2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Burgess Shale

W. McMahon

Youth programs

K. Manhas

RAV transit line

Halsey-Brandt

Oral Questions

Organized crime and funding of police

services

J. Kwan

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. MacPhail

Public forum on organized crime

J. MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Addiction services in Powell River

H. Long

Hon. S.

Brice

Transfer of community living services

R. Hawes

Hon. C.

Clark

Student grant program

H. Bloy

Hon. S. Bond

Point of Privilege

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Sultan

P. Nettleton

B. Kerr

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. R. Neufeld

B. Lekstrom

K. Stewart

S. Orr

R. Hawes

[ Page 8617 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2004

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce today, on behalf of the Minister of

Transportation and MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, 66 grade 11 students from

Southridge Senior Secondary School, their teacher Mr. Julian and two adult

chaperons which I doubt that they probably need at all. Would the House please

make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. J.

Les: Today in the visitors' gallery I would like to acknowledge some special

visitors from the Piemonte region in Italy. I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming Barbara Ramaglia — she's the consulente of the Regione Piemonte —

and Claudio Barbero of the industrial union. This is the advance team to the

visit of Enzo Ghigo, the region president, in late March. Would the House please

join me in welcoming them to Victoria today.

Belsey: I have the privilege today to stand and introduce to the House a

young fellow who was raised in Prince Rupert, who is now down here

looking at the University of Victoria where he wants to take some geography

courses. Would the House please join me in welcoming Andrew Cuthbert, a member

from Prince Rupert.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery today is one of my newest constituents who is

living in my riding and attending the fine University of Victoria, who has moved

here from Prince George and who just happens to be the daughter of the Minister

of State for Mining. Would the House please welcome one of my newest

constituents, Donna Bell.

Hon. P.

Bell: It appears we've been able to drag another northerner down south for a

short period of time as well, although he doesn't want to succumb to the salt

air he is being victimized with in this particular locale. He's a great friend,

a great son and a great snowmobiling buddy, who gets me unstuck on a regular

basis. Would the House please make my son Doug Bell very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) BURGESS SHALE

McMahon: I am pleased to rise in the House today and introduce my colleagues

and British Columbians to a hidden treasure in my constituency of Columbia

River–Revelstoke. Yoho National Park in the Rocky Mountains is host to an

amazing natural occurrence, the Burgess Shale formation. This formation, located

just outside of Golden near Field, is without a doubt one of the most

significant fossil deposits in the world, dating back to the middle Cambrian age

nearly 500 million years ago.

The Burgess

Shale is host to a diversity of soft-bodied fauna — early animal life — that

allows us to study the evolutionary processes associated with the development of

life on Earth millions of years ago. While these rare fossils are over half a

billion years old, they can be dissected today to reveal their stomach contents

and their amazing body parts.

The Burgess

Shale fauna provide an unparalleled opportunity to glimpse into the window of

ancient oceans and environmental conditions of another time. It has attracted so

much attention and curiosity, of scientists and the public alike, that the

Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation was established. The mandate of this

organization is to increase the public's science literacy.

The

foundation offers a variety of educational hikes around the fossil beds and

delivers a number of earth science education programs. Its vision is to create a

facility, the first of its kind in the world, to interpret and display the

Burgess Shale. This offers a great opportunity to not only showcase this amazing

natural formation but also showcase the entire Kootenay region.

The Burgess

Shale Geoscience Foundation attracts thousands of students, teachers, scientists

and interested observers from all over the world. Tourists come from far and

wide to see the Burgess Shale firsthand. They gain an appreciation of earth

sciences, and at the same time they experience one of the most beautiful regions

of the province.

I applaud

the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation for its commitment to the earth sciences

and education of the public. Organizations such as this one contribute to the

educational and scientific fabric of our province while creating innovative

opportunities for employment and tourism in the Kootenay.

[1410]

YOUTH PROGRAMS

Manhas: I have risen many times in this House to talk about the Youth

Matters! initiative that I launched in the Tri-Cities last year and its goal to

increase positive youth development using the assets approach.

It would

appear that this work is paying off in our local school system. School district

43 student leadership council recently declared this week, February 16 to 20, as

assets development week. These students have examined asset-building

opportunities appropriate to elementary, middle and secondary students and have

distributed their recommendations throughout our school system. As a result of

their work, our students, parents and teachers are gaining a better

understanding of the benefits we stand to make by engaging our

[ Page 8618 ]

youth. These students aren't alone. As I speak, there are over 20

organizations from across the Tri-Cities working together to improve the

community for the youth growing up within it.

One of the

priority goals for Youth Matters! has been to increase the way in which our

community connects with and values our youth. Working together to build assets

strengthens the bond between the individual and the community. It's unfortunate

that many young people, especially when they reach adolescence, feel as if

they're invisible to the adults around them. That's why adult mentorship is

crucial to the success of our asset-building efforts.

I think

many of us can look back to our days as teenagers and remember those few adults,

those individuals who engaged us to be interested in something. It might have

been a parent, a teacher, a neighbour or a coach who encouraged and took an

interest in us to pursue something. Unfortunately, many of today's young people

have gone their entire lives without having any of that kind of encouragement. I

think we each have a responsibility to change these circumstances. Even a smile

or a hello is an important connection that says to a young person: "You're

important."

We also

need to do our part to encourage youth to take action in their community when

author Samuel Johnson said: "Self-confidence is the first requisite to

great undertakings." I want to congratulate and thank Tamara Ramusovic and

the entire school district 43 student leadership council for their leadership in

taking those words to heart for the benefit of all students and for increasing

the awareness of each individual's role in building assets. Keep up the good

work. Here's to the first assets development week.

RAV TRANSIT LINE

Halsey-Brandt: Last week RAV Project Management Ltd., a subsidiary of the

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, released a

summary of the range of

options submitted by the three teams competing for the contract to design,

build, partially finance, operate and maintain the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver

rapid transit line. This line has been discussed since the mid-1970s and was

constantly on the transit planning diagrams of the GVRD through the 1980s to

nineties. Finally our government and our funding partners — the federal

government, the Vancouver Airport Authority and TransLink — are bringing it to

fruition in time for the 2010 Olympics.

