2003 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 13

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Agrologists Act (Bill 4)

Hon. S. Hagen

Auditor General Act (Bill 9)

Hon. G. Collins

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 10)

Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Blockade in Hazelton area

D. MacKay

Alberni-Qualicum area youth commended

G. Trumper

High-technology industry in Burnaby

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Rules for salary holdback for cabinet ministers

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Fair Pharmacare program

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Extended care services at Mount St. Francis Hospital

B. Suffredine

Hon. K. Whittred

Recall legislation

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Fee increases in parks

B. Kerr

Hon. J. Murray

Ministerial Statements

2010 Olympic Winter Games

Hon. G. Campbell

J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents

Auditor general report No. 9, A Review o f

G overnment Oversight of

Multi-Employer Public Sector Pension Plans in British Columbia

Auditor general service plan 2003-04 –

2005-06

Budget Debate (continued)

W. McMahon

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

Hon. G. Bruce

V. Roddick

Hon. L. Reid

Hon. S. Hawkins

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Hon. S. Santori

[ Page 4977 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today visiting the buildings we have the executive of the British

Columbia Wine Institute: Tony Stewart, the chairman; Rod King, representing the

growers; Harry McWatters from Summerland; and Olivier Combret. Just to show you

their commitment to the industry, Olivier Combret and his wife had a baby, a

son, last night at 6:30 p.m., and his name is Remi. I understand they're going

to be meeting with the opposition and the government later today. Would everyone

please make them welcome to Victoria.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Today in the gallery we have four citizens from the Arrow Lakes

region who are donating generously of their time to help develop solutions to

the age-old problem of how we can create fixed links across the Arrow Lakes.

They are not asking for money, but they're doing something even better. They're

making suggestions for how we can solve that problem. They include Bill Cowan,

the mayor of Nakusp; Helmut Klughammer, former director of the regional district

of Central Kootenay; Ralph Allen, a prominent Nakusp business person; and Rod Power of Vernon.

MacKay: In the gallery today visiting from the province of Ontario, where it

is extremely cold at the present time, I have some friends who are in Victoria.

I took them on a tour this morning through the Legislature. I would like to

introduce Jim and Mary Roberts and Jerry and Lorraine Woods. I would ask the

House to please make them welcome.

[1405]

Sahota: Joining us in the House today are two wonderful young people. One is

Desiree Dupuis, who just started working with the government caucus as an ALA.

Desiree is a dedicated and hard-working individual, who recently graduated from

UVic with a bachelor of commerce in international business, and it's a pleasure

to have Desiree join our team. The other is my legislative assistant, Frank

Costa. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Santori: It gives me a great pleasure to introduce to the House today

someone who has been contributing significantly to the economy of Victoria for

the past couple of days, and one who is doing a real good job of spending the

money I'm going to get from my ministry for meeting my targets. I would ask the

House welcome my wife, Wendy, here to Victoria

Suffredine: In addition to the Arrow Lakes group mentioned by the Premier,

we have two additional guests here today from the Kootenays. One is the chairman

of the Columbia Basin Trust, here today wearing his hat as regional district

director — that's Josh Smienk — and also my constituency assistant, Stephen

Harris. Would the House please make them both welcome.

McMahon: I think it's the day for the Kootenays. Although I don't have

anybody to introduce this afternoon, I would like to acknowledge the 88 students

from David Thompson Secondary School in Invermere who were here earlier today.

They are accompanied by five adults and their band teacher, Mr. Greg Constable,

who actually taught my son to play the saxophone many years ago. They're on

their annual band trip. Their next stop is Mission, and I know that they enjoyed

themselves today. I'm sure they'll enjoy the rest of their tour.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

AGROLOGISTS ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Agrologists Act.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that Bill 4 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Auditor General Act.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 9 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Auditor General Act. This act will

confirm in statute practices that have evolved since the first Auditor General

Act was passed back in 1979. It will also support the changing information needs

of the Legislative Assembly. The new Auditor General Act will confirm the

independence of the auditor general in such matters as the auditor's

appointment, the approval process for the auditor general's budget, access to

information and the

[ Page 4978 ]

ability to report the results of his or her work to the Legislative Assembly.

The new act

also strengthens the auditor general's accountability to the Legislative

Assembly. The mechanism, frequency and standards of reporting to the Legislature

have been clearly defined. There will now be a requirement to provide annually,

to a committee of the Legislature, a three-year audit plan as well as a service

plan.

Other

important issues addressed are the scope of audit coverage and audit services

provided by the auditor general. I would like to congratulate the auditor

general, the previous auditor general, members of various Public Accounts

committees as well as numerous staff people, who have worked on this piece of

legislation over the last decade.

With that,

I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1410]

Bill 9

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. R.

Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that Bill 10 be read for a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This bill makes several minor amendments to six statutes: the Coal

Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mines Act,

the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and the Utilities Commission Act. The

amendments that I am introducing today illustrate our commitment to cutting red

tape and creating a thriving private sector economy that supports high-paying

jobs for British Columbians.

The Coal

Act will be amended to streamline the coal reserve creation process and to

repeal a redundant requirement. Amendments to the Hydro and Power Authority Act

will define what constitutes support services for the purposes of outsourcing

and the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission with respect to agreements for

support services. Consistent with the energy plan, the goal is to obtain

cost-efficiencies and better service for B.C. Hydro customers.

The Mineral

Tenure Act is being amended to assign to the chief gold commissioner the

authority for regulations to establish and rescind no-staking reserves. It is

also being amended to remove duplication of review for small projects that would

otherwise be exempted by the reviewable projects regulation.

Amendments

to the Mines Act will allow for increased environmental protection through

enhanced compliance and enforcement authority. There will also be changes to

reduce the workload for minesites that are not considered to be mines by the

chief inspector, and changes are being made to prevent the duplication of

permitting processes.

The

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is being amended to reduce regulatory burdens on

industry by making the rules and processes clearer and more effective.

The

Utilities Commission Act amendment clarifies that the entity that enters into a

support service agreement with B.C. Hydro is not a public utility.

The

amendments that I'm introducing today are small but important steps towards

meeting our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden by one third within

three years. They are part of the government's overall plan to restore sound

fiscal management in British Columbia. Several changes also support the

province's new energy plan announced November 25, 2002 — Energy for our

Future: A Plan for B.C .

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 10

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) BLOCKADE IN HAZELTON AREA

MacKay: I take this opportunity to advise this House of a serious situation

occurring in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Near the community of

Hazelton, a blockade has been set up by native Indians, preventing over 70

loggers — some of whom are also native — from going to work. Following the

collapse of SCI, the loggers' economic lifeline became and remains fragile. Our

government authorized a 35 percent export quota to keep the banker at bay. To

date, only 2,095 cubic metres, 45 truckloads — not enough to keep the Carnaby

mill at Hazelton going for one day — have been exported.

The Gitxsan

natives appealed the transfer of the tenure to the new company. The subsequent

ruling by the court was that the transfer tenure would be accepted, subject to

further consultation. The unemployment rate in the Hazeltons is over 60 percent

and as high as 90 percent in the Gitxsan communities. With the impending March

breakup, the loggers need these extra continuous weeks of seasonal employment to

qualify for employment insurance. The Hazeltons need the certainty of continuous

employment for its citizens in order to provide an economic base. The

frustration with the seeming inability to deal with these issues in a timely

manner has resulted in a potentially volatile situation. For our new heartlands

economic strategy to work, we need to find solutions to these types of crises.

[ Page 4979 ]

It is my

understanding that the community will gather tomorrow evening to discuss this

matter. I hope the results of Tuesday night's meeting in Hazelton will bring an

end to this crisis.

[1415]

ALBERNI-QUALICUM AREA

YOUTH COMMENDED

Trumper: Today, as Vancouver and British Columbia celebrate the positive

results of the plebiscite for the Olympics, I want to introduce three young

people in my community who are an example to young people when you have a dream.

Jimmy Pelk

is 17 years old and is a grade 11 student. He is an eight-time B.C. provincial

karting champion and the 2000 Canadian junior karting champion. He competed in

the Fran-Am sporting event in Phoenix, Arizona, and placed in the top five based

upon speed, attitude, teamwork and racing ability. He will compete this year in

British Columbia and throughout North America.

Carly

Haggard is 21 and is a senior at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. She was a

member of the Canadian under-22 national hockey team and was in the top ten in

scoring in division 1 for the past four years and last year placed first in

scoring. She has been nominated twice for the Patty Kazmaier Award, and her

future plans include making the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team.

Cody Morton

is 14. He was the Saturday morning host on CHOO-FM in Tofino from January to

March 2000 and is now hosting the Saturday afternoon show on AV 1240. In

addition, he has co-hosted On the Island with Lisa Cordasco of CBC radio.

He was the master of ceremonies at the annual salmon festival in Port Alberni,

and he was voted Port Alberni's best radio DJ in 2000 and 2001. These have been

submitted to the Guinness Book of World Records in the new category of

youngest radio host.

These are

just three young people who are shining examples to the young people in this

province who are going to be out there working and striving to be part of the

2010 Olympics.

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN BURNABY

R. Lee:

I have the great honour to rise in the House today to speak about the tremendous

economic potential of my community of Burnaby. Many of you heard the news last

week that eBay, a major Internet auction service, announced it will open its

first Canadian call centre in my riding of Burnaby North. This call centre will

employ more than 600 people, and recruitment already began last Saturday in a

BCIT job fair. This new employment will certainly be a welcome boost to our

local economy, but beyond that, having a top-notch Internet company like eBay

setting up operations reinforces Burnaby's place on the international

information technology map.

We in

Burnaby knew before that our community was the destination for technology. With

companies like Ballard Power Systems, PMC-Sierra, Creo Products and Electronic

Arts Canada, there was certainly no doubt in my mind. Indeed, B.C. is open for

business, and because of that, so is Burnaby. Through this government's

commitment to building a new era for knowledge workers, we have been successful

in getting that message out to the international high-tech community.

I have

stood in this House in the past and spoken about the need for British Columbia

to add to our traditional resource-based economy, by diversifying our economy

and attracting new investment. We must adapt to the new global economy. B.C. is

well suited to become Canada's leader for the research and development sector,

and Burnaby's ready to lead the charge. Down the road I see not just eBay

opening its doors in Burnaby but many other companies, large and small, that

recognize the exceptional climate Burnaby has to offer.

Oral Questions

RULES FOR SALARY HOLDBACK

FOR CABINET MINISTERS

MacPhail: Last week we learned that the Minister of Finance has created a

$210 million salary protection slush fund for ministers. Can the Minister of

Finance tell this House when he will approve and disburse salary payments to

himself and other ministers for coming in on budget? Will he do that once the

final public accounts for last year have been prepared and signed off by the

auditor general or sooner than that?

[1420]

Hon. G.

