certainty on the land base. Land use planning in the 1990s established a framework so that growth could take place in resource communities from 2001 on.

J. Horgan: Yes, it did. Yes, it did, and you know it did. You should acknowledge that. Your constituents will be happy if you sit up and acknowledge for once that something good happened in the 1990s.

J. Horgan: There you go. Thank you very much. I was going to let the member for Langley heckle me because I let a word spit out when she was talking. But I don't see her here today, although I'm not supposed to acknowledge that. She owes me two now.

What was the first order of business of the Campbell government? Without a business plan, without any detailed review of the consequences, an $800 million tax break for corporations. Once the hole was blown in the budget and revenue lost forever, they began to cut important public services and increase taxes and fees for those who could least afford to pay it.

I've already said I'm going to leave my rhetoric in a box, so I want you to know that it's the last time you're going to hear me talk about massive tax breaks in the 2001-2005 period. But that doesn't absolve the Minister of Finance for shots about the $500 million she gave away just two weeks ago.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for your time. I want to thank members of the House for allowing me to speak today. I look forward to the next four years. Let's put the rhetoric in a box. Let's solve problems for the people in our province.

A. Horning: I welcome this opportunity to rise and represent the citizens of Kelowna–Lake Country. Before I proceed, I'd like to add my vote of confidence to the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley on his election as Speaker and also to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, my neighbour from Kelowna-Mission, on your election as Deputy Speaker. I also want to say congratulations to the new Assistant Deputy Speaker from Surrey–Green Timbers.

I'd also like to express my appreciation to the voters of Kelowna–Lake Country for putting their trust in me to represent them in the Legislature. Thank you to my campaign team and countless volunteers for all their hard work. Through their tireless efforts, I managed to win a majority of the votes cast. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge my campaign manager, Kjell Sundin, who has worked hard in the constituency for several years on behalf of our party.

We all know the importance of family, and I wouldn't be here today without the support of my wife Donna and my three children Rob, Brad and Sandra, and I can't leave out my energetic two-year-old grandson Austin. We all make sacrifices in public service, and families are no exception. To them I am most grateful.

Though I am new in this chamber, I've had the privilege of representing my community at the municipal and federal levels of government for the past 25 years. I look forward to working hard for my constituents and with the government and opposition to make Kelowna–Lake Country and B.C. better places to live. I was happy to hear that the budget addressed many of the needs and concerns of the citizens of my riding. It was a good news budget for Kelowna–Lake Country and a good news budget for all of B.C.

We in the central Okanagan are very fortunate to live in one of Canada's finest regions. I don't want to go into any bragging war with my fellow MLAs about who has the best riding, but to those of you who have never had the satisfying experience of visiting with us, I say welcome. Come and find out what everybody is talking about. For those of you who have had the privilege of visiting Kelowna–Lake Country, nothing more needs to be said.

I'm happy to share the dramatic changes that have taken place in the community, and I am happy to call Kelowna home for most of my life. My riding comprises half of the city of Kelowna, the municipality of Lake Country to the north and the vast rural region in between. As a former orchardist and businessman, I have watched my community grow from a small, isolated agricultural area to one of the most dramatic urban centres in the province. Although agriculture still remains an important industry, the central Okanagan today has an expanding economy and a diverse population.

We are a community undergoing a tremendous transition. In the past we were known mainly for apples and Ogopogo. Today we are known as a world-class destination famous for award-winning wineries, key resorts and golf courses, in addition to the attractions of our cultural and commercial amenities. We are grateful that the world wants to visit us and that many decide to stay. However, for us who live here, Kelowna–Lake Country is much more.

Today we look at the future with great optimism, to play our role in a challenging and changing world. These changes couldn't be possible without the dedication and hard work of my predecessors in this House, including people like Larry Chalmers, Cliff Serwa, Judi Tyabji and, most recently, John Weisbeck. Congratulations to them for a job well done.

For the past decade we have been building our reputation as a centre for high-tech companies. Through the Silicone Vineyard initiative, we have created an infrastructure to support the modern global community and information economy. Because we were recently ranked the most cost-effective place to do business in the Pacific Northwest, we have attracted international interest as a great place to do business. Most recently, we have become home to a growing call centre industry.

Our avionics industry, through the leadership of Barry Lapointe and Jim Rogers of Kelowna Flightcraft, has become a national and global leader in its field. Kelowna Flightcraft is a major player in our airplane conversions as well as being a Transport Canada–authorized repair facility. Through partnership programs between our high schools and BCIT, we are able to train students for an exciting career in this field.

We are now home to a world-class university with the recent opening of UBC Okanagan. We are also home to such recognizable names as Sun-Rype, Big White, Calona Wines, B.C. Tree Fruits and the Okanagan Golf Club group, to name just a few.

Research is being conducted in a wide variety of fields. We're working hard to earn our growing recognition as Canada's wine capital. The resource sector is rebounding, housing starts are up dramatically, commercial construction is booming, and retailers are thriving because of consumer confidence — a positive investment climate for fuelling growth.

Post-secondary opportunities have never been greater. In the past we had one of the highest unemployment rates in the province. Today it is one of the lowest. This impressive turnaround didn't happen by accident. Our government believes in providing the leadership so that individual initiatives can flourish and create employment. My riding has been built on its entrepreneurial spirit and the hard work of its citizens.

Kelowna was recently voted the third-best sports city in B.C., and for good reason. In recent years our community has become a premier place to host team tournaments that attract sports tourists. In addition to the dependable weather and natural amenities, we now can offer the infrastructure needed to host international and national events.

Kelowna is one of the first cities in Canada to host a triathlon. Today, 22 years later, we are still hosting Olympic-calibre triathlons, attracting thousands of

world-class athletes. I'm sure you are all familiar with the success of the Kelowna Rockets, who have appeared in the Memorial Cup in the last three years, winning it at home two years ago. As the current Western Hockey League champs, the Rockets are shooting for four in a row.

Our fans are fantastic here in Kelowna. Most recently Canada's best NHL players, led by Wayne Gretzky, chose Kelowna for their Olympic training camp. Prospera Place was packed for three days. In December of this year the best junior hockey players in the world will come to Kelowna for a series of exhibition games leading to the world championships.

The Okanagan Sun football team is celebrating 25 years of excellence. The team has won the B.C. championship 14 times and the Canadian Bowl in 2000. In addition, we have hosted several major curling, fastball, skiing, snowboarding, wakeboarding and swimming competitions, to name just a few.

Within a few days, official opening ceremonies will be held to welcome the public to a new $16.5 million Capital News Centre. It features two NHL-sized arenas, two indoor playing fields and an indoor running track, as well as several other features. The centre is the cornerstone of a multi-purpose recreational park which will also include an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The goal is to provide recreation as well as a world-class training facility. Sports tourism attracted $31 million to our local economy.

I know the skeptics will wonder why I'm so enthusiastic about sports. Well, as a senior-B men's fastball coach, our team won the B.C. western Canadian championships many times. As a snowmobile racer in the early '70s, I won the B.C. championship as a snowmobiler. I believe sports and recreation bring out the best in people.

That's why I'm encouraged by the Premier's goal to lead the way in North America for healthy living and physical fitness. Several members have stated the sacrifices we all make in public life. Because of these demands, we often don't have the time to take care of ourselves. I personally accept the Premier's challenge and would encourage all members and the public to embrace the healthy and active lifestyle. Among the many goals I have set for my public life, I have also set a personal one to get back into shape.

Not only is Kelowna–Lake Country earning a reputation as a sports centre, we have also worked hard to improve our cultural opportunities. Thanks to Prospera Place, our 6,500-seat multi-use facility that pioneered the concept of public-private partnerships, we have also been able to attract world-class entertainers such as Elton John, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan and Cher.

None of this would have been possible without the progressive leadership of Mayor Walter Gray and Kelowna City Council, which I'm proud to have served on. I wish the mayor and fellow councillors all the best in the upcoming elections, and I look forward to continuing to work with the new council and meeting the ever-increasing challenges of the cosmopolitan community.

Kelowna is celebrating its centennial year this year, and we look forward to another 100 years of progress. These include a runway extension of Kelowna's international airport, already one of the busiest in B.C.; developing a bypass through the treacherous stretch of Highway 97 at Woods Lake; and upgrading Highway 33, a main roadway serving the eastern interior.

As for the budget, the communities of Kelowna and Lake Country embrace the new prosperity it represents and are thankful for opportunities that have become available. Our citizens and youth no longer have to leave home to find work or enjoy the cultural benefits of a big city. The world is coming to us, and we say: "Welcome."

In many ways, my riding is a reflection of the renewal of prosperity experienced elsewhere in the province. In just a few years we have rebuilt our economy, revitalized industries and regained our role as a national leader. Since the recent recovery under our government's initiatives, the B.C. economy is Canada's leading performer, with predicted growth this year of 3.4 percent. We have balanced the budget and worked down the debt. We are getting our fiscal house in order, and recent polls have indicated the people of our province support our strategy.

This budget is just the first step in an ongoing process, and it's a terrific first step. Feedback on the budget has been positive in Kelowna–Lake Country, as it has been around the province. The people have told us they support our commitment to sound fiscal management with a record-setting surplus, record-setting debt reduction and targeted investment in programs and people to help maintain our positive momentum.

We are well on our way to achieving a goal of creating more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. I would like to share with my colleagues how the new-era vision of my government has impacted and benefited Kelowna–Lake Country.

I recently had the pleasure of attending the official opening of UBC Okanagan, and it was truly a historic occasion. By creating a new University of British Columbia campus in Kelowna, our students no longer have to leave home to get a world-class education. UBC is consistently ranked among the world's 50 best institutions, and we're proud to be part of that great heritage.

UBC Okanagan opened its doors in September to 3,500 students. Over this past summer major construction has expanded the arts and sciences building. Increased student residences will allow us to meet our goal for doubling enrolment over the next few years. Students will have the opportunity to pursue studies in eight facilities, including arts and science, creative and critical studies, education, engineering, management, nursing and social work.

For the first time, graduate studies will be offered for 500 students. UBC Okanagan will also benefit from the intensive research conducted by the Vancouver campus. All academic and student services buildings

are connected to a high-speed wireless network, the first and largest in the Okanagan.

Kelowna–Lake Country is already benefiting from the government's goal to provide 2,500 new post-secondary spaces around the province. This goal cannot be possible without a strong economy and sound fiscal management. We understand this is the beginning of something important — just as important as the newly expanded Okanagan College, which welcomes 4,000 students at its various campuses throughout the region. The college will offer more than 50 courses to train students to meet the demands of an expanding workforce.

Statistics indicate 44 percent of job openings in the next six years will require a college education. We are well prepared to meet the challenge. Both UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College will satisfy our students' requirements well into the future. The economic benefits cannot be overlooked. Both institutions are predicted to create a $700 million annual impact on our local economy.

Not to be overlooked is our government's commitment to building a new relationship with first nations. Part of the opening activities held at UBC Okanagan included a welcome ceremony hosted by the Okanagan Nation Alliance. Two agreements were signed at the ceremony. One involves UBCO's support for En'owkin Centre, a post-secondary institution devoted to indigenous studies. The second agreement will see an emphasis on more opportunities for enrolment of natives, combined research activities and programs on indigenous studies. To this end, the university and college announced $20,000 in annual bursaries and scholarships for aboriginal students.

Our government has recognized the need for reconciliation with first nations and the importance of education. As outlined in the budget, funding has increased to $1.8 million for 36 new projects that would help aboriginal students across B.C. pursue their post-secondary education and career goals.

One of our long-term goals is to increase access to higher education for aboriginal learners so that they have the opportunity to participate fully in B.C.'s growing economy. Since 2001 the Ministry of Advanced Education has provided almost $800 million to fund 150 aboriginal projects. These developments demonstrate how vision and leadership benefit communities and people throughout our province.

As I outlined, in the budget our government is committed to provide the funding to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in the country. The budget also outlined our government's goal to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

As I stated at the onset, the Central Okanagan was once a small, isolated farming community. I remember when produce and people were shipped across Okanagan Lake by boat. In addition to the distinguished MLAs I mentioned earlier, our community has sent two remarkable visionaries to Victoria who saw the full potential of our province. W.A.C. Bennett served as Premier for 20 years, the longest term of any Premier in the history of our province. He was followed by his son Bill, who was Premier for three terms, also a unique feat in modern political history. They understood the importance of transportation to our future success, not just for the Okanagan but for the province as a whole.

Opening up the Rogers Pass connected us to our neighbours to the east and provided access to markets for our products. Okanagan Lake Bridge was a major breakthrough that allowed us to reach out to the lower mainland and beyond. Most recently, the Coquihalla Highway had some of the same effects and provided a further boost for our region.

I'm happy to report today that our current government shares the vision of these two great Premiers. Construction is underway for the new William R. Bennett Bridge over Okanagan Lake. The current bridge, located on Highway 97 in Kelowna and almost 50 years old, is the most congested stretch of highway outside the lower mainland. The bridge accommodates an average of 46,000 vehicles per day, with peak summer flows exceeding 50,000.

The Bennett Bridge is scheduled to open in 2008, and within a few years, more than 69,000 vehicles are expected to use it every day. It has become a centrepiece of our region. Transportation is the backbone of our economic growth, and the William R. Bennett Bridge will keep trade, tourists and local traffic flowing. This is another example of our government's commitment to investment in infrastructure in regional economies.

Because of these investments, Kelowna–Lake Country has gone from double-digit unemployment to double-digit growth. We will soon be planning for a second crossing to meet demands in the long term. The Bennett Bridge would not have been possible without the partnership of the Westbank first nation, and I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of chief Robert Louie and his council and thank him for his leadership.

We sense a new era of reconciliation with first nations, and this is a prime example of what we can accomplish through a shared vision. That's why I'm pleased to see the Finance Minister make a major commitment in the budget to establish the First Nations New Relationship fund. Because of the sound economic strategies already mentioned, surplus funds have been targeted for this important initiative. Of this new money, $100 million has been allocated to further benefit aboriginal peoples in B.C.

Our government believes in negotiation, not litigation. Far too often in the past, governments met our aboriginals in the courtroom. Now we choose to meet around the negotiating table as partners in the prosperity of our province. I look forward to working with the first nations in my area on many other projects in the future.

Because of several reasons I've already mentioned, Kelowna–Lake Country has become a popular retire

ment centre, attracting seniors from all over Canada as well as the world. I'm pleased that the budget speech recognized the importance to our society of our seniors and their contribution over the years. In fact, I'm a senior myself. Shortly after being elected, I had the pleasure to attend the sod-turning for an assisted-living housing complex in Lake Country. The Blue Heron Villa will provide seniors with a new 25-unit complex. This was made possible by the determination of the Lake Country Senior Housing Society in partnership with government and Interior Health.

Seniors want their independence, and assisted living is now an option and a reality. The Blue Heron Villa is just a start of our commitment to create 5,000 residential assisted-living beds throughout B.C. by 2008. Our seniors, often on fixed incomes, are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. They have expressed their gratefulness for the reinstatement of the seniors supplement, particularly with the increase in their monthly payments.

Thanks to responsible management of the budget, we are able to invest $242 million over the next three years to improve the lives of our seniors. The seniors in Kelowna–Lake Country are grateful for the renewal of the seniors supplement to provide a monthly benefit for approximately 40,000 lower-income seniors. The budget doubles the annual funding for SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, and for the first time, SAFER coverage has been expanded to include seniors who own manufactured homes and pay monthly pad rents.

It is indeed a good-news budget. Much interest and enthusiasm have also been expressed in my riding on the B.C. council on aging, and I look forward to working with it to better the lives of our seniors.

At the outset, I mentioned the entrepreneurial spirit that has come to define my constituency. We all know that business drives the economy, produces the work and provides the wealth for all of our citizens. Far too often in the past, economic slumps have occurred due to lack of understanding by some of this fundamental fact. Business works for B.C. That's why we introduced new tax measures to enhance B.C.'s competitiveness.

Since day one, this government has worked to encourage growth as a series of measures to keep B.C. competitive, from income tax cuts across the board to cutting red tape by one-third to targeted investments in the key economic sectors. The February budget introduced a series of tax reductions for individuals and families, in particular those with low incomes.

Today I'm happy to support the move to reduce the general corporation tax rates to 12 percent from 13.5 percent. This is 4½ points lower than it was when the government was formed in 2001. In addition, I fully endorse the tax incentive for the international commercialization of life science patents to build on B.C.'s growing stature as a centre for biotechnology, research and development.

While there is much to be thankful for, we also share the sadness experienced by other communities as a result of drug abuse, particularly the devastation caused by crystal meth. No community is spared this rampant problem. I recently had a single mom come into my office with her sad story about her 13-year-old daughter. The daughter had discovered crystal meth, teamed up with an older boyfriend and taken to the streets to live a desperate life of drugs and dread.

The mother was at her wits' end. She had her daughter enter a volunteer program, but she soon ran away, with the mother not knowing her whereabouts. As a last resort to save the life of her daughter, she is considering moving to Alberta, which has a mandatory drug treatment program for youth.

Madam Speaker, I have studied this approach and think it might prove to be a model that should be considered here in B.C. Desperate situations require desperate measures. Sometimes the parents' love isn't enough to combat the addiction of drugs, particularly when it comes to crystal meth. While none of us wants to interfere with anyone's rights, parental intervention seems to be a commonsense approach. At a recent forum, a mother reported that she was happy when her son finally turned 19, because then the courts would sentence him to mandatory drug treatment. What about our youth? They need our help too. No community is immune. We must all work hard together to solve this devastating social problem.

I would be remiss not to mention the tragedy of Firestorm 2003. The forest fire resulted in mass destruction and the largest evacuation in Canadian history, but as bad as it was, we didn't suffer the loss of one human life. Special thanks have to go out to our heroes, the front-line firefighters led by Chief Gerry Zimmerman. Thanks to them and other first responders, we were spared the worst.

Today I'd like to make another commitment. It is my goal to see that we can provide our province's firefighters with the protection they deserve. Far too often, firefighters are exposed to dangers none of us will ever experience. As a result, they suffer more than anyone should, the main concern being cancer. At present there is nothing to prevent it. Firefighters diagnosed with cancer are not covered under workers compensation. They have no recourse for this deadly disease, which could be the result of performing their duties. We owe it to them to help. I'm prepared to do what I can to make sure they are protected and provided for.

In conclusion, it is my privilege and honour to support my government's budget. Our economic house is in order, and the future looks bright not just for Kelowna–Lake Country and Kelowna-Mission but for B.C. as a whole. I look forward to working with our members to ensure we continue to prosper and enjoy life in Canada's greatest province.

K. Conroy: It's truly an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity to give my first speech as my response to the budget speech in this assembly as the MLA for the constituency of West Kootenay–Boundary.

First of all, though, I would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election. As I've known you over the years, I've always enjoyed your enthusiasm for challenges, and I look forward to that continuing in your new role as you preside over this Legislature.

I also would like to recognize the legislative work in this assembly of Mr. Sandy Santori, the former MLA of West Kootenay–Boundary who served prior to his retirement as Minister of Government Services and Minister of State for Resort Development. I wish him well in his new career as general manager for the Rossland-Trail Country Club. Also, I would like to thank the many constituents who supported me and all who worked hard to get me to Victoria to represent them in this House. That support is indeed humbling.

Recognition also goes to the incredible group of people, led by our president Brett Rakuson, who make up the executive for our local constituency association and the amazing team they pulled together to win this seat. Thank you to all of you.

In particular, I'd like to thank my family for their support of my career. Our four children: Jennifer; Wyllie; Sasha, who's with us today; and Ben. Their partners, as well as our three grandchildren Dara, Alexia, Eric, and one to arrive any day — hopefully, not today. My in-laws Ed and Irene Conroy, and indeed, the entire family, of which there are far too many to name.

I'd like to give special thanks to my parents Ben and Ingeborg Thor-Larsen. They are Danish immigrants who came to this country in the early '50s. They raised us with good, strong socialist principles, and that has boded well over my 47 years and will continue to in my reflections in this House.

Last but certainly not least, I want to recognize Ed Conroy — my husband and the former Member of the Legislative Assembly for Rossland-Trail, which became West Kootenay–Boundary in 2001 — for a number of things, including his work in this Legislature from 1991 to 2001. Our constituency still benefits today from the large list of those accomplishments.

