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, MARCH 3, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill M201)

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Northern caucus committee activities

R. Harris

Work of volunteers

V. Anderson

Film and television industry growth

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Qualification for disability benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

J. MacPhail

Central Park Manor

J. Nuraney

Hon. K. Whittred

International Financial Centre recommendations for business in B.C.

L. Mayencourt

Hon. R. Thorpe

New hospital for Fraser Valley

R. Hawes

Hon. C. Hansen

Government action on sea lice in fish farms

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Murray

Petitions

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

L. Mayencourt

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Hawes

Hon. G. Plant

H. Bloy

D. Hayer

K. Stewart

K. Manhas

B. Suffredine

Hon. M. Coell

L. Mayencourt

P. Sahota

Motions on Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in two sections (Motion 91)

Hon. G. Collins

[ Page 5149 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

R. Harris: It's

my great pleasure today to introduce someone who's certainly no stranger to

these buildings or to a lot of people that have been here for some time. He's a

good friend of mine. He's down in Victoria meeting with ministers, working on

behalf of his community — Mayor Len Fox from Vanderhoof. He's joined by his

CEO, Joe Ukryn. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1405]

MacPhail: I have two sets of introductions now and one later, if I may.

First of all, I'd like to welcome Suzanne Connell with the Georgia Strait

Alliance and Theresa Rothenbush with the Raincoast Conservation Society. They

are here today, representing the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, to

watch this afternoon's proceedings. Would the House please make them welcome.

It's a

great day in the Legislature today, and that's because our interns have arrived

at our caucus. I want to read to you the first memo that they received. This

went: "Morning, everyone. Just so you all know, our group of interns for

this session arrived today. Excellent. They are Cloe Rowbotham, Cara McGregor

and Hayden Lansdell. They are currently setting up in room 356 — way, way up

there. They're in the process of getting hooked up, but I'm told they have

computers, Internet and phone numbers, but no phones. Ah, the joy of being an

intern."

Welcome on

board, you guys, to the little caucus that could.

Penner: Earlier today I had a chance to field some difficult questions from

a number of political science students — 23, in fact — who are visiting us

here today from Western Washington University in Bellingham. They are joined by

their professor, Dr. Butch Kamena. I ask that the House please give them a very

warm welcome.

Brice: Today in the House is a guest of mine, Jamie Boyd. Jamie is a

first-year student at Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. She is going to

be in this legislative chamber and these buildings for the week. I ask the House

to make her welcome.

MacPhail: My third introduction is to welcome a constituent of the east side

who is joining us today, Phil Traynor. He's an active community participant, and

he's watching the proceedings today. Please welcome Phil Traynor.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'd like to welcome to the House today two former constituents,

Brent Loshney and Connie Kaling. They had to leave the beautiful Shuswap to go

to Alberta to look for employment opportunities. They have heard, however, about

the new era of employment in British Columbia. They're back, and I'm sure

they'll all enjoy great success here. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: A ministerial assistant in the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, Valerie Hamilton, tells me that a friend of hers is here today,

someone she describes as a very old friend. This old friend is Tamera Morrison,

who works for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission in Kamloops.

Would the House please make Tamera welcome.

Hayer: It is with a heavy heart that I address this House today. As many in

this chamber are aware, early last week tragedy again struck my family. On

Monday evening, one day after my son Alex's nineteenth birthday, the result of a

routine blood test revealed he is suffering from an advanced form of acute

leukemia.

He was

immediately admitted to Vancouver General Hospital and is now in the leukemia

and bone marrow transplant unit of VGH. Fortunately, his spirits are high. One

of his biggest concerns is the number of classes he's missing in his first year

at Simon Fraser University and time away from his new part-time work at Staples.

My wife,

Isabelle; my children Sonia, Anthony and Katrina; our mothers Baldev Hayer and

Consuelo Martinez; our families and I want to thank all those who have offered

their prayers and best wishes. We most especially want to thank the exceptional

caregivers at VGH, all those wonderful doctors and nurses and support staff

whose work and abilities go far beyond the call of duty. I cannot say enough

about their professionalism, their skills and most of all their caring

attitudes. We are truly blessed in this province to have such people caring for

us and our loved ones in times of grief.

I also want

to thank all the members of this House, my colleagues, who have gone out of

their way to express their sympathy and their support for me, for my family and

for my son Alexander. Together we will fight this cancer, and we will win.

[1410]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Our wishes are with the member and his family.

Last

Thursday, en route to my constituency, I was diverted in Vancouver to the North

Shore. On February 27, Thursday, at 11 p.m., my wife and I were blessed with the

arrival of our first grandson, Eben. The parents, our daughter Richa and Kris,

are doing well. Eben weighed in at only 4 pounds 11 ounces, but the nurses say

he has vigorous lungs. We would like to thank all of the nurses, the doctor and

the staff in labour delivery, special nursery care and maternity at Lions Gate

Hospital for their care and attention. I would ask that

[ Page 5150 ]

the House please welcome my grandson, Eben, to British Columbia.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

J. MacPhail

presented a bill intituled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2003.

MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

MacPhail: This bill amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the use of a new

licence to fish farms unless the operation is a closed containment facility,

meaning a solid or impermeable wall container which prevents escape of those

fish or the transfer of bacteria, viruses, parasites, waste and other pollution

into the surrounding marine system. The bill is not retroactive, in the sense

that it does not impose the standard of closed containment upon existing

operations, nor does it impact existing licences in any way.

moratorium on the expansion of fish farms was lifted last fall. Even before that

time, and especially since then, the science has increasingly supported the

principles of caution that motivated the moratorium. Scientific study and

evidence show that the threats of colonization and viral outbreaks are extreme.

Also, we have learned that the transfer of sea lice has caused the decimation of

wild salmon runs and that the waste released into the ecosystem by conventional

open-pen farming is devastating to all adjacent forms of aquatic life.

Even as we

speak, scientists in the Broughton Archipelago are finding young pinks and chums

covered in sea lice. It is time to move forward. Here in the Pacific Northwest

we have entrepreneurs like Mariculture, Agrimarine and Future SEA, which have

already seen the environmental and economic advantages of closed containment as

well as the sustainable jobs that alternative technologies provide.

This bill

acknowledges that success and says British Columbians want to be part of that

vision. With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201

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) NORTHERN CAUCUS

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

Harris: Since the last election there has been a change in the way British

Columbia politics have been conducted. The north now has a voice. I have the

pleasure of serving as the chair of the northern caucus, appointed by the

Premier to bring a northern perspective to Victoria to ensure that northern

concerns were not ignored when it comes to legislation and to provide access to

the highest levels of government. I'm here to say that it's worked.

The B.C.

heartlands economic strategy is a reflection of the importance of northern and

rural B.C. The commitment of more than $600 million to repair northern and

heartland roads is proof of the importance we as government put on ensuring that

the entire province benefits from economic renewal.

The Premier

will establish the mayors council to help create an efficient and effective B.C.

Rail that works for all communities, which is clearly an example of responding

to the needs of northern B.C. As a northern caucus, we all support and encourage

the development of containerization in Prince Rupert. This is a project that is

pan-northern in its benefits.

The north

wants to be a full partner, and we have been given the tools to accomplish that.

The elimination of PST on machinery, the raising of the luxury tax threshold on

vehicles, forgivable loans for medical professionals who practise in the north,

the results-based forest practice and the 20 percent flow-through for shares for

mining are all just some of the examples that we are, in fact, making a

difference.

[1415]

Let me

finish by saying I believe that the nine MLAs that make up the northern caucus

are a strong voice for our region and are proud to be part of a government that

is making investments back into the north again.

WORK OF VOLUNTEERS

Anderson: I wish to publicly say thank you to a very important and very

large segment of our society. These are those who are the first force in our

communities, who have built the social life we all share. They're the volunteers

who have been our Canadian pioneers, unsung and unpaid. They have voluntarily

shared their time, their possessions, their friendship and their hospitality.

They are

our community volunteers, neighbour sharing with neighbour. These are the

quality builders of our communities of all ages and backgrounds. They are what

we call the volunteer sector, alongside the private sector and the public

sector. Some would call them the third force, but I prefer to call them the

first force in our community-building, for without them, our society would not

have the strength it does. They are the leaders, the members, the servants of

our communities' support system.

In B.C.

they are formally represented by the members of the volunteer bureaus across the

province and now by the newly organized Voluntary Organizations Consortium of

B.C. I thank them for their caring and sharing in their devotion to community

service.

[ Page 5151 ]

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY GROWTH

Nuraney: As many members in this House know, British Columbia has become a

world-class destination for the international film and television industry. It

now generates over a billion dollars in revenue, and it is therefore important

that we support and encourage its development. These companies come here because

of our tremendous diversity — diversity in geography and diversity in our

people. We have developed a strong base of highly skilled labour in this regard

and also the acting ability to meet all needs.

Our ability

to be flexible and to accommodate the needs of this industry has also

contributed to its success. My own community in Burnaby has benefited greatly

from this thriving film industry. We are now home to more than half the film

space available. Together with my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds, I've had the

opportunity to visit some of these leading-edge studios in Burnaby. I have

spoken to the people who work in this industry, and one thing I keep hearing is

that the industry and the local studios are poised for growth.

All they

needed was a tax system that would help attract more production in British

Columbia. In this year's budget, the Minister of Finance announced tax changes

designed to accomplish this goal. This will promote the growth and add

incentives for regional television, film projects, digital animation and visual

effects. These changes in incentives will no doubt increase the activities in

this very significant sector of our economy, and we will indeed see this

industry reach new heights to the benefit of all British Columbians.

Oral Questions

QUALIFICATION FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Human Resources said this morning that 16,000 disability review

forms have been received and approximately 4,000 are still outstanding. The

minister has cut another $255 million from his income assistance budget to meet

this year's budget target. How much does he expect to save as a result of the

disability review?

Hon. M.

Coell: The success we're having in finding people employment in this

ministry is finding that people who were once not finding jobs under the

previous government are now finding jobs. The actual budget for temporary

assistance, which are people who are on employment, is going down at a high

rate. The rate for people on continuous assistance, which is those on

supplemental and disability, is actually going up since we were in government.

[1420]

We're

finding that the savings that are being made with putting people into employment

— and success — are vastly improved over the previous government. I think

you're going to see people with disabilities continue to increase, although they

may be at a slower rate than under the previous government. There still will be

an increase in people collecting disability assistance.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that as a result of this process, thousands of the most vulnerable

British Columbians have been put under enormous stress, and close to $3 million

has been spent paying doctors to fill out the forms. If the minister can't say

how much money he expects to save to meet his budget target, can he tell us just

what is the purpose of the exercise? What was he thinking when he put enormous

stress on the people who are suffering from disability? What was occurring in

his own mind?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member probably remembers when the Legislature debated

the new legislation for income assistance in the province. I said many times

that people with disabilities will get the support they need.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let's hear the question.