Collins: The answer to her question exists in the legislation, for which she

was here in the House and debated a little over a year ago. The answer is: when

the public accounts come out. I want to make note, however, because I think it's

important — I've been getting some advice over the weekend and am about to get

more from the member opposite — for the House to put this in context to

determine whether or not they think I should take that advice. In the three

years that the member opposite was Minister of Finance…. In the 1997-98 fiscal

year, Budget '98, five ministries were over budget, and the government had to

bring in a number of special warrants in order to meet its spending target.

In Budget

'99, four ministries were over budget, and the government had to bring in…. I

think the total that year was about $236 million over budget.

1999-2000, the final public accounts showed total CRF spending for the year was

$1.4 billion over budget.

I await

with eager and bated breath the advice from the member opposite.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, actually, I wouldn't have to give advice if this minister

were operating under the same

[ Page 4980 ]

rules that existed during that period of time. The difference is that the

minister changed the rules. He used this big majority to change the rules.

He's

absolutely right. The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act says

that salary holdback will not be paid to ministers until the day after the final

public accounts are made public. But here's what the system used to be. In years

past, public accounts distributes spent contingency money to the minister who

spends it, as it should — unless the minister is deciding to change that rule

as well.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

MacPhail: We know now that the final audited books for the budget 2002-03

will show at least six ministers coming in over budget, unless this minister is

going to stand up and change the way public accounts operate.

Why is the

minister claiming that the ministers have come in under budget when, in fact, we

won't know — and he doesn't know for sure — who has overspent until the

final audited books are made public?

Hon. G.

Collins: I would encourage the member to go back and check her facts and

read the legislation, as well as go back and look at the budgets she presented

to this House.

Let me just

read into the record the description of vote 48 in the 1999-2000 budget year,

which the member opposite introduced as the Minister of Finance. That's the

contingencies vote. It says:

"This

vote provides additional funding for items budgeted in other votes to

accommodate the financial consequences of unanticipated and contingent events.

Unanticipated events include developments during the year that could not be

reasonably anticipated when the budget was prepared. Contingent events include

developments that could be anticipated, but not with enough certainty to make

a reasonable estimate of budget costs, or where final costs are dependent on a

pending decision of government or another party.

"This

vote also provides for unanticipated events not budgeted in other votes but

which are consistent with the general purpose of those votes. This includes

natural disasters, emergency relief and assistance for those in need. Ex

gratia payments are also provided for. In addition, this vote provides for

funding of new government programs."

I believe that if the member checks, she'll find that's the exact wording in

the budget this year and last year as well.

Mr.

Speaker : The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: I know that Mr. Bond had words to describe this Minister of

Finance, but I think today that even Mr. Bond will be amazed at what that

minister just stood up and said.

In the

past, regardless of what contingencies were used for, the public accounts

allocated that spending to the bottom line of ministers. This government changed

the rules so that their salary protection fund is there solidly for them. It

doesn't get allocated to the ministers' bottom line, so even if they overspend,

they all get their money, as the Minister of Management Services was so

gleefully doing.

If the same

rules had applied as in the past, at least six of them would have overspent. The

Minister of Finance claiming that the six ministers underspent is like awarding

the Grey Cup based on the betting line in Las Vegas rather than the actual final

score of the game.

Will the

minister admit that the government's claims that all ministers came in on or

under budget is fiction and that based on past accounting practices, at least

six ministers — maybe more — will come in over budget once the final books

are audited and released?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: Heaven forbid we should keep our books according to past accounting

practices in the province. If the rules that are in place today had been in

place through ten years of NDP government, that member would owe money to the

taxpayers of British Columbia. We have put in place…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …the most open, the most transparent, the most clear set of

financial documents anywhere in Canada, if not within the Commonwealth. I am

more than proud of the work that the members of this caucus and the staff have

done, the Ministry of Finance, in order to get there.

I would

just remind that member opposite that in each of the three years that she was

Minister of Finance, the contingencies vote was fully spent…

MacPhail: And allocated.

Hon. G.

Collins: …and ministries still had cost overruns within their ministries

which had to be paid for in special warrants or statutory spending authorities.

MacPhail: You're lying. You're misleading….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: You are misleading….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order!

Would the

Leader of the Opposition please retract the word "lying."

[ Page 4981 ]

MacPhail: I withdraw.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Please

continue.

MacPhail: You are misleading the public when you say….

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I will put the credibility of this government and our

reputation and our ability to manage the books up against that minister's record

any day of the week.

FAIR PHARMACARE PROGRAM

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Finance didn't answer the question. Let's try a different

minister.

Today the

Minister of Health Services has announced his new scheme to cut government

spending on medicine by some $90 million. That's a huge cut — no way to

sugar-coat it.

Under the

old system, prior to 2001, a senior woman with a fixed income of $31,000 paid

$200 deductible. Since then, the Liberal government has increased that

deductible to $275. Can the minister please advise us what — let's say a woman

named Barb — a woman born in 1940 with a fixed income of $31,000 can

anticipate paying per year for her medicine once she turns 65?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, this is a great news story for Barb — the example the

member just used. If Barb was born in 1940, that means she's 63 years old today.

Today, with an income of $31,000, she would be facing an annual maximum ceiling

of $2,000 a year. Under the new Fair Pharmacare program that takes effect on May

1, her annual ceiling will come down to $600 a year.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that the minister actually didn't answer the question. The minister

did not answer the question. The question to the minister was….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

My earlier question to the minister was: what can she anticipate paying per year

for her medicine once she turns 65? Barb's deductible will increase to $1,200 a

year under the new Liberal scheme. Based upon the government's own data, Barb,

as an average senior, can anticipate somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900 a

year for prescriptions once she turns 65. That means this Liberal government

just kicked Barb off Pharmacare, but it won't be until…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…the end of 2005 that Barb bears the full impact of this new policy. It

happens to be election year. Can the minister please tell us how important the

fixed election date was in determining the implementation of this new policy?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, it wasn't a factor at all.

What this

new Fair Pharmacare program says is that seniors who are already locked into

fixed incomes, seniors that have planned their retirement based on knowledge of

what the Pharmacare program in place is, can be reassured that low- and

middle-income seniors will either remain the same or the vast majority of those

low- and middle-income seniors will in fact see their costs come down under this

new plan.

Unlike the

previous government, which couldn't plan even a month ahead, never mind a year

ahead in terms of planning for the future, this government is positioning our

health care plans so that they are sustainable as the baby-boom generation

starts to reach retirement years. Quite frankly, as that member knows and as

everybody knows, the current health care system will be under serious strain in

the future with the growing number of seniors that are coming into the system.

We're structuring something that is fair, that can be anticipated, that older

British Columbians can plan for as they get into their senior years, and I'm

quite proud…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …of where this government is coming from in Fair Pharmacare.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

EXTENDED CARE SERVICES AT

MOUNT ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL

Suffredine: I'm from the heartland community of Nelson. In Nelson there is

great concern about the future of extended care at Mount St. Francis Hospital.

Existing providers are being allowed to submit proposals to replace care beds

first. My constituents are concerned that the private facility six miles out of

town will be given preferential treatment. Can the Minister of State for

Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care

[ Page 4982 ]

assure my constituents that preferential treatment will not be given to any

proposal?

Hon. K.

Whittred: To the member: I want to acknowledge how important this issue is

to his community and certainly that quality care is the number one priority not

only of the ministry but also of the community of Nelson. When facilities are

being upgraded, there are many qualities that are put in place. First of all,

all operators who submit proposals must have a history of quality care. We also

need to ensure that the process passes a fairness test so that private and

non-profit operators are in fact encouraged to submit proposals and to partner

with the health authority. Part of the insurance of that fairness is that

current operators are given first opportunity to submit proposals in new

developments.

RECALL LEGISLATION

MacPhail: The Minister of State for Deregulation was reported on the weekend

to have said that recall legislation in B.C. is unworkable. I remind the

Attorney General that his party campaigned on a promise to make it "easier

to hold your MLA accountable" as part of the new-era promise. Now that the

former non-partisan recall advocate, who has become the Minister of State for

Deregulation and who has perhaps more experience with this legislation than

anyone else in B.C., has come out against the current legislation, can the

Attorney General tell us when he will keep his promise and introduce amendments

to the Recall and Initiative Act to make it more accountable?

Hon. G.

Plant: The new-era commitment was to make recall and initiative workable. If

the member has some suggestions in that regard, I would, as always, be happy to

hear from her.

FEE INCREASES IN PARKS

B. Kerr:

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Last month the

minister announced her intention to raise and introduce new fees for B.C.

provincial parks. At the time she stated: "Nothing we're announcing changes

our system of full public control of our park, fish and wildlife recreation

services and full public ownership of B.C. parks." My question to the

minister is: how does she justify these fees and increases, and can she explain

to British Columbians how they can expect to benefit by paying more to visit

recreational sites around the province?

[1435]

Hon. J.

Murray: Our government grappled with a challenge. That challenge is that our

park system doubled in the last decade, but funding for parks had been declining

since the late 1980s. We really had two choices. We could continue to see

services deteriorate in our parks, or we could find another management and

funding model for parks, as well as fish and wildlife recreation. We chose that

second option. What I am very pleased to tell the public — and I've seen a

tremendous amount of support for it — is that, finally, fees for parks, fish

and wildlife are being dedicated to maintaining and improving those services.

That's something that people — user groups and the public — have asked for,

for many decades — that those fees go directly back into providing those

services. And that's what we're doing with this new model.

[End

of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

Hon. G.

Campbell: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement with regard to the

2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. In short, we're out to win that bid on July

On Saturday

the people of Vancouver gave a resounding "yes" to hosting the Winter

Olympic and Paralympic Games. That was a resounding…. It was a record-breaking

turnout: 134,000 Vancouverites attended the polls, and 64 percent supported the

bid for the 2010 Olympic Games.

I just want

to take a moment to congratulate all who participated in this activity. I want

to congratulate the communities of Whistler and Vancouver, the Squamish first

nation, the Lil Wat first nation and all of those who put their time, effort and

energy into bringing this bid together.

I can

report to you today that there was a nationwide poll that was released on

Sunday. Ninety-one percent of all Canadians who had an opinion on whether this

should be going forward voted yes for the Winter Olympics for Canada.

Over the

last number of weeks I have visited communities all over our province, from

Rossland to Trail, Revelstoke, Invermere and Cranbrook. I've been in Kamloops.

I've been in Fort St. John. We've been in Terrace, Smithers, Courtenay. All over

this province people are excited about the opportunities that the 2010 Olympic

Games present to them. Olympic live sites give special opportunities to

communities all over this province to make the Olympics their own.

We know as

we do this that our young athletes are excited about the future. They are

excited about working hard, dedicating themselves and disciplining themselves so

that they can stand on the number one position on the podium right here in the

province of British Columbia. This week the International Olympic Committee will

be visiting our province to go through the site to see what's taking place.

They'll be meeting with the Prime Minister, the mayors and the bid committee.

