2002 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

B.C. Heritage Award recipient Stuart

Stark

I. Chong

Sale of Skeena Cellulose

B. Belsey

James Bay Community Project

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Comments on women by Women's Equality minister

J. Kwan

Hon. L. Stephens

J. MacPhail

Government support for students

R. Lee

Hon. S. Bond

Health care service delivery

R. Visser

Hon. C. Hansen

Early childhood services for aboriginal children

B. Belsey

Hon. L. Reid

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, Service Plan

2002-03 to 2004-05

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Service Plan

2002-2005

Reports from Committees

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Nijjar

Hon. J. van Dongen

J. Les

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

B. Locke

Hon. B. Barisoff

D. Hayer

P. Wong

Tributes

P. Wong

Budget Debate (continued)

P. Wong

Hon. R. Thorpe

[ Page 1257 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Nettleton: It sounds like a contradiction in terms. It's not. I'd like to

introduce a reporter friend, Doug Brown from Prince George, and his friend,

Charlie Hampton. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the gallery we have a very special visitor from

Mexico. Guadalupe Albert is the consul general of Mexico at Vancouver. Consul

General Albert has been a dynamic and very hard-working representative of her

country in British Columbia and Alberta for the past two years. She will now be

returning to Mexico to assume new responsibilities. Please join me in wishing

her all the best in her future career. We trust that she will not soon forget

our Pacific province.

[1405]

MacPhail: I'm delighted today to have a group of very hard-working deputy

sheriffs and prison guards here in the Legislature. They're here on vacation, I

should say. They're not here to do their job is what I'm saying — right now,

anyway. They are Gary Ralph, Gary Robbins, Greig Simpson, Peter Dignard, Graham

Trottman, Nathan Davies, Gary Renolds, Greg Engh and Garrick Marshall. Please

make them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker, I must take the opportunity in an incredibly open, honest and

multipartisan way to say: let's give our best to that women's hockey team today.

J. Bray:

It's my pleasure to introduce two people in the gallery today from the James Bay

Community Project. Hanne Fair and Vanessa Hammond work very hard with the James

Bay Community Project, providing successful community health and social services

to literally thousands of constituents in my riding. Hanne and Vanessa, along

with many others, are helping James Bay to build a strong and healthy community,

and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I only have one friend here today. I actually have more than one

friend; I have two.

An Hon.

Member: You have 76 friends.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you.

Anyway,

today joining us in the House is a very good friend of mine, Mr. Richard Nash.

He has come down to enjoy the activities here in the House. Would you please

make him welcome.

Manhas: It's my pleasure to introduce two individuals to the House today

from the beautiful Tri-Cities. Here today are Gene and Heather Vickers. Gene

has, amongst other things, been a volunteer for the hospice and is a

vice-president for the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce. He was named millennium

man for the Tri-Cities in the year 2000. He founded the Port Moody Rotary Club,

organized the first-ever Terry Fox run in Port Moody, has been involved in an

unimaginable number of community organizations and is the best darn car salesman

in Port Coquitlam.

Here today,

also, is his beautiful wife, Heather, without whom Gene would not have been able

to have accomplished all these things. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure today to introduce four people from Coquitlam who

are in the gallery today: Kristy Ilic and her three children, Bianca, Max and

Felix Fiedler. Would the House please make them welcome.

In a

multipartisan way, I'd like to have the House wish the men's hockey team also

much success tomorrow.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) B.C. HERITAGE AWARD RECIPIENT

STUART STARK

Chong: This week is Heritage Week, and as we near its end, an event is about

to take place. That is the B.C. Heritage Award presentation. This evening in the

Segal Centre of the Simon Fraser University Harbour Centre, a constituent of

mine, Mr. Stuart Stark, will be duly recognized with an award. Mr. Stark is

known for his work in restoring heritage landmarks throughout the province and

the Yukon, including the birthplace of one of British Columbia's most beloved citizens, Emily Carr.

The

province gives this award annually to people who have made a significant

contribution to heritage in British Columbia. Award winners receive a $10,000

grant to be invested in a heritage-related non-profit organization of their

choice. I understand that the Land Conservancy of British Columbia has been

chosen as the beneficiary of this award.

Stuart

Stark began his career in the history galleries at the Royal British Columbia

Museum almost 30 years ago. Since then, he has worked on many restoration

projects such as the chapel at St. Ann's Academy in Victoria, the courtroom at

the Maritime Museum in Victoria, the sternwheeler SS Tutshi in the Yukon

and the turn-of-the-century telegraph office in Dawson City. In addition, Mr.

Stark has researched and authored an inventory of Oak Bay's heritage buildings,

taught courses in building preservation and volunteered on Victoria's heritage

advisory committee, Oak Bay's Heritage Commission and the Hallmark Society.

[1410]

British

Columbians appreciate the history and heritage of our province and of our

country. We are grateful for the work done by many of our individual citi-

[ Page 1258 ]

zens such as Mr. Stark, who has spent a lifetime promoting awareness. We all

speak in praise of our communities in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, but it begins

with praise of our particular constituents. This day I say hearty

congratulations and thank you to Mr. Stark.

SALE OF SKEENA CELLULOSE

Belsey: Yesterday the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise

completed the definitive sales agreement to sell Skeena Cellulose Inc. to a

Montreal group called Northwest British Columbia Timber and Pulp Co. Ltd. This

agreement is a major step forward in returning Skeena Cellulose to private

industry, where it belongs. Let me be perfectly clear: this is a major step

forward and not a completed sales agreement. The new purchasers now must work

with the creditors to complete the judicial process to bring SCI out from under

the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The

roller-coaster ride experienced by many of my constituents from Prince Rupert

and Port Ed, as well as the constituents of the member for Skeena and the member

for Bulkley Valley–Stikine…. It has been a very stressful time. Time and

energy demands that were placed upon many people to complete this deal have been

staggering.

On behalf

of all the families depending on Skeena Cellulose, I would like to thank those

that worked so hard, so tirelessly, to complete this deal. To the Minister of

Competition, Science and Enterprise, to his ministerial assistant and to the

rest of his staff: thank you. To the mayors and councillors who worked so hard

on this deal: thank you. To the union leaders and the members of their unions

that participated so hard with this deal and held my feet to the fire, I say

thank you. I thank the MLAs for Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine for their

assistance.

For the

creditors and NWBC, much work remains ahead. The achievement reached yesterday

is but one of the necessary milestones. Your work will be challenging. It will

require generosity and sacrifice. I ask you to keep foremost in your minds the

families and the lives of the people living in the Pacific Northwest.

JAMES BAY COMMUNITY PROJECT

J. Bray:

I'm pleased to advise this House of an amazing success story only metres away

from this Legislature. The James Bay Community Project has been serving the

residents of James Bay in the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill for over 25

years. The James Bay Community Project was established in 1975 for the planning,

development and delivery of local community and health services. In 1984 it

became a non-profit society, with all the residents of James Bay who are 16

years of age or older as voting members. The society has charitable status for

its multisource funding and receives funds from federal, provincial and

municipal organizations and governments, as well as corporate and community

fundraising.

Mr.

Speaker, the James Bay Community Project is a shining example of community

helping community. The project focuses the community on meeting the imminent

needs of people. These needs often change rapidly, and the James Bay Community

Project ensures that resources are moved quickly to meet changing priorities.

Many

services for families with younger children take place at the family resource

centre. The centre offers a well-equipped children's play space with many

resources for parents. The family resource centre is a friendly and caring place

for parents, caregivers, grandparents, volunteers and children to come together

to meet and enjoy activities, to learn and share information about parenting and

to become involved in the community. In fact, with the project's focus on family

services in James Bay, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has

commented that the number of interventions needed from their staff has

decreased.

[1415]

The project

also provides a multitude of services for youth and encourages youth to become

active participants in their community.

The health

clinic is one of the primary care demonstration project sites for the

federal-provincial study on primary care reform. Given the sheer number of

testimonials that I've received from patients in my community office over the

last eight months, it is a soaring success.

The James

Bay Community Project demonstrates how community can identify its own needs,

develop local solutions and then engage the larger community in supporting those

solutions, making governments only one partner out of many. I am proud to

support the James Bay Community Project, because the James Bay Community Project

works.

Oral Questions

COMMENTS ON WOMEN BY

WOMEN'S EQUALITY MINISTER

J. Kwan:

Women in this province know what the Minister of State for Women's Equality

does not seem to understand. They know that we still have a long way to go

before we achieve equality between women and men. This week's budget makes

things worse for women, with drastic cuts to services that are particularly

important to women: child care, legal aid, welfare, just to name a few.

To the

Minister for Women's Equality. Her comments are unacceptable and insulting to

women in B.C. Women have lost confidence in this minister's ability to do her

job. Will the minister do the right thing and resign?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I'm pleased to rise and respond to these questions. I have to say

that the comments to which the member is referring were quotes in an

article

attributed to me and do not reflect my comments or my

[ Page 1259 ]

intent. I've written to the editor and asked for a full retraction and

demanded that he set the record straight.

There can

be no doubt about my commitment or the commitment of my government to women's

issues in this province. There is much work to be done as long as women are

still afraid to live in their own homes, as long as women are still subject to a

wage inequity. Those are the issues that this government will be fighting for.

These are the issues that this minister will be fighting for.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Just a little bit of advice to the minister — what we've learned. You

know, when you're found…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

...to be in the wrong, it doesn't work to blame the media. The

Minister for Women's Equality says she was taken out of context. The editor and

the reporter, both of whom our office has been in contact with, conducted the

interview, and they say otherwise. Furthermore, they offered the minister the

opportunity to clarify her statements. Yet she stood by what she said.

Everything

this government does and says demonstrates an attitude of indifference towards

women. Given the minister's attitude towards women, it is no wonder that women

are being hurt the most by the budget cuts.

To the

Minister of State for Women's Equality. The minister does not seem to see the

need for her own ministry. Those were her own words. She sees her role as a

member of the executive council as a burden. Why does she not do the right

thing, relieve herself of the burden and step aside and allow for a real

advocate to be at the cabinet table to advocate on behalf of women — if that

is possible at all with this Liberal government?

Hon. L.

Stephens: It's very, very clear that there is much work left to be done for

women in this province. This government is doing it.

We are

ensuring that government programs address the social and economic inequities of

women. We're providing intervention and prevention services to stop violence

against women. We're developing a safer community strategy for women in shelters

and transition houses. We're developing a long-term strategy to encourage the

expansion of safe and affordable child care spaces for the women in this

province. We are developing a provincewide perspective for the delivery of

women's services.

[1420]

addition, Mr. Speaker, we have protected funding to transition houses, safe

homes, second-stage housing, counselling for women and counselling for children

who've witnessed abuse. We're going to continue to do that.