This

much-needed link between downtown Vancouver, the international airport and

downtown Richmond is expected to have 100,000 boardings per day, carrying 26

million to 38 million passengers annually by 2010. In environmental terms, it is

anticipated that the rapid transit system will eliminate tons of harmful air

emissions and result in gasoline fuel savings of millions of litres annually.

The three competing bids received last week all meet the terms of reference for

the line. They provide travel times from downtown Vancouver to Richmond Centre

in less than 30 minutes and to the airport in less than 25 minutes. Construction

is to begin in spring 2005 with an in-service date of November 2009.

We look

forward to a thorough review by the evaluation committee to be completed by

April and then to have the two selected teams submit their final and best offer

by this fall. While there is concurrence in a combination of tunnelling at grade

and elevated line in Vancouver and at the airport, the question of whether the

line should be elevated or at grade at No. 3 Road in Richmond still needs to be

determined. My whole community looks forward to entering that discussion next

month.

This is a

rapid transit line that is way overdue. We are excited that its time has come,

and I thank our funding partners and the GVRD communities for their continuing

support.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

ORGANIZED CRIME AND

FUNDING OF POLICE SERVICES

J. Kwan:

In the past five days there've been two shootings in the lower mainland and one

assault. Organized crime activity is suspected in each. Crime, particularly

organized crime, is causing enormous public concern. Can the Solicitor General

confirm that these shootings and assaults are not random events but that they're

related to organized crime activities?

[1415]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The hon. member across the hall knows that I don't comment on

ongoing police investigations or the actual aspect of an individual case. I will

tell you this, though, Mr. Speaker. We've identified the concern with regard to

organized crime. We're actually moving towards creating an integrated organized

crime unit by moving the Organized Crime Agency in with the RCMP and our serious

crime people, which will find us an additional savings of $4 million that will

go directly into investigations of organized crime.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

The Solicitor General's words ring a bit hollow. After the organized crime squad

raided this building, the RCMP compared organized crime to a cancer growing on

the moral fabric of our society. But apparently the Solicitor General didn't

hear about that warning, because he continues to make it harder for the police

to fight crime — $13.5 million in cuts to police this year alone. That was

tabled yesterday in this government's budget.

[ Page 8619 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

How can British Columbians have any faith in this Solicitor, any faith at all

that the police are protected, when police services in this province are being

served up to the Minister of Finance for cuts?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm really glad that member asked that question. I don't know where

she's doing her research, but I suspect it's been from one of the dailies and

looking at the budget.

Maybe the

member might want to take this into consideration. Last year's budget included

$10 million for crime, which was expended in last year's budget, that doesn't

need to be expended next year. It included another $6 million in small capital,

so we can reduce our costs with regard to small capital in outgoing years. It

also included the cost of the Pickton investigation, which is winding down.

Therefore, the costs will be less on this. When the member actually does the

math and figures it out, she's going to find out that we actually invested more

money in operational policing in British Columbia this year.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The budget books don't lie. So says this government. According to the budget

book that was tabled yesterday, it shows that $13.5 million will be cut out of

policing. That's the truth, and this is the government who has yet to allocate

the traffic fine dollars to local governments for policing in spite of their

promise prior to the election.

According

to the government's own numbers, the crime rate last year went up 8 percent.

Gangland shootings are becoming a regular feature on nightly news. But the

Solicitor General continues to ignore the problems that are out there in our

communities. Yesterday the government announced it is spending $33 million on

public relations and partisan advertising. How can the Solicitor General justify

sitting at the cabinet table, signing off on millions of dollars for television

ads extolling the virtues of his government, when he's putting public safety at

risk?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, let's recognize one thing. This member was a member

of a government for ten years that didn't so much as meet with the police and do

any forward planning for law enforcement in British Columbia. They did not

invest in any technology, which we did last year — over $10 million into crime

— and they did not do. They refused to move forward on an integrated policing

relationship that saves millions of dollars and increases the efficiency of law

enforcement in British Columbia.

They also

don't get it that we know there's organized crime out there. That's why we have

strategies. That's why we are building our plans. That's why we have increased

funding to these areas. That's why we've looked for efficiencies, and that's

why, frankly, we're doing a great job and actually doing the job on behalf of

British Columbians.

[1420]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I sure hope the blue books don't lie, because the

blue books from this government — the estimates book — say that there's been

a $13.5 million cut to policing. The previous government set up the organized

crime agency. The previous government set up community policing.

What does

it take to get the attention of this Solicitor General? The organized crime

squad was in this building searching through files. We've had two shootings in

five days, but he stands there and blusters on, pretending that he's on top of

it. Thank God he's not sitting on it. Well, he's not on top of it. We're losing

the battle against organized crime, and his answer is to cut the budget for

policing.

Not only

has the minister cut funding to police, he's chopped $3 million more from

victims services. That's on top of a $6 million cut from last year. How can the

Solicitor General stand there, wave his arms about and tell the public he's

getting tough on crime after letting the Finance minister raid his budget to pay

for the Premier's image consultants?

Hon. R.

Coleman: One of these days this member is going to figure out that sometimes

you invest in one year to get savings in the next year, and it doesn't actually

affect an operational budget. What we have done is some of the most innovative

things in the history of British Columbia.

There are

individual cases of violence in this province, and there are a number of factors

that we would like to see improved, including penalties to people that are

actually committing crimes in this province. The bottom line is this: the

operational cost of policing has gone up and has been enhanced by this

government. The dollars the member refers to are to investigations that had to

have notional access to contingencies that will not cost as much next year,

because they were individual cases like the Pickton investigation.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: No, Mr. Speaker. Those are separate lines in the Estimates .

I wish this government would actually learn what it's talking about. What he's

referring to are separate lines in the budget.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 8620 ]

PUBLIC FORUM ON ORGANIZED CRIME

MacPhail: Policing in this province has been cut by $13.5 million. The

opposition has asked three times for the Solicitor General to call a public

inquiry into organized crime. Every single time he hides, and the rest of his

government laughs about organized crime — laughs about it.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: He won't consult the public as he promised to do. He won't call an

inquiry, and clearly he won't fight for new resources. He talks the talk on

crime, but he won't walk the walk.

Let me give

him another chance to take action. Will the Solicitor General listen to the

public, will he listen to the police, and will he finally leave his comfy, soft

chair and at least hold the public forum into organized crime that he promised

almost a year ago?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, let's get a couple of things clear. This particular

member has had an epiphany about organized crime that's happened in the last 30

days, because she failed to attend the Crown Corporations Committee when they

actually talked to the Organized Crime Agency, as a member of that committee.

She's also

had an epiphany all of a sudden about something I've been talking about for two

and a half years and the fact that there's organized crime in British Columbia.

If you sat down with law enforcement tomorrow and said, "Would you prefer

we spend a few million dollars on a public inquiry with regard to organized

crime, or would you prefer we gave you more money to actually fight organized

crime," the answer would be: "Give us the money to fight organized

crime."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: What this member doesn't get is that she's never had a plan for

policing. Actually, when you sit down, you figure out the costs, you invest the

capital and you plan it out, you can enhance the operational cost of policing by

front-end lowering some costs that can move from one budget year to the next.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The member just doesn't get the fact — and it drives her crazy

— that law enforcement in British Columbia are finally supportive of a

government because they stand behind them, plan with them and build for the

future.

Interjections.

[1425]

Mr.

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

ADDICTION SERVICES IN POWELL RIVER

H. Long:

My question today is for the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction

Services. In the mid-eighties I worked with the New Life Society in Powell River

to bring a contract for addiction services to our community. Recently Powell

River people were told that the Vancouver coastal health authority has decided

to terminate the society's contract as of March 31, 2004. Can the Minister of

State for Mental Health and Addiction Services explain how the cancellation of

this contract is going to improve addiction services for Powell River?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Brice: Vancouver coastal health will now directly provide the programs and

services offered by the New Life Society. This decision ensures that resources

are used to the maximum potential in order to strengthen patient services. There

will be absolutely no reduction in service or quality of care as a result of

this move, and no client will lose services or be denied care as a result of

this move. In fact, Vancouver coastal will be able to provide increased service

from savings in administrative costs. The integrating of these services with

mental health will provide more options, and this is another great example of

how health authorities are improving service delivery and patient care.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

TRANSFER OF

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

For a long time now, the ministry has been working with the community living

sector on a new plan for the transfer of governance for people with

developmental difficulties. Recently the ministry has announced it has postponed

that transfer, which was planned for June. Now, can the minister tell my

constituents, including Mr. Bryce Shaufelberger who served on the board as a

self-advocate, if the transfer plan has now been abandoned? Or if it has not,

has a new date for the transfer been set?

Hon. C.

Clark: Indeed, we are still very committed to shifting to community

governance in the community living sector. The reason we want to do that is

this: it is the right, moral thing to do. Delivering these services

[ Page 8621 ]

in communities, closer to communities where the people who receive them have

some say over how they look, is the right thing to do.

I know the

opposition doesn't care about this, but thousands of people have invested

thousands of hours….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Would the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order and listen to the answer.

Hon. C.

Clark: I know the opposition is not particularly interested in allowing

communities to control the services that we provide in this ministry. I know, in

fact, that the opposition has called for this to stop, but the reality is that

thousands of people have spent thousands of hours. They have invested…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …their hopes and dreams in this. In fact, 14,000 people

provincewide have participated in the consultation about how we can make this

happen. We want to make sure that when it happens, it happens right. We want to

make sure that the community living authority is on a solid foundation so that

the people we're serving continue to be well served and continue to get every

benefit that our society can give them. But we are committed to making sure that

these services are delivered in the community, and we are committed to making

sure that the community living authority is up and running on a firm foundation

as soon as we possibly can do it.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

STUDENT GRANT PROGRAM

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. I have heard some

confusion from my constituents regarding the transfer of funds from the student

grant program directly to universities and colleges. Could the minister address

the benefits of funding universities and colleges directly, and also assure my

constituents that there will still be financial aid for any student in this

province that requires it?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to

order.

Hon. S.

Bond: It is true we are converting student grants to a loan program in

British Columbia. In fact, the dollars that go from that program will be sent to

institutions that were, in fact, expecting fewer dollars to be transferred to

them this year. The majority will actually receive as many dollars, if not more

than they were anticipating. In fact, institutions will soon receive budget

letters which indicate that they will receive dollars they did not anticipate.

We expect that to provide benefit in mitigating….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. We'll continue when we have order in the

House, please.

Hon. S.

Bond: We expect the transfer of dollars to institutions to mitigate some of

the tuition increases that were expected, and I expect institutions to look

closely at their decisions about tuition based on the decision made yesterday.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I said that I was about to bring forward three

motions of privilege. Here is the third.

During

question period on May 29, 2003, the Solicitor General stood in this House and

stated the following: "What we did" — and I quote directly —

"is actually took gaming in this province arm's length from political

influence, gave it to the corporation and said, 'You manage gaming within the

capacity.' We identified that capacity, and the corporation is doing its job in

the way it should be — without political influence, as some people maybe had

seen in the governments of the past."

He then

also stated: "The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a corporation that is

operating without political influence and will do its business on behalf of

British Columbians to the level it should be, rather than having — as in the

past — political influence dictating stupid decisions in gaming."

His

position, as stated in this House, is consistent with statements he made at an

open cabinet meeting on January 16, 2002, where he stated: "After being the

minister for six or seven months, it was abysmal how this sector of government

was managed. That's why I've moved it to where it's very professional, arm's

length from the minister. I don't make decisions on individual licences, nor do

I ever discuss an individual licence."

Mr.

Speaker, there are several statements of a similar nature in the popular media.

I raise these matters arising from outside the Legislature only to substantiate

the point that the minister did not misspeak himself in the Legislature. He

deliberately made three separate statements in this House to imply that he had

no involvement at all, no influence over decisions made by the gaming

corporation and specifically regarding slot machines.

[ Page 8622 ]

A recent

statement from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast tells a different

story. He is quoted in a December 23, 2003, Powell River Peak article,

which has not been retracted, that reports the following: "B.C.'s Solicitor

General Rich Coleman asked MLA Harold Long how Powell River would feel about

having slot machines in the community. 'He asked if our community would be

interested in slot machines in the bingo hall, where there is gambling

already,'" said the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

[1435]

As the

member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has identified, the Solicitor General

is personally seeking out venues for the installation of slot machines. Erskine

May, 22nd edition, page 63, quotes from the civil service amendment

order-in-council 1995, which states: "…the following principles should

govern the conduct of ministers of the Crown in relation to parliament…it is

of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to

parliament…." That learned source also states: "Ministers who

knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the

Prime Minister."

The same

edition, on page 64, also states: "It was not intended to affect or

derogate from the duties ministers owe to parliament in their capacity as

members of one of the Houses, and imposing on ministers the additional duty to

offer their resignation to the Prime Minister will not affect the right of

either House to proceed against them in a case of alleged contempt, as it might

proceed against any other member."

I argue,

therefore, that there is a prima facie case for the Solicitor General to be

found in contempt of this House and that this House has the authority to act on

it. For your consideration I put forward a notice of motion for you to consider,

and I also table for you the

article that stands without retraction from the Powell

River Peak and the open cabinet meeting minutes that I quoted from.

Mr.

Speaker: The Chair will take your comments and your submissions into

consideration.

The Chair

will now entertain comments or notice of comment from the government side.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I seek to reserve the right to make further

submissions in due course.

Mr.

Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call continuing debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Sultan: It's an honour to be asked to respond to the budget speech of the

Minister of Finance. He's presented a commendable — indeed, a remarkable —

piece of work, for this is not merely a piece of paper, as someone recently

called it. Rather, it's the culmination of a hazardous three-year project

involving thousands of people, starting from an election promise, proceeding

through core review via caucus committees into new law and public consultation

involving the turning down of multiple screws, making agonized choices,

requiring growth of thick skin and a fair amount of marketing, enduring

legislative critique and opposition scorn and ultimately arriving at a balanced

budget. Today we can celebrate the announcement of a balanced budget for fiscal

'04-05.

One

observer said to me: "These guys come across year after year as steadily

steering a ship, and the ship's on course." In politics this is unique. The

feds don't do it this way, and neither do the Americans. It's quite special and

quite remarkable.

[1440]

A balanced

budget in and of itself is an unusual event in the history of this province. In

recent years you would make money betting that B.C. would be in the red four

years out of five. The party opposite could manage it only twice in ten years,

and that relied on risky electrical arbitrage in the state of California, where

the final accounting has yet to be done.

Proving

that governments of our past held no monopoly on fiscal deficiency, balanced

budgets are also becoming rare in that great empire to the south. In the United

States, governments now contemplate deficits equal to 5 percent of their gross

domestic product. By that yardstick, our Finance minister would be presenting a

budget in the deficit range of $7 billion. Our Finance minister's and our

government's local accomplishments here in this province are all the more

laudable in light of what's going on in the good old U.S.A. Congratulations,

minister.

Our friends

across the aisle are the first to protest that the government accomplished this

feat on the backs of the poor, the disabled, students and the sick. I say

baloney to that. Let's look at the record.

In their

final four years in government, the NDP increased health spending by only $1.8

billion — only $1.8 billion. Cheapskates, I say. In four years of B.C. Liberal

government, health spending will have gone up by $2.2 billion.

In their

final four years in government, the NDP increased education spending by only

$822 million. Pikers, I say. In four years of B.C. Liberal government, education

spending will have gone up by $932 million, even though the number of students

has gone down.

In their

final four years in government, the NDP increased social services spending by

about $164 million. I say jobs are better than handouts. In four years the B.C.

Liberal government will have reduced social services spending by more than half

a billion dollars, and that's a lot. Over 85,000 people no longer rely on income

assistance, and the majority — 60 percent, according to the surveys — leave

for employment, earning two or three times what they were given by the

government. The money saved is helping fund the

[ Page 8623 ]

government's aggressive expansion of health care and education.

Getting a

job is not a hardship, but don't expect applause from those who believe the

ideal economy is one where half of the people are on welfare and the other half

work for the government — and that seems to be the model that is frequently

suggested — and who also, bald facts notwithstanding, prattle on endlessly

about cuts to health care and education. I say: where are the cuts in light of

the numbers I've just read to you?

Furthermore,

of all the provinces in Canada, none has created more jobs than British

Columbia. Surely this merits NDP applause and not their condemnation. To put it

another way, this Finance minister has managed to maintain and even expand the

government services network on which society relies, even while creating a more

competitive free enterprise business and tax environment. Surely that policy

combination is in the best Canadian tradition.

We're once

more indebted to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for spelling out

the alternatives — as, indeed, their charter suggests they do — and they've

done it again. Just like last year, CCPA missiles again trundled through Red

Square, but with a new leader, Carole James, in her greatcoat admiring it all

from the reviewing stand atop Lenin's mausoleum. Let's give credit where credit

is due. British Columbians should be grateful to the prior NDP government for

sending a couple of hundred thousand dollars over to their friends at the CCPA,

thereby preserving a living museum of socialist ideology which might otherwise

have been lost forever.

[1445]

Once more,

we have a through-the-looking-glass glimpse of how life would be should the NDP

be in power today. Lewis Carroll would marvel at their economic tonic, starting

with the upbeat title of their report: We've invited the world. They're

coming. And the place is a mess . To encourage tidiness, they will introduce

three big measures. No. 1 is an incentive-based corporate tax system that

rewards companies willing to meet provincial, economic, social and environmental

objectives with "carrots and sticks" — their phrase — with the

carrots and sticks no doubt defined by the CCPA team. Yeah, that'll do it —

nothing tidier than a lot of empty office buildings downtown.

The second

is a public investment bank — these people love banks — to provide access to

capital, particularly non-profit and cooperative ventures. Yup, that'll do it.

Under the new Carole James regime, there will be a lot of non-profit ventures

— unfortunately, not all of them planned.

Finally,

taxes up by 27 percent overall, on the optimistic assumption that taxpayers

stoically sit there and just take it. However, British Columbians are mobile.

Stock tip: buy WestJet.

But we must

concede that the decreased traffic on our roads, the empty restaurants and the

fewer kids to educate would certainly help fulfil the centre's tidiness

objective. Here we see the proposed world of Carole James and the new NDP as

advised by the CCPA. It features the highest tax rates in North America; a

deficit budget for at least six years; income tax hikes of 40 percent for those

earning between $32,000 and $65,000, squarely targeting card-carrying union

members; and an adjustable-rate business tax, fluctuating with the tides of

political correctness in Victoria.

Lest we

forget, let's remember what happened last time when under the influence of this

type of advice, the NDP ruled B.C. We had a forest industry hog-tied by David

Zirnhelt's famous 12-foot-shelf Forest Practices Code. I see the minister smile.

The mining industry fled to more hospitable Mongolia. Public servants were not

granted raises for years under the influence of union bosses more interested in

expanding the membership base than their salaries. Doctors and nurses were fed

up with the above and demanded huge catch-up increases from the new government

and got them. A health system was structured around 52 boards — well meaning

but unworkable.

The

economy, on most national indicators, went from first to last. Having done their

best to promise everything to everybody, the NDP shovelled a whole bunch of

money overboard as they headed for the lifeboats, attached this great big anchor

of unmet promises to the sinking ship, tossed it overboard, paddled ashore and

hid until the election was over. As a final legacy, the NDP left us with an

economy in recession. We now know that in their final term, GDP shrank. In 2001

gross domestic product actually shrank for the first time in 20 years. It was a

wobbly platform for the new government to build on and all the more reason to

applaud the Finance minister's accomplishment.

As we head

into another election, we will all be subjected to more rhetoric about this

government's policy of tax cuts for the rich. The argument is made that tax cuts

don't pay for themselves. I believe they do, in particular the 25 percent tax

cut we gave to low-income persons — for example, resulting in persons earning

$30,000 paying the lowest taxes in all of Canada. That's what it said in today's

Province newspaper. Let's agree to call it the low-income tax cut from

now on.

[1450]

Do tax cuts

like this pay for themselves? In fiscal 2000, the last full year prior to the

election, tax revenues were $13.8 billion. In 2005 tax revenues will be $14.2

billion. We've caught up. The taxes have paid for themselves, I argue. Yes, user

fees also increased significantly — can't deny that. But more important

factors were more jobs — over two million for the first time. This translates

into more taxpayers, encouraging people to come here instead of leave. Last

quarter, for the first time, there was net in-migration from the rest of Canada

into British Columbia instead of people leaving, encouraging higher-income

people — and this is huge — who pay the lion's share of the personal income

tax base, to move here and file income tax returns in British Columbia for the

first time. Under this government's personal income tax regime, we can now

recruit managers, academicians and scientists from

[ Page 8624 ]

around the world but particularly from the United States. They're glad to

move here because of not only the quality of life but a friendly personal tax

environment. This is big stuff.

Another

factor: encouraging businesses to stay instead of moving to Calgary or

elsewhere. We've yet to see a surge of returning head offices, but at least the

outflow has been staunched. Flight Centre is leading the way, and there will be

more, I am sure — more tax dollars for the Finance minister. In short, tax

cuts pay for themselves, and British Columbia offers the case evidence.

I was

highly annoyed to pick up the January issue of a local business magazine

featuring a picture of our Premier on the cover and the headline stating:

"Where's the Prosperity?" What a curious question. Prosperity is all

around us. Wake up. Evidence abounds that British Columbia is in the early

stages of a massive economic turnaround, and we ain't seen nothing yet. I'll

stake my Harvard degrees, my Royal Bank credentials and my Starbucks coffee mug

on it. We all fall into the trap of looking for the blockbuster announcements:

Glen Clark's three aluminum smelters — or was it seven? I kind of lost track

— or, worse yet, his three aluminum ferries.

Forget the

blockbusters. In the twenty-first century economic growth is achieved one dollar

at a time. It's achieved by smaller enterprises. The relics of the past, such as

the major steel companies — not to pick on them, but they do stand out —

will soon be forgotten. As structural changes occur, the emerging smaller, more

entrepreneurial, more agile enterprises are harder for the journalists to track.

We can appreciate that, but maybe we should excuse them when enterprise growth

is unnoticed.

The most

compelling statistic telling us that economic growth is occurring is employment

— not unemployment but employment. Unemployment tends to measure how many

people come here sensing opportunity. You might even say that in British

Columbia a high unemployment rate is a measure of success because people are

here thinking they're going to find work — and of course they do.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Rather,

employment. Jobs are growing, and hourly wages are going up. While individual

month's statistics may bob and weave and may be used selectively to illustrate

whatever point the speechmaker has in mind, the annual wage trend is quite

clear. Average annual wage rates in B.C. have increased without interruption for

over seven years and continue to do so. Furthermore, wage rates are increasing

faster than inflation. So real wages are, in fact, going up. So let's just stop

the debate right here. The NDP need read no further. The policies inherent in

this budget are doing what the government set out to do: improve the lives of

ordinary people here in British Columbia.

illustrate the mechanism by which this is happening, let's take a quick tour

around the province. Continental Airlines recently signed a ten-year maintenance

contract with Abbotsford-based Cascade Aerospace, which will create an

additional 200 jobs in the Fraser Valley. According to Deloitte and Touche, B.C.

has 15 of Canada's 50 top growing high-tech companies. We're tied with Ontario

in that regard. Electronic Arts out in Burnaby is adding over 35,000 square

metres of studio space to its software operation centre in Burnaby —

encouraged, no doubt, by extension of the research development tax credit. Red

Chris mine near Iskut in northwestern British Columbia is close to entering the

permit stage. It will employ upwards of 350 people, including many first

nations.

[1455]

The

Ministry of Forests has awarded an employees' group the operation of the

Skimikin Nursery near Salmon Arm, and they plan to expand this sapling nursery.

B.C. is

back on the charts, attracting 43 percent of all immigrant investors to Canada

— the highest since 1997.

Vancouver

has become one of North America's leaders in biotechnology. In recognition of

this, Merck Frosst recently gave a $31 million research grant to the Children's

Hospital in Vancouver.

The Prince

Rupert Port Authority has started construction of a new $9 million cruise

terminal. Container facilities contemplated to service CN–BCR's new service

from Rupert to the American Midwest and back again will, I think, provide

extraordinary stimulus for Prince Rupert.

Harrison

Hot Springs Resort is investing $16 million in improved facilities — just

picking some examples at random.

Flight

Centre is moving its North American headquarters here, as I already mentioned.

Dunkley

mills north of Quesnel is investing $50 million to build a new

90,000-square-foot sawmill.

The Fort

Nelson first nation has entered into an $8 million partnership with Ensign

Drilling to own and operate an oil rig.

The greater

Victoria film industry brought in $24 million of direct production spending.

In my own

back yard, North Vancouver's $400 million redevelopment of the lower Lonsdale

area business and residential core was recently announced by Mayor Barbara

Sharp. This project has been in the works for many years, and we now see its

culmination.

Over $5

billion of public infrastructure spending is taking off, ranging from the RAV

line to the Sea to Sky Highway to the new Fraser crossing to the Kicking Horse

Canyon portal from Alberta to new Olympic facilities to water treatment

facilities on the North Shore, and on and on and on. I think I've probably

underestimated the sum.

Finally,

the sleeper in the budget is probably the new IFC legislation, which grants our

province unique tax privileges — not available in Ontario at all, by the way;

this is not very well understood — heretofore only available to Quebec. We've

got it. We've got the legislation on the books. It will be shortly, and it's go-

[ Page 8625 ]

ing to be a tremendous boost not just to Vancouver but to every community in

the heartlands.

Headline

writers take note: the economy cup is more than half full. It will soon be

overflowing. The contrast with the dismal NDP years is so striking that I don't

hesitate to judge that most of this is due to the policies and budgets of this

government.

Now that

the books are being balanced, it may do well to contemplate a couple of policy

issues we'll have to face up to in the longer term. I won't dwell on them, but

let me just flag them in passing.

The growth

of the health sector. Health spending is growing at about 7 percent per year,

maybe even faster in some years. That's the longer-term trend in recent years.

The economy is only growing half that fast. The health sector continues to

expand its share of the economy and its share of government budgets from the low

of 40 percent. I heard someone speculate it might eventually reach 50 percent of

the budget. Its share of the economy, now 10 percent or 11 percent in B.C., is

already at 15 percent in the bellwether United States. Is that a harbinger of

things to come? What are the fiscal and management consequences of a government

that is half health care and half everything else? I don't believe we've begun

to seriously consider the consequences, but it does illustrate that the system

must change, and that is what we are trying to do.

A second

issue that merits some sober contemplation — and one I know the Solicitor

General has tried repeatedly to focus our minds on — is the growth of the

underground economy, particularly the criminal underground economy, in British

Columbia. The situation we face, if I could steal an anecdote from the member

for Sunshine Coast, was reported in a recent newspaper story from that part of

the world.

[1500]

It seems a

local member of the Sunshine Coast regional government — this is an elected

official; this is part of our leadership in this province — noticed that

logging didn't have the occupational vitality it once had. He suggested to the

media that the police should back off to allow marijuana grow ops the full

opportunity to fill the void in logging. This is what our leadership is saying

up there. Expand this to approximately $5 billion, and the magnitude of this one

underground sector…. It's by no means the only one. This one underground

sector — unregulated, untaxed, dangerously criminal and illegal — is, in my

view, both frightening and cause for longer-term fiscal reflection. This is a

huge chunk of the economy, and it impacts all of us — but merely looked at in

economic terms; forget about the criminal dimensions.

Summing up,

as I contemplate the future, please forgive me if my thoughts turn again to Will

Shakespeare. British Columbia is a small place — only four million people in a

sea of 400 million on this continent, only 1 percent in a sea of four billion

around the world, a fraction of 1 percent. What can this tiny enterprise we call

British Columbia accomplish, and how?

We've

already accomplished a great deal. We've created a quality of life ranked first

in the world by objective observers. We've protected the unmatched splendour of

our environment. We live healthy lifestyles which are the envy of demographers

and health scientists around the world. We educate our people to first-class

standards.

How can we

create the conditions by which this small, talented, robust group of people

assembled here from all over the world…? How can this group take on the world

and win? It's a brave goal.

On another

troops with these words: "The fewer the men, the greater the share of the

honour." Let this government be remembered for its valour, for the fights

it has fought and won, and for the integrity of its purpose: to create a better

British Columbia for ourselves and for our grandchildren.

Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to respond to the

budget.

In his

opening remarks to the budget speech yesterday, the Minister of Finance stopped

short of declaring 2003 an annus horribilis. Instead, he said it was marked by

an unforeseeable and unparalleled string of natural disasters. That was an

understatement, especially when you include, as I will, the string of man-made

disasters inflicted upon British Columbians by this government. Thankfully, they

were forced to retreat from some of these horrendous decisions.

The Finance

minister said that we had faced some of the toughest challenges we had ever

seen. I'm wondering: is that an admission, or is he seeking sympathy for the

government's mishandling of the various situations?

He went on

to applaud the people of British Columbia for rising to the occasion. The same

cannot be said for the government, except when they retreated in the face of a

population angered at the war waged upon them by their own government, who are

part and parcel of these hardships which they did little to alleviate.

This is not

the time to turn back or change course, the Finance minister warned. What got us

here were tough decisions, he maintained. I ask the Finance minister and the

Premier: just where are we today? The people of B.C. will tell you. They have

told you many times, but you won't listen.

Hard times

are where we are today — not just yesterday, today. In this day of the

so-called balanced budget, the Finance minister says: "That was what we

inherited." I'm wondering: how long can this government continue to blame

others for their mismanagement of taxpayer money and abuse of every British

Columbian in this ideological war they continue to wage, where money is placed

above the dignity and the rights of people?

[1505]

The

minister said that the story of B.C. today embodies the Spirit of 2010.

Hopefully, the Spirit of 2010 will not reflect the spirit of 2001 through 2003.

God forbid that should be the case.

This

government likes to do something. It likes to turn the clock and the calendar

back to 1999 and for-

[ Page 8626 ]

ward to 2010, hoping the annus horribilis — that is the times this

government has presided over — will somehow disappear. Steadily, under this

government, each year has progressively worsened, despite their retreating from

some of the mean-spirited decisions they have tried to force through. Now we are

faced with more promises, as there were each previous year, and claims that the

corner has been turned towards that elusive prosperity and the golden new era.

Government

funding is increasing, we are told, but I note this is mainly to ministries that

have failed to achieve their promised mandate or are in some difficulty. In

fact, such bailouts are merely bucket brigade bailouts to stop those ships from

sinking. What has happened to the across-the-board restraint and cutbacks that

this government touted and proclaimed so arrogantly?

The

original agenda is in disarray with no cohesive program to replace it. Mere

paper and mere words, the Finance minister's prognostications will be tested

when the rubber meets the road — out where the average British Columbian lives

and works, including the so-called heartlands.

The

minister says we have weathered the economic storms of the past few years. I'm

wondering where he has been living — Hawaii? The only place the government has

seen fit to hold the line of fiscal restraint is with those groups the polls

reveal as being the least likely to have public opinion on their side. Health

care workers and doctors are among these. It is a

scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours government, emboldened by public opinion.

The minister says no to teachers and yes to students, no to doctors and yes to

patients, no to government workers and yes to the public. Great-sounding words,

but I am not at all optimistic that students will find a "yes" to

their needs in this speculative budget, and neither will the long-suffering B.C.

public.

As a

Liberal, I am shocked at the Machiavellian ideology this government has tried to

implement, but not at the whirlwind these policies have been reaping even to

this day of supposed budgetary success. It's like calling the rehabilitation of

a bank robber successful because he no longer employs a gun but rather resorts

to a knife.

With this

government, I say, "I'm from Missouri," and I say: "Show me that

B.C. is a better place for British Columbians today." Show me that this

government has people at the heart of its policies. Show me that this government

is rehabilitated and is now truly listening to the people as the Premier claims.

No, I am forced to take a wait-and-see attitude to this budget and to the

government that has produced it.

So, how

good or bad is the economic situation in B.C.? Let's hear it from the horse's

mouth. The following quotes are from the Minister of Finance as given in the

budget speech: "We will have the balanced budget as promised by the

Premier, in spite of a decade of decline and of people losing hope, of them

giving up on British Columbia and of young people leaving the province. The

Premier promised to turn this around, and he has," claimed the minister.

[1510]

Despite all

this negative news and the disasters that have damaged the economy, the Finance

minister says he expects the government to end 2003-04 with a balanced budget

and a deficit of, in his words "only $1.7 billion." This is the truth,

he said in the budget speech, because the government passed a law that they have

to tell the truth about how they handle taxpayers' money. He said: "There

is no longer the ability in B.C. for governments to push a deficit onto Crown

corporations or organizations such as school districts." Mr. Minister, how

enlightening. He went on to say: "The budget we are presenting today shows

the whole picture." Again, how enlightening — the whole truth and nothing

but the truth, so help me God.

Also

looming above all British Columbians like a dark storm cloud is the spectre of

the $39 billion provincial debt, which has grown by approximately $6.5 billion

since the B.C. Liberals came to power in 2001. For a province of four million

people, that is the most massive debt I have ever heard of. By the way, $39

billion is the same debt as the state of California with a population, in

contrast to British Columbia, of 37 million people — which has crippled them.

Their debt load is so heavy that they have called on Arnold Schwarzenegger to

help lift it. We don't have an Arnold, so the heavy lifting is all up to the

backs of the people of British Columbia. I very much doubt we have seen the end

of that story.

I'm no

accountant. The Finance minister, a former airline pilot and flight instructor,

wisely relies on bean-counters and accountants to give him the goods. What does

the average B.C. taxpayer do to get answers? Well, they rely in part on people

like myself to ask questions in an attempt to hold this government to account. I

tell you that they, too… Most of them are from Missouri when it comes to this

legislative body. "Show me; tell me. Is it so?" Time will tell, and I

would say that time is not on this government's side.

B. Kerr:

I'm glad to hear that our member for Prince George–Omineca thinks debt should

be reduced and the debt is a burden on our future generations, because that's

one area where I do agree with him.

I've got a

confession to make, because last night I was a lamb led to slaughter.

Fortunately, nobody was watching. I was on the Moe Sihota show. He did what some

of the other opposition members have done. He got into the minutiae of the

budget. We were there for an hour, and he got in and started hammering us on the

minutiae of the budget. Quite clearly, it was difficult. I didn't know some of

the answers.

I would

like to get on the record what I should have said, so I can get it off my chest

and say it now. When he was asking me a question that was on a $2 million item

on page 65 of the Estimates , I should have really stopped him right

there. I should have said: "Moe, we have a $30 billion budget. It's

balanced. It's going to increase the economy. It's going to create more jobs.

It's going to put 25,000 more students back in university and lower the averages

that they need to get into uni-

[ Page 8627 ]

versity. We're going to put a billion dollars more into health care. We're

going to put $300 million more to education. Why are you talking to me about $2

million?" That's what I should have said, and I didn't. Instead, I tried to

answer the question.

Hon. M.

de Jong: But the same number of viewers are watching this that watched last

night.

B. Kerr:

Well, that's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping the same number of viewers are watching

this now, so I can say the right things and balance the record.

He asked me

another question on unemployment. Instead I listened to him when I should have

said, "Wait a sec," like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

"Let's talk about the jobs that are created. For the first time ever two

million people are working in British Columbia. We are number one in new job

growth. Don't talk to me about unemployment. Talk to me about employment and

about opportunities in British Columbia." That's what I should have said. I

didn't, so I apologize. Now I got that off my chest, and I feel much better. I

hope the same number of people are watching that were watching his show.

[1515]

I said

before that every so often as I sit in this House, things are said or events

take place which reinforce why I got into politics. The last time was in

November when the member for Vancouver-Hastings railed on about the government

because CN Rail might make a profit. She was prepared to forgo any economic

development in the north along with added jobs, because CN was going to make a

profit. That's what sets her government apart from ours. We don't agree that

profit is a four-letter word. We believe profit or its potential is what drives

business. When business sees the potential for profit, it invests. It's that

investment that creates jobs and economic prosperity.

That

incident is but one of many reasons why I entered into politics. Going back to

the beginning, it was a lack of any desire by the previous government to manage

the debt and balance the budget. Balancing the budget was foremost in my mind.

It was the reason why I put my personal life on hold to enter into public life.

So I'm relieved. I'm pleased. To quote my colleague from Prince George–Mount

Robson: "I'm even excited that on this, our penultimate budget in our first

term, we have balanced the budget."

When I say

balanced, I mean this will be a balanced budget according to generally accepted

accounting principles. This budget does not have any qualifiers like the last

balanced budget of the NDP. That budget, buried away back on page 95…. The

Finance minister at that time admitted that although the budget was balanced,

meeting the goals of that budget could not actually be met. In other words,

their budget, to quote the recent words of the president of the BCMA, was

"just a piece of paper."

Generally

accepted accounting principles is a very important concept. British Columbia is

the first province to present its budget according to GAAP. What does this mean?

This means that for the first time, the auditor general will not have to qualify

his audit report in the consolidated accounts. It also means there could be no

chicanery in the books. I remember a former government budget…. They brought

$450 million into the books that really made the financial picture look much

brighter. Under generally accepted accounting principles, this $450 million

would never have shown in the books. As it was, the government was forced to

write off that amount the following year. I believe this was the first fudge-it

budget.

Quite

frankly, these last few years have been brutal. It started with the recognition

and the meltdown of the high-tech economy. Then we were faced with 9/11, the

softwood lumber dispute, SARS and its effect on tourism, forest fires, floods

and BSE. I know it's taken a tremendous amount of discipline to stay focused on

balancing the budget. With all the excuses available it would have been easy to

postpone it, but some government at some time must have the conviction, the

courage and the fortitude to suffer the slings and arrows and do what is right,

not what is easy. On behalf of my grandchildren, who will benefit from this

budget, I would like to give my sincere thanks to the minister for showing such

courage and conviction.

I served on

the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It was our

responsibility to travel the province and seek out input on what the public

thought should be included in the budget and what priorities the government

should set when the money is available. We travelled through 11 different

communities and received over 200 submissions from people from all walks of

life.

What did we

hear? First, we heard from almost every presenter to stay the course and balance

the budget. Second, we heard them say stay focused on economic development. We

also heard them say we must address the skill-shortage issue. Has the minister

listened? Let's look at what's in the budget. To begin with, we did just as we

promised and the budget is balanced. We projected $100 million surplus this

year, and in fact we're not stopping there. We're projecting increased surpluses

for the next two years. With only four balanced budgets in 24 years, we're very

proud of our ability to hand down three in a row starting this year.

We're

investing $1.3 billion to bring out the best in health care and education. We're

putting more than $300 million right into education over the next three years.

We're going to put $105 million into post-secondary education. This budget puts

$1 billion into health care, over $1 billion into transportation infrastructure,

over $170 million into our forests and $17 million into offshore oil and gas. It

sounds to me like the minister was listening to British Columbians.

[1520]

At the

beginning of my speech, I mentioned there had been pivotal points to reinforce

my decision as to why I entered politics, and I would like to compare our

government's budget to the alternative budget that was presented last week. This

was offered by the NDP

[ Page 8628 ]

think tank. This is on the website; anybody can see it. Under their budget,

taxes would increase to some citizens by over 100 percent. The deficit would

carry on until 2010 and most likely beyond. Corporate taxes would increase

considerably, with the proviso that tax credits would be offered for companies

that follow the government's social program.

Didn't the

opposition learn anything from their time in office? We have worked so hard to

encourage companies to invest in B.C. We have worked so hard to bring investment

back to the province after years of decline, and our policies have been working.

Virtually every economic indicator is up. In most categories B.C. is first or

second in Canada. If that's not good news, I don't know what is.

Our

government has been a government of development and growth. Building permits are

up. The value of building permits in British Columbia grew 13 percent in 2003,

and that's well above the national average of 7½ percent. We are leaders in

Canada. The value of residential permits is up 16.2 percent — nearly double

the national average. That's exciting news.

We had

almost $6.4 billion worth of building starts in B.C. alone last year. That's

$6.4 billion of investment, $6.4 billion worth of growth. We're predicted to be

the only one of two provinces in all of Canada expected to continue to grow in

housing starts. We're anticipated to increase housing developments by 3.2

percent, and that's the most growth in housing in Canada. The best part of this

is that the same survey predicted continuing growth right through 2005. We are

growing, and it is not just a short-term thing.

There is

only one reason that new homes are needed, and that's because more people are

working and more families are growing. Since the end of 2001 there have been

nearly 160,000 new jobs in British Columbia. This is the kind of news that tells

us we're right on track. We set out to improve B.C.'s economy, to get people

back to work and to rebuild British Columbia, and we're doing it. Because of the

leadership of our Premier and his cabinet, we now have more people in B.C.

working than ever before.

The

economic recovery we have been experiencing is inspiring more than just me.

Consumer confidence in B.C. is the highest in Canada. Despite having economic

powerhouses like Ontario and Alberta to compete with, we are number one. And why

not? We have vast resources that they're now allowing us to be developed. We

have the most livable city in the world, we have the most beautiful parks in the

world, and we have the most beautiful island in all of the Americas.

B.C. has

everything to offer, and now that we've opened ourselves up again, the world is

taking notice. In fact, 2003 was the first year in the last six where more

people moved to B.C. than moved out. I'm so excited about this news; it's great

to hear that B.C. is doing so well.