I personally want to thank him for his wisdom, guidance and support in my journey to this destination. Fifteen years ago Ed and I debated who would run for the nomination at the time, and it was decided that for a number of reasons he would enter the race. It was a decision that turned out well for both of us, our family and the constituency. Today I'm pleased and honoured to once again bring the Conroy name to the halls of the Legislature.

There are a number of reasons that I decided to run in this election, reasons that I will touch on as I speak today. I represent an amazing constituency with a beautiful geographical diversity. I represent a number of municipalities, which stretch north from Shoreacres and south to the American border, east from the Beaver Valley and west to the top of the Anarchist summit on one side and the Big White ski hill on the other. That's a total of five mountain summits, numerous rivers and lakes, and a lot of kilometres to cover. Within that, there are five very different city councils; four village councils; 21 unincorporated communities, which all are communities unto themselves, with two regional districts and three different school boards. Some 40 percent of the constituents who don't speak English in my constituency speak Russian, and approximately 17 percent speak Italian.

During the past year I have travelled throughout the entire constituency and listened to the concerns, the issues and the things that make the people who live in West Kootenay–Boundary proud, angry and sad. The toughest stories were the health care stories and, most profoundly, the stories from seniors. Seniors in our area have been hit and hit hard over the last four years, and the funding for seniors announced in the budget speech doesn't even begin to make up those past four years of cuts.

I listened to the remaining residents in a residential care facility talk about the stress of being told that their facility had to be closed, as it was old and outdated. When? They weren't told, only that it had to be soon. And for what? The rumour was so that the health authority could turn the facility into offices for other health services.

This facility has been their home for a number of years. They knew that the place wasn't as fancy as some of the new places being built, but it was home. It was clean, and it was well-maintained. The staff there were great. All the residents loved the place, and not one of them wanted to move. The food was good, cooked right there in the kitchen, and their families were close by. One senior gentleman looked at me with tears in his eyes and said: "Sweetheart, they are waiting for us to die so they can shut this place down." Well, the few remaining residents didn't pass away, so they were moved to other facilities — some in their home communities and some not. No senior in this province deserves that.

No seniors in B.C. deserve to be put on wait-lists for residential care because the beds are being shut down before other beds are being built. Seniors don't deserve to be left in hospitals, in acute care beds waiting for long-term care beds, and they don't want to be there. They don't want to be in a hospital setting where the staff are trained in acute care and not in geriatric care. They want to be in a homelike setting, and they deserve it.

Every day of the election and the days running up to it this spring, I would continually hear stories throughout our region of seniors who were not getting the care and support they should. Our parents and grandparents, who made this province what it is today, who contributed to the economy…. Now, when they need residential care, there are not enough beds or even enough services to keep them at home.

Those gut-wrenching stories and the lack of commitment to seniors over the last four years was one of the reasons I ran for office and the reason I was honoured to be named the seniors' critic. After four years of being ignored, seniors in this province deserve a voice in the Legislature, a voice to point out that once

again the budget mentions beds for seniors but no commitment to the much-needed long-term care beds. Just another promise that was the same promise made four years ago and wasn't kept.

Not only has our area lost long-term care beds and supports to seniors, the health authority seems to be proud of it — that it has fewer long-term care beds than it did in 2002. Let me explain. The standard set for 2002 was to have a target capacity of 75 beds for every 1,000 seniors over 75 in urban communities, and 82.5 in rural. In '04 and '05, the health authority numbers actually dropped to 67.8 beds per 1,000, and by 2006 those numbers drop again to 65.4 beds for a thousand seniors over the age of 75.

The sad thing is that this isn't seen as a concern, but in fact, it is celebrated as a milestone. Now the province is working to create other options to long-term care such as assisted living and supportive housing, but the reality is that as much as those options are needed, the need for long-term care beds is greater.

Actually, in our region health care services for all constituents have been cut. Hospitals have been closed and services within hospitals downsized. No one in our area has expectations of services that are available in the large urban areas such as Vancouver, but what we do expect is that when there is a regional hospital, it is treated as such and people can access care when they need it. The sad reality is that it is hard to find anywhere in the budget where this situation will be helped.

What's happening to young people in our region is another reason I decided to run. Drug and alcohol abuse is as much as issue in our area as in any other part of this province. Crystal meth is on the streets in Rossland and Castlegar, and grow ops are in Greenwood and Fruitvale. The only difference is that it is such a big impact when the communities being affected are so small. Services to youth have been cut throughout the region, and some have turned to crime to pay for their habits.

What has also become difficult for the municipalities is the cuts to police services and closures of courthouses. Now, for instance, to even get a search warrant in Castlegar, a police officer has to fax his information to an office in the lower mainland. This is inefficient and results in fewer opportunities to cut back on crime. If you are a youth in our area with drug and alcohol problems or troubles with the law you need services and support to get back on your feet — preventative solutions, not punitive ones. The budget talks about more policing but not more preventative programs. This is what the province needs.

What has also become an exodus in our area in the last four years has been that of our young people moving to Alberta. I listened with interest last week to the member opposite speak about a family that had returned to the Island from Alberta. Well, I can tell the House that, in fact, the opposite is very true in my constituency. Our own son Ben had to leave this province. Two years ago he graduated from the pre-apprenticeship training program at Selkirk College. He could not get a job anywhere in B.C., and he tried. No one was hiring apprentices. He left to Calgary, where some friends had gone. There he quickly got work and a guarantee of support to complete his apprenticeship. Companies have come to him with job offers, all with good wages, benefits and a commitment to his education.

When he is finished next year, he will have a Red Seal interprovincial ticket as a fully qualified millwright. He will be able to work anywhere in Canada. The good news for me and for our family about Ben is that he's coming back to B.C. The Kootenays are home, and when he gets his millwright, he's going to come back and buy land there. The bad news is the number of young people from our area who will not be back — who are staying in Alberta, where they got their training and jobs as tradespersons.

We must stop this exodus of our young people and reinstate an apprenticeship program that is so desperately needed in this province. We have a crisis looming in skilled tradespersons. There have been over 40 percent fewer apprentices completing training programs since 2001. We need to train our young people now. It's too late for our son. Let's not make it too late for the young people in high school today.

In my past lives I have had a number of employment experiences that have shaped who I am. My first serious employment was in our local pulp mill. I was the first female to work in the actual mill — in the steam plant — and I became a steam engineer, one of the first women in B.C. to do so.

This summer I was pleased to see a number of young women working in the mill as summer students, who have amenities like showers and washrooms to access after my tenure. Those of you who've worked in industry will understand when I say I had to lock out washrooms and showers to utilize them, but I lobbied hard to have them built before I left, and it was done.

Although this was a great job with good union wages and benefits negotiated by the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, I decided to pursue my passion: working with children. As an early childhood educator I worked in a number of different roles until becoming the executive director of Kootenay Columbia Child Care Society and now Kootenay Family Place, the largest provider of children and family services in the West Kootenays. In that work I have become a staunch advocate for licensed quality services for the children in their early years, support to their families and decent wages and working conditions for the dedicated people who work in this sector.

In 2001 we were so close, so very close to finally implementing a system of child care in this province, one that was accountable and affordable, with parents paying a daily set rate. This government cancelled that program and began a four-year program of ABC, anything but child care. There was funding, and plenty of it, coming from the federal government for the early-years programs, funds that could have been utilized for child care but instead were put into project funding,

Do these programs need funding? Of course, but not at the cost of other programs. It is my understanding that this government was even chastised by the federal government for not spending their entire allocation on early-years funding. The government came up with a wonderful concept — and I use the term facetiously — of OTO. One-time-only funding — grants for playgrounds, training and equipment. This is all very well and good and much needed, but the reality is that we need a system of ongoing operating funds so that this sector is not in a bust-and-boom cycle, not at the whim of whatever government decides to make their favourite spending target of the day — something this government has never done with child care.

It is time to accept that we are in the 21st century. Moms and dads work, and in order to do that, they need good-quality licensed child care for their children. All children deserve good-quality early childhood education, not just those whose parents are working. Studies show — in fact, I would submit that this is the most-studied sector in the country — that all children benefit from good-quality early childhood education. Even the Vancouver Board of Trade — not really known as a bastion of socialist concepts — supports more funding to early childhood education.

It is my hope that the time has come for all members of this House to accept the facts and move on, fund the sector appropriately and ensure that we have a system in this province we can be proud of, a system that the federal government is putting forth along with advocates in this sector — that of QUAD: quality, universal, affordable and developmentally appropriate services for young children in this province. The announcement last week of the contract signed with the federal government is a step in that direction, and this side of the House will be watching closely to make sure that the funding is utilized as intended and that children, families and caregivers are given the attention they so finely deserve.

I listened with interest to one of the members opposite speaking of mining in this province, and yes, this side of the House is supportive of mining that is environmentally sound — also mining that is not done against the wishes of an entire community. An example of that in my constituency is the community of Rock Creek. There's a mining company there that has come in and done exploratory digging on a beautiful ranch without the permission of the owner. And why? Because they can. The community does not want this mine to continue, and neither does the rancher. However, the mining company continues to push to establish this mine, and the government does not seem able to listen to the needs of the people of Rock Creek.

Christina Lake is another example of a community that is struggling to have its voice heard, a voice that is overwhelmingly saying, "No, we don't want our pristine, beautiful Cascade Falls dammed" — a potential for a small dam built and the incredible falls lost to generations to come. The residents of this community are working hard to try to get their voices heard, and we must support them to ensure they maintain their community with its beautiful options for tourists and locals alike.

It is my goal to be a voice for the people of West Kootenay–Boundary, to advocate on their behalf and work hard to ensure their needs are met, whether those needs are in health care, education, environmental, community-specific or any other areas. I look forward to working in the new spirit of cooperation in this House, to ensure the constituents of West Kootenay–Boundary are once again represented as they were in the '90s — representation that benefits all of B.C. When the interior is part of a vibrant, environmentally sound economy where everyone matters, the entire province benefits.

R. Hawes: It's a real pleasure to stand today and speak in favour of this budget, which I think for British Columbia is extremely good news.

Mr. Speaker, before I make a few brief remarks, like all the others before me, I would like to congratulate you on your election. I'd like to congratulate all members of the House on their election. I'd also like to take a minute to just thank our colleagues that served with us for the past four years that are no longer with us — both those that ran and were defeated and those that chose not to run again. The last four years was a difficult time. There were some tough decisions, and frankly, they're missed by all of us that served with them for the past four years. I'd also like to thank the volunteers that worked during the election to help me get elected to represent my community again.

To the members opposite, over the next few weeks, months, you're going to grow to know us and then you're going to grow to love us. Frankly, as you grow to love us, you're going to have a tremendous urge to move over and join with us. I have to caution you that you should resist the urge, because the folks that elected you expect you to be in opposition and to oppose, even though I know for most of you, it's going to be very difficult. As you start seeing the rationale, the good purpose behind what we're doing, and as you grow to get an education in good government, you are going to feel that urge to join with us.

But I also know you're going to have to continue to oppose. That's the nature of opposition. Sometimes you will speak against things that privately you're going to go home and wish your party had brought forward. I know it's going to be difficult for the members opposite to resist that temptation, but I would urge them to do so.

I'm thinking of what the member from Malahat-Metchosin spoke of earlier. He mentioned some of the things about what we have called often the dark decade, and he's urged us not to use that term. I guess we'll call it the dim decade then. During that period of

time, during the ten years that the previous government was in power — that's one of the reasons that I'm here today — people were leaving in droves, and I hear how people have been leaving since 2001. Well, the facts actually belie that. The facts are that people are coming back, and they're coming back in big numbers. We have huge, huge new jobs. We are now employing more people in this province than ever before.

I listened to what the member from Malahat-Metchosin said about the Tatshenshini park. That was one of the things he spoke about — that he was very proud about the NDP putting forward in the 1990s. When I think about the Tatshenshini park…. Parks are great, and the Tatshenshini park is wonderful, but I think about Windy Craggy. I think about the investment that a private company made in exploration in that area, invited by the government of the day, only to have it completely wiped out — turned into a park and not one penny in compensation.

Now, I know a lot of people in the mining industry. I know the shockwaves that that sent through the mining industry internationally, and I know it destroyed mining in this province — investment in exploration — for the entire time that the previous government was in power. It has taken us a great deal of work to restore that confidence, which is now back. The mining industry, happily, is back, is investing and is extremely pleased to do so under our present government. I know they live in constant dread that we might not be there sometime in the future. I think most people in the province live in that same dread.

I want to speak positively about the budget. I want to also talk about — just from a high level — first, what we have been able to accomplish in my own riding, in Maple Ridge–Mission. Since 2001 we have made sizeable investments in transportation, not just in my riding but right across the province. In my riding, we've rebuilt Highway 7, the Lougheed Highway, which runs between Maple Ridge and Mission. That project is underway right now — a tremendous, tremendous improvement in moving people back and forth from Maple Ridge and, most importantly, a tremendous safety improvement.

Highway 11 between Abbotsford and Mission has been a bottleneck for years, and for years and years, it was promised that we would see four-laning. As mayor in my community of Mission for almost a decade, I worked with the mayor of Abbotsford trying to get that highway upgraded, to no avail. On our election in 2001, work began, and that highway is now completed. There's a small stretch, very small, left to be done that wasn't previously engineered. That is now finished, and the work is underway. The entire stretch will be four-laned, probably, early in the next year.

We are building in Mission the Cedar Connector, funded by infrastructure money. Two million dollars went in to help the community build a $6 million project that the whole city looked for, for decades. It's going to be the major intersection and major thoroughfare through the community of Mission. It's now three-quarters of the way finished. By the end of the year, the project will be finished, funded because we were able to turn the government around and create the kind of wealth the government needs to make these sorts of investments.

Previous speakers from the opposition have talked about the tax cuts. I don't know how many of them have run businesses, but I do know this: businesses were leaving this province in droves because we were not competitive. Today we have the lowest tax rate in Canada in the lowest two tax brackets. We are among the lowest in Canada in all brackets, and businesses understand, first and foremost, our move to cut taxes, and they understand our confidence in business.

That is bringing them back in big numbers, and they are making huge investments in this province, something that was not happening in the 1990s. Perhaps the members opposite think that's some kind of a statistical anomaly, but all of the statistics point to the terrible, terrible condition our province was in, financially, through the 1990s.

I just want to talk at a very high level about the great goals for a golden decade. Some members opposite have decried that as well. One is saying it sounded like something out of Chairman Mao's book. Well, the facts are that if you take a look at the goals….

R. Hawes: I'm not sure which ones the member opposite, or any of the members opposite, could say aren't worthwhile pursuing. For the edification of the members opposite, I want them to understand that when you run a business, you start by making a plan. Now, I know — I watched through the 1990s — the NDP method was what I call edge-of-the-page budgeting. You plan for 12 months, and when you hit the end of that 12 months, everything falls off, because you've got no plan for the next year. So now you've got to build another plan for the following year.

We, on the other hand, have now got three-year service plans for every ministry. Everything that we plan to do is first laid out and then costed in a three-year budget cycle. That's how business runs if it's going to be successful. That's now how government runs, and it's a big change from what was happening in the 1990s.

I'm very proud of the fact that we are laying out goals that I think are very, very…. They're a high level. They're tough to achieve, yet all of our service plans point the way to how we will achieve those goals. Then all of those are costed out in a balanced budget, which now, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the Auditor General, he will tell you is the most transparent budgeting process in all of Canada.

I just want to talk briefly about one of the goals, and that's to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. I want to just hone in on a small part of that, and that's the movement of goods and services through the lower mainland, through the ports and through Prince Rupert. The gateway project in the

lower mainland is what's going to open up the whole lower mainland for the movement of goods and services that today…. If you live in the lower mainland, you know how bottlenecked it is.

The twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. In my riding, the construction of the Pitt River Bridge — a high-level bridge in Pitt River to open up the terrible snarls that happen there — is a huge advance, only possible because we're building an economy that's strong and sustainable.

Everyone who lives in the lower mainland understands what gridlock looks like. They all understand, if they've driven into Vancouver during rush hour, just how bad the situation is, and it's getting worse and worse. We hear those who would oppose any kind of a move to improve that say: "Oh, all you'll do is put more cars on the road." Well, the fact is, more and more people are moving to the lower mainland. More and more people are coming to British Columbia, and they're coming because this is the place to be.

If you're going to invest money, particularly, it is the safest haven for your money anywhere in this country. The Investment Dealers of Canada certainly will tell us that, and have told us that. We are becoming an international haven for money. Investors internationally are looking at us as the place to invest. That means we are going to have to open this province up for the movement of goods and services, particularly as we become the Pacific gateway and as we open business into Asia, which we are now working extremely hard to do.

This government is absolutely dedicated to ensuring that, first and foremost, we capitalize on the emerging economy in China and in Asia, and secondly, ensuring that once the trade that emerges from that union arrives here, we are going to be able to move it. The gateway project — billions of dollars' worth of investment in highway infrastructure — is what is going to solve the problems of moving goods in the lower mainland and through the Prince Rupert port. I'm extremely pleased and proud that this government has paid such attention to that after ten years of neglect in our road system and our infrastructure system.

I also know that my colleagues from the north are pushing — I think they call it Highway 37 — to run hydro up Highway 37 so that we can open up more of the north and power some big projects in the north. I know many people in our caucus support that, and we will be working extremely hard to do that. We also understand that opening the north is the key to the future prosperity of this province. That's where the resources are.

While parks are extremely important and we need to pursue parks, I think we also have to ensure that people have a place to work, that they can work for decent wages. The mining industry has over $90,000 as annual wages, as opposed to the tourist industry, which is not much over minimum wage. I know what supports families, and it is growing an economy with investment from the private sector. We understand that. We're working to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I know that we have a very important vote coming. I've got a lot more that I could say, but I'm just happy to have been able to say a few things about the budget, the direction that our government is going and the pride that I have in my colleagues for supporting the free enterprise route to a highly prosperous province.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Hon. members, the motion before you is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House do recess until 6:35, at which time, for the information of members, Committee A will be convening as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 2, and for the information of members, in Committee A — the little House — I call the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

Bill 2 implements two revenue measures included with the September budget update. The measures will improve British Columbia's competitiveness as a choice location for business investment and job creation, and will retain and build on the success of our life sciences sectors.

British Columbia must have a competitive tax system to secure the investment opportunities and jobs that British Columbians deserve. Our strong economy has allowed us to provide more support for our seniors who built this province and for first nations to ensure they are able to share in our success. If we want these opportunities and choices to continue, we need to ensure that our tax system remains competitive.

Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act to reduce British Columbia's general corporate income tax rate from 13.5 percent to 12 percent, the third lowest in Canada. This change will increase investment opportunities in all sectors and across all regions of this province.

British Columbia is also a choice location for companies to conduct research and development, and it has a burgeoning biotech and life sciences sector. To ensure the province reaps the full benefits of this research and development, it only makes sense to create an environment that allows these companies to commercialize their inventions right here in British Columbia.

To help achieve this objective, Bill 2 amends the International Financial Activity Act to provide partial refunds of corporate income taxes paid on income derived from the international commercialization of certain patents. The refunds are limited to 75 percent of taxes paid up to an annual limit of $8 million per taxpayer or associated group of taxpayers. The government intends to limit eligibility to life science patents, which are developed and commercialized across many sectors of our economy from forestry through agriculture, mining and health care.

J. Kwan: I rise to debate in second reading of Bill 2. As the minister has stated, the act does provide for a corporate income tax reduction from 13.5 percent to 12 percent. In addition to that, it also provides for a targeted tax cut, if you will, in a specific sector of the industry — namely, the biotech and life sciences area.

I have already stated that it is important to ensure that our economy continues to grow. There's no doubt about that. It is also important, though, given that the government and this minister have the opportunity to look at providing for services in areas this government has cut over the last four years, which have impacted British Columbians in significant ways.

The election campaign. During that time many of us were out in the community, and many of us talked to different individuals about what their thoughts were, what issues were facing politicians and, more specifically, on the question around priorities: what are the priorities of British Columbians? The election, I heard from the public, centred around services that are needed for British Columbians, services that were eliminated by this government over the last four years. Nowhere on the horizon did I hear a call from the public for corporate income tax cuts — nowhere. As identified, since the introduction of the minibudget, even the business community itself had to admit that they were surprised by this measure.

The minister will say that this was and is necessary because the government wants to be competitive on the economic front. But how is it that the business community itself is saying that what the government should do and needs to do is focus on other areas? I know that the government side will say: "Well, you're in opposition. You, of course, find all the reasons why the government should not do this."