J. Kwan:

Let's be clear. When the minister announced he would be sending some 18,000 to

19,000 British Columbians a 23-page form asking them to justify their benefits,

he did it to cut his budget. He assumed there was fraud. He assumed thousands of

disabled people must be cheating the system. What he's found out….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Order, please.

Please

proceed.

J. Kwan:

What he's found out is that their disabilities are real. The minister maintains

he has received several thousand completed forms, no doubt some returned as

early as October and November of last year. Can he tell this House how many of

the submitted forms have proven to be ineligible?

Hon. M.

Coell: The fact is that 6,000 new applications are in process right now.

About 10,000 reviews are in process right now. I think if the member wanted to

go back and read Hansard , she would find that we said we wanted to open

up that category, and we specifically included mental illness. I think you'll

find, if she goes back….

Interjections.

[ Page 5152 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member should go back and reread the debate, and she

might have some answers to her questions.

MacPhail: When this minister started the disabilities review, he told

advocates in the community that he expected 9,000 would be off the rolls. He did

it. He put people through extreme angst with a 23-page review, and now he won't

admit that he didn't expect to achieve anything.

Last

week….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Last week we asked the minister about a man who took his own life

after receiving a letter from the minister telling him his benefits were in

doubt. After he took his life, the minister told the coroner that his benefits

were secure all along. Why did the minister not tell the coroner the truth —

that this man's eligibility was being reassessed?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the fact is that the member is not willing to go and have a

look at what she said in estimates and what I said in estimates about how we

wanted to make sure that people with disabilities got the help they needed. We

wanted to make sure that where people could work, we would help them to work.

Where they couldn't work, we would make sure they had the third-highest rate of

income assistance in Canada.

Mr.

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

[1425]

MacPhail: You know, these are real lives that we're dealing with. They're

real people. Somehow the minister can't answer straightforward questions. I

think maybe it's because the minister can't suck and blow at the same time. This

man who took his own life believed that his benefits might be cut, because

that's what the letter intimated. He got a letter from the ministry telling him

just that.

Again to

the minister: how would the minister know if this man's benefits were secure

even before the man in question had sent back his form? Is it because, as many

suspect, this whole process has been a sham from the beginning? Can he please

tell us what motivated the minister to send out these forms if all along he just

wanted to put more on the benefits?

Hon. M.

Coell: The government wants to make sure that funds go to people who are

eligible. We had a new piece of legislation with a new definition. What we did,

and what we're in the process of doing, is making sure that people are eligible

for the benefits they're going to receive.

I think the

fact that the members have not listened for about a year…. They should go back

and possibly reread…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: …what I've said. The only people who have said that there are going

to be huge cuts are them.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

CENTRAL PARK MANOR

Nuraney: My question today is to the Minister of State for Intermediate,

Long Term and Home Care. We have an extended care home in my riding called

Central Park Manor, which received notification from the Fraser health authority

that it will be closed in the next 12 months. There are 97 residents in this

facility. My question to the minister is: what process is going to take place to

make sure that there is enough consultation and a smooth transition for these 97

residents?

Hon. K.

Whittred: As we move to modernize long-term care to ensure its

sustainability, safe, appropriate care is in fact our priority. Central Park

Manor is an old building, and it has been determined to no longer be adequate

for today's complex needs. We know that transition is important to all citizens.

It is particularly important to seniors. That is why the health authority will

be working within policy guidelines, with families and with residents over the

next 12 months to ensure that they have a safe and uneventful transition to

their new homes and that all of their new homes will be suitable to their needs.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL

CENTRE RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR BUSINESS IN B.C.

Mayencourt: My question is to our newest grandfather in the chamber, the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Fifteen years ago we created

the International Financial Centre in Vancouver, with a mandate to establish

B.C. as a global competitor in the financial marketplace. Due to excessive

regulation and high taxes under the previous government, B.C. dropped to the

bottom of the list in Canada in being able to attract that private sector

investment.

[ Page 5153 ]

A recent

report by the International Finance Centre suggests that changes to provincial

legislation may be in order, in order to improve B.C.'s global standing. Will

the minister please tell us what steps he's taking to improve the ability of the

International Financial Centre to attract business to British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'd like to thank the member very much for the question that….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the answer.

[1430]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member for the question. It does

affect many of his constituents in Vancouver. I met on February 5 with the

chair, Ron Bozzer, and the new president, Bob Fairweather.

We are

looking at ways, as we are charged by the Premier, to make sure that British

Columbia stays competitive, that we attract investment and create jobs here. One

area was the recent taxation policy changes to the film industry. One of the

areas we're looking at is making Vancouver a film distribution centre.

There are

many other ways. I've asked the International Financial Centre to work with the

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association and the Investment Dealers

Association to bring forward to me a report by May 30 that will list a number of

options in which we can enhance competitiveness in British Columbia, creating

more jobs in your riding and all other ridings in British Columbia.

NEW HOSPITAL FOR FRASER VALLEY

Hawes: Last month the province released a request for expressions of

interest to build a new hospital in Abbotsford. This will be one of the first

hospitals in Canada to be built through a P3. It's finally going to get built

after a lot of false promises from the previous government. To the Minister of

Health Services: what assurances can he give to my constituents and the

residents of the Fraser Valley that this privately built facility will offer the

same level of health care services that are currently provided at publicly run

hospitals throughout British Columbia and that the fearmongering of the HEU is

unfounded?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Truly this is excellent news for the residents of the Fraser Valley,

who have been given empty promises by the previous government for an entire

decade. They are finally going to get their long-overdue new hospital. I can

assure the member that this new public-private partnership is going to result in

better value for the taxpayers of British Columbia. It's going to result in a

state-of-the-art facility to serve the residents of the Fraser Valley, and it

will provide the kind of high-quality public health care we know we're capable

of in British Columbia. This is good news. It will be equal to or better than

anything we have seen in this province to date, and I can assure you that the

residents of the Fraser Valley will see top-notch public health care provided by

that facility.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

SEA LICE IN FISH FARMS

MacPhail: This morning we learned that the smolts going through the

Broughton Archipelago are at least 50 percent covered in sea lice. Last week the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection allowed for the use of Slice, a

neurotoxin. They refused to accept the recommendation of laying fallow all of

the fish farms in that area during the period of the pink and chum salmon run.

To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: will she now admit that the

choice her government made to deliberately not fallow all of the fish farms has

led to another detrimental destruction of the pink salmon run?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: We are concerned about the pink salmon in the Broughton. The wild

salmon are our number one priority.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. J.

Murray: That's why we had a conference of experts two weeks ago to discuss

this exact issue. We are taking very progressive action. We are fallowing a

number of sites. We are increasing our monitoring capacity. We are treating any

infected fish. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is out monitoring the

situation as we speak…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …so that we can take appropriate action that is based on science.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by 5,716 British Columbians who

call upon the B.C. Liberal government to rescind all cuts to B.C. Pharmacare, to

make public all hearings related to the broader review of Pharmacare — a

review the government is conducting only to protect the profits of the

pharmaceutical indus-

[ Page 5154 ]

try — and to ensure that seniors are included in a genuine review.

[1435]

Interjections.

MacPhail: That's what the petition says.

J. Kwan:

I rise to table a petition signed by 840 British Columbians who hold the Liberal

government accountable to the people of B.C. for the destruction of the social

safety net, the public education system and the health care system. They point

out that this will result in widespread suffering among seniors, women and the

disabled community.

Mayencourt: I rise to present a petition signed by 7,200 residents of my

community calling on the government to replace the Robson Street liquor store.

Mr.

Speaker: Any further petitions?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission.

Hawes: I rise today to conclude the comments that I started last Thursday. I

know there are many of us here, especially on the government side, that want to

get up today and speak to this budget, because it is indeed very good news for

British Columbia. As I said last Thursday, it has shown that our government is

on track to balancing the budget and completing the promises that we made in our

New Era document, which we filed with the people of this province prior

to the election.

On Thursday

I spoke to changes that we've made to the education system. I now just want to

touch briefly on some of the health care changes that are in this budget and

that are continuing, which have been put in place since we were elected. When we

were elected, we took over a province that had 52 different health authorities

— a complete mishmash, a disjointed, non-communicating group, overly

bureaucratic, far too much administration. Since then, that's been reduced to

six regions to deliver health care in a more efficient manner.

Now, on

this side in the government, there have been a number of advances put forward,

by the Premier particularly, that allow us a great number of parliamentary

reforms that would allow things like free votes in the House. In fact, dissent

is actually encouraged here. If we are not in complete agreement with where the

government's going, we're free to speak to any issue that we wish to speak to.

[1440]

I have to

say I've never been a fan of regionalization. I was a member of a hospital board

in my community that ran a hospital very successfully. It provided excellent

health care. Mission Memorial Hospital has always been referred to by the people

where I live as the jewel of the Fraser Valley. Regionalization, when it came

into place in the late 1990s under the previous government, kind of destroyed

that. The services in our hospital began to erode very shortly after

regionalization, and many of us have often referred to what we called the

sucking sound that seemed to be the sound of our services disappearing into

Abbotsford. That, actually, to a great degree has continued.

While I'm

not a big fan of regionalization, I understand there's a road we've begun to go

down that's very difficult to step back from. The reduction from 52 regions or

different governance bodies in health care to six is a tremendous improvement.

While for

me personally school is still out — I'm not yet convinced that regionalization

was the way to go — I do realize that all of us have to get into the boat and

kind of row in the same direction, or we're not going to get anywhere. I know I

have tried in my own community to convince people that what we need to do is

work with the region, work with the ministry and try to get to where it is that

we wish, as a community, to arrive. Do we want our hospital to continue to be a

very important part of our community, a central focal point for our community?

A lot of

the services have now left our hospital — in fact, it's sort of a shadow of

its former self — but in talking to the region, I know what's going to happen.

As those services disappear, new services are going to appear in our hospital

and, really, across the health region — services that perhaps weren't there

before or that people had to travel quite a ways to get to.

What I'm

trying to do in my own community is work with the city council and those that

provide health care services to build a hospital that's going to be fully

utilized. It's not necessarily going to provide what was there before, so there

will be people who will be upset that services have disappeared. On the other

hand, there will be new services that many people will be very pleased with.

There's a balance here, and a lot of that is struck by the realities of what's

going on around the world. The way the Health ministry has now taken the

political side out of the provision of health care is, I think, a very

intelligent way to go.

The

decision of how health care services should be provided is left to the

professionals, who better understand how to provide health care. Where services

were delivered, how many services, etc., was kind of done on a political basis.

If your riding happened to have somebody representing them that was on the

government side, who perhaps could speak a little louder for their community

than another, your community would

[ Page 5155 ]

get services — sometimes services that weren't needed. There's evidence of

communities around the province that had far more services than they could ever

use. Others had far too few, and their people were imperilled.