MacPhail: Isn't it interesting that this minister stands and blames the

media? She only does that when she was caught out with her own words. Did she

stand immediately when the interview was published and say: "You've got it

wrong"? No.

The truth

is in the actions of this government. The government has cut day care programs

— cut them. It's cut minimum wage, which is disproportionately earned by

women; cut support for low-income single moms; cut home support services, which

are now going to have to be paid for by women; cut inner-city school funding,

which disproportionately affects single-income families headed by women — all

of which impact women far more than any other aspect of society.

Why doesn't

she just admit that her government doesn't care a whit about women's place in

the economy, because that's what she truly believes? Why doesn't she just step

down?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The biggest cut of all was in the last election when we were cut

to two members of the opposition.

This

government is committed to providing services for women and children in this

province. This minister is committed to those programs and services as well.

We've laid out quite clearly what we are working on. We've laid out quite

clearly through our service plans, which are available to everyone on the

website, exactly what we are going to be doing to further women's economic and

social objectives in this province. We're following through on a new-era

commitment in pay equity. We have a report that is going to be available at the

end of this month. We are committed to giving women and men the safeguards and

incentives that they need to participate fully, accurately and economically in

the economic opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

MacPhail: My gosh, Mr. Speaker. This minister responsible for women in this

province stands up and first of all tries to blame the media when she's caught

out. Then she refers people to her website or the service plans. What the

service plans contain are a repeal of pay equity legislation and cuts to child

care so that a middle-income family will now be paying $1,100 more per year per

child for child care because of this government.

She says

her ministry is a sunset ministry. She's saying we're moving toward that sunset.

Now she stands up and instead of taking responsibility, instead of admitting

that these are her true views and that perhaps she should take on other tasks,

she starts to blame others.

[ Page 1260 ]

Why doesn't

she just do the right thing for 51 percent of the population and step aside?

Maybe we can find someone else amongst these other MLAs who actually understands

and believes that women deserve an advocate at the cabinet table.

Hon. L.

Stephens: I don't know how much clearer I can be on what this government is

doing to address the economic and social issues for the women in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: If the members opposite would listen to what is being said,

perhaps they would understand.

The years

that I was in opposition and introduced a domestic violence bill as a private

member's statement in this House…. Since 1995…. What did the members

opposite do when they were in government? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They

don't care. They never did care. They still don't care.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Critics are saying that

recent government decisions are not putting students first. As my riding is

close to Simon Fraser University, many of my constituents have been calling me

and asking for clarification of the issue. Can the Minister of Advanced

Education tell us whether those reports are true?

Hon. S.

Bond: I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today and say that our

government is putting students in this province first. At a time of incredible

fiscal challenge in this province, our government committed…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Bond: …over $6 billion in this province to protect services to students

and to work with them. I'm proud — more than $6 billion in education and

advanced education.

R. Lee:

I understand there have been changes to the B.C. student financial assistance

program. Could the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what those changes are

and how they will affect the benefits of students?

Hon. S.

Bond: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have made changes to the student financial

assistance program and moved some of the grants to loans in the first year.

Having said that, the part of the story that seems to be missing is the fact

that it will allow more student financial assistance — in fact…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. S.

Bond: …$15 a week more for students with no dependents, which will give

them, in fact, $500 more over an eight month period.

In addition

to that, we realize that some students may be challenged at the end

of their post-secondary experience. We're going to enhance their ability and

help them pay back those loans in an appropriate way. We're also going to ensure

that we have the ability to help as many students as possible. That's why we

made that decision.

HEALTH CARE SERVICE DELIVERY

Visser: My question is for the Minister of Health Services. In December a

major restructuring of the province's health regions was announced, and many of

the residents of the North Island are concerned about the impacts on their

health care. Can the minister tell my constituents how many of these changes

will fulfil the government's new-era commitments to provide health care to

British Columbians and people of the North Island where they live and when they

need it?

Hon. C.

Hansen: One of the commitments that we made in our New Era document

and during the election campaign was that we were actually going to get out and

listen to British Columbians about the health care they want. The Health

Committee of this Legislature had never sat since 1993. One of the first actions

of this government was to activate the Health Committee. It went around the

province; it listened to the views of British Columbians. We are making sure

that gets incorporated into the health plans for the future of this province.

Part of

redesigning the health authorities that the member mentioned is making sure that

every single health dollar that is available gets concentrated on patient care.

It is not absorbed with the huge administrative structure that the previous

government had in place but rather is focused on patient care from community to

community around British Columbia. These are the kinds of changes that we were

elected to do, and these are the kinds of changes that we will continue to

implement.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for North Island with a supplementary question.

Visser: Under the previous government there were lots of changes to the

health regions, and many of them had little or no success. Can the minister

please tell my constituents that the changes we've made now are going to be more

successful than the ones we've done in the past?

[ Page 1261 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would say that one of the biggest mistakes that the previous

government made in their restructuring was the endless micromanagement of health

care from the Ministry of Health in Victoria. Communities throughout British

Columbia were crying out for the ability to manage the effective delivery of

health care in their communities. That is what we have delivered under this new

structure. By going from 52 health authorities to six, we have been able to

consolidate services, we have been able to reduce the amount of money that is

spent on administration, and every dollar saved is being directed into patient

care in British Columbia.

[1430]

In terms of

the ministry itself, we have tried to show that leadership. We have seen in the

past the duplication of service between what was provided for by the Ministry of

Health and by the local health authorities. What we have done under this new

direction is streamline the administrative costs at the Ministry of Health

itself. We are actually going to see a reduction of 43 percent in the

administration costs of the central ministry, and I think that's good news for

British Columbians, because every single dollar saved is going to be directed

into front-line patient care.

EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

FOR ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood

Development. Helping children to get a healthy start in life is an important

factor in whether or not they will live a productive life. Aboriginal children

have not always received the appropriate early childhood services from

government. To the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development: will she

share with us today the steps that she is taking to help support the development

of young aboriginal children?

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm absolutely delighted to respond to this question. Those of you in

this chamber who know me well will know that I live and breathe early childhood

development every single day, both personally and professionally. In terms of

the aboriginal children of this province, my government has made a significant

contribution. We've invested $8 million. Those dollars will go into these 25 communities that have come forward with plans on how best to

treat the youngest citizens of this province. That successful RFP process

has concluded. Those dollars will be in the hands of those communities within

weeks.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: Office of

the Auditor General of British Columbia, Service Plan 2002-03 to 2004-05 ;

Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Service Plan

2002-2005.

Reports from Committees

J. Kwan:

I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament,

entitled Review of Auditor General Reports . I move that the report be

taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

J. Kwan:

I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit moving of the motion to

adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

J. Kwan:

I move that the report be adopted.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed with your remarks.

J. Kwan:

The report has undertaken a variety of reviews that have been proposed by the

auditor general. The committee, by and large, agrees with the suggestions of the

auditor general, with the exception of one area, and that is performance

reporting. The opposition within the select standing committee has suggested

that the auditor general's report on the recommendations around performance

reporting be adopted in their entirety. However, the committee had a different

view of that, and amendments were proposed relating to the performance review of

government. All of the information is contained in the report.

At the end

of the day, the committee has put together a report that I think is a good one.

It acknowledges the auditor general's report in a variety of areas, and I'm

looking forward to future reports from the auditor general.

Motion

approved.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Plant: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: Budget debate will continue in a moment, as soon as the House

clears, with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

Nijjar: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to

respond to the budget speech.

I have,

especially over the last several months leading up to the budget, heard the

concerns of many of my constituents. I have met with every organization that has

asked me to meet with them, including parent advisory councils — PACs —

attending schools to speak to students, even speaking with teachers one on one.

[ Page 1262 ]

have met with boards from, say, Collingwood Neighbourhood House area services

committee, which is a monthly meeting of all the societies and associations that

get together to talk about common issues in Vancouver-Kingsway.

I've gone

out of my way to make sure that I listen to their concerns, meeting them for

two, two and a half or three hours at a time, allowing them to give questions

and responding to questions as they see fit. I've answered every single one of

my e-mails personally, responded and written to the letters that I have

received. I have written a letter to every single constituency organization

asking them to set some time to meet with me if they so wish and making myself

available.

I have had

the minister responsible for child care come to my riding and go to the

community centres that provide day care. I have had the Minister of State for

Mental Health come to my riding to speak to those that are concerned about

mental health issues and that provide services. The minister responsible for

early childhood development is scheduled to come to my riding, along with the

Attorney General, to speak to the crime prevention offices.

I have

heard what the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway are saying, and I continue to

hear them. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I say to them when they raise their

various issues when it comes to the budget speech — and the throne speech, for

that matter. I'd like to outline that. It'll be part of my comments here today.

I'm going

to talk about the principles upon which the budget speech was written and why it

is the way it is. The budget speech, as I see it, has two fundamental

principles. One principle is that we as elected officials are here to serve the

long-term interests of British Columbians as a whole. There are many interests

that our constituents have. They have immediate interests. They have interests

right now for their health care and educational issues.

Yes, you

work to serve those, but if you are a responsible elected official and a

responsible government, you are going to look beyond today and people's

immediate needs or immediate satisfaction. You're going to look beyond the four

years that happen to be the length of your term. You're going to look after the

long-term interest of your public. That's your duty.

We have had

a budget delivered last week that is unlike the budgets that we've had in the

last ten years in that fundamental principle. It is our duty not to serve

certain interests of our community. It's our duty to weigh it against all the

interests.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

I respect

the fact that the two colleagues that sit opposite — the member for

Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — have their

constituencies to represent. My constituency isn't single, nor do I hide behind

the comments of one single constituency, pretending that I represent a whole

segment or all of the population.

[1440]

This

fundamental principle of our budget is that our job — and our budget reflects

this — is one of changing the direction of government from what we call a

cost-policy government to a result-policy government.

Cost-policy

government is when you have elected officials who say: "We have our issues;

we have a problem." Let's say it's the youth unemployment rate, which is

very high. "Let's develop a lot of programs. If we develop programs, we can

stand up to the public and say we have developed programs to deal with youth

unemployment." That's what we had the former government do. Then people who

read the headlines in the newspaper say: "Well, we have a youth

unemployment problem, and the government says they've created programs. So that

means they're dealing with it."

If you

really care about your constituencies and, as I have said to the boards of

directors and the area services that I have met with, if you really care about

youth unemployment, you don't look at the programs that you've delivered and

say: "This is what we're delivering." You look at the result of what

you have delivered, because it is the result that counts.

We will no

longer be a government — and this is what the budget reflects — that says

cost equals result. Results will be measured, and we as government are now

responsible for our policies insofar as the result it creates. As I told the

youth that attended the meeting last week in my office, although we have cut

youth training programs as they may be — a variety of them — our job is not

to create programs; our job is to deal with the end result. The end result under

this former government was that youth unemployment in British Columbia was the

highest of any province west of Quebec.