We are now

in the last stretch. On July 2 of this year the decision will be made in Prague

by the members of the International Olympic Committee as to whether or not we

are going to be given the honour of hosting the Olympics.

This is an

opportunity for all of us to strengthen our province. It's an opportunity for

all of us to show our

[ Page 4983 ]

pride in this great nation and our commitment to the Olympic spirit. This is

an opportunity for all of us to come together and do what British Columbia can

do best — think about the future of this province, think about the young

people of this province and think of what we can do when we work together.

As Mike

Leavitt pointed out to us when he visited in December from Utah, this is an

opportunity for all of us, in all walks of life, in all regions of this province

to come together to do something that will be a true legacy of excellence for

the future of the province of British Columbia.

[1440]

MacPhail: Yes, it was a very active, engaged city that we had on Saturday,

with conclusive results that are good for the Olympics, good for British

Columbia. It is true what the Premier says — that now is the time for us to

join together, because here's what happened in Vancouver when they had a say:

people became actively engaged. Things changed around the Olympic bid from the

time the COPE city council promised the plebiscite to when the plebiscite was

actually held. Things changed for the city. They got better and better and

better.

Here are

just a couple of things that happened while that plebiscite was being held: $10

million more for HIV/AIDS in Vancouver; hundreds of units of social housing

dedicated to Vancouver; a commitment — a commitment verbally, but one that's

being embraced by the IOC itself — to not rent-gouge during the Olympics.

That's great news for the city of Vancouver, and that's what happens when a city

gets actively engaged in an issue that touches their hearts.

Now is the

time for the Premier, in his role, and his caucus, who are responsible for the

entire province, to engage them on the same level, to get them involved in the

Olympics and to make sure the benefits that Vancouver has as a result of holding

that plebiscite go to all others in British Columbia. Wouldn't it be…?

Interjection.

MacPhail: God, they don't even like it when you agree with them. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker: Let's have order, please.

MacPhail: The Premier says it's hard to tell. I don't think it's that hard

to understand when people in the rest of British Columbia want to be actively

engaged the same way the city of Vancouver was and that the people in the rest

of the province want to understand what the Olympics mean for them.

colleague and I will be working on giving them that forum through the Public

Accounts Committee to allow the rest of British Columbia — the mayors, who may

have some concerns or have some issues — to come down to the Public Accounts

Committee, meet with the auditor general and meet with the bid committee, like

they have not yet been. What's good for Vancouver should be good for the rest of

the province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: auditor general

report No. 9, A Review of Government Oversight of Multi-Employer Public

Sector Pension Plans In British Columbia, and auditor general Service

Plan, 2003/04-2005/06 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call budget debate.

Mr.

Speaker: The budget debate will resume in a moment with the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour. The debate was adjourned by the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

Budget Debate

(continued)

McMahon: Continuing with my remarks of late Thursday last week before the

close of the day, I was discussing education, forestry, transportation, mining

and tourism, and acknowledging the hard-working, dedicated and resourceful

people who live in Columbia River–Revelstoke who have given me the privilege

of representing them as MLA.

I would

like to expand on my infrastructure comments that I made earlier. The long

overdue upgrading of the transportation network has been a priority of mine

since being elected to this House. Without a doubt, the biggest area of concern

in both Golden and Revelstoke, and actually through the whole riding, is the

safety of the Trans-Canada Highway from the west side of Revelstoke through the

Rogers Pass to the Alberta border. More specifically, I think that improvements

to all of the Trans-Canada Highway are in order. The stretch that I'm talking

about has been neglected for far too long.

[1445]

Since being

elected, we've worked hard to change that. At this time last year, I accompanied

the Minister of Transportation for a tour along the stretch of highway so the

minister could see firsthand the concerns shared by residents. In March last

year, I was fortunate to be part of a $10 million announcement for improvements

to the Victoria Road intersection on the Trans-Canada Highway in Revelstoke, as

well as the $50 million announcement for improvements to the Five Mile Bridge on

the Trans-Canada Highway just outside of Golden. These projects began this past

summer.

Now, with

more discussion around improvements to the Kicking Horse Canyon

section of the

highway, it is welcome news not only for the residents of British

[ Page 4984 ]

Columbia and for our visitors but for commercial transports who either enter

or leave B.C. via this important transportation corridor. In August of 2001, I

was confident that we would have lights in the tunnels in the Rogers Pass, a big

project which I'm happy to say is almost complete, since all but two have

lighting now. It has been approximately 40 years since the road was opened, and

it is with thanks that I acknowledge our Minister of Transportation for

listening. In doing so, I must also acknowledge the federal government for its

commitment to lighting their tunnels through Revelstoke and Glacier National

Parks. It is in this spirit of cooperation that I am confident that more

improvements will be announced soon.

I have

lobbied for transportation improvements for both the Trans-Canada Highway and

the Cranbrook Airport so that tourism industry stakeholders, such as Panorama

Mountain Village near Invermere, Resorts of the Canadian Rockies in both

Kimberley and Fernie, and Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in Golden would have the

ability to grow their businesses and encourage tourists to come and spend their

money in the region.

More

importantly, I've lobbied for improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway so that

lives can be saved on this very dangerous stretch of road. There have been

approximately 12 deaths a year between the Alberta border and Revelstoke, and

the cost is too high to ignore.

As I stated

previously, the needed expansion of our Cranbrook Airport is important to the

entire region as it would open the door for both business and tourists to

discover our region. The hard-working individuals involved in moving this

project forward should be commended. As my colleague from East Kootenay said

last week, the recognition that regional airports are economic engines is very

good news for rural B.C. and in particular the Kootenay region, which is looking

forward with great anticipation to the expansion of the Cranbrook Airport.

We have a

dedicated fuel tax to promote investment in transportation. This fuel tax will

end the debate over tolls on the inland ferries. Our government has listened and

has responded to ferry users, and we will continue to cooperate with users to

meet our transportation demands.

The forest

industry is the primary employer in my riding and has been through difficult

times. The importance of this industry throughout the province really cannot be

described in words. Forestry has supported families for generations, and we are

going to make sure it continues to be a strong supporter of our communities. As

government we plan to open up a revitalized forestry industry. We are going to

introduce legislation to create a working forest land base. We will pass forest

reforms to diversify tenure and move toward market-based stumpage that is

regionally sensitive and socially responsible. We will ensure there is more

timber available for innovative, smaller local operators through the B.C. timber

sales program and also for first nations. We want our forest workers to look to

their future with confidence and optimism.

We must

revitalize the industry. I'm told it will not be easy, nor will it be painless

or welcome by all, but it must be done. It cannot wait. As much as things have

changed over the years, and more noticeably over the past decade, many things

have stayed the same. Tourism is huge in my area of the province. It is critical

to the government's heartlands economic strategy. Over the next seven to eight

years the government wants to see our tourism industry more than double in size.

Think of the opportunities, and believe in the challenge.

I was

pleased to see the positive vote for the 2010 Winter Olympics on Saturday. We

have tremendous opportunities to give the Kootenays the tourism exposure it

deserves. Two billion people watched the opening and closing ceremonies of the

Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. It's impossible to buy that type of exposure for

British Columbia, and I know that the 2010 Olympics provides tremendous

opportunity to let the world know what we have to offer in the Kootenays.

B.C. parks

will play a big role in tourism opportunities. The final report of the

independent stewardship recreation panel was recently released and recognizes

that parks need to serve their visitors. To do this, there will be a user fee.

As we expect more amenities in our parks, there is a price attached. The money

we collect from users will go back into the parks. We have some of the best

places in the world to recreate. I have spoken with tourism operators who do not

think the higher camping fees will keep tourists away; nor do they think the

increase in licensing fees for anglers or hunters will deter participants. They

are willing to pay their fair share. What has been done through this

recreational model is put parks, fish and wildlife recreation on a sound

financial footing. We have a great product to sell, and through fees we will

protect and enhance what we have to offer.

[1450]

Health care

continues to be the central focus of this government. As we recognize and focus

our efforts on the need for a healthy economy, we must also recognize that

without one, there are many, many opportunities we may miss as we struggle to

provide necessary services within a limited framework. The East Kootenay has

seen significant changes in the way health care is delivered. Many people are

angry, and many people are concerned. Everyone recognizes that we need

sustainable health care now and in the future. The question I am asked most

frequently is: how? How do we provide sustainable health care?

The

interior health authority was given responsibility for managing health care in

our region last April. They have been busy implementing changes to provide

services within their budget. Unfortunately, many people do not understand why

the changes are necessary and how they will create a sustainable health care

system that will be there for the long term. We still have a lot of work to do,

and part of our job is to get our message out.

We are

moving forward in British Columbia, and this budget proves it. We have

implemented change,

[ Page 4985 ]

and change is never easy. The past 18 months have been both challenging and

exciting for all members of this government. This budget shows we are on track.

Our projected deficit is now $600 million lower than forecast. We have more

resources for students. We will have better transportation infrastructure and a

revitalized forest industry in a stronger and more competitive economy. It's

good news, and I'm proud to be part of the process.

J. Kwan:

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is the riding that I represent.

I rise

today to engage in the budget debate. It is interesting — what I've heard

today so far and over the last week. The MLAs in this Legislature have risen up

— the government MLAs, that is…. Liberal member after Liberal member has

stood on their feet and paid homage to a budget that raises taxes on their

constituents and continues to cut their services. If the Liberals actually ran

on such a platform, you can be sure that there would be a lot fewer of them in

this House to defend this budget. In fact, there was one person who ran on such

a platform, and that was Daniel Lee. He ran in my colleague's riding,

Vancouver-Hastings — the Leader of the Opposition. Guess what. He didn't get

elected. He's not here today.

Can you

imagine? Gordon Campbell and his B.C. Liberal team will raise your taxes and cut

your services. They might have been laughed at, but at least they would have

been honest. That's exactly what this budget does: $600 million in new taxes in

the next two years.

What are

these taxes? From the budget book: the gas tax; the Tobacco Tax Act; school

property taxes, both in the urban centres as well as the rural communities,

where the school property tax in the rural community is under the rural area tax

act; and insurance premiums. In fact, when you go and buy insurance for your

property, as one example, you'll find that tax has gone up. It will be going up

effective January 1, 2004.

[1455]

Those are

the things that we have not heard in this House from any Liberal MLA from the

government side. Of course, that's on top of sales tax increases last year, the

MSP premium increases, tuition fee increases, ICBC increases and Hydro increases

— just to name a few. For all those new taxes and fees, the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection just said: "Hooray, we increased fees for park and

recreational services." You've got to ask the question, and I think most

British Columbians are wondering: what do we get in return? Actually, nothing

— less than nothing. What they get are cuts — $90 million worth of cuts to

Pharmacare. That was just announced today.