A lot of

that was determined because of the politicization of health care. That has

stopped. The minister has removed politics and has allowed the management of the

health regions to make decisions surrounding health care based on the needs of

the regions themselves. Instead, what the ministry has done is put in place

assessment tools and set standards to which the health authorities must deliver.

That's an advance that is unprecedented in this country. I know there are some

areas in the United States that have done this, but not to the extent that it's

happened here. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is prepared to

make those kinds of advances.

As you look

around the world, health care is in a terrible state, really, internationally.

This is not an isolated event that we're going through in this province, but I

think we're a lot further along in the restructuring of health care here than

other parts of the world.

[1445]

I want to

speak for a minute about one of the practices that had gone on for far too long

in this province, certainly for the ten years that the previous government was

in power. That's around the accrual accounting that went around health care

benefits and costs that were part of union contracts. If one were to look at the

union contracts that health care workers live under, you would find that there

are things such as retirement allowances that allow all workers to get paid, on

retirement, one week's pay for every two years of service once they reach age 55

and have ten years' service. For a retiring health worker with 30 years'

employment, for example, that would be 15 weeks' pay, in addition to which

there's a 40 percent payout of accumulated sick time. That works out to

somewhere around 60 days for those who haven't used their sick time, which is

about 12 weeks' pay. When you combine just those two, you're up to almost 30

weeks' pay — more than half a year.

That's a

liability that was carried in almost every health institution across this

province. None of that was ever accrued. There was nothing set up in the books

for these liabilities. There was no accounting for how much could be owed. There

was absolutely no way of knowing until we took office, and we have moved to

generally accepted accounting principles. That would say that all liabilities

like that have to appear in the books of the government. The government now has

to do its books or is moving towards having to do its books by, I think, 2004 in

the same way that every business in this province would have to do their books.

In doing so, those liabilities have jumped out. It amounts to millions and

millions — in fact, I think more than $100 million across the province,

perhaps several hundred million dollars.

The problem

is that the privately operated, non-profit care homes, that sort of thing…. No

accrual was done for them and still has not been done for them. They continue to

carry that liability on their own books. Although it's not on the books, they

have to fund it. What happened previously was that if somebody retired — or

maybe in a year, several people would retire — from a small care home, the

non-profit society would pay out whatever it was they had to pay out, would just

send a bill to the ministry, and a cheque would arrive to compensate them. There

was no accounting for any of this.

There was

no way of setting what that liability was going to be in your budget, which

really is typical of the way government ran here for the last decade — with

really no controls, no method of controlling, no knowledge of what was coming.

In fact, if it were done in private business…. I would suggest to you that any

business who conducted themselves in that manner would not be in business very

long. They would long ago have been bankrupt. In fact, we've been driven very

close to that point in this province by that last government.

We're

trying to get a handle on that. I know the minister is wrestling with it with

the health authorities, and they're trying to come up with a way to fund all of

this, but it's a huge problem. It's another one of those ticking time bombs that

were left to us by that previous government, where we have to try to figure out

how to handle what's really a very large problem, and it's not an easy problem

to solve.

We've

allowed the health authorities to contract out support services. I spoke about

that a few weeks ago here in the House — about the HEU contract, its cost to

government and the way that it has, over the past decade, become far too

expensive. Since I spoke in the House, I have received numbers of e-mails from

HEU members who are very upset at the comments that I made. Unfortunately, they

were characterized by the HEU itself — their management — as a gender attack

on women. I do want to clarify that when I spoke in the House previously, I

never mentioned gender. When I speak of benefits that are too high, it matters

not to me the gender of the worker. Benefits that are too high are too high.

[1450]

I have here

quite a compilation of the benefits that are under that HEU contract. When I

look through that, I see things like vacation time. Using that as an example, in

British Columbia after 14 years of employment, a worker at any level under the

HEU contract would get six weeks' annual paid vacation. There is no other

province in this country — and I have them all here — that would pay that

kind of benefit. The closest is Manitoba, which is after 21 years of service,

and the rest of them are all over 24 or 25 years. In this province — seven

weeks' vacation after 19 years' employment. No province in this country offers

seven weeks' vacation to any health support staff. As your length of service

with the government continues to climb, that seven weeks becomes eight weeks,

nine weeks and ten weeks. Every five years it goes up.

[ Page 5156 ]

I see the

time is up. I just wanted to make sure that my constituents understand we are

working on these problems. We are rebuilding trust in the private sector and in

the investment community in this province, which is where the return to

prosperity and the ability to pay for these services is going to come from. Our

budget, again, is very good news. We are on track, and thank you for the time.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to and in

support of the budget that was introduced a few short days ago by my colleague

the Minister of Finance. In general terms, it represents a tremendously

successful step forward toward financial responsibility, toward economic

prosperity and toward that new era of hope we promised British Columbians when

we were elected in the spring of 2001.

As a

minister with responsibility for treaty negotiations issues and for justice

issues, I wanted to spend a minute or two here this afternoon to talk about some

of the things we've been doing in those ministries that government is moving

forward on, initiatives that are supported by the budget and also supported by

the throne speech which we heard in the early part of February, just a few weeks

ago.

I wanted to

begin by talking a bit about the treaty negotiations office. It is, from a

budgetary perspective, much the smaller portion of my ministerial

responsibilities, but I think it carries out a very, very important role in

helping us move toward economic renewal in British Columbia. When we took office

in June of 2001, we did so on the basis of a commitment to conduct a

provincewide referendum that would engage the people of British Columbia

directly in providing and obtaining from them input on principles to guide the

province's approach to treaty-making. That referendum, as you know, Mr. Speaker,

was conducted last spring.

I want to

remind members present and all those who may have occasion to be watching this

afternoon that we conducted this referendum for a couple of important reasons

— at least a couple in addition, of course, to the fact that we had made the

commitment and that I think it was good of us to keep that commitment. I think

it was important that we engaged the people of British Columbia directly in the

business of thinking about what they want to achieve from the treaty process.

Wherever we

look around the province, this process that has been underway for a decade has

involved meetings, has involved consultation, has involved a certain amount of

public attention, but for whatever reason, it seemed to us that notwithstanding

the best efforts of many people, the public was not engaged in the treaty

process. In the long run, the treaty process will not succeed if we do not

manage to engage the public in the important work we're doing. The referendum, I

think, achieved that objective.

We had a

very vigorous public discussion last spring. There were well over three-quarters

of a million returned ballots, which I think is a very, very good number, given

that it was, from a direct democracy perspective, an experimental exercise —

the first time that a provincewide referendum had been conducted through the use

of a mail-in ballot at a time that was outside the ordinary election cycle and

on a basis that sought the input of citizens on eight different statements of

principle. It was a new exercise in direct democracy but, I think, a very

successful exercise.

[1455]

We also

undertook the referendum exercise because in addition to the need to just have

the conversation, we thought it would be important to find out exactly what it

is the people of British Columbia wanted us to achieve on their behalf. The

eight statements of principle, I think, represent a very useful framework for us

as government to take forward as we move through the months and years to come in

the treaty process.

It's really

important to remind members that the referendum was conducted on the basis that

we were committed to the treaty process and that we would use it to reinvigorate

the treaty process. That is what we have been trying to do in the months since

the referendum. We've been moving forward in a number of ways to try to build on

the momentum that I think was created by the referendum, to see if we can

actually bridge the gap that exists between and among the positions of the

different parties in the process — bridge it enough so we can actually produce

some agreements.

The treaty

process under the B.C. Treaty Commission has been underway for nearly a dozen

years in British Columbia. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in

negotiation expenses, and the outcome that the parties originally intended this

process to have — namely, comprehensive settlement agreements — has thus far

eluded the participants. While this is hard and difficult work, and it's bound

to take some time, it is also time that we start to see if we can produce the

very agreements that this process was originally intended to produce.

We've been

doing some things to try to help achieve that outcome. We've tried to become a

bit strategic, frankly. We have looked across the landscape of just over 40

tables that are notionally active. We've asked ourselves whether there are some

tables where the promise of success is more real in the short term than perhaps

it is in the case of others, and we have organized our resources within the

treaty negotiations office to ensure that we can bring the maximum constructive

energy to bear on those specific tables. We call those the "breakthrough

tables," because that's what we're looking for. We're looking for

breakthrough results. We're looking to achieve agreements, and I think we are on

the verge of achieving those agreements.

I think

we're on the verge of achieving some success stories in the treaty process in

British Columbia, and I'm very hopeful that we may achieve some of those success

stories in the year 2003, the fiscal year that is the subject of the service

plans the Finance minister tabled when he made his budget speech on February 18.

But we're not going to get the success without

[ Page 5157 ]

stretching ourselves a little bit. The challenge, and it's both a challenge

and an opportunity, has been to work within the framework that the referendum

principles gave us and also to work within the objective of obtaining agreements

to see what we need to do to bridge the gap between where we are and where we

want to be. That work of bridging the gap is work that has to be done by all

parties. First nations have to step beyond where they have been. Canada has to

make some movement, and British Columbia has to make some movement. That's what

negotiations are about. Negotiations are about give and take; negotiations are

about compromise. We are looking for opportunities to achieve success where we

build from the platform of principle that the referendum gave us, but we are

also willing to work within those principles to take some new steps and perhaps

embark upon some new directions.

[1500]

We have

been speaking about initiatives like revenue-sharing. Members of this House will

have heard some reference to revenue-sharing in the throne speech. They will

also see it in the budget that the Finance minister tabled. It's time for the

people of British Columbia to realize that we need to work together to ensure

that the development of the lands and the resources of British Columbia is

something that takes place in a way where all of us, aboriginal and

non-aboriginal, can benefit from that development. That, in my view and in the

view of government, involves opening ourselves up to the idea of revenue-sharing

and sitting down at tables with first nations to explore ways in which we can

share with first nations some measure of the fruits of success of the economic

development of the lands and resources of the province. We're working now on

developing the framework of principles that makes sure we advance provincial

public interest objectives as we move forward to consider these ideas and that

they become effective tools not just for building strong relationships with

first nations but for ensuring that we can in fact grow the resources of the

province.

Revenue-sharing

is one idea we've been working on. We've talked about the idea of comanagement.

We've talked about the possibility of introducing the subject of compensation

into the treaty process, because those are issues that first nations have said

they want to discuss in the treaty process. They have said for a decade that

these are issues that are important to them in the treaty process, and yet for a

decade the governments have said: "No, these issues cannot be part of these

discussions." Sooner or later, when you hear somebody say at a negotiation

table that they want to talk about something, I think there is a time and a

place where the right thing to do is to recognize the importance of the issue

and to sit down and see if we can have that discussion about those issues in a

way that meets the broad objective of ensuring the treaty process produces

agreements that are affordable, fair and equitable, that create certainty, that

are final and yet also meet first nations' objectives — which, frankly, are

quite similar to our objectives in respect to many of those issues.