You ask me,

and let the public tell me — phone in to my constituency office, e-mail my

constituency office, mail it to me and tell me: what am I responsible for? How

do I answer to you? Do I answer to the fact that we have the worst youth

unemployment rate west of Quebec, or do I answer to the fact that we as

government create many programs? The result is what counts, and it is very easy

for us to sit here as elected officials and say: "We've created programs,

so we're doing our job." Politically, that's easy. Politically, we saw that

happen not just for the past ten years, quite frankly, but past beyond that.

This is no

attack against the former administration. This is the reality of what happened

in this province for many years — a cost-policy government — and what has

happened throughout Canada and in the federal government. Many governments are

changing. We're behind the times.

As far as I

see it, the great thing about our budget speech that was delivered is that it's

moving to a results-based, accountable budget and government. The significance

of that is: not only is government responsible now for the outcomes, but so are

other organizations — whether they are regional health authorities like the

one in my area or whether they're school

[ Page 1263 ]

boards like the Vancouver school board and the many others throughout British

Columbia. They are accountable, and, yes, it's not going to be easy for them

either. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Universal

day care is something the member for Vancouver-Hastings loves to bring up over

and over again, and it was brought up again in question period. I'm thrilled to

have the opportunity to address that issue. If we're going to be a results-based

government…. Let's look at day care services. The former government brought in

universal day care. Yes, it sounds great on paper, doesn't it? It's great to

have an ideology. It's great to believe in socialism. It's great to try to

deliver socialism. However, again the result is what counts.

[1445]

I ask the

public: what is most important? Is it that somebody that's earning $8 and $9 an

hour should subsidize the day care of somebody that's earning $80,000; $90,000

and $100,000 a year? Is that what's fair? Is that what is reasonable? Universal

day care is great, if we had billions and billions and billions of dollars to

spend. Sure, let's subsidize the day care of a couple that makes $120,000 or

$130,000 a year.

The reality

is: (1) we don't have that money; (2) it doesn't matter whether we did. The

principle is wrong. Day care services funded by the public are supposed to be

for those that need the assistance. We as elected officials are accountable to

make sure that children are cared for.

Did we do

away with the former government's universal day care program? Yes. The member

for Vancouver-Hastings will then stand up and say: "Look what you have done

to day care." What have we done? We've done what we should have done to

make it reasonable. The day care program that they brought in will continue till

June 30, as it was so scheduled. The minister responsible for day care, the

Minister of State for Women's Equality, came to my riding, spent many hours with

my constituency organizations and told them — as I have many times — that

day care services will continue to June 30, and our job is to make sure that the

service continues beyond that, based on a reasonable structure, assisting those

that need the assistance.

When I meet

with my constituency organizations that deliver day care, they don't say:

"No, you're wrong." Of course they don't, because they know we're not.

It makes common sense. No, it's not an ideology; no, it's not an

"ism," and no, it doesn't back up any one interest group and help them

to get their workers in there and increase their wages and benefits and

structure it so that it benefits those that fund the election campaigns of

certain members. It doesn't do that. What it does do is serve the people that

it's supposed to serve — that's the public — and, especially in this

particular issue, those that need day care services.

I also met

with — as many of my colleagues have — those who choose to protest at our

constituency office. We have invited representatives in, and so we should. The

HEU, Hospital Employees Union, picketed my office. They told me they were

coming on a particular day, and I said: "That's fine. I'll make sure I'm

there. If you so wish, I will meet three, four or five of you who are from my

riding. Come into the office. We'll sit down, and we'll speak. I shall explain

our views and my view as to why I voted a certain way. When we meet, we will

discuss for as long as you wish to discuss, and when we're finished, you promise

to leave in an orderly fashion." We did that, and I know they appreciated

it, because they said they had appreciated it after.

Of course,

Mr. Speaker, the conversation was long, but in the end they asked me: "What

can we say to the members outside when we go outside and speak to them? What can

we say to our fellow members about what you're doing to protect our jobs?"

I said to them then what I say to the public and what I say now: "Yes, my

job is to help structure a system that allows them to be employed and provide

the services they do within the context of the service that they're providing,

within the context of health care, within the context of all the other things

that must be provided in health care."

"What

is important for you to say," I said, "if you're going to say

anything, is that I as a member am not just responsible for you and your job,

but responsible for your health care. Every one of you will use health care

again. What am I doing for you? I'm making sure that your health care is there

for you when you will need it." And so it should be that way.

Sometimes

you have to agree to disagree. I respect their view, and they respect my

responsibility, which is to serve the interests of all of the people of my

riding and to serve all their interests.

[1450]

We have

tried very hard with our three-year service plans. Every minister has. As I was

on government committees working through the three-year service plans, I worked

very hard to make sure that we analyzed every single program and every single

dollar that is spent and to spend it wisely. What we're trying to do — the

budget reflects this, and in the weeks leading up to the budget all the

announcements that were made reflect this — is take care of those that need

the most help within the context of our ability to pay for programs.

With that

in mind, MSP premiums went up because we need more money in health care.

However, MSP premiums went down or were completely eliminated for 230,000

lowest-income British Columbians. Do the members for Vancouver-Hastings or

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ever bring that up? No. Why? Because that does not

serve their public relations interests of trying to pretend that they serve the

low-income people and those they call disenfranchised.

We do not

do PR, because we're trying to spend government money in the proper way. We do

not have a $500 million campaign paid for by a certain segment of the population

backing us up and certain organizations. We haven't spent a penny on

advertisements ourselves. Our message is getting out there because we

passionately speak about it in our communities.

[ Page 1264 ]

That is not

to say that while we make changes, we will not make mistakes. Of course we will.

The Premier admits it himself. Every one of us admits that of course there are

mistakes. We are making changes for the long-term interests of British

Columbians. In the process, things are not perfect, but (1) that should not stop

you from making those changes; and (2) you should have the integrity to analyze and reanalyze the programs you're delivering and make the

changes over the months and years as they are required.

The

constituency organizations I meet with understand what we are doing. The very

people who deliver the programs, which these two members opposite say they

represent, understand what we're doing. They're not against the general

direction. What they are worried about — and this is why they asked for

meetings that last for two or three hours — is certain particular aspects.

They need clarification, or they're worried about a certain direction. They're

worried about a certain speed of change.

Yes, we

work together on that, because I am a member of Vancouver-Kingsway. I live on

the east side of Vancouver; I was born there. My home is there. That's where I

raise my family. Community centres and the services they provide are important

for me outside of my job at the Legislature, because I will use those very

services. My children will go to the very schools of which we speak. Of course

we sit down at the table, and we speak together and work over these issues.

I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that the issues that are brought up by these two members do

not reflect the sentiment with which these people speak. It may reflect the

sentiment with which union executives speak. It may do that very well. I also

respect that all of us have been elected here democratically. You have a right

to campaign as you wish and be elected as you wish and represent how you wish.

If those members wish to be the voice of union executives, then that's fine, but

let's be clear about who they represent.

[1455]

British

Columbians deserve at least to know what the game is. There may be 50,000 or

60,000 people here on the weekend, but that's irrespective of the fact that the

silent majority of British Columbians realize and accept what we're doing as

something we must do. Not a single member in the government caucus sat there in

the months of October, November, December and January — especially in January,

when we were finalizing the budgets — and said: "Yes, this is something I

want to do. This brings me pleasure." Of course not. Bills 28 and 29 aren't

something you do easily, but it's something you do if you're responsible to all

British Columbians.

One thing

I've noticed, no matter where you look in this world and at what time you look,

is that a good government that represents all people really makes no one too

happy. The real road is somewhere down the middle. It's very grey. In that

respect, I'm happy to say that the budget hasn't made anyone too happy. But

people realize what has to be done.

Two of the

issues that are brought up over and over again — and that the two members

opposite often like to bring up — are the speed of change and the tax cuts.

I'd like to address those two issues.

Speed of

change. This world is in a recession. We are going to get out of that recession

sometime. We are seeing numbers from throughout the world, from the United

States and from here in Canada and in B.C. showing us that we are starting to

get out of it. Experts throughout the world believe that by mid-2002 and

especially in 2003, we'll be recovering. Investment will be out there. Companies

will be looking to mine. Investors will be looking to invest. If British

Columbia isn't ready at that time a few months from now, when investors and

dollars are being knocked around from country to country, we are going to lose

out on investment yet again, as we did throughout the nineties. Do I care about

investment? Yes. Does this government care about investment? Yes.

Timing is

of paramount concern. We cannot afford not to make the changes immediately. Yes,

we did it thoughtfully. We did it as thoughtfully as we possibly could. We did

not do across-the-board cuts. We did not cut certain ministries. We increased

certain ministries, such as Health, by a billion dollars. Obviously, a

government is concerned about decreasing the size of spending within the context

of how much we value the services we are delivering. That's why MSP went down

for certain people, and that's why we increased spending on health care by a

billion dollars. We did not cut across the board. We have to be ready for the

upswing. The world's going to recover, and we're looking for investment.

Tax cuts.

Tax cuts were right before the election. Tax cuts were the day after the

election. Yes, September 11 happened, and, yes, there was our ongoing issue

between the Ministry of Forests and the U.S. There was a world recession. But

let's be clear about something here: we were one of the most highly taxed

jurisdictions in all of North America, but we didn't have better services than

other jurisdictions. Clearly, there's a problem here.

This is not

a political statement. This is not us versus them. This is nothing against the

former government. The reality is that we were one of the most highly taxed

people in North America, yet our services did not reflect that. There's a

problem. Either you're paying too much, or your money is being wasted when it's

given to government. Quite frankly, the truth is both. You were paying too much,

and government wasn't using it wisely.

[1500]

The tax

cuts we made are bringing the public on a par with other jurisdictions. This

isn't something novel. This isn't something drastic. We're bringing you on a par

with other jurisdictions. That's an even playing field. That tax cut was right

across the board, regardless of what the members opposite say. It was 25 percent

across the board for every British Columbian.

Now,

separate from that, we cut taxes — for example, machinery tax, capital

corporate tax, investment

[ Page 1265 ]

taxes and so forth. Why did we do that? We want investment.

When I sit

down with people in my riding — single mothers and those working to provide

programs and training for single mothers and youth — what do they care about?

They care about whether there's a job or there isn't a job. Is there an

opportunity for this person, or isn't there? They don't spend their time

worrying about investment and corporations.

I don't

worry about corporations; that wasn't the point of the tax cut. It's what the

corporations can provide. They provide jobs in our communities. Why do we want

investment? It equals the very thing that these two members are speaking about:

jobs. If you care about those day care services, programs for youth, services

within your community, social assistance, and so forth, then you'd better start

caring about investment. You'd better start making the connection.