I thought to myself that maybe what we should do, then, is just take a moment and go back and review what the government members might have said just prior to the last election. I went back and did some research and looked in the computer, and I found the most recent Report on the 2005 Budget Consultation Process — which is a process we will soon embark on with the Finance Committee — albeit that consultation focused on the 2005 budget.

Having said that, the minibudget that was tabled by this minister had substantively no change to what was tabled in February. The arguments that were forwarded through that budget consultation process still apply.

Let me just go into this document and see what it says. By way of background, I just want to highlight that in total over 1,800 British Columbians participated during the month-long public consultations. There were 244 oral presentations, 220 written submissions and 1,335 on-line responses — by far the largest number of responses to any budget consultation process.

Two themes emerged. Yes, one related to the public's response to the government's fiscal plan, but the other proposed a shift to social spending. Let me just put on the record what that report said. According to the report, during the public consultation process, the public said there was the need for more resources for people in need. Members of the accounting and legal

professions, the labour unions, community agencies and individual citizens all agreed that a portion of the forecast surpluses should be targeted to enhancing services and income supports for the province's most disadvantaged citizens, especially children, at-risk youth and vulnerable adults.

Here's an example of what they had to say, from the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia: "British Columbia has a history of providing for our most disadvantaged citizens, especially those on fixed incomes or living below the poverty line. A strong case can be made that long-term economic improvements can result from enhanced social programs."

It's not me who said that. It is the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, to be clear. Let me just put on record what the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia branch, said: "We recommend that where government revenue growth and fiscal management allow for the review of spending priorities, spending aimed at safeguarding the poorest and most marginalized in a society be given priority." They didn't say corporate income tax should be the first priority and the most important priority for government. In fact, they said quite the opposite. Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker?

Then let's go to a community organization — and you wonder what they have to say — the Coastal Family Resource Coalition. They say this: "We want government to put these surplus dollars into human services that are effective, community-based, and based on current research and best practices." Not corporate tax cuts.

Then the report goes on to say: "What are the public's priorities for future budgets?" That was the key question. So, the question was put to the public, and the public responded. As I said, overwhelmingly through this process the largest number of people responded. They said — and I quote from the report: "Improving or expanding health care. Improving or expanding K-to-12 education. Investing more money in post-secondary education and skills training. Spending on other provincial services. Reducing tax further in specific areas." Nothing about a general corporate tax cut. Then they did also say: "Paying down the debt."

Out of this entire list that the public has said to the government's own Finance Committee — on the budget consultation process around future budgets — nowhere in the document did it say that the government should come forward with a corporate tax cut, by far the most dollars spent in terms of new items tabled post-election by the Minister of Finance.

Interestingly, we're now debating the education issue. Let me just elaborate on the issues around education for a few moments. Class size was a top-priority issue that was raised by members of the public to the attention of the committee. The Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce said this: "In our view, class sizes need to be limited at all levels so that the students can receive individual attention from the teachers."

That's the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. I just want to be clear so that there's no mistake. It's not just the educators and parents who call for that. Members of the business community recognize the importance of that. Do we see that in the government's budget — in targeting class size in this minibudget? No, we don't. We don't. We see the government bringing forward a tax cut — a corporate tax cut that nobody asked for.

We see, in this report, the public asking for more support services for students with special needs. Do we see that with this piece of legislation, with the government's focus, with the new Minister of Finance's focus in the minibudget post-election? No, we don't. The public asked for skills training in high school — that there needs to be a focus and more investment in the areas of skills training in high schools.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce says: "There is a significant stigma attached to skills training in high schools. The B.C. Chamber recommends that the government invest the necessary resources to develop a strategic program for schools aimed at encouraging skills training and apprenticeships as a viable alternative to academic studies."

Where in this bill is the focus around skills training placed? Where in the budget, as the business community had called for, is skills training placed? I'm sad to say nowhere.

Most recently I met with the Business Council myself and asked them what they thought the priorities were. I recently also met with the Mining Association, and they shared their views with me. You know what? One of their concerns is around skills training and the apprenticeship program. They say that the most important thing the government needs to do, in focusing on and ensuring that the economy continues to grow, is have the skilled workers in place.

Yet you look at this budget, and is the government targeting dollars in their apprenticeship program — increased dollars that are desperately needed not only to ensure that individuals have the opportunities to maximize the potential in that field but also to ensure that the economy grows and has the opportunities to grow, to have the skilled labour force in place? The answer is no.

The government seems to think that targeted tax cuts will produce the skilled labour force that we need. If we don't train the people in the sector, where are the workers going to come from? The minister might say: "Well, they're all going to come back from somewhere else." What about the people in our province here now? Shouldn't we be investing in them to ensure that they have the opportunity?

The Business Council, in their submission to the Finance Committee, said: "Reinstitute a modest system of needs-based grants for low-income students enrolled in post-secondary institutions to operate alongside existing student loan programs." They go on to say: "Explore the option of a new refundable tax credit to promote training of apprentices and potentially for

other skilled workers in fields where labour shortages are forecast in selected industrial, construction and other trades."

That's what they said. Even in their own document, they didn't ask for a general corporate tax cut. They were very specific in saying the areas in which the government should invest resources, and the government failed to listen — even to the business community.

Instead we have a bill before us that will, this year, cut corporate taxes to the tune of $71 million and, on an ongoing basis thereafter, to the tune of $143 million. Why didn't the government take some of that money and invest it in the critical areas that will help grow the economy, which the business sector themselves have said is essential for the economic health of this province?

The question on access to post-secondary education…. This government promised that they would bring in legislation to cap the tuition fees. We haven't seen anything like that yet. Having said that, of course, the Premier when he was in opposition said that he actually supported the tuition fee freeze. But as soon as they got in government, not only did they lift the tuition fee freeze, but they allowed for tuition to skyrocket — in some cases, an increase of some 300 percent. How about that? Who do you know who could afford to go to university at that rate?

I've heard from a lot of people, a lot of students who are struggling. Some have told me that they couldn't complete their program because they could not pay for the tuition fees. But that's access in Liberal terms — access to post-secondary education. I guess that's access for those who have the ability to pay, and never mind those who cannot. Would a corporate tax cut help those students gain access to higher education, which we know is the best investment that we could make for the economy and for individual potential? We don't see that.

Now, let me say this on the funding for post-secondary education. People in the education sector have called for that. Students themselves have called for that. Let me just put a quote from the Canadian Federation of Students on record regarding access to post-secondary education. They say: "Reinvest in the qualities of B.C.'s colleges and universities, making certain that any new post-secondary spaces are fully supported to the current average per-student level of funding, with added funds to compensate for inflation of current operating grants." That's what the Canadian Federation of Students is calling on the government to do. But do we see that in this budget? The answer is no.

Well, let me focus on another area — health care. The minister will say and the government will say that they have increased the health care budget — thanks, of course, to the federal government. Let's be clear. The increase in budgets in many of the areas that this government likes to claim credit for are in areas which the federal government funded, not from the provincial government's coffers. Let's be clear about that.

Let's also be clear that it was the Premier, when he was in opposition, who said that the governments should not be looking to Ottawa for more money, for more transfer payments. There's only one tax base, he said. In fact, when he was in opposition he told the federal government that they should not be giving provinces more money and in fact that they should be lowering that. Well, that's exactly what the federal government did under the previous administration's budgets. But how times have changed. The Premier is now in a different position, and he is pounding the door of the federal government, asking for more money every single day. How times have changed.

So let's be clear. Credit is due where credit is due. The areas in which there was more funding for many of those areas — including health care, child care and housing — came from the federal government's coffers, not the provincial coffers. So let's be clear about that.

What about waiting times for medical treatment and services? Did the government focus in on that with this budget? No, they didn't. Instead, we see wait times increasing in our medical system. We see emergency rooms overcrowding in our system. To make matters worse, the government could actually come in with a plan to reduce the emergency clog-up in hospitals by investing in long-term and intermediate care beds for seniors, a promise which the Premier and the government made prior to not this last election but the 2001 election.

Not only has the government not fulfilled that commitment, but they broke that promise to many seniors and their families. You look through this budget to see what kind of investment is in place to ensure that at least they can meet the commitment they claim they're going to meet for 2008. That's 5,000 new long-term and intermediate care beds by 2008. Well, I dare say that in this budget there are insufficient dollars to actually see the government fulfil that commitment, and quite frankly, I don't believe that the government is going to make good on that commitment. I think they're going to fail British Columbians again.

Instead of investing in the corporate tax cut that nobody asked for, maybe the government could have invested more dollars in seniors' long-term care beds to make sure that their commitment would be honoured. That would be a switch — doing what you actually said to the people that you would do. How about that for integrity? How about that for rebuilding the trust of British Columbians in the operation of government?

In the government's own Finance Committee report, the report actually said they received a clear message. The committee heard a clear message from the public that more beds for all forms of care were needed but particularly for seniors requiring intermediate and long-term care beds and that among the frail elderly living in the community, the lack of home support and respite care as well as the cost of medications for Alzheimer's patients were concerns raised quite frequently at the public hearings and in the on-line forums and

This is from the government's own report. The government's own report called for more child care subsidy dollars, not just the federal government dollars — and directing where the federal government's investments are going to go into actual child care — but investments from the provincial government itself. People called for support for persons with disability benefits and on issues around income assistance rates, and we don't see any of that in the budget.

Instead, we see that the largest spending line item in this new minibudget — which is new since the February budget, announced by the Minister of Finance, and that's what we're debating today — for a full year is $143 million. That's how much the government is putting in this one line item, a line item which the business community itself has not asked for.

The business community says that in order to grow our economy, we've got to invest in apprenticeships and we've got to deal with some of the social programs and services that were eliminated by the government in the last four years. The government says: "Oh, but we need to do this, because where else are we going to get the money from in order to grow the economy?" Well, how about investing in the pine beetle epidemic? How about putting some funds in a trust fund on the pine beetle issue to help out the communities, to make sure that there are opportunities for their economy to grow in the future? How about doing that?

That will help grow the economy, diversify the economy and also send a very important and strong signal to the rural communities who are faced with this challenge that they have not been abandoned by the government and that the government wants to work with them, will plan with them and will be with them at every step of the way in dealing with the issue.

Now, the government may say: "We're already putting $100 million in." Well, that's federal government money. Let's be clear: it's federal government money. In fact, the government is reducing their budget in the pine beetle epidemic with this minibudget.

So you've got to ask the question: who did the Minister of Finance or this government hear from exactly that called for this corporate tax cut when on the public record the government's own Finance Committee just prior to the election came back with this piece of information, when after the election the business community in the media has said that they were surprised by this corporate tax cut, a tax cut they didn't ask for?

Where did the government get this idea from? Or were they just looking very hard at, I suppose, their donors list and thinking: "Hey, that might just be a nice thing to do anyway. We've got to shore that up"? But I thought those days were gone. I was hoping those days were gone. I was hoping that the government really heard a message from British Columbians and that they actually wanted to send a signal to British Columbians that they had heard the message sent to them in this election.

The minister says: "Oh, but the first priorities were seniors, and we're investing a huge amount of dollars in seniors." Well, the seniors' dollars, if you add them all up in terms of that investment, don't even come close to the corporate tax cut dollars. How about them apples? If the heart of the budget is with the seniors, one would hope that the government would show them the core of the heart — really invest in the seniors who built this province and not give back only a tiny bit of what the government took away in the last four years.

I dare say this: heating bills are coming up. I'm telling you I feel the chill in the air. I feel the season change. Day by day the weather's going to get colder and colder. And you know what? Seniors and British Columbians are going to need some support and help from this government on their home heating bills. You know what? The small amount of supplement that the government has given back to British Columbians, to seniors — that they took away to begin with — will not even pay for the increased home heating bills. Where will seniors be at that point? Having to make a decision if they get to eat chicken or not or pay the heating bills? I wonder what that would be.

Or should the government be sitting there thinking, "Hmm, I really care about seniors, and what I want to do is to take some of this corporate tax money that nobody asked for and give tax relief to seniors on their home heating bills, to average British Columbian families" — the notion that everyone should benefit when there are economic successes in our province. That's what the government could have done, should have done and didn't do. What this bill does is to facilitate the giveaway of $143 million to corporations in corporate tax cuts.

Now, I want to close with this. On the targeted tax cuts piece, the opposition has always been in support of targeted tax cuts. In fact, it was under the previous administration that that started with some of the industries like the film industry. Making sure that we grow innovation, making sure that we capitalize on employment opportunities and job creation on a sector-by-sector basis — we don't oppose that, nor do we generally oppose, necessarily, a corporate tax cut.

But when it becomes an issue of choice and priorities — there are many other choices that the government could have invested British Columbians' dollars in, and they failed to do so after the election, when British Columbians had sent them that message — there is something wrong with this picture, and you've got to ask that question.

Why is the government doing this, when there are so many other greater needs, and especially in the context that the business community itself has not asked for this corporate tax cut? Instead of giving $143 million away to corporations, we should actually be debating a bill that gives moneys back to the most vulnerable people in British Columbia and people who are in greatest need, not the people who already have the highest income levels in the province.

B. Simpson: I stand today to debate on the second reading of Bill 2, the Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, and like my fellow member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I just cannot understand the rationale for these corporate tax cuts.

To go on the record, I spent the last ten years working in the corporate sector, so it's not ideological. It's simply illogical that this is a course of action that this government has chosen to take. As the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant pointed out, one of the things I find intriguing about this whole democratic process is that we go out and consult with the public. We ask the tax-paying public what they would like us to do in our budget.

I wonder, having seen what the government has tabled in this update, why we even bother doing that. The direction that we were given in the last budget consultation process was crystal-clear. The government members of this House were in the majority on that committee, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the government members of this House allowed this government to do what they did in this budget update. It makes no sense. It undermines our democratic process.

In the budget consultation process, which the government members themselves heard, they asked one question: "The updated forecast expects a total of $4.5 billion in funds over the next four years that are available to be reinvested. How would you distribute the available funding to the following areas?" In there, they have all of the areas that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant mentioned, and in there, they had a discussion and a debate around reducing taxes further and in specific areas.

Well, as the previous speaker reflected, this was one of the largest submissions that a budget consultation process had seen, and the message was crystal-clear. In written submissions, electronic submissions and oral presentations, one theme rung out: put the money back into the services that were cut.

In the discussion on taxes, which again was quite an interesting one, there is nothing in the consultation process about corporate tax cuts — nothing. It's not in the record. It didn't come forward. Therefore, I cannot understand how it ended up in this budget update and in this bill that we have before us today. In fact, when it came to tax cuts, the committee actually supported a position on tax cuts. The Liberal members stated their support for it, and it stated clearly: "Concerning the public's ideas for tax policy changes, the committee supports the proposal to give some form of tax relief to low-income individuals and families. We also believe a further reduction in the provincial sales tax, as finances permit, would help both individuals and B.C. businesses."

Then they went on to say that if we were going to give tax relief to businesses, it should be to small businesses. Again, the consultation process was crystal-clear. There is no room for doubt; there is no room for error. The decision the government made on the budget update and in tabling this bill was ideological. It was an ideological position not based on consultation and, as I'll show, not even based on good management decisions. It was ideological.

One of the interesting things I found in the throne speech was that if it's not in the consultation process, then maybe the Liberals promised it going into the election. In the throne speech it actually references the Liberal platform as a living document that will be taken forward over the next four years: "Your government seeks to advance its election platform and commitments. That platform document will serve as the central policy framework and workplan for the term ahead." Let me read that again. "That platform document will serve as the central policy framework and workplan for the term ahead."

Well, I went back to that platform document hoping to gain insight — cheaper than going to, you know, the Far East or engaging a guru of some kind. Unfortunately, I probably should pay for the guru, because there's no insight in the document. Under "Our plan for free enterprise," there's nothing.

B. Simpson: Sorry. In your plan for free enterprise, there is nothing in there about corporate tax cuts.

I'm confused. The platform document will serve as the central policy framework and workplan for the term ahead, and yet it contains nothing about corporate tax relief. That begs the question of what else is not contained in here that we're going to be surprised by, and it begs the question of what else in here is not true. Is another promise yet to be unfilled by this government?

It wasn't in the consultation process. It wasn't in the Liberal platform. Again, that leaves me with one conclusion. It was ideological.

I was at the Council of Forest Industries meeting in Prince George after the throne speech. All of my fellow colleagues from the forest industry — senior vice-presidents, CEOs and senior managers — said one thing to me: "Where did it come from? Where did these corporate tax cuts come from?" As the previous speaker already pointed out, they're concerned about where they're going to get skilled labour from and how much this government has gutted the apprenticeship program. They're concerned about infrastructure and how they're going to get their products to market. They're concerned about diversification in our economy, and they're concerned about the erosion of forest health in this province. Those are their concerns. Therefore, they were surprised, and they expressed that surprise to me about where this came from.

Now, we heard today — and we've heard ad nauseam in this House — about the five great goals. The goal that this apparently comes under is the fifth goal, which is: "…create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada." Well, we heard today that the rationale for these corporate tax cuts was to create jobs. There's an inherent and fundamental fallacy in that position, and that is: corporations are not job generators. They

are not job generators. In fact, most corporations are still in downsizing mode.

If you look within the forest sector, the number of jobs and sustainable jobs that have been created is in decline. Many in the corporate sector's manufacturing and in international trade are beginning to see some resurgence, but most of them are doing it through consulting and contracting out. They're not doing it through direct employment anymore.

In fact, where our economy is growing is through small and medium-sized businesses and self-employment. That's where it's growing. Hence, during the consultation process, the committee rightly said that if you're going to put in tax incentives or tax breaks, they should go to small and medium-sized businesses, because they are the job generators.

I also heard today an interesting comment by the member for Kelowna-Mission that she has a problem in the Okanagan of too many jobs. I am struck by their rational logic that I'm hearing in this House over these last two days that we need to give corporate tax cuts in order to create jobs, but we've got the problem of too many jobs. I'm not quite clear why, then, if we've got too many jobs in the economy, we need the corporate tax cuts to create jobs. It doesn't make sense.

One of the reasons why we have too many jobs is not the credit of this government. As we all know, it's because of interest rates being very low, driving a construction boom, and mineral and other commodity prices being high, driving demand for those commodity prices. Those are the critical drivers in our economy today. Those are the things that are driving jobs up.

The reality is that a big reason, one of the major reasons, why we have this problem of too many jobs and not enough people is the demographic shift that is now occurring. In the next few years we're going to see fewer and fewer people enter the work force and more and more people leave that work force. We are going to have the problem of too many jobs. Even if our economy falls off, we're still going to have that problem.

I look at the budget speech. I look at the throne speech. What's not there? The problem of that demographic shift is not there. It's absent. That is a major constraint on growing our economy in the future. This government doesn't realize it. It's doing nothing to address it, and it's not putting any resources into it. Why? Because it's putting $143 million per year into corporate tax cuts.

I'm also curious about whether or not this government really truly understands the risks in our economy over the next few years. I attended a breakfast during UBCM with Canfor, in which the president and CEO of Canfor made a presentation. It was one of those stream-of-consciousness, thinking-on-his-feet presentations, and it was very, very illuminating. I spoke with some of the mayors as they left, and one of them said to me quite clearly: "That wasn't the message I wanted to hear this morning."

The message from the CEO of Canfor was very clear: we cannot take our economy for granted. We cannot take what the projections are for the next three to five years for granted. In the forest sector, which is still the largest sector in our economy — it is still the engine of our economy; it is still the largest job producer in our economy — the CEO of Canfor said: "We are going to be threatened by softwood lumber even more, because as we've lifted our allowable cut, we have made ourselves susceptible to significant push-back from the American lumber lobby. They are going to target us, and they're going to specifically single us out to block our dimension lumber from crossing that border." He said that is going to have major impacts on the industry.

The second thing he said is that the Canadian dollar is hurting them, and by all projections it's going to continue to hurt all of our export businesses. The third thing he said is that energy costs are going to start to really drag down their ability to become more cost-effective over the next term. Fourthly, he said that interest rates are bound to rise. For them, when they capitalize the project, they have to take that into consideration, along with the material costs of those capital projects.

As well — as the speaker before me already pointed out — it's going to impact consumers. What the CEO of Canfor said on that point really shocked those present. What he pointed out is that we have been depending on a highly leveraged economy for too long. What has happened is that people are living on the margins of debt. They have seen their home prices increase, but as their home prices have increased, they have then gone and gotten second mortgages; and they're living on their second mortgages. In some cases, they're living on their third mortgages, because the price of their home — the value — has gone up, and they've gone and borrowed against that.