If you were

a person born in 1940 who turns into a senior in 2005, your Pharmacare costs

would increase by $1,200. You will no longer pay what was, under the NDP

government, $200 worth of deductible, which has subsequently been increased by

the Liberal government to $275. Under this new scheme, you would pay over $1,000

for your Pharmacare coverage. That is the reality.

A $250

million cut to the income assistance budget. Little wonder the Deputy Minister

of Human Resources, it was reported in the paper today, got a $16,000 bonus for

cutting people off income assistance. I would venture to say, based on the

experience I have had in my own constituency office, that it's irrespective of

need. People who need support from the government cannot get it, because the

rules have changed.

The

government has the audacity to come into this House with the MLAs thumping their

desks, cheering and saying that 55,000 people are off income assistance. I

hesitate to ask this question, because it appears to me that nobody cares how

many people got cut off income assistance, not because they don't need it, but

because they can't access it. I can't tell you how many people have come into my

office with that scenario — people who are single parents, people who are

struggling on a day-by-day basis and could not get that minuscule support from

the government. Yet the government will say: "We will give a bonus of

$16,000," — that's almost two income assistance recipients' income for

one year for a single person — "to the deputy minister because people got

cut off of income assistance." Shocking.

Then, in

the public school system, you wonder what's going on there; $13 million got cut

from the public education system. That's the public school system. These are

programs that provide for, I would argue, much-needed dollars in the classroom

— whether it be ESL programs; whether it be teacher assistants for children

who are faced with challenges; whether it be teacher-librarians whose hours have

been cut back, and therefore access to school libraries is reduced; whether it

be just janitorial support in making sure that the school environment is clean;

whether it be making sure that the size of the classroom is manageable because

of the mixture and the diversity of the students, the range of students, that

now appears in our classes.

[1500]

Inner-city

schools, which get school-based funding.… Guess what. The budget will be cut

by some $6 million or $7 million. What do those programs provide? They provide

anti-bullying programs. They provide assistance for parents who are challenged

— ESL parents — to get involved in the school system for their children. It

provides hot meal programs, lunch and breakfast programs, for particularly

low-income families who often send their children to school without food. It

provides for assisting children who are highly marginalized to stay in the

school system, so that they have a better opportunity to graduate. Those are

just some of the programs — counselling programs for children. That budget is

being cut $6 million to $7 million.

On the

environmental side, what have we got? Well, with the Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection, the environmental stewardship program is being cut — over $5

million. The park, fish and wildlife recreational program is being cut — some

$6.7 million.

[ Page 4986 ]

Child

protection — $12.5 million is being cut. Services for victims of crime —

$5.8 million. Programs for women — there are significant cuts in programs for

women's services, over $3 million.

It's a

strange combination: huge tax increases and then huge service cuts. The Liberal

MLAs who've spoken in this House are saying: "That is just excellent."

They're thumping their desks, they're clapping, and they're getting up to say:

"This is the best budget we have ever had. How can we not clap?"

[Applause.]

My very

case in point, Mr. Speaker. Tax increases and service cuts, and the Liberal MLA

backbenchers are happy: "Hurray for those British Columbians who have to

take more money out of their pockets to buy the services that they formerly had

available to them." That makes them happy. That makes them clap. That makes

them say, "That is a good job," in terms of what the government is

doing.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Of course,

this is not a very good explanation for the sad state of affairs. The middle

class and the poor are being asked to shoulder a greater tax burden to pay for

huge high-income and corporate tax cuts that the Premier gave away in the first

hours of his mandate. Thanks to the Premier's foresight, British Columbians are

paying more for less in order to give more to British Columbians who already

have the most.

It's the

kind of logic that is working so well in the United States under President Bush,

where budget surpluses have been turned into huge deficits, where unemployment

is on the rise and where the promised economic boom never seems to materialize.

Sound familiar? It's good, old-fashioned, right-wing supply-side economics. The

effect is always the same: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the

middle-class income gets squeezed trying to pay for it all.

In this

budget and the one that preceded it, all the Liberals have done is transfer a

huge amount of wealth out of the hands of the many into the hands of a few. In

so doing, they're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy and

taking away hope for a solid economic recovery.

Of course,

the basic facts about who wins and who loses with this budget never cross the

lips of the Liberal MLAs, who stand on their feet day after day and drone on.

No, they want to put a much kinder and gentler spin on the budget, a

compassionate spin on their neoconservative cuts. One of them even had the gall

to stand in this chamber and invoke the just society. Although I didn't hear his

whole speech, a tortured defence of this budget it must have been. Invoking the

just society to defend this budget is a tactic that Orwell would have understood

well.

It's just

the kind of newspeak approach that the Liberals are mastering. Only those well

versed in the art of doublethink could claim, without fear of contradiction,

that a $6 million cut to inner-city schools will actually help poor kids. It

will help them learn somehow. Pitting school district against school district to

fight for reduced funding in that envelope of critical money will somehow be a

good thing. That's what the Liberal MLAs would have you believe. That's what the

Minister of State for Early Childhood Development would have you believe.

[1505]

Only those

who spend too much time reading Liberal press releases would herald an increase

to the education budget when, in fact, it's being cut this year. Only those for

whom politics is a cynical exercise would patronize poor people by saying that,

in the end, they're better off without any help at all. Only those for whom spin

matters more than reality would defend a budget that pours millions of dollars

into the Premier's advertising budget when everyone else is experiencing pain.

Just

imagine this for one moment. The budget book actually increases what is known as

the public affairs bureau — the Premier's communications shop, spin-doctoring

shop, advertising shop — by $7 million. Quite incidentally, that $7 million,

if transferred to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, would

actually provide for the funding for inner-city school kids so that you don't

have to pit school district against school district to fight for that fund.

Yes, the

storyline the Liberals have constructed to defend their budget is well written.

I'm sure some of the best communication hands money could buy edited the copy,

but it's still a piece of fiction. There is no mention of the surplus budget

that they inherited and squandered with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. There

is no recognition of the fact that the 6.8 percent unemployment rate that was

left to them, under the new Liberal government's brilliant leadership has risen

to above 8 percent. There is no acknowledgment that the GDP growth in the last

full year of the previous administration exceeds anything they have been able to

achieve. There is no mention of the fact that when they took over, most families

in B.C. already paid the second- or third-lowest taxes in the country. And of

course, there is complete silence on whether high-income tax cuts pay for

themselves.

Yes, this

government has a story to tell. It has handed itself millions of extra taxpayer

dollars to make sure it's told just right, with all half-truths, failures and

mistakes taken out, and it is sticking to that story no matter what the facts

are. It might be a bit amusing to watch, but it is having serious consequences

for people's lives. I see the effects every day in my constituency — in the

story of a young mother who had to quit school at Vancouver Community College

because she could not afford skyrocketing tuition fees; in the faces of the

homeless, exhausted and beaten down by a government that seems intent on making

their hard lives even harder; and in the pain and humiliation of a father's

voice who can't find a job and has to walk miles to the food bank to feed his

two children.

Of course,

I'm not blaming the government for poverty — it existed when the NDP was in

power — but I am blaming this Liberal government for thinking that the best

way to fight poverty is to make it a bit

[ Page 4987 ]

more severe for people to get help. It speaks to our worst instincts. It

dehumanizes and it marginalizes even further. It's creating a have and a

have-not society, a society where economic opportunity is in the hands of the

few, where one's life chance is determined by one's condition at birth and where

some are more equal than others. It's a narrow, ideological approach that strays

from the core values of compassion, tolerance and social solidarity that are

central to our province's self-identity.

If it

continues, I fear it's an approach that will end up destroying our shared sense

of the collective good which, together with individual ambition and

entrepreneurial spirit, has built B.C.; a sense of shared belonging, shared

responsibility to others that has given rise to so many things that we cherish

and without which we would not recognize our province — medicare, public

education, our social safety net, public power, public auto insurance, the B.C.

family bonus and so many other collective enterprises that we take for granted

but that are being chipped away at by this Liberal government.

[1510]

B.C. is

more than just close to four million people sharing the same chunk of land. It's

an idea; it's a responsibility. It's a covenant among those that are living and

those that will come after us.

This budget

— driven as it is by a simplistic, narrow, right-wing ideology and prescribing

it as a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the few — does not

measure up to the greatest of our aspirations and does not provide the vision we

need to enter this new century. It only takes us further down a path towards

division, uncertainty and social exclusion, to a society where the schism

between those at the bottom and at the top is unbridgeable; where opportunity is

the preserve of the privileged few; and where the abstract rights of equal

citizenship are given no practical expression or meaningful application in the

way we choose to divide up the pie.

Budget 2003

hurts the middle class and the poor. It hurts the people I represent in this

Legislature: the riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. By taking away

opportunity and wealth from the many and putting it into the hands of the few,

it hurts our economic recovery. By widening the equality gap, it diminishes our

shared sense of citizenship and belonging. As my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings has said before me, this budget is not a recipe for recovery.

It's a blueprint for a less compassionate, more unequal and ultimately less

prosperous British Columbia.

I want to

just touch on, for a moment, my own personal experience being an immigrant. My

family and I immigrated here in 1975, a family of eight — not a wealthy family

by any stretch of the imagination. We managed to struggle through in the early

years when my mother, for the first time, went out into the workforce and earned

$10 a day as a farmworker, while my father went to community college to learn

substandard housing, a 700-square-foot basement suite for a family of eight, but

we managed.

The reason

we came here, I want to say, is this. Above all else, my parents valued two

things that make us uniquely Canadian: our public education system and our

public health care system. They wanted their children to have a better

opportunity than they did. My mother has a grade 6 education. My father has a

grade 11 education. Above all else, they wanted their children to have a

post-secondary education and an opportunity for life, to improve their lives —

to not be labourers, as they have been over the years, and to not be

minimum-wage earners, as they have been. Now they're retired. They wanted, above

all else, for the children to have an opportunity. They knew that education was

central to that. They could not provide for that in Hong Kong, where I was born,

because the private system dominated. Access to education would only be allowed

or be available to those who could afford to pay for it. With six kids, with an

average family, they could not afford to pay those kinds of tuition fees. So

they came here.

They also

wanted to make sure — as I think we from all cultures believe in…. Without

your health, you've got nothing. The one thing you depend on more than anything

else is — good grief, should you be ill or be sick — that you would actually

have access to a health care system that will provide for you even if you didn't

have a whole lot of money, that you would be able to get medication. Those were

the things that they treasured above all else, anything else, and that's why

they made the hard move to come here.

[1515]

You know

what, Mr. Speaker? Bit by bit those things are being eroded, as we see before

our very own eyes and I see it before my own eyes. I see that tuition fees are

going up. I see that in the K-to-12 system, the public education system, the

budget is being reduced by $13 million. At the same time, independent schools'

budgets — those are the private schools — are being increased. By how much,

you may ask? By $10,000 this year. That's in addition to what was increased last

year in the independent school system.

With the

cuts for the public education system, there is an increase in addition to what

was already decreased last year. Never mind post-secondary education. Never mind

an increase in tuitions — 30 percent last year, 30 percent again this year and

some even higher than that, depending on what kind of program you're involved

with. Never mind the post-secondary education system. Even in the K-to-12 public

education system, it is becoming hard on families.

I just met

with parents from my community — PACs, parent advisory committees — and they

told me they made a list of things that they have to pay more into now. Every

little fee counts and is adding up. It's hundreds of dollars that people have to

pay, which they cannot afford. Nonetheless, if they want their children to have

an education, they have to somehow find a way to do it. That's within the public

education system.

I met with

principals, people who are trying to figure out how to meet the demands of their

students, to

[ Page 4988 ]

ensure the best educational system for the children in their own schools and

to make ends meet. They are sitting there telling me it's nearly impossible, if

not impossible. Some of them are people who have been in the system for so long,

who believe so much in making the classroom a little bit better to enhance the

educational opportunities for all children. They are saying: "Boy, I never

thought I'd think this, but I'm looking forward to retirement because I cannot

make this system work for the children." This is just a couple of weeks ago

when I met with them, and that is what they told me.

People are

struggling, and they're out there trying to do the best they can. You know what?

The sad

part is that the government is not there to help them. They're not there

to help the people who need it the most, in spite of what the Liberals

campaigned on during their new-era campaign, in spite of the fact that they said

they will prioritize the people who have the greatest needs and who are most

marginalized. Instead, they've abandoned them in a way that, quite frankly,

shows no compassion at all.

I want to

talk about health care changes, MSP premium increases and people who have had

services delisted, whether it be diabetes — people who have diabetes now have

to buy their own strips — whether it be eye care or whether it be a range of

services that people depend on. Those services were cut last year, and further

cuts are being made this year — Pharmacare cuts to the tune of $90 million.

Make no

mistake about it. It has to come from somewhere, and it's the patients and the

families who will get hurt. I've already used one example earlier. If somebody

turns 65 in the year 2005, the increase for Pharmacare is somewhere in the

amount of $1,200.

Those are

just a few examples. Actually, last week, as I was listening to some of the

debate from members in the House, I sat in front of the computer and tabulated

the changes in terms of funding cuts from the year 2002-03 to '03-04 to see what

the differences are. This is not even an exhaustive list of all the cuts of

almost a billion dollars — not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the

imagination. I only sat down and made some notes on what some of the changes are

with some of the ministries. I found over a billion dollars' worth of cuts.

[1520]

It's not

only the ministries either — and I mentioned a couple of them earlier — but

also with what we call the watchdogs, the people who watch what this government

is doing and who attempt, of course, to hold them accountable. It's people like

the auditor general. There are cuts in the auditor general's office, cuts in the

information and privacy commissioner's office, cuts in the ombudsman's office,

cuts in the police complaint commissioner's office. That's what's in this budget

brought in to this House, which no MLA from the government side has mentioned.

Not one of them has talked about what is really in the budget book, what is

really in the estimates in a ministry-by-ministry breakdown. If you sat down and

worked through those numbers, you would find how great the impacts are. Of

course, I just want to caution that this is not in addition to what was already

cut last year. We have to add up all of those numbers so that the cumulative

number becomes clear, and the picture becomes clear. That is the truth of Budget

2003-04.

For all

those MLAs who are sitting there praising the government for what a great job

they have done with this budget, I ask them to actually look in the budget book

and see what the cuts and the real impacts are for their own constituents. I

challenge every one of them to rise up in this House and tell their Premier and

their ministers the real story of how it is impacting their communities —

those who cannot get the services they need and who depend on the government for

that kind of support — and how, quite frankly, no matter how the government

dresses it up, it isn't compassion. It isn't.

Humanity

does not mean just walking by, watching someone who does not have food on the

table, who does not have housing or a roof over their head, and saying:

"I'm sorry, our policy is that you can have access to services if you can

pay, and you cannot have access to services if you cannot pay." That is not

choice. That's not what I believe British Columbians believe in. That's not what

I believe British Columbia Canadians believe in.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the 2003

provincial budget. I have to tell you, I'm proud to be a member of a government

that has the courage to lay out a plan and stick to it. The challenges we were

presented with when we were elected were formidable. I want to tell you, I was

out in Abbotsford on Friday night, and dozens of people came up to me and said:

"You guys are on the right track. Stay the course. Tell your Premier and

your Finance minister that you guys are all doing a great job."

I was in

Courtenay on Saturday night — same thing. People came up to me. They're

excited. They know that we're on the right track.

An Hon.

Member: Courtenay's a good community.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's the best community.

Ten years

of mismanagement have left British Columbia with one of the worst economies in

the country. I don't think any British Columbian is happy with the fact that we

are a have-not province. I don't think anybody who lives here would dream that

would happen. Only after ten years of mismanagement by the NDP has that

happened.

We were

given an overwhelming mandate to change that, and we are delivering. With the

2003 budget, we're beginning to see the benefits of our fiscal discipline. For

the first time in more than a half century, every cabinet minister has been able

to come in on or under their operating budget. For myself, that means the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management kept its spending at $117 million,

and the Minis-

[ Page 4989 ]

try of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries also met its budget of $64 million.

I told you

that we're starting to see the benefits of such fiscal discipline. Now let me

highlight some of the specific things we've been able to do. British Columbia

now has the lowest personal income tax rate in the country on the first $60,000

of income. Our business taxes are competitive, and our economy grew at three

times the rate many economists had predicted. Our deficit is a full $600 million

lower than planned, and we're on track to bring in a surplus budget of $50

million by the third full year of our fiscal plan.

Restoring

sound financial management has meant that we've been able to refocus tax dollars

in the areas where they're needed most — for patients, students and people in

need. We've been able to increase health care funding by more than $1.1 billion.

Education funding has been protected, and per-student funding will rise by $127

per student.

[1525]

Let me talk

a little bit more about the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. As I

already mentioned, we were able to bring our spending in on budget at $64

million. Next year we'll bring in a budget of $49 million, and by 2004-05 we'll

be on target for a budget of $45 million. The bulk of the reductions over the

coming year — $9 million — comes from the removal of the Okanagan Valley

Tree Fruit Authority grant. That money is still being paid, but it's coming out

of contingencies and does not show on the MAFF budget.

The other

reductions will come as no surprise. That's the beauty of a government that lays

out a three-year plan and sticks with it. As my colleague told this House last

year, six district offices were to be closed by March 31 of this year. Those

included Courtenay, Creston, Dawson Creek, Vanderhoof, Sidney and Smithers. Much

of that work has already taken place, and the long-planned closures result in

more than $1 million in savings.

Other

savings already announced include almost $3 million for a reduction of the whole-farm insurance program and close to a million dollars for the crop insurance

subsidy. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is now able to focus on

its vision of a competitive and profitable industry providing safe, high-quality

food for consumers and export markets.

Our focus

is on six key areas. Industry competitiveness. We want to see an agriculture,

fisheries and aquaculture, and food sector that is competitive in a global

economy while providing economic benefit and stability to British Columbia's

rural and coastal communities. We can do that by taking on an advocacy role to

ensure that B.C.'s farm and fisheries interests are considered in government

programs, services, regulations, international and interprovincial trade,

negotiations and a fair share of federal funding.

Another

core business area is fisheries and aquaculture management. Our goal is to see

an optimum economic benefit to B.C. from fisheries and aquaculture while

protecting the environment. We're already on that path, and we have one of the

most comprehensive regulatory regimes in the world for our aquaculture industry.

There is tremendous opportunity here with first nations on the coast

particularly. We now have six agreements signed between first nations bands and

industry, and we have another two ready to go.

Food safety

and quality is another core business area of the ministry. Quite simply, we want

a food system that provides consumers and customers with greater confidence in

the safety and quality of B.C. food, agriculture and seafood products while

protecting the provincial economy from risks. The remainder of our core business

areas includes environmental sustainability and resource development, risk

management, and executive and support services.

I want to

talk a bit about the B.C. heartlands economic strategy. Our Premier recently

outlined our government's new economic strategy for the heartlands and how it

will open up new opportunities for economic growth throughout our entire

province. Turning now to my other portfolio, I can tell you that the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management can facilitate much of that economic development

through our ongoing land use planning. Whether it's in Lillooet, the central

coast, the Rocky Mountains, the north coast or Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii,

we're striving to come up with land use plans that strike the right balance

between economic, social and environmental concerns. The Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management will help to diversify the economic base of the heartlands,

and look for innovative ways to add value to natural resources, by exploring new

economic opportunities like wilderness-based tourism and others.

Reduced

conflict, more clearly defined areas and overall certainty on the land base are

all essential for economic development and supporting the goals of the B.C.

heartlands economic strategy. The sustainability principles currently being

developed will also play an important role in the B.C. heartlands economic

strategy. They do that by improving public and investor confidence in resource

development activities that are crucial to the well-being of our heartland

communities. They will help lead to greater and more secure access to

international markets to sell resources developed in British Columbia's

heartlands.

[1530]

Let's take

a look at the ministry in a little more detail. Spending for the fiscal year

just ending was on budget at $117 million. That would be held to $92 million

next year. Some of that reduction reflects a transfer to Land and Water B.C. for

the administration and licensing of Crown water resources. That means water and

Crown land allocations are now fully integrated into Land and Water B.C. Land

and Water B.C. funds the water management program directly from water revenues.

Another

part of our budget reduction came when we transferred the capital and operating

budgets for park and ecological reserve acquisitions to the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection. We're working hard to realize our ministry vision of a

vibrant economy

[ Page 4990 ]

supporting the social and environmental values of British Columbians. We do

that by focusing on four broad points: sustainable economic development of land

and resources; effective delivery of integrated, science-based land resource and

geographic information; sound governance of land and resource management; and

organizational excellence.

There will

be a number of strategies to support these goals. Among them are developing a

sustainable resource management framework for working forests, protected areas,

mining, and oil and gas development through application of sustainability

principles; establishing landscape objectives to increase access to timber while

maintaining biodiversity; and expediting resource-based tourism opportunities in

rural British Columbia by coordinating activities in Land and Water B.C., the

Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and Tourism

B.C. Also, we want to support mining and oil and gas development in the

Muskwa-Kechika and other land use plans.

Land and

Water B.C. also plays a key role in providing the basis for economic development

throughout British Columbia. It's managed to eliminate the backlog and delay in

Crown land and water applications. The application process has been redesigned

and simplified to achieve a 50 percent reduction in processing time. The Crown

corporation is providing faster decisions and greater access to Crown land and

water resources to protect and create jobs. Ninety percent of new land

applications are processed within 140 days or less. Since June of 2001 more than

1,700 non-power water licence applications have been processed, and 51 power

licence applications have been processed. Land and Water B.C. is creating growth

in a sustainable, balanced manner. In that same time period, they have attracted

$72 million in capital investment, and they're optimizing the financial return

to the province, providing a $45 million dividend to government in fiscal 2002.

Working

forest. Under the direction of our Premier, our government is setting aside $275

million to assist in the transition to a revitalized and sustainable forest

sector. Despite the challenges of that industry, and they've been formidable —

the softwood lumber dispute, a forest practices code that strangled the industry

with red tape and other misguided policies that saw close to 13,000 people lose

their jobs between 1997 and 2002 — it's still our number one industry. Our

government is taking bold steps to ensure that we have a leading-edge forest

industry once again. We've already brought in the new Forest and Range Practices

Act, or results-based code. It streamlines the old, bureaucratic Forest

Practices Code. We continue to work with the federal and U.S. governments and

B.C. industry to settle the softwood lumber dispute.

This

session, legislation will be introduced to create a working forest land base,

something our government committed to in its New Era document. The

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management has already unveiled a discussion

paper, and we're encouraging stakeholders and the public to respond by March 14

of this year so we can create the best public policy. The working forest is

about providing greater certainty for the forest industry, communities and all

other uses and values from the land — whether it's tourism, recreation,

mining, oil and gas initiatives, agriculture opportunities or ranching.

We believe

the land base can provide sustainable jobs for people who want to live and work

in their communities, and the working forest simply recognizes that fact. The

working forest is one step in helping rebuild forest-dependent communities,

along with a new results-based code, resolution of the softwood lumber dispute

and the first nations land claims. The goal of the working forest initiative is

to enhance land-based certainty for the forest sector, to improve the investment

climate and to balance with the needs of other sectors and the environment. This

means jobs, a variety of different jobs in a variety of different industries. It

means that we will have a working forest for working people. All of the existing

land use planning that's going on, efforts to secure treaties with first nations

where the province is obligated to consult with first nations and all current

parks, protected areas and private land are not impacted by the proposed working

forest designation.

[1535]

conclusion, let me sum up by recounting some of the highlights from the 2003

budget. Our government's fiscal plan is working. It's on track and ahead of

schedule. There is no doubt that we've had to make some tough decisions since

June of 2001. While it hasn't always been easy, we promised change, and British

Columbians are beginning to see the benefits of our strong fiscal discipline.

We're now able to free up more resources, to encourage further growth and

investment, and to continue putting patients, students and people in need first.

We need to recognize that these strategic investments and priority programs are

taking place within the context of the government's overall fiscal plan.

Make no

mistake. We are keeping the province on track for a balanced budget in '04-05.

We're doing our best to make the most of the scarce resources that are

available. We plan and budget to spend those dollars where they will do the most

good, to help people and to pave the way for the economic growth that pays for

everything government delivers.

Budget 2003

is a plan for prosperity that is prudent, responsible and focused on the future.

It meets our objectives and the mandate people elected us to deliver: revitalize

the economy, restore sound fiscal management, and put patients, students and

people in need first. After a decade of decline, British Columbia is truly on

its way to a new era of hope and prosperity.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's a pleasure indeed to stand today and speak about the budget and

the work that's been done by the members of this House in bringing in a budget

now that clearly shows that in respect to '04-05 and the financial affairs of

the province, the budget itself will be balanced.

[ Page 4991 ]

You know,

that's not done without a great deal of effort by many, many people. I heard the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talk in some respect to the members of

caucus about the fact that they perhaps are not participating. I think it's very

important that we understand clearly what is taking place in this House and how

it is that these budgets today are built, where they weren't constructed this

way in the past.

The Premier

of the province made it very clear that there was to be a very active role by

all members — not just the cabinet, but private members. There have been

structural changes to that. We have private members who now sit on a variety of

cabinet committees, which is something that's very unique in the British

parliamentary process. Indeed, several private members sit on Treasury Board.

It's Treasury Board, under the guidance of the Minister of Finance, that puts in

a fair amount of hours reviewing a number of these issues as the budget is

built. It is a good measure, indeed, that there are private members who are part

of that process.

Of course,

the government caucus committee is another vehicle which has been brought into

play in the workings of our government by the Premier of this province so as to

provide greater representation by private members into the policy direction.

These five committees have been set up in such a manner that all ministers go to

one of those five government caucus committees to present what it is they're

intending to do. Their service plans are under review. If there's legislation

being brought forward, it's first vetted through those government caucus

committees on the basis of policy, not the actual legislation itself.

I don't

think there's a private member in this House today that would tell you they've

got copious hours to sit around and do nothing. In fact, every private member

would find their workload is huge, and combined with that which needs looking

after in the affairs of their own constituents, this makes for a very sizable

workload.

The

important point to note is the leadership of the Premier of British Columbia. He

said he would revamp things. He's done that. He said we would bring free votes

to the Legislature as well. We did that.

[1540]

In fact, a

year ago I had to bring in a piece of legislation. It was with that piece of

legislation, in January of last year, that the real test of how free the free

votes were going to be in regard to this House was met. We had several private

members that stood and spoke against different sections of that legislation. It

was a very serious piece of legislation, Bill 29. Then, in fact, some of them

voted against sections, and one member voted against the entire bill.

All of

those members are still very active and involved in the affairs of caucus, in

the government caucus committees that they sit in. Some, indeed, are part of

cabinet committees of which they are private members. There's been a major

transformation. I think the people of British Columbia ought to know that it's

because of the leadership of the Premier and the understanding that once again

we need to make this session, this Legislative Assembly, work in a manner that

it was meant to. We here in British Columbia are leading the Commonwealth in

that respect.

In regards

to the other legislatures across Canada, they have nowhere near the type of

involvement of private members as we do; nor do they have the freedom to speak

and debate in the same way that we do in this Legislative Assembly. People will

say to me: "Yes, but that's easy, because there are 77 of you and only two

of the other guys." Well, that may be the case, as it is today. Hopefully,

in the future it may be 79 to zero. Given the fact that the electorate have

their own way of judging as to what the turnout is going to be in the House, the

steps that we take now are very important in re-establishing what this

Legislative Assembly was meant to be: a house of debate. By virtue of the steps

that are being taken today and the debate that's been had, we're building in

conventions that I think future governments, regardless of what the numbers may

be in the House, will hold to. We'll see that the assembly itself becomes more

effective and reflects, really, what it was meant to be.

A very good

friend of mine who sat in this House for a number of years was one that espoused

much of this. Cyril Shelford was his name. He was a member from up north. Cyril

died several years ago — a gentleman that I have great admiration and respect

for as one that truly believed in the parliamentary process and the aspect of

how debate should take place; an individual who understood the rights and the

necessity for a clear and unfettered debate in the House and in bringing issues

to the House.

He wrote

several books. I have one here that he wrote. It was his first one: From

Snowshoes to Politics , by Cyril Shelford. It is, as he claims, a British

Columbia adventure. When you read this book, it is in fact a British Columbia

adventure. For other private members or other members who haven't read his book,

it's interesting to note what he and others during that era had to go through to

represent the taxpayers of British Columbia and their own constituents in this

riding. Literally walking on snowshoes, as some of my friends from the north

would know, to get out to the main road so he could get a car, so he could get

to a big city, or bigger city, so he could find a bus. As he recalls, his first

trek from home to Victoria took six days — six days to get here so that he

could take

part in the debate in representing his constituents.

I'd just

like to read the overflap of his book here, because it does sum up much about

Cyril Shelford and those who have gone before us in this House and what I think

we all strive to emulate and to represent, regardless of party.

"He

was renowned for his honesty and integrity, and he was known as the maverick of

the north. Cyril Shelford served as MLA from 1952" — a good year, 1952;

that was the year I was born, actually —"to 1972, and from 1975 to 1979.

He was Minister of Agriculture from 1968 to '72, and also then from '78 to '79.

During his political career, he also ran his ranch. He was a big-game hunting

guide. Whether he was shooting grizzly bears in the wilderness, fighting it out

with big-name lawyers

[ Page 4992 ]

during the gas inquiry or, as Cyril could do, sharing a joke with

Queen Elizabeth, Cyril Shelford saw life as an adventure, and he lived it to the

fullest."

[1545]

Each one of

us should reflect back, if we have a moment, on individuals such as Cyril that

have gone before us, the honour that it is to serve in this House and the

reputation that we have to live up to when we think of individuals like Cyril

Shelford. I know that Cyril would be proud of the changes that have been made to

this Legislative Assembly in the issue of how it runs and works, and how it was

meant to run and work, and would be there cheering us on and encouraging all of

us — be it members of cabinet and, more specifically, private members — to

rise and speak, as our private members are today, in support or against, or in

debate or in support of the people of the province on those issues that affect

each of them in their own constituencies and, in a larger way, the people of

British Columbia.

This

budget, as I mentioned, is a compilation of many, many hours and the leadership

of the Minister of Finance and the plan that was first put together last year.

In fact, when we present budgets today here in Victoria, it's not as it was in

the past. It's not just a one-year budget. It's a three-year revolving budget.

The transparency acts so all can see the factual listing of the numbers that

have been put there and how they forecast out.

We can no

longer have the manner in which governments in the past could put an expenditure

in a budget and not forecast out how all the revenues were going to be there to

look after those expenditures. We now have to very clearly show, if we're

embarking upon a road program as was announced just recently, how those

improvements — whether it's Kicking Horse Pass, the Sea to Sky Highway or one

of the many other rural and northern road projects that have to be

undertaken…. We then have to show how it is that we're going to pay for those

particular projects. We're doing that. That presents for the people of the

province a much better view as to the budgeting process that takes place, those

expenditures that are coming in line and those revenues which are going to

offset those expenditures as we move forward over the next three years.

In fact,

the budget that we brought in this year was the one that's three years out. We

brought down last year's budget with three years to it. This year we've added

that additional year. What's so very, very important about this budget is that

we said as a government it was very important to get our financial house in

order. Expenditures were out of hand. The former NDP administration had spent

literally millions-cum-billions of dollars in such a reckless manner that it put

this province into have-not status, as my colleague from the Comox Valley said

earlier — not something that makes us proud.

British

Columbians are a proud people. They have not been in a have-not status ever

before. We intend, as a government, to work our way through so that we will in

fact again be not only a contributor to the national economy but a leader in the

national economy. It is shameful, indeed, that after the work — if you want to

call it that — of the former administration of the NDP government, we would

find ourselves in a have-not status.

This

assembly of government members has worked hard and diligently to present a

budget with three years rolling to it, so that we can see where we need to get

to and how we can go about getting there. We've worked so that you can see that

in the year '04-05, the budget in the province will be balanced. That is a great

undertaking from where we were first faced with the huge impacts of the former

administration.

The $500

million that was blown by the NDP government on building fast ferries isn't just

$500 million. That's half a billion dollars. It's not just that you can say:

"Well, there's half a billion gone, and too bad." In fact, that half a

billion dollars has gone out of the government source of revenues, providing

nothing to the people of the province. It was an experiment, a very ill-founded

experiment in building these ferries, but the problem is that we still need

those ferries.

We still

need ferries to run between the mainland and Vancouver Island — that great

area of land on Vancouver Island, my home, Cowichan-Ladysmith. We need good

ferry service, but that's gone. So we have to go, and we have to get the Ferry

Corporation reconstructed. Moneys have to be found. In addition to that half a

billion dollars that was blown by the former administration, those moneys have

to be found.

[1550]

I heard the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant going on about different adjustments that

were being made to the budget in British Columbia. Many of those adjustments

have to be made because of the fact that half a billion dollars was blown,

because it impacts all the way down through the budget. It was money just

completely lost. So then you have to go find other ways of regaining the

revenues to be able to do, first of all, what they were attempting to do, but

then you have to find additional revenues, as well, to look after many of the

social services that we enjoy in B.C.

I think

it's also extremely important to understand that our social benefits in the

province, as proud as we can be that they are literally the highest of any

jurisdiction in Canada…. The problem is that we have the worst-performing

economy of any other jurisdiction in Canada. Anybody who tries to balance their

own budget understands that you have to be able to balance off your expenditure,

or that which you would like to have, with the revenues that are coming in on

the other end. Unfortunately, the former administration didn't understand that.

We have the

task and the challenge of attempting to get the expenditure side of the budget

under control in such a fashion that we can still provide good services to the

people of British Columbia, but also understanding on the other side that we

need revenues to support that. You hear this thing about tax cuts and that,

within minutes of tax cuts, the economy would take off and rocket through the

stratosphere.

After ten

years of being hammered…. Look at what was hammered in that ten years; look at

the forestry

[ Page 4993 ]

sector. The forestry sector is the engine of the economy of the province, if

not a huge generator to the economy of Canada — absolutely thrashed by the

former administration. That's your revenue side. That's what makes the province

go. It was blown. The IWA used to have 10,000 more members — 10,000 more IWA

members — good, solid, union, well-paid jobs in B.C. They were the most

powerful and the strongest in the heyday of the Social Credit administration.

They were the weakest and have been broken by the former actions of the NDP

administration, the very party some of them thought actually represented the

little guy and, in fact, we found out has got nothing to do with the little guy

at all. They just thrashed the little guy.

Let me tell

you. The changes we're attempting to bring through the forestry sector, and the

work that Mike de Jong as Minister of Forests is undertaking, is in an effort to

again inject life into the forestry sector — to inject life into that forestry

industry so that all through the hinterlands, all through small-town British

Columbia, we can again have a strong and vibrant forestry sector that provides

jobs. In fact, I believe that you'll see the IWA become a strong union again in

the province because of good investment policies, because of good environmental

policies, because of good forest policy here in British Columbia.

Then, you

turn around and look at the other sector they thrashed — the former NDP

administration. Take the mining industry, a huge contributor to the economy of

the province — virtually cut in half. In those last ten years, were there new

mines being developed and opening in British Columbia? Absolutely not. In the

late years of the eighties, I think late '89-90, there would be about $250

million a year of exploration work done in developing the mining industry in

British Columbia. In the last year of the former NDP administration, how much

money was put into the exploration and mining in the province? Twenty million

dollars — from $250 million to $20 million.

What does

it take? It takes about ten years to do the prospecting and the work up to be

able to actually bring a mine on once the mineral deposit is found and then

developed and operating. It takes about ten years. Thrashed that. Guess what.

Every one of those mining jobs is good, solid, well-paying union jobs that were

absolutely thrashed and cut in half. What happened to our mining industry? Some

of the best miners in the world worked in the province, and now they come home

every couple of months because they're off in other countries in the world doing

that work.

[1555]

We need to

bring that industry home. We need to see, once again, that those strong revenue

producers are looked after and are working in a way that can foster economic

activity throughout all of British Columbia. We need to see that mining industry

and that forestry industry be the players that they were and they can be and

they will be.

There are

other changes that are extremely important and that this government has taken a

lead on. I can't say enough about the words that were written and spoken in the

throne speech relative to first nations and the inclusion — the attempt to

include — and also the issue of reconciliation that's so very, very important.

I think it would be important, as we talk about that and then talk about the

budget, to just read it again so that people fully understand what was said.

I would

like to quote the throne speech, if I may, in respect to this issue. It was

under the

section that talked about opening up recognition and reconciliation

with first nations. If I can quote the throne speech, it says:

"For

too long we have been stuck in a rut of our own making, talking past each other

and heading in opposite directions. There is no mileage in the status quo. To

make progress, we must all find a new path forward together. We must move beyond

the old approaches and flawed policies of the past. It is up to us to accord

first nations the respect, support and social and economic opportunities to

which they are entitled.

"Errors

have been made in the past. Our institutions have failed aboriginal

people across our province. Your government deeply regrets the mistakes that

were made by governments of every political stripe over the course of our

province's history. It regrets the tragic experiences visited upon first nations

through years of paternalistic policies that fostered inequity, intolerance,

isolation and indifference.

"Inadequate

education, health care and housing; rampant unemployment; alcoholism and

drug abuse; unconscionably high rates of physical and sexual abuse,

incarceration, infant mortality and suicide: these are the hallmarks of despair

that have disproportionately afflicted first nations families, on- and

off-reserve.

"These

are the legacies of history that we must act to erase. They are sad

reminders that it is always our children who pay the biggest price for society's

shortcomings. No words of regret can ever undo the damage that has been done to

first nations in all the years we have shared this land together. Nor are

governments solely responsible for all of the misfortunes endured by first

nations at the cruel hand of history.

"The

point of reflecting on the errors made is not to assign blame or bear

guilt for the actions of our forefathers. Rather, it is to assume today's

responsibility to heal the wounds that time has wrought. It is to offer our hand

in a new partnership of optimism and hope, as one people of many peoples, in

pursuit of common goals."

This

government has made it clear that as we build this province, as we go about

attempting to reinstil confidence in the forestry sector, in the mining

industry, as we go about bringing economic and social improvements throughout

the heartland of the province, incumbent upon us all as legislators here and as

the government itself is to bring these people in to be part of the fabric of

British Columbia.

[T.

Christensen in the chair.]

Two-thirds

of B.C.'s native Indian students did not complete high school. Those are

statistics from 1999 to 2000 — two-thirds. It's incredible. If that were the

case in the non-native community, we would be having a royal commission, a huge

inquiry in one form or another of what was wrong. Native Indians live seven

[ Page 4994 ]

years less on average than the non-native community. They are four times more

likely to commit suicide than other British Columbians — a statistic that is

absolutely incredible. It's unconscionable to think about.

[1600]

The

standard of living is 20 percent below the provincial average, so there are huge

undertakings for us as a government. As we work through many of the things

relative to the economic initiatives of the budget, so, too, must we work

through in regard to the social aspects and, in this particular instance

specifically, the lives of our native Indian brothers and sisters who live for

many of us as neighbours in our communities.

In fact, in

my home in Cowichan I have probably one of the largest groups of native Indians.

The Cowichan Indian band is one of the largest Indian bands in the province of

British Columbia. You could almost claim that there was a ten-foot wall that ran

down the main street in our community. It's not there, but if you look at the

interaction or lack of, it certainly is. We've got a long way to go, and it

isn't all about treaties and land claims. It's about seeing people for who they

are. It's about including those people within your lives.

I've had

the very good opportunity and good fortune to be able to have a mayors

committee. Our four mayors, the chairman of the regional district and also our

MP, along with the chiefs of the Indian bands in our area, gathered together for

just a chinwag — virtually, a discussion around the fireplace about what life

is generally and who we are individually as people. It was moving that

particular night to listen to some of the chiefs speak about their own personal

situations — several of them had been taken to residential schools — and

what that was like and what it meant to them in respect to their own family

life. One of the Indian chiefs mentioned how his family used to hide him so he

wouldn't be taken away.

This is not

good enough today. What we are faced with in regard to the social fabric of the

native Indians in the province of British Columbia is nothing short of a

national disgrace. I'm pleased to be part of a government and caucus that have

taken it upon themselves to move past just that which we talk about in land

treaties, land negotiations, and to move ahead in economic measures that can

help people, specifically the native Indian community. We're finding ways for

aboriginal involvement in oil and gas, tourism, forestry, and the fish and

agriculture industry. Also, with the good news of the vote on Saturday, there

will be a way for them to be specifically involved in the Olympic bid.

We're

finding initiatives in which we can have comanagement with our Indian brothers

and sisters in the management of parks and recreational services. We can find a

way that can greatly increase their employment within our economy. To the heart,

true initiatives in assisting in the protection of aboriginal children and their

families are something I have seen firsthand from the standpoint of young

children that have been in need of family support within the native community.

My daughter

has two native Indian foster children. You can tell so much the need for love

and affection and the work we need to do as a society in being able to make sure

that they have the strength within their own community, the broader community,

and that they are well looked after.

[1605]

There's

enhanced funding in this budget for post-secondary programs, early childhood

development, child care services and programs to promote aboriginal languages,

which is incredibly important as we build and try and work together in a spirit

of reconciliation. You can't move to land treaties and negotiations when you're

not on the same page. It's even more difficult when you're not even on the same

chapter. But it's doggone near impossible when you're not even in the same book.

We in society in British Columbia have got to understand that much of this is

more than the issue of land claims. It's a recognition of the fact that they,

too, are people who want to be part of the social and economic development of

this great province.

It's been a

pleasure for me to be able to speak today in respect of the budget. I think

there's tremendous opportunity here for all peoples. With the work that's been

done by the government in setting this province once again on track, we will see

those benefits starting to come down. We're already seeing those benefits.

When one

looks at the confidence that's there in home construction, home renovation and

car sales, I think those are extremely important indicators. This isn't some

foreign investment, if you like, which we would love to see coming into the

province. This isn't some huge corporation, perhaps B.C.-grown, that's

reinvesting in the province. These are men and women, citizens of British

Columbia, who have enough confidence in the future of this great province that

they're prepared to go about and start building or rebuilding their houses. You

don't go add on the carport, rejuvenate the kitchen or build a new bedroom if

you're not feeling that there's confidence there.

You can see

the housing industry starting to take off. In my particular community — if you

look at it as a percentage, a small percentage — it's a huge increase that's

taking place. Is it what it was back in the late eighties with housing

construction? No, it isn't, but are we going in the right direction? We

certainly are going in the right direction, and all I can say is that for the

next few years British Columbia is indeed going to once again be a powerhouse to

the national economy of Canada.

Roddick: The reason that we in the British Columbia government caucus are

all speaking so positively and enthusiastically is this: we believe British

Columbians are better off and have a brighter future than before we were

elected. Cuts to taxes, less red tape, fewer regulations and better fiscal

management of taxpayers' money are paying off. That is why we are determined to

keep on track to a balanced budget in '04-05. That is why we have made sure

B.C.'s income taxes are the lowest in Canada. As a result, there is

[ Page 4995 ]

more disposable money in everyone's pockets, and our government has been able

to free up almost $400 million due to lower debt service costs.

We are

doing what every householder in the province has to do, and it is paying off.

Our plan is on track — actually, ahead of schedule. We laid out our plans in

the New Era document. We were elected on the New Era document.

Don't forget that. Re-read it. Unlike the neglect and mismanagement under the

socialist government of the NDP, we are sticking to our plans, and they are

paying off — lowest personal income tax rate in Canada on the first $60,000 of

income, competitive business taxes, new investment flowing into the province and

78,000 new jobs. As a result of good planning and careful management, we have

increased health care funding by $1.1 billion, protected education and actually

increased per-student funding despite falling enrolment.

We are

encouraging flexibility in our education and in our school boards. A really good

example is Delta South. They are going out to attract families not just to live

and work in Delta but to be educated in Delta. Our schools are number one.

[1610]

We brought

in generally accepted accounting principles to run our business of government.

This is a first. We are leading the nation, and it was Delta South's Fred

Gingell who pushed for this initiative.

three-year rolling service plan to all ministries and health authorities —

this has never been done before. Everyone's had their budget come halfway

through the year, and they've never known where they're at. Now a real plan can

be put in place.

We have

eliminated needless — needless — regulations, agencies, boards and

commissions, fees and licences.

We are on

track not only to balance the budget but to deliver surpluses in '04-05 and

'05-06. People in our province can actually look enthusiastically to the future.

We are

providing support for our forest industry and moving to a new era of

reconciliation and revenue-sharing with first nations.

This budget

is a budget for all British Columbians to build upon. We've been through tough,

tough times. We now have a road map and a budget to get us back into the land of

the living, without mortgaging our children's future, without mortgaging their

souls.

Being a

have-not province has drastically reduced our ability to deliver services that

people want and need. Our Delta Hospital is a perfect example. We need to lower

our debt and pay less interest. The less interest, the more choices we have

about how we use people's hard-earned tax dollars.

Health

care, of course, is our most essential public service — 41 percent of our

total budget. We used courage to make big structural changes, but we need to

listen to the concerns of the people and their needs and desires and work with

them to work within the system. Again, Delta South has been exemplary, bringing

forth ideas and solutions that have actually enhanced the existing system.

We must

remain focused on patients. Our new Fair Pharmacare initiative today is an

excellent example. We listened. We delivered a program that focuses financial

assistance on B.C. families who need it most based on net income.

The Select

Standing Committee on Health toured the province, listening to the people of

British Columbia — Patients First: Renewal and Reform of British Columbia's

Health Care System and Patients First 2002: The Path to Reform —

and put forward dozens of their recommendations, many of which have already been

implemented.

We are

expanding nurses' and doctors' seats at universities throughout the province to

help alleviate our academic shortages. We simply cannot continue to depend on

other countries for our health care professionals. We are investing in the

Michael Smith Foundation at UBC.

[1615]

We are

working with all provincial Premiers and health ministers, and as a result of

the first ministers' accord on health, we will receive $1.3 billion in new

federal funding over the next three years. However, just to put this into

perspective, that $1.3 billion over three years funds just 92 hours of our

health care system per year. Our health care system uses up all provincial

personal income taxes, $4.7 billion; all sales tax, $4 billion; all MSP

premiums, 1.4 billion; and it's still not enough.

From health

to the need for a top-notch education system, which is paramount. There is new

investment in K-to-12 and advanced education — an extra $51 for every student

in our schools — and more resources for students. Even as enrolments decline,

our allotment per student is going up.

As we save

by running a tight ship, we can funnel some of those savings into primary and

advanced education, and we are. Every school district, including Delta South, is

benefiting because of good, sound management. Now tens of millions of dollars

stay in this province, not paid out to bankers in New York or London, etc. These

huge numbers are difficult for people to deal with, but try and compare it to

credit card interest or open-ended mortgage payments, and it will be easier to

begin to try and calculate the type of savings that we can achieve overall.

Advanced

education in all sectors is imperative. We are facing huge skilled labour

shortages, and that is why we have targeted time, effort and millions of dollars

in this area.

Our

families and communities are our foundation. Revitalizing the economy, balancing

the budget, etc., — all this seemingly dry, boring stuff — actually give us

the cash to invest in our human capital: $10 million for the early childhood

partnership fund, $11 million a year additional funding for intervention for

school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder, $110 million to employment

programs, up to $400 a month earnings on top of assistance for people with

disabili-

[ Page 4996 ]

ties. In all of these initiatives, our own — Delta South's — Doug

Woollard is front and centre.

Our

standard of living has declined over the past ten years. We have become a

have-not province, but that is going to change. Our energy policy, our forestry

policy, our treaty negotiations, reopening the fact that we had a mining

industry in this province at one time, investment….

Just one

example in our agricultural resource. In the Fraser Valley, at Rogers Foods

there's a $20 million investment in a new flour mill. That's just a small

beginning. Our small business owners overwhelmingly said that they will increase

or, at the very least, maintain full-time employment in 2003. This is simply

terrific.

Connecting

all of this is a real plan — a modern, effective transportation system key to

revitalizing our economy. That's why our government has launched a three-year

transportation plan that will be ongoing. The government will commit $650

million and expects to leverage another $1.7 billion from the federal government

and other partners. This real plan is desperately needed to generate new

investment and job creation. We will pay as we go and not endanger our children

and grandchildren.

[1620]

It's not

just the heartlands suffering. Delta South is living and breathing a failing —

no, failed — transportation infrastructure every single day.

Another

issue is our forests, still our number one industry. But it won't be for long,

if we don't act now. We are working along with Canada and the U.S. to resolve

the softwood lumber dispute, but we cannot put the industry and lives and

futures of thousands of British Columbians on hold. We are committing money,

land, reforms and management restructuring because we are determined to build a

leading-edge forest industry for all British Columbians. To do this, we are

committed to maintain a competitive tax environment to help invigorate our

economy. We are making tax changes to encourage natural gas exploration, mining,

film — Hollywood North — and small business venture capital.

Young

people are genuinely enthusiastic now. The 2010 Olympics will encourage all

sorts of small and value-added businesses. They are ready to roll. Digital

animation — Canada is really very, very well known in this field. Let's let

British Columbia make us even better: book publishing, labour-sponsored venture

capital, bunker fuel for cruise ships — $29 million annual total.

In the

lower mainland, Vancouver convention centre expansion. We have lost over 144

conventions over the past couple of years. That is a great deal of money for our

province. The investment in this new centre or project will add as much as $5

billion to our GDP over time and will create 6,000 person-years employment. This

cash does not just stay in Vancouver. It has legs — beautiful, cash-generating

legs. It will be one of our building blocks to better and more cash resources

that will allow us the flexibility to pay for the services we all need and

desire.

Now, are

you going to sleep over there? Wake up, sir.

We plan and

budget to spend dollars where they will do the most good: to help people,

families, and to pave the way for the economic growth that pays the way for

everything government delivers.

While I

look forward to my time speaking later on to the throne speech, it has been an

honour this afternoon to speak on behalf of the 2003-04 budget of the province

of British Columbia — a path to excellence.

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm pleased to rise for this debate and to follow my hon. colleague

from Delta South. It is about what the future holds.

Given that

this is my first opportunity, I wanted to express my sadness over the passing of

a very fine soul in the riding of Richmond East just last month —

heartbreaking for the riding, because this was an individual who truly knew the

value of a dollar. This budget would have spoken to this individual. Paul

Dhillon, a cranberry farmer in Richmond, an RCMP officer for more than 24 years,

was someone who gave greatness to the riding when it came to building

partnerships, building connections, building a spirit of what it was to be an

agricultural community in the urban area of our province, if you will.

[1625]

Many of you

will know East Richmond — ten minutes from the city of Vancouver and 81 square

miles of active cranberry production. Fifteen million pounds of cranberries came

off Mr. Dhillon's lands last year — an enormous contribution to the economy

of east Richmond and also to the sense of connectedness that the community has

to being an island and, truly, an agricultural community.

In terms of

his family, my heartfelt condolences. He truly made an enormous contribution to

the economy of British Columbia and understood that hard work, in fact, resulted

in more and greater opportunity.

The budget

for today. People will ask: why the necessity to balance the budget? For the

simple reason that balancing a budget provides choices. Without dollars at your

disposal, you have fewer choices as a British Columbian. That's the same if

you're operating a small business, having issues with family money management or

operating a province the size of British Columbia.

Resources

in your pocket make some of life's decisions much easier — no question. The

necessity to balance the budget, frankly, is for those who will come after us.

It is about the babies of this province. I know my colleagues have heard me

speak many times on the necessity of doing what is right for the babies of this

province. What is right is crafting opportunity that will matter to them. Many

of you will know there are 271,000 children in our province today under the age

of six. There are 40,000 babies born each year in British Columbia — 40,000.

[Applause.] We'll clap for babies. Thank you, hon. colleague.

The

opportunities that we wish for them are not different from the opportunities we

wish for our own

[ Page 4997 ]

children. We very much want opportunity, access and support to be in place.

The government side of this House believes very strongly in a family's capacity

to parent their own children. We want to increase opportunities for durable

parenting practice. We want to ensure that those opportunities are before every

single family in British Columbia.

The

Premier's commitment is to strengthen families in the province. That is the only

way we will reach stronger community, stronger resilience in our province —

if, indeed, we choose to resource very effectively young children and their

families.

That

research is abundantly clear. My colleagues have often heard Dr. Clyde Hertzman,

through the human early learning partnership at the University of British

Columbia, talk about how important it is to understand the necessity for solid

early learning. There are individuals in society today who don't believe —

marvel at this — that a scrap of learning happens before a child crosses the

threshold into their kindergarten classroom. The reality is that learning begins

at conception.

We have

opportunities to provide really positive learning experiences for very young

children. The early childhood development branch of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development is doing some amazing work when it comes to individuals

understanding that there is opportunity and, frankly, that there is

responsibility to do what is best for young learners.

The former

chancellor of the University of Victoria had a glorious analogy when she talked

about why to fund very young learners. Her analogy was all about how the calibre

of the student you receive at university entrance is determined by that

child's very young learning experiences — a glorious analogy when it comes to

how we look at funding education and how we look at funding advanced education

in British Columbia.

We need to

come to grips with how we fund the continuum of a person's learning, whether

they're a newborn or a senior. There is learning that, in fact, makes societies

healthier, more productive places to be, and we need to engage in that type of

learning.

In terms of

the initiatives that I wanted to canvass with you today, many are in the area of

early childhood development. In many of your communities across British Columbia

you will know we have a Building Blocks program. Building Blocks is all about

building relationships with parents. It's a home-visiting program that offers

supports to families, whether those families are in the heartlands of British

Columbia or in downtown Vancouver. There are people who come to your ho