The two

members opposite, after ten years, still fail to understand that the reason why

this government supports investment isn't because we're buddy-buddy with big

corporations. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone in big corporations. I'm a

regular guy from the east side of Vancouver, but I care about a corporation's

investment because it delivers the programs I want.

They are

not going to come here unless you make it fair for them to come here. That

doesn't mean you give them tax cuts way beyond any other jurisdiction. That

means you just make it fair. There's not a single person I met with, who these

two members purport to represent, that disagrees with what I have said. But

while those two members know what I say is true — I have no doubt they know

that — they will never admit it. The union executives will not allow them to

admit it.

Along with

our change in direction of government that the budget has illustrated — a

moving from cost policy to result policy — is the accountability. I'm going to

speak about that accountability in the context of the Ministry of Education.

In the

Ministry of Education, in Bill 28, we made changes to who has certain

responsibilities, who will make decisions and what public policy will be. It was

done in the interest of the public, in the interests of all constituency

organizations. We do not have a $5 million campaign to tell the public our

one-sided story, as certain organizations did, so we'll take this opportunity to

explain it in full.

The public

make choices when they elect school board trustees. They make those choices

based on what those school board trustees say they will do with the funds they

get. Those trustees, therefore, are supposed to have the ability to make public

policy decisions. Why? That allows the public to hold them to account.

[1505]

When public

policy decisions are taken away from the very people that the public elect and

are put into contracts, then there's no accountability. It's a fundamental

principle here. It is wrong to have public policy decisions made by any

organization or person that is not elected.

When it

comes to class sizes, the government did not put the control of class size in

the hands of the school boards. They put it in law. The accountability is right

here. Kindergarten size went down from a strict 20 to 19. Grade 1 to grade 3

went down from 22 to 21. Does the union tell its members that? No. Of course

not.

Is there

flexibility within those numbers? Of course. Should there be? Yes. The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said there was flexibility. All you had to do was

ask the union to let this student into this class because of so forth and so

forth.

Deputy

Speaker: Member, I'd like to remind you of the time. I'd like to remind you

that your time's up.

Nijjar: I'll wind up.

The point

is that we have changed direction from putting policy where it should be. Either

we are accountable, or school trustees are accountable. School trustees will now

have to work with that responsibility. Some of them are unhappy, but they will

have to deal with that responsibility. That's where the buck stops.

I'd like to

thank you for the opportunity to speak and to address what I believe are the

fundamental principles of the budget speech and the throne speech.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: It's a privilege for me to rise today and speak to the budget

that was recently tabled by the Minister of Finance.

I want to

take this opportunity to spend a few moments talking about my constituency, the

new constituency of Abbotsford-Clayburn. Then I will make some comments about

the budget and the government's plan and how things within my ministry fit into

that plan.

Abbotsford-Clayburn

was created as the result of a boundary realignment within the Fraser Valley. It

is a great constituency to represent. This constituency includes many important

historical features, a broad cross-section of agriculture and agribusiness and a

place of higher learning in the form of UCFV. It includes many of the seniors

care homes in the city of Abbotsford. It includes a mix of old and new

residential areas. It also includes the aging MSA General Hospital. I should

also mention that the constituency includes the site for the new hospital and

regional cancer treatment facility that we as a government have committed to

build.

The

University College of the Fraser Valley is over 25 years old and has become the

major centre of post-secondary learning in the Fraser Valley. I'm very pleased

to have that in my constituency and to work with that institution.

Clayburn

village, Matsqui village, the original downtown core of the city of Abbotsford

and the MSA Museum provide insights into the area's history.

Abbotsford-Clayburn

is a key hub in B.C. agriculture with more feed mills, farm equipment

dealerships and farm suppliers than any other constituency in B.C. Food-processing plants are well represented with

ma-

[ Page 1266 ]

jor fruit, vegetable and dairy processing. Farm production includes a whole range

of commodities including dairy, blueberries, raspberries, hogs, chickens, eggs,

turkeys and a host of other commodities. In fact, agriculture in the city of

Abbotsford is a $300 million-a-year business, and it's a bit of a fortuitous

coincidence for me to be able to represent a riding with a serious presence of

agriculture.

The

greatest feature of Abbotsford-Clayburn is its people, from the old-timers in

the area — and I'm thinking in particular of our illustrious mayor, George

Ferguson, who can tell us about what it was like when he was a child — to the

recent settlers, many of whom are commuters who enjoy living out in the Fraser

Valley.

[1510]

Abbotsford-Clayburn

is a great place to live and work. I invite each of my constituents to join me

in working together with the new provincial government to develop a vibrant

economy and a vibrant community.

I want to

take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank my constituents for their support,

their concerns, their criticisms and their ongoing dialogue. I particularly want

to mention health care workers and teachers, who I think have been very

professional in the carrying out of their duties through some difficult times.

I'd like to

take a moment, in speaking to the budget and speaking clearly in support of the

budget that the Minister of Finance tabled, to talk about our priorities as a

government. The government made a commitment to British Columbians that we would

revitalize the economy and that we would get our province's finances in order.

Certainly, that is one of the key reasons I ran for office. I'm totally

personally committed to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

Our goal as

a government is to fix the economy, to rebuild our health care system and to

balance the budget by fiscal 2004-05. We want the world to know that British

Columbia is open for business. We understand the critical need to encourage

investment by lowering taxes, making government services more affordable and

reducing regulations.

Some of the

early decisions we made…. British Columbians now pay the lowest rate of income

tax in Canada on their first $60,000 of income. The top marginal tax rate is the

second-lowest in Canada, effective January 1, 2002. B.C. businesses will see

their corporate income tax rate fall 3 percent to 13.5 percent. It's a good

thing for our small businesses to see that change.

Another

change that we've made is the threshold for the lower corporate rate being moved

from $200,000 to $300,000, bringing us more in line with other provinces. We

will also eliminate the corporate capital tax by September 2002. That, again, is

a critical need to ensure that we are competitive with other areas and that we

don't tax investment — that we simply tax profits as opposed to putting up

disincentives to investment. These measures will fuel consumer spending,

encourage business investment and help our province be more competitive.

We as a

government are making clear choices. We are making choices to make health care

and education more efficient. We need to be able to meet the health and

education priorities of British Columbians.

In addition

to our efforts to make these ministries more efficient, we are also increasing

the budget for health from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion — a 7.3 percent

increase. Health care is the fastest-growing expenditure within government. In

the years that I've been an MLA, I've seen it grow from less than $6 billion a

year to over $10 billion.

We've also

made a commitment as a government to maintain our level of spending in

education, both in post-secondary and in the K-to-12 area. We're committed to

that critical need for British Columbians.

These are

often not easy decisions to make, but they have to be made. In many respects,

particularly with respect to the fiscal reality, we have no options. British

Columbia faces a large deficit and a history of spending more than we take in.

The June 2001 independent review — this was the fiscal review panel — showed

government spending out of control. It projected a $3.8 billion deficit and

unsustainable growth in health care costs. In the fall of 2001, B.C. was faced

with the added pressures of a global economic downturn and the impacts of

September 11, as well as the softwood lumber dispute.

[1515]

I've

watched over the last ten years as B.C. has run deficits of nearly $2 billion a

year every year — $2 billion a year, Mr. Speaker. In the last decade,

provincial debt has doubled from about $17 billion to over $36 billion.

We spend

close to $1 billion each year just to service our debt, and that's not counting

Crown corporations. These debt service payments are the first charge we pay

against revenues. These dollars are not available for program spending, and this

is why it is so critical for us to arrest the growth of debt. We cannot afford

to do this anymore. It is not sustainable. We must get spending under control.

Government today cannot afford to be or to do all things for all people. We must

learn to do more with less. We must be more frugal with tax dollars and more

strategic.

The core

services review was about defining the business of government and setting

priorities around what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. The

core services review asked the questions: what do we really need to do as

government, what is the compelling public interest for doing these things, and

is government the best agency to do it?

We also

want to make sure that our government is one that is helping people, not

intruding upon their lives needlessly or acting as a disincentive to business

and investment. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the budget that was tabled

includes the development of three-year service plans for each ministry that are

designed to help get spending under control and to provide British Columbians

with programs and services that are essential, that are affordable, that are

effective and that work with the private sector to energize B.C.'s

[ Page 1267 ]

economic potential. We will balance the budget within three years.

Changing

the structure of the public service is a necessary part of redefining the work

of government. The government will continue to rely on an efficient and

professional public service. For staff who face transition, we as a government

are committed to do our best to ensure that they are treated with fairness and

consideration.

Now I want

to take a few moments to talk about the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries. We as a ministry have certainly participated actively in the core

review process, and we are facing significant budget reductions. I want to start

by presenting the new vision for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries, which sets the goalposts for our efforts in the next three years. Our

vision is a competitive and profitable agricultural and fisheries industry

providing safe, high-quality food for consumers and export markets.

We've

divided our ministry's core business areas in the three-year service plan into

six areas. I just want to briefly mention those. The first one is food safety

and quality. Certainly, a critical public need is to have a continued assurance

of the safety and quality of the food supply. I'm pleased that within the city

of Abbotsford, we do have a very modern animal health centre — a laboratory

facility that is staffed by very competent people who look after the interests

of British Columbians with respect to fish, animal and plant health issues.

Our people

work very closely with regulatory people in the Ministry of Health Services and

with people in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It's quite amazing — the

number of different issues within the areas of plant, fish and animal health

that are ongoing issues that our people are monitoring every day.

[1520]

We're also

looking at the need for emergency preparedness when we're looking at food safety

issues. We're looking at things in rural British Columbia like noxious weed,

which is a critical threat to our grasslands and our grazing lands for both beef

animals and wildlife.

Mr.

Speaker, the first core business area is food safety and quality. We have

actually seen some increase, I should say, even despite a declining budget of

staff and resources in that core business area.

The next

one is environmental sustainability and resource development. The agricultural

industry certainly has a role to play in ensuring environmental sustainability

with respect to issues of water quality and the management of waste. We work

with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to ensure high standards of

performance in these areas.

We also

work with the Ministries of Sustainable Resource Management and of Water, Land

and Air Protection to encourage the aquaculture sector with respect to good

environmental practice. We are working actively with those ministries to

establish improved standards and regulations to ensure good compliance and good

results.

The other

part of this core business area involves the whole area of resource management

and resource development and working with other agencies and other levels of

government, in particular local governments, to ensure that we get maximum value

out of our agricultural and marine resources, whether they be privately owned or

publicly owned. Our role as a ministry, under this core business area, is to

ensure that we maximize economic activity and that we maximize job opportunities

but, at the same time, do it in an environmentally sustainable way.

