2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 18

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

L. Mayencourt

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Gaming Control Act (Bill 6)

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Trans-Canada Highway between Alberta border and Sicamous

W. McMahon

Community development project at Simon Fraser University

H. Bloy

Firearm registry

D. MacKay

Oral Questions

Privatization of health care system

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Government support for workers in health care system

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. G. Campbell

School construction project in southeast Burnaby

J. Nuraney

Hon. C. Clark

Elimination of Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission

T. Christensen

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

H. Bloy

Motions without Notice

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5)

Hon. R. Neufeld

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5)

Hon. R. Neufeld

Budget Debate (continued)

P. Bell

Hon. M. Coell

K. Krueger

D. MacKay

R. Sultan

Introductions by Members

Budget Debate (continued)

T. Christensen

B. Bennett

W. Cobb

Hon. G. Cheema

Hon. G. Collins

Motions on Notice

Access to justice services (continued)

Introductions by Members

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

Hon. J. van Dongen

Hon. C. Hansen

R. Visser

L. Mayencourt

J. Les

[ Page 1433 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 42 students and teachers from

grades 10 and 11 visiting this House today. Half of the students are from a

school in my riding, Fraser Valley Christian High, and half are visiting from

Quebec. Would the House please make these students and their teachers very

welcome today.

MacPhail: It gives me pleasure to introduce one of my constituents, Mike

Old, who is visiting in the gallery today. He is amongst a group of people who

provide great health care at Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria General Hospital,

Gorge Road Hospital, Queen Alexandra, Saanich Peninsula General Hospital and

Sunset Lodge. They are largely women — and lots of men — who provide good

health care each and every day. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Tributes

MAY GUTTERIDGE

Mayencourt: I rise to note the passing of May Gutteridge. May Gutteridge was

a wonderful individual who worked in the downtown east side for the last 40

years. She created the St. James Social Service Society and was responsible for

the creation of May's Place, a hospice in the downtown east side. May received

the Order of Canada a few years ago. She is a great hero to many of us who have

worked in community services down there. I just ask the House to join me in

expressing our condolences to her family.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

GAMING CONTROL ACT

Hon. R.

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

intituled Gaming Control Act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Gaming Control Act. This bill

will provide the legislative framework necessary to bring stability to the

gaming industry. It will ensure a carefully regulated gaming environment and

will ensure the integrity of gaming in British Columbia.

My ministry

conducted a review, and our review identified a number of inefficiencies in the

management of gaming in British Columbia and indicated the need for

restructuring. It highlighted a need for a comprehensive legislative framework.

The proposed Gaming Control Act will bring all sectors of gaming under one

comprehensive piece of legislation. It will replace the Lottery Act, the Lottery

Corporation Act, the Horse Racing Act and the Horse Racing Tax Act.

The bill

will establish a statutory authority for some functions not currently

legislated. For example, it will give us the ability to conduct audits and

investigations. The bill will provide British Columbians with assurances that

management of gaming is fair, open and transparent.

I move that

Bill 6 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Bill 6

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) TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BETWEEN

ALBERTA BORDER AND SICAMOUS

McMahon: Today I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues once

again a stretch of highway that is of significant importance to not only the

Columbia River–Revelstoke riding but the entire province: the Trans-Canada

Highway between Sicamous and the Alberta border. This highway plays a vital role

in our province's economy.

Every day

transport trucks travel this highway through Kicking Horse Canyon and the Rogers

Pass, bringing goods and services into British Columbia and exporting some of

our goods and services to the rest of the country. It is the first impression

tourists from the east have when they drive into British Columbia and the last

road they travel on their way home. It is our lifeline to Alberta and to the

east.

In a nation

that still relies heavily on its road infrastructure, this highway keeps us

connected. It passes through some of the most beautiful areas this province has

to offer and can be a joy to travel as a tourist or as a resident.

Unfortunately, it can also be treacherous. I won't mince words when it comes to

this issue. The threat of avalanche, combined with low visibility and a narrow

winding highway, can be downright dangerous if not driven with extreme care.

Horrific accidents have claimed lives on this highway. We've all heard about

them before.

Safety is

our number one concern. It has to be. Recently, the Minister of Transportation

and I met with the committee in Revelstoke for a Safe Trans-Canada Highway to

hear of the firsthand concerns that my constituents have. I know safety tops the

minister's

[ Page 1434 ]

priority list, and I know all stakeholders from Revelstoke all the way to

Golden and beyond to the Alberta border share that same priority. So do I. I am

committed to working with the minister, the federal government and all groups to

ensure that we have the safest highway possible to carry our friends and our

neighbours and our families through the mountains.

We've

started a new era in British Columbia that will entice people to come to our

beautiful province, lay roots and start families. However, when they first

arrive and every time they return, I want to make sure the entrance to our

province contains not only a warm welcome but a safe journey.

[1410]

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

H. Bloy:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to share some information regarding a very

exciting initiative about to get underway in my riding of Burquitlam. This

summer construction is about to begin on a complete new community being

undertaken by Simon Fraser University on Burnaby Mountain. This community, to be

developed over the next 25 years, could eventually house over 10,000 people with

a wide variety of housing not only for faculty, staff and students but also for

anyone else wanting to live on Burnaby Mountain next to a world-class

university. In addition to housing, the community will include a vibrant new

commercial street along with new schools, parks and a full array of community

and recreational facilities.

undertaking this community development, the university has two major objectives:

firstly, to help transform Simon Fraser University from a commuter destination

to a community and, secondly, to create a financial endowment in support of a

variety of purposes at the university.

The project

is being managed by Burnaby Mountain Community Corp., headed by Mr. Michael

Geller. This is a separate entity with an experienced staff and a knowledgable

board of directors. It will be a financially sustainable community. Financing is

being arranged by the university without any funding requests from the

provincial government. I am confident that the new community at Simon Fraser

University will be innovative, forward-looking and a very attractive place to

live, work and learn. It represents the benefits which can come from a

partnership between the public and private sectors. I am confident that it will

reflect positively not only on the university and the city of Burnaby but on the

entire province.

FIREARM REGISTRY

MacKay: What I'd like to do today is take the House back to December 6,

1989, and more specifically to the city of Montreal, because on that date a

young man by the name of Marc Lepine walked into the University of Montreal and

shot 24 people and killed 14 young women. The shock and horror of that day was

felt right across the country, Mr. Speaker, and that shooting in Montreal

resulted in a federal bill more commonly known as Bill C-68. That bill requires

all gun owners across this country to register their firearms by January 1,

It is wrong

to think that the registering of firearms will prevent another tragedy that we

saw back in Montreal. It's not guns that kill people; it's people. Several

provinces challenged the federal government's legality of Bill C-68 but not the

province of British Columbia under the previous administration.

The

Criminal Code of Canada has provisions to deal with people such as the man that

shot and killed all those young women in Montreal. We've had a handgun

registration in this country since 1934, and today people are still killed with

handguns. We have now spent close to $650 million on the registration process

for long rifles in this country, and I suspect a large number of people will not

register their firearms by the deadline of January 1.

In closing,

I would like to express my personal disapproval of the thoughts that the

registration of firearms will prevent another tragic event. I would like to

remind the House that the tragic events of September 11 and the loss of

thousands of lives were not carried out with firearms, but in fact those lives

were lost because of the actions of a few people armed with box cutters.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

MacPhail: Today is a day that we should all mark on our calendars, because

today is the day that British Columbians for the very first time ever know the

full extent of this government's broken health care promise. It's a tale of

documents: the New Era document and the new briefing book of the Minister

of Health Services. It's a private and confidential budget briefing book that

was kept hidden from the public until today.

[1415]

The New

Era document promises a renewed public health care system. The minister's

confidential budget briefing book outlines an agenda of massive privatization

and for-profit health care.

To the

Minister of Health Services: will the minister finally admit what his own

confidential briefing book is saying over and over again — that the Premier

did not tell the truth to British Columbians in the election about his hidden

for-profit plan for health care?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We were very clear to the public of British Columbia that we were

going to maintain a health care budget and protect health care services across

British Columbia. Our agenda as a government is to make sure we put patients

first for the first time in 11 years in British Columbia. Our agenda is to make

sure every health dollar spent is there to maximize the benefit to patients, not

the benefit to a group of workers — not to make the health care system the

employer

[ Page 1435 ]

of last resort but to make sure we have the appropriate number of health care

professionals and support staff in place and we are compensating them fairly in

relationship to other jurisdictions in Canada so that we can ensure the needs of

British Columbians get met.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services and the Premier can hide from the

truth, but they can't avoid the reality of their own document. The Minister of

Health Services's own briefing book lays it out in gory detail for all British

Columbians to see. In the New Era , the Premier promised he would reduce

wait-lists. He said we didn't have enough hospital beds, but the minister's

secret briefing book states very clearly that wait-lists will actually grow. It

says that hospital beds will close.

To the

Minister of Health Services: will the minister please stop the charade, stop

pitting one worker against the other, admit what everyone now knows and finally

own up to the truth about this government's plan to dismantle public health care

and turn it over to the for-profit sector?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What we inherited from the previous government was a track we were

on that was going to destroy public health care in British Columbia. The

commitment we have made is that we will save public health care in British

Columbia, but we're not going to do that by maintaining the status quo.

We have

seen wait-lists in this province grow every single year since before she was a

Health minister in this province. We are determined to come to grips with some

of the challenges in health care, to make sure we get the best value for health

care dollars spent so those dollars can be focused on patient care and the needs

of British Columbians wherever they live in this province. We're not going to do

that by continuing the legacy they brought to health care while they were in

office.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The issue here is what this government said they were going to do

in their New Era document and what the minister's own private briefing

book demonstrates: the reality of their for-profit health care agenda. The

secret document also says that 14,000 health care workers are going to lose

their jobs to pave the way for privatization, for for-profit health care. The

briefing book says that over $700 million worth of services are going to be

privatized. Someone will be making huge profits, but no one will be getting

better health care. The government's health care plans are about ideology, not

about patient care.

Will the

minister please come clean and admit that his plan for health care for B.C. is

not about putting patients first but is about putting corporate profits first?

[1420]

Hon. C.

Hansen: There are no targets when it comes to the number of support staff

that may be reduced throughout the health care system in British Columbia. There

are no targets. What we have said to the health authorities is that they have

inherited a system that pays some of the highest wages in Canada by far — 30

percent higher than the Canadian average of support workers. Is that good value

for the health dollars? Is that meeting the needs of patients?

What we

have said to the health authorities is that they have the flexibility now to

perhaps contract out if they wish, but perhaps they can sit down with the shop

stewards and the unions in their communities and say: "How can we better

utilize available health dollars to meet the needs of patients in British

Columbia?" That's our priority. That's our focus. That's how we're going to

meet the needs of patients in this province, not the way the previous government

did.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR WORKERS

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

J. Kwan:

Prior to the election, the Premier was asked if a 48-year-old housekeeper who's

finally earning the average wage in British Columbia has anything to fear from

the Liberal government. The Premier said: "I say no. She's going to find

the quality of work she's able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling." We

now know he wasn't telling the truth.