You lump that together and you have a bump in interest rates, and you're going to see the beginning of a wave of personal bankruptcies. You're going to see the beginning of a wave of homes that are repossessed, of a wave of construction that's going to stop. That is going to radically change our economy. Our economy is fragile. We're riding on a bubble. This government has had the luxury of riding that bubble over the last couple of years, but that bubble could burst in a second. The factors are there to create that bubble bursting. Instead of hedging its bets, this government went and gave $143 million per annum away to the corporations that all said: "Why did they do that? We don't understand it. It should have gone somewhere else."

Where could it have been redirected to? According to my discussions with those in the corporate sector, which I just left, they have said what has already been said here today and what has been said by many members on this side of the House. It could have been redirected into a whole bunch of social programs that this government said to the population of British Columbia "we need to gut in order to…." Now that you don't need to gut in order to, they all suggest: "Put it back." How can we live in a progressive society if we're going

to continue to do it on the backs of our most vulnerable and least capable people even when times are good? That's what these folks are saying to me.

They also said that if the government does not understand the growing skill gap and the need to put many resources into that skill gap, they don't understand our economy. They don't understand the fundamental impact that it's going to have on the growth and sustainability of our economy through the next few years. Of course, since I was at a Council of Forest Industries meeting and was talking predominantly with forest sector people, they said: "We have a provincial crisis in our forests." We can take every penny of additional resources and put it into forest health, into programs to restore forest to health and into programs to diversify our rural economies.

To put it in perspective, this government has been going through the last few weeks touting how much money they're starting to put towards the mountain pine beetle: $30 million in the northern development initiative — money rolled out to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, to the Omenica Beetle Action Coalition, to the first nations.

Thank you for staying awake and staying with me, because my next point is the important point. To put all of that in context, the supposed $101 million that the government itself is putting in, which we will be clarifying in estimates because, according to the budget update, only $7 million is going in next year, the opportunity value of all of the pine in British Columbia has been estimated at $240 billion. That's the commercial economic value of our pine forests.

Based on the government's own statistics of how much of that is at risk, the total at risk in just the Cariboo-Chilcotin alone will be $32.2 billion. Therefore, the $800,000 coupled with the $900,000 that went into the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition — which is a discussion all on its own — is a very meagre sum relative to what this group actually asked for, and it's the context for today's discussion. The group asked for $480 million — and when? They wanted it immediately — $480 million to address the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Cariboo-Chilcotin alone.

Economic diversification and forest health. They got $800,000 based on this submission and then another $100,000. What they asked for is $480 million, and instead of putting that order of magnitude of money into that forest health crisis that this government admits is a catastrophic event… Instead of putting that order of magnitude into that catastrophic event, we get paltry sums, and we give away the potential and the opportunity on corporate tax cuts that nobody called for, that weren't in the platform, that the corporations themselves said weren't necessary…

B. Simpson: That they didn't campaign on. I appreciate the coaching from the sidelines.

Again, this bill does not make sense. It does not make sense. Instead, what should be happening if we wanted to go down the path of tax cuts…. We should be using strategic tax incentives for economic diversification, and I would argue economic diversification specifically in our rural-based economies. Target it. Put it there. Make it palatable for people to get into our communities and take the risk of diversifying those economies. That, we could support. That, we would wholeheartedly endorse, but not an ideological cut for corporations simply because — despite all of the facts and all the evidence — this government is predisposed to do that and predisposed to make sure that those who helped them get another term in office get their payback. That's the rationale.

I stand in opposition to this bill not for the latter part of the bill. I stand in opposition to it because the first part of the bill, the tax cuts to corporations, does not make sense economically. It does not make sense socially. It was never promised, it was never asked for, and it should never happen.

C. Evans: In trying to figure out what is the message that needs to be delivered here tonight…. I don't really think it's to you. I know we always say "hon. Speaker" at the start of every paragraph to be respectful, but I think you know what's going on.

I don't think it's the guys on the other side. They wrote this bill. They're mostly doing their homework. I kind of expect that in an hour, or whenever they're allowed to, they're going to vote for this bill regardless of anything I say. It's not the people on my team. They're all getting up here one after another, saying essentially that they think the bill is stupid and misguided and lacks leadership, common sense, even business sense.

I kind of think it's those people at home. I would like to be able to figure out how to say this — what's going on here — in such a way that three million people who aren't here would understand what's going on. I don't actually think it's a mistake that it's not two o'clock in the afternoon, that there's nobody in the press gallery, that there are no citizens here and that we're doing this at 7:30 at night on October 3, 2005, to nobody, because what it is that we're debating isn't actually anything that the people here would like to share with the people at home.

Folks, this is like a giant Easter egg hunt. You've been waiting for four years to find out if the government — those folks who cut your hospital beds, shut down your long-term care facility, laid off the civil servants in your town, whacked 300 in the city of Nelson, closed rural courthouses, 120 schools….

If the people over there actually had the money that they said that they were looking for — when they got the money, when they finally made the Easter egg — where would they put it? That is actually what politics is. It's about priorities. Lots of times we can't do the things that we want to do.

With all due respect, in 2001 the wonderful people who are sitting on the other side ran for office saying: "Oh, the cupboard's bare. We've got to tighten our belts so that things will be okay some day." They won.

C. Evans: Yeah. Everything they did…. They kind of had a mandate because they said they had to tighten their belts so that we'd be solvent, so we could look after people in the future.

Regardless of the demonstrations and the strikes and the people writing letters and the people marching on the street and all the angst and everything, they had the right to do it because they were trying to make money. They were trying to earn the nest egg with which they could go do the good works that they believed in.

Now here we are at 7:30, four years later — five years, maybe — and you guys are coming in here, finally, to tell us where you're going to put the Easter egg. They've got the money; they have a budget surplus of a billion dollars. They can finally do the things that they said they'd do when they closed your school, folks. When they kicked your community members out of the hospital bed, they had to save that money so they could come in the Legislature with this budget and do the things that they believe in.

What is it that's priority one in the budget of 2005 at 7:30 at night? What is it that these folks are bringing through this Legislature and are going to pass? It's a $143 million tax cut, this year and next year and every year thereafter, for the corporate sector. It's not the hospital bed back. It's not the rural schools reopened. It's not the civil servant getting their job back. It's not looking after…. It's the tax cut. Wow. Is that it? We would never have looked for that Easter egg.

When you run for office, hon. members, you're supposed…. Here's a principle of democracy: you're supposed to say what you're going to do before you run. That way the citizens can decide — New Democrats or Liberals or Greens or whatever. You've got to say what you're going do before you run. Then you get this thing which is, I think, to be cherished; it's called a mandate. Then it means that even if the stuff you do is tough, you've got the people behind you, because they sent you here to do it.

Hon. Speaker and folks at home, did anybody here — anybody, any political party…? Did you hear anybody say: "If we have a surplus, we're going to give it to the corporations"? Is there any political party in British Columbia which actually ran on that platform, folks? Even if you voted for the Liberals, I guarantee you that what's going on in here, you didn't ask for. You didn't vote for it. You didn't hear about it. It wasn't part of the plan. It's not a mandate. It's an Easter egg that they're putting under the tree of their pals, instead of putting your mom's bed back in the long-term care facility.

Maybe that's okay if you say you're going to do it, but it ain't okay, as a secret at 7:30 at night, to nobody, that you give $143 million to the pals that sent you here.

There is a misnomer that says this has something to do with being good for business — about being competitive. I went and talked with the mining community. So did you guys. We got these beautiful little pins, with the axe in them, or pick. What did they say? Did they say: "You know what? We'd really make more jobs if you gave us a tax cut"?

Look up. Look over here. Did they tell you to give them a tax cut in order to make more jobs? They didn't. I was there; you were there. They went to the microphone. They said: "We're going to need 50,000 employees, and we don't know how to train them, and we don't know where to get them. What we need from you is training to create the workers with the skills that we can hire." Is that where you put the money?

You looked right in the eyes of the people who were coming here to say what it is that they need to make business work, and then you did something else. You decided to take the money that might have trained the workers that made the business work and give it to the stockholders in the form of a $143 million tax cut. That is haywire business sense. Not one of you guys, men and women, would treat your own business in the way you just treated the province of British Columbia — look at the business plan, and then do something else because it makes somebody happy that we don't know about.

There's another possibility, or what I thought they might do. I remember that in the city of Nelson and in the interior generally, we took the hon. member opposite who was chairing the budget review in Trail…. We had a conversation when you folks were first elected and the cuts were coming down.

I was saying to the committee: "If you take all the people out of the Forest Service, we're not going to be able to issue cutting permits. If you reduce the Ministry of Mines, we're not going to be able to issue exploration permits. If you essentially eliminate the people that manage the land, we won't be able to manage the land for future generations."

As the people at home know, British Columbia is a more complex ecosystem than all the other provinces in Canada combined. That's not rhetorical. There are more plants and animals in B.C. than from Alberta all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. Here we manage deserts and rain forests, the Cariboo dryland, the mountains of the Kootenays, and that takes some human beings out managing the land.

We used to call that the Crown land. We used to think of it as our farm. We used to think of it as our children's patrimony. We used to think that whoever got to sit on that side got to implement their agenda when they got a mandate, but job one acting as the Crown was to manage the farm for future generations so that they could come and work here, too, and extract wealth from the land.

In the year 2001 when they made the cuts that they had to make to accumulate this wealth, the wonderful people opposite reduced the civil service in British Columbia to one government worker for every 178 people. I know that's an irrelevant number, so I want to compare it to the American states, those states that we think of as solvent, good, businesslike jurisdictions.

They manage the state of Idaho, just south of where I live. Pretty much the same rivers run through it, the same species of trees are growing on it, and the same kind of work is done there. They've got one civil servant to every 50 people.

How about Texas? Now, that's the home of George Bush. You'd think that would be the place where they'd be lean and mean, if any place. They manage Texas with one civil servant to every 78 people. The state of Oregon — that's a place where we all know the economy's healthy. They manage Oregon with one civil servant to every 75 people.

The folks who work over there in 2001 reduced our relationship of citizens to people managing the Crown to 178 to 1. There are now 178 people for every one managing the land and running the government.

The people who used to do that work and the people who relied upon those people thought that when you guys had a bucket of money, you might put some of those people back out there on the land to manage the patrimony, the land base, for future generations. They thought that if your language about sustainability was real and we really had to tighten our belts, that some day it would be okay; we'd loosen them up, and you'd hire some of those people back.

Now they've got $143 million a year, and what? Did they hire people from the Ministry of Forests? Did they hire somebody to look after your parks or plow your road? Did they put some people back managing the fishery? Remember when we had people managing the fishery? Did they hire people from the Ministry of Agriculture, which they have now cut to the place where we have less expenditure for every dollar produced on the farm and less expenditure for every producer than any other province in Canada? Did you put the buy-B.C. program and some civil servants back when you had a hundred and…? You didn't.

It wasn't about tightening our belts and then someday when there's extra, we'll give it back to you; we'll look after this land. It was about tightening our belts so that someday when we have some money, we can give a corporate tax break.

Whose idea was that? If it wasn't in your platform, you don't have a mandate to do it. I don't hear anybody standing up on the other side saying: "This is a really good idea. This is better than hospital beds, better than hiring civil servants, better than plowing roads."

You're not gonna, are you? None of you or the Premier or the Deputy Premier…. None of you are going to stand up and say, "This is the best thing we can do with money in British Columbia," because the people at home, the three million people — that you're hoping aren't watching — didn't agree to it when they sent you here.

Hon. Speaker, you might say it's about trying to be competitive with other provinces. It isn't about that either. Our corporate tax rate, before the folks opposite gave the Easter egg to their buddies, was the second lowest in Canada. Corporate taxes in Saskatchewan are 17 percent; Manitoba, 15; Ontario, 14; Quebec, 16; New Brunswick, 13; Nova Scotia, 16; Prince Edward Island, 16; and Newfoundland, 14. We had 13.2. Obviously, we weren't trying to be competitive with the other provinces of Canada. There's only one — Alberta, of course — that is less, and even when you lower it, you're not going to meet Alberta. You never will meet Alberta, because of course, we are not gifted with that level of Saudi Arabian wealth.

If we were trying to level the playing field with other Canadian provinces, we might have started with health care premiums. When we go down the list of how the taxes work, we might have said: "You know what? There are only two provinces in Canada that even charge health care premiums. Let's level the playing field with the rest of Canada. Let's join Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland with no health care premiums, because we have $143 million this year and every other year forever, and the people tightened their belts. They lost their jobs; they got kicked out of the hospital; they lost their courthouse. So we've got to give them back something. Let's give them back health care premiums."

Did you guys do that? Did any of you go to caucus and raise your hand and say: "You know what? Maybe we shouldn't give this money to the corporate sector; we should give it to the citizens who paid so we'd have this money"?

Did they ask you guys at home? Did you get a questionnaire that said: how many of you think we should give all the money to the corporate sector? I don't really think so.

I don't think that if you guys had asked them, they'd have answered that, and because they didn't answer that, you're bringing it in at a quarter to eight o'clock at night when nobody's paying….

Deputy Speaker: No, I'm just going to remind you to address your comments through the Chair, and please don't address individual members.

C. Evans: Oh, sorry. That's very kind of you. I definitely want to try and learn to follow the rules here.

I guess, hon. Speaker, the reason we're not hearing from members opposite is that there is literally no part of government that hasn't been affected by the fact that we had to tighten our belts, eh? Today we had to legislate teachers back to work or to work until spring be

cause there hadn't been any money for education for a long time. We had a budget surplus of — what is it? — $143 million a year. We could have put that into education and said to teachers and parents: "Look, you guys, this is all we have. This is the amount that we have."

But we didn't do that, eh? We gave it to the corporate sector. Then, because it annoyed some of them, we had to come in here and pass a law that says they've got to go to work in spite of the fact that their raise is going to the corporations. Collectively, are you proud of that? Can you tell the people at home that you had to pass the law because you gave the money to the corporate sector? I don't think so.

I want to talk just the tiniest bit about reforestation and fire. Where I live, our ability to make a living is dependent on our ability to plant trees, and then our ability to actually log them is dependent on our ability to keep them from catching on fire. With pine beetle and a changing climate, we're having less and less success in sustaining the forest industry.

I might have thought, I might have hoped, and when I ran for office, I was rooting on you guys, yet you cut the reforestation budget in the bad years, when we were belt-tightening, from $50 million a year to $3 million. That's a big whack, from $50 million to $3 million on the trees that your children are going to need to log to have an economy 10, 15 or 30 years hence. I thought that if you had some money, you might put it into dirt to make some jobs for the future.

C. Evans: I thought, hon. Speaker, that if the government that cut the money from $50 million to $3 million for planting trees and looking after them had some money, they might put it back into the land. I can look over there and identify hon. members who, I think, believe in the forest industry. We know that the corporate sector is actually the people who do the logging.

Did the government decide: "Okay, we've got $143 million. Let's put it back into the land, grow some more trees and have another generation actually go to work"? No. They gave it to the corporations that already have enough.

To me, this is about the most important thing about democracy. This is about doing what you say you'll do. I don't really mind losing when the other people put forward a platform, and the citizens choose the platform, and it beats my team. I kind of think those are the days that I ought to go home. But when somebody corrupts that ideal and uses the power of a parliament to pass laws forcing people to work while they're giving the money to somebody else, for which they have no mandate, and they never told us, that to me constitutes an abrogation of everything that we believe in and work for and the process that put the government behind their seats — the election process.

I would like to personalize the corporate sector a little bit, because I think maybe you think that I'm speaking in some rhetorical or ideological way. At present, hon. Speaker, as you know, we're having a debate in this place about whether or not it's a good idea to sell what used to be B.C. Gas and is now Terasen to a company in Texas called Kinder Morgan. My impression is that the government would like our natural gas company, with 800,000 customers and every single person watching us here tonight buying their gas from them, to go to Texas.

Now, the question is this $143 million. Are hon. members giving it to people who are going to make jobs in British Columbia, or are they actually giving it to people in another country who are using that money to then plunder ours? Is the agenda to fund the takeover of our country by citizens from elsewhere with the money they got from your mom? If so, who possibly could have thought it up?

If the plan was to run for office with a budget surplus of a billion dollars and then give it to the multinational corporate sector instead of giving it to the people that they took it from, do you think they could have ever got elected? Do you think they could actually raise their chins and look at you in the eye and say: "I meant to do it"? Do you think any hon. member over there could stand up following me — I implore you; I implore the Liberal party to stand up — and say: "I like what I'm doing tonight, and I'm not embarrassed that we didn't tell the people before we ran for office"?

I'm going to sit down. And I'm going to bet you — if we're allowed to engage in gaming, I'll bet you 20 bucks — that not a member will stand up and say: "I'm proud of what I'm doing tonight, and it's on purpose that we never told the folks at home. We didn't want them to know."

R. Fleming: As the Minister of Finance said on a number of occasions, budgets are about choices. She said that, and it's true. Budgets are the process of putting your money where your mouth is. Budgets are also, as the member for Nelson-Creston said, about implementing mandates based on actual commitments and actual promises made to voters. They're about following through in an honest and transparent fashion.

The throne speech claimed that this government was committed to implementing its real leadership–real progress election platform. But I've looked at it again, and I'm not finding any plain-language reference that says: "In our first budget, our largest expense will be to reduce the corporate tax rate by over $400 million in three years." I'm not finding it there.

You know, it's no wonder that some on Howe Street expressed their surprise that the golden decade started with a gilded budget. The corporate tax cut reference is not there in any of the Liberal Party's election campaign manifestos or brochures. I didn't hear

the B.C. Liberal candidates speak to it either at any of the all-candidates meetings that they actually showed up for. In fact, what we heard a lot about was investing in people. In some cases, we heard about making good on promises that were made in 2001 that went unfulfilled.

I think the voters would have been interested, though, to hear that corporate tax cuts were the number-one priority of a B.C. Liberal government should it be re-elected. I think it would be interesting to see who would be sitting across from us or, indeed, whether the hon. members would be sitting across from us in the place that they are today had that been their number-one commitment to the voters of British Columbia.

Yet mandate or not, corporate tax cuts are the single biggest budget expense in this budget. The greatest choice and priority made in this budget update is a corporate tax cut from 13.5 percent to 12 percent. Now, this generous gesture has had a dramatic effect of moving B.C. from the second-lowest corporate tax jurisdiction in Canada to still be the second-lowest corporate tax jurisdiction in Canada. What an impact. We're still the second-lowest, just behind Alberta. That's the province with $8 billion in oil and gas revenues that annually flow to the province. It will be hard to ever beat them.

However, we do already beat the head-office centre of Canada: Ontario, whose corporate tax rates are 14 percent. Alberta doesn't have a sales tax either — none to speak of — but our former Minister of Finance didn't care about being competitive when it came to the consumer tax front. In fact, he raised the provincial sales tax by 0.5 percent. On the corporate tax front, this minister is chasing windmills, or more properly speaking, oil sands and derricks in Alberta.

Much has been said by the government about a rising sense of confidence occurring in our economy, and there are many undeniable benefits stemming from the Bank of Canada's record low interest rates and that effect on housing and construction markets across this province and our country. The rebound in several of our resource sectors has flowed money to many parts of the province and, indeed, to the treasury.

But let's be clear. There is revenue vulnerability in British Columbia. B.C. taxation revenues have declined almost a full percentage point of GDP over the last several years, and this was made up by new, less stable sources of revenue. Gambling revenues have doubled. Alcohol sales taxes have increased. MSP premiums were raised by 50 percent for ordinary British Columbians. Crown corporation earnings are also higher. Let's not forget that. And, of course, a large part of B.C.'s return to surplus is related to federal transfer payments for health care and equalization. Imagine: more than $2.2 billion flows to British Columbia today than did four years ago. In fact, federal transfers are almost 15 percent of the value of the budget today.

Now, remember in the 1990s when every other province but British Columbia cut health funding because of federal transfer payment cuts and downloading? What a turn of events in this decade, the post-Romanow-report decade, when the federal government has concluded new health funding agreements, child care agreements and infrastructure dollars that were missing in the 1990s. A previous speaker tonight has reminded us how that turn of events in that decade was cheered on by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is this a stable situation — federal transfer payments? Should we become dependent on them to balance our budget? Maybe we should ask Stephen Harper. Maybe we should ask other federal politicians.