The third

core business area is fisheries and aquaculture management. Certainly, this is

an area of some opportunity for our coastal communities, including finfish

aquaculture development, shellfish aquaculture development and an ongoing effort

to maintain and enhance all of our commercial fisheries activity and our marine

recreational activity with respect to the wild fishery. Certainly, we embrace

this area as a core business area, one of great potential and one where we take

our collaborative role with the federal government very seriously and will be

increasingly working hard to develop positive working relationships and

constructive programs with the federal government so we maximize economic

activity in rural communities, particularly communities such as Prince Rupert,

Port Hardy, Port McNeill and many other rural coastal towns that have been hard

hit by changes in the resource sector.

The fourth

core business area is risk management, and this refers to the safety net

programs that we as a province and we as a ministry are engaged in, mainly with

the federal government, to provide a level of support to farmers so that they

can mitigate risks of weather problems, market downturns, disease- and

pest-related issues that may not be foreseen and that may impact their

viability. This is a joint federal-provincial program that includes farmers and

the farming community as partners to manage risk. This part of our core business

area also involves international trade agreements and our role as a ministry to

assist and represent the interests of British Columbia agriculture and the

seafood sector with the federal government.

[1525]

The fifth

core business area that is contemplated in the three-year service plan which

forms part of this budget, Mr. Speaker, is industry competitiveness. Certainly,

we have a significant percentage of our staff in the ministry working on these

issues. We as a ministry are renewing our role as advocates for agriculture and

for the fisheries sector and advocates vis-à-vis other ministries within the

provincial government — I've mentioned some of those — but also other levels

of government, both local and federal, and any government agencies which have an

impact on the competitiveness of agriculture. This is really a core business

area for us and gives our ministry an opportunity to really represent the

critical needs of our agricultural industry to be competitive in a global

market.

[ Page 1268 ]

The sixth

core business area is corporate services, which basically provides the overall

policy direction for program and service delivery and works with other

ministries and the policy shops in other ministries to reduce regulation and red

tape and develop more business-friendly regulatory regimes.

I'm very

pleased as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to embark on this

three-year plan that forms part of this budget and to develop an industry that

is viable, competitive and provides jobs for our rural and coastal communities.

We're looking at a number of strategic shifts within our sector, within our

ministry, and I just want to mention some of those.

We're

looking at going from a situation where we have a high level of government

involvement in industry development and industry direction to more industry

self-reliance in managing and funding the development of the industry. We see

that our role there is to help the industry facilitate that, but more to encourage

the industry to provide its own direction and leadership.

We are

doing a strategic shift from minimum programs which protect the safety of our

food and animal production to outcome-based regulations and increased government

monitoring to reflect both higher consumer expectations and risks from global

trade and travel. We've certainly seen the experience in Europe where the

incidence of things like foot-and-mouth disease have been very damaging to their

industry and their trade position, so it's important and very, very critical

that our people, our ministry and our government are vigilant in these areas.

We are

looking at going from prescriptive approaches to sustainable development and

protection of the environment to a focus on farming practices that are more

results-based. Certainly, we're working with other ministries to develop

regulatory packages that go in that direction. I think a good example of that is

the new waste management regulations that are being developed by the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection, together with the two other resource ministries,

to provide a higher level of monitoring, reporting and accountability for waste

management in the aquaculture sector. I look forward to working with the

minister to table those new regulations.

We're

working to move from a position of minimal influence on the fisheries,

particularly the wild fishery in British Columbia, to having a greater level of

influence with the federal government to manage those fisheries in a manner that

is positive and contributes to the economic well-being of British Columbia. We

certainly support the conservation objectives of the federal government, but we

want to be sure that we have a good balance of conservation and economic

activity — maximizing the jobs, maximizing the economic outcomes of those

resources.

We're

looking at moving from a position where the government is funding the majority

of costs with respect to risk management programs, to encouraging and increasing

the level of risk management and risk management tools that the private sector

brings to the table. We're working with farmers to move in that direction.

We're

moving from a time when government provided a lot of subsidies to business,

including direct grants to organizations in the farm community, to eliminating

subsidies and grants and going, as I said, to a more self-reliant model.

[1530]

We're

moving from providing direct production advice to farmers to moving staff out of

those areas and into some of the other core business areas that I've talked

about. We will continue to partner with industry and provide technical

information on our website through our award-winning program called InfoBasket.

I need to mention that, because I did not present the right title in answer to a

question here recently. The program is called InfoBasket and not infonet.

I want to

just highlight some of the changes in the ministry that are part of the budget

tabled by the Minister of Finance. Our ministry's budget is being reduced by 45

percent over the next three years. If you exclude the $15 million that involves

Fisheries Renewal B.C., the reduction for the ministry overall is 30 percent.

We'll be going from a budget of $81 million in '02-03 to $64 million. Then we

will reduce further to $58 million in '03-04, and in '04-05, when this

government tables a balanced budget, our part of that budget will be $45

million.

Our total

staff reduction is 17 percent, going from 395 positions to 327 over three years.

I do think that this is, really, barely critical mass. Certainly, I'm very proud

of the staff we have in our ministry and the work ethic that they bring to their

jobs to get the job done. The staff reductions do include the 14 staff of

Fisheries Renewal and 54 positions that have been eliminated through the closure

of district offices, certain program reductions — in particular, production

advisory services — and some reductions in safety net programs and corporate

services.

The

government's and the ministry's role is to create an environment that will help

the industry become more self-reliant. By lowering taxes, making government

services more affordable and reducing regulations, we can create a supportive

business climate for the individual entrepreneur or the large-scale business.

Certainly, in agriculture we have both. We have very small operations. We have a

lot of part-time operations throughout British Columbia, and we also have some

very significant-sized businesses.

Our mission

as a ministry is to embrace the needs of all of those players, large or small. I

will encourage our ministry staff to embrace this new culture of self-reliance.

This will allow us to move away from our traditional individual production

assistance to producers and instead to focus on what is really important in

terms of driving the overall industry.

As I said,

the ministry will be the advocate for agriculture, food and fisheries with other

government agencies. This may well be the biggest shift that we make as a

ministry, but I believe that we will be doing work that is meaningful, valuable

and relevant to the

[ Page 1269 ]

industry. I can say to you, hon. Speaker, that we have already seen some

examples of that.

We must

focus on helping industry to solve specific problems that create a barrier for

doing business. We must work with the agricultural industry and the fisheries

sector and at times with many different interests to solve the types of problems

that individuals cannot necessarily solve on their own. This will require that

we focus on working with other levels of government, particularly federal

government and local government. I'm indebted to the work of the member for

Richmond Centre, the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, to help

us deal with federal government issues.

It's

important that we concentrate as a ministry on providing service that has

substance, service that is relevant and meaningful to producers and fishers. Our

communication must be honest and open, and electronic communication is a tool

that within this budget and within this government we certainly intend to use

more.

For

everything we do using public time or money, we need to focus on providing the

best value we can for the taxpayer. That is certainly a value that is embodied

in this budget. I know that the efforts that have gone into the construction and

development of this budget and the thought and discussion that have gone on have

been very extensive and really focused on providing value to taxpayers.

[1535]

Our focus

as a government and as a ministry is on getting things done. We need to focus

within the ministry and within industry sectors on the big challenges that need

to be addressed. This may sometimes involve staff learning new skill sets.

Certainly, within our ministry that is something that we will be working on.

We're working on some training needs, because we will be looking at some new

skill sets to implement this budget and this three-year service plan.

As I said,

we'll move to results-based regulations and enforcement, shifting away from the

labour-intensive, prescriptive-based regulatory regimes that burden people with

a lot of time, paperwork and red tape. Regulation needs to be sensible, but it

needs to be effective. This government understands that people's time is

valuable — not only the time of our public servants but of our clients,

whether they're farmers, business people or members of the public.

I want to

make a comment on something within our three-year service plan that I think is

critical for British Columbia, and that is the food-processing sector. This is

an area where B.C. needs to gain back some ground. In the last ten years we've

lost a lot of our food-processing sector to other areas. I'm very concerned

about this loss of food-processing capacity, because it is a critical element to

support our primary industry. I am confident that the provincial government, in

making some of the changes that it's making to develop a more friendly business

climate, will help send a message to the food-processing sector that B.C. is

open for business and that this is a good competitive place to locate new plants

and new investment.

On January

29 I brought together a group of food industry leaders to form a ministers' Food

Industry Advisory Council.

Deputy

Speaker: Minister, I'd like to show that the light is on.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Again, I thank you for the privilege of speaking to the budget

today.

J. Les: Thank

you for this opportunity to make some comments with respect to the budget that

was tabled last week, Tuesday.

I enjoyed

listening to the comments of the member preceding me, the member for

Abbotsford-Clayburn. It's pretty clear that he has a very good grasp of the

ministry that he's responsible for, the Ministry of Agriculture. That certainly

comes as no surprise to me. The minister is absolutely committed to the industry

and has been for many, many years. I believe we have the best Minister of

Agriculture this province has ever seen.

I'm really

pleased to be responding to the budget. It is a budget that is going to put the

province back on track economically. I'm looking forward with real anticipation

to the next several years, as our budget plan unfolds. Actually, I'd like to put

the office of the Whip on notice that two years from now, immediately after

February 17, I want to be on the speakers roster, because that will be the first

time in a long time that British Columbia will have a balanced budget, and I

want to help celebrate that.

Unfortunately,

this province has endured a decade of financial mismanagement. In the decade of

the nineties I used to hear a former Premier refer to the problem as being the

Asian flu. I looked around and observed the economy of the state of Washington,

for example, doing just fine. The state of California seemed to be growing at

record rates, the state of Alaska seemed to have no economic difficulties, and

the province of Alberta, as we know, was growing strongly in the nineties. I

wondered, if we were suffering from the Asian flu, why none of those

jurisdictions were so affected. I had to come to one inescapable conclusion:

that it was not the Asian flu at all. It was socialist constipation that was

affecting the fortunes of this province.

You know,

it really couldn't have gone on much longer. Fortunately, there was the

opportunity for an election in May of last year, and that sorry

chapter of

British Columbia came to an end. Had it gone on much longer, fairly soon the

Cubans would have become our economic cousins.

[1540]

People

might say: "Well, here we are into hyperbole again." There's a

little-known fact that if our British Columbia economy had simply grown at the

rate of that of the rest of Canada through the nineties, the revenue side of

this year's budget would

[ Page 1270 ]

have been $4 billion greater. Now, the previous government's unlikely to

remind you of that, but I think it's important for us once in a while to reflect

back and reflect on the misadventures of that lost decade of opportunity and how

that affects us today. The $4 billion in lost opportunity, lost revenue to

government, would have nearly balanced the budget this year.

In any

event, here we are finally with a budget that has some vision in it. I was very

pleased to see in the budget document that the vision of this government is of a

prosperous and just province whose citizens achieve their potential and have

confidence in the future. If nothing else, that confidence is what is so

critical not only to individual British Columbians but to investors who come to

this province. Without confidence, everything else starts to fall apart fairly

soon.

After eight

months of hard work we brought forward this budget, and believe me, it was eight

months of hard work. I know that all members of the government had a lot of

input into it, and a lot of the cabinet ministers worked diligently to bring in

service plans for their ministries. No one, of course, worked harder than the

Minister of Finance, as he's the minister responsible for this budget, and I

want to pay tribute to all of his efforts as well. This is not an easy time in

B.C.'s history to be a Finance minister. But I'm sure that a couple of years

from now, we'll be able to look back, and we will have one very gratified

Finance minister. He'll be able to reflect back and know that the difficult

decisions made in the years 2001, 2003 and 2004 will finally have paid off in a

balanced budget and a secure future for British Columbia.

This budget

reflects a blueprint for change, for economic renewal, a blueprint of hope and

renewed confidence in the future. It clearly establishes benchmarks. This is,

unfortunately, a somewhat foreign concept, one that we hadn't previously seen as

part of provincial budgets. We're clearly trying to determine where it is we are

today in various performance indicators. I think that's an extremely important

innovation. Previously, the common wisdom was that if you spent X number of

dollars this year, then you spent that plus a little bit more next year. If you

were accused of not providing enough service, your defence was, "Well, we

spent more than we did last year," without ever referring back to see what

the outputs were that resulted from that spending. Clearly, we are charting a

different course. I just want to highlight some of the targets that have been

established in this year's budget, and some of the baselines, the benchmarks,

that have been identified as benchmarks from which to work.

In the area

of education, for example, we have a benchmark at 2001 baseline of 32.4 percent

of the people that have a post-secondary certificate or diploma. Clearly, we'll

be able to look back two, three, four, five years from now, and we'll be able to

measure our progress. I'm very certain that we will be able to improve on that

measure. The percentage of the workforce in natural and applied science-related

occupations will increase from a 2000 baseline of 6.3 percent. This is one of

the key areas of growth in the modern economy, and clearly this is a real

opportunity for British Columbia.

The real

gross domestic product per capita at a 2000 baseline of $30,664 — again, we've

established a benchmark. This is what we're going to work from, and this is what

we're going to measure our progress and success against in years to come.

A very

important benchmark is the value of goods and services produced per hour from

the 2000 baseline of $30.72 per hour. This is an extremely important economic

indicator where, unfortunately, we have been falling behind in the years past.

We have to do better.

We're going

to improve on the province's gross fixed business investment from the 2000

baseline of 17.2 percent of provincial gross domestic product.

[1545]

You see,

Mr. Speaker, we have an array of performance indicators like that, and I want to

commend the Finance minister for including those kinds of very important

indicators in his budget this year. Those are going to be critical in terms of

measuring the success I am sure will flow in the future.

Last year

the Finance minister announced the largest tax decreases in the history of this

province — $2.2 billion worth of tax decreases — carefully crafted to ensure

that British Columbians would have more take-home pay and that those who

invested in this province would be appropriately rewarded for making that

investment and not be punished, as previously.

Now, we've

heard all the naysayers who have said: "Well, it's now obvious, just a few

months later, that tax decreases do not work." These, of course, are people

who have studied long and hard at the school of instant gratification. Tax

decreases need time to work their way through the economy. I have absolutely no

doubt whatsoever that the tax decreases that were put out last year by the

Minister of Finance and strongly supported by this government will do what they

were intended to do.

They will

increase consumer spending in this province. They will increase business

investment in this province. They will increase business confidence in this

province. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever. Personal income

taxes were reduced to the extent that personal income taxes in British Columbia

are the lowest in the entire country, bar none. I think that's important to

note.

We also

reduced the machinery and equipment tax that had long been the bane of business

investment in this province. Out of that, you will see new investment in mining,

new investment in the forest industry. I think we're going to see very major

results flowing from that initiative.

The

corporate capital tax simply penalized anyone for investing a dollar in British

Columbia. Now, I have heard the word "investment" spoken a number of

times by members of the opposition, and it is used every time as if it were a

pejorative term. I simply fail to understand why people don't come to realize

that investment is important.

[ Page 1271 ]

Investors

are important. It is these very people that provide the economic foundation

where British Columbians can then take on new jobs and where we provide the

wealth that supports all the important social programs on which we all rely. I

think investment is great. I think investors are great. We need to provide an

environment where we don't punish them but celebrate their arrival here and

where we ensure that they have a fair working environment in which to survive

and thrive.

In this

particular budget, some tax increases have been imposed as well. There was a

tax, for example, on tobacco. I would suggest to those who do not wish to pay

this tax that they simply don't smoke, and they won't have to pay that

particular tax. Sales taxes were increased by one-half of 1 percent, but

adjustments were made in other parts of the budget where the very lowest-income

people will, in fact, not be negatively impacted by that at all.

The MSP

premiums that were announced several weeks ago, again, were adjusted to ensure

that the 230,000 British Columbians who are at the very low end of the income

scale are paying less in MSP premiums than was previously the case. I think we

have made adjustments, although the additional revenue requirements were there,

particularly to support increased spending in health care. I think we have made

the adjustments necessary to ensure that the people least able to pay these

increases are, in fact, sheltered from those increases.

In health

care, we made a commitment that we were not going to cut health care

expenditures. The same is true in education. We committed there as well — no

decreases in expenditures in health care and education. In health care, however,

we not only found it appropriate to hold the line but, in fact, had to increase

spending in health care to the tune of 7.3 percent.

[1550]

I would

suggest that we still have much work to do in health care. With a 7.3 percent

spending increase on top of about $1 billion spending increase last year and

about a $1 billion spending increase the year before, clearly that situation is

not yet under control. I suspect average British Columbians would not be

prepared to say that their health care availability and service has improved 7.3

percent in the year just past.

I know that

the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning, along with

the two ministers of state, are going to be working hard to ensure that we

deliver health care services much more efficiently, that the average

satisfaction level of British Columbians with the health care they receive is in

fact improved and that we get back to a sustainable scenario. If we're

increasing health care spending by 7.3 percent and our economic growth rates in

British Columbia are currently only at 1 percent, clearly that is not a

sustainable situation.

I know that

the current situation is unavoidable. The transition that we have to make in the

Health ministry is one that is going to take some time. For that reason, I'm

certainly supportive of the major expenditure increase in health, but it is

clearly a situation I want to flag for the future to make sure that the

situation is brought under control.

In fact,

projections were done last year which indicated that if health care spending was

not brought under control and current trends were to continue, roughly 20 years

from now all provincial revenues in British Columbia would be consumed by health

care spending. There would be nothing for education, nothing for any other

ministry of government. We would then have a situation where, I gather, the only

two ministers required would be the Minister of Provincial Revenue and the

Minister of Health. I'm not sure that is a situation the average British

Columbians is much interested in.

We have our

challenges in the current economic horizon in the province of British Columbia.

One of the most serious challenges is the softwood lumber dispute that is

ongoing with the United States. I believe that this results from the abusive

behaviour of American industry interests.

You know,

as I think about this issue, I find it difficult to believe that a country that

is able to marshal all of the resources necessary to rout the Taliban out of

Afghanistan is not able to rout out the economic protectionists that reside

within its own country. I just wonder about that sometimes — why it is. Is the

willpower lacking? Or is the American President and his administration that

neutralized that it cannot deal with the issue? This is an issue that affects

its best trading partner, its nearest friend when difficulties arise on the

world stage. Yet it's been months and months and months, and near as I can tell,

we're still pretty much at an impasse. It's an absolutely unacceptable

situation.

I would

encourage our federal government and our Minister for International Trade to

redouble their efforts and to get down and tell the American government that

it's time that this was resolved. The punishing effect of this action by the

American interests has gone on way too long in our province. If you travel

through the timber resource–reliant areas in the province, you can readily see

the economic decimation that has resulted.

Forestry is

not a sunset industry in this province. It has a very good and bright future. It

can grow, and it will thrive. I'm absolutely convinced of that. We have a very

good product here in British Columbia. It will grow and thrive because of fair

trading policies on both sides of the border. It will grow and thrive because of

the economic incentives that I've talked about earlier, an economic environment

in which industry is treated fairly, where taxes are levied equitably. It will

thrive because of all of those factors and not because of the shell games that

were carried on in the past, such as the jobs and timber accord. I'm sure we all

remember the jobs and timber accord and the shell game that represented.

[1555]

I see a

bright future for the forest industry in British Columbia. It has for many, many

years been the economic mainstay of this province. Although other in-

[ Page 1272 ]

dustries will rise, as well, in this province, such as the high-tech

industry, the biotech industry, the agriculture industry — which, again, is

one of the mainstays — and the fish-farming industry, which has so much

potential for our province, all of these things can add to our province. We need

to make sure that we don't throw away those things that have been so supportive

of our economy for so long.

Another

area, Mr. Speaker, that I think can contribute to the economic health of this

province is an increased reliance on public-private partnerships. Those of you

who know me know that I've been a champion of this manner of providing services

and capital resources to government for quite some time. P3s, as they're called,

have taken hold at the municipal level in quite a few jurisdictions across this

province, and in every case, when done well, they have the potential of saving

taxpayers millions of dollars while at the same time often providing much better

services to the public than would otherwise be the case. They have the ability

to enhance creativity. They often shift risk away from government. They enhance

competitiveness. They shift government's role to being more of a facilitator as

opposed to being a direct service provider.

Government

doesn't need to monopolize everything that moves in our economy. It needs to

ensure that services are provided to the public, but it doesn't need to be the

direct provider of those services. It can simply be the regulator or the

organization that assures, through its offices, that these services are

provided.

I have

studied P3s in many, many jurisdictions across Canada and in the United Kingdom,

where this method of delivering government services first really took hold in

the early 1980s. I have no doubt that with the implementation of P3s in British

Columbia, we will be able to do much more in terms of providing the

infrastructure that is required to help our economy grow.

New

courthouse facilities are currently under construction in my riding. Again, this

is a P3 initiative. It's often important to remember, as well, that P3s do not

always mean public-private. They can also mean public-public partnerships

involving different levels and agencies of government that bring their various

interests to the table and have them rationalized in one project or process.

These law courts that are currently under construction in Chilliwack, as I said,

are a public-private initiative that involves a law courts building, an office

building and some millennium commemorative improvements in the Five Corners area

of Chilliwack. Those facilities will be opening soon. And where that facility,

back in 1991, was projected to cost the province $22 million, the provincial

contribution to that project today, in 2002 dollars, is $7 million — an

enormous saving to government.

I just use

that as one example. There are many, many other examples like that. I want to

see us make a real commitment to public-private partnerships as we look to

increasing the road capacity, the bridge capacity, the transportation

infrastructure and also the major sewer and water infrastructure improvements

that need to be made around the province. The private sector is fully capable of

providing these services on behalf of government. It is our role, I believe, to

ensure that we bring forward some very, very good and innovative, creative

proposals to allow these companies to provide this service.

The other

thing that happens, of course, is that employment is generated. More investment

is generated. This is exactly the time in the history of British Columbia when

we need to be encouraging that kind of investment. For too long now — for a

decade and more — there has been very little investment in infrastructure. We

find of course, because of past economic mismanagement, that we don't have a lot

of government capital to throw at this lack of infrastructure either. Perhaps

that is somewhat of a blessing in disguise. Now that we're almost going to be

forced to go to P3s, I would argue that even when government is flush, it should

be looking to P3s as an option of choice in any event.

[1600]

Economic

growth is required in this province. If we're going to stagnate, then the

lessons of the past will simply have to be relearned. We don't want to be doing

that. We have the resources. We have the people. We have the technology. I think

we're going to move forward in a very strong way.

Certainly,

in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas…. The member for Chilliwack-Kent mentioned a

few days ago a major new employment facility that's been brought into place in

the last seven or eight months — a company called Stream International, which

now employs over 1,000 people. Stream International has 28 of these locations

around the world. I was so pleased to learn not too long ago that, after having

now been in operation for seven or eight months, this company has determined

that the Chilliwack location is their best service location out of all 28

locations around the globe.

I think

that's a real testimony to the people in the Fraser Valley who work at that

location. It is a testimony to the education system in the Fraser Valley that

has produced workers that are in fact, by what this company has told me,

world-class employees. That is the kind of foundation that we can build on.

I'm

reminded also of companies like Conair Aviation in the city of Abbotsford at the

Abbotsford Airport — again, a world-class company. Another new entity in my

riding recently is the Pacific region training centre of the RCMP. This is

located on former CFB Chilliwack lands and promises to be another major

employment generator in my riding.

summarize, I think this budget finally, after a long decade of mismanagement,

puts this province back on track economically. It guarantees our future. We're

all working hard together with all British Columbians to ensure that we have an

economic future, and I'm just delighted that we have made the choices that will

bring these things about.

A final

comment I would make is from a press release that was put out just a couple of

days ago by the Mining Association of British Columbia. I won't read

[ Page 1273 ]

the whole thing but just the closing comment. It says this: "But give

credit where credit is due. A clear plan for the future has been presented in

today's provincial budget. It has purpose; it has promise. It represents the

kind of disciplined budget that has been lacking in B.C. for too long, and it

will yield positive results."

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It's indeed a pleasure to rise and respond to the direction

that this government has outlined in the budget speech by the Minister of

Finance. There is an old saying: if you don't know where you're going, it

doesn't make much difference which route you choose. Today, as a government, it

is more important than ever to show leadership and direction and to stay the

course to economic and social recovery — economic and social recovery that is

necessary after a decade of going in the wrong direction as a government in

British Columbia.

Leadership

means setting goals, providing a focus, being transparent about the problems and

the issues, and engaging the public in a discussion on our plans and objectives

as a government. The election campaign last year was about two very different

choices for British Columbians. An absolute majority of British Columbians voted

to choose our new-era platform of social and economic change in British

Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, we had a number of commitments that we said we would implement within

90 days of being sworn in as government. We kept our commitments and implemented

all of them within the three-month period. Now we are continuing that commitment

with our first full budget, fiscal plan and strategic plan.

I would

like to spend the next few minutes outlining why I think setting a course and

having a plan is critical in this province. Fiscal and strategic plans set out

our goals and allow all British Columbians to engage in the discussion of where

we are going and how we get there to build a province that they want to be part

of.

[1605]

I spent my

working life until 1990 as a town planner. It was my privilege to prepare

community and neighbourhood plans in such great communities as Surrey, Delta,

Coquitlam, Prince Rupert, Port Clements on the Queen Charlotte Islands and Port

McNeill on the North Island. In creating these plans, we carried out extensive

public consultation processes and presented policy options to the communities.

We created land use plans, plans for housing, population growth, recreation,

industry and costs to achieve community visions. All are contained in these

plans. These communities and others knew where they wanted to go and had a

blueprint on how to get there.

As many of

the members in this Legislature know, I was in municipal politics in Richmond

for 20 years before I was privileged to be elected by the people of Richmond

Centre to represent them in this Legislature. I had the opportunity during that

time to work with other local politicians, staff and the public on preparing

budgets — budgets that, by the way, could not show a deficit. We used

five-year rolling capital and operating budgets and, for many large capital

items, ten-year plans and forecasts. We worked with the public to create

community plans that set out geographic areas of land use: new subdivisions for

high-density residential areas, future parks and environmentally sensitive

areas, areas for industrial expansion and areas that we protected as

agricultural land. We developed population growth scenarios and plans that we're

going to build new sewer and water lines and roads in which aging infrastructure

had to be replaced. Fire halls, police stations, new swimming pools or ice rinks

had to be planned for, built and staffed.

For all

these plans and programs we had to produce financial plans that we could afford.

Capital expansion and expansion of services means an increasing staff complement

and increasing plant maintenance. This logical and rational approach to

government programs has stood the test of time and is heartily supported by

citizens who see local government as being close to the people and wise trustees

of public money. This is why I am so pleased to be part of a provincial

government that finally brings a sense of organization, direction and reality to

provincial services and finances.

You will

note that the documents accompanying the budget speech are entitled British

Columbia Government Strategic Plan 2002/03-2004/05: Restoring Hope and

Prosperity. The budget and fiscal plan 2003 goes through to 2005. They do

not deal with just one budget year, nor do they deal only with finances. They

contained a three-year planning process for finances and contained a three-year

strategy on what we are going to achieve and how we are going to get there. For

the first time in government, there is a real sense of purpose and financial

reality.

My only

wish would have been that this provincial election had been called at least a

year earlier. All of us could have been spared so much. Decisions were made

around public sector wage demands in the closing months of the last government

that no succeeding government could possibly afford. A prime example is the

health budget, which has been increased from $9.5 billion in 2001-02 to $10.2

billion in the upcoming fiscal year, an increase of 7.3 percent, or $700 million

in one year.

The tragedy

of this huge increase in health care spending is that it all goes to wages with

no money for additional staff or improvements in patient care. We have a huge

increase in health care spending but no improvement in patient care to show for

it. To meet this unprecedented increase in health spending, there are increases

in MSP premiums and the tax on tobacco and a half percent increase in sales tax.

Tough but necessary decisions have been made by the Finance minister to deal

with the problems.

The

previous government relied on a short-term surge in energy prices and a one-time

accounting adjustment to balance the budget last year, when in reality a

three-year financial plan would have highlighted the structural deficit to all

British Columbians.

[ Page 1274 ]

[1610]

For the

first time in government, ministers were required to review what programs they

were offering and at what cost. We had to decide what services were core to

government and which could be better provided by the private sector or by

leaving the choice up to the individual. Each ministry produced three-year

service plans which laid out programs we were going to deliver, what changes we

were going to make, what accomplishments we could expect and what our

performance targets were going to be. Imagine the public sector, of which all of

us here as MLAs are a part, setting goals, outlining a plan on how to get there

and being held accountable for our performance — certainly a first in British

Columbia.

With

three-year service plans you know where you're going, the public knows exactly

what we are doing and what the cost is, and we can be held accountable on an

annual basis for our performance. For the first time the budget is based on

programs and a strategic direction that has been reviewed by ministers, by

government caucus committees and by cabinet at open cabinet meetings.

This budget

sets out, for the first time, three-year rolling budgets for school boards and

health regions. For the first time they know how much money they will receive

three years ahead and therefore can plan accordingly. This step and the

necessity for these boards to prepare their own plans and budgets means the

process is transparent, and it gets provincial politics out of the

decision-making process in these areas.

For health

regions, professionals can offer the best advice on how to manage health care.

For school boards, the elected trustees, teachers, principals and parents can

make choices around the delivery of education in their communities and are held

accountable locally.

Mr.

Speaker, in my constituency of Richmond Centre, when I meet people on the

street, in the malls or at community events, they tell me they know it is a

tough budget, but they also know that we have been living beyond our means for

the past decade. Government spending consistently outstripped revenues. We had

an anti-business government that discouraged business growth and investment in

British Columbia and at the same time created new government programs every year

with diminishing revenues to pay for them.

Ministers

have made some difficult choices and decisions around our service plans. The

Finance minister made some tough decisions around revenue increases through MSP

payments, the tobacco tax and an increase in the sales tax, and, very

importantly, he has taken steps to protect those people who are the most

vulnerable in our society with the least ability to pay.

Optimism is

beginning to return to my constituency. Housing sales are up almost 50 percent

in 2001 over the previous year. Applications for new development projects in the

city are up 20 percent in 2001 over 2000. Confidence is returning to the retail

sales market. At the Vancouver International Airport — a vital economic engine

in my constituency and for the province as a whole — domestic, U.S. and

international passenger traffic is still 10 to 12 percent below last

year, but the good news is that there has been a steady increase in passenger

traffic since the falloff of September 11. Recovery is on its way, and

confidence is being restored.

This budget

is about restoring realistic and sound financial management to British Columbia.

It is about a financial and strategic plan that restores hope to families,

workers and businesses in B.C. We know now what our three-year course is in

government. We know what the cost is going to be, and we know what we can

afford. We know what programs we are going to be delivering, and, most

importantly, in 2004-05 we will have eliminated the deficit and have a balanced

budget.

Mr.

Speaker, in my community we have just finished celebrating the beginning of the

Year of the Horse. The horse is known for its nobility, its spirit and its

strength. My constituents look forward to the coming year, because they know our

government has the spirit and strength to stay the course and to work with

British Columbians to restore prosperity in our province.

Just before

I conclude, I would like to add a personal postscript to my comments. Amongst

the changes that we have brought in this year are changes that permit

flexibility in class size at community colleges and at universities. In

addition, the tuition freeze of the past five to six years has been lifted. As a

parent of the six children that my wife and I have in our blended family, I

would like to say thank you to the members of this Legislature who supported

these changes and, in particular, to the Minister of Advanced Education.

[1615]

We are

fortunate that all of my children, at one time or another, attended either a

community college, an institute or a university. As a matter of fact, two are

still at university, and one is at a college. The freezing of tuition and the

restriction on class size have meant that my children, like thousands of others

around the province, could not get into the classes they needed to graduate in

four years, which is a normal program time period.

It takes

five or six years today to graduate, and this means much higher costs to

students in living expenses, student loans and forgone income. I know I share

the thoughts of many parents and students in British Columbia who would like to

thank this government for helping all of us in B.C. with these changes.

Locke: Before I start, I would like to make a comment. I am a working mom,

and my family is a middle-class family. I want and need the members for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and for Vancouver-Hastings to clearly know that as a

woman, part of the 51 percent of the population, they do not represent nor have they ever

represented me.

[ Page 1275 ]

I have two

daughters. I have raised them to know they are equal, and I am appalled that the

members opposite would have them feel any different. There is no doubt we are

obliged as a caring society to care and assist women in need who are in

desperate situations. This Minister of State for Women's Equality has made that

commitment, and I thank her for that.

As always,

it's my privilege to speak in this House. I want to open by formally thanking

the finance chairs for the city of Surrey, councillor Marvin Hunt and school

trustee Shawn Wilson, for their interest in taking time from their busy schedules

to come to Victoria on Tuesday and hear firsthand from the Minister of Finance.

We have a wonderfully progressive city, one I'm very proud of. Many thanks go to

the work of our mayor, our council and our school board, led by chair Mary

Polak.

Many

members have spoken to the throne speech debate before me, and now I'm

responding to the budget. The breadth of the expertise in this government caucus

is tremendous, and I'm always humbled by this amazing talent pool. I thought I

would talk to you today from a slightly different perspective, a perspective

that was the very reason I decided to run for office.

I am proud

to represent the working men, women, families, seniors, those in need and those

who are vulnerable that make up my riding, Surrey–Green Timbers. We live in a

great community, where my husband and I have chosen to raise our children. We

are a working-class family. My husband is a steel fabricator and a welder, and

our children attend public school. My most important job is that of a mom, and

I'm proud to say that I am a soccer mom, a hockey mom and a ringette mom.

British

Columbians have always been a very proud lot. I was born and raised in the lower

mainland. Right from the time I was a child, my parents gave me the opportunity

to travel B.C. and see our province. There is no doubt we are blessed to live

here. We have clean water, clean air, incredible vistas, an abundance of natural

resources and livable regions. This is Super, Natural B.C.

When I

heard the Minister of Finance say in open cabinet that my province, a place that

is the envy of the world, had become a have-not province, I was heartsick. I

know my dad would have been devastated. What happened? Well, the answer is

pretty clear: a squandered decade. A decade for every other jurisdiction in

North America that was positive and prosperous and that is now helping them

weather this world economic downturn. A squandered decade of opportunity we are

now paying dearly for.

[1620]

I am

determined to ensure that my children and grandchildren — hopefully, not too

soon for grandchildren — are not going to suffer because of the incompetence

of the NDP. Getting out of that debt won't be easy, it won't be painless, and it

won't be overnight. The only light we have at the end of this tunnel is the

leadership of this government. The guts, the vision and the commitment of this

Premier and this Minister of Finance will deliver a new day for my kids and for

all of B.C. — a new day of opportunity. I'm committed to that vision and

wholeheartedly support this budget.

As a

government, we certainly are not without our detractors, but from my own

experience, we have many more friends than foes. The majority are silent, and

they understand that the credit cards have run out and the buy now, pay later

plan has come back to haunt us. The silent majority are proud British

Columbians, and they want to see this province great once again. They know there

will be pain.

Calls to my

office indicate that for everyone expressing concern about our government's

actions, we have more that say: "Good on you. Stay the course. We want our

province to be number one."

The foes,

on the other hand — the big union bosses chanting rhetoric into megaphones —

will do their very best to manipulate, mislead and fearmonger about the changes

that will happen. They believe that somehow our government will waver. They say

we are moving too fast. They say we should listen to their wisdom. Well, it was

in fact that very so-called wisdom that got us into this economic mess, and time

is not on our side. Our government is resolute. It will not falter, and it

certainly will not be bullied.

Have we

heard these union leaders take some responsibility for the decade of waste and

mismanagement? Have we heard them acknowledge the role they played during the

days of sweetheart deals? No, we haven't. Well, thankfully, those days are over.

It's time these big union bosses stepped up to the plate to admit that it's time

we all act responsibility for the sake of our children's future.

I want to

talk about my children again — my personal raison d'être. My oldest daughter

is in grade 12. She speaks Japanese, she plays in a band, and she's travelled to

Japan, played in a music festival in Florida and travelled throughout Canada and

the United States. We hope that she'll attend post-secondary school this fall.

Her dream is to be a schoolteacher. The world is her oyster. I thank her

schoolteachers for giving her all those opportunities and encouragement.

My youngest

daughter is in grade 6. She likes school, and she has also had caring and

committed teachers. Collectively, they have had 18 years of teachers and

principals, and I have met and talked to all of them. All of these teachers have

positively impacted the lives of my children and our family.

I feel a

real disconnect — a disconnect between the teachers I know and their big union

bosses' rhetoric. In talking to many of the teachers, they do too. The big union

boss is wrong. A collective agreement is no place to deal with management

issues. It does not hold our children's education and future as a top priority.

The majority of the people in the public school system are working for the good

of all children. Their top priority is instilling good education in these young

people.

I am so

glad this Minister of Education has put flexibility into the system so that we

can best utilize the dollars we have on education, not on bloated collective

[ Page 1276 ]

agreements. Taking the rigid class-size provision out of a changing

collective agreement and enshrining it in the School Act gives me great comfort

as a parent.

In my work

on the Select Standing Committee on Education, I have had the opportunity to

travel this province to Haida Gwaii, to the Kootenays, to Dawson Creek, to

Vancouver and to my hometown, Surrey. Our committee heard from a number of

people — from parents, students, teachers, administrators and many others. I

look forward to our report being tabled this month. One message that was

consistent was that one size does not work for all students, all learners. A

prescriptive collective agreement is not good for students.

[1625]

I am so

glad this Minister of Education has truly put our children first, above all. I

know that the school trustees and administrators in my community are up to the

challenge. I know that they, too, care deeply about the kids in Surrey and will

continue to put our children's education first and foremost.

Mr.

Speaker, my riding of Surrey–Green Timbers is also home to one of the most

colossal boondoggles of the NDP era: Central City, a massive commercial

development project still under construction. It is an embarrassment that is

eclipsed only by the fast ferries. This monument to NDP incompetence is a huge

shopping mall with a 25-storey office tower. It is being developed as an

investment by our government-owned auto insurance company. So far, ICBC has

invested some $300 million in the project, which industry experts estimate is

worth less than half that amount. To make matters worse, there are few tenants

willing to move in. This NDP blunder may be the world's largest echo chamber. It

amazes me that the official opposition would make so much noise about a 0.5

percent PST increase and want to deny and ignore the $100 million waste on

Central City or the $465 million on fast ferries. And that list is just endless.

I live in

the real world. I thought I would point out what 0.5 percent means to my family.

My daughter is attending a birthday party this weekend, and the present will go

up by about 10 cents. A new pair of runners for my kids, who like the very best,

will go up about 30 cents. My oldest daughter's grad dress, a dress that

represents her future, will cost about another $1.50.

No one, not

least the Premier or the Minister of Finance, wanted to see the PST increase.

But the cost in the end to my family will ensure that my kids don't pay for the

decade of waste and will mean that our health care is protected in a sustainable

way. Sometimes I wonder whether I should laugh or cry because once again all

British Columbians will pay for the incompetence of the previous government.

I want to

talk a little more about Tech B.C. It has been one of my biggest concerns since

occupying my office. The manner in which the previous government handled this

project jeopardized an institution that I believe will be a great benefit to

B.C.'s knowledge-based economy. Tech B.C., home to almost 400 post-secondary

students, was saddled with a poor business plan, interference and imposition by

the NDP government. The actions of the NDP almost doomed Tech B.C.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

For every

black cloud there is a silver lining. The greatest silver lining is the one I'm

particularly proud of: Simon Fraser University coming not only to Surrey but to

my riding of Green Timbers. I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

thank the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance for their

efforts, vision and commitment to the students of Surrey. I also want to thank

the Surrey MLAs and the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for helping

establish the groundwork for a university in my constituency.

The primary

driver of the government, as we worked out how to save Tech B.C., was the

interest of the students. The plan is both fiscally responsible and sustainable.

It has allowed technical studies and research to be done at the Central City

site. The greatest part of all is that Surrey is now home to a proven,

progressive university, one of the finest universities in all of Canada.

[1630]

I am

personally very pleased to have played my

part in making that dream a reality

for the students and potential students in Surrey and all of the South Fraser.

SFU will bring hope and opportunity for Surrey, and it will establish our city

as the hub for technology and education. SFU will entice more and more economic

development, and technology alters the world we live, work and play in. It is a

catalyst for our future potential. SFU's technical site will present

opportunities for our region and our province — opportunities that we have not

even dreamed of. I believe this is an example of how we can work together and

ensure that programs that are priorities to many are properly structured so they

can, over the long term, be successful in the truest sense.

The

previous government founded Tech B.C. and never understood what the costs were

or how to deliver the programs effectively. What resulted was an institution, at

a cost of $24 million last year, that delivered educational services to fewer than 400 students. Under the new SFU plan, the institution will expand to serve

more than 800 young British Columbians and will cost the taxpayers less than

half of last year's expense. The institution is now sustainable.

As we

tackle the trail of waste left by the previous government, I encourage all

British Columbians to find solutions that work and are sustainable over the long

term. I especially encourage those who invest their time in protesting change

and those who want to hang on to the past, no matter how unrealistic it is, to

join us and put their energy towards helping us create solutions for British

Columbia.

We are

making progress. Since the government was elected, my community has seen growth

in our building permits of over 30 percent in both residential and

[ Page 1277 ]

commercial. Thanks to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise,

Surrey has begun a major tourism marketing initiative. Several new hotels will

be developed over the next few years. Just yesterday I had the honour of opening

a new Hampton Suites hotel on Highway 10 in Surrey. It was encouraging to hear

the owner state that they had curtailed their investment in this province until

now. With the election of this government led by this Premier, that gave them

the confidence to reinvest in British Columbia.

Representing

my constituents is one of the toughest jobs I've ever had to do, but it's

extremely rewarding. Over the past eight months my colleagues and I have been

faced with challenges that have been gut-wrenching and have given me many

sleepless nights, but I know we are doing the right thing. Although I don't

always sleep well, I can always look in the mirror, knowing we are doing the

right thing for our children and for the future of this province.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: It gives me great pleasure to stand here before the House today

and talk about the provincial budget that the Minister of Finance brought down

on February 19.

When the

Minister of Finance stood up in front of this House on February 19, he changed

the whole concept of what's going to happen in British Columbia. He started

restoring the hope and prosperity. He wants to revitalize the economy. He's

going to make things different in this province, and I think on February 19

there was a change. There was a change for this province that we haven't