Joining us

in the gallery today is a 48-year-old health care worker who believed the

Premier's promise. The Premier won't admit to British Columbians that he wasn't

telling the truth about his plans, but maybe the Premier will now look this

woman in her eyes and tell her the same thing.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The message from this government has been consistent. The message is

that we want to first of all put the interests of patients first. We recognize

the importance of having the appropriate number of health care workers in this

province who are doing the job of delivering on that patient care.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: We're not going to hire twice as many staff as is necessary. We're

not going to go to wage rates that are considerably higher than any other

province in Canada. We want to be competitive. We want to make sure we manage

the health care budget wisely so that we can deliver on patient care. I think

every British Columbian can work with us in doing that, because it's in the

interest of preserving a publicly funded health care system that we get our

costs under control and that we make sure the health care system is sustainable

into the future. Otherwise, we will not be able to protect the public health

care system we cherish so much.

[ Page 1436 ]

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The question is to the Premier. The government's New Era document has

been shown to be empty and meaningless. The Premier promised to renew the public

health care system, but we now know that in the backrooms, in the secret

document, he plans to destroy it. Will the Premier stand today and admit he has

betrayed the public trust of British Columbians? Does the Premier have the

courage to admit that what is contained in this secret document is the truth,

and will he admit that his campaign promises aren't worth the paper they're

written on?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can tell the member opposite this: this government is committed

to making sure patients get the care they need in British Columbia. This

government is committed to revitalizing health care. This government is

committed to providing our health care workers with wages that are the tops in

Canada, because we recognize the contribution they make. This government is

willing to reform health care so patients are finally at the top of the list and

get the care they need where they live.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN SOUTHEAST BURNABY

Nuraney: My question is to the Minister….

Interjections.

[1425]

Nuraney: Are we finished?

My question

is to the Minister of Education. Some of my constituents are concerned about the

school slated to be built in southeast Burnaby. The concern is that it may not

be adequate to meet the needs of the community. Can the minister please tell us

what the status of that project is, and what is going to be done to meet the

needs of the community?

Hon. C.

Clark: As the member well knows, the students in southeast Burnaby badly

need a new school. The old Burnaby South Secondary that they've been at is like

sardines. It's wall-to-wall kids. You can barely get through the hallway at

lunch hour. I've been down there and toured the school. They certainly need that

to be alleviated.

Yes, we are

planning a new school in southeast Burnaby. It will accommodate 1,200 students.

The core of the school will be built for 1,500 if the growth that we've

anticipated is outpaced. The classroom size will accommodate 1,200 students.

It's going to be great news for Burnaby and great news for all those kids who so

badly need that space.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has a supplementary question.

Nuraney: If I understand this right, minister, the school will be built

initially for 1,200 students. There will be a provision for an expansion for a

further 300 when the time comes and when it is needed.

Hon. C.

Clark: The original plan, as the people of Burnaby know, was to go to 1,000

students, based on the numbers we'd received from the Burnaby school district.

We went to them and asked them to update their numbers. They told us the numbers

were current. However, after we'd made the decision, the Burnaby school board

informed us that they did indeed have new numbers. After extensive lobbying, I

can add, from the Burnaby MLAs, I decided to revisit that decision and build the

school to a capacity of 1,200 as the new numbers demonstrated. I think this is a

real example of the cooperation that we as a government have with our MLAs and

our school districts.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Okanagan-Vernon has

the floor.

ELIMINATION OF INDUSTRY TRAINING

AND APPRENTICESHIP COMMISSION

Christensen: Over the last number of months I've had the privilege of

sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Education. As we toured around the

province, it didn't matter whether we were in big communities or small

communities, one of the things we heard a lot about was a real need for skills

development and training in this province.

My question

is for the Minister of Advanced Education. As part of the government's

restructuring program the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission,

commonly known as ITAC, has been eliminated. Expanding training and

apprenticeship opportunities is a top priority for my constituents as well as

many other British Columbians. Many of them are now wondering whether those

opportunities are going to be available without ITAC. Can the minister tell us

why ITAC was disbanded?

Hon. S.

Bond: We certainly do recognize the importance of skills and trades training

in the province of British Columbia. In order to respond in a timely way to the

needs of industry in this province, we are restructuring at this point in time.

We want a system that looks at being timely and being able to produce a number

of workers that are not only in need now but certainly in growing demand.

In fact,

we're in the process of putting together a transition advisory committee, and

I'm pleased to say that we're going to put members of labour, industry and

institutions on that committee. I look forward to being able to announce that

committee very shortly.

[ Page 1437 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Bond: This is a great, exciting opportunity for government to work for

training in this province. We're excited about it, and we look forward to an

announcement in the near future.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Vernon with a supplementary question.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Christensen: Part of ITAC's mandate was to provide colleges in B.C. with

funding for training and apprenticeship programs. Now that ITAC itself has been

disbanded, can the minister tell us whether the funding will continue to be made

available to those service providers in the interim?

Hon. S.

Bond: The great news is that we're going to take our time and get this right

so that we can ensure that as we look forward….

The

additional good news is that industry is excited about getting involved with us,

and we are looking forward to that.

[1430]

Even better

news is the fact that we've protected almost $70 million that we're going to use

for training in this particular province, and we're going to work with

institutions to be innovative, creative, and do a great job.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

H. Bloy:

I rise today to present a petition from 52 members from the lower mainland

pertaining to health care.

Motions without Notice

Hon. G.

Collins: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded from the Table that I have

a motion to move. It's a standard motion we've moved in this House for a number

of years to charge Committee A for the estimates process. It's in the hands of

the opposition and the Table. I ask leave to move it without reading it.

[By leave, moved by Hon.G. Collins

Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the

Committee of Supply for this session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such committee room as may be

appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the chamber of the

assembly, subject to the following rules:1. The standing orders applicable

to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both sections of

the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a minister may

defer to a deputy minister to permit such deputy to reply to a question put

to the minister.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the

passage of this motion, the House Leader of the opposition may advise the

Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial estimates which

the opposition requires to be considered in

Section B of the Committee of

Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House

Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial estimates

shall be considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply.

3. All estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save

and except those estimates which shall be referred to

Section B under the

provisions of paragraph 2 of this order and such other estimates as shall be

referred to

Section B on motion by the government House Leader, which motion

shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60A. Practice

recommendation No. 6 relating to consultation shall be applicable to this

rule.

Section A shall consist of 19 members, being 17 members

of the B.C. Liberal Party and two members of the New Democratic Party. In

addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her

nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of

members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that member's

Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the member involved.

For the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament, the members of

Section A shall be as follows: the minister whose estimates are under

consideration and Messrs. Bennett, Bloy, Bray, Hamilton, Hunter, Jarvis,

Lee, McKay, Manhas, Penner, R. Stewart and Visser, Mmes. Locke, Orr, Sahota,

Trumper and Mmes. Kwan and MacPhail.

5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for

adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House.

In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial

estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the government shall

have a maximum of eight minutes, and the opposition a maximum of five

minutes, and all other members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to

summarize the committee debate on a particular ministerial estimate

completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other

members;

(2) opposition; and

(3) government.

Section B shall be composed of all members of the House.

7. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing

of the division bells four times.

8. Division in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing

of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A

will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section B is hereby authorized to consider bills

referred to committee after second reading thereof and the standing orders

applicable to bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such

bills during consideration thereof in

Section B, and for all purposes

Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister

responsible for the bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment

or debate. Practice recommendation No. 6 relating to consultation shall be

applicable to all such referrals.

10. Bills or estimates previously referred to a designated

committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to

[ Page 1438 ]

another designated committee on motion of the Government

House Leader or minister responsible for the bill as hereinbefore provided

by rules Nos. 3 and 9.]

MacPhail: Just before leave is granted, I want to clarify the words of the

House Leader in terms of…. I understand this is a motion that was tabled in

2000, not 2001.

Mr.

Speaker: Correction — 2000.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: Now I move the House consider committee stage of Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS

PIPELINE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5,

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Prince George

North.

P. Bell:

I'd like to continue on with the direction of my comments from last

Thursday, if I may.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Just

briefly as a review, I spoke last Thursday about some of the highlights and

lowlights in 2001, in terms of the significant increase in retail sales in the

third quarter of 5 percent compared to the national average of just 1.9 percent.

I spoke about the challenges of September 11 and certainly the softwood lumber

agreement, which is starting to look somewhat more promising. I also spoke

extensively about my trip to Kwadacha in the north end of my riding and some of

the issues surrounding that particular community.

I'd like to

go on and talk about the continuation of that particular trip and the community

of Tsay Keh. I speak about this because I think it's relevant to the budget

process. The issues facing these two first nations communities are very similar

to the issues that we face throughout the province. I think they're a really

good example of microeconomies at work and what we need to develop those.

The folks

in Tsay Keh have four priorities at this point in time — things that I've been

working on, on their behalf. The first one is the issue of the road into the

community. The second, as I spoke of earlier this morning in some debate, is the

power generation facilities for the communities. The third critical issue —

and we speak about this extensively in this House on an ongoing basis — is

that of education for the community.

They have a

wonderful school. I was able to take a look through the school. It's one of the

more advanced schools in the riding, but they have a terrible time getting and

keeping good teachers. I'm working with the BCTF now on trying to develop a

greater rapport and get some teachers who are currently certified under the BCTF

through their aboriginal education program to consider relocating up to Tsay

Keh. I'm hoping that we're going to have some progress in that area.

The fourth

key issue in Tsay Keh is the post office. They actually don't have any postal

service in a community of 250 people. I've spent some time working on this issue

with their federal MP, Jay Hill, and I'm pleased to report that we're close to

having a post office that will be permanently located in the community of Tsay

Keh. That's great news.

I spent

some time with Johnny Pierre as well, the chief of Tsay Keh. He was very upfront

with me. We talked extensively about the issues facing the community, and it was

truly a great trip.

You know,

change has just begun. We must move aggressively on our agenda of deregulation

in the government service sector. There are 404,000 regulations currently

strangling our resource industries in their attempt and ability to expand and

grow in the province. It's been a huge challenge for our resource sectors for

the past ten or 15 years.

[1440]

One of the

challenges I'm looking forward to being involved in is the development of a

results-based Forest Practices Code. As you know, I've worked in the field of

forestry for the last seven or eight years, and I'm continually confused by the

amount of process-

[ Page 1439 ]

driven requirements that are in our existing Forest Practices Code.

It's very,

very frustrating to know that you have a heavily infested mountain pine beetle

tree, but because it happens to grow on one type of moss instead of another type

of moss, you're not allowed to remove that tree, and the hatching of the

mountain pine beetles from that tree will continue to infest our forests in the

coming years. That's extremely frustrating for me as someone who wants to

contribute as part of the community.