Greater reliance on windfall earnings, on miscellaneous taxes and fees not related to income, carries a risk that we are inappropriately funding, and funding further corporate tax cuts without regard for future fluctuations. If these other revenue sources decrease, you can imagine how difficult it would be to raise the corporate capital tax once it's lowered. I would suggest that this government would probably once again turn to regressive sales tax increases, which they partially used to fund their last tax cuts to this sector.

I want to turn to long-term care beds, because they formed part of the minister's budget address. In fact, this budget claims to be about seniors care, but they clearly come second, if not further down, to corporate tax cuts — and not the least in the dollar amount that was allocated to them.

In my constituency there is a high percentage of seniors, many on fixed, low incomes, who can't afford private care homes. Many of them are blocking long-term acute care beds in our hospitals. The government must work on its fulfilment of the 5,000-bed promise from 2001. Part of the challenge to the government, which now says this commitment will be met by 2008 — I think that's the latest moving target — is finding the dollars to fund the beds. In 2001 we were told that $682 million would provide 5,000 new beds by 2006. Only a hundred million dollars were ever allocated. Today we have fewer beds than when the government started.

Seniors in this budget are to get $150 million over two years for this recycled commitment from 2001. When we decide to show the proper determination — and I wish this budget did — to resolve housing problems, to fix flaws in our health care system, to provide young people with skills and training opportunities, to address long-term care bed shortages and other service gaps that will allow our seniors to live in dignity…. The so-called seniors budget is showcased by the much-vaunted replacement of the seniors supplement, which was callously eliminated by this government in 2002. That's a $50 million commitment over three years in the budget address or, if you look at it on an individual basis, $50 per month, $600 per year for qualifying low-income seniors.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that in many regions of the province, low-income seniors are going to see a huge increase in their home heating costs this winter due to the spiralling oil and gas price increases. They just got a tax cut, those companies. Those home heating bills are going to vastly overshadow the rein

statement of the supplement. A budget is about priorities — that's been said — but relief from energy costs apparently was not a concern at all. We can look at the way it will impact individuals. I've spoken just now about low-income seniors and how it will wipe out their supplement.

Let's look at it in terms of our public institutions as well. Our schools, our hospitals, our universities are going to be left to cope on their own with rising fuel costs, energy costs. What is that going to mean when heating bills at our various institutions across B.C. increase by 50 to 60 percent? Well, it's quite clear what it's going to mean. It's going to mean that there are going to be fewer resources for our teachers, for classrooms, for our learning environments. It's going to mean that there is less for patient care in hospitals; less attention to waiting lists than already was budgeted for, which was very little; less resources for laboratories, libraries and university ancillary programs; less for student needs and patient needs — bottom line. We know that this sector cannot, by law, contemplate a deficit. We know that runaway energy costs will mean cuts in other parts of operations for those government sectors.

The province's federal counterparts had a different response, and some of the provinces too. They've not been blind to this issue of rising energy costs. Indeed, they've been busy having their finance ministries looking at options since the middle of the summer, actually, when oil first exceeded $60 a barrel for the first time since the 1970s. That was the first clue, for this government, that winter's on the way and maybe they should make some planning.

The minister actually said in prebudget interviews that she's aware of the concern, but apparently, the ball was dropped at the very first opportunity to actually show concern and show an energy cost–relief plan.

The Premier sure helped himself to a piece of the surplus in this budget — a 30 percent budget increase in his operation. But energy cost relief? Nowhere in sight; no planning being done anywhere, in any ministry of this government.

There were lots of choices available, now that the government has returned to a surplus almost equal to the 2000-2001 surplus they inherited. This budget is a tale of choices not made. Members previous to my address tonight have talked about the consultation paper from 2005. They didn't hear once — and I think it bears repeating. They didn't hear once from anyone in any community — many of them Liberal-voting, loyal constituencies, I might add — that corporate tax cuts should be the first priority of this government. They didn't hear it.

Let's look at this budget again. No new money to deal with surgery wait-lists. No new provincial money to help communities ravaged by the mountain pine beetle, unless you're talking about federal dollars. No new money to protect children at risk or for students facing skyrocketing tuition fees. No new money to fund training and apprentices — $10 million less than when they started in government, in fact. No new provincial money for child care; it's all federal dollars. No new money to help communities deal with homelessness.

It's not a prudent or wise budget. The new revenues have a windfall risk associated with it. Whether you're talking about property transfer taxes, oil and gas exploration, mineral royalties, Crown corporation revenue, federal transfers, annual allowable cut — all are windfall revenues.

There's nothing in this budget for the middle class. There's no tax relief for the middle class. It was spent on the corporate tax cut. There's no relief from user fees, the MSP increase of 50 percent that this government imposed or the doubling of tuition fees that they brought about in three short years. The heating oil program wasn't there. In fact, people are still paying more and getting less for services across B.C. — more than in the last mandate.

There was money for the Premier in this budget: a 30 percent increase. But surprise, surprise: there was no more money for the watchdog functions of government — the Auditor General; the Ombudsman's office; the Information and Privacy Commissioner, still there living in austerity from the last four years.

Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks and say that this budget, once again, was a budget of missed opportunities to provide relief that British Columbians were looking for.

Deputy Speaker: Members, just as a gentle reminder: if you wish to speak or heckle, as they say, you must do that from your own seats.

M. Karagianis: I rise tonight to speak against this bill. I'm actually going to talk about one of the three hats that I am wearing currently as a representative here in this House. The first is as the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. The second is as a small business critic, and the third is as the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

I was recently put on the Finance Committee, and we are about to embark on a tour to talk with the members of this province, citizens around British Columbia, about what their priorities are for 2006. I must admit I feel pretty shiny in my new role, and pretty zealous about the efforts that I'm about to embark on. So, like my colleagues that have spoken before me, and like any good new Deputy Chair, I dug up last year's report on the 2005 budget process and read it from cover to cover.

I do know that several of my colleagues here have spoken about some of the contents. But I think it fair to say that this report, after a protracted tour — much longer, much more in depth than the one we're about to conduct, going to many more towns and cities around British Columbia — came up with 19 specific recommendations for government.

These recommendations were very pointed on the fiscal plan for this government and what they wanted

to see in the 2005 budget. They wanted to see balanced budgets. I think that comes as no surprise to anyone. They actually wanted to see a debt management plan from this government. They wanted to see more money spent on education. They wanted money spent on health and medical services, economic security and quality of life for families and children. They wanted to see job creation and economic opportunities, things like investing in infrastructure. They wanted to encourage resource industries to invest in rural economic development. They wanted to restore funding for geosciences.

The members of this committee found out that tourism initiatives were important to the residents of British Columbia. B.C. parks and wildlife management were important. Post-secondary education, skills training and, interestingly, tax relief targeted at low-income families and earners…. They wanted to see reductions in the provincial sales tax, they wanted to see some consideration of raising the small business tax threshold, and they wanted to see property transfer tax exemptions.

Nineteen goals over several months of consultation with the voters of British Columbia, and not once was there a request for a corporate tax break. So I'm a little bit concerned as I get ready to embark now with fellow members of the Finance Committee on a tour throughout British Columbia, because we're going to go spend valuable time. We are going to bring business and residents and interest groups from all over British Columbia to meet with us, to consult with us, to tell us what they want done in 2006. Yet this record of this government is dismal on following what people asked for in the budget of 2005. Already I feel disappointed — disappointed about the prospects of what this tour is going to produce and what, if anything, this government is going to do in addressing those concerns and issues voiced by the voters of British Columbia.

In my second role as a small business critic, I'm also looking at this corporate tax break, and I'm saying, first and foremost: why has small business been left out of this tax incentive? Why has small business been left out of this budget? Ninety-eight percent of the business in British Columbia is small business, employing one million people. In fact, 36 percent of those businesses are run by women. This corporate tax cut gives those small businesses nothing — zero. Oh, maybe it gives them the trickle-down effect that we've heard so much about over the last couple of years, which of course, everybody knows is a fallacy, and anybody in business or anybody with a business sort of ethic would know, in fact, that that doesn't work.

Small businesses across this province are now facing the rising costs of shipping, of fuel, a rising Canadian dollar. They are looking for initiatives that will help them as small business owners, as the self-employed. They're looking for ways to offset those pressures that they are suffering. When I hear that this government purports to be the friend of small business, the big representative of small business, I have to say I don't think so, because I don't see anything in this budget that actually satisfies any of those small businesses.

My third perspective on this bill comes as the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I must say that I don't see this corporate tax break representing my constituency. In fact, my constituency had many of the same priorities that were written into this document of the 2005 budget consultation. Many of the small businesses in my constituency have suffered. The loss of shipbuilding jobs had its own trickle-down economy. That is a real trickle-down economy, because restaurants, small business, suppliers and workers throughout my constituency have not had money to invest in the economy of Esquimalt-Metchosin.

My riding has few corporations that will benefit in any way. I've actually been sitting here wondering if the Great Canadian Casino qualifies, because it's probably the largest corporation we have outside of the DND in my riding. What my riding is looking for is an expanded Victoria General Hospital, more complex care for seniors, schools — all the normal things that this House discusses every single day as priorities for British Columbians.

I have constituents coming into my office every day, and they are talking about trying to make a life on income assistance. They are talking about dealing with children who have mental or physical challenges and can't get the teaching assistance they want. They come in and talk in my office about the fact that many of them are couch-surfing, some of the over 2,000 homeless persons now living in this region — this region where the legislative precinct sits. All of those people coming into my constituency office are not asking for corporate tax breaks. In fact, they are deeply disappointed that what they are getting from this government is corporate tax breaks.

So I stand here tonight to speak against this bill and against this corporate tax break. I remember not so many months ago a process that we all went through, which was getting elected. I'm sure the members across the floor, much like my colleagues on this side, remember all those doors we knocked on and all those constituents we spoke to, the hundreds and hundreds of voters who talked to us about the kind of representation they wanted in this House. This budget does not reflect in any way the things I heard on those doorsteps. This corporate tax break does not satisfy any of those voters that I spoke to, any of those members of my constituency who were dealing with their own health care cuts, with the loss of their jobs, with the overwhelming class size for their children, with the increasing cost of post-secondary education, with their $6 training wages. In no way does this corporate tax cut represent those issues that were very real in my constituency.

For me, I actually feel compelled on an ethical basis to vote against this, because I was not elected to stand up here and vote in favour of a corporate tax break that no one asked for. I was elected to stand here and fight for the things that I heard on the doorstep in my con

G. Robertson: In my response to the budget the week before last, I put forward a motion of non-confidence in the government. Some of you might remember coming back into the room to finally stand up for what you believe in. When the House assembled to vote on this amendment, it was very disappointing to see 39 of the members opposite stand up in favour of corporate subsidies — another $143 million a year in corporate tax cuts. Add that to the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for corporations over the past few years and we're well over $1 billion a year in tax subsidy to big business. That's what you stood up for, first and foremost, resolute and shameless in supporting corporate tax breaks as your number-one priority.

Who do you work for? Who does this government work for? How do you sleep at night, putting corporate competitiveness ahead of homeless people, ahead of children at risk? I'm terribly disappointed in this budget and its primary focus on a corporate income tax break.

I'm not surprised. Almost $8 million in corporate donations to your B.C. Liberal Party in this last election — there is a good business case, if you call that business, for treating your puppet masters right.

But this piece of corporate welfare is beyond the fringe. It's beyond belief. The $8 million in campaign donations equals $400 million in tax breaks over the next three years. That's an extraordinary return on investment for those big corporate funders, and this all comes from a Premier who relentlessly called for an end to business subsidies when he was in opposition. This corporate welfare smacks of deceit and absolute disregard for the people of B.C., who sent a message in the election — if you were paying attention — for more balance, more action….

More action on health care, more action on environment and education, more support for the people of this province who need it most. Another surprise tax break for big corporations was not in the Liberal Party's platform. It was not in the consultative process that put this budget together.

Beyond the words of both my colleagues here and my colleagues in the business community that I come from, who have all been surprised by the government's largesse, I want to question the unswerving ideology that the taxpayers of B.C. should willingly subsidize large corporations. As I've said before in this House, yes to business, no to corporate welfare. Small businesses around this province have fought tooth and nail to compete, without any help from this government.

This budget does not address fundamental challenges to our economy going forward. I talked at length, in my response to the budget, about the monumental challenges that are facing us right now due to precipitous environmental degradation and social inequities that we face. Where is the incentive to shift what must be our new economy — a restorative economy, a sustainable economy? There's nothing strategic, nothing targeted here. It's just a stack of big cheques for big business to further industrialize their hearts out.

The economics of sustainability and of restoration stand in stark contrast to industrialization. It's about a prosperous commercial culture that is intelligently designed, that mimics the systems of nature — those systems that have been designed over eons — and that integrates communities, business and resources in ways that are mutually beneficial for the long term. Nowhere on this planet is there a more compelling opportunity to do that than here in B.C., but it means the priorities of the government must change.

Government tax policy must incentivize this shift. We won't be first off the mark to do that. We have a lot of competition already in this. The Japanese government and industry have completed their hundred-year blueprint to become world leaders in all aspects of environmental commerce through their Ministry of Trade and Industry. Scandinavian companies are decades into this shift as well.

Where are we today? We're nowhere. We're going backwards. Proud of that? We do have a huge advantage here in B.C. We have a wealth of resources. We have a well-educated, hard-working, multicultural population. We have a recognized global brand that is associated with sustainability — somehow — and social responsibility, not due to the last four years. We should be making the necessary changes to adapt and prepare for the daunting challenges in front of us.

Our economy starts with education. The critical piece for being leaders in building a sustainable economy here in B.C. is in post-secondary education. This government's record over the last four years of freezing core funding, of allowing tuition to double and of doing nothing to address the skills shortage is atrocious. It's pushed our province into mediocrity nationally. That's not something we can be proud of. We've got to invest in programs that match up to a new economy. We've got to address the skills shortage which threatens to cripple our economy. We've got to support the cutting-edge programs at our amazingly diverse array of colleges, university colleges, universities and institutes.

Where's the support in this budget for post-secondary education, apprenticeship and training? Post-secondary education is critical to cranking up the skills and the brain power to keep these sectors ahead of the pack on innovation and entrepreneurial success. Access is paramount. Nobody should face barriers to pursuing opportunities in education and training. That means affordability is crucial, and tuition must be

made affordable. Apprenticeship completion rates are down 44 percent since 2001, when this government set to pulling apart training and apprenticeship programs.

Waiting lists are huge at some schools. In programs for trades like electricians, plumbers and aerospace there are not enough programs. There are not enough spaces. The flip side of that is some colleges and institutes have declining enrolment because tuition is too high and the grant programs are gone. There's no rhyme or reason to this. There's no commitment to affordability, to quality of education.

Sure, throw some dollars at it. Throw up some buildings. Is that the way you treat post-secondary education? Is that the way you create people who will contribute to our economy for the rest of their lives, who can plug into hot job markets, who can plug into a robust economy and drive it? The business community and the labour movement called out in unison for this government to invest in skills training. Did you listen? Nope. Do you care about students, about businesses looking for well-trained new employees? Based on this budget, the answer is clearly no.

What about small business in this budget? Corporate tax breaks with no incentive to create good-paying jobs, to minimize environmental impact, to eliminate waste, to improve efficiency are a waste of taxpayers' money, particularly when they provide little or no benefit for small business and entrepreneurs, who are the true drivers of economic growth in B.C. Small and medium-sized business must be a priority, especially those businesses that are focused on building the social and resource capital of B.C., not liquidating it.

Some tax cuts do make sense. The targeted cut on intellectual property is a good example, a tiny example, in a multitude of regressive taxation — huge subsidies to big business. Tax incentives have got to be targeted to the entrepreneurs and the emerging businesses of the new economy. That includes the social economy. It includes tourism, arts and culture. These are all the emerging engines of a restorative economy and a brighter future for this province.

Economically speaking, the majority of our talent and productivity is among the 10,000 small and medium businesses that create 80 percent of the jobs in this province. This government has chosen to ignore small and medium-sized business again. Under the last NDP government, we enjoyed the lowest small business tax rate in Canada, and now we're back to the middle of the pack. This perpetual $143 million tax break is the opposite of a smart, targeted tax break for businesses that do contribute to the long-term health of our province.

I want to talk for a moment about first nations. The government makes a huge deal out of their promise for a new relationship with the aboriginal peoples of B.C., but $100 million and a promise don't add up to much — a baby step where very serious movement is needed. Two-thirds of the wealth in British Columbia comes from outside of our cities, from the traditional territories of the first nations. I'm talking about forestry, mining, agriculture, the energy sector — almost $29 billion in exports from rural B.C. It makes sense that the aboriginal people are central to that wealth creation. The courts of this land have validated that right time and time again.

Aboriginals in B.C. are at the bottom of social and economic indicators. There needs to be a much more significant commitment to address these inequities. That should have been a priority in this budget, one that is necessary for the people of this province and one that is necessary to sustain and stabilize our economy for the long term.

There are billions of dollars in a potential economy held back by the inability of this government to focus on addressing aboriginal rights and title and self-governance. That won't be addressed in this budget.

As a business person myself and someone coming from the food business, in particular, and having spent years farming, I want to speak for a minute about the lack of support for B.C.'s agricultural sector in this time of the harvest. Somehow food and agriculture slipped off the list again. It's not a surprise after four and a half years of paying no attention to — in fact, cutting back on — a fundamental piece of our economy, a fundamental fabric in this province. I want to talk about how wrong that is.

Why is food not on the list? Why is the agricultural community not on the list? These are family farms. We are the last bastion of family farms in North America here in B.C. Lucky for us, our geography has dictated that. Larger corporations, like those who will benefit from the tax breaks in this budget, are unable to scale up in our geography. B.C.'s farm base is dominated by families. There's no support for these families. There's no support for the families to carry on taking care of the land base and providing good, healthy food for the population of this province.

We will become totally reliant on trucks from California and on containers from across the oceans to feed us if we don't do something to support the infrastructure of our agricultural system here in B.C. There's nothing in this budget that addresses that.

It's discouraging to stand here in this House speaking up for the people of B.C. and looking across at empty chairs, glazed eyes and the handful of Liberal MLAs who aren't listening. It's not surprising. This government hasn't been listening for four and a half years. That is their way.

This government didn't listen to constructive input on their budget. In the public consultation process, which my colleagues have elaborated on tonight…. Nobody in that process asked for more corporate tax breaks. The fact that they are primary to this budget is deceitful and corrupt. I stand tonight against this budget.

Hon. C. Taylor: I appreciate this opportunity — just before I move that we move this debate into com

mittee — to say just a couple of words. I think that this debate has been a really important one for British Columbians. I certainly hope that a lot of people were listening tonight, because it shows you the very stark difference in policy there is between the two parties — between the opposition party and the governing party.

The debate was supposed to be about tax cuts for corporations, which were included in the budget update in September, and also tax incentives for those intellectual properties we're trying to keep in British Columbia.

If you look back to the reason for this being brought in…. From my point of view, it certainly was a key element of our campaign, as we ran, to say that the reason why we worked so hard in the first four years to ensure a strong economy was because it did bring into the books increased revenues that we could spend on priorities.

The basis of everything we've done, everything we've said in the campaign, is that we must have a competitive tax regime and that we must have a competitive regulatory regime, or else businesses and jobs will leave this province. We had the very stark experience of the '90s, which one hon. member said he wished we would put that discussion in a box and stop talking about it. I'm sorry, but that box isn't going to go away. We see tonight the difference in policy between the two governments. The government in the '90s said, "We will overtax, and we will overspend," and as a result, businesses and jobs simply left this province. We all know it.

In fact, I was given the job in the late '90s, because things were so difficult, to actually travel around the province as vice-chair of a committee that looked at all of the small regions and the large regions of this province and called together labour leaders, community leaders and business leaders. We talked about how we could turn the economy around. It was very interesting to write the report after doing this over the period of the fall, and it was very clear, everywhere we went, that you have to bring taxes down. You have to clean up the regulations. You can't have overlapping, conflicting, difficult regulations because, if you do, then businesses and jobs leave. It was very simple. We saw it happen.

As a result, when this government came in, they set about turning around the economy of this province and — I have to say — did so extremely successfully by instituting immediate tax cuts, both for business and also for individuals. People started to see the possibilities of British Columbia, of actually staying here and keeping your business here rather than going to regimes that were so much easier to work in because they didn't have to pay so much tax.