We've said

we are open to some new approaches on those sorts of issues. We've also said we

think it's time to take a new approach to the idea of certainty, to take a new

approach to the means by which certainty is achieved as a matter of law through

the treaty process. We've said we're willing to explore new approaches to the

legal technique of certainty because we think the best guarantee of certainty in

the treaty process is not found in the precise words that are set out on a

particular page of a long and complicated legal document. Rather, the best

guarantee of certainty in a treaty relationship is found in the relationship

itself. If the relationship is working, if the parties to the relationship are

getting the benefits from the relationship that they believe they should get

when they went into it, then no one is going to be looking for that certainty

clause buried deep in the legal text of the document. The only time people start

looking for the certainty clause is when something's not working and when people

start to look for a way to get out of the agreement to avoid their obligations

because the relationship is no longer functioning.

We've said

it's time for the government of British Columbia to look for different ways to

achieve certainty. We need to achieve certainty. The province is at the treaty

table because we need to have a measure of certainty over the land and resource

base of British Columbia. We need to have a measure of certainty around what it

means — what aboriginal title and rights mean. We need to have a measure of

certainty around what Crown rights and title mean. We need that certainty,

because the investment community and ordinary citizens won't make investments in

the land and resource base of the province without that certainty. We don't have

that certainty today. The status quo today is uncertainty. We need to move

towards certainty. As I say, the fundamental objective is certainty founded in a

working relationship.

There is

still important work for government to do in terms of sitting down and

negotiating the language in an agreement that will help us achieve that

certainty. What we have said, in specific terms, is that it's no longer

appropriate for the province to be at the table demanding that first nations

give up their rights — that they cede, release and surrender those rights.

That has clearly been an unsuccessful objective on the part of government, and

it is probably a wrong-headed objective. I think we can achieve certainty

without demanding that first nations cede, release or surrender their rights,

and that is what we're working to do at the tables where we're hard at work

negotiating agreements.

[1505]

We've

self-government that respects the very important interests and concerns British

Columbians have in ensuring that government relationships are flexible, that

governments are financially accountable and that they're democratically

responsible to the people whose lives are

[ Page 5158 ]

affected by them. We think we can make progress on those issues, too, in a

way that is respectful of first nations interests but also ensures that the

broader public interest of the people of British Columbia is satisfied.

In the

throne speech in particular, there was emphasis on the need for a new approach

to reconciliation — the recognition that there is much to regret in the

history of our relations with aboriginal peoples in this part of North America.

While it's probably an unhelpful exercise to think about who may be to blame or

not to blame for the history, the fact is that our history does not leave us

much to be proud of. It's time to acknowledge that reality, and it's time to

move forward in a way that says that our objective is to reconcile our

differences, to acknowledge the past and to see if we can build a new

relationship. If we move forward in the months to come, both at the breakthrough

tables that I've spoken about and also across the province generally, I think

there will be opportunities for government to implement that new approach to

reconciliation that was spoken about in the throne speech, which I think can be

a critically important component of a strategy to achieve success at the treaty

table and elsewhere in British Columbia.

The budget

talks about the economic measures fund. That, too, was also spoken about in the

throne speech. We think this relatively modest investment of $10 million a year

on the part of government has a great potential to level the playing field

across the province to ensure that first nations have an equal opportunity to

participate in economic development, that they're not held back from their

participation in the mainstream economy by the fact that they may not have the

skills or the tools in their communities to do business plans or feasibility

studies or to participate in economic activities with the level of training and

technical expertise that's sometimes required. I think the economic measures

fund is going to prove to be a very useful tool.

We are

still in the first year of the fund. It looks as though we have now got up and

in place something close to $13 million worth of projects. The good news in the

throne speech and the budget is that the commitment of a year ago of $10 million

a year over three years has now been extended by a year. I want to say to people

who are as concerned as I am about programs like this that to make sure they

work, we are going to be evaluating the results. We're going to be measuring our

successes.

We're going

to be accountable for the failures, if we have them, but I think that as we

undertake that process of accountability, that evaluation, we will find some

success stories. We may find a few experiments that did not succeed as much as

we had hoped they would, but I know we'll find some success stories, and we can

use those success stories as the platform to build further successes and to

ensure that we work together with first nations to enhance the opportunity to

create opportunities for first nations to be constructive, full participants in

the economic life of British Columbia.

That is the

key to the new relationship, in my view. Rather than seeing ourselves on an

us-and-them basis, rather than seeing people as being either for or against our

future as a province on the basis of assertions of rights and title, it is how

we can reconfigure the relationship so that we see ourselves working together to

build a bigger economy that will benefit all of us, whether it's in oil and gas

or aquaculture or forestry or tourism or ski resorts in Kamloops. Wherever it is

and whatever the initiative, I think we have great opportunities to reconfigure

our approach to these things and move forward together.

[1510]

The other

area of my ministerial responsibilities is the justice system. That

responsibility is shared by a number of different ministries. Of course, the

thing that characterizes our justice system more than anything else is the

impossibility of describing it as a system in any meaningful way. Really, our

justice system is a collection of independent actors who function occasionally

interdependently but who are themselves, each of them, within their own sphere,

quite independent of the other in ways that are necessary to protect the

fairness and impartiality which are essential attributes of our justice system.

The

challenge we face is to ensure that that independence and the values it protects

do not become unreasonable obstacles to reform which will ensure that the

justice system, in fact, serves the interests of the public it must serve. We

are looking at and have been working on a variety of initiatives that are

intended to ensure that our justice system meets the goals of being fair, being

affordable, being accessible and being effective — most of all, that it be the

justice system that delivers justice.

Here, I

think, is part of the challenge for all of us as participants in the

conversation about how to make the justice system work better. When I talk about

efficiency, people are inclined to hear that as a conversation about budget

numbers or how many courtrooms. Maybe efficiency isn't the right word, because

efficiency isn't a goal in itself. What efficiency is, is a key to enter the

door of a quality justice system. When our justice system is inefficient, when

our justice system allows for delay and for unreasonable expense to be incurred,

whether by private sector parties or by government, that is what gets in the way

of quality justice outcomes.

Delay

affects the quality of justice, because the longer it takes to bring a matter

forward for resolution, the greater the likelihood that witnesses' memories will

fail, that they'll no longer be available, that parties will have forgotten that

the original reason for the criminal process, for example, is a measure of

accountability, which becomes ever more elusive as the months pass and people

tend to forget what it was that got the process started in the first place. From

the broad perspective of how we can make this system work better, how we can

start to even introduce into the conversation the suggestion that it ought to be

regarded as a system and that we ought to be able to talk about a

[ Page 5159 ]

justice system, there are some things we are doing, and there are some things

we need to do more of.

We have,

over the last year, expanded by 14 the number of circuit courts in British

Columbia. People who have followed the debate about courthouse closures will, I

think, be glad of the opportunity to realize that while it is true that we

closed some 24 full-time courthouses in British Columbia, at 14 of those

locations we now have circuit court service — the same level of service to the

public but at significantly less cost to government.

We are

continuing to work in the bylaw reform forums. We are continuing to pursue the

issue of two-tiered traffic fines and are hoping to expand the use of video

conferencing. We've introduced fax filing. These are minor but, I think, not

unimportant tools to help the justice system work more effectively.

Through the

justice review task force, we have begun an important public discussion about

whether or not we can unify the family courts in British Columbia so that the

user of the family court system sees one court system and doesn't have to sort

themselves out between the superior court or the Provincial Court. This is an

experiment that has been conducted in other jurisdictions across Canada with a

great deal of success, and we are moving forward to see if the same experiment

can be conducted in British Columbia.

We are

looking at changes. We're looking at becoming a more constructive participant

and maybe a more vocal participant in the discussion about how to improve the

criminal justice system generally.

[1515]

Do we still

need the preliminary inquiry? British Columbia has argued at the

provincial-territorial-federal level that given the extensive requirement of

disclosure that now lies on the Crown, an obligation that never existed to that

extent a decade or more ago…. Given the extent of that disclosure, there

really is no longer any practical need for a preliminary inquiry in all but the

most exceptional cases.

We've

argued, and I've argued here on the floor of this Legislature quite recently,

that we ought to reform the law of conditional sentencing to ensure that

conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes of violence.

We're

looking at ways in which we can accommodate the demand for increased legal fees

by defence counsel in serious criminal cases without overburdening the legal aid

budget. Frankly, that is as big a challenge as I can imagine. We may have to

embrace that challenge. We'd better embrace that challenge if we're going to

continue to be able to manage legal aid expenditures.

The

challenge that I want to leave with members of this Legislature and the public

generally on that issue — on the issue of justice reform generally, but in

particular on the issue of our criminal justice system — is whether we need to

talk about bolder reforms. This morning, for example, in the Vancouver Sun

there was an

article by the former Attorney General, a former member of this

assembly, Alex Macdonald, who suggested that it was time for Canada to move

towards a requirement on the part of defence counsel to disclose their case in

advance of a trial in a criminal matter. Disclosure is required on all parties

in civil cases. There is certainly a long history of reasons why we have not

required defence counsel to make disclosure in criminal cases. Maybe it's time

we start to look at those issues as we grapple with the fact that our criminal

justice institutions are becoming more expensive and more complex. The cases are

taking longer. The technology is imposing costs and also creating opportunities.

It's becoming a huge and unwieldy creature, and if we don't start to talk about

reform in a meaningful way, I'm afraid the public will eventually lose

confidence in what we're doing.

That

represents a brief outline of some of the work we're doing in the Attorney

General ministry. It doesn't even begin to talk about the administrative justice

project and other things that are important, and I'm sure that during the course

of this session there will be other opportunities to talk about those things.

Let me

conclude my remarks today by talking about one other thing, which is outside my

ministerial responsibilities but is very close to my heart as someone who lives

in the community of Steveston in Richmond. There's a place in Steveston called

Garry Point Park. It's a wonderful place. It's really in just about exactly the

southwest corner of Lulu Island. It sits on the river and on the ocean, and it's

a place that most times of the year people visit to walk their dogs or go for a

jog or fly their kites. Sometimes in winters unlike this winter, the

firefighters will flood a portion of the park, and the water will freeze and

kids will skate. Adults may also skate. It's kind of a neat place. Most of the

time it's a pretty quiet place, even though there's lots of activity on the

river. It's a place to go and get away from things.

It's also

been a very special place. Last summer, in the first week of August, on a

brilliant warm afternoon a bunch of us were at Garry Point Park watching tall

ships sail up the river. There weren't just a bunch of us. There were actually

nearly 125,000 people at Garry Point Park watching tall ships come up the river.

It was the largest gathering of tall ships along the B.C. coast in more than a

century. Over 400,000 people came to Richmond for that event during the course

of the five days of the festival. It was a splendid opportunity to put Richmond

and Steveston on the map.