Speaking of

the mountain pine beetle problem, it's a huge issue for us in the north. I'm

pleased that the Minister of Forests has identified some key initiatives, in

both the Speech from the Throne and the budget, that will help us attack the

mountain pine beetle problem in the north. There's a lot of new technology that

we've been working on, and I believe that we're actually close to the point

where we'll be able to identify the attacked areas in a much more economical

fashion. I think that will be something that's very positive.

The third

real initiative that I think we must move aggressively on in terms of

deregulation is that of the value-added forest industry. British Columbia really

is on the edge of having an incredibly thriving, value-added manufacturing

industry. It's principally new technology that we're talking about here. This is

not technology that was developed ten, 15 or 20 years ago. In fact, in many

cases it's just been over the last few years. A lot of it has to do with

stress-rated types of lumber and glue-lam beams and engineered wood products and

that type of thing. That really is our future in this province. Certainly, I

speak about that on an ongoing basis.

Another key

component or key area we need to focus on in terms of deregulation is the energy

production field. My colleague from East Kootenay often speaks in this House

about the need to develop coal-fired electrical generation systems. I really

believe this is an area that we can expand aggressively in our province.

Certainly, just located outside the edge of my riding of Prince George North, at

Tumbler Ridge, we have huge untapped, very high grade coal fields where we could

be developing electrical energy. It's not located far off the main power grid

that would carry that energy down into the lower mainland or perhaps even into

the United States. There's a real opportunity for us, I believe, in terms of the

electrical energy generation area, specifically to do with coal and certainly

coalbed methane.

Another

initiative this government has taken that I'm very pleased about is expanding

fish farming. I think there's a huge opportunity for us, particularly in the

hard-hit coastal areas. The riding of my colleague from North Coast, I believe,

will be a significant beneficiary of the actions this government has taken to

expand the fish-farming industry. It's exciting to me that although we have lost

many canneries over the last ten or 15 years in this province, we will be able

to regain that component of our industry. I think that over time, the employment

we will see in those fields will be substantial. Those coastal communities that

really have been dying, particularly over the last ten years, will begin to

thrive again. That's very exciting.

The tech

industry is great news for us as well. Probably a lot of members in this House

would find it odd that the member for Prince George North would wish to speak

about the tech industry. That part of the province is known as an area of

natural resource extraction, and it probably seems odd that I would refer to the

tech industry. But Prince George has a thriving tech industry, and it's growing.

The interesting thing about it is that most of the technological developments

from my general part of the world relate, actually, to the forest industry.

There have been some really neat things developed: little sending units that you

can mount on a steel I-beam, which can detect weight down to a pound or two that

is placed on that I-beam. There are some very positive things.

[1445]

Some other

really good-news stories that I'd like to talk about. On this last weekend we

just completed a series of budgetary consultation meetings in Prince George. The

three area MLAs — myself, the member for Prince George–Omineca and the

member for Prince George–Mount Robson — got together with a total of about

20 different groups over two days in a series of 12 meetings and spoke with the

groups in terms of some of the initiatives. You would think that certainly we

would want to meet with our friends, but we met with a broad spectrum of members

in the community. We met with the BCGEU, the HEU, the HSA, the BCTF and the

Prince George and District Labour Council.

There's a

quote I'd like to read into the record from the weekend, in terms of the news

media reports from the meeting. It's significant because it really takes us, I

believe, to a new era in our relationships in the community.

"For

the first time since the Liberal government announced they were cutting

11,700 civil service positions over three years, both sides came away with

positive things to say. 'I've got hope,' said Prince George BCGEU staff

representative Lorna Waghorn-Kidd after they opened the MLA budget talks

early Friday morning. 'We had an open dialogue, and they said they'd get

back to us in a number of areas of concerns.'"

The

BCGEU actually came away from that meeting with a new willingness to work with

us as a government. I think we've crossed a threshold now that is absolutely

necessary for us to bring inclusively all of the government employees in to

start working on and addressing the issues that are facing us. It's a huge

challenge, but I believe that certainly this weekend in Prince George we made

substantial headway in overcoming that challenge.

There are

some other good-news stories in my riding right now that relate to the actions

of this government in the last eight or ten months. Prince George Regional

Hospital was in a state of distress eight months or a year ago. It was really in

tough shape. There were weekends, in a community of 75,000 people, where we were

not able to have a normal delivery

[ Page 1440 ]

of a baby at PGRH because of lack of services and an inefficient operation

and management system.

At that

point in time we had just three operating rooms open out of a total of six. It

was a challenge for anyone to get any sort of basic level of services. We had

taken Prince George Regional Hospital from the status of a regional trauma

referral centre down to no better than a first-aid location. It was a very, very

sad state of affairs that had been created by the actions of the previous

government.

The good

news is that we now have five operating rooms open and operating at PGRH, with a

sixth one expected to open any day. There's a whole new attitude at PGRH now.

The doctors are happy. They see headway in the operation. I meet with groups of

nurses on a regular basis. They're contributing. They're trying to be part of

the solution now. They believe we are over that initial hump — that difficult

time. They understand changes need to be made, but we're making progress, and

that's significant. I'm excited about what's happening there.

Some of the

other good-news stories that we have in my end of the world. The Mackenzie pulp

mills, of which we have two, actually have set records for pulp production in

some of the worst markets that we've ever faced. Because of the innovative steps

they have taken, they're able to produce pulp and make a profit at record low

prices. That's wonderful news for us, because it means that it will be

sustainable long-term. They've developed processes in utilizing types of fibre

that have not normally been used in the pulp process — and they're relatively

low value — to produce a high-value product.

The

sawmills throughout my riding, of which there are six, are working flat out

right now. They're all producing high volumes of lumber on an ongoing basis, and

they're actually adding shifts. In Mackenzie for the first time in anyone's

memory — in recent years or certainly in the last eight or ten years — the

sawmills have had to run ads to hire labourers. They're actually out recruiting

people for the first time. I think that's wonderful news for us.

[1450]

The

exciting part of all this, of course, stems back to the housing market across

Canada. As you heard earlier today in a private member's statement, the housing

market is exploding in Canada right now, and we're having wonderful results.

There is some really good news out there, Mr. Speaker, and we need to focus on

some of the good news.

It's

opportune, though, to take a look at the history of how we got here. In order to

move ahead with our budget this year and over the next three years, we need to

look back and ask ourselves: how did we get into the situation we're in? I'm

happy to be able to tell you how we got into that situation.

Through the

period '91 to '97 it's no secret that B.C.'s economy was flat. In fact, in the

'92-to-'97 period B.C.'s gross domestic product actually went backwards by 0.6

percent. The thing that makes it so sad is that the next worst province in

Canada, the province of Saskatchewan, had a GDP growth of almost 10 percent. The

province of Newfoundland had a 28 percent GDP growth. Yet in B.C. we went

backwards. You have to ask about the economic plans of the previous government

if they were able to actually drive the GDP in a negative fashion at a time when

we had the most vibrant growth that's ever occurred in North America.

I suppose

that was devastating in itself, but there was another fundamental problem which

occurred over that seven-year period. While our economy was going backwards to

the tune of 0.6 percent, the government increased spending by 31 percent — on

an economy that was going backwards — over a period of seven years. How can

you possibly sustain that type of growth in a negative economy?

We can even

extend that further. If you look at the period from 1991 to 2001, the period of

the previous administration's involvement, the cost of government escalated by

73 percent — 73 percent in a ten-year period — and the total gross domestic

product only grew by 5 percent during that period of time. Where did that money

come from? It came out of the pockets of the people of B.C. That's why the

average income dropped throughout that same decade by $1,100 per citizen in this

province. That's absolutely disgusting in view of the fact that in both Alberta

and Ontario, people's incomes grew during the same period of time. People voted

for change last May, Mr. Speaker. It was clear that change had to happen,

because we were going nowhere in this province.

Last

Tuesday we were all invited to the provincial congress. Certainly, I enjoyed the

B.C. Progress Board's report. I thought it was very timely. The interesting

component for me was that the benchmarks established by the B.C. Progress Board

responded not just to economic issues but also to social issues. The member for

Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant continue to

insist that we have no heart. Well, I would challenge that. There are a number

of specific initiatives in this budget that I believe address some of the social

needs in our province.

I think the

fact that we reinstituted the seniors bus pass was a very positive thing. I

think the fact that we've protected the funding for women's shelters and

transition housing is extremely important. You don't hear either the member for

Vancouver-Hastings or the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ever

congratulate us for the fact that we protected that funding. We do care for

people.

They

constantly talk about the need to protect the quality of our drinking water. Do

you think they've ever once mentioned that we've added $1.5 million to the

budget for the protection of drinking water in the province? I don't think they

care, Mr. Speaker.

They've

talked on numerous occasions during question period about the changes to the

legal aid system. Do you think they once mentioned the fact that even after all

those changes take place, we will still have the third-richest legal aid system

in all of Canada, and in an economy that's barely been firing on one cylinder

for the last ten years? I think it's admirable for

[ Page 1441 ]

us to put that kind of commitment behind legal aid spending when we've been

in such a difficult state.

[1455]

The

Pharmacare issue. The two members like to talk to us about Pharmacare. I'm happy

to talk about Pharmacare. They like to paint the picture that we don't care for

our seniors. Again, they have not once mentioned the fact that even after the

changes, we have the richest Pharmacare system in all of Canada, with an average

reimbursement level of 52 percent versus 43 percent in the rest of Canada.

The fact is

that we have protected and actually grown the budgets in the ministries of

Health, Education, Advanced Education, and Children and Family Development. We

have been committed to the social values of this province, and I think that the

ministers certainly have done an admirable job.

I'd just

like to close with a couple of comments in terms of some consultation I've had

with teachers in my riding. When we introduced Bill 27 four or five weeks ago,

there was a clause in that bill that stated we would do a review of the

negotiating process for teacher contracts in the future. I would just like to

encourage the Minister of Labour to continue to travel down that road.

I find it

absolutely despicable that the last three contracts for teachers have all been

legislated — not just the one we had to legislate this year but the two

previous contracts that also had to be legislated by the previous government,

the ones that were supposed to be friendly. Even they had to do it. It shows

that the system we have in place does not work today, and we need to correct

that. This government is committed to making those kinds of changes, and we will

make those changes.

It's an

exciting time in front of us. Certainly, I'm looking forward to the resolution

of the softwood lumber agreement. The minister has done an excellent job, and I

continue to urge him to move down that path.

I think the

Minister of Finance has certainly found the best compromise available to us, so

I congratulate him on his budget and encourage him to move ahead.

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and speak in support of the

budget. I'd like, firstly, to thank the Minister of Finance. From what I've

seen, I think the whole process of developing this budget was more open than it

has ever been in British Columbia. There was access for members of this

Legislature, for members of cabinet and for committees in the building of this

budget, and I think the proof is in its success.

I would

also like to thank my deputy minister and her senior staff for the work they did

in preparing the budget. We have an extremely talented, capable and professional

ministry, and I'm grateful for that and thank them for that as well.