We have now, since December 2001, 230,000 new jobs in this province. We must never forget that jobs do come from business, despite the hon. member who made the sort of extraordinary comment that corporations are not job generators. Well, excuse me, but businesses are job generators. As a result of that, all of those people who now have jobs have the chance to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, look after their kids…

But we know the job is not yet done. We said it during the campaign, and I'll say it again tonight. We must always be looking at our tax regime to ensure that we are as competitive as is possible for us to sustain as an economy. It is the only way that we'll keep our businesses here, that will encourage them to grow and create more jobs here and, frankly, to draw businesses and jobs from other parts of Canada and elsewhere. So it's a very definite, defined strategy to do this, and this particular bill ensures that we are able to.

I don't actually mind the fact that we have differences in policy ideas on business and corporations because that will once again, in four years, be something that the community looks at and decides who they want to have govern. But I have to say one thing. I'm a new person — right? The one thing that has surprised me about this debate is the fact that there were a lot of things said that are not true. I rather expected that the debate would be about facts, where we just have a different approach to them. But for someone to stand up — several, in fact — to say we did nothing in this budget for small business when, in fact, what we did was raise the ceiling and the threshold for small business from $300,000 to $400,000 a year. So, many more businesses now have the lower small-business tax rate of 4.5 percent.

Someone else said we did nothing for kids with special needs. Well, in fact, $140 million is going to kids with special needs. Someone said the province did nothing in this budget for the pine beetle. It was only federal money. Again, not true. There's $101 million over a five-year period, to say nothing for education…. In fact, we have a $700 million capital plan for education. We just put $150 million into schools to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our kids, and in terms of our postgraduate kids, we are committed to 25,000 new spaces so more of our children can go to university.

Someone else said we did nothing for MSP relief — again, something that is factually not exactly correct. What we did for MSP relief was improve the benefits so that 215,000 more individuals in British Columbia will have either reduced or eliminated MSP premiums.

Again, someone said that we did nothing for those people who are most in need in our province. We brought in the B.C. tax reduction that now gives low- and modest-income people the lowest provincial income tax in all of Canada.

On top of these initiatives, there are other things that we did do which…. Everyone knows about our program for seniors, where we have dedicated $242 million of new money towards our seniors, those low-income seniors who are most in need. We also put half a billion dollars, over $500 million, towards children's services in this budget. While I will be the first to say that there are many, many more needs out there, I'm looking forward already to the February budget, where we will be able to take one more step towards meeting some of those needs in our community.

I say to you that this is a good budget, and at the core of it is the fact that we want to keep the power of this economy going strong in the next few years so we can do priority spending. I move second reading of Bill 2.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3 amends two statutes and provides for two transitional amendments. Helping seniors in British Columbia, particularly those with low and modest incomes, is a cornerstone of the 2005 budget update. A substantial number of seniors live in manufactured homes on rental pad sites but have not been able to access the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, the SAFER program, which provides assistance to seniors who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

To address this issue, the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act is amended to add manufactured home sites to the definition of residents, recognizing that many pay significant monthly pad rentals. This change and the increases in the SAFER assistance levels announced in the 2005 budget update will benefit an estimated 7,200 seniors across the province.

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to extend the term of the Accounting Policy Advisory Committee for three years. The Accounting Policy Advisory Committee serves a key role in ensuring that government accounting policies remain consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.

The advisory committee provides independent professional accounting advice to government, including advising Treasury Board on the application and implementation of generally accepted accounting principles for the government reporting entity; reviewing key issues and reports issued by the office of the Auditor General, as requested; assisting and identifying major issues that should be communicated to the Public Sector Accounting Board for their annual priority strategic planning process; meeting annually with the Minister of Finance regarding ongoing public sector accounting issues; and providing issues-based advice, as requested, on proposed legislation relating to accounting, reporting and internal controls.

The Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005, also provides for two transitional amendments. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act are amended to clarify that the main estimates and service plans tabled on September 14, 2005, are to be used for the purposes of the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

J. Kwan: Bill 3, as the minister had identified, primarily deals with administrative aspects with what was introduced in the budget. Of course, on the issue around the Accounting Policy Advisory Committee, the opposition will have some questions for the minister around that piece during the committee stage in terms of what the advisory committee has been working on, future plans and so on.

The one issue that I do want to raise, though, relating to this bill centres around the SAFER component for manufactured home pads. My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has already raised the issue in her own community. The reality that she's finding, of course, is that many of the people in the community are not qualified for this SAFER grant that the minister and the government have made much ado about. In fact, the threshold for eligibility for the SAFER grant for people from the Esquimalt-Metchosin area…. She's found that many of them are not qualified. In fact, they now fear that some landlords might raise the rental cost for the manufactured home pads so that they can actually benefit from this SAFER grant. That's a great concern.

I'll say this as well. I certainly have heard from seniors in my own community, in the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant area, who are worried that the landlords will actually increase the rent in order that they can benefit from the SAFER grant. In essence, the money that's being put forward won't actually help alleviate the pressure that people are faced with, but rather it would simply transfer the dollars into the hands of the landlords — the unscrupulous landlords, I might add, who want to benefit from this.

We will have some questions for the minister during the committee stage debate around this front. Certainly, from our perspective we want to make sure that the SAFER grant is actually put in place so that the seniors will benefit from it, instead of it just quickly being transferred in terms of hands — from the seniors into the landlords' hands. I don't think that's the intent of what we want to achieve here, but that is a concern that we have.

As I mentioned, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has already sent out a press release on the issue dated September 28. Really, at the end of the day, certainly for her community, the SAFER program amounts to much ado about nothing for the seniors who actually would want to benefit from this.

J. Kwan: From that perspective, you can understand from the discussion and the consultation that my colleague had gone out to talk to seniors in that situation. They are very disappointed about this. They are very upset about it. They are concerned about it, and rightly so.

We will be raising these issues, and members on the other side, the government side, might not like to hear the concerns that the opposition raises around government actions. But you know what? That's the role of the opposition. That is the job of the opposition. In the hopes of doing that, of course, we would actually ensure that the government does the right thing.

That's the purpose of the opposition, as we have seen on another issue around the children and family development front and the great work of my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in his effort to pressure the government in doing the right thing around child protection for British Columbians. We actually got the government to put in, I guess, five reviews now around child protection issues because of the work of the opposition.

To that end, we'll continue to do the work. I'm proud of the 33 MLAs on this side of the House, and we won't relent in ensuring that issues are raised — issues that are important to British Columbians — and most important of all, in ensuring that the meagre benefits that this Minister of Finance and this government have introduced in this minibudget, the first budget post-election, will actually go to benefit the people.

As we saw, the big winner of the minibudget actually was the corporate sector. They got the biggest chunk of new moneys introduced in this new minibudget — corporate tax cuts. The small amount of moneys that has gone to seniors doesn't even add up to the total amount of the corporate tax cut.

We want to make sure that the people who are meant to benefit would actually get those benefits. In this instance, around this SAFER grant for manufactured homes, we want to make sure the seniors actually benefit from it. In the case of my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, she has already identified seniors who would not actually benefit from this, and it is a great concern for the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Taylor: I have great respect for everyone who puts themselves forward as a politician, and I have great respect for all of my NDP colleagues. I even have respect for a former NDP MLA who wrote to me just in the last couple of weeks — it's from Rick Kasper — saying:I'm a former MLA who conducted a provincial review of manufactured home tenancy, and I submitted a report to the government in 1992. One of the recommendations was to see SAFER extended to include manufactured home owners who pay pad rent. During my term as an MLA for over nine years that recommendation fell on deaf ears, and I was repeatedly told it could never be done. So, therefore, I was thrilled to see this in the budget, as there are many seniors, some widows, widowers and many who are low-income, who do not want to leave their homes and have had to struggle for many years paying high pad rents with no assistance. Congratulations to you and your government for bringing in this important initiative that will help countless senior B.C. residents in manufactured homes.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 3 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Bill 9 contains amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act that will help TransLink implement its strategic transportation plan. In its plan, TransLink has identified a number of capital projects, including the expansion of the conventional transit system and the acquisition of hundreds and hundreds of new buses; construction of strategically important new roads; construction of the Golden Ears Bridge over the Fraser River; and two new rapid transit lines — the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line and the northeast sector line, sometimes referred to as the Coquitlam line.

These projects, needless to say, will cost a lot of money. TransLink has a variety of means to generate revenues to pay for these projects. One of these means

is a parking tax. TransLink's enabling legislation, which was enacted in 1998, always provided an ability to levy a parking tax, but the provisions were unworkable and did not provide sufficient protection to taxpayers. Knowing this, the board of directors of TransLink approached the province and asked that the legislation be fixed.

Amendments were thus enacted in the fall of 2004 that allowed the B.C. Assessment authority to create a parking site roll under contract to TransLink. Additional amendments, which are contained in Bill 9, add a new part to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act.

These amendments will do the following. They will provide authority to municipalities and the surveyor of taxes to collect the parking tax on behalf of the GTVA. They will provide the property assessment review panel and the Property Assessment Appeal Board with the authority to hear parking site roll complaints and appeals. They will establish the complaints and appeals process and specify grounds for complaints and appeals, all of which largely mimic traditional property assessment appeals.

They will, importantly, establish tax rate caps of $1.43 per square metre or $45.13 per parking stall. They will provide for a mandatory review of the parking tax legislation by the province within ten years of this legislation coming into force. I should also note that TransLink will reimburse the province and local governments for all costs associated with the implementation and collection of the parking tax and will also fund the appeal process.

TransLink requested these changes. Its board of directors has twice voted in favour of establishing a parking tax. These amendments protect taxpayers, consumers and business with a fair complaints and appeals process and respect TransLink's jurisdiction, providing comprehensive road and transit services in the lower mainland.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for his explanation of the bill. We on this side of the House will support the bill. We'll do so precisely because it is a community-based initiative. It comes to us from the TransLink board and the GVRD, who have done the work to make the difficult decisions which need to be made around the regional transportation strategy.

That strategy is based on a whole number of criteria, including transit and transportation needs, rational land use projections and planning, environmental commitments and the commuter needs of the region.

Instead of interventions, which we've sometimes seen from this House and which are based on political motives, this is an example of transportation policy development that is community-based and rational. We'll be supporting it.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 9 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC
INITIATIVE AND THE OLYMPICS

I would just like to note that a guide to procedures has been passed around to all the members, and I would like to let everyone know that it's being televised today. It's the first time this committee room has been televised. For all of you that want to rush home, it will play internally live in the building. After 9 o'clock, after the House has finished sitting, it'll play on the Legislative channel so that all your relatives can watch it.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like to start by introducing some of the ministry officials who are with me today. I'm joined by Andrew Wilkinson, who is the deputy minister. I'm also joined by Soren Harbel, who's the Assistant Deputy Minister for Marketing, Investment and Trade Division; also by Doug Caul, who is the As-

sistant Deputy Minister, Economic Competitiveness Division; and also Doug Callbeck, Assistant Deputy Minister of Management Services Division.

I'd like to start — not with a long presentation but just to outline for members and those following the debate — with some of the changes that have happened in the ministry since the election. This has resulted in the renaming of the ministry and also several important elements that have come into this ministry that had previously been in other ministries prior to last June.

I guess the most significant element of the ministry that has gone to a different ministry is tourism. That has now become the core of the new Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts. The most significant changes in terms of other elements that have come into this ministry are, first of all, with regard to the Industry Training Authority, which has been moved into this ministry from the Ministry of Advanced Education; and also immigration-related programs that were previously in the Ministry of Community Services or what was then known as Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, which have been moved into this ministry. Those are the provincial nominee program, the business immigration program and the Skills Connects program that have come into Economic Development.

There's a bunch of other minor changes, which we can certainly get into if members would like me to elaborate any more on some of the other elements of either parts of the ministry that have gone out or the other issues or programs that have come into this ministry. I think that summarizes the most significant shifts that have taken place as a result of the reorganization in June. With that short introduction, I will invite any questions or comments from members.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the minister for his comments. I'd like to begin a bit by just sort of laying out the direction that, hopefully, we can take over the next day or so and how we can approach the estimates so that it works for both the minister and ourselves in shoring up our staff here.

As I've already mentioned to the minister, I know the Olympics is part of his portfolio. That's something we can do at the tail end of the estimates discussion. In terms of the ITAC, there'll probably be a number of questions around that. That's something I know we won't get to this evening, but certainly, I hope we can get to that tomorrow, along with the Columbia Basin Trust. There'll be questions around that, which we'll probably, hopefully tomorrow afternoon, be able to deal with.

I'd like to note that it's kind of interesting asking the questions, as opposed to the last time you and I were across the floor. It was the other way, so I'm getting a sense of what it was like from your perspective in terms of asking the questions, as opposed to having to answer the questions. I think that's going to be a bit of a learning curve, and I'm kind of looking forward to it. I'd like to thank the minister for the briefing we had this morning. It was helpful, especially in terms of planning out how we can approach today.

I'd like to go through this in terms of the strategic plan that's out here — the ministry overview, the core business and through the different elements of marketing, promoting and enhancing economic development — and to look at some of the various issues associated with them — you know, from the investment climate, enhancing economic development and tax competitiveness.

Trade policy, the Asia-Pacific initiative. I have some specific interest in that, in some of the issues around internal trade and labour market planning and issues around that, as well as the immigration component that the minister touched on a moment ago.

One of the things I'd like to get a sense of is how, over the last couple of years…? What have been some of the major changes that have taken place within the focus of the ministry in terms of how it's delivering its services compared to, let's say, 2001? What have been some of the major changes that have taken place?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you go back four years ago to when we formed government, one of our first big initiatives was the initiative around deregulation. It was trying to streamline regulation, to find out those that were overlapping, redundant, that weren't really set up to drive significant outcomes, and how we could make our regulatory system in B.C. much more focussed on meeting specific results rather than on regulation for regulation's sake. That was a big thrust of what this ministry was four years ago.

We also made a very specific decision going into the 2001 election that we would eliminate business subsidies. What had previously in the ministry been focused on how to assist specific companies, often through either direct subsidies or things that some would have interpreted as subsidies — that would have the net effect of being subsidies — we made a policy decision that we were not going to be doing that. That was a significant transition for the ministry and, actually, a significant transition for a lot of companies in terms of how they relate to government.

One of the other areas we refocused on was trying to ensure that we could enable business. We wanted companies to compete in a private sector market without subsidy from government, but we also wanted to do what we could to facilitate businesses starting up and expanding in British Columbia and creating jobs.

Part of that was around competitiveness. One of the things that this ministry has done for the last four years and that we continue to do is to make recommendations to the Ministry of Finance with regard to tax policy to ensure that our tax regimes are, in fact, competitive with the other jurisdictions with which we are competing for investment, competing for businesses.

We've now turned a corner on that first four years. Quite frankly, I look back on the first four years as ones in which we had to get our house in order as a province in terms of how government relates to business.

We now think we have a pretty good story to tell. We now want to tell the world that British Columbia is welcoming for investment and welcoming for companies to come here. We want to ensure that we provide the economic tools that new and expanding companies need, such as a properly trained workforce and a competitive environment. That is very much a focus of the ministry now.

Competition and the competitiveness of our tax regime is still one of our focuses, as I mentioned, but we also want to get the message out around the world that B.C. is a welcoming place for companies and investment. Much of the new focus of this ministry will be around marketing and ensuring that that message is in fact getting out to the world — in particular to the Asia-Pacific region, which we recognize is really going to be the major dynamic growth region in the world economy. We want to make sure that British Columbia and Canada are a central part of that.

M. Farnworth: I think we all recognize that the marketing of British Columbia is a key component of where the province needs to be now and also where the province needs to be in the future, given some of the dramatic changes that are taking place in the global economy right now — particularly what we're seeing in Asia and what we're seeing in terms of economic growth in the United States and other areas.

In terms of marketing, how is the ministry doing that? What's the structure that it's using? What is the primary focus in its directions? Where does the minister see us going on a one-year basis and forward over the next two or three years?

Hon. C. Hansen: A lot of our marketing initiative for British Columbia in the coming years is going to be built around two central themes. One is the Olympics, which is going to be an opportunity for us to showcase British Columbia, not just as a sporting event, but to showcase what British Columbia is as a place to visit, a place to invest and a place to emigrate to. A lot of our international marketing will be using the Olympics as the hook, taking advantage of the world media attention that will be focused on British Columbia.

We will also be focusing a lot on the Asia-Pacific, as the target of our marketing, because that truly is a huge opportunity for us as a province to make sure we are recognized in that part of the world as a supplier and as a place to invest.

We are currently working on developing the Asia-Pacific initiative. That's not something that is yet fleshed out. We're looking at a couple of different models. We're not necessarily trying to create that market presence the way it has always been created in the past by different jurisdictions. We're looking at some new models.

For example, we're looking at how we can establish a presence in certain key cities, in certain key markets, around the Asia-Pacific region. That's not necessarily opening up the mini-embassy, which is a very expensive way. I think that given new technologies, we can find more cost-effective ways of establishing the same presence through some other routes. We're exploring those.

At this stage we're working with the new Asia-Pacific Trade Council that we announced just last week. We want to get their input in terms of where they think the key markets are that British Columbia should be establishing a presence in. That's not necessarily going into all of the capital cities. It may be that there are other cities in certain countries that are going to be more strategic for us to establish a presence. We still have a lot of work to do to flesh out exactly what that is.

The other thing we will be doing is working with delegations — trade missions from British Columbia that will be going to those various regions. We want to make sure those are well planned.

I believe that when it comes to trade missions, there has to be a considerable amount of time and effort put in, in advance of the trip, to ensure that they are as effective as possible and are of direct benefit to the private sector participants that go along on those missions. There has to be some good homework done ahead of time, and there has to be good follow-up afterwards. Otherwise, I don't believe we would be putting those missions to the best use possible.

We are going to be mapping out a long-term strategy in terms of where trade missions should go, what we hope to accomplish from them and how we accomplish them in a strategic way.

The other side that is an area I think has a lot of potential is inbound missions to British Columbia. We've got the example of the delegation coming from Guangdong Province in China later in October. It's going to be, I think, in the neighbourhood of 300 to 400 participants that are going to be coming to Vancouver. That's one example of a delegation.

We want to make sure we show them what British Columbia can offer and what we can offer them, because I also believe that trade and investment have to be a two-way street. It has to be a partnership and a relationship that gets built over time.

I guess that's one of the exciting parts of this ministry. When you look at that marketing thrust, when you look at the Asia-Pacific initiative, it is an opportunity to create something that is quite exciting and that's very much 21st century in how we approach it. My goal is that, first of all, we're going to take the time and do the planning properly.

At the end of it, I expect we will have a model that will be the envy not only of every other province in Canada but many other jurisdictions around the world.

M. Farnworth: There is a whole series of interesting points there I'd like to get into. One of the first ones that comes to mind is: what is different about this current initiative as opposed to what you've been doing for the last couple of years?

Hon. C. Hansen: Probably the most significant change that is taking place, as I outlined earlier, is the

last four years being about getting our house in order and making sure we removed the impediments to investment, removed the impediments to businesses that would be looking to British Columbia. We believe we've done that. In the past four years we were largely reactive. So when we had expressions of interest, we did our best to try to respond to the interests of delegations that might be coming in or to investors that might be looking for opportunity.

Now that we believe we have got our house in order and that we have shown the world British Columbia is an attractive place to do business, we will be shifting into much more of a proactive model. We will actually be taking that message out to world, inviting investors and inviting the job creators to come to British Columbia. We will be demonstrating to them that this is a great place to invest, a great place to do business.

M. Farnworth: In terms of our trading relationships with our Asian partners, for example, over the last two years we really haven't been doing a lot in terms of being proactive with them.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look at export stats over the last four years, we have seen a steady increase in exports from British Columbia, but that has been primarily private sector–driven. I think government has tried to play a supportive role where possible, but we now figure we can open the throttle up a little bit more and really get out and be aggressive in marketing.

M. Farnworth: When did the last of the offices that used to be in place close? There were a number of them, I believe — in Japan, in Hong Kong. I know Singapore closed a while back. When did the last of them close?

Hon. C. Hansen: I just wanted to go back to a previous discussion. I shouldn't ignore the very excellent programs that are being done by the forest innovation program. Within the Ministry of Forests, they've got some very proactive programs in Asia in these last four years. When we're talking specifically about the work done in this ministry, it has been largely in a reactive mode for these last four years and is now transitioning to this new approach.

In terms of our offices, the most recent office that closed was actually the one in Taiwan. I guess in the last couple of years we'd also closed the offices in Tokyo and London, and I believe one in Hong Kong closed during that period of time. We still have offices for tourism, and they still have a presence in Tokyo, Taipei, Sydney, London and Frankfurt. There is still that tourism presence, but of course, that's now under the new ministry.