[1520]

I'll never

forget the feeling I had when I stood on the point where I was and looked at the

vast crowds of people, who were all having the time of their lives. No one

sitting in Garry Point Park that afternoon was asking themselves tough questions

about how much the festival cost, the 2,200 volunteers that were required, the

extent to which businesses would or would not benefit from the festival.

Everyone was just really excited to be there.

Everyone

was just really excited to be part of an event that made them feel connected to

their community, made them feel connected to their province, made

[ Page 5160 ]

them feel better about themselves. For me, that was the moment at which I

became as sold on the Olympics as you could possibly be sold, because, really,

the Olympics…. You know, we need to know about costs. We need to know all

about that important stuff. The members opposite need to hold government to

account for budgets, for expenditures and facilities. We need to know about what

they're there for, what good they'll serve, what is a legacy investment and

what's not a legacy investment.

All of that

is hugely important, but for me at the end of the day, when the Olympics come to

British Columbia, it's going to be about making us feel tremendously proud to be

British Columbians. It's going to be about that moment in the sun where we will

all feel like we're a part of something that's important, where we will all feel

valued as citizens. Everything we can do in this chamber to move us toward that

day is, I think, work worth doing, and that includes supporting this budget.

H. Bloy:

It is an honour and a privilege to rise today in the House in support of the

budget. This budget is on track for a brighter future for all British

Columbians. Our first full budget in 2002 introduced a three-year plan with

three goals: to restore sound fiscal management, to revitalize the economy and

to put patients, students and people first.

This plan

is working. We will balance the budget in 2004-05. We have increased the overall

educational budget by $143 million over the next three years. We're going to

direct an additional $1.3 billion in expected federal funding to meet the health

care needs of British Columbians. We're going to invest $650 million of new

dedicated fuel tax revenue in transportation infrastructure over the next three

years in the heartlands.

We will

achieve a significantly lower level of debt than anticipated in the 2002 budget

and fiscal plan. We are restoring sound fiscal management. We are keeping

spending under control. We are revitalizing the economy — tax changes for

growth and diversification, the opening up of B.C. heartlands to economic

growth, opening up the heartlands through transportation, revitalizing our

forest industry and construction to promote economic development.

We are

putting patients, students and people in need first. We're preserving the Health

Services budget. We're increasing the education funding per student. We're

funding leading-edge post-secondary education, and we're supporting families and

communities. The opposition says we are ignoring those in need, those that can't

support themselves. Our opposition colleagues like to say we're the

representatives of the rich. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant loves to

stand up in this House and tell us the pain we are inflicting on low- and

middle-income families in B.C.

I disagree.

I contend that the track record of the two members for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings lends itself to hypocrisy every time they speak

in this House. The budget presented in this House on February 18 is protecting

the members of society that cannot protect themselves and at the same time is

continuing the progress we initiated almost two years ago.

If I can

take you back three years ago, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a

self-described social activist for the downtown east side, for all intents and

purposes abolished the homeowners grant for people with disabilities. This

member, who on a constant basis criticizes the well-intentioned responsibilities

and effective fiscal policies of this government, should take a look back at her

days as a minister before getting up in this House and accusing this government

of ignoring the poor.

[1525]

The

opposition will try and has tried to accuse this government of hurting those in

society that need the help the most. That is an outright lie. This budget, like

the one before it, is setting priorities, putting money where it is needed and

is, no doubt, on its way to a balanced budget in 2004-05.

I don't

want to go back too far in history, but it helps to appreciate the fiscal

responsibilities of Minister Collins in his recent budget. I recollect a certain

Finance minister three years ago, who signed off on pension plans for two senior

bureaucrats worth more than a million dollars together. This former Finance

minister responded to questions of his responsibility by stating: "I don't

have a clue." Let me tell you, this government has a clue. It knows where

it's going. We have a plan to balance the budget and to see that British

Columbia regains atop Canada, economically and socially, what it once had.

All our

ministers came in under budget for the first time in recorded history. Is that

not a worthy accomplishment? Of course it is. The money saved was redirected

into programs that British Columbians asked for and needed. We are spending 41

percent of our budget on health care, 5 percent more than the national average.

More importantly, more money is being directed at patient care than ever before.

We have dramatically lowered income assistance caseloads. We have increased

disability income exemptions. We have increased child care spaces by 50 percent

in the coming year. Now, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to say that

these are not constructive and compassionate programs.

We are on

track for a brighter future; I am sure of it. The dark days of the NDP are gone.

Responsibility and accountability are back in this Legislature. Unions are

trying to tell us to turn back, to revert to the tax-and-spend decade that sunk

this glorious province to the bottom of nearly all economic indicators. The head

of the Business Council of B.C., Jock Finlayson, echoes my thoughts about this

budget: "The government remains committed to the fiscal target laid out. We

strongly support that. Unions say: 'Roll back the policy.' I say we're just

starting to roll forward."

I take

exception to comments made in this House just a few days ago by a former Finance

minister. She said that this is not a stay-the-course budget, and I quote:

"…anybody to be drawn into that misleading

[ Page 5161 ]

statement is foolish." Well, as one of four million residents of British

Columbia, I am offended. How dare the opposition leader, the interim leader of

the NDP, insult the intellect of the people of British Columbia and the over

900,000 people who place their trust in the fiscal agenda of this government? I

take exception to this comment and rightly so. On May 16, 2001, 57.6 percent of

the voters of British Columbia gave this government an unprecedented mandate to

fundamentally change the way government operates. We are fulfilling those

promises, and this budget highlights those commitments.

Finally, I

just want to express my annoyance at the repetitive theme within the Leader of

the Opposition's speech, which was particularly hypocritical: "Stand up and

justify…." Would the Leader of the Opposition like to stand up and

justify the fearmongering of fallacies that she constantly spouts in this

assembly? Would she like to stand up and justify the exploitation of the British

Columbia taxpayer throughout the nineties? Would she like to stand up and

justify the doubletalk and rhetoric that I hear from her nearly every day?

British Columbia is once and for all back on track, contrary to what the member

for Vancouver-Hastings likes to say. I am confident in this budget, confident in

this government and absolutely confident in the future of British Columbia.

[1530]

I'd like to

talk about a little bit of good news in the riding of Burquitlam. It's the home

of Simon Fraser University. Did you know that on top of Simon Fraser University,

over the next 20 years will be built 10,000 new residences? It's called

"UniverCity." There will also be retail and commercial space.

But that's

not all that's happening in Burquitlam. The Olympics are coming to Burquitlam

atop Burnaby Mountain at Simon Fraser University. The Olympics — I can

envision it. They're going to build the skating oval at Simon Fraser University.

It's going to be a magnificent building. It's going to have three ice-playing

surfaces in the middle. It's going to have a long track and a short track.

They're going to be presenting gold medals there in 2010. I can visualize it

now, and I often do, seeing that first gold medal being put around the neck of a

Canadian as O Canada is played. The Olympics is about sports, but the

Canadian Olympic bid is for all Canadians. The real legacy that will be left

from the Olympics will be the over 100,000 square feet of research and classroom

space that will be attached to the skating oval. This comes complete with an

endowment fund for the operation of this building. Simon Fraser University is

going to become a centre for health and sport excellence in Canada. That is the

true legacy of the Olympics in the economic plan of this government of British

Columbia.

That's the

good news from Burquitlam, and there's lots more good news. EBay is coming. The

new laundry facilities for the Fraser health authority are coming. Abgenix has

just opened a biotech lab next to Chromos.

But let's

talk about some of the things that the NDP left behind. They left all these

problems behind. I just want to mention a few of them: the Lillooet land

resource management committee, the central coast land resource management

committee, no energy policy in British Columbia, Burns Bog, Sumas 2 power plant,

Skeena Cellulose, Carrier Lumber settlement. I don't think I have to describe

each one of these. Every British Columbian has felt the pain from the NDP in ten

years by not acting on many of these. Forest land renewal — spending twice as

much as it was taking in. Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre — $75 million

down the drain. Our Minister Thorpe has just announced the start of construction

and bidding on the new convention centre.

They left

behind fast ferries, a SkyTrain SAR lawsuit, the Lions Gate Bridge lawsuit,

skyrocketing Pharmacare costs, doctors and nurses shortages across this

province. In fact, with the NDP in power, the number of nurses graduating

declined every year from 1996. MSP collections; a virtual ignorance of how

business actually works; unfunded child care announcements; Munroe agreement on

funded liabilities; mental health plan never in any budget; Forest Practices

Code, an extra $1 billion in costs that didn't have to be there; unfunded

tuition freezes; Tech B.C.; Surrey Place redevelopment; Woodwards Building; a

$3.8 billion structural deficit; uncompetitive tax rates — those are just a

few of the things that the NDP left behind.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

The Leader

of the Opposition never lets facts get in the way of her outrageous stories, and

I'd like to quote some notes from her throne speech. But just before I do that,

I would like to say that this is what I dream of for the future of British

Columbia one of these days. I take this from the Vancouver Sun on

Thursday, February 27, and I just want to read the title of this: "Alberta

Likely to Enjoy $2 Billion Budget Surplus This Year." I'm sure that's the

goal of this government.

[1535]

Just before

I get on to the remarks, I would like to comment on the Ipsos-Reid poll. The

date here is within the last week — February 25:

"Eight

in ten small business owners say that the provincial government is moving in

the right direction with respect to the changes they have made for small

business over the last two years. More than four in ten say that B.C.'s

business climate is already in better shape than when the Liberals were first

elected. When asked to think two years in the future, 66 percent expect that

the B.C. business climate will be in better shape than today. Current taxes,

40 percent, and the economy, 23 percent, top the list of issues which small

business owners want B.C. to address."

just wanted to respond to some comments that the Leader of the Opposition, the

interim leader of the NDP, made in her throne speech reply. Hers were:

"After almost two years in power, the economy is not well. The deficit is

out of control. More debt is being added to the books than ever before. Our

communities are being devastated."

I just want

to point out the B.C. Liberal government record. British Columbians pay the

lowest rate of per-

[ Page 5162 ]

sonal income tax of any province in Canada for the first $60,000 of income.

B.C.'s average weekly wage increased at more than three times the national rate

and showed the strongest increase of all provinces in 2002. Home sales in

British Columbia in 2002 totalled more than $19 billion, up 27 percent. B.C.

gained almost 78,000 new jobs in 2002, an increase of 4.1 percent and well ahead

of the national increase of 3.7 percent.

We have

introduced balanced-budget legislation. We have a fiscal plan that is on track

to balance the budget in 2004-05. Each ministry came in under budget this year,

the first time in at least 50 years. The 2003-04 deficit is $600 million below

what was forecast.