I'd like to

start off by making a few comments about the Ministry of Human Resources and the

effects and the changes as this budget affects it. I'd like to speak about the

budget as a whole, and then I would like to look into the future as to what this

budget holds for the future of British Columbia.

This

government has a new vision and a new mandate for the income assistance system

in the province. It is based on employment, training and assistance for those

most in need. The ministry wants to shift from a system and a culture of

entitlement to one of employment and self-sufficiency. The Ministry of Human

Resources B.C. employment and assistance program has a fundamental goal, and the

goal is to support people in finding sustainable employment.

A job is

better than income assistance. We want to see British Columbians achieve their

full economic and social potential. I believe the people on income assistance in

British Columbia truly want an opportunity to realize their potential and to

become economically independent.

To that

end, my ministry is committing in this budget $300 million over the next three

years toward effective job placement and training-for-jobs programs. The money

will support performance-based programs that move people off income assistance

into sustainable jobs. This is consistent with the new-era commitment to

providing responsible, manageable, accountable public services and tax dollars.

[1500]

The

ministry is also designing employment programs that will support persons with

disabilities in part-time, cyclical employment and in self-employment. Earning

exemptions and income treatment will also support increased independence for

people with disabilities. This spring we will raise the earning exemption from

$200 to $300 for persons with disabilities. This will leave them with an

additional $100 per person in their pockets.

We also

know the appeal system needs to be overhauled, and we are making changes. It is

essential that people have an effective and efficient avenue for appealing

decisions affecting their income assistance. The changes to the appeal system

will result in a streamlined single-appeal process that will be fair, timely,

effective and responsive to people's needs.

I believe

we are sending a clear message to British Columbians that we are determined to

revitalize the economy, to restore financial management and to put people first.

We have undertaken a major restructuring of our programs and services so this

ministry can play an important role in fulfilling those commitments, because the

people this ministry truly serves are a resource of talent that we can tap into

and create jobs for.

We are all

determined to help people create a bright future in the province. I believe the

ministry can do that. I believe the changes we are making this spring will help

people to succeed and to fulfil their greatest potential. I look at what this

budget is for British Columbians. It's a beginning. It's taking the last ten

years and saying: "We're changing direction. We're going to create a more

prosperous province. We're going to get our financial house in order, and we're

going to do that openly and accountably to the people of British Columbia."

[ Page 1442 ]

This is the

first year that we will have detailed, three-year service plans for ministries

so that the ministers and the ministries and the people who work in the

ministries will know what their dollar figures are, know what they can count on.

Also, the people of the province will know the direction we are moving in. We're

going to restore sound financial management in this province. We're going to

revitalize the economy. We're going to put patients and students first.

I want to

speak briefly about the deficit. This year is the largest deficit that British

Columbia has had. We have a plan to have a zero deficit in three years, and we

will meet that commitment. The debt that British Columbia has, has been created

over the last decade and a half, and it will take a long time for us to pay that

debt down. We will begin that process this year.

The

underlying deficit and debt problems this province has to cope with are hurting

individuals. They're hurting industry and are hurting our province in moving

ahead. We must revitalize the economy. We must get our financial house in order.

Those two aspects go hand in hand. When we get our financial house in order, we

will have more money to put into health care and into education. When we

revitalize the economy, we will have more money to put into health care and

education and the other vital services our province has.

I believe

we will be successful. I believe this budget is a step towards the eventual

revitalization of this province. B.C. is back; B.C. is open for business. B.C.

puts patients and children first. That's the message this budget rings clearly.

I believe

the future of this province is great. When I was young, jobs were plentiful.

B.C. was number one. We balanced our budget. We actually saved money. We created

wealth, and that deteriorated and has deteriorated badly over the last ten

years. But we are moving in the right direction now. We're moving in a direction

that will put this province back on top so that we can have the best social

programs in the country, so that we can have the best economy in the country, so

that people are proud to say they're British Columbians and we're number one. We

lead this country. We're not in second place to anyone on any issue in this

country.

[1505]

I am

pleased to stand and support this budget, this new direction for British

Columbia, this positive direction that puts British Columbia in the front seat

moving forward, getting ahead and becoming number one in this country like we

deserve to be.

Thank you

very much, Mr. Speaker.

Krueger: I rise to support the budget as presented. Like all of my

colleagues, I'm quite chagrined to see us having to table a budget with a $4.4

billion deficit. We all saw it coming with the NDP years, the ten years we lived

through and the arrangements they left us with. We weren't happy to see it

coming. Thank the good Lord the people of British Columbia made the right moves

on May 16, 2001, and we were able to get into the saddle and put an end to the

decline of British Columbia.

Now, 2002

is a unique year. It's a palindromic year. A palindrome, of course, is a word or

a number that looks the same whether you look at it from front to back or back

to front. For almost a thousand years palindromic years only happened every 110

years. There have been many people who lived their lives without ever seeing a

palindromic year. We had 1001, 1111, 1221, and so on, up until 1991. We have

unique lives in that everybody in this House has seen two palindromic years,

because one happened in 1991 and now in 2002.

I think the

reason for that is that the people of British Columbia were destined to make a

terrible mistake in our first palindromic year, 1991. It was a nightmare

mistake. We elected a government that moved us from being the best-performing

economy and province in Canada to the worst-performing — ten years of misery,

moving backward, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In an absolute boom

decade for North America, when everybody else's economy was thriving, we and

Chiapas, Mexico, had the terrible misfortune of being the only two jurisdictions

in North America that were moving backward. We had one person in ten on welfare;

our debt doubled. We incurred financial responsibility as debt that leaves us

paying close to $3 billion a year in interest, every dollar of which we would

much rather spend on health care or education.

The word

"palindrome" actually comes from a Greek verb palindromos ,

meaning to run back again. British Columbia certainly ran back again — ran

backwards for those ten years. Investors left in droves, and young people

unfortunately packed up their careers and took them outside British Columbia. As

we went from first to worst in Canada and stayed there, people lost hope and

moved away. A lot of fine people moved away.

My wife is

a grade 1 teacher. In the last year of the NDP reign she did a little session on

government with her grade 1 students. She was trying to make it a positive

thing, and she asked them to start with: what do governments do? A little guy

said: "Governments boss us around." Obviously, they had heard the

message that British Columbia is pretty badly overregulated. She said:

"Well, government does lots of positive things too, like they pay for

things for us. They paid for this school, for example. They pay my salary to be

your teacher." One little guy said: "Where do they get the

money?" My wife, the teacher, said: "They get the money partly from

your parents." A couple of other little guys said: "How do they do

that?" Several yelled: "By stealing. They steal it from our

parents." That's the way taxation began to feel in British Columbia —

that people were being stolen from, because the government hands were in the

pockets far too deep.

[1510]

We made a

commitment, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to roll that back, to reduce personal

income taxes in British Columbia to the lowest level in all of Canada for people

up to $60,000 a year in income. That's what we did.

[ Page 1443 ]

We keep

hearing a hue and cry from the people who opposed us in the last election and

continue to oppose us, alleging that our tax cuts were giveaways to the rich. It

confounds me and a lot of British Columbians why anyone would think that. How

could it possibly be a giveaway when you allow people to keep their own money in

their pocket, or at least a little bit more of it than before? Far from a

giveaway, it's the thing that has turned the economy of this province around,

and there is much evidence that the economy has turned around and is rebounding.

It was

doing so in a very robust way up till the September 11 catastrophe last year, an

event that horrified and saddened all of us and hurt economies right around the

world, but it's still doing well. I've talked to entrepreneurs in my

constituency, and whether it's restaurateurs, retailers or real estate agents,

people say we're doing a lot better than we were the year before and much better

than we did through the dark decade of the nineties.

We thank

the good Lord, in His kindness, that way back then when people were deciding how

we were going to do the calendar, he gave us a second palindromic year and

another chance at this so we won't have to live with those results for 110

years.

It's been a

lot of hard work since then, obviously — a Premier who has a tremendous work

ethic, who saw a vision for British Columbia, who laid that vision out very

clearly in the New Era document and has delivered on that vision; a

cabinet who work like Trojans and have worked very hard in supporting him and

all British Columbians in bringing that vision to life; government caucus

committees that include every private member on the government side.

Every

private member is a member of a GCC. They also have the right to drop in on the

meetings of any of the other government caucus committees. When they do, they

have equal voice and an equal vote. We work hard with the cabinet in preparing

their three-year service plans as outlined in the budget, showing British

Columbia how we're going to get from here — what we inherited — to there:

the best performing economy in Canada once again; a reliable debt service plan

that pays off the debt; the elimination once and for all of deficits, which as

you know, are going to be illegal.

How we're

going to get from here to there. I served on the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services last year. We travelled around this province in

the fall, and we talked to the public about what their hopes and dreams and

fears were. People were very fearful about the cuts they knew were coming,

because no government can continue to spend more than it takes in in revenues

without heading to financial disaster, as British Columbia already had. People

knew that cuts were coming, and they were fearful. We heard the message

repeatedly that they hoped we would be careful with regard to the most

vulnerable British Columbians.

We brought

that message back, and so did the government caucus committees. To their credit,

the Premier and the cabinet listened. In fact, half a billion dollars was added

back into the budget, somewhat reluctantly in that the deficit is larger as a

result than it would have been, but it was added back to ensure that we

protected those British Columbians who are most vulnerable.

With the

budget that we're debating today, we turn the corner and begin to leave behind

the problems that British Columbia has been suffering through. The pieces are

already in place. They started day one with those tax cuts, and they carry on

with the commitment to make this the most competitive tax regime in Canada and

to eliminate unnecessary regulation, with a goal of eliminating one-third of

British Columbia's red tape within the first three years, to take down those

barriers that kept investors from coming to British Columbia and creating jobs.

We have our

opposition. We keep hearing from the organized opposition around the province,

largely headed up by the B.C. Federation of Labour and people like Mr. Heyman,

that these have been giveaways to the rich, that somehow they don't see this as

in the best interest of British Columbians — because those other folks love

taxation. They love this idea of taxing the notional rich. When the Leader of

the Opposition was Minister of Finance, she was right into taxation. When it

came to taxing the people she thought were the rich, she loved the smell of

napalm in the morning and in that way contributed very much to the apocalypse

which struck British Columbia.

That is all

behind us now. It'll take a little while to complete the turnaround, and sadly,

we are going to have, we expect, two more years of deficits before we get the

province turned around. You see in this budget and in our throne speech the plan

to deliver the results that we've committed to. You see in this House the people

who are going to deliver those results.

[1515]

I want to

pause a moment to commend the Minister of Finance — a fine man, a man of

integrity, action and resolve. We've come to know this man in our years in

opposition as a person who is a superb strategist, a real thinker and absolutely

dedicated to the course he sets himself. He has never wavered from our

commitments.

He took

kind of a cheap shot at the start of being Finance minister from an economist

who proclaimed his own self-perceived status with a negative inference about

himself having a PhD in economics and the Minister of Finance only being a

certified flight instructor. Well, he is a certified flight instructor, and I've

thought often of the analogy that economist drew, because British Columbia was

on its way to a crash. Some would say we'd already had the crash, but if you'll

allow the extension of the analogy a bit, we were well on our way to a crash. We

couldn't afford the debt and can't afford the interest. Our population was in

decline. We were facing structural deficits, meaning year upon year of deficits

adding up. Sure, we'd had a government who, in the last year before the NDP lost

power, in a great pre-election stroke of luck had a windfall revenue from an

energy price spike and seized a one-time accounting manoeuvre to proclaim a

balanced budget.

[ Page 1444 ]

They had never managed, up until then, to spend under the province's

revenues. With that windfall energy outcome, they did pull the plane's nose up

for a little while and climbed, but it was unsustainable.

They had

signed the so-called public sector accords. They had committed to outrageously

expensive provisions in collective agreements where they gave away management

rights and the rights of boards to actually deal with the problems they were

tasked with, and they had beggared the economy. The plane couldn't continue to

climb, and it didn't. The plane stalled, it turned, and it started to plummet.

Who do you wish is in the cockpit when you're in a plane and the engine is

stalled and the ground is coming up fast? Are you looking for a self-proclaimed

PhD in economics, or are you looking for a certified flight instructor? I'm

awfully glad we've got the certified flight instructor.

He has

pulled us out of the dive. I can see that in my constituency. I can see it in

news from all around the province. He probably received this letter from the

British Columbia Real Estate Association. I think they may have sent it to all

of us. They say that in January 2002 the Multiple Listing Service reported that

six of the 12 B.C. real estate boards had residential home sales increases of at

least 50 percent over January 2001, and four real estate boards saw increases of

75 percent or more. The B.C. Central Credit Union predicts housing sales will

rise by about 8 percent in 2002. In my hometown the number of residential

construction starts is double what it was last year. There is a spirit of

optimism everywhere. This plane is climbing again. We're back on the way to

where we ought to have stayed in the first place. We're not leaving people

behind.

Once again

we hear these critics of ours at their little podiums around the province trying

to organize so-called protest rallies. They claim to be representing poor

people. If their approaches were any good for poor people, why were we left with

so many poor people when they were in power? The fact is that they robbed people

of opportunity. They drove away people who would have created jobs. They

destined British Columbians for a whole lot of heartache.

We've been

very careful not to leave people behind. When we were obliged to increase MSP

premiums, as we have in this budget, we protected 230,000 British Columbians

either by dropping their MSP rates or by eliminating those rates altogether.

When we had to end some of the supplementary health care benefits coverage from

the MSP arrangement, we again protected people at the low end of the income

scale. We've gone out of our way to ensure that vulnerable British Columbians

are protected. We continue to fund women's shelters. We continue to fund legal

aid for those who truly need it. We've been very, very thrifty, but very careful

to protect the people who need protection.

We're

thankful that our Premier has a vision and a rock-steady determination and that

he has an exemplary work ethic. This whole process has been a bit frightening

for some, but I ask people to look at the record, to look at that protection of

vulnerable people, and see that tangibly, not through false talk, this

government looks out for the people who need protection.

[1520]

We hear

from the folks shouting from the podiums of protest — Mr. Heyman, Mr.

Sinclair, Mr. Chudnovsky — that they don't agree with the direction we're

taking. Where were they during the 1990s? They were at the wheel. They were the

people who were driving the government.

I was at

the Order of British Columbia ceremony when Glen Clark presented the Order of

British Columbia to Mr. Georgetti, the then head of the B.C. Federation of

Labour. He referred to him as the nineteenth cabinet minister. Their supporters

had quite a chuckle about that because, of course, he was never elected as an

MLA, let alone had a right to be in the cabinet, but he was treated with the

deference of the Premier. He wasn't nineteenth of the nineteen either; he was

first. I don't think anything happened on the NDP watch that the B.C. Federation

of Labour didn't bless or at least allow.

These bad

results that we inherited are their results. They're the results of the very

people who now stand at the podium and shout their disapproval of what we're

doing. They're the folks who drove our economy to ruin, and they're the folks

who drove youth out of British Columbia. Their days of running the show,

thankfully, are done.

Now they

present themselves as the champions of the poor, but then they pushed us all

toward poverty. With so many folks claiming that their programs benefit the poor

in British Columbia, if they were all telling us the truth, how could there

possibly be any poor left? But there are. There are many needy British

Columbians.

As the

speaker before me said — the Minister of Human Resources — there is no

better defence against poverty than a job. We're opening up the job market.

North

America, before the events of September 11, was in such a boom that in various

states in the United States employers were having to bus in employees across

state lines. McDonald's on the eastern seaboard was paying young people $10 an

hour to start, as their workers, and paying them two hours each way to ride the

bus to work. People were competing for the services of employees, because the

big generation is retiring and there's a shortage of people at every level.

The member

for Okanagan-Vernon referred earlier, in question period, to the issue of the

critical shortage of skilled tradespeople in British Columbia. That's a real

problem for all of us because it's not something that was addressed except

through, once again, costly public service programs that didn't deliver the

results during that unfortunate decade of the 1990s. As we turn this economy

around, as we get investors coming back to British Columbia because we've taken

down those barriers, jobs are going to be created, and employers are going to be

competing for the services of employees. The six-bucks issue won't be an issue

anymore, because employers are going to be eager to at-

[ Page 1445 ]

tract employees, and they're going to bid against one another to do it.

That was a

golden decade for North America's economy. It's an awful shame that we missed

it, but the B.C. Liberal government has turned that around and is poising

British Columbia to be in the vanguard of the recovery. Everywhere we see the

indications that it's working. We've cleared the fuel lines of the plane, we've

set the trim, and the plane is in very good hands. Mr. Speaker, I know you're a

bit of an aviator yourself, and I invite you to capitalize on this theme and

bring it on as you deliver your further addresses in this House.

Interjection.

Krueger: The Minister of Forests says my runway lights are on. I still see a

white light.

Palindromes

are kind of neat numbers, but when we look back at 2002, nobody wants British

Columbia to be seeing the same picture at the end of the year that we inherited

at the beginning. We don't want 2002 to look at all the same. We don't want

British Columbia to even resemble the problems we've had by the end of this

year. Maybe it's optimistic because it's a little soon, but I do hear everywhere

I go that positive change is afoot and that people feel good about things. So

much of the economy, as you know, is driven by optimism versus pessimism. People

had reason to be pessimistic during the 1990s, and those reasons have

disappeared.

[1525]

I was at an

economic forum in Kamloops over the weekend. Fine people from Kamloops came

together, a panel of 27 people that had been chosen. Also, many members of the

public came out to present their ideas about how Kamloops can lead the way in

taking advantage of the economic opportunities out there. We're seeing that

Americans view British Columbia quite rightly as a safe haven, a place where

they are not only welcome but safe, a place where there is much to see and do,

much to enjoy, and where everything is virtually a two-for-one sale with the

mighty American dollar.

I've had

the good fortune of being able to go skiing at Sun Peaks a couple of times this

winter, and I meet American people who are just delighted with the place. They

found out that they can get up to our ski mountain in three and a half hours

from Vancouver. They find that a husband and wife can stay at Nancy Green's

Cahilty Lodge for $67 apiece and their kids can stay for free — breakfast

included, and so are their ski passes. It's a tremendous experience. And people

are actually staying. They're buying their condominiums and sticking around.

This past week I was delighted to see that the offering of the Four Seasons

Hotel at Whistler sold out in five and a half hours, and it's only on the

drawing board.

British

Columbia is a great place to live, play and do business in. No place, Mr.

Speaker, is better than Kamloops. Kamloops and the North Thompson and South

Thompson valleys are absolutely delightful places for people to come and

vacation and stay for a lifetime.

In Kamloops

we have a marvellous cultural community. Recently that was recognized by the

federal government, and a spokesperson from the selection process said this

about Kamloops:

"Finally

— and, I think, of great significance — a point that clearly articulates

the well-orchestrated symbiotic relationship between UCC" — the University

College of the Cariboo — "and the arts community and its ability to respond to

academic research is the community-university research alliance grant, the

CURA grant. UCC, along with the Kamloops Art Gallery, Western Canada Theatre

and other community-based groups, secured a $600,000 grant. Lon Dubinsky, a

researcher from McGill working with the Kamloops Art Gallery, stated that

'being one of 15 projects awarded out of 120 applications is recognition of

the city's cultural record, the partners' individual strengths and their

desire to work together.' He further stressed that 'it's rare to find in one

place a thriving art gallery, a museum, a theatre company, a symphony, a

first nations cultural society and a university with a genuine concern for

community development.'"

We've got all of that and a whole lot more.

I'm proud

to work with very progressive first nations bands in our area. The Kamloops

Indian band is an exemplary operation. They're developing a 2,000-unit

residential complex on the flanks of Mt. Paul. These homes are heated and

air-conditioned by the geothermal currents within the Earth. Georg Schurian, the

developer who's working with them, is a partner with the Doppelmayes family, and

is skilled in development, particularly with ski lifts.

All of

these operations in our area tie together in a very interesting way. The Six

Mile Ranch project is coming on stream. The lots — for those inquiring of me,

and there have been some — will start coming on stream for sale this fall.

We have

tremendous fishing opportunities — 400 fly-fishing lakes within a 40-mile

radius of Kamloops. Of course, you don't have to think very hard to recognize

where the term "Kamloops trout" came from — a famous fighting

rainbow trout.

We have

incredible things to visit: the Lac du Bois Grasslands Park, the Wells Gray

provincial park. I encourage all British Columbians to spend their dollars at

par. Come on up to Kamloops–North Thompson. Visit our fine constituency. Spend

your holidays there this year. Join your American friends who are joining us in

droves.

A little

bit of a commercial for my area, Mr. Speaker, but I think that all of British

Columbia is going to experience a real boom over the coming years. I'm not at

all certain that it's actually going to take us the time that we've set out to

eliminate those deficits and begin paying off the debt. I hope that's true,

because I'd be ashamed to leave a legacy of debt for my children and my

grandchildren.

Let me say

in the House that in August I'm going to be a grandfather for the first time,

and I'm very, very proud of it.

Interjection.

[ Page 1446 ]

Krueger: The member is right. I'm far too young, but it's just something

that happened.

An Hon.

Member: Enough about that.

[1530]

Krueger: Enough about that, indeed.

I'm

repatriating my daughter and her fiancé from Alberta. They're getting married

on June 1 and coming back to make their lives in British Columbia, as I hope all

the young people do who moved away during the dark decade of the NDP. It's

onward and upward.

It's been a

pleasure to speak in this House today. I commend the Premier and the Finance

minister for the budget — and the throne speech, since I won't get a chance to

speak to that, I don't think. I'm proud to be a part of this team. I'm delighted

with the private members in this House. It's a real pleasure serving with them.

I've been listening to the speeches, and I'm very pleased to be working with all

of these fine individuals. Thanks very much.

MacKay: Just to follow up for a moment on the comments of the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson about being a grandfather. I know how exciting that

is, being the grandfather to three wonderful grandchildren today, and the

enjoyment that those grandchildren bring. I think that for all the right

reasons, we are embarking on a process that will get this province out of debt

and make it a better place for those grandchildren who are going to follow us.

We have to

ask ourselves: how did we allow ourselves to get to the state that we are in

today? We're $34 billion in debt provincially and $650 billion federally, in a

country that is rich in resources and in dedicated, knowledgable people.

During the

Second World War, Canada paid its way through its taxpayers by a temporary tax

known as income tax, back in the 1940s. That was a temporary imposition in 1941.

Interjection.

MacKay: First World War — thank you.

We have

paid our way for years through a temporary tax known as income tax.

I have to

ask myself: how did we allow ourselves to get so far into debt in this wonderful

country today? Did it start with the word "credit"? Did it start with

the words "deficit financing"? I'm not sure.

For the

first time, I got involved in politics, and I am now in this House representing

Bulkley Valley–Stikine and having a look at it from the government side. I'm

dismayed when I look at the debt that this province is carrying. It is huge;

it's unsustainable. I have to look around and ask: how did we allow that to

happen?

We saw what

happened on the lawns of this Legislature on Saturday, just a short time ago —

about ten days ago — when 20,000 people came and said they didn't like what we

were doing to this province. I have to ask myself: how did we get here? I have

to look inwards and ask myself the question: why did I, as a citizen of Canada

and British Columbia, allow us to get so far into debt?

Perhaps it

was ignorance on my part, thinking that governments had a pot of money that was

overflowing and would never stop. When we started going into deficit financing,

did we stand up as a group of people and say: "Stop spending beyond your

means to pay for the programs that you're providing us"? No, we didn't.

Politicians continued to spend beyond their means to provide people with

programs that people wanted — not necessarily needed but wanted.

You know

what happened. They did that in order to get re-elected. Isn't that interesting?

Today we have a debt in this province of $34 billion. Who is to blame for that

debt?

I would

suggest that we are to blame for the debt. Those of us in this room who are old

enough, who have enjoyed some of the things that previous governments have

delivered to us, are to blame for the debt.

There

should be no doubt in anybody's mind that we have a big financial problem

federally and, more specifically, provincially. We have to ask ourselves: how

are we going to get rid of this problem, this huge debt that is hanging around

our head?

[1535]

I would

like to start by telling you that in April, one year ago when the NDP ran their

mandate out to five years and had the courage to call the election, the B.C.

Liberal Party was ready to tackle the problem that we face today. That problem

was finances — spending beyond our means to pay for it.

In the New

Era document, which was the platform for the B.C. Liberal candidates, were a

number of items to address the problems that we're facing today. I'd like to

read some of them to you. We said we would pass real balanced-budget legislation

to make balanced budgets mandatory by our third full budget and hold all

ministers individually accountable. Can you imagine finally having ministers

accountable for the money the people of this province give them to spend on

programs? It's about time. We also said that we would reduce the cost of

government by increasing efficiencies and eliminating wasteful spending on

government mismanagement, propaganda and business subsidies. We have started on

that process as well, Mr. Speaker — long overdue.

We also

said we would establish provincial health standards that ensure citizens in

every part of this province get equitable health care, regardless of where they

live. We said we would maintain this year's overall $9.3 billion budget for

health care. Well, I want you to know we've increased spending by $1 billion. We

are now spending $10.2 billion on health care. We also said we would provide the

health regions with three-year funding windows, so they would know how much

money they were going to get, and we would let them administer the delivery of

health care without political interference.

[ Page 1447 ]

We also

said that we would pass real truth-in-budgeting legislation to ensure all

provincial finances are fully and accurately reported under generally accepted

accounting principles. We would also establish performance standards and targets

for all government programs. Progress will be measured. Can you imagine

measuring progress for a government program — audited and established in

annual reports and on the Internet for all the taxpayers to see? That is there

today for all taxpayers to see. We have a plan to attack this huge financial

problem, and it's there for everybody to see, unlike the previous

administration.

We said we

would establish a fixed date for the tabling of the provincial budget and a set

legislative calendar. We have started on that. We had the budget introduced in

this House on February 19, and that's what I'm speaking in support of today, Mr.

Speaker. In addition to what I've just explained to you, a lot of people, I

think, got involved in politics for the first time out of frustration, out of

anger. I speak for myself when I say that.

When you

look at the ten northern MLAs, elected from the northern half of this province,

you just have to look at the people. The member for North Coast was

self-employed, and he was manager of maintenance and engineering of a pulp mill.

The member for Skeena was self-employed. The member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine, myself, was self-employed. The member for Prince

George–Omineca was a sitting MLA and a lawyer who was re-elected. The member

for Prince George North was self-employed, and he was in small business, logging

and some food franchises. The member for Prince George–Mount Robson was a

school board chair. The member for Peace River North was a sitting MLA at the

time and was re-elected. The member for Peace River South is a former mayor of

Dawson Creek, and he was elected. The member for Cariboo North was a sitting

MLA, and he was re-elected. And from Cariboo South, we had a former mayor who

was self-employed, and he was elected.

[1540]

From that

list of ten northern MLAs, we have a good cross-section of people who understand

economics and know that we could no longer continue to spend beyond our means to

pay for it. The people in this province, on May 16, said: "We have to

change direction . We want to change direction." We had the New Era

document, we had the plan, and on May 16 they elected 77 B.C. Liberals out of 79

to represent them in this House.

To help us

start scratching our way back to the surface, the Premier asked for an

independent financial review of the province's financial state. I think

everybody knows that report was not favourable. It was not sustainable. We had a

problem with our finances. If we had carried on with the same status quo, we

would have seen many programs disappear — social programs that people relied

on. We would have eliminated some of them. We would have had to make some cuts

to some of them, and in order to make those cuts we started a process called the

core review, which looked at every program this province was delivering to the

people. We asked ourselves: is it necessary that that program be there? Is it

doing what was intended? Is there some way of measuring the results of the

programs that are being delivered?

If the

program was unnecessary, we would eliminate it. I think some of the programs

have been eliminated, much to the chagrin of some of the people affected by

those cuts, but we could no longer continue to spend money as we have in the

past on programs that weren't achieving any results and that were not benefiting

the people of this province.

Shortly

after the election I was fortunate enough to sit on several task forces. The

first task force I sat on was the pine beetle task force. That task force was

the result of the Minister of Forests asking four MLAs to go out and listen to

the people of the province as they discussed the problems faced in dealing with

the health of the forest in the north-central part of this province and the

large pine beetle infestation. We travelled through 11 communities in the

northwest part of this province and listened to people who were affected by the

downturn in the economy and this huge crisis that was facing our forest

industry. We did a report for the minister, and I'm pleased to say that the

majority of those recommendations we made to the minister have been implemented

and are being acted upon to see if we can stop this wildfire that is consuming a

large part of our province.

I also sat

on the task force on aboriginal affairs. We travelled to different parts of the

province and listened to a large number of people tell us what they thought

about our election platform and our promise to the people that we would have a

referendum and give everybody in this province a chance to have their say on

aboriginal affairs by way of a referendum. That is in process today.

I also

travelled throughout the province, more particularly through the northwest part

of our province, with the Offshore Oil and Gas Task Force chaired by the member

for Peace River South. We listened to a large number of people express concern

about the lack of jobs and the lack of opportunity, and we also heard from the

other side when people spoke about the fear of the unknown, the fear of

something happening should we proceed with the oil and gas. We are waiting for

the results of that outcome.

I also sit

on the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process, a

process that is underway and will be for several more months.

[1545]

The one

thing we kept hearing was that people wanted to go back to work. When we look at

what we have done as a government to date, I think it's very admirable. We have

put a lot of people back to work. We have a large number of people interested in

coming back into the province with their investment dollars and creating

employment in power production, aquaculture, methane gas and mining. Even the

mining people who were chased from this province by the ten years of

overregulation and taxation are making noises

[ Page 1448 ]

about coming back into the province and investing in this province once

again.

I ask

myself: are we doing the right thing? You bet we are. We're doing the right

thing for a large number of people and, more particularly, for the next

generation that's going to follow us. I want to make sure British Columbia is a

better place for the next generation once I'm finished my job as an MLA and can

sit back with my feet up and enjoy the few years I have left.

Since the

inception of our cuts that we've had to make to ensure that the funding we do

have is sustainable, I've had a lot of phone calls and a lot of letters — a

lot of people who are angry at what we're doing, and they've let it be known. On

the other side of the fence, I'm also hearing from a lot of people who support

what we're doing. They think we're doing the right thing, and they're not afraid

to come out and tell us.

I'd just

like to read a few of those comments to you. This is a quote from an e-mail I

received:

"Remember

that there may have been 15,000 to 25,000 and 18 yappers at the rally on

Saturday, but there were 2.5 million of us BC'ers at home watching the

Olympics who didn't agree with them. I note in the media that at least the

unions can sing and play guitars. Of course, that's all they did for eight

years, and that is why we're in the mess we are. Don't let them scare you

off."

Another

one, and this is from a small community up in Atlin:

know you and all the MLAs and the Premier are very busy these days. I heard

the budget speech yesterday, and I just want to say you are doing a great

job. Anyone can take the easy road, but you have chosen the only route we

can go to stop being dysfunctional. The squeaky wheels are being noisy,

which is to be expected. Stay the course. You have the support of

many."

That comes from a small community in the northern part of this

province.

This comes

from small business owner in British Columbia:

just wanted to tell you that as a small business owner in British Columbia,

it is a pleasure to finally have a business-friendly government in power. As

part of a group of the people who are truly paying the bills in this

country, we couldn't be happier. Thank you."

This

one is from a gentleman in Burns Lake whose signature would suggest he is

getting quite elderly. It's very difficult to read his signature. He says:

"After

seeing all the rhetoric on TV, I felt I had to write you, sir. I am 100

percent in favour of what the Liberal Party is doing in making for a smaller

government and less red tape. What scares me is: don't back down as you take

on the very powerful unions. I could go on for a very long time, but I just

want to say further: keep up the good work. You and the Liberals are doing a

pretty good job."

have countless other letters of support here from people. It's interesting

when you stop to think about it. People that take time from their day….

Hon. M.

de Jong: Far too many.

MacKay: Way too many. You're right.

It has been

said that for every one of those people who sits at home and takes time to say

we're doing a good job, there are probably 15 people who support that letter. I

have to think that is the case and that we are, in fact, hearing from the

majority of people who are saying we're doing the right thing.

My little

community of Hazelton, which is 45 minutes' driving time west of Smithers, has

been devastated over the years partially by the downturn in the forest industry,

the softwood lumber agreement and the Skeena Cellulose situation, but they're a

hardy bunch up there. They manage to survive.

I was up

there last Friday, and I was speaking to a young woman who was in charge of a

group called the Hazelton Economic Action Team, also known as HEAT. She said to

me: "If I had known the B.C. Liberals were going to do what you're doing, I

would have voted for you." She didn't vote for me, but she supports what

we're doing. I think a lot of people support what we're doing.

[1550]

On behalf

of my generation, my children's generation and the next generation that's going

to follow, I'm pleased to stand up to say we are doing the right thing to make

B.C. a much better place, and I speak in support of the budget. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Sultan: I rise to respond to the budget and fiscal plan presented to this

House by the Minister of Finance on February 19.

This year's

British Columbia budget and fiscal plan is a remarkable document which future

students of public administration will want to study both for its content and

for its process of getting there. I would like to explain the significance of

the ambitious process underlying the document. As it points out, this budget

represents a significant change in the nature of decision-making and planning.

For the

first time, three-year forecasts are set out for each individual ministry, major

Crown corporations, major revenue sources, capital spending and debt. Ministry

spending plans have been developed after extensive review by Treasury Board,

core services review and government caucus committees. As an aside, the Premier

has deeply involved all 77 of us MLAs on this side of the House — a

little-noticed but extraordinary innovation in parliamentary tradition.

Crown

corporation forecasts have been approved by their respective boards of

directors. The budget is accompanied by three-year service plans detailing what

is to be accomplished — not just the numbers. The budget and fiscal plan is

also consistent with the government's strategic plan. This government's

strategic plan is a sharp departure from the past. That's quite a menu.

Let's draw

a private sector comparison. We have here a B.C. government, in size, comparable

to one of the top 100 private organizations on this continent. You might say

that eight months ago this organization had a change in ownership. We have a

brand-new crew which adopted a new strategic plan; set performance

[ Page 1449 ]

targets for each of its 22 major divisions; integrated capital budgets with

operating budgets for the first time; implemented three-year profit forecasting,

division by division; and adopted new funding strategies after consultation with

the capital markets. All the while it was downsizing most of its operations by

one-quarter and announcing plans to lay off up to one-third of its staff, while

subjecting each division going through all this to external review by

independent boards. By the way, it was embracing accrual accounting in its

fullest scope — and all of this pretty much for the first time — while

fighting off well-planned, deep-pocket assaults from competitors.

So I would

ask: has any comparable private organization done what this government has done

in the last few months? I don't think so. The Minister of Finance, the civil

service, the executive council and private members all had ample reason to look

a bit weary at the end of the road. The fact that most did not illustrates the

feeling of enthusiasm and accomplishment that all of us shared.

What's been

the end result? The resulting plan and fiscal blueprint has many pages and many

dimensions, and it would take at least a week to describe it all. Let nobody

claim B.C. Liberals are not operating with a full and candid — some might even

say overexposed — degree of disclosure. Fiscally speaking, we have this

horrendous $4.4 billion deficit next year, barring some miracle of economic

recovery — the biggest deficit in our history by a wide margin. That's the bad

news. We will balance the books by '04-05, consistent with our election promise.

That's the good news.

[1555]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Can we do

it? Skeptics abound. I was a bit skeptical myself. To satisfy myself, I built my

own little economic model of our government's revenues and expenses using data

from the last 17 years. Here's what I learned. Over the past 17 years —

through the dying days of the Bennett government, the Vander Zalm and Johnston

eras and throughout the decade of zealous NDP "tax the rich" — guess

what. The share of the provincial government in the B.C. economy barely budged,

hovering between 16 and 18 percent.

Admittedly,

the socialists managed to get the government's share of the economy as high as

18.5 percent in 1995 — more or less the peak of their power — but then it

declined. Did it decline because the NDP cut taxes? No. It declined because

taxpayers simply moved out. The socialists never did figure out that without a

Berlin-style wall right around British Columbia, the safety valve of Allied Van

Lines defeated their tax policies much quicker than the B.C. Liberals ever

could.

It's almost

as if British Columbians have developed a self-governing appetite for a certain

level of taxation and a certain size of government. If you exceed it, the

important taxpayers move on. However, reduce it too far, and voters take their

vengeance too. Let's remember that.

Meanwhile,

over the past six months our B.C. Liberal Party and our Minister of Finance, in

particular, have been roundly criticized for suggesting that tax cuts pay for

themselves. One bank economist, in particular, brandished his Yale University

PhD — that other place — in economics as validation of his superior judgment

in this regard. As a former bank economist myself I'm reluctant to disclose the

dirty secrets of our trade, but I'll let you in on one of them: the insights of

bank economists are not automatically superior to those who don't have a scarlet

academic gown feeding the moths in their closet.

I'm

thinking of those friends with whom I drank beer at Gilligan's Pub in Sechelt a

few weeks ago. I assure you that a couple of smoke-filled hours at Gilligan's

amongst the laid-off miners, the laid-off forestry workers, the WCB scammers,

the retired UBC geologists chased off the land and not inclined to pursue their

careers in Peru and other similar roustabouts, not to mention visiting MLAs,

will give you more practical insight into what's really going on in our B.C.

economy than all the lifetime of bank economic briefings you'd ever want to sit

through.

Do tax cuts

pay for themselves? Yes, they do, as a matter of fact. How do we know tax cuts

pay for themselves in the longer term? We know it from looking around the world

and seeing that governments which burden their citizens with high taxes are

invariably poor, as are their citizens too. You don't need a PhD in economics

from Yale to understand the futility of trying to buy a bar of soap in Havana or

to understand that British Columbians grew steadily poorer, not richer, under a

decade of socialist taxation.

The NDP

believes it is better to raise taxes while the economy shrinks, to tax more and

more of less and less. Most of the rest of us think it's better to tax less and

less of more and more — a much better formula.

How do we

know tax cuts pay for themselves in the short run? Reviewing the data, I'm

persuaded that about 30 percent of the recent $1.5 billion B.C. personal income

tax cut of last year was returned to this government in about a year. It was

returned in two components. One component derived from taxes paid on increased

spending by cash-strapped lower-income British Columbians who were given one of

the largest retroactive pay hikes they will ever see in their lives by our

government last June. The other component derived from taxes paid by those who

heard the tax-cut news just as they were preparing to load up the van and join

the trek to Alberta. They changed their minds. However, it seems one of the most

vociferous critics of "tax cuts pay for themselves" didn't get the

news. He moved to Calgary, thereby undercutting his own argument.

[1600]

In my

firsthand observation, the other 70 percent of last year's tax cut was

translated into comparable spending cuts. Having observed the decision-making up

close, it's clear to me that without the tax cuts, the impetus for the spending

cuts would have been much, much weaker.

[ Page 1450 ]

Through a

combination of tax flow-back and spending cuts, the tax cuts indeed paid for

themselves, even in the immediate short run and notwithstanding the catastrophes

of September 11, the commodity price collapse, the American softwood lumber

embargo which our minister is valiantly fighting, the Asian slowdown, and so on.

Those

inclined to argue the point, in my opinion, fail to ask the right question. The

right question is not: did the minister balance the books? The right question

is: would the deficit have been smaller or bigger even in the short run if we

didn't cut taxes? I believe the answer to this one is "bigger" —

that the personal income tax cuts of last year did pay for themselves.

While

cost-cutting and smaller government play a vital role in reducing deficits in

the shorter term, let's concede that in the long run cost-cutting can be a mug's

game. In 1998 a gentleman named Albert J. Dunlap, commonly called Chainsaw Al

due to his mass firings and company closure policies, was himself fired by the

board of directors of Sunbeam Corp., which owned Wichita's Coleman Co. Inc.

Chainsaw Al's fate reminds us all that while periodic downsizing,

rationalization and removing the accumulated layers of dead wood are vital steps

in the renewal of any organization, they are no substitute for growth and market

development in the longer term. The New Jerusalem lies on the sales side, not on

the cost side of the ledger.

I think all

of us agree that, longer term, we have to look to growth and market development

if British Columbia is to prosper. The numbers confirm our plan to restore

balanced books through growth. The Finance minister has predicted more vigorous

revenue growth, and praise be, our biggest customer, the American economy, seems

to be stirring itself to deliver just that. For once our timing looks pretty

good. Historically, about three-quarters of changes in the government's revenue

growth can be explained by fluctuations in our gross provincial product — very

much tied into the American recovery — by population changes, by changes in

the unemployment rate and by variations in housing starts, which are really a

proxy for North American monetary policy.

The way the

numbers work is if we can grow our GDP by $4 billion or $5 billion a year, if we

can get B.C.'s population growth back to where it was by attracting all those

young people back from Alberta and the United States, if we can knock three

percentage points off our unemployment rate — which is temporarily high

because of softwood lumber and therefore, I think, quite feasible — and if we

merely maintain housing starts at about where they are now, then the marketplace

will work its magic on tax revenue and fulfil that side of our balanced-budget

promise.

However,

let's not assume all of this will happen through serendipity. It requires

implementation of each of the B.C. Liberal new-era promises, and in that regard

we're already well along on our way to accomplishing the Premier's goal. British

Columbians, who overwhelmingly voted us into office, are today telling us to

stay the course. Despite periodic hullabaloo on the front lawn, we must not

slacken, and we will not slacken, in our resolve.

While our

new-era program will facilitate growth and renewal in the B.C. economy, we will

have to work around two important roadblocks. One roadblock to renewed growth,

and I'm speaking very candidly, is the bureaucracy. As talented and educated as

many of them are, as devoted as they may be to the future success of our

province, there remains in some quarters, after a decade of NDP rule, an

attitude that government is good, business is bad, and development is damnable.

Furthermore, I'm told that some believe this current crop of MLAs, like others

before, is simply another transitory invasion to be endured, and all things will

pass.

[1605]

Where such

attitudes exist, I theorize that they derive from years when officials suffered

one assault after another by the government of the day, circumstances in which

no decision was a good decision. Perhaps they also derive a little bit from an

environment mellowed by island time. I think such attitudes will have to be

replaced by a sense of urgency and decisiveness if we are to quickly attract

enterprise back to B.C.

As things

stand today, too many project applications have a tendency to fall off the

corner of the desk. One highly placed business person on the mainland went so

far as to observe to me last weekend that we got it all wrong. We should have

left the demonstrators on the front lawn and moved the legislators back to the

mainland.

A second

roadblock to renewed growth in B.C. is access to the land, the sea and the

resources which have been the traditional birthright of all British Columbians.

Recent B.C. Court of Appeal decisions cast doubt upon access to resources in the

face of aboriginal appeals. The Redfern Tulsequah Chief mining project is

stalled while cabinet takes into consideration the aboriginal rights of the

Tlingit nation. Extending the court's reach beyond mining, in BCCA 147, Haida

Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., in connection with tree farm

licence 39, the court ruled the government must take Haida rights into account.

I presume we had not done so.

journalist Vaughn Palmer aptly noted, however, if you want to make your fortune

in British Columbia, the land claims industry — negotiating, consulting,

lawyering and judging — looks like a far better bet than forestry or mining.

Forestry and mining have been mainstays of the British Columbia economy.

It's ironic

that Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Supreme Court of Canada should make

comment hard on the heels of these B.C. court decisions which affect our economy

so deeply. She complained that erosion of funding of legal aid programs across

the country threatens litigants who are not represented by lawyers, as well as

the evolution of the law itself. However, the courts have made access to

resources more complex in British Columbia, seriously affecting the government's

cash flow. It is time for the judicial system to facilitate resolution of these

complex issues with clarity and cer-

[ Page 1451 ]

tainty, since confusion and uncertainty have seriously impacted our ability

to fund all sorts of programs, including legal aid.

Well, if

officials unduly delay investments and if court decisions force Weyerhaeuser to

rethink their future in our wood industry and Redfern to rethink their future in

our mining industry, can British Columbia point to any bright spots? Thank

goodness, we can. I would like to complete my remarks by considering two

industries unfettered either by courts or by bureaucrats. They are financial

services and technology.

financial services, British Columbia has recently had delivered two special

opportunities: the opportunity to revise the Company Act, or should I say the

corporations act, and the opportunity to revise the Securities Act. Take the

latter first.

Only a few

days ago the B.C. Securities Commission delivered a report suggesting a new

world of securities regulation in B.C. This new era of securities regulation

would be characterized by continuous disclosure of material information in lieu

of prospectuses; less reliance on prescriptive remedies and greater onus and

liability placed upon securities issuers, their agents, officers and directors;

greater enforcement through private litigation instead of commission police

work; and reduced red tape. It's a farsighted document. These recommendations,

if implemented, would go far to restoring the prominence of the securities

industry in B.C. and the unencumbered flow of finance. These recommendations

also contain the seeds of a national model for regulation, which Canada has long

lacked. In our individual solitudes each province across our country, including

B.C., has regulated its own securities markets with one-off sets of rules

defying homogenization with one another, not to mention with the world outside.

[1610]

What

potential issuer of securities, faced with this mulligan stew of local laws,

local regulations and local bureaucrats, would want to touch Canada with a

ten-foot spoon? Well, they don't, and they can't be forced to. The market

actually pays a premium to foreign firms, including Canadian firms, who list in

the United States. We lost the VSE to the CDNX in Calgary, which is in the

process of being absorbed by the TSE in Toronto, which itself is in a desperate

battle to avoid complete absorption by New York.

If we don't

begin to behave less parochially and appreciate what is happening continentally

and internationally, we might say sayonara to Canada's security industry.

Homogenization and international laws and rules are in; provincialism,

parochialism and one-off laws and rules are out.

As a matter

of fact, the same conclusions apply to B.C.'s 15-year saga to reform an ancient

statute called the Company Act. Here the emerging debate, once again, pits

internationalists against provincialists. If the provincial view prevails, I

fear the consequences. Does anybody ponder the social embarrassment of throwing

a party to which nobody comes? I won't dwell on these points further, since I've

already done so in my recent response to the Speech from the Throne.

Suffice to

say, our destiny in British Columbia, as a small, open economy trading with the

world, lies without and not within. If we play our hand with skilful

acknowledgment of the world beyond these narrow fjords in which we dwell, a new

B.C. Securities Act and a new B.C. corporation act can interact to form the

basis of a vigorous financial services sector right here in B.C. Perhaps then

all those hundreds of bankers will come back home from Calgary, and they'll tell

us that Whistler skiing truly does beat the icy trails of Lake Louise.

Mr.

Speaker, I will wind up these remarks by describing the wonderful success story

which is the B.C. technology industry. I'll do so by quickly describing four

typical companies, and I don't own stock in any of them, I assure you.

Tantalus, a

homegrown B.C. company started with only $1.2 million of venture capital —

sales now of $4 million — manufactures and exports devices for electrical load

management within the home from a central dispatch wirelessly. As North America

struggles to meet its environmental commitments, load management at the consumer

interface will, it is estimated, allow us to reduce power consumption by 10

percent per household. In addition, it will allow utilities to recapture the 6

percent of their power which mysteriously disappears. In B.C. we have our

suspicions about how that stolen electricity is being used.

Kelsan is

another homegrown B.C. company, which manufactures proprietary polymer devices

which lubricate railcar wheels, reducing friction, wear and noise. It's said to

have made SkyTrain neighbourhood-friendly through eliminating the squeals that

otherwise would have made SkyTrain intolerable. Fuel consumption savings of 10

percent are again promised and routinely delivered. With sales of $4.2 million,

mostly export, Kelsan was funded by $7 million of venture capital from WOF,

Future Fund, Business Development Bank and Discovery Capital — four prominent

local sources of venture capital.

Gemcom

Software International, a third company, with annual sales in the $10 million

range, is another Vancouver-based success story. It has offices in China, South

Africa, Russia, South America and the United States, and is partnered with De

Beers, the diamond people. Gemcom is in the business of ore geometry

delineation, mine planning and blast quality mapping. You have to understand the

mining business a little bit to understand what that's all about. While the B.C.

mining industry has yielded ground at home, its people travel the world,

bringing Canadian technology to more sympathetic environments.

Finally,

consider what's happening in biotech. My former Discovery Enterprises colleague,

Bob Rieder, dramatized B.C.'s biotech boom by observing that the $4 billion

market capitalization of only one of our new British Columbia stars, a company

called QLT — at the time he made the speech at least — was larger than the

combined market cap of the entire British Columbia

[ Page 1452 ]

forest industry. One company had a market cap — they hadn't even sold

anything yet, as a matter of fact — bigger than all of MacMillan Bloedel's,

Canfor's, etc., combined. Since that eye-opening peak, QLT's stock prices

settled back, but the message is clear. Biotech is big, and it's growing fast in

British Columbia.

[1615]

John

McKercher, former chair of Children's Hospital, points out that Vancouver is

probably the fourth- or fifth-ranked biotech centre in North America, a

phenomenon we should celebrate and support.

Rieder

believes that worldwide, B.C. biotech has accounted for the creation of 9,000

companies, more than $50 billion of raised capital, more than $200 billion of

market cap and more than 250 drugs in clinical development. These are amazing

statistics. Let me remind you that we are talking about British Columbia, the

home of Skeena Cellulose. The contrast could hardly be more striking.

How did it

all happen? Well, I see the Minister of Advanced Education opposite me, and I

think the capital markets would credit the beneficial interaction of the

University of British Columbia, which is emerging as one of our most important

economic engines in the province; Children's Hospital and other like

institutions; funding via the National Research Council, Genome Canada, Genome

B.C. and the Science Council of B.C.; a lively venture capital tradition; plus

our B.C. lifestyle, which helps hold people here.

The point

is that here in British Columbia we've become world leaders not only in the

creation of this science-based technology but also in its commercialization. Let

us pour support into these stars whilst those of yesteryear fade away.

A final

point. This government is now also considering various legislative and

regulatory proposals for restructuring and improving the effectiveness and

breadth of the venture capital industry in B.C., the industry which underpins

the four companies I have just described and many others. This is yet another

example of the importance of the financial services industry, which, through

reform and support, can provide an even stronger base for B.C. technology, B.C.

jobs, B.C. prosperity and B.C. government tax revenues.

As the

economy grows and as tax revenues grow with it, the Minister of Finance will be

able to report fulfilment of the ambitious targets which he, his hard-working

officials, the executive council and private members all working together have

defined in British Columbia's budget and three-year fiscal plan. It's a good

one.

Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I plead for leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: I'm pleased to introduce some students and their teachers today.

These students are from Carson Graham High School in North Vancouver. They're

hosting l'École Polyvalente Hyacinthe Delorme, from Hyacinthe, Quebec. I had a

chance to speak with these students and their teachers outside. It's a pleasure

to have them in the House today. Their teachers are Ms. Kim Abdurhaman, Ms.

Madeleine St. Jean and Mr. François Ibrahim. Would the House please make these

students and their teachers welcome.

Debate Continued

Christensen: It's indeed a privilege to rise today and have an opportunity

to speak to the budget speech and in support of the budget speech of February

19. As other members have indicated, this is a historic budget, both for what it

says and for how it was prepared. I suspect that in the long term, as we look

back ten or 20 years from now and see the trend this budget preparation process

may have established, this indeed will be a very historic budget.

[1620]

This is a

budget that's been developed based on the input of MLAs from every single corner

of this province. It's a budget that's been prepared based on ministry service

plans, three-year service plans for every single ministry of government.

Government has looked at each portfolio and asked those ministers to review in

detail what their ministries are doing and what their ministries should be doing

to set targets and then develop a plan in order to meet those targets. Each of

those service plans in turn has been reviewed by a committee of government

caucus MLAs who have had an opportunity to provide input from each of the

regions in this province and to massage those service plans to ensure that we

come up with an overall plan for government that meets the needs of British

Columbians.

It's been a

very collaborative process, requiring considerable give-and-take and a very

honest assessment of the challenges facing this great province. I think that

most who review it objectively and in detail will agree that the end result is

both thoughtful and well considered. It is a difficult budget. It certainly

includes measures that many of us would prefer we did not need to take, but such

a budget is long overdue in the province.

For a

decade government ignored the fact that budgets cannot simply be planned from

year to year on a hope and a prayer that revenues will increase to cover

ever-increasing spending commitments. Most recently, when this province

benefited from unusually high gas and energy revenues, spending was ramped up to

spend those dollars as fast as they came in, without any thought or planning as

to how that spending could be maintained when those unusually high gas and

energy prices plummeted, as government should have known they inevitably would.

This B.C.

Liberal government knows that you can't simply budget on a hope and a prayer for

revenue. This government recognizes that the best way to support the programs

and services British Columbians

[ Page 1453 ]

desire and need is to encourage a thriving economy so that revenues will

consistently be there to sustain important services. This government also

recognizes that we must be vigilant in ensuring programs and services provided

by government are effective and are obtaining the intended results.

Last May,

which certainly seems a long time ago now, British Columbians overwhelmingly

voted for change. They wanted a government that would work to encourage economic

growth, to attract investment to British Columbia and to get our financial house

in order. They voted for a government that would plan ahead and address the need

for effective government services, particularly in health care and education.

The need

for planning in this province has never been greater. Over the last number of

months, on a couple of occasions, a number of other MLAs and I have had the

opportunity to hear the presentation by a demographer, David Baxter. Every time

I hear it, I'm always fascinated by the trends he points out.

I'm also

terrified, because when you listen to Mr. Baxter, the statistics he presents all

make perfect common sense. You see very quickly that particularly in the area of

health care spending, our costs are going to increase significantly over the

next two decades as our population ages and grows into that age where, as

individuals, we consume the greatest amount of health care dollars. At the same

time, that cohort of the population that is of working age and will be paying

the income tax and driving the economy to support the many important government

services, includi