M. Farnworth: In terms of offices being proactive — those basically closed over the last couple of years…. They have not been replaced by anything. In terms of the ministry, it has very much reacted to incoming missions only.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we are looking at, going forward, are not necessarily bricks-and-mortar offices. Those are expensive models. We think there are other ways of being equally as effective using individuals on contract to us who are on the ground representing British Columbia, opening doors and providing a service to us but doing it by working with the Canadian embassy, working with industry associations and not going to the expense of actually having an official, formal office in a commercial building in those particular markets.

As we go forward, that is the route we are likely to pursue in these various regions. We have just recently, for example, contracted four what we call IMRs — in-market representatives — and they are now stationed. We have those four IMRs in place in Europe, and we will likely be pursuing that similar model as we roll out our Asia-Pacific initiative as well.

M. Farnworth: I understand the point of view around the bricks and mortar versus the contract. How many contract people do we have on the ground now, doing the type of work that used to be done in the bricks-and-mortar offices?

Hon. C. Hansen: We currently have those four in place now, and we are anticipating there will be a total of 12.

Hon. C. Hansen: The plan is that we would roll this out in phases. Initially, we have the four IMRs that have now been contracted for in Europe. We also anticipate having four in place in the United States and four in Asia. As I mentioned earlier, we are going to be seeking input from our Asia-Pacific Trade Council with regard to exactly where the most strategic locations would be for those four Asian IMRs.

M. Farnworth: We've got the four going in Europe and the others coming out in phases. What's been taking place, then…? Who has been doing that work in Asia up until now, since the offices have been closed? Or has that work been taking place?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of people physically on the ground in Asia, there are none that are currently connected with the Ministry of Economic Development. There are some who are connected through the forest investment innovation program, but that would be through the Ministry of Forests.

M. Farnworth: My expectation would be that the logical conclusion…. Those people are dealing basically with forest products and forest-related issues, but at

the same time, there are a host of other trading issues around the Asia-Pacific that they would not be dealing with, whether it's manufactured goods, whether it's opportunities for manufacturing goods, whether it's other types of resources — coal, minerals, steel and those types of things. Currently, though, there's nobody on the ground dealing with those types of issues over there at the present time?

M. Farnworth: In terms of the bricks-and-mortar issue versus a contract — individuals — has the ministry done any studies to determine the cost-effectiveness and the results that one is likely to get vis-à-vis the two different approaches and models?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is actually a report that was done for our ministry by a ministry staff person in 2001 looking at these various models. That certainly has helped to guide us. There's also been a more recent study done by the province of Ontario, which they have shared with us, that shows that the contract approach, the in-market representative approach, is about one-third of the cost of establishing a bricks-and-mortar office.

M. Farnworth: I understand the point about costs. How about in terms of effectiveness? Are there any studies looking at the effectiveness of which approach tends to work best? Are they getting the same results or better results? Is there anything in that area?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is considered to be more effective to use the in-market rep approach. The reason is that these individuals we are contracting with already have their existing relationships. They have their existing contacts, and they can hit the ground running very quickly, as opposed to us establishing our own office and having staff that would move from Canada to that jurisdiction and then really having to get up to speed on all of those various contacts. We actually consider the in-market rep approach not only to be more cost-effective but also to be more effective — period.

M. Farnworth: How does the IMR approach compare with what other provinces are doing — in particular, some of our main competitors? I'm thinking of Alberta and Ontario.

Hon. C. Hansen: Alberta is using a co-located model, which means that they have officials of the Ontario government that actually have their offices in the embassies and commissions around the world. Ontario also uses some co-location with the embassies, but they are now increasingly using the in-market representative model.

One of the problems we have with the co-located models, if I can anticipate your next question, is that it really does restrict the flexibility of that agent to act. They wind up in a diplomatic box and are very restricted in terms of what they can and can't do because of that diplomatic status and in terms of travelling between different jurisdictions where, perhaps, their diplomatic status may not be recognized.

The IMR model actually gives a lot more flexibility. The other thing that was pointed out to me is that co-location is quite an expensive model as well, because those jurisdictions have to share in the overhead cost of the embassy. Particularly post-9/11, the overhead costs at our embassies around the world have increased significantly because of the additional security costs.

M. Farnworth: Thanks for anticipating the question. I just want to clarify. When you said that Alberta was using Ontario, did you mean that Alberta was using Alberta individuals in the co-location model?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather that was a slip of the tongue on my part. I don't want to start any rumours. All our embassies and commissions are in fact still part of the federal government.

M. Farnworth: If we're going with the IMR, as the ministry feels that's the best and most productive way of approaching and expanding our trade relationships, there are a number of questions that come out of that. First, what are the criteria for selecting the IMR individuals? And what methods are we using to quantify results?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the kind of skills that we're looking for with these in-market representatives, firstly, we're looking for sector-specific skills in certain jurisdictions. If British Columbia's interest in a particular region or jurisdiction is in a particular sector, then we'll want somebody with strong skills in that area.

Secondly, we are looking for individuals that have strong and established contacts in that particular jurisdiction so that they can hit the ground running, as I mentioned earlier. Thirdly, we need people that can work independently. These are individuals that need to be self-motivated and need to be able to produce results for British Columbia.

In terms of measuring success, we are building into contracts specific goals that they must accomplish. For example, we will measure them based on the number of qualified companies they are referring to British Columbia and arranging to visit British Columbia with specific business or investment objectives. Part of that is that these companies have to come with a budget to actually make a venture happen.

They need to have a specific time line in which they wish to accomplish their business objectives. There has to be someone in that company who is specifically a lead for exploring that relationship with British Columbia. Finally, they need to make sure that British Columbia is on the shortlist of those companies as a place with which they wish to do business.

We're setting up these contracts with a specific 20-percent holdback in their compensation. They would only receive their full compensation once they've delivered on the specific objectives.

M. Farnworth: One of the advantages of a bricks-and-mortar office is that it is visible and easily identifiable by people in either the country or the city where it's located, so it's accessible. How are you going to make the IMRs accessible? You've said that you want them to be plugged into a network, but that does not necessarily mean you're going to capture everyone who may be interested. How do people find them?

Hon. C. Hansen: A number of years ago I had the opportunity to visit B.C.'s office in Tokyo. It was hard to find it in the first place, and it certainly was not presenting to the public a visible sign of British Columbia. It was in a commercial space on the third floor of an office building that was, to be quite honest, very difficult to find. Probably the only office British Columbia has had that really had a visible presence was the one in London. That was a very expensive office to operate with some fairly limited returns for the province.

The brand that we want to market internationally is Canada. We want to support the work of our embassies and of our trade commission service and work with them in a collaborative way. We want to make sure that B.C. is seen as the best jurisdiction in Canada and the best place on earth to invest and do business, but we want to make sure that we present a Canadian presence in those communities in a way that benefits British Columbia, rather than being in competition with other provinces in those foreign jurisdictions.

M. Farnworth: I agree. We do want to present British Columbia as the best place to work, invest and all those things. I think the trade strategy is a key component of that.

I'm a little surprised at a couple of comments. I agree that the office in Tokyo was a rather awkward place. Whether or not that was because you and I aren't able to read or speak Japanese or find our way around Tokyo, I don't know. But I think it does point out one of the issues, which is visibility and accessibility.

The other question is around the office the minister said was very well situated and was probably the best location of any trade office. That was the one in London, which we basically closed down. The minister said it was a very expensive operation. In fact, my understanding was that the rent for that place was actually fixed back in 1910 or 1906, when we were given the lease to it. The revenue we derived from renting it out funded a significant portion of our overseas operations. It was very much a bargain from that perspective. I would ask the minister to check that one out.

It still comes back to my question: how does a business find the IMR? I mean, you can look in a phone book in Tokyo and find the address of a place. I'm sure you could find it. How does someone get plugged into the IMR? How are you planning on doing that?

Hon. C. Hansen: This probably underscores the shift that we're going through. Our initiative in marketing British Columbia is going to be proactive, so our in-market reps will be out. They will be identifying companies that should be interested in doing business in British Columbia and will be proactive in approaching them and making sure that they recognize what we have to offer.

For those companies that do seek to find British Columbia or to get in contact with an IMR representative, they will be able to do that through the embassies. Our experience shows that simply hanging out a shingle around the world is not going to generate business leads for British Columbia. We have to go out and find them. The world is not beating a path to our doorstep. We have to be proactive in approaching those companies, and that's exactly the role that the IMRs will have.

M. Farnworth: I agree. We do have to be proactive. It's not just a question of hanging out a shingle. I don't want to belabour the point, but I do think it's important that businesses that are also proactive, that are not just waiting and hanging out their shingle and want to be able to get in touch with our representatives and our individuals…. I'm still concerned in terms of how they do that. As I said earlier, people have their networks, and if you're not part of that network, you may find it difficult to get plugged in. That's something I think we need to address.

My next question follows on something you just commented about — that is, in terms of our priorities. In our different markets we're going to have different priorities for what it is we are going to try and accomplish in terms of business investment. Clearly, in terms of China there will be one set of priorities. In terms of other markets — let's say, in Europe or South America or wherever — there'll be other priorities. Have we determined priorities for different regions?

Hon. C. Hansen: It depends how much detail you want here. If you look at industry sectors such as life science and biotechnology, our target market is primarily the western United States. Then our second tier of markets would be eastern U.S.A., the European Union, Japan and Australia. Our third tier would be other Asia-Pacific countries.

If you look down, I've got industry sectors for information communications technology, environmental sciences, resource management technologies and alternative energy, advanced manufacturing, forest pro-ducts, oil and gas, mining and coal, agrifood and fish products, film and TV production, resort development, tourism, education and training, and business process services. In each of those target industries or sectors we have identified where our primary target markets are. As we develop our contracts with our in-market representatives, they would be tasked to focus in on those

particular priority areas as they may apply to the region in which they're working.

M. Farnworth: In terms of overall geographic sectors…. We've got industry sectors, but in terms of our priority areas such as Asia-Pacific, Europe, Australia and the United States, what are the main priority areas?

Hon. C. Hansen: As much as we recognize that there are tremendous opportunities for growth with our trading relationships with the Asia-Pacific region, we also have to recognize that the United States is and for the foreseeable future always will be our most significant trading partner. So we need to make sure that those markets in the U.S. are cultivated and nurtured, but we also need to recognize the big opportunities that we have going forward in Asia and the Asia-Pacific region.

In Europe we have some traditional markets, and we have some market challenges, but that is the third area of our focus. We want to make sure that we don't neglect that market from a trade perspective or from an investment perspective or for tourism. Those are the three areas of focus: the United States, Asia-Pacific and the European Union.

M. Farnworth: That's quite a diverse group, and I think it does encompass the major trading partners and relationships that we as a province have outside our internal market. I'm curious, given that you mentioned Asia-Pacific, the United States and then Europe, why the first four IMRs are in Europe.

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the IMRs, we're very close to actually having them in place in the U.S. We expect that sometime in the next two to three months those will be in place. In terms of Asia-Pacific, I think there are some very important strategic decisions that we have to make, and we do want to get the advice and input from our Asia-Pacific Trade Council before we finalize exactly where our key and strategic cities would be to locate these in-market representatives.

In the case of Europe, quite frankly, it was an easier rollout, so it was done first. The United States is close behind. In Asia we have to look at our thrust into the Asia-Pacific region as being one that has to be long-term, not like the false start that I believe Canada and British Columbia made in the late 1980s. I remember that clearly. A lot of people got very excited about the Asia-Pacific region at that period of time. I was intimately involved with it at that time, and I think it was a false start in that some people saw it as a quick payback or some quick contracts.

In reality, I think we have to approach the Asia-Pacific economy as one that has to be strategic, well planned, well thought out. We have to go in there for the long term to make sure that we capitalize on the opportunities there. So yes, the Asia-Pacific is our most important region from a growth perspective, and we're taking our time to make sure that we do this approach and rollout of the in-market representatives carefully and strategically.

M. Farnworth: I'm going to come back to the Asia-Pacific region in a moment. If the minister could answer: whereabouts are the four IMRs going to be located in Europe?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you where these individuals have their residences when they're home, but our plan is that they're not going to be home very much. We expect them to be travelling throughout the European Union basically to ensure that they're on the ground in the countries and in the cities where they are needed when they're needed. The four individuals — one of them is actually resident in the UK. Another is resident in Denmark. Another one is resident in southern Germany. Another one is resident in northern Germany. In fact, where they will be focused and where they will be working is throughout the European Union.

M. Farnworth: The minister has been talking about opportunities. They will be seeking out opportunities and businesses that they think have potential or have an interest in looking at what we're doing here in British Columbia or investing here in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have undertaken sector studies to look at where some of those opportunities are. We believe there are companies in the European Union that would be interested in either trade relationships or investment relationships with British Columbia. The in-market representatives are then set up to basically tap not only their own contacts that they have, which by definition are extensive throughout the European Union, but they also have access to a variety of databases to look at what companies should be interested in developing a trade and investment relationship with British Columbia.

The role of the IMR, once they have identified those companies, is that they actually target those companies, set up appointments, go in and talk to them and build their interest in British Columbia and then follow up on that interest and facilitate it.

M. Farnworth: Will part of their job also be, for want of a better term, intelligence gathering — monitoring what's taking place in different parts of Europe? I'm thinking of areas where we may be facing challenges in terms of some of our trading relationships or some of the economic activity that's taking place in different countries within the region.

Hon. C. Hansen: We would expect that these IMRs would feed back to us information that might be useful to help us develop our own strategic plans for the future. So the short answer is yes, there is input that

would come from these individuals that would be beneficial to us. We are looking specifically at economic information or where there are opportunities for British Columbia in the future.

The breakdown is that we expect them to spend about 80 percent of their time working on attracting investment to British Columbia and about 20 percent of their time developing export opportunities for British Columbia goods and services. But in the course of doing that, we're not sending them out to actually gather data or information for us. It's more just the information that they would gather in the course of fulfilling those other obligations.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying, but one of my concerns — and I'll give the member my firsthand experience with it — is that as much as we need to be attracting people here, we also need to be knowing what is going on in some of the different regions. As the minister knows, after the last election I had to find alternative employment, and I spent a couple of years in the Balkans. It was fascinating to watch a post-transition society looking to attract economic investment.

In the last six months before I left, one of the things that I became very acutely aware of was the number of film production companies that were relocating to the Balkans from Canada. There has been a considerable amount of activity here in British Columbia and other jurisdictions in terms of attracting and retaining the film industry over the last decade. It's something the federal government has been involved in, as has the current government. A lot of initiatives have been undertaken. Yet at the same time we are now seeing…. What I saw firsthand there were Canadian companies relocating from here to there because of incentives that were in place and because of regulatory changes that were taking place in Europe.

I think it's crucial that we know when those things are taking place. That's why I'm asking questions around: are they expected to be reporting back on this type of activity? If they're not, then I suggest that you need to review that and we should be making that type of information part of the contract.

Hon. C. Hansen: We do endeavour to track emerging initiatives around the world, but with technology, we can now do that from a British Columbia base. We don't necessarily need to have somebody in a particular city feeding back information. We are able to track that from here. We also have the help of the embassies to assist us in tracking that.

In the case of the film productions, it was, as I understand it, in the case of Romania, several productions that went to Romania, not companies that sort of picked up and moved there. They actually did some productions in Romania. Apparently, I'm advised, Romania does have an advantage when it comes to the construction of very elaborate and detailed sets that are required that would be much more expensive to re-create here in British Columbia. What we have in British Columbia that Romania doesn't have is a first-class trained workforce in the film industry. That is not matched in very many jurisdictions around the world.

I take the member's point. It is important that we track this and that we follow those kinds of initiatives. We get feedback, which we'll get both from the private sector…. We also monitor that in the ministry on an ongoing basis, and we seek input from our embassies in that regard. Our in-market representatives would also be providing information from time to time. To try to do that for a vast region or a vast part of the world would be very difficult from a base, say, in London, England, just as it has its challenges to do it from Vancouver. But with technology, we can certainly get a lot of the information that we need by watching publications and news media and various Internet sources.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his comments. It's more than just Romania. It is Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic. They are aggressively pursuing film and television. Romania…. I know the example you're referring to, because it was major news there. There is an aggressive effort to get and target companies here in North America to relocate there, do productions there. That's what's fuelling our industry here — the productions here.

We should not be underestimating people and their ability to provide trained workforces. They're doing it too. That's my concern: that we make sure that we're on top of what's going on.

My question is…. The minister said that we can use technology. It doesn't have to be done there. It can be done here. Are we currently doing that here? Do we have people who are doing that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes, we do have some of that capacity, but it is an area in the ministry that we will be building significantly as we roll out our Asia-Pacific initiative. This is a marketing effort that we are building, and it's an exciting time in the ministry because I think a year from now our capabilities in that regard are going to be considerably greater than they are today.

M. Farnworth: So we have the capacity, but we're not yet operating at full capacity is I think what I'm hearing. That is something we want to watch over the next year, because I think it's a very important aspect that we sometimes neglect in terms of our trading relationships.

What are the time lines, then, for…? The minister mentioned the other jurisdiction, the United States, coming on relatively soon. What are the general time lines? Where does the minister expect us to be this time next year in terms of the IMRs being on the ground and up and running?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, the IMRs will be in place in the U.S. within the next couple of

months, and the ones in Asia-Pacific we anticipate early in the new year. With the Asia Pacific Initiative I don't want to prejudge the advice that we'll be getting from our Asia-Pacific Trade Council. While we've got some ideas we're working towards, we do want to make sure that we get the input from the trade council before we start marching too far down this road in case these experts will give us better advice in terms of how this should unfold.

By a year from now we expect that the trade council will be fully operational and providing us strategic input. We anticipate we are also putting in place six what we are today calling regional market advisory groups. That's a bit of a working title. That may change by the time we get to being able to roll them out. We are looking at phasing in, over the coming eight to nine months, market advisory groups for six key parts of Asia. A year from now I expect they will be fully operational as well.

M. Farnworth: I want to ask about the six key parts in a moment, but I want to just come back to the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. What's the makeup of the trade council, and how does it provide and develop its advice for you?

Hon. C. Hansen: The initial members of the trade council are Arthur Hara as chair and Carol Lee and Arvinder Bubber as the vice-chairs. The other members to date are Charles Kim, Eva Kwok, Brandt Louie, Pitman Porter, Andrew Saxton Jr., Jim Shepherd, Norman Stark and Grace Wong. That is not necessarily a final list. We are looking at the possibility of adding additional members to the trade council, as we recognize that there's going to be specific expertise and specific skill sets that we would want to add.

They are working with staff support from my ministry, and I know that the chair and vice-chairs have been meeting on a weekly basis now to get the work of the council up and running. They will be commissioning certain studies and reports on different market opportunities that are there to guide them in their deliberations. Early in the new year they will be producing a report for government with specific recommendations as to how we should move forward with the Asia-Pacific initiative and whatever other Asia-Pacific opportunities present themselves. We are at the early stages, because they have just been appointed, but I can speak from my discussions with them that they are all enthusiastic and anxious to get going.

M. Farnworth: Certainly from the names the minister has mentioned, there's clearly some very capable and knowledgeable expertise around that table, and I look forward to hearing their recommendations.

The minister said that in terms of developing the Asia-Pacific initiative, one of the things he was concerned about was not wanting to sort of prejudge that the ministry had its views on what the challenges were or what some of the decisions were that needed to be made and wanting to wait until the council has brought forward its recommendations. I'm just wondering if you could tell us what are some of the challenges you've identified that you think are key.

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, for example, the whole issue around the in-market representatives that we need to look specifically…. We want to get the advice of the council members. This doesn't necessarily mean waiting for them to produce a report in the spring. We will tap into their expertise as we go. We are looking for where our in-market representatives should be situated and what their skill sets should be.

As I know the member knows, doing business in Asia is very much about relationships, and we want to make sure we're sensitive to exactly what that skill set is that our in-market representatives should bring to the table when we contract their services. We'll be seeking their advice on those types of initiatives.

I think the other area is around what sectors may present opportunities for British Columbia and indeed what regions. You can say there is tremendous opportunity starting to emerge in China. Well, China is a huge country, and British Columbia…. If we were trying to go into China and be all things to all people, I don't think we'd be very successful. We need to find ways to target our approach to make sure we're really zeroing in on regions and industries that will be of most benefit to us. We're looking forward to the advice of the trade council in all of those areas.

M. Farnworth: I agree. When we are talking about Asia, it is very much about relationships in a way that is different from Europe or the United States or Australia, and those relationships often take a long time to develop. There are a number of questions around that. One of them comes back to the issue of bricks and mortar versus IMRs and the fact that IMRs can come and go. But if there is an identifiable place that people recognize as being, you know, British Columbia, that has a sense of presence and permanence that's missing from just the individual, and that can contribute to the relationship because people do come and go. Was any of that taken into account in terms of looking at our policy of IMRs versus a bricks-and-mortar approach in Asia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, first of all, it's important to point out that these in-market representatives — the types of individuals we are seeking, not just in Asia but the ones in the U.S. and the ones we have in place in the EU — are individuals who already have relationships that will be of benefit to British Columbia. That is, I believe, much more important than having the bricks and mortar. We're talking about effectiveness and being able to deliver.

Part of it is that, when it comes to the work of our IMGs around the world, we are looking at long-term objectives. A lot of our market presence will be built around the Olympics. We'll be taking advantage of the focus that will be on Vancouver for 2010. We're actu

ally developing, in terms of our long-term strategies, strategies that will take us through to 2013. We believe that there is a big opportunity for us to capitalize on the Olympics in the four and a half years leading up to the Olympics and then also in the three years after the Olympics. The Olympics are going to be somewhat of a marketing opportunity for us that we want to capitalize on, and we are looking at a long-term horizon.

M. Farnworth: I can't resist asking the minister that 2013…. We wouldn't be planning on an election cycle basis, would we? I couldn't resist asking that question.

I understand what the minister is saying around the debate over bricks and mortar and costs and hiring people with relationships. Again, I just want to raise a concern that we hire people on contract, and I would hope that we are looking at having them under contract for a considerable length of time, not sort of looking at a year, 18 months, and then the individuals leaving and you having to start all over again. That's one of the concerns around the IMR approach as opposed to other models out there.

In terms of Asia-Pacific, we've got — you're saying — four in Europe. How many are you anticipating in the Asia-Pacific and how many in the United States?

M. Farnworth: Is that based on any sort of economic or business rationale? I'm just looking at it from the point of view of…. You're looking at four in Europe — a fairly compact geographic area and 400 million people — and four to service…. As you said a moment ago, China is 1.2 billion. India is now a billion, and the rest of Southeast Asia…. It's a huge geographic area with some of the fastest-growing economies. Clearly, in terms of resources, which we have in abundance, we're going to be a major supplier to them. I'm just wondering: why that number, and why not more?

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason we have put four into the European Union is that we feel, particularly on the investment side, that there are some faster wins for British Columbia in attracting investment from Europe to British Columbia, and likewise with the United States. We want to capitalize on opportunities that are there in the near term.

In terms of Asia, we think that it's requiring a longer-term strategy. We are targeting to put four in place. It is a distinct possibility that the trade council may come back and recommend more, in which case we will look at that. It's not to say that there are four, four and four, and that's locked in for all time. We want to make sure that we meet needs and that we capitalize on opportunity. Once we have the ability to properly assess that, then we will determine exactly the kind of human resources we're going to need in those particular regions.

M. Farnworth: Is there any sort of general idea on where you're looking at locating the ones in Asia at the current time? Have you made a specific decision around that, or are there any preliminary decisions on where you're going to focus the IMR, where they are looking at being based?

Hon. C. Hansen: No. It is an area where we really do want to seek the advice of the trade council. I think they're as anxious to get going on this task as we are anxious to get their advice. We certainly don't want to second-guess them or make assumptions in terms of the task and the kind of advice that we are seeking from them.

M. Farnworth: So there have been no recommendations made from within the ministry?

The minister said that the four would be, that they'd be reviewing…. What time line would you be looking at? What sort of period, and how would you be evaluating? Are there guidelines, or are there procedures in place to look at a set review, going forward from when you make the decision?

Hon. C. Hansen: The contracts are reviewed annually, and there are specific targets and goals that are built into those contracts. Those are monitored on an ongoing basis by the ministry. We will be expecting from the in-market representatives that they will deliver on the specific goals and objectives that have been set out, and we will hold them accountable for that.

M. Farnworth: Actually, what I was specifically wondering was not so much in terms of the performance of the individual IMRs but the performance of the program, on how it's working. The original decision is to have four. You indicated you'd be willing to expand that, based on how things develop. What I'm wondering is: do we have in place…? Are there guidelines or measurements to see on what basis we should be getting four? At what point are we going to review not the success of the individuals but the success of the overall approach in determining where we need to be going and where we need to be making changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have built in an independent review of the IMR program every two years. It's from that review that we'll make a determination as to whether additional IMRs would, in fact, be beneficial.

As the member knows from his days in executive council, all of this is subject to what Treasury Board decides is an appropriate budget to allocate to the ministry too. We still have to put our strategies in place and make sure we take those forward to ensure that these initiatives are properly resourced in the years ahead.

M. Farnworth: I hope that they are properly resourced, because I do think…. As we've said earlier, we

all recognize the importance of trade to British Columbia, and we recognize the importance of the diversity of our trading relationships, whether it's Europe, the United States or Asia-Pacific. In particular, given our role as the westernmost province, the Pacific province, that is crucial. The large opportunities we have in terms of the cultural and ethnic makeup of British Columbia to take advantage of that in developing economic opportunities, not only for people living down in the lower mainland but also throughout the province…. I hope the government follows through on that commitment.

Part of the trading relationships that we've had in the past and that continue in the future, and the minister has talked about it a bit, was the issue of trade missions. I'm wondering what has happened over the last couple of years in terms of trade missions, particularly since the Team Canada approach has been abandoned. What is the province's response to that and how we've dealt with that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Over the last four years a lot of our focus has been inward, not trying to reach out with the trade-mission model. There have been a few. I know that B.C. has fully participated in the Team Canada approach when that approach was in existence, but now that the current Prime Minister has decided not to continue that, we obviously have to develop our own proactive strategies going forward.

We are developing now a long-term plan around trade missions, and as I mentioned earlier, they have to be strategic. They have to be missions, I think, where the involvement of a minister or the Premier is of key importance and makes the difference. I'm sure, as the member knows, in many of these countries, particularly in Asia-Pacific, ministers of the Crown or the Premier of a province can be very beneficial in opening doors and facilitating the business relationships that would flow from the private sector.

We have not yet finalized any specific trade missions. Again, we want to do that in consultation with the council, but we will be developing that long-term calendar for trade missions.

M. Farnworth: How many trade missions to Asia have taken place over the last two years?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess it comes down to what you define as being a trade mission per se, but probably the only one in the last couple of years that really would meet what I would define as a trade mission was the one that the Premier led to India and China, where you have a specific delegation of business leaders who are there to take advantage of the presence of a senior public official in terms of opening doors and building the relationships that are necessary to facilitate business.

There have been other delegations that have gone from British Columbia for various conferences and things like that, but I wouldn't describe them per se as a trade mission. When we look forward, we're looking at a specific trade mission that actually is with business executives accompanying who have specific business objectives to achieve through that, where the homework has been done ahead of time and the appropriate follow-up would be done afterwards.

M. Farnworth: So in the last two years there has been one, and I would agree with the minister's definition of what a trade mission should be.

Is the ministry looking forward, then, going forward? We've mentioned how in the last two years they've been more reactive, inbound and not as proactive. Are we looking at being more proactive in that area over the next few years? Is that the minister's plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes. As we put these missions together, we will be looking specifically at how the involvement of the Premier or other ministers actually helps to facilitate the business relationship.

M. Farnworth: Is there a coordination that's currently taking place amongst the different…? I'll phrase this correctly. Will the ministry be coordinating the efforts of different ministers to ensure that we get the maximum benefit of activity that's taking place on the different missions that do and will occur?

M. Farnworth: I think one of the things that is important is that there is a lot of travel and delegations that do take place. Often there are opportunities that arise because of it. One of the things I'd like to know is taking place is that when this is happening, your ministry is involved and looking at: "All right, if we do have a delegation going here, and there's an opportunity to either link up with people who possibly should be going on the mission or the delegation…." With the work the IMRs will be doing, that is something that will be taking place.

Hon. C. Hansen: That is exactly the approach that will be taken. I can give the member a case in point. The Minister of Transportation was recently part of a trade delegation to China that was led by the federal Minister of Transportation. I was also being encouraged by officials in my ministry to attend a conference that was a spinoff from the World Economic Forum being held in Beijing in early September on transportation and, specifically, port-related subjects.

I guess my response was saying: "Show me the business case for that travel." When we realized that this was actually going to coincide with the visit by the Minister of Transportation, it was a perfect opportunity for the Minister of Transportation to stay what I think was the extra day and a half and deliver a speech to this economic forum in Beijing about the gateway

strategy and the development of our ports in British Columbia, a speech that I gather was very well received by that audience.

It was making the most effective use of the taxpayers' dollars. Rather than two ministers crossing the Pacific Ocean, we had one minister doing double duty.

M. Farnworth: While trade missions and delegations are important parts of relationship-building, it's also likewise when we receive delegations coming into British Columbia. Has the number of delegations gone down, remained the same or increased over the last couple of years?

Hon. C. Hansen: The number of incoming delegations is actually up considerably in the last number of years, particularly from China.

M. Farnworth: How about from outside of China? Has that increased as well, or has that stayed the same?

Hon. C. Hansen: From other countries, I gather it's been fairly stable. The one exception may be Korea, where we've also seen a significant…. There has certainly been an increase in the interest of Korean delegations to visit British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Will part of the role of the IMRs be to facilitate the inbound missions, not just at the business end but also at the political end? For example, the minister mentioned the visit from Guangdong province to British Columbia in the near future.

Hon. C. Hansen: The IMRs will work closely with the embassies with regard to various delegations and missions that may be coming into Canada. I think one of the challenges, as the member may be aware, is with the numbers of incoming delegations to British Columbia.

It's often important to try to get a read on where this particular delegation may fit into the business or political culture in, say, China. We would expect that both through our embassies and the consulates and through our IMRs we would be able to get that kind of feedback so that we can ensure that we host these delegations in an appropriate manner once they arrive in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I think the member did hit on a very important phrase there when he said "host in an appropriate manner," because one of the key things in Asia in developing relationships is that issue of respect and appropriateness. So I'm glad to hear the minister mention that.

One of the ways in which the ministry is able to do a lot of work is by having the appropriate number of staff to do the program that the minister has been laying out in this function. Can the minister tell us what has happened in terms of staff that's been dealing with trade-related issues since 2001 and where we are now?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the marketing and promotion division of the ministry there are 17 FTEs in '04-05. That's based on restating those numbers, based on the structure of the ministry today. There are 17 in '05-06. Currently in the service plan we call for that to continue at 17. As we develop our plans, we will also have to ensure that the staffing complement in the ministry reflects the increased role that we are anticipating.

I can tell you that the individuals in the ministry right now are working hard and long hours in order to meet some of these growing challenges. I can assure the member that that wasn't part of what staff just briefed me on. I just happen to know that from seeing the effort they put in.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's nice to see that some things haven't changed. I can let the minister know that when I had the portfolio, I know they did work long and hard hours and they did a terrific job.

Right now or over the last few years we've had 17 FTEs in a reactive mode, where we have not been having a lot of the work on the ground that we used to do, and we have been basically dealing with incoming missions. The minister has laid out….

The Asia-Pacific initiative strikes me as a very ambitious initiative, one that the government has attached a considerable amount of importance to. I'm wondering, around the number of 17 FTEs — if that's what we've been doing during the period over the last two years — what we're going to require over the next three years out on this initiative. Have there been any studies or staffing proposals that have been made or looked at in terms of the actual number we will need to implement this, rather than the 17 who are currently working long and extended hours and having to add this on to them?

Hon. C. Hansen: To truly benefit from the opportunities that are there, we recognize that there is going to be a need for increased resources. I will have to take those plans to Treasury Board as part of our annual budget process. I hope the member will stay tuned for February, when he'll be able to assess how successful I've been able to be in getting the resources to truly capitalize on the opportunities.

If I could ask the members' indulgence and take a five-minute recess, it would be really handy right now.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the member for the comments and the questions around the Asia-Pacific and the trade initiatives and trade policy questions.

I'd like to turn now to the immigration programs that the ministry is involved with. I'd ask the minister if he could outline for us the main components and the key objectives of the different aspects of the immigration program within the ministry.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are three elements of what we refer to as the economic immigration programs. I guess, arguably, everything to do with immigration is part of economic programs, because it is only through immigration that we're really going to meet the needs of our society in the years ahead.

First of all, there is the provincial nominee program, which the member will recall was first rolled out by the federal government in about 1998. It was, I think, off to a fairly slow start in a number of provinces across Canada, as I think provinces were exploring with the federal government really what the parameters of the provincial nominee program could be.

Over the last four years there have been roughly about a thousand immigrants that have been sponsored into British Columbia through the provincial nominee program. We see expanding that in the years ahead and using the PNP program as an opportunity to meet critical skill shortages in British Columbia. Some of that we have done to date. Actually, some of the first ones were around some of the health professions. But we see the opportunity to broaden the scope of the PNP in the years ahead to make sure that we meet some of the skills needs we have.

The second program is Skills Connect. That is a resource to assist new immigrants at getting whatever training they may need in British Columbia, including English as a second language or other employment-related training, to allow them to get into the British Columbia workforce to the full extent of their education and training. Too often today we see new immigrants coming to British Columbia who are unemployed or underemployed, given the training they had in their home countries.

Finally, there's the business immigration program, which we continue to use as a vehicle to attract business immigrants to British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: The three programs are all important, and I've got a number of questions around each of them. The provincial nominee program was something that was greeted with a lot of enthusiasm initially, and then I think the provinces, as you said, were struggling, or some were slow to get off the mark in terms of taking advantage of it. The minister said about a thousand. Now, is that a thousand a year, or a thousand since the program was created?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was trying to get the member an exact number, which I may have to share with him tomorrow. My memory…. As I recall, it's a thousand immigrants in total over the past three or four years. I will get that exact number for him. We anticipate that ramping up to 1,000 to 2,000 per year that we may be able to facilitate through that program.

M. Farnworth: Have the parameters of the program changed over the last three or four years from when it was originally implemented? If so, what are those changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: Essentially, the parameters of the program have stayed the same. I can share with the…. Actually, what I'll do is read this for the member.

If an employer wishes to bring in a new immigrant through the PNP program, the employer first of all has to demonstrate that they have been unable to recruit a skilled individual who is currently in British Columbia. Second of all, they have to be in a position to make a job offer to that individual. Then through the PNP program we will fast-track the immigration for that individual, working with the federal government, of course.

M. Farnworth: Has the ministry had targets on an annual basis over the last four years that they have wanted to meet?

Hon. C. Hansen: This program is new to the ministry, so the targets, if they were in place, would have been under the previous Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. To be quite honest, I don't know the answer to the member's question. We do have targets that are set for the years to come, so the number of skilled immigrants from the PNP employed in skill-shortage-sector jobs for '04-05 — the actual for '04-05 — was 335. For this year that we're currently in, the target is for 500. For '06-07 it would be 650, and for '07-08 we would be targeting 800 new immigrants to this program.

M. Farnworth: The reason I was asking that question was to get a sense of how the program has been working to date, and if targets were set and were not met, and the reasons why. So going forward, the question I would have, then, would be: what parameters and criteria have you based these targets on, in terms of achieving them?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things with PNP is that it's probably one of the best-kept secrets in government, so we are proactively trying to get the message

out to employers around the province that this is a program they can benefit from, as a way to assist them to meet skill shortages. The targets we've set are based on our estimates of the number of new immigrants that would come in through the PNP program, based on our proactive work with those various employers in the province.

We expect to see the knowledge and awareness of the PNP growing. I've certainly spoken to various industry associations over the last number of months, and I'm always amazed, when I talk about the provincial nominee program, at the number of pens that come out of pockets or purses and busily start making notes so that they can follow up with the information on our website.

We anticipate that there will be growth over a number of years in a manageable way, largely based on our proactive campaign to ensure that employers have a greater awareness that the program exists.

M. Farnworth: Are there any specific sectors of the economy or specific skills that you're targeting for this program?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look back over the last four years, there has been a real effort to use the PNP program to recruit health professionals in sectors where we were facing shortages, particularly in terms of nursing. In terms of where we see that going forward from here, we expect that to be employer-driven — that it is the employers that will identify what skill shortages they are facing — and then we will use the program to help meet those needs.

M. Farnworth: One of the interesting things, I guess, about you and I having been critics or ministers for common portfolios is the ability, hopefully, to cross over just a touch. I appreciate what you said about health professionals, because that has been a major issue and will no doubt be under discussion in the Health Ministry estimates.

From your current portfolio's perspective, has it been successful? I know you said you weren't aware of the targets in the previous four years, but do you have any sense that the program the way it was currently structured was successful in attracting health professionals?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I do know from my days as Health Services Minister that in fact the PNP program was very important, particularly for attracting nurses to British Columbia in skill sets that we were in need of. In 2001 we ramped up significantly the number of nurses going into nurse training programs in British Columbia, but we were still facing a critical shortage. It was going to take time, in the case of registered nurses, for example, to complete their four-year training.

Areas that we had shortages in particularly were specialty-trained areas. Through the PNP program, we were able to actually go into…. I know there were approaches made in Hong Kong and the Philippines and in Australia that were specifically successful in attracting nurses with specific specialities that they were able to bring to British Columbia as a result of the PNP program.

M. Farnworth: Within the targets that are laid out for the next four years, are there breakdowns in terms of occupations or skills that you're looking to attract? Or is it just that employers are trying to get X number of people? You said it was being employer-driven. Is there still an effort to sort of, say, encourage health care professionals, or physicians, for that matter? Are there targets around that?

Hon. C. Hansen: We anticipate that as we go forward, health professionals will still be a significant component. That is employer-driven through the health authorities, just as other employers would bring their needs. I think, in the case of the health employers in the province, they'd probably have more experience working with the PNP program and know how it can be used to target those specific niche occupations and professions that they are short of.

In the case of other professions, we're open to whatever employers identify as their skill needs. We will do our best to facilitate that through this program, providing it meets the criteria.

M. Farnworth: But there are no specific initiatives by the ministry to target a specific percentage or number of people through the program?

M. Farnworth: Another one of the goals of the program is to attract people outside of the lower mainland to rural areas of the province and some of the hidden gems of the province — as opposed to always being considered remote. I notice that the target is to increase that from 30 to 35 percent. How does the ministry plan on doing that? What plans have you got in place to achieve that?

Hon. C. Hansen: We anticipate achieving that by the proactive work that we will do as a ministry to make sure that more employers outside of metropolitan areas are in fact aware of the program and how it works. We will be trying to communicate that message through employer associations, through industry associations, through chambers of commerce, to make sure that individuals know about PNP, not only in urban environments but also in the rest of the province.

M. Farnworth: Are there any specific criteria or plans to give…? I don't want to say "preferential"; maybe it is preferential. I'm not using the term "preferential treatment," but you kind of go to the top of the

line, or there's a special effort to assist rural areas in getting people through the program faster.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have individuals either on staff with the ministry or on contract to the ministry throughout the province who are identifying key employers in the province, and we are proactively talking to them about what their limitations are to expansion or to meeting the challenges they currently have. The PNP program will be a specific part of their approach and what they will engage employers with. Through that, we also anticipate there will be increased interest from non-urban areas.

M. Farnworth: I guess my concern comes down to that. In many programs, particularly when dealing with immigration programs, too often it is the urban areas that tend to be the beneficiaries. Our goal is to get the number of immigrants coming into British Columbia to spread out across the province, as opposed to just concentrating in the metropolitan area.

Are there specific initiatives just encouraging or raising awareness outside the area? Are there specific initiatives to target to ensure that people andemployers outside the lower mainland get the people they need coming to their parts of the province? Have we seen that in fact take place over the last few years? Is there something to build on here, when we say "an increase in the target"? Has it been increasing?

Hon. C. Hansen: The officials that are working with our ministry on this key account strategy…. It's not a case of simply dropping off the brochure and saying, "Here's some background," or referring them to the website. Our officials will actively work with companies to facilitate the processing of their PNP initiatives. We are actively engaging and following through with those employers to make sure the PNP program works for them.

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


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Coell	Ilich
Chong	Les	Richmond
Bell	Bennett	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Krueger
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 31

S. Simpson	Evans	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Brar	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Coons	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Trevena
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Ralston	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy