2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 15

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Women in politics

P. Sahota

Literacy and books for children

H. Bloy

2010 Winter Olympics youth essay

contest

P. Wong

Oral Questions

Disability benefits eligibility

review and auditor general's report

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Hagen

J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice

Sessional order on public written

questions (Motion 87)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. I. Chong

H. Bloy

J. Nuraney

D. MacKay

B. Belsey

Hon. P. Bell

Hon. G. Abbott

K. Whittred

G. Trumper

[ Page 8771 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: Today in the gallery I would like to acknowledge some very special

guests from my constituency. Please join me in welcoming, from Boundary Park

Elementary School, Mrs. Rosenthal and her class of grade 5 students and Mr.

Dewar and his class of grades 4 and 5 students. Would the House please make them

very welcome.

[1405]

B. Kerr:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine, a person who helped

work on my campaign and is still on my executive committee — a self-confessed

political junkie. He's been in the precinct many times, but I've never had the

pleasure of introducing him to the House. Would the House please make Pat

Hrushowy feel very welcome.

Hon. P.

Bell: I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House a good friend of the

mining industry in B.C. and also a good friend of British Columbians. This

individual is working hard to drive the mining industry back into B.C. and to

see the kind of growth we would all like to have in our rural communities in

jobs and employment. Would the House please make Gary Livingstone very welcome.

Mayencourt: It's a pleasure today to introduce a couple of very important

guests in the gallery. The first is one of the two finest constituency

assistants in the province: Ashley Haslett from my office. The second is Berris

Karden. Berris is the owner and executive director of Congo Communications and

one of the guys that helps me film my video constituency report every month.

Would the House please make both of these gentlemen welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'd ask members to help me welcome Alan Winter, Bruce Schmidt and

Hector MacKay-Dunn, all three of whom are involved in the biotech sector. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WOMEN IN POLITICS

Sahota: In a by-election in 1918, Mary Ellen Smith became the first woman

elected to the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. She achieved two firsts

for women in politics. She was appointed minister in 1921 and served as acting

Speaker in 1928, the first woman in the British Empire to be appointed to such

positions. Today, of the 79 MLAs in the B.C. Legislature, 19 are women. Of the

301 MPs in the federal Parliament, 63 are women. Women constitute 51 percent of

the Canadian population yet hold fewer than 25 percent of our country's elected

positions.

One

organization looking to bring balance to these statistics is the Canadian Women

Voters Congress, a non-partisan, grass-roots organization that encourages women

to participate and have their voices heard at all levels of government. This

organization's goal is to balance the scales of political representation in the

decision-making process, thus acknowledging that the way for women to be heard

within the circles of government is to have more women elected.

Each year

the congress, in conjunction with UBC, hosts a campaign school that prepares

women from across the country for participation in all levels of government. It

is the only non-partisan campaign school in the entire country. My colleague

from Richmond East and a former member of this chamber, Penny Priddy, are the

co-chairs for the conference this year, and I will be participating as a guest

speaker for the fourth year in a row. Some of the topics covered in the

three-day conference include firsthand knowledge on campaign strategies,

fundraising and communication strategies. The campaign school teaches women the

basic elements they need to know in order to run or take

part in a successful

campaign.

The strides

women have taken in Canadian politics since Mary Ellen Smith was first elected

are amazing, especially when you consider there was once a time when we were not

allowed to vote. But there's still much more work to be done, and I want to

congratulate the Canadian Women Voters Congress and UBC for carrying on this

important work.

LITERACY AND BOOKS FOR CHILDREN

H. Bloy:

It's my privilege to rise today to talk about how our government and I are

supporting literacy and the objectives of the Premier's Read On B.C. program for

my riding in Burquitlam. I plan to give a book to every kindergarten student in

my riding. To ensure that these books are age appropriate, we will purchase

books contained in the catalogue sent out by Scholastic books. Many of you may

know Scholastic books from your children being in school and from the book

fairs. I fondly remember my children saving their money, their allowance, so

they could buy books and posters at the school book fair. The Scholastic

corporation promotes literacy, providing a list of age-appropriate books to

children in elementary school so that children can purchase these books.

[1410]

I will

spend time in April visiting each school in my riding and personally giving a

book to every kindergarten child in those classrooms. I expect that about 700

books will be given to students in the riding. We'll also be giving them a

letter directing them to the Premier's Read On B.C. program so the parents can

help their children to read. I hope to see the same smile and eagerness to learn

— and to have the ability to read — as I've seen on the faces of my own

children. I am always thrilled to see a child absorbed in a book. I hope

[ Page 8772 ]

that our program will encourage the children of Burquitlam and all of British

Columbia to read.

2010 WINTER OLYMPICS

YOUTH ESSAY CONTEST

P. Wong:

I am pleased to recognize the passion and commitment of B.C.'s youth. The 2010

Olympic Winter Games are an excellent opportunity to showcase British Columbia

and its people to the world. I am pleased to advise my hon. colleagues about an

essay contest for B.C.'s youth. The riding of Vancouver-Kensington created four

bursaries of $500 each, which will be awarded this Friday.

The content

of the essays describes how Vancouver and British Columbia will benefit from the

games. High school students were required to write about 300 words, while

post-secondary students, 400 words. I am pleased to announce the winners of the

contest: Leslie Hong, Caitlin Shaw, Silvia Huang and Tina Kan. All these

students, who wrote fantastic essays, are very deserving winners.

As one of

the contest sponsors, I felt that this was a great way to encourage B.C.'s

youth, to get them thinking about the games while providing a growth

opportunity. Being able to express oneself in writing while thinking globally

about an issue is a skill that will serve these students well over the course of

their lives.

The Hon.

John Les, Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, will attend to

give remarks on the games and the future and legacy of youth.

I would

like to acknowledge the generosity of the contest sponsors: Mr. Michael Lo,

principal of Kingston College; Mr. Bill Lim and Mr. Ting Chung Wong.

Additionally, I would like to thank the contest judges: Dr. Shirley Wong of UBC

and lawyers Mr. Joe Bernando and Mr. Bill Lim. Finally, I would like to

acknowledge the support and participation of the following high schools: Sir

Charles Tupper, John Oliver and David Thompson.

This was a

wonderful program with much community participation. Congratulations to the

dedicated students. I am looking forward to meeting all of them this Friday.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

DISABILITY BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY REVIEW

AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

J. Kwan:

Let me quote a couple of passages from the auditor general's report into the

disability review released today. From page 3: "We believe that a key

assumption of the ministry in arriving at this decision was that a large number

of recipients would fail to qualify…and the result would be significant cost

savings to government…." But the ministry did not adequately test the

reliability of this assumption, which — as the final outcome shows — was

unfounded. From page 34 of the report: "We think that the ministry also

expected many of the former recipients to have their disability status

rescinded. Estimates ranged from 6,177 to 9,750 clients. The savings from

cancelling eligibility was expected to help the ministry meet its budget targets

for 2002-03 and through '04-05."

Can the

Minister of Human Resources explain what motivated the government to waste $5

million — taxpayer dollars — on this ill-conceived review of the disability

benefits? It caused enormous anxiety and fear amongst some of B.C.'s most

vulnerable citizens.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Let's just refresh our memories on why this review was undertaken by

the ministry. This review was not about decreasing costs. This review was

actually about accountability to the public, which is something that the members

opposite would have no idea about. The purpose of doing the review…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …was accountability to the public and to make sure the funds that

we expend, which are public funds, are expended to the people who need them the

most.

There were

two firsts that came out of this. This is the first time in 13 years that the

ministry actually has the information that we need…

Interjection.

[1415]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …so that we can, with certainty, say that the funds that are being

expended in this program are being expended on the people who need the funds the

most.

Another

major first is that persons with mental illness are now included in the

eligibility category with persons with disabilities. That's the second first.

The auditor general also complimented the ministry staff for carrying out the

review in a very, very respectful, professional and thoughtful manner.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister claims that this review was not motivated by cost savings. This is

directly contradicted by the auditor general's report — all throughout the

report. Is the auditor general a liar? No. The minister's spin doesn't hold

water.

The Premier

had thought thousands of disabled British Columbians were cheating the system.

He assumed that it was an easy way to save a few bucks, and he directed the

minister and the rest of the cabinet to find a way to cut them off. But the

auditor general says that all the government had to do was a simple statistical

analysis, and this government would have gotten

[ Page 8773 ]

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

disability.

Again to

the Minister of Human Resources: can he tell British Columbians why his

government fast-tracked the disability review using false assumptions and chose

the most punitive, costly approach to review the benefits?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I wouldn't call a report that took a year to do "to be done

speedily" — okay? I wouldn't call that "speedily." I think it's

timely. It's a very timely way because, you know, as members opposite sometimes

forget, we're actually dealing with people here. We're not dealing with

statistics or dollars. We're dealing with people. I just want to stress again

that….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The ministry undertook the report after consultations with medical

professionals and community advocates, who agreed with them that the time frame

was absolutely correct. The results are that we actually now know, for the first

time in 13 years, that the people who are getting the money are the people who

need it the most.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

It would do the minister some good if he actually stopped and took a moment to

read the report and learn from its findings. Let me quote from the report, page

21: "The minister did not have an adequate analysis of the cost and

benefits associated with each choice or adequate evidence to support his reasons

for choosing option 5." That is the way in which the government chose to do

the review of the disability approach. "We believe that a significant

factor in the ministry's choice was the potential cost savings associated with

the anticipated number of ineligible recipients. And if the ministry's

assumptions were correct, it would realize those cost savings quickly."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

The B.C. Liberals have one motivation, and that is to save a few bucks on the

backs of the vulnerable British Columbians. In the process, they blew $5 million

on a review that found — surprise, surprise — that disabled British

Columbians are indeed eligible for assistance without any cost-benefit analysis

of consideration for the recipients. The B.C. Liberals just assumed that going

after disabled British Columbians would be a cost-saving bonanza. They were

wrong…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan:

…and they have been caught out by the auditor general.

Mr.

Speaker: Would the member now please put her question.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

the Chair.

Would the

member now please put the question.

J. Kwan:

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

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, order, please. Order, please. Would you please put

your question now, hon. member.

[1420]

J. Kwan:

To the Minister of Human Resources: given the auditor general's damning

conclusions, will he finally admit that the only motivation for this review was

to deny income assistance recipients who are disabled, to make budget cuts that

have been dictated by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The member opposite is wrong again. The NDP is wrong again. The

review was never undertaken because of trying to decrease costs. If we had done

that…. Since we became government, we now have 8,000 to 10,000 more people

with disabilities on our rolls, so it doesn't add up.

This report

was all to do about public accountability, because we know about public funds.

The members opposite don't have a clue about public funds, when you look at the

hundreds of millions of dollars that they squandered over a period of ten years.

Krueger: Billions.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yeah, probably billions.

This was

all about making sure we are providing the assistance to the people who need the

assistance the most, and that's what that report was all about.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I hope this is one report that the government caucus

will actually read, because unlike the Government House Leader trying to say

that it was others fearmongering, here's what the auditor general….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the question, please.

MacPhail: Here's the auditor general, one of his three key findings — what

he said. He said that the review this government undertook "also increased

[ Page 8774 ]

anxiety amongst its disabled clients." It is a conclusion that the

auditor general came to. Let me remind….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

floor.

MacPhail: Let me remind the minister that the $5 million the government

wasted on this review could have paid for more than 2,000 hip replacements,

reducing the wait-list by 11 percent, and it doesn't require any more money. The

previous Minister of Human Resources stood in this House last year and denied

that the plan all along was to kick disabled British Columbians off income

assistance. This report puts the lie to that denial, and it's time for the

current minister to come clean. The auditor general says it was all about cost

savings.

Mr.

Speaker: Okay.

MacPhail: He names number after number.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Let us

please have the question now, hon. member.

MacPhail: The auditor general's report — I'm coming to it, Mr. Speaker —

points out that the ministry possessed other much cheaper alternatives to this

waste of $5 million.

To the

minister: after reading the report, will he now admit what the former minister

refused to do — that the plan all along was to kick thousands of disabled

British Columbians off assistance to help make the Premier's budget cuts, and

the fact that there are thousands more now just proves how wrong the review was?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I find it amazing that those two members opposite, who created all

the anxiety…. They were the ones standing up in the House every day talking

about the tens of thousands of people who were going to be kicked off. We didn't

say that. The minister didn't say that. They fearmongered for weeks and weeks

and weeks, just like they did with the time lines.

Here's how

carefully the ministry staff dealt with this report. "They provided focused

training and clear guidelines to staff involved in the review; they used

appropriate quality control measures; they rigorously tested and evaluated the

assessment form with external stakeholders" — including the medical

community; "they called clients directly who were experiencing difficulty

to offer assistance; they published directories to assist clients with finding

physicians and assessors in their communities; and they established outreach

services" through advocacy groups like the Vancouver coastal health

authority and the Canadian Mental Health Association for clients requiring

assistance.

[1425]

These folks

were dealt with, with compassion by my staff. They were not dealt with, with

compassion by the two members opposite, who fearmongered for months and months

about the numbers that were going to come out.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: The minister is right about one thing. After the government used

the exercise to say they wanted to save money on the backs of the vulnerable,

did no cost-benefit analysis and sent the bureaucrats down the wrong path, the

bureaucrats — even going down that wrong path — did act with compassion.

There's no question about it. It was the government that was heartless and

mean-spirited, and the auditor general's report reaches that conclusion exactly

— that they had no cost benefit and had no reason to do the review in the

first place.

Right now

the Developmental Disabilities Association of B.C. is closing three group homes

today, laying off more than 20 disability workers, because this government cut

its budget by $1 million. The minister may want to shrug his shoulders and say

that the waste uncovered by the auditor general was not factual, was wrong, but

to the thousands of disabled British Columbians, that money could have been used

to save their lives, make their lives easier, rather than be part of a

mean-spirited attack on their credibility.

Again to

the minister: have you read the report? And if so, I'll give you one more

chance. Will you…?

Interjections.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'll give the minister one more chance. Will

he take responsibility for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars? Can he tell us

now what specific steps he's taking to ensure that this cruelty never happens

again?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I don't believe the money we spend on people's lives in my ministry

is wasted. I can tell you that when you look at why this report was done and why

we did all of the work we did, it was so that we could stand up to British

Columbians and say: "We are dealing with your funds that you have entrusted

with us in a very respectful way." And we now, because of doing the report

we've done, can say to British Columbians: "The money is being spent on the

people who need the money the most."

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Motion 87 sitting on the order paper in my name.

[ Page 8775 ]

Motions on Notice

SESSIONAL ORDER ON

PUBLIC WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr.

Speaker: Motion 87 on the order paper. Motion 87 will be entertained.

[Resolved that the Legislative Assembly adopt the following

sessional order:Practice recommendation No. 11 (Standing Order 47, 47a)

Public Written Questions.

1. Written questions may be submitted by an elected

member of a provincial or local public body designated under this order and in

accordance with the guidelines established by Mr. Speaker. Questions submitted

in writing to the Office of the Speaker by 4:00 p.m. Wednesday are eligible to

be drawn on Thursday. Five questions drawn by the Speaker which conform to the

guidelines shall be placed on the Orders of the Day on Monday of each week. A

question shall be printed on 2 consecutive weeks unless answered.

2. A Private Member may ask a qualified question of a

Minister during Question Period. The Member from whose constituency the

question comes will have first refusal to put such question to the appropriate

Minister. The Minister may answer the question orally or in writing by filing

with the Clerk of the House. Written answers shall be published in the Votes

and Proceedings.

3. Questions should relate to current provincial

issues and public affairs, be timely, brief and stated without argument or

opinion. The submission must not include unparliamentary language and shall be

directed to the Minister who has responsibility for the area of interest.]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, you are, of course, well aware — and for the

information of the public — that this was an innovation established by the

Speaker's office, by the Speaker in the chair, to allow for public input at a

time when there were only two opposition members — there are more now — to

this government. One of the points I want to make is that this motion being

brought forward by the Government House Leader is, in a way, a step backward

from the guidelines that you, Mr. Speaker, put in place, as I understand it, and

it could be clarified.

Here's what

it is. As I understand it, the question would be on the order paper for a week,

and if the member from the constituency of the person who raised the question

did not raise that question, then anyone would have an opportunity to put that

question forward. Those time limits are not in here. In fact, it's quite unclear

as to when a person other than the member from the said constituency could put

the question.

[1430]

I note that

the question will sit on the order paper for two consecutive weeks now, Mr.

Speaker,

whereas before it would have been available for anyone to put that

question after a week, given the former rules.

So I just

make note that what was an innovative process to allow for some accountability

with this government is now less so.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am closing the debate on the motion unless others have something

to say. All I'd say is that I'm not aware of any change. This is a motion that

was presented to me. I thought it was the same as the previous one. I am

certainly prepared to have the Speaker or the Clerks look at it to determine

whether it has been changed at all. I certainly was not advised of that.

According to my understanding, it's the same motion. But if it has changed, then

I'm glad to look into that. If it needs to be amended in the future, then we can

do so. I'm perfectly prepared to do that.

This has

been on the order paper for some time, and if the member had an issue with it,

she certainly could have come and….

MacPhail: Who are we going to take it to?

Hon. G.

Collins: Well, she certainly could have come to speak to myself or, as she

mentioned, the Speaker, or….

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm unclear on the confusion from the member opposite. But if she'd

like to talk about it some other place, we're certainly glad to do that.

Mr.

Speaker, if the motion requires an amendment, then I'm perfectly prepared to do

that in the future as well.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your comments. I have put in place

some guidelines that the Leader of the Opposition mentions. They're not in the

motion, but if anyone wants clarification, please….

Hon. G.

Collins: Has the motion changed?

Mr.

Speaker: No, the motion hasn't changed. But you could come to my office, and

as the House Leader suggests, if members feel it requires an amendment to the

motion, we can do so.

The

question is Motion 87 on the order paper.

Motion

approved.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seeks the floor.

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan:

Yes. Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve my right to

raise a matter of privilege.

Mr.

Speaker: So noted.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continuing debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. I.

Chong: I am very pleased to be able to rise today and respond to the budget

speech that was in-

[ Page 8776 ]

troduced on February 17, 2004. It's no surprise to many members in this House

that this is not the first time I have responded to a budget speech but, I

believe, the eighth or ninth time that I've responded to a budget speech. I'm

very pleased to be able to do so in this particular year, because it is about

responding to a balanced budget for the 2004-05 year.

I want to

start off by saying how very, very pleased I am not only for my constituents but

for all of British Columbia, because a balanced budget was one of our planks in

our election platform. It was one of the promises that we held for the people of

this province to know that what we would do once elected was to get this House

back in fiscal order.

It was so

important that as I went out in my communities, I was asked time and time again

why it is that there was mismanagement. Why is it that our provincial debt —

which attracted interest — in the amount of about $2.6 billion a year, was

having to be paid — and which amounted to about $7 million a day in interest

costs? It ranked as the third-largest ministry, if you were to put all the

public debt that we paid in one ministry, after health care and education.

[1435]

It was so

important that citizens of this province knew that when they went to the polls

in 2001, one of the key things that we would accomplish — one of our goals,

one of our objectives — would be to have a balanced budget.

On February

17 the Finance minister delivered on that. He delivered on that because under

the leadership of our Premier, we were able to focus on spending. We were able

to ensure that all disciplines of spending were adhered to. All members in this

House — with the exception of a few — should be proud because we all

contributed to that focus, to that discipline, of spending.

Budgets are

not always about the revenue side of the picture, although some would like to

believe that's how you create a balanced budget. The expenditure side is very

important, particularly for the investment community and for those who would

seek to lend moneys or offer to lend money.

In this

particular case our spending was out of control. Our spending was mismanaged.

Our spending was intolerable in the minds of many British Columbians, so we set

out to get that spending under control regardless of what our revenue growth

could be. Yes, it would be great if we have one-time surpluses of revenue like

hydro energy amounts, but you cannot plan, you cannot prepare a budget for

future years based on one-time pockets of money that flow into a province. What

you must and should do is prepare your budgets to have a fiscal plan that will

look at spending in a controllable fashion, in a managed way, so that you can

sustain those programs you introduce.

Unfortunately,

in the previous administration we found out time after time that what was

occurring was that program spending was not monitored. Program spending was not

necessarily effective or efficient. Program spending was never evaluated to

determine whether the purpose for it as set out was actually being accomplished.

undertook that process in 2001, once we were elected. We had a core review

process. We examined the programs. We examined the spending. We had a look

within government. Some members of the public sector, our public service, were a

little surprised because this had never happened. But many of them, once they

saw the objective, actually embraced the change. They saw that ultimately the

goal was to ensure that the program would be sustainable — if the program

should be continued by government — and the revenue stream or the dollars that

would be allocated would be there for that because the purpose was meant to be

there for that particular program.

After

having undertaken that core review, government was able to remove those areas

where we actually were competing with the private sector — the private sector

who we always say are our job creators. We were able to then focus on what

government needed to provide as core — what taxpayers knew where their

taxpayers' dollars were going to. Once that was determined, it made it that much

smoother in terms of a transition for the Finance minister and, indeed, for all

ministers to come together and prepare their budgets and know that they could

meet the targets they set.

It also

allows in some areas where we would be able to increase spending or introduce a

new program or initiative, if that was important. Indeed, it was in some areas.

I know we have increased and provided funding for the area of mental health, an

area that had been forgotten by the previous administration. In the area of

early childhood development, the same initiatives that should have been

introduced years ago we were able to capitalize and work on because we

identified these as being core — core to our government as well as important

for the future of our province and our citizenry, because it is about the future

of our people.

[1440]

I was very

pleased to have been a part of this at the very early stages, having spoken

about this in opposition and having tried to lobby the previous administration

to at least listen to our ideas to have a balanced budget, a core review and a

method by which we could control our spending. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf

ears. When we were able to elect the government and form government, we were

able to move on that initiative, and we did just a week and a half ago — a

balanced budget that all British Columbians and all members of this House should

be extremely proud of, except for a few members, I know, who would rather see us

continue in a deficit spending pattern, which has been explained by other

members in this House.

Previous to

my rising today they've referred to another alternative budget that was

introduced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. As we know, this is

the economic team that the NDP have been using or have been referring to when

they have looked for an economic platform. While I'm not going to extol all the

other parts of that plan, because members in this

[ Page 8777 ]

House have already done so, I just want to say for the record that it is very

unfortunate indeed that that centre would produce a budget that would see us in

a deficit position until the year 2010. That's another six years out, and I

don't think British Columbians want that. I don't think British Columbians

accept that. I think British Columbians will reject that when they go to the

polls next year.

It's pretty

clear that an NDP government doesn't have what it takes to turn this economy

around. It's pretty clear that their economic plan will be based on the same

kind of mismanagement that occurred over the last ten years.

Mr.

Speaker, that's what I wanted to bring to the attention of yourself and members

in this House as well as those who may be watching or listening to these debates

or who will refer to them in the future when they look at Hansard .

Sometimes, especially in politics, it's so easy to forget what happened in the

past. It's so easy to forget what the decade of decline was, and that's what we

had from 1991 to the year 2001 — a decade of decline.

We had an

NDP government and administration that made this province one of the

worst-performing economies in Canada. We did go from the first-place economy at

the beginning of that decade to the last-place economy ten years later, when we

were able to form government. We were also, during that decade…. British

Columbia was last in investment growth. I remember — and I spoke about this

time and time again when I was in this House — meeting with a group, the

Investment Dealers Association of Canada. I met with them again this year, as I

have every year in the last eight years.

I remember

one particular meeting that I had with the Investment Dealers Association —

the IDA, as they call it, initials that I rather like. They had said they would

publish pamphlets that would explain the investment opportunities or the

economies of the various jurisdictions in Canada — the ten provinces and, if

they had time, the territories. They would go to these meetings where there

would be national investors, international investors, and they would lay these

brochures out on the table for these investors to look at. More often than not,

in fact often, it was the Alberta brochure that was picked up. It was the

Ontario brochure that was picked up, and a few other provinces as well. The one

brochure that was always left behind in those last ten years, the one brochure

that no one wanted to really pick up and have a good look at, was British

Columbia. That was, well, disastrous. It was just not acceptable.

That's

changed now because if you take a look around, if you speak to people in the

investment community, they say that B.C. is the third province in terms of

investor intentions. That means when investors are willing to open up their

wallets, they are willing to put their money here in British Columbia, are

willing to create jobs for the people in British Columbia, are willing to see

this province grow so that the future generations — our youth — have jobs.

They are willing to open up their wallets and invest in British Columbia as a

place where people can work, where people can live, where communities can grow.

Again, that's something we should be proud of. I am very, very glad to hear that

once again our balanced budget is going to provide more confidence in investor

growth.

[1445]

I want to

speak a little bit about the fiscal record of the previous government, the

decade of decline, wherein they introduced eight consecutive deficit budgets.

You will hear them lament that we had two deficit budgets, but compare eight

deficit budgets to two deficit budgets — with a goal of having a balanced

budget in year three, just as we promised. The opposition introduced eight

consecutive deficit budgets. Every year, I remember, when I was on that side of

the House, I'd get up and say: "Where are they headed? Where are they

going? Are they ever going to introduce a balanced budget, and dare they

introduce balanced-budget legislation?" Well, they didn't.

The fact

that they introduced what they called their surplus budgets…. I will confirm

that that is what happened, because the books say that's what happened. I still

have to offer a caveat to that, because they were not surplus budgets in that

they were planned for. They were not surplus budgets that they had any

management control over. They were surplus budgets as a result of one-time

revenue, spikes in energy prices that occurred, which allowed them to do this.

If you take a look at their budgeting, if you take a look at their record, you

know they were not headed for any surplus budgets. By the grace of good, high

energy prices they were able to have those surplus budgets.

Again, if

you take a look at the last budget that was introduced by the previous

administration when Mr. Ramsey was the Finance minister, you would see very

clearly, I believe, on page 95 of that budget that his projections would see

that they would go back into deficit spending. They would go backwards because

they had no plan.

When we

were elected, we introduced our plan. We introduced a platform that said that

after three years, we would introduce a balanced budget and thereafter

surpluses. That's really key as well — surpluses next year, the year after,

the year after and the year after. So long as we are in government, a Liberal

government will continue to have surplus budgets because we've legislated that.

It's mandated by law. We will not go back to deficit budgeting. It's very

interesting when the opposition gets up and speaks about their surplus budgets

— that they had planned for this or that it had anything to do with this —

because I know, having been here, that that was not the course they had set.

I want to,

as well, talk a little bit more about their fiscal record. Not only did they

have these eight consecutive budgets, but when they did budget, they also missed

their forecasts. They missed their forecasts; that was even worse. In other

words, they spent more, and they very often had to come into this House and ask

for supplementary estimates.

[ Page 8778 ]

Supplementary

estimates are when you spent more during the year because your program dollars

ran out before the fiscal year, and you had to come back and ask for sort of a

ratification of that spending. Therefore, what was inappropriate was that there

was no debate on whether that money should be expended. That was wrong. We've

eliminated those supplementary estimates other than for extraordinary

circumstances whereby, for example, the federal government offers to share with

us on some costs and we're able to put those dollars right back, such as in

health care.

They missed

their budget forecast. In cases where we've missed our budget forecast, it has

not been to the detriment; it has always been to the better. We have, in fact,

missed the deficit forecast, as we had in our first two years, by making it even

better — in other words, by reducing that deficit. Again, it was not because

we were prepared to spend everything we said we would in our budget. What we

said we would do is that we would have this budget for the programs that we

believe need to be sustained, but wherever possible we would control that

spending and look for savings, and we did.

When we

looked for savings in some ministries, in two in particular, we were able to put

them right back into delivery of services directly to the citizens. Those two

areas were in health care and education.

[1450]

We said we

would protect the budgets for health care and education. Where there were

savings — and there were millions of dollars in savings — the ministry was

able to redirect those savings back to patient care. The minister was able to

redirect the savings back to student services. That's very important too,

because it shows that when you do stick to a target and meet your objectives,

you can find savings and you can manage better. You can have those savings, and

you can put them back to services. That's what we must never lose sight of,

because it is about taxpayers' dollars.

They want a

government that is fiscally responsible. They want a government that knows how

to manage. Then they also want a government that understands that where there

are savings, they can be redirected and provide for additional enhanced services

— not more of the same, but better for the citizens of this province.

We did have

the worst fiscal record in Canada in the last decade. We suffered two credit

downgrades. In our short time, in our 30 months or so in government, we have not

suffered a credit downgrade, despite the opposition members having mentioned

that we had two deficit budgets. Why is it, then, that those international

bankers, those international investors, did not see fit to downgrade us?

I'll tell

you why. It's because we had a plan. We had an economic plan. We had a vision

for the future, and they saw that. They knew there was certainty in our plan.

They knew we were going to stay on target. They knew we were going to manage the

books of this province in the most fiscally responsible way ever, which allowed

them to say: "Fair enough. Continue with your approach. We know you're

going to reach your target. We will not do a downgrade on your credit

rating."

Again, that

in itself is not as significant as everything else we have done, which has

allowed us to borrow, when we have had to borrow, at the best rate possible —

once again, reducing the amount that we would otherwise pay in debt servicing

and thereby putting those savings right back again into dollars for patients and

students.

I do want

to speak a little bit more about the budget and what it means to me. As you

know, Mr. Speaker, I'm a certified general accountant. One thing that pleases me

to no end is the fact that we have introduced a budget that was not only

balanced but according to generally accepted accounting principles — GAAP.

G-A-A-P, as people have mentioned. I will say that again for people who are

non-accountants — what it is and how important it is. GAAP is the seven basic

principles upon which the accounting profession is expected to adhere.

These

principles ensure that things such as materiality are considered, that

disclosure is considered. There's a matching principle so we have dollars of

expenses and revenues in the same period, so there is no fudging of dollar

amounts, as we know the previous administration did. It's very important that we

adhere to GAAP because it sends a message to everyone else throughout the

province, the country and North America.

No other

jurisdiction has been able to do this, because for so long public accounting

bodies would look at government and the way they kept their books and say:

"Well, it's because you don't…. You're not a business in the same sense.

You're not offering a service or a product. Thereby, you're not having to adhere

to principles of going concern, matching or disclosure in the same way."

Governments

all over got this free ride of not having to adhere to these principles. But we

sat back and said that to be more credible, to strengthen our investor

confidence, to have investor confidence return, it was important that we looked

at GAAP. It was important that we consider how that might affect us.

The

previous auditor general, George Morfitt, who many of us know was really a

driving force along with our late member Fred Gingell, who represented Delta

South…. He was an advocate for this. When I joined him here in the Legislature

in 1996 and worked with him, I saw firsthand how passionate he was about moving

towards a process where our books and our records would be kept in a way that

people could trust, would know were transparent, fair and open.

[1455]

So we went

and embarked on this process. We talked to people, and everyone thought there

was no way we would be able to do this, but we did do it. We're the first

jurisdiction in Canada and in fact, I believe, the first jurisdiction in North

America to proceed with GAAP. We're going to continue to do that, and I'll bet

there will be other jurisdictions that will follow our lead. For a change,

British Columbia becomes a leader once again as opposed to a follower.

[ Page 8779 ]

There is so

much to say, and I can't believe I've already probably used up a good portion of

my time. I want to have a little more opportunity to talk about the wonderful

things that are available in our new budget. It was also branching out on the

theme that the throne speech had, which is about bringing out the best.

Absolutely, bringing out the best of all British Columbians is a theme that we

should be proud of. I'm so glad that the Premier saw a way to express this in

such a positive way.

Bringing

out the best means that our future generations know that we are planning for

them. Bringing out the best in job growth. As it was, we were number one in the

nation in job growth last year, the measure of that last year being 2003. We

were also number one in housing starts and housing growth, and that goes a long

way to endorsing and reaffirming consumer confidence. One of the largest

investments a person ever makes in their lifetime is the purchase of a home. If

a person who is working doesn't feel confident enough to make that large

investment, to go out and borrow and to have a future in a position or a job,

they're not going to invest in one of the largest investments of their lives,

and that is in a house. Yet housing starts were number one in British Columbia,

so consumer confidence definitely has been returned.

We were

also number one in small business confidence — more incorporations than ever

before in this province. That means people are coming back to this province.

People are putting their dollars and investing in this province. With that, the

small business sector…. It means jobs are created, jobs for small businesses.

We've always said time and time again how small businesses are the engine of our

economy. Small businesses create jobs; governments don't create jobs. We've said

that, we believe that, and here we have the actual fact that the small

businesses are returning. Small businesses are creating jobs and are, in fact,

investing.

One of the

key indicators of that, as well, is the net migration. I know it's been said in

this chamber before, because I've heard other members speak about the fact that

more people than ever before are returning to British Columbia. More young

people are returning to British Columbia because they see a future, and that

future is very important. Again, I know that when I was in opposition, I had to

speak a number of times and I had to try to express in as succinct a way as

possible to the members opposite, who were the NDP government at that time, that

we were losing too many of our young people who took away with them their

skilled trades.

I myself

had friends — and they were all in their young thirties — who left British

Columbia, who went to Alberta to find jobs. And then what did they do? They

created situations where they became single parents. They left their wives,

their spouses behind to take care of the children, and they went to work in

Alberta. They weren't able to save much, because they then had to pay rents in

Alberta and they had to pay for mortgages in British Columbia. That was not the

best for families. It was not keeping them together.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

So what

we've been able to do in creating an investment climate, an economic climate

that's friendly to business, that allows for opportunities…. We've had that

opportunity for people to return to this province. Young people will come back

with their trades and their skills.

[1500]

On that

note, I want to say we are acknowledging that we do need to invest in our

skilled trades and occupations. That's why in the Ministry of Advanced Education

there will be more dollars put there as well, not only for the post-secondary

colleges and universities but all the institutes as well. That is critical as

well. Our young workforce needs to be educated. Our young workforce needs to

find skills and trades for the future of this province. As we are aging, we need

to have young people come and fill our spaces as we move forward.

I can tell

you that as the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services, I know

seniors are aging at the fastest rate. That demographic age group is aging

faster than ever before. It's hard to believe that in the next ten years, we

will see the percentage of increase in terms of the aging population, the

90-plus…. That increase will be greater than those from 18 to 29. What that

means is that we are going to have yet more demands on our health care system.

That is

another reason why this balanced budget, this budget 2004-05, is good news for

British Columbians. It indicates, once again, that we're planning out. We're

planning to invest more dollars in our health care system because we know there

will be demands on health care. We know the aging population is going to need

more services, and we know we can't wait till the demands are there, because

those demands would be too great for our younger generation. We need to plan for

it now and spread out those costs as best as possible to allow for those dollars

to be available to sustain a public health care system.

Something

we said we would do, something the Premier said he would do and something all

members of this House on this side of the House in terms of our government said

we would do was that we would protect health care and would provide for more

dollars as the economy grows. We're seeing that the economy is growing, and more

dollars will be invested in health care.

The last

note I want to speak about is tax cuts. I know our critics will say tax cuts

don't work, but again I will disagree and I will disagree vehemently with them.

Tax cuts are working. There are more dollars left in people's pockets. The

disposable income increase we've seen in our administration versus the previous

has been the largest increase ever. I have seen it in the stores. The retailers

are finding that their businesses are in fact growing. That's because of

consumer confidence. We are seeing people use their dollars where they think it

is best available for them.

Tax cuts

also are helping small businesses because of our incorporation numbers that are

increasing. As

[ Page 8780 ]

well, in fact, the elimination of the corporation capital tax — a very,

very big move that we brought in and we staged over two years — allowed for

investor confidence to grow. All these things are good measures. All these

things will continue because as a government, when we were first elected, we

brought in three-year rolling service plans. Everybody will now know where we're

headed; everyone will now see where our targets are. It doesn't mean there can't

be changes and amendments along the way. The idea of having a rolling service

plan means we can do that.

I just want

to say how pleased I am to stand up today in support of the budget. I know all

members of this government are in support of it, and we should look forward to

better days as we bring out the best in all British Columbians.

H. Bloy:

It's a privilege and an honour to follow the new Minister of State for Women's

and Seniors' Services. I congratulate her on her new portfolio and look forward

to inviting her, shortly, into the riding of Burquitlam in the city of Burnaby

to celebrate D-Day this June. There are many other activities. We look forward

to working with the minister.

I rise

today in response to the budget speech. The budget is a great accomplishment for

British Columbia. We have finally balanced the budget. We have true transparent

accounting principles working under GAAP, generally accepted accounting

principles, that we can defend. We balanced the budget. At the same time, we've

defended increased funding for health care and education. The Premier and

members of cabinet should be congratulated on this achievement.

It was

certainly not easy with the many factors we have faced over this past year, such

as the forest fires, SARS, the softwood lumber dispute and mad cow disease. We

heard many initials and names we had never dreamt of before, but we got through

them, and we did balance the budget.

[1505]

The reason

we balanced the budget was that we set out with a sound plan to improve

business, employ more people, reduce reliance on our social safety net and

balance the budget. The budget is actually balanced, and it is the first to

follow generally accepted accounting principles. We are the first province in

Canada to adapt the GAAP procedures to our accounting, and because we are

following GAAP, this is not a fudge-it budget like the former government's claim

to balanced budgets. This is a true balanced budget.

The budget

is not based on unrealistic revenue incomes from ICBC or B.C. Hydro or other

organizations, which that government knew would never be achieved. Our budget is

based on reality. We are following the sound principles laid out in GAAP, and my

constituents are excited about this. The members of my riding know the abuses of

the past and are satisfied with the measures we have taken to prevent these

abuses from ever happening in the future.

The people

of Burquitlam, unlike our predecessors, will not proclaim a balanced budget

while the Crown corporation loses money hand over fist, year after year. The

government is responsible for any shortfall debt of its Crown corporations, and

it is only right that the government should include the Crown corporations and

all their subsidiaries within our budget.

Prior to

this budget our government has not only defended patient care by maintaining

funding for health care, but we have actually increased health care spending by

over $2 billion, and we've proclaimed in this budget that we'll put another

billion dollars into health care over the next three years. This is a truly

great era for patients and all British Columbians.

I remember

the election when the party opposite said we would cut education funding, and we

didn't. It was baseless fearmongering. They should be ashamed of misleading the

voters as they continue to try and mislead the voters of British Columbia day

after day with needless fearmongering. Their last one was on social assistance

cuts, claiming 28,000 people…. You know, that's shameful of the members to say

that, when in actual fact the numbers are closer to 349 people that may lose

their assistance.

The

Ministry of Human Resources is working with each one of these individuals on a

job plan to get them to look after themselves. The best social safety net we can

provide any individual in British Columbia is a job — a job where they bring

in way more money than income assistance, a job where they can provide for

themselves and for their families, and a job that makes them feel good about

themselves.

This

government talked about our cuts to education. Well, we haven't cut money from

education. In fact, in K-to-12 we've added more than $500 per student than the

last government saw fit to do. We've done that when the enrolment is decreasing.

We've added over $300 million,

whereas Carole James's transition team, which

produced her budget, claims we're not giving enough for students. Well, we've

given to students, and we're still giving to the educational system.

Our past

minister and the present Minister of Education are continuing that program of

putting more money towards student education in this province than ever before.

How can the NDP say we're not spending enough when they invested far less in our

children? Fortunately, the voters of Burquitlam see through the NDP's claim and

know who really cares about providing our children with the quality education

they need.

[1510]

I remember

the voters being told by the NDP that we would slash education spending. The

member for Vancouver-Hastings said in a reply to the budget speech that the

government cannot market the skills of our workers. She said we cannot market

these skills because we are not properly educating our workforce. The members of

my riding see right through that. Simon Fraser University has a provincial grant

that was $30 million higher in 2002 versus 1999-2000. That is a 25 percent

increase in grant money to Simon Fraser University in the riding of Burquitlam,

above what the NDP felt was necessary. They froze tuition fees, but

[ Page 8781 ]

they didn't even keep up the money to keep up with inflation to the

university, and it fell behind. Class spaces were following. Students couldn't

get the course requirements. Students, instead of a four-year program, were

taking five and six years to graduate. It's really expensive for a student to

have to pay housing and personal costs and entertainment costs for an extra two

years to get their education. The head count at Simon Fraser University has

increased by over 1,500 full-time-equivalents, a 14 percent increase in the last

two years.

What the

NDP thought was needed for our economy…. Education is important to all British

Columbians, and I'm proud to be part of that government that recognizes the

importance of education in British Columbia. My constituents are excited and

happy about the prospect of more seats at institutions — at Simon Fraser

University, BCIT, all the community colleges and universities. We as a

government have committed to over 12,000 new seats over the next three years and

25,000 seats over the next six years. These spaces will help our citizens

achieve the quality education they want.

We now have

in place, on a go-forward basis, that any student in British Columbia who

achieves a B average at school will have the ability to go on to higher

education. We're one of only a few provinces that can offer that.

More than

150,000 new jobs have been created since we formed government. Business is going

well for B.C. for the first time in ten years. We have more than 3,500 business

incorporations per year. That's 3,500 more than what the NDP had in their years

in power.

Finally,

the people of Canada are starting to move back to British Columbia. We are in a

plus position where more people, for the first time in a number of years, are

coming back to British Columbia, because this is a beautiful province, and this

is the place where they want to raise their children and work.

When you

look at the achievements of this government…. When we talk about what a good

social safety network is versus income assistance, it's jobs. We have created

— or the business community has created…. We've only laid out the

environment. Government doesn't create jobs; government doesn't make jobs. What

government does is create the climate that will allow jobs to happen. Because of

this government — our balanced budget, our tax reductions that we've done —

we've removed over 87,000 people from income assistance. This is what government

is about — creating the opportunities for the citizens of this great province.

Now we have 87,000 more people working, earning an income, supporting themselves

and their families. I believe and this government believes that the best social

safety net is a job.

The NDP has

a problem with this, though. Apparently the NDP doesn't like business or the

employment it brings. They used taxpayers' money to fund a think tank. Well,

this think tank is the transition team for Carole James and the NDP budget. They

just want to play tricks on voters, but B.C. will clearly see through this. Can

you imagine that the opposition doesn't want to balance the budget for another

six years? Can you imagine that in the $30,000-to-$60,000 wage bracket in

British Columbia, they want to increase their tax load by over 40 percent? If

you are fortunate enough in this province to make over $65,000, they want to

increase the tax load by over 100 percent. The NDP wants to kill business again

by hiking their taxes. I find this unforgivable, and I'm sure the citizens of

British Columbia will agree with me on this.

[1515]

We saw a

decade of decline shrink B.C.'s economy, and now that the CCPA is advocating

that we return to NDP economics, the NDP-funded…. Actually, one of the last

things the NDP did when they left power was give $200,000 to this think tank.

Everybody else in British Columbia basically got the information for free, but

the last government decided to pay $200,000 to continue to fund this think tank

as their advocacy.

constituents are worried that a budget like this would be foisted on the

province. Burquitlam knows that if they were lucky enough to keep their jobs

under this system, the NDP would hike their personal income taxes. The citizens

of Burquitlam do not want that. The constituents of my riding do not want to pay

higher taxes. They enjoy the fact that most people in the second-lowest income

tax bracket in Canada are right here in this province. That's money in their

pockets for them to decide how they want to spend the money, not for government

to tell them where the money will be spent.

The people

I represent also do not want to scare away business by jacking up their taxes.

They don't want to wait till 2010 for a balanced budget. Since we announced the

budget last week, I have had nothing but phone calls of praise and support in my

constituency office.

It's not

enough for the NDP to try and reverse the 150,000 jobs we have created and

impoverish workers who will have to pay their taxes. Carole James and her NDP

friends want to wait until 2010, as I have already said. They want to spend

another six years of passing on our provincial debt to our children. They want

to drown our children in further debt so that they can't afford the social

programs that are required for this province. They want to make it harder for

our children to pay for their education and health care costs by racking up even

larger debts on the provincial credit card. I say shame.

I just want

to remind all British Columbians that if you as a British Columbian had loaned

all the money to our province as a debt…. I want to tell you how much interest

we pay every day in the province — this is only interest on debt — mainly

because of the NDP. We pay $7.2 million every day in interest. I want you just

to think about what we could do with that amount of money, where that money

could go — into health care, into education, into the social services — if

it wasn't for the backward thinking of these two members and their old party

with their old thoughts and concepts of spend, spend, spend. When you sit down

[ Page 8782 ]

and read about the budget the hon. Minister of Finance put out with the full

support of this caucus…. This is what will lead us on in British Columbia, and

this money, as we reduce the debt, will start to go towards supporting more

programs.

We are also

taking care of social responsibilities that go beyond health care, jobs and

education. In my riding the government gave the Tri-City Women's Resource

Society $276,000 so that the society could offer such services and activities as

counselling and temporary accommodations for emotionally and physically abused

women and their children. I know this is supported. I know they would like more

money. My wife works in counselling — many people in abusive situations. It's

the government that we have here today and the long-range thinking that will

allow us to be able to support this.

In my

riding in 2002-03 we gave over $450,000 in grants to child care programs. These

programs help the day care and preschool needs of our children. I am proud to be

part of a government that has accomplished this.

This budget

will be a legacy for our children. There will be $25 million for sports,

culture, music and arts. This will also include funding for volunteerism, which

is one of the pillars of society. I've always believed you can never thank a

volunteer often enough. If it weren't for the volunteers in every part of this

great province, we wouldn't have the communities and the lifestyle we enjoy

today.

[1520]

The

government is preparing for the 2010 Olympic Games by investing over $50 million

to construct some of our venues earlier than needed so that we will be ready for

the games. Right in my riding we have the speed skating oval at Simon Fraser

University. It will be the largest capital project for the Olympic Games. The

Olympic Games are going to be such a bonus and benefit for all British

Columbians, but I will tell you that the real legacy of the Olympic Games and

the speed skating oval that will be at Simon Fraser University is the over

150,000 square feet of classroom and research space that will be built. That is

the true legacy of what the games are going to leave. They're going to leave

housing components in other parts of the province. They're going to leave

facilities. Simon Fraser University is a leader in many health research areas

now, and this will just be a bonus to them.

We are

getting ready for the Olympics. The Olympics are going to create about 200,000

new jobs over the next six years. That's on top of the 150,000 we've already

created in the past three years. These 200,000 jobs are only related to the

Olympics. There are going to be hundreds of thousands more jobs made available.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the budget

today. I am proud to be part of the accomplishments today as we continue to

usher in an era for all British Columbians. I'm proud to be part of this

government today.

Nuraney: It is my pleasure to rise here today and speak on the budget that

was introduced by our Minister of Finance. What gives me even more pleasure is

knowing that today I can speak on a budget that for the first time in the

history of this province is balanced according to the generally accepted

accounting principles. I would like to applaud this government for committing to

fiscal responsibility and transparency, for staying on course and for achieving

a balanced budget in just three years as we had promised.

I would

like to emphasize the hard work and dedication it took this government to get to

this milestone. In May of 2001, when this government came to power, we were

facing an economy in recession, inflated spending and an overall state of chaos.

Now we are leading the nation in job creation, and our economy is projected to

be one of the best in the country, while British Columbians get to enjoy the

second-lowest rate of income tax in Canada. Unfortunately, in order to get to

this point, sacrifices had to be made — sacrifices that included reduction in

spending, tightening the belt and correcting some artificial freezes.

Our

critics, naysayers and opposition have been quick to judge that this government

does not care for its people, that our mandate is to please just a selected few

rather than the province as a whole. This could not be further from the truth. I

would like to remind those people that $2 billion has been added to health care,

$92 million more has been directed to education, and 5,800 new post-secondary

spaces for students have been created. This list goes on and on. Those same

people claim that the balanced budget is not important. They don't understand

that by balancing the budget, we have established a discipline that we apply in

our own homes every day. We spend only as much as we earn.

What does

this mean for British Columbians? It means that we are freeing up money from

interest payments on the debt load — money that can be better spent on health,

education and social programs.

[1525]

Now, for a

minute let us consider the alternative. Let us consider the proposed budget of

the NDP. This is a budget that is proposed as an alternative to our budget

presented by the Minister of Finance. Under their proposal, they are suggesting

holding off balancing the budget until 2010. This is a budget that will increase

the tax rates for everyone from low-income families to seniors. They're

suggesting an increase of 27 percent. This is a budget that will drive away

investment. People from British Columbia also will leave in droves because of

the highest tax rates in North America. Unfavourable business conditions will

also drive away the investors. Finally, this is a budget prepared by the

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the think tank of the NDP — who paid

$200,000, by the way, to them when they were government.

This budget

spells nothing but disaster. I ask you: does this sound like a responsible

situation for NDP supporters? Does this sound like a party that has its people's

needs as a priority? No wonder the people of British Columbia voted them out the

last time around — to stop further deterioration of our province.

[ Page 8783 ]

The real

problem is that the NDP consider "profits" to be a bad word. It is a

reality that success is measured by the positive results of performances. Under

the opposition's plan there will not be any new investment in the province, and

the high-income earners — like the doctors, nurses and captains of our

industries — will leave to go where tax regimes are more favourable and where

governments encourage success.

It is

important for British Columbians to understand the difference between the

philosophy of our government and that of the opposition. Let us look at what

this government had promised they would do and what results that brought to

British Columbians. One of the key promises this government made was to make

taxes work for British Columbia. We started doing that since the first day in

office. We introduced 27 tax relief measures that resulted in almost $900

million in tax relief for individuals and close to $400 million in tax relief

for businesses of British Columbia.

The

personal income tax rates were cut by 25 percent, increasing aftertax family

income by 4.7 percent. It should be noted that this rise is the largest gain for

British Columbia families in at least the last two decades, bringing the

aftertax family income to an average of $57,581. These tax cuts were designed to

encourage economic growth, put more money back in the pockets of British

Columbians and promote spending and investment.

To foster

the proper business environment we have eliminated the corporate capital tax. We

have exempted production machinery and equipment from PST. These reductions in

costs for industries, and allowing them to be more competitive, have spurred

more investment.

To further

enhance the competitiveness of our businesses, we have reduced the general

corporate income tax rate and increased the small business threshold from

$200,000 to $300,000. This government believes strongly in restoring the small

business sector, since it accounts for 98 percent of all B.C. business and

provides numerous jobs and benefits to our communities.

We have

also doubled the corporate capital tax exemption threshold for small financial

institutions from $5 million to $10 million, which helps small trust companies

and credit unions. Furthermore, we have introduced new tax credits for the

mining sector and the high-technology sector, contributing to the growth and

investment of these key economic sectors.

[1530]

Once again,

our opposition have been quick to judge. They say that those tax measures didn't

work, that they produced no benefits and that they were not needed. The facts

prove otherwise. Investments in venture capital, mining, forestry, technology,

and oil and gas have all seen an increase. Yes, those tax measures were needed,

and they have definitely worked. They were implemented to foster investment, to

foster growth and development, to revive the economy and to further its growth.

Those doubting the results of our tax measures are obviously not well informed.

All they had to do was look at what B.C.'s economic indicators have shown in the

last little while. We are today leading the nation for the second year in a row

with job creation. That job creation has reduced the unemployment rate, provided

more families with a healthy income and helped to push the economy.

Perhaps

they would also notice that for 2004, B.C. is forecast to have the

second-highest GDP growth of all the provinces, at the rate of 3.1 percent. For

the first time in six years, people are moving back to B.C., and they are moving

back here because there are jobs and opportunities. They are moving back here to

start businesses and to raise their families. They are moving back here because

British Columbia is becoming the best province to live in once again.

I have

experienced such a delight in my own family. My daughter, after having worked

away from British Columbia for the past six years, has returned home with a much

better business and better career prospects. People are building their homes

here. The value of the building permits issued in 2003 was almost $6.4 billion,

an increase of 13 percent since 2002. CMHC forecast B.C. to have an increase of

3.2 percent in housing starts, the strongest growth in the country.

Considering

the mentioned factors, it's no wonder B.C.'s consumer confidence leads the

country as well. B.C. was the only province in Canada where consumer confidence

was on the rise in December 2003. This goes hand in hand with B.C.'s small

business being the most confident in Canada. The Canadian Federation of

Independent Business has found that small and medium businesses in B.C. are most

optimistic about the prospects over the next year, compared to anywhere in the

country.

It is

important to remind the opposition that these statistics don't come from us.

These statistics are coming from accredited organizations such as the TD Bank,

the Conference Board of Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,

Statistics Canada, B.C. Stats and various other councils. That means these are

the numbers that are unbiased, proven, properly recorded and reflecting the true

picture of our government's successes.

I can go on

for much longer talking about the record-breaking TV and film productions in

Victoria. I could also talk about the tremendous growth in residential real

estate, or I could talk about the growth of small businesses. There are many

indicators that British Columbia is starting to thrive and that many good things

are now on the way. It is obvious our tax measures have done just what they were

intended to do: revive the economy and better the lives of British Columbians.

[1535]

This

optimism is very much alive in Burnaby. Housing starts and housing markets are

seeing a bumper year. Metrotown, which is one of the largest shopping centres in

Canada, announced an expansion which will increase its retail space. Electronic

Arts, a world leader and a major player in the video games business, is

expanding its facility and will create 2,000

[ Page 8784 ]

more jobs. BCIT has increased its capacity and has added more seats in its

computer science and nursing programs, among others. SFU is also poised to

become a site for our Olympic Games and has also undertaken expansion.

One of the

movie studios, MJA Studio, is building a state-of-the-art film studio in

Burnaby. They have already received production contracts before they are able to

complete their facility. What an achievement. All this and other good news have

become the order of the day.

I would

also like at this time to touch on the issues of transportation and highways. It

is important to note that B.C.'s airports, ports and highways handle more than

$30 billion worth of exports and move 22 million tourists annually. That is why

it is important that B.C. stays on top of its transportation challenges,

upgrading and redesigning infrastructures to avoid delays in shipping and travel

and to promote safety. Keeping that in mind, I'm glad to see the developments

with the B.C. Ferry Services and the partnership of B.C. Rail. These

modifications will revitalize services and provide new investment opportunities

while being fiscally responsible and financially solvent.

I was also

pleased to see the heartlands transportation investment providing $362 million

to rehabilitation, $210 million to rural roads and $37 million for oil and gas

roads. This project is vital to the development of our industries.

The

strategic highway infrastructure program will fund $122.4 million to projects

near Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Quesnel and Chilliwack, reducing the congested areas

and increasing the flow of goods and increasing safety levels.

The

transportation issue has clearly been neglected by the previous government,

leading to accidents, congested traffic and shipping disruptions. It is

disgraceful that the previous government allowed such disrepair and

deterioration of our infrastructure, which is the lifeline of our resources and

mining sector. I'm pleased to see that this government is addressing these

issues.

Like I

mentioned previously, by establishing a balanced budget we are demonstrating

that we have the discipline, the foresight and the commitment to fiscal

responsibility. We have committed to living within our means while concentrating

on all the essential and important areas that will help British Columbians enjoy

their lives with stability and sustainability.

We have

accomplished a great deal in the past three years. Many British Columbians are

seeing the benefits — higher wages, bigger paycheques, lower taxes, more jobs,

lower unemployment, growing business, increasing investment, positive net

migration, rising GDP, expanded infrastructure, more educational capacity,

higher and more business optimism and consumer confidence, better commercial

opportunities and many more.

Those are

just some of the ways this government is making B.C. the best place to live and

is, indeed, bringing hope and a new era to British Columbia. Bringing out the

best in British Columbia is our aspiration and will continue to be our

commitment. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[1540]

MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what does it mean — what we just accomplished last

Tuesday by introducing a balanced budget? I have to ask myself: did I really

understand how difficult it was to get where we are now when I was outside of

government in business or when I was serving with the force? I have to be honest

with you, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea how difficult it was to get where we are

today — to balance a budget on behalf of the people of this province.

I wonder

how many people out there today who are listening or who may read Hansard later

— but they should get a life — will appreciate what this government has done

for the books and for the future generations of people that are going to live in

this province. You know, with a $40 billion debt and — we've heard it before

— $7.2 million a day spent on servicing that debt, just under $3 billion a

year…. That's come to an end. There's going to be no further debt in this

province under this government. We've committed ourselves, legislated ourselves

to introduce balanced budgets now and into the future, with surpluses.

That is

critical. That's an important thing we've done for the people of this province.

We've done it with generally accepted accounting principles, the first

government in Canada to do that. Again, that's a step in the right direction.

I'm certainly pleased to have been a part of that. It's really good news. It's

good news for those of us of our generation, and it's good news for the younger

generation.

hindsight, when I stop to think of what has happened over the last 20 years as

this debt has now reached $40 billion, I feel somewhat guilty. We should all

feel a little bit guilty. What we have done is like borrowing my son's credit

card and maxing it out. We're spending his money. You can carry that further.

I've been blessed with three wonderful, healthy grandchildren. When I go home

and see those little grandchildren of mine, I feel somewhat guilty, because I

feel like I've been going into their bedroom at night, emptying their piggy

banks and looking under their pillows in case the tooth fairy came, and taking

money from those children. That's what we have been doing. We've all done that.

Interjection.

MacKay: Shame on the member for North Coast for doing that as well.

[Laughter.]

We've

actually gone further. As guilty as we all are, we've gone one step further. We

got ourselves involved in politics, and we got ourselves elected. We got

ourselves elected on a platform. One of the conditions on that platform was to

balance the budget by our third budget. We've done that. I forgive all those

members that stole money from their grandchildren and their children, because

we're all here and we're all part of a government that stood up and said:

"Enough is enough."

[ Page 8785 ]

I'm really

proud to be able to stand up here and say that. I do hope the young generations

that are going to follow will look back at this government of the year 2004 and

say: "Thank you. Thank you for bringing the spending under control."

That money does have to be paid back, and it's time we stopped passing it on to

the next generation.

To get to

where we are today has not been easy. It's been challenging. There have been

difficult decisions, and it hasn't been fun. I don't think one person in this

room has had fun doing what we've had to do to get to a balanced budget today.

We imposed some pretty tough discipline on ourselves, on our government, through

legislation — the legislation that was introduced to ensure that we have

balanced budgets.

In spite of

all the good news about the jobs and the economy, there are still parts of this

province that have not yet recovered. I'm speaking mainly of some of the smaller

northern communities in the area I represent, Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

The

Hazelton areas. We're totally dependent on SCI, Skeena Cellulose Inc., which is

still under CCAA protection. That community has been devastated by the loss of

the forest sector jobs in the community, and they still haven't recovered from

that. Skeena Cellulose, or New Skeena Forest Products, is still before the

courts under protection. I do hope that is resolved shortly — put some of

those people back to work.

[1545]

The

community of Terrace is another example that has suffered because of New

Skeena's inability to get up and running. The sawmill there has been down for

quite a period of time now. A number of jobs have been lost there. The pulp mill

at Prince Rupert has suffered. The community of Prince Rupert has suffered

greatly because of the downturn in the forest economy and has yet to recover.

Smithers has also seen and felt some of the effect of the downturn from Skeena

Cellulose's bankruptcy protection.

When I look

at those communities, I can think of around 700 to 800 jobs that have left those

communities because of the downturn in the economy. It's pretty well everything

west of Smithers under New Skeena Forest Products that has suffered and has not

yet recovered. They have not yet recovered, in spite of all the good news we

hear from other parts of the province.

There are

some good, strong indicators from the investment community that we are finally

going to see some relief for the many communities in northwestern British

Columbia. The investment community is here again because of what we have been

doing to make our province competitive — competitive from a tax perspective

and competitive through the regulatory reductions we've gone through. Those are

critical, because the investment dollar is very mobile today. The mining

industry is very mobile. They can jump on an aircraft and travel to another

country if they want to invest their dollars. It is important that we do get the

tax perspective and the regulatory perspective under control and once again

attract. We have done that. We have done that well.

I just want

to talk for a few moments about the forest industry and the confidence they're

showing in the area I represent. The small community of Houston just recently

went through a large upgrade at the Canfor mill there. They are now the world's

largest sawmill. They produce 600 million board feet of wood a year. On top of

that, I was talking to some people from West Fraser sawmills in Smithers and

have been advised of about another $30 million upgrade to the sawmill in

Smithers. There is confidence in the forest industry, and it's being displayed

in Smithers and Houston and, hopefully, in other parts of the province before

too long.

More

specifically, what I would like to talk about right now is the mining

investment. [Applause.] I see the member for Prince George North is paying

attention. I'm pleased to see that.

The mining

industry has in fact indicated a renewed interest in our province. Last year,

2003, saw a 105 percent increase in the amount of exploration dollars being

spent in our province — a 105 percent increase — and 35 percent more claims

are being filed and held onto by prospectors.

In Smithers

in April of this year the Minerals North conference is going to be held from

April 14 to 16. We're going to look at developing the opportunities. We've been

exploring for a long time. Now it's time to develop the opportunities. We're

going to develop the opportunities of mining and infrastructure in northern

British Columbia.

The

conference starts with the first session, entitled "The Panorama to

Prosperity that Will Give a Broad Overview of Existing Mining Operations, Mining

and Milling, Environmental Management, Impacts and Benefits to Local

Communities, Mine Status and the Outlook for Four Mines." The four mines

I'm talking about are Kemess mine….

Interjection.

MacKay: I think the Kemess mine is actually located in Bulkley

Valley–Stikine, for the information of the member for Prince George North.

Also

located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine is the mine called Eskay Creek, which is

everybody's….

Interjection.

MacKay: It could be. You're absolutely right.

Eskay Creek

is also located in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Huckleberry mine is

another operating mine located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. We have another mine

located just south of the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine called Endako.

Endako was a molybdenum mine. That's a pretty tough word to say, isn't it?

Interjection.

MacKay: Once was enough.

Kemess

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

Huckleberry is a gold-copper mine.

[ Page 8786 ]

[1550]

Once the

session gets underway in Smithers in April…. I've talked about the first

session. The second session is entitled "Overcoming the Challenges,"

and the highlight we're going to be discussing is access. The first thing I want

to talk about is the Bradfield Canal connector road. I just returned from

Anchorage where I was talking to some people up there, and I found out that for

someone to come out of Wrangell, Alaska, by ferry to Prince Rupert, it costs

$850 one way to bring your car down on the Alaska state ferry. The people from

Wrangell, Alaska, want road access to the province. At the present time there is

no road access into British Columbia, yet half our border with Alaska is in the

northern part of our province. We border the state of Alaska, yet there is no

road access between the state of Alaska and British Columbia. The Bradfield

Canal road is proposed to come from Wrangell, Alaska, up the Bradfield Canal and

hook onto Highway 37. In doing so, it will open up some great mining exploration

properties that are not available to the people right now because of the cost of

getting in there by helicopter. If we put in a road, it allows exploration to

take place.

The

interesting part when you talk about the Bradfield Canal connector road is that

it runs east-west. When you look at Highway 37, when you look at Highway 97 and

when you look at the Alaska Highway, everything north of Highway 16 runs north

and south. We don't have any roads going east-west. It is time we started

opening up some roads running east-west to allow us to open up the province

more. The Stewart-Omineca resource road is another road that would run

east-west. It would bring all that mine product from Kemess mine, which is

located in the Bulkley Valley–Stikine, out to salt water much quicker. That

also runs east-west. We have to start building some new infrastructure up there

to allow exploration to take place and for the movement of goods.

The other

challenge that we face up north is the lack of hydroelectric power. The current

hydroelectric grid terminates at the northern apex at Meziadin Junction. There

is no power in the north half of this province. We presently have a project

destined, and they have actually started doing some of the survey work last

week. It's called the Coast Mountain Hydroelectric project. It's a $200 million

project which should generate about 120 megawatts of power once it's up and

running. It involves building a three-kilometre tunnel through bedrock,

diverting some water and putting it back in the stream three kilometres down and

generating 120 megawatts of power.

It's great

news for the mining sector up north because one of the deciding factors they

have to look at, one of the economic indicators they have to look at, is the

cost of producing power because they consume so much power. This new

hydroelectric project is great news for Red Chris, which is located about 100

kilometres north of where this hydro line will come out. It is also great news

for Galore Creek property, which is looking at spending about $8 million on

further exploration this year alone. They need power, and this is a great news

story for them.

Also going

to be discussed at that next session is the mining and fish habitat with

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Goodness knows, that's been a problem for the

mining industry for a number of years.

Those are

some of the sessions that are going to be taking place at Smithers during

Minerals North. The luncheon speaker at this Minerals North conference is going

to be Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, who is the president and CEO of NovaGold Resources

Inc. He's going to speak on developing mines in the North America cordillera in

Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia.

The

afternoon session will see presentations on new ideas and opportunities,

including the following. The first one has to do with exploration for oil and

gas in the Bowser Basin. The Bowser Basin is an area north of Smithers and has

the potential to produce oil and gas in great quantities. I understand there

probably should be some deep wells drilled there within two years to expand the

knowledge that we already have on the Bowser Basin. We're also going to hear

from some people talking about leading to new discoveries. The people that will

be giving that session are from the B.C. geological survey branch — leading to

new discoveries.

[1555]

The

province was developed on resource extraction. There is probably not a community

in northern British Columbia or anywhere in the province that wasn't built in

the first instance because of resource extraction, whether it be fishing,

forestry or mining. That's great news for us as well.

Also going

to be discussed at that session is a proposed Smithers school for mining. When

you stop and think about what happened under the previous administration…. For

every mine that opened, two closed. You don't have to sit down and spend much

time figuring out it wasn't going to be too long before we had no mines at all.

In doing so, half the miners, half the people that were involved in the mining

industry in this province, lost their jobs. We've got some great mining

opportunities coming up this year and next year, and we don't have the people

trained to work in those mines. So we have been working with the Minister of

Advanced Education on opening up a school for mining in Smithers affiliated with

Northwest Community College, and hopefully we can get some of the mining

industry to partake in that and help with the cost of running that.

It's

interesting. I fly down here Sunday evenings, and if I happen to hit a weekend

when there is a mine change at Eskay Creek, I'm absolutely amazed that of the

miners that are coming out for their two weeks out, quite a few of them are from

Newfoundland. That's how far we're bringing people in to work in the province in

our mining industry. We're bringing people from across the country, so we do

have to train more people from the mining sector.

Following

that session, there is going to be a panel discussion on mining and

sustainability of small north-

[ Page 8787 ]

ern communities. I already spoke on how critical resource extraction is to

small communities. We wouldn't be here in this province if it wasn't for the

resources that we have.

Probably

the highlight of the conference is going to be the keynote speaker for the

conference. The keynote speaker is somebody we all know very well. The keynote

speaker, of course, is going to be the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. The

member has been asked to come up and be the guest speaker. He is formerly from

the mining sector. He is very knowledgable in the mining sector.

I had the

privilege of travelling with him last summer with the mining task force as we

travelled around the province and spoke to the mining people about what more the

province can do to make the mining sector get re-energized and come back into

the province. He is a very knowledgable man, and he knew everybody that was

involved in the mining industry. We had a lot of fun travelling, and I enjoyed

working with him on that project. I enjoyed helping him as we worked our way

through the task force report that was submitted to the minister. I look forward

to the eventual outcome of that report, because I'm sure the mining sector will

be very pleased with some of the recommendations contained therein.

Friday

morning of the conference we will see presentations entitled "New Ventures

on the Horizon." The first presentation is entitled "Exploration in

Northern B.C. by Ministry Geologists," and that will be followed by

presentations from Kemess North again. They are going to give a presentation on

where they're going and what their future prospects are for mine life.

We're going

to hear from Galore Creek, which is owned by NovaGold. I already told you about

NovaGold and Galore Creek and how critical that hydroelectric project is going

to be for that mine. It's a huge deposit. It'll probably generate 400 to 500

direct jobs once it's in operation.

We're going

to hear from the Red Chris, which should be in operation by the last quarter of

2006. That's owned by bcMetals. That's an interesting prospect. It's a site that

we visited as a task force, spoke to the people involved and spoke to the

natives that will be working at the mine. Good news.

We're also

going to hear from Klappan coal, who happen to have properties located right on

the old B.C. Rail right-of-way. They're looking at developing that mine. We're

also going to hear from Redcorp, who own Tulsequah Chief, a mine located south

of Atlin that's been around for a long time. I was pleased to be present in

Atlin when the province reissued the project approval certificate for that

project.

[1600]

We're also

going to hear from another mining group fairly close to home, near the small

community of Granisle, and that's the Morrison property owned by Pacific Booker

Minerals. They're also getting very, very close to announcing an opening of that

project. As long as the mineral prices continue to rise as they have, I think

we're going to see a lot more interest in our province from the mining sector.

The

Minerals North conference in Smithers in April, with its theme of developing the

opportunities, will hopefully be a blueprint for the economy in the north and

indeed the province. We hope and expect that the mining industry will provide

sound dollars to provincial revenue and thereby protect the necessary dollars we

need in education, health and the other social programs that people need in this

province.

In closing,

I would like to commend my colleague the Minister of Finance for his outstanding

work in presenting this budget. You know, in spite of all the difficulties —

9/11, SARS, softwood lumber, BSE, fires and floods — the minister has

delivered the balanced budget that we committed to, and he has to be

congratulated.

Belsey: I rise in the House today to speak in support of what can only be

described as one of the most exciting balanced budgets this province has

witnessed in many, many years.

This is a

balanced budget that is exciting, because it's balanced on the practices of

generally accepted accounting principles. Many British Columbians have yet to

grasp the significance of these facts, so it is up to elected officials, my

colleagues in this room. We are obliged to explain the importance of this fact.

[G. Trumper in the chair.]

The members

opposite tried for years to convince British Columbians that through their

shrewd fiscal management, they were able to balance the province's budget. They

ran an election in 1996 on a balanced budget. Soon after the election — it

must have been in one of those caucus room revelations — they realized they

were soon going to have to face British Columbians and tell them the truth. The

truth was that it wasn't balanced. The forestry estimates they made were not

correct. There were Crown corporation estimates that were not correct.

It wasn't

long after the '96 election that the NDP budget house of cards collapsed. As

well, let's look at just how shrewd and astute they really were. They claimed a

balanced budget in '96 and again in 2000. I mentioned the earlier '96 claim and

how short-lived it was. The 2000 budget was much more accurate, except for the

fact that the accounting practices they were using were not generally accepted

accounting principles. They just happened to find a billion dollars in a pension

fund that helped to balance their books. They included a huge windfall from

hydro sales to California. British Columbians clearly remember those power sales

and that we're still waiting to get paid for them.

There was

no level too low for the NDP when it came to fabricating their fudge-it budgets.

The NDP misled British Columbians at every opportunity. However, it may not be

fair to chastise these two remaining members of the former government. They're

here to critique our budget, to examine in great detail each and

[ Page 8788 ]

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

spin.

I remember

last year when the member opposite got up in this House and went on a rant about

the 2003 budget and that it was passed on voodoo economics. Voodoo economics,

she called it. In this year's assessment by that very same member, she

summarized her statement with: "This dog won't hunt." How profound.

What an incredible critique of two very important pieces of information given in

this House. Think of it — voodoo economics and dogs that won't hunt. That's

how she critiqued our 2003-04 budget.

[1605]

Surely, the

British Columbians she represents deserve a better assessment of our Finance

minister's budget than voodoo economics and dogs that won't hunt. I want to help

my two colleagues over there. I want to pretend I'm with them, and I want to

help all British Columbians understand the most important budget this province

has seen in 25 years. I'll help that member opposite. I'll help her do the job

she was elected to do. After all, I've got the same hair colour as one of them.

Now, where

do we start? Let's start with taxes. Of course, the members opposite love to

tell people that our tax policies won't work. Well, I can just see them looking

through that budget book. There are no new taxes. There's no increase in taxes.

There's no cut in taxes. We'd better not go there. We'll find something else.

Let's try

health care. That's a topic they love to get going on and get people going on.

The NDP love to rant about the cuts to health care. Oh, maybe they'd better not

go there, because those bad B.C. Liberals have just committed another $1.047

billion to health care. Those bad B.C. Liberals have committed more to health

care in their three years than the NDP did in the entire five years of their

second term, so we'd better not tell the public that one.

Education.

I can just imagine those two members opposite scheming as to how they can spin

education spending so that it plays well with their remaining supporters. Maybe

we'd better not go there either, because those B.C. Liberals have just increased

funding to school boards by $313 million over three years. They're now funding

at a per-level rate of $6,478. When the NDP were in government, they were

funding at only $5,946 per student, so we'd better leave that one alone. We

won't go there.

Now, I can

imagine the members opposite thinking to themselves: "We can always scare

the heck out of seniors, people with disabilities and the low-income families

and individuals." Do you remember how they managed to scare the heck out of

seniors when they told them that those B.C. Liberals were going to be kicking

thousands of them off Pharmacare, because they wouldn't be able to pay the

premiums, even though we put in premium assistance enhancements to protect those

on low income from the premium increases? This resulted in either a reduction or

an elimination of premiums for 230,000 British Columbians.

I'm sure

British Columbians remember how the members opposite managed to scare the heck

out of people with disabilities when they said that those mean-spirited B.C.

Liberals were going to kick thousands of the most vulnerable in our society off

the disability support that this government had in place, when in fact we added

thousands to the disability list. That was hardly

an act of a heartless,

mean-spirited government.

[1610]

The members

opposite know that low-income families and individuals are easily scared. They

like to rant about the provincial tax rates and how the disadvantaged, those on

low income — that tax bracket — are paying higher taxes. One only has to

look at the new budget book and see that the lowest-income earners of British

Columbia are among the lowest-tax payers in Canada and that the highest-income

earners in British Columbia are among the highest-tax payers in Canada. It's in

black and white. It's clearly laid out. All they have to do is read that book.

B.C. Rail.

I can just imagine the conversation over this issue, the B.C. Rail–CN

partnership agreement. Now, there's a deal that their new boss, Carole James,

wants squashed. Imagine supporting a deal that puts half a billion dollars into

the hands of British Columbians — half a billion dollars. When they had that

half a billion dollars, they sunk it into fast ferries.

Imagine

Carole James forcing her two sitting members to stand up and speak out against a

partnership agreement that put a $25 million endowment fund in northern

development initiatives; four $15 million regional development accounts for

Prince George, the Peace, the northwest and Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet; $50

million for cross-regional accounts; $15 million for first nations; $7.2 million

for a container port in Prince Rupert; a $13 million contribution to the

LegaciesNow fund; $6 million to the Asia-Pacific market outreach initiative….

And the list goes on and on.

I can just

hear the two of them talking: "Gee, we'd better not let Carole James travel

around the north now, telling northerners just how bad a deal this B.C.

Rail–CN partnership is. If she does, she'll make a fool of herself." I

can imagine the member for Vancouver-Hastings saying: "I know. Gas and oil

development — now, there's one that nobody likes." Even her new leader,

Carole James, her fearless leader, was recorded as saying: "Not now, not

tomorrow, not ever will we have…." Carole James, the leader of the NDP:

"Not now, not tomorrow, not ever…."

Imagine.

Imagine going up to a community in which I live, Prince Rupert, and telling

them: "Not now, not tomorrow, not ever will you have oil and gas

development." It must have been a shock to them to see that we put $17

million into an offshore oil and gas team to pursue the goals of an

environmentally sound industry.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Not her. Not the NDP. Not now. Not ever.

B. Belsey:

Not ever. That's right.

[ Page 8789 ]

Let's look

at the gas and oil industry and their accomplishments in the northeast part of

this province — the lowest unemployment, the fastest rate of growth, the

record revenues. They should talk to Carole James. They might want to do a flip

on this one.

Mining. I

can imagine the conversation between the members opposite on mining: "When

we were in power, we successfully drove that industry out of British

Columbia." The two members opposite served in an NDP government and drove

an industry down to approximately $19 million being spent in exploration in

their last year in power. "But you heartless B.C. Liberals, you're going to

ruin everything." The industry is now planning to invest upwards of $100

million in this province in exploration this year, just three summers after

being elected. "That cannot be allowed to continue." Can you imagine

the NDP thinking about that?

Before you

know it, the mining industry is going to be back to the $300 million they were

spending before the decade of despair. The mining industry is picking up

strength, and it's a valuable industry we need in British Columbia.

Aha. They

got one — advertising. Imagine: this government is going to spend money on

advertising. That's absolutely terrible. I'm sure they don't want to see that.

Imagine the B.C. Liberals going out there and telling the truth. Those B.C.

Liberals are probably going to tell British Columbians that it was just

fearmongering when they told everybody that 27,000 British Columbians were going

to be kicked off of social assistance. I'll bet those mean-spirited B.C.

Liberals are going to tell British Columbians that the NDP lied to them when

they said thousands were going to be kicked off of disability assistance.

[1615]

You know, I

could go on and on, but that's enough. I'm starting to take the position that

the NDP and Carole James, their leader, are taking, and starting to get facts.

Facts are getting in the way of rhetoric. For three years now, I've listened to

the members opposite respond to budget and throne speeches. I can't help but

wonder if there is truly a relationship, that the NDP rhetoric is inversely

proportional to the knowledge they have of the topics they talk about.

The

fudge-it budgets of the past are no longer. This government has put in place one

of our new-era promises for truth-in-budgeting legislation. All subsequent

budgets must be balanced, and all budgets must be reported in accordance with

generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP as it is called.

Reporting

within the new GAAP regulations ensures not only that government financial

numbers are reported correctly but also that we report Crown corporations,

schools, universities, colleges and hospital budgets. Never has a government

been more open and more transparent than this government is today.

Our new-era

promise to pass real balanced-budget legislation and to have a balanced budget

mandatory by our third full budget has been kept. In the past, governments were

able to have Crown corporations borrow money against their assets, give that

money to government, and government could report it on their books as an asset.

Then, in fact, that debt was not reported in every government's budget; it was

buried in a Crown corporation's budget. That no longer can be done.

That was

the old era. Our government's new era prevents this questionable practice from

ever happening again. Our government's budget is now the most open, the most

complete, the most accurate and in fact the easiest to understand. However,

nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts the unofficial or

most often the unidentified source, so I'd like to comment on some third-party

validators. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization

that represents over 10,000 small businesses in this province, has found that

there is widespread support within their membership for eliminating budget

deficit.

This budget

has eliminated budget deficits — this year, next year and years after.

Optimism runs high in B.C.'s business community. The B.C. business community is

among the most optimistic in the country, with over 60 percent anticipating a

stronger performance in the next 12 months. Now, the naysayers out there might

grumble; they may say that this government is pandering to business. There may

be a little truth in that statement, because this government understands the

direction our Premier believes in — strong economies — and we need that for

healthy businesses.

Healthy

businesses translate into higher personal incomes and more jobs and provide

higher standards of living. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "A rising tide

lifts all boats." Economists the world over have been teaching for years

that prudent management of tax dollars, coupled with sound fiscal policy, is the

fastest way to rebuild a nation. Governments ultimately do the right thing,

often after exhausting all alternatives.

[1620]

The

government that preceded the B.C. Liberals tried. Some manipulated their

budgets. Some reported only what they had to in their budgets and ignored Crown

corporations, schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. As I said earlier,

governments ultimately do the right thing but only after exhausting all

alternatives. Well, this government has ultimately done the right thing.

As a member

of the Finance Committee, I participated in the prebudget consultation process

and travelled around to communities, listening to the views of British

Columbians. This was a fascinating process that gave individual citizens,

special interest groups, other levels of government and industry…. It gave all

British Columbians the opportunity to voice their opinions and ideas as to the

economic direction they would like to see the province go in.

This year,

for the first time, the Finance Committee conducted site visits as part of its

preconsultation process. Recognizing that the province has a diverse economy, we

decided to learn more about local situations in resource-dependent communities

in the heartlands. During the first two weeks of our provincewide tour

[ Page 8790 ]

we participated in site visits in Courtenay, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek and

Kamloops before conducting the scheduled public hearings.

September 18 last year the committee visited Prince Rupert. Before the

consultation portion took place, the committee was taken on a tour of Prince

Rupert and the surrounding industrial sites. Like many resource towns, Prince

Rupert has been hard hit by problems in the fishing industry and the forest

industry, including the ongoing softwood lumber dispute and weak economic

performance. As a result, the residents of Prince Rupert are looking for

opportunities to diversify their economy via tourism, fish farming, oil and gas

development, small business growth, value-added forestry, marine harvesting,

expansion of port facilities, and a cruise ship terminal.

To learn

more, the committee toured extensively the industrial facilities and

infrastructures in the communities to see firsthand the economic challenges and

opportunities that lay in Prince Rupert. Our bus tour included the Wedeene River

sawmill, which was closed; the McMillan fish plant, which had been involved in a

fire and most of it wiped out; the New Skeena pulp mill, which remains closed;

and the deep-sea port in Prince Rupert and the underutilization of both the

grain terminal and the coal terminal.

By far the

most striking aspect of the tour was the lack of activity at the port of Prince

Rupert. To see forklifts sitting idle on the docks was a dramatic reminder of

the current economic challenges facing the north coast. At the same time, we

were impressed by the amazing spirit and determination of the workers we met and

talked to. They shared with us their visions for overcoming the city's problems

and for reviving the economy of their community.

We learned

that things are looking up. The cruise ship terminal that is being built in

Prince Rupert has bookings for 2004 that are much higher than anticipated. Also

on the horizon are the prospects for the new container facilities at the port of

Prince Rupert. The potential benefits for offshore oil and gas were also

discussed.

This

preconsultation process and the meetings undertaken led to a number of

recommendations that reflect the common themes heard from the hundreds of

presenters, letters and e-mails the committee received. I would like to share

with this House the recommendations that form the backbone of the report that

was put together.

[1625]

One common

theme we heard over and over again was: "Stay the course and balance the

budget." Patrick Rogers of Kamloops said to us: "As a private citizen,

the main concern I have is that everybody's wanting more money. My message is:

don't keep looking for places to spend money; look for places to save

money." The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia

presented. They said: "You made a promise, and we believe you'll stick to

it. The single most important outcome of the 2004-05 budget is a set of balanced

books. Your commitment is to be applauded. Our support for you in this regard is

unwavering."

A second

common thread was: "Stay focused on economic development." Gordon

Stamp-Vincent from the Prince Rupert and District Chamber of Commerce told us:

"We don't want handouts. We believe that government's role is to referee a

level playing field, facilitate a positive business environment and then step

back and watch us grow."

Another

common thread was: "Carry on cutting red tape." The B.C. Fruit Growers

Association told us: "We strongly support the focus on reducing

regulations, but we would still like, of course, to see some of them changed.

The one we feel is a bit of a nuisance is that any worker under 15 years of age

must get permission from his school principal and not his parent in order to

work on a farm. We feel that rule is unreasonable, so we would like that one

changed for sure."

Advanced

education and training was another important comment we heard a number of times.

From Prince Rupert Grain: "We have been trying for a long time to attract

quality skilled people to our company, and our situation is no different from

the rest of the general skill-shortage issues you will be hearing. But where we

are lacking is that the training resources for these skilled people are not

close at hand."

From

Northwest Community College we heard: "Opportunities are emerging, but we

need to invest in the development of local workforces. Industries such as

value-added wood manufacturers, specialty agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas,

mining, tourism and transportation represent significant growth potential in

this area. We cannot sustain long-term meaningful rural development and build

strong local economies if we parachute in skilled workers from elsewhere to meet

the workforce needs of these emerging industries."

In closing,

I'd like to point out that we have two types of governments. One is prepared to

build for a future and to make tough decisions when necessary. The other is

based on every decision being short-term — short-term gain and always looking

at the next election. I'm proud to be a member of the former type of government,

a government that is prepared to work for the long-term benefit of British

Columbians today and our children and grandchildren in the future.

Hon. P.

Bell: I am very pleased today to speak to this truly historic budget, the

first budget in all of Canada that was actually balanced according to generally

accepted accounting principles. That, I think, is truly a significant

accomplishment, and I am proud to be part of a government that was able to

achieve such a feat.

The

balanced budget is significant because, as I said to my kids when I went home,

it was the first time in British Columbia that we could actually go to our kids

and say: "We're no longer going to ask you to pay our credit card

bills." We, as a generation of baby-boomers, have accepted our

responsibility to actually pay as we go for the services we require and demand,

not burden the future generations with increased debts.

[1630]

As we all

know, the provincial debt has climbed from something in the order of $2 billion

just 25 years

[ Page 8791 ]

or so ago to something pushing $40 billion today. That is going to have to be

paid, and it's going to be a burden carried by the young people today. I think

it's truly significant that the Minister of Finance and the Premier have had the

vision to encapsulate this year's budget and create the piece of legislation

that was necessary in order to manage our government in a balanced-budget

situation going forward. I think it is a significant move. It's significant for

another reason, and that is because as a province, as a community, as

individuals in the province, we have some of the lowest overall tax burden of

any individuals, any constituents, in all of Canada, and in fact have the lowest

personal income taxes for the bottom two of our tax brackets of any government

in Canada.

That is

completely unlike the opposition that we are faced with today, with Carole James

and their political and financial advisers, the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives, who are recommending significant increases in taxes should they

become the next government. I think it's great that constituents actually have

an opportunity to compare the two.

I think it

was an opportune time for Carole James and her financial advisers to produce the

sample budget that they did, because now everyone can compare the two, and they

can make choices. I think the choices are pretty clearly defined. There's not

much in the middle here. You can have amongst the lowest tax rates of any

province in Canada, or you can have the highest tax rates of any province in

Canada. You can make that logical decision. You can make the decision of a

balanced budget going forward, or you can make the decision — under Carole

James and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — that would say they

aren't going to balance their budget for another five or six years, and continue

to accrue that debt and continue to ask our children to pay that debt going

forward. As people have an opportunity to look at those two different regimes,

it's going to be pretty clear, in my mind, what people are going to d