Again, the

member for Vancouver-Hastings had this to say: "Less than two years ago the

Premier won an overwhelming mandate on a promise of hope and prosperity, on a

promise to restore confidence in the integrity of our political institutions.

Not only has that promise not been filled, it's been broken."

Well, I

want to correct the member for Vancouver-Hastings, and I want to let the member

know what we have been doing. The Premier of this great province has established

monthly open cabinet meetings and reactivated all-party committees in the

Legislature. As a point, the member for Vancouver-Hastings was a member of the

government for ten years, and they had select standing committees that never met

— that never met. They did everything, hidden, out of the Premier's office. We

have the most open government ever on record in Canada.

All

government MLAs have taken a voluntary 5 percent pay cut, saving taxpayers over

a quarter of a million dollars. Did you know that we did that, but both NDP

members of the Legislature refused to take that tax break? According to public

accounts, the government caucus finished the first year $1.1 million under

budget, and total spending on MLA constituency communications was $5.6 million

under budget. Cabinet ministers have 20 percent of their salary held back, only

to receive that amount if they meet their personal budget and, overall, only if

the whole cabinet makes the budgets of their service plans.

Three-year

ministry service plans established providing audited, measurable performance

standards; passed real balanced-budget legislation; adopted generally accepted

accounting principles for all provincial finances — this is the first province

in Canada to do this, and it's about time — restored open tendering on

government contracts; established waste-buster websites so that taxpayers can

identify, report and stamp out government waste; and eliminated the use of

special warrants to prevent government from spending your money without

legislative approval. For most of the last ten years under the NDP, their

spending was done by special warrant.

The member

for Vancouver-Hastings continues to make remarks that are not true: "The

Premier has made it clear. He's not going to do anything about campaign finance

reform." That was a remark from the member — again, another untruth from

the member. We repealed the NDP gag law that restricts third-party advertising

during election campaigns. We amended the Election Act to eliminate loopholes

and disclosures of financial contributors to parties and to include donations

from labour. Can you imagine that? The Leader of the Opposition, the interim

leader of the NDP, when she was in government, forgot to count all the money

that came from unions. I just find that ludicrous.

[1540]

Another

comment coming from the Leader of the Opposition: "The government has also

promised massive reforms to the way we extract wealth from our forests. Change

is necessary, market reforms included, but once again the Liberals are putting

the primacy of markets ahead of the needs of communities, tearing up the social

contract upon which this province was built, with little thought to the ruined

communities they will leave in their wake" — again, more distortion by

the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

What this

B.C. Liberal government has done is introduced the Forest and Range Practices

Act, beginning British Columbia's transition to a workable, results-based

practices code with tough penalties for non-compliance. It cuts red tape,

encourages innovation by skilled resource professionals and holds industries

responsible for the outcomes.

The Premier

and the Forests minister have worked tirelessly to see the softwood lumber

dispute resolved. A new working forest policy has been proposed to provide

greater land base certainty for forestry and help build a stronger economy. A

new forest investment account has been established to focus resources on

land-based activities, marketing and value-added growth.

Develop a

mountain pine beetle action plan.

This

government has developed a workers transition program, compensation for taxes

that workers inadvertently pay.

This

government has allocated $20 million to international marketing and forest

product development. The Premier has hosted a summit on softwood lumber. Trade

missions to China to expand markets for B.C. forest products have taken place.

The government has allocated $20 million in research to promote forest

stewardship.

The

government will be providing $275 million to help forest workers, contractors,

industry and communities deal with the changes that must be made — more good

news from this government.

Again, we

have the member for Vancouver-Hastings making false statements. This is another

one of them: "Rural B.C. is hurting. A change of name, to the heartland

B.C., won't change a thing unless this government takes action. Rural B.C. is

hurting. It's hurting in a way we haven't seen since the 1930s" — more

outrageous comments by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

The B.C.

Liberal government has created both a northern and a Kootenay caucus to ensure

that the heartlands' issues have a strong voice in government.

The

government has established a $146 million forest investment account to promote

sustainable forest management in British Columbia.

[ Page 5163 ]

This

government has provided $2 million in funding to the University of Northern B.C.

to research and develop a workplan that responds to the recommendations of both

reports on offshore oil and gas.

This

government has announced a new northern health centre that establishes Prince

George as an educational centre for doctors. Interior health tele-imaging

improves patient care.

This

government has reduced patient wait times. This government has provided a $58.5

million package of benefits and financial incentives designed to attract doctors

to rural areas.

We will be

introducing new legislation that will support the opportunities for job creation

in coalbed methane in the Kootenays, in the central interior and on Vancouver

Island.

It just

keeps going — more good news for British Columbia. I just have to get the

truth out there.

The

government will be providing $275 million to assist B.C. forest workers,

communities and companies in moving to a more acceptable, sustainable Forest

Practices Code.

The

government is working to expand the Cranbrook Airport to open up the Kootenays

to increased international tourism to allow those planes from all over the world

to land in the Kootenays to enjoy the great skiing they have there.

The

government will be building a bridge at Needles to open the Kootenays to the

Okanagan. The government will be building a $670 million upgrade to the

Trans-Canada Highway through Kicking Horse Canyon.

[1545]

In the next

three years we'll invest $362 million in rehabilitating the rural and remote

roads infrastructure. Over the next three years we're going to invest $210

million in rural roads and resource roads and $37 million in roads that are

specifically intended to meet the needs of our oil and gas industry. We're going

to introduce enabling legislation aimed at encouraging mining and mineral

development in British Columbia. Bill 54 removed the red tape and added

certainty of access for mineral title holders. The Ministry of Forests

eliminated the PST from production equipment for mining and oil and gas. As a

result of a thorough environmental review, the Tulsequah mine was approved. Bill

38 enhanced B.C.'s natural position as a leader in coalbed methane development.

We have

appointed a three-member scientific review panel to determine if offshore oil

and gas resources can be extracted in a scientifically sound and environmentally

responsible manner, and have created an offshore team that will work with first

nations, coastal communities and the federal government to see a thriving

offshore industry by the year 2010. This government introduced an energy plan to

ensure secure and safe energy for British Columbians well into the future. The

energy plan built on four cornerstones: low electricity rates and public

ownership of B.C. Hydro; secure, reliable supply; more private sector

opportunities; and environmentally responsible and non-nuclear power sources —

and eliminated seven of 22 fees, or 31 percent, administered by the Oil and Gas

Commission.

I could go

on forever about the mistruths that are being spread by the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, but I want to end on a positive note. This government is on

track for a brighter future, and I am proud to say that I can stand here and

fully support this government and the budget.

Hayer: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege of speaking to this House on

this year's budget.

It is the

second full budget this government has presented to the people that meets all

expectations. It's a good budget, it's a prudent budget, and it's shaping the

way to the principal commitment this government based its election campaign on:

the promise to balance the budget during the first term in office. In effect, if

everything goes the way our hon. Finance minister predicts — and he is on

record as saying his forecasts are conservative — we will not only balance the

budget as early as 2004-05, we will have a modest surplus followed the next year

by an even larger surplus. This is the way a government should be run —

prudent fiscal balancing.

The people

of British Columbia made it very, very clear in 2001 that they wanted a change.

They wanted a fiscally responsible government. They didn't want any more

deficit. They wanted the government to operate within its means. As we all know,

two years ago this May people made a decisive change through the ballot box.

They turfed the last government, virtually decimated the ruling party, and they

sent 77 new government members into office. In doing so, they delivered that

message of fiscal responsibility to all politicians.

Under the

guidance of our Finance minister, his team has come up with a budget that not

only can we live by, but we can take it to the people and show them that we have

done as they asked us in May two years ago. We have returned fiscal

responsibility to the government and to this province.

[1550]

As you

know, Mr. Speaker, one of the most amazing things about this budget is the

almost total lack of criticism from all quarters. I do not see the media

attacking or ridiculing the government over this budget. I don't hear the people

berating us. That alone tells me that our Finance minister has done the right

thing. He and his team have come up with a document that we can not only live by

and base our government plans on, but one that is pulling this province back on

the right track for prosperity and hope for the long term.

It is a

budget that is also protecting our most vulnerable in society. It is putting

more money into the hands of school boards. It is maintaining our health system.

It is creating programs that will see our much-stressed transportation system be

moved into the twenty-first century.

Another

significant effort of this budget is that it is aimed directly at trying to

bring down British Columbia's overall debt. Because of that debt, over $1.5

billion of this province's revenues go every year into interest

[ Page 5164 ]

payments. That is our third-highest expenditure behind only health and

education in government spending. Just think what we could be doing with that

$1.5 billion if we weren't spending it on the debt interest.

That said,

I'm very happy with this budget, and I know that many others are too. In fact,

right after the budget was prepared, our Premier spoke at a Surrey Chamber of

Commerce luncheon at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel in my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead. Over 300 business people, along with some union members,

attended that luncheon. The room was full of enthusiasm, and the Premier

received a number of standing ovations.

I am a

former president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, and I know many of its

members personally. After that luncheon, everyone I talked to had nothing but

praise for what this government is doing and for the steps it is taking to

return to fiscal responsibility and prudent spending and bring back economic

hope.

To ensure

that I've received full feedback on this budget, on Friday, February 21, I,

along with my Surrey colleagues, convened a post-budget stakeholders meeting in

my Surrey-Tynehead constituency office. Beginning at 8 a.m. and running right

through to 8 p.m., we met with, listened to and received input from more than 18

of the most prominent groups within Surrey.

Many of the

organizations and stakeholder bodies are from within my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead, but I wanted to know exactly what everyone from throughout the

Surry area was thinking. I think you should know who all these groups are,

because they not only represent the complete cross-section of Surrey but are

themselves truly representative of groups located anywhere in this province.

We started

the morning off meeting with the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and followed with

representatives of the Surrey Teachers Association; members of the BCGEU; the

Surrey agricultural committee; the president and members of the Surrey district

parent advisory council; Métis Family Services; Simon Fraser University Surrey

campus; Whalley Business Association; Surrey Memorial Hospital; Surrey Memorial

Hospital Foundation; Fraser health authority; Surrey parks, recreation and

culture committee; South Surrey Community Services; Surrey social planning

committee; a group called Options — that's a community organization; members

of the HEU; the Indo-Canadian Business Association; Peace Arch District

Hospital; and Surrey Community Services Society.

These

groups represent thousands of people and stakeholders throughout the province.

They spoke eloquently about their desire and their demand for government to be

good stewards for the taxpayers' dollars. They told me that to bring this

province back to its former economic glory, government must be prudent with its

spending. They were also very clear that we must not forget our social

responsibilities either.

We must

ensure that our educational system becomes the very best in Canada and that our

health care services and supply system must be the very best it can be. Change

is never easy, and not everyone agrees with all aspects of this government's

steps to be fiscally responsible. We heard their voices too. We heard what

everybody had to say — good and bad. I assure you, as I assured them, that I

will share all that I heard with my caucus colleagues and this government.

[1555]

I want to

go on record that I believe government is only strong when it listens to and

responds to the people. I think this budget is a response to what people want to

see. They wanted a government that makes sure they can earn some money, feed

their families, keep a roof over their heads, have good health care and

education systems, and have hope for the future. This government is doing that.

Many people have told me that loud and clear.

Many are

saying that this government needs to stay the course and keep working toward a

balanced budget and that surplus, though I am certain they don't want to see

government piling up too much surplus. When our government gets to that point,

we should ask B.C. voters what they would like to do with these surplus dollars.

As this government demonstrated in the first act after taking office, a tax cut

gives people more money in their pockets and lets them spend it the way they see

fit. This helps to drive the economy even further ahead, and as our economy

grows, we will be putting more money into education and health care, as this

government has promised in its New Era document.

That said,

I have also been told that the people will support some tax increases, and one

in this budget is being supported. That increase is 2.5 percent on school taxes,

and most people are supporting it. They are supporting it because they believe

— and they have told us, the government, this many times over the past couple

of years — that they want the very best education system possible for their

children and their grandchildren, and they are willing to pay for it.

Another tax

increase I have heard some complaints about is the 3½-cents-per-litre increase

in fuel tax, but when I tell people that all of that money will be spent on

transportation infrastructure and will get them to work quicker and home sooner,

and commercial and industrial goods can get to markets cheaper, they understand

it and they can agree with it. They accept it because they know it will help the

economy of the whole province.

No one

wants to pay more taxes, and no one in this government likes to raise taxes, but

we did cut taxes 25 percent across the board as our first act in office. British

Columbians in the lowest two tax brackets now pay the lowest provincial income

tax base rate in this country. In fact, I would like to quote the Minister of

Finance from comments he made recently on a radio station. The Minister of

Finance said:

"In

the budget, we have done a comparison of different income levels. We have

taken all the taxes that you pay in British Columbia: income tax, property

tax, tobacco tax, gas tax, MSP premiums. You put all that

[ Page 5165 ]

together and get the overall tax level here. They did the

same thing for other provinces, and British Columbia actually ranks number one

or number two for having the lowest tax burden anywhere in this country. For

most of them we are slightly behind Alberta, but for a senior couple with an

income of $30,000, we are actually lowest in the country."

That tells you that we actually did put money back into their pockets.

While this

fuel tax may seem like we are taking it back, we are doing something very

specific with that money. We will be fixing roads, making them safer and more

efficient and making life easier for people throughout the north, the interior

and the eastern part of this province — our heartlands. For too many years

those roads have been ignored while their use has increased incredibly. They

have deteriorated to the point that they are dangerous, they can't handle the

traffic, and the movement of goods becomes more and more expensive. Something

had to be done, and done soon, or the costs would be unmanageable.

[1600]

Since the

province derives huge revenue from the heartlands of British Columbia, which

benefits everyone, it is only fair that all should contribute to the cost of

revitalizing the transportation routes of our heartlands. Due to relatively

small populations in the vast areas that create our forest wealth, our mineral

revenues, many agricultural products and our tourism potential, it would be

impossible to have a region-specific tax that would contribute in any meaningful

way to rebuilding and restructuring the transportation routes north and east of

Hope.

As I said

previously, since all of us on the small but very highly populated lower

mainland benefit from these revenues, it is only fair and proper that we

contribute equally. Although not mentioned specifically in this budget, I know

that sometime in the near future, we will see, if supported by the general

public, tolls on the lower mainland to finance major new transportation

improvements.

While some

may not agree, I think this method of financing is good, because it is based on

the system of user-pay. Tolls are not new. We have them on the Coquihalla. In a

sense, we have them on B.C. ferries, and for those old enough to remember, we

had them on the Lions Gate Bridge. Back then, interestingly enough, the Lions

Gate Bridge was the only way to get across Burrard Inlet and to the North Shore

without taking a boat.

If I may

point out to those who think the new toll system will delay traffic because

drivers will have to stop to pay, let me make it clear that in the future,

tolling will be based on an electronic system. Vehicles will not stop, as they

do now on the Coquihalla, but traffic flows will continue uninterrupted as the

electronic monitors and perhaps cameras will record their passing. Cameras will

record their licence plates passing and electronically levy the tolls.

I just want

to mention one more transportation issue based on a meeting I had on February

23, 2003, with the representatives of the Abbey Ridge of Port Kells in my

Surrey-Tynehead constituency. The residents are concerned about the proposed new

crossing of the Fraser River between Surrey and Maple Ridge. They are concerned

that any changes to the proposal may have a major effect on them and will not

happen without their input. As a result of their concerns, I'm trying to arrange

a meeting for them with the Ministry of Transportation's project coordinator and

TransLink so that they can provide positive input and everybody can benefit. I

believe this new crossing will be a win-win for everyone, and I want to ensure

that everyone is happy with the final outcome with their input.

However,

you have heard me talk about transportation many times before, and I won't dwell

on the issue any further today except to say that I am eagerly waiting for the

Minister of Transportation's vision for the lower mainland system, expected in

the next few weeks. I'm also eagerly awaiting this government's next budget,

when the Minister of Finance stands in this House and tells us we have achieved

a surplus budget. It will be welcome news. We will know then that we have taken

the right steps and that the Finance minister has done an exceptional job.

In fact,

each and every minister is doing a good job, because for perhaps the first time

in history, every minister either came in on budget or under budget. Also, for

the first time in B.C. history, the Premier has allowed all government MLAs to

have, through the committee system, full input into government ministry plans

and direction. That tells us our fiscal house is getting in order and that we

are doing the job the people of British Columbia asked us to do in May 2001.

The future

is looking bright, and if we can ever get the Americans to drop their

protectionism and deal with us fairly on the softwood lumber issue, then things

will truly be good for all of us. At the same time as we are dealing with the

Americans, I do believe we need to continue the strides we have made in creating

and establishing new lumber markets in Asia. If we can diversify our markets and

reduce our dependence on the Americans and their protectionist politics, we may

once again see stability in our forest-dependent communities.

I support

this budget. Many people have told me we are on the right track and that we must

stay the course to achieve the hope and prosperity that the people expect

government to offer them.

[1605]

Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it's again my privilege to stand in this House to

speak on the budget. One of the things I'd like to try and do today is reflect

as to what this budget means to me, some of the areas that we're trying to cover

in our budget and the processes which we take to accomplish those goals. I'd

like to, in simplistic terms, put out what I believe we are trying to achieve

with our budgeting process and, also, what that's going to mean to us as British

Columbians in the long term.

First off,

we're trying to balance the budget. Now, what does that mean? I think that for

most of us who

[ Page 5166 ]

run any kind of household finances or business finances, it's quite simple

what that means. It means you have to balance the amount of funds that you have

coming in with the funds that are going out. Basically, don't spend any more

than you have. We're doing a fairly good job of that.

Another

goal, of course, is to reduce the overall debt. The long-term goal is to reduce

the amount of debt. Now, we shouldn't confuse debt with our current deficit.

Deficit is the amount of money by which, in each year, you run over your budget.

If you believe you're going to bring in so much money and you actually spend

more than that, that's a deficit. As that accumulates, that becomes a debt.

Interjection.

Stewart: I know the minister of regulations found that quite enlightening.

It's something that I'm sure he has to look at when he's looking at his

regulations to ensure….

An Hon.

Member: Deregulation.

Stewart: Deregulation. That's partially difficult when we keep bringing in

new laws to make things better because there are a bunch of old laws out there

that we have to get rid of. I appreciate his comments on the subject, but I'll

try and get back to my text here and move along with what the overall debt means

to us as British Columbians.

In British

Columbia every dollar that we have to pay on the debt is a dollar that doesn't

go to programs. When we're now going to be sitting at approximately $40 billion

worth of debt, debt servicing — depending on interest — is anywhere between

$1.5 billion and $1.75 billion a year. That's a significant amount of money. A

secondary goal for this government, once we do balance our budget, is to use

some of the future surpluses to pay down that overall debt so that we can have

more money to contribute to services.

Another

thing that we need to do is have an accurate accounting of what our actual debt

and financial status is. By moving to the generally accepted accounting

principles, no longer will governments be able to hide behind shoddy or

deceptive accounting practices. Fudge-it budgets will be a thing of the past. As

a result of the generally accepted accounting principles being brought into this

government, we will now see the true financial picture of our government, with

all the good and some of the warts that go along with that.

Efficiency.

It's a goal of mine and of our government to ensure that when a dollar is

directed towards a particular program or project, as much of that dollar gets

down to delivering the service as possible. That's the efficiency. We do not

want to see, when we put in some of our budgets such as health care, $10.2

billion to deliver service to the people of British Columbia…. We want to see

as great a portion of that money getting down to the hospitals, down to the

patients, and try and reduce the amount of money that's lost in administrative

and other charges on the way down. That's the efficiency we're trying to

achieve, and I believe this budget works towards that.

Then

there's the effectiveness. That's how effective these funds are, and the

energies that are put forward to get the desired results, that can be utilized

in a manner that has improved results. That is, once we are efficient in getting

those dollars down to where those services are being provided, we want to ensure

that those services are effective and that our public is getting value for

money. There must be a quantitative value for the tax dollars that we extract

from our taxpayers. We need measurements, benchmarks — and reflect those

benchmarks not only in dollars but also in social expectations. We must ensure

that we have an objective way of measuring what those benchmarks are and what

those dollars and those energies that we expend are really doing for the people

of British Columbia.

Now on to

another concept: taxation. How do we collect those funds? Well, in Canada and

British Columbia we've always followed through on a social commitment that those

who earn more support those who earn less. That's one of the major social fibres

of Canadian society — to ensure that those who need help get help.

[1610]

There are a

number of ways that we extract these funds or tax our citizens. One of the ways

we collect fees to do the people's work is to have things such as general income

tax. At that end of the spectrum, what we have is a type of funding that we all

pay whether we use it or not. That's in our general taxation on properties. If

you own a home, you pay tax. If you earn an income, you pay tax. Regardless of

what you use or consume, you pay a portion of tax on those items — your income

and your property holdings.

At the

other end of the spectrum, we have a user tax. Those things are similar to what

we've just recently applied to gas. As unfavourable as it was for us to do that,

we know that we have to tax in order to be able to have funds to improve our

roads and highways. I'll get into that more, but that's an example of a direct

tax. Your sales tax is another direct tax. You pay for what you buy, and the tax

is based on your consumption and what you use.

In between

there is a combination of taxation. Parks would be a good example of that. We

have recently put a user fee on some portions of parking, etc., in some parks,

but there's also a major portion of general income that comes through our

taxation, which covers off the operation of those parks. There's a situation

where we have a combination of a user fee and a general use of tax.

When we

look at this, we have to decide why we are doing this. Some people criticize the

fact that we reduced our income tax, especially in the under $60,000 income

bracket, to the lowest in Canada — a 25 percent reduction in income tax across

the board. What that does is give people an option as to where they wish to

spend their taxes and their tax dollars and, of course, where they get to spend

the money left in their pockets. It gives people a choice. If a person doesn't

like the gas

[ Page 5167 ]

tax, they can choose to do a couple of things. They can look to get a more

fuel-efficient vehicle. They can look at ways of not travelling so much. They

can look at supporting our other types of transit systems, especially in urban

areas where we have SkyTrain, we have the West Coast Express, and we have a

number of bus services. People may look at that and say: "Well, if I start

taking the bus or another form of transit, I'll actually save money." In a

sense, they have a choice there.

Appreciating

the fact that there's some people that don't have a choice, those that are maybe

the long-haul truckers, people who use the roads a lot…. But they will get the

benefit. They will get the benefit of that 3½ cents per litre that will go

directly to improving the roads. In the long run, what will that mean for them?

That will mean more efficient times between their stops. It will mean that they

can run their vehicles at closer to the speed limits on longer portions of their

trips, allowing them to be more fuel-effective, and in the long run save them

money on wear and tear of their vehicles. That's a way that the user who's

paying actually gains the benefit.

That's just

one of the philosophies that I like to support within this government: an

overall reduction in our general tax, which did a number of things — including

for our economy, the retail sector especially. When it was going through hard

times all over North America and Canada, we had a real surge in consumer

spending, and that was a direct result of that 25 percent reduction in personal

income tax.

I guess the

next question is: given that those are some of the concepts that we're trying to

put forward in our budget, how are we doing? It's been almost two years now that

we've been in government, and let's see what the pundits say. According to a

recent Ipsos-Reid poll, 78 percent of small business owners say that the B.C.

Liberals are moving in the right direction, 44 percent of this group believe

B.C.'s already in better shape today than it was, and 66 percent are very

positive that in two years the business climate will be better than it is today.

That's very positive news. Many people know that small business is one of the

main generators of the economy in British Columbia. These people are the small

entrepreneurs that are starting all over British Columbia with new businesses,

and they are now encouraged by what our government is doing with regard to the

financial stability within this province.

[1615]

There's

another group of people. I mentioned earlier about the generally accepted

accounting principles, which are the way of the future. What that does is

protect the public from the types of scandals we've seen in the United States

with some of the large corporations. It also prevents the type of misinformation

that comes through the fudge-it-type budgets we've also seen in British

Columbia. What does the Certified General Accountants Association of B.C. say of

our budget? A direct quote: "These guys are good." I think it's been a

are good." What do they mean by "these guys are good"? They were

more direct in their comments in saying, "Finance minister Gary Collins is

quickly putting B.C. on a solid footing with a better-than-forecast deficit

reduction and ambitious provisions for infrastructure upgrading and forest

sector transition funding," — such bright words for our Minister of

Finance from the accountant group of British Columbia.

The recent

budget also tells us we're on track for a balanced budget in 2004-05. This tells

us that we're moving again in the right direction, and B.C. will be in a

position to pay its own way as it goes. Again, let us not confuse a balanced

budget with the position of not having an accumulated debt. There is a

significant accrued debt, but we'll finally stop the bleeding with deficit

budgets, and we can now catch our breath and get on with it.

Since our

first full budget in 2002 we have a lower-than-planned deficit,

lower-than-capital funding and lower-than-forecast debt. The deficit is expected

to be $600 million lower than planned, and if there are no unexpected events

between now and March 31, the deficit could almost be $1 billion lower than

forecast. Yes, we are on track in British Columbia, and the plan is working.

What am I

hearing from my constituents? Most of the people I meet in the streets and at

events are generally supportive and encouraging me to stay the course, for we

are doing what we were elected to do. I also get the expected response from some

of the public service union leaders, who have a definite vested self-interest in

the status quo. They express no concern for the efficiency or effectiveness of

your tax dollar expenditures. They are quite happy to continue on the plan of

the previous government of spending what you don't have and letting someone else

worry about it down the road. This is something we cannot afford to keep. We

have to move on, we have to make those large government institutions more

effective and efficient, and we are doing that. There's no question in my mind

that we are keeping our financial commitment to the citizens of British

Columbia, and this latest budget only solidifies that promise we made to them.

Manhas: I'm pleased to respond to our government's second full budget. Our

budget last year was a difficult, but needed, blueprint for getting our province

and our economy back on track. We are on track, and for the second year in a row

the government has given more certainty, more accountability, more openness and

a greater platform for planning service delivery through public rolling

three-year service plans.

Critics,

including our credible and forward-looking NDP opposition members, who did such

a first-class job of fiscal prudence and long-term planning when they were in

government — I'm being facetious, if you couldn't tell, Mr. Speaker — said,

"We could not meet our targets," and they said that our plan was

draconian. Well, our first full fiscal year is nearly complete, government is

running better and more efficiently than in a decade, and there is nothing

draconian about that.

We have

planned, we have been smart, and we have carefully prioritized scarce dollars

towards areas

[ Page 5168 ]

that have the most impact. In short, we have been prudent and have managed

public dollars well. The first great benefit of our prudent fiscal management

was that we spent less on interest costs. Because of those savings we were able

to invest more money in important public services like our education system.

Because of our sound fiscal management, we were able to direct $142 million into

the public education system. That's on top of the $50 million recently announced

by the Premier. That's a substantial benefit to the young people in my

community, whose futures we are planning.

In fact,

although enrolment is declining, the budget for the Ministry of Education was

kept the same, which means an extra $51 for every student who goes to school in

Port Coquitlam and Burke Mountain. That's in addition to the one-time funding of

$50 million that was announced by the Premier, which translated into an extra

$2.7 million for my school district and was allocated directly to the school

board before the budget. Excluding one-time funding, the annual budget for the

Ministry of Education is also planned to increase by $243 per student more than

in the last fiscal year.

[1620]

The

Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to offer the

school-based programs like school meals and inner-city school funding that have

been so important to children in need to help them succeed in the classroom and

that have been used in several schools in my community including Central

Elementary, Coquitlam Middle School and others. This shows the real benefit to

sound fiscal management, and it shows our government's commitment to putting the

interests of students first.

The budget

also showed our commitment to putting the interests of patients first in the

health care system. Our government increased health spending by 12 percent —

that's $1.1 billion — to $10.4 billion. Those are sizes of dollars that most

people don't often think about. That reflects roughly 41 percent of all

provincial spending and the highest per-capita spending on health care of any

province in Canada, according to a recent study.

We've also

dedicated $8 million more to the Michael Smith Foundation to conduct research to

improve the effectiveness of health care reforms so that we know we're getting

the system right.

Health care

authorities will receive $15 million more in grants to support the development

of an electronic records system so we can deliver services more smartly and with

greater efficiency, so British Columbians can count on the highest level of

service wherever they are in the province.

B.C. is

also moving towards increasing its complement of new doctors. The budget lays in

place a plan to ensure that by 2009, our commitment of graduating twice as many

doctors is met. That's something that people in my community, who currently face

many difficulties in finding and accessing physicians, will greatly benefit

from. That's something I hear from seniors and young people in my community, and

that's something we need to tackle, and we are.

The other

great thing that was announced in the budget was, in my opinion, an increase in

the tobacco tax — a $2-per-carton increase in tobacco tax. Hopefully, we'll

get more people to quit smoking — hopefully, reduce the burden on the health

care system, take some pressure off the needed dollars there and make smoking

something less palatable.

I'd also

like to take this opportunity to address our government's support of the Romanow

report. I've been asked many times about our government's stance, and I'd like

to share with my constituents the real issue behind the Romanow report and the

new federal funding that was based on it. Of course, we're all happy that the

report caused the federal government to examine issues in health care. I do

wish, however, that they had looked at the real needs and issues in each of the

regions.

In British

Columbia we have moved a long way to creating efficiencies and reducing

administration in health delivery. That has given health authorities a very

clear picture of need in this system. That, I believe, is true in every

province. I agree with Mr. Romanow that there's a greater need to strengthen the

public health care system to ensure it is sustainable. I believe in a strong

public health care system.

The federal

government has committed to new federal dollars for health care, but each

province has different shortfalls and different needs. Health decisions and the

dollars do not need to be micromanaged, and the time to build extra parts into a

system is once the existing parts are off life support.

Our

government funds the six independent health authorities to deliver care. That

ensures politics are removed and that the work is focused on the delivery of

care. The front lines know what is needed. What we need are more resources for

the front lines — not new, separate boutique programs.

I was

struck by a comment that was made by Premier Bernard Lord in response to new

federal dollars announced, based on the Romanow recommendations. He said, and

I'm paraphrasing: "Well, if the roof of your house is leaking and you need

to replace your roof, and someone comes to you with some money, but they say you

have to build a pool with this money, you say: 'Thanks for the pool, but the

roof is still leaking, and it still needs to be fixed.'" That's the issue

here.

We are

grateful that there is going to be more money coming in, but we do have some

serious issues in our health care system. Our government has committed to

creating a sustainable system from a health care system that was, from all

consensus, in crisis. We will continue to do that with this budget and whatever

the federal government decides to do. In fact, every penny of the $1.3 billion

of expected new federal funding will be used in the next three years to improve

the health of British Columbians.

[1625]

I read a

recent column written for the Now community newspaper — one of my local

newspapers — by

[ Page 5169 ]

Seth Klein of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think

tank. In it he claims that our government made a financial blunder when we gave

the public over $2 billion in income tax relief. I think he's wrong, and the

people of my constituency think he's wrong. But these aren't reasoned arguments;

they are the hard-core, left-wing ideologues who are contracted by the previous

government, who helped drive our province into the mess we inherited. They had

an opportunity. I hope we never return to a provincial ignominy like that ever

again.

Penner: How much did the NDP give those guys?

Manhas: Far too much. Far too many public dollars were spent there —

$200,000. These people that are out there complaining about the changing tax

structure, spewing false rhetoric, like repeating the phrase "tax cuts to

the rich," are the same people who thought the government could micromanage

an economy. They are the same people who regulated and taxed the people of the

province to death and worked hard to kill opportunity in this province.

Since we

cut personal income taxes, since we started to make needed changes to ensure

sound fiscal management, since we toiled to reopen this province for business

again…. It's since we did all those things that investment is starting to

return to the province, opportunity is returning, and young people have a future

in this province, and they're staying in this province. And no, we won't get

everything right the first time. After all, we've only been in government for

just over 20 months. But the NDP had ten years, and all they did was make

mistakes.

I think

we're doing pretty darn well. The government has shown sound fiscal management.

We have focused efforts on revitalizing the economy so people have jobs and a

bright future in British Columbia, and we have put patients, students and people

in need first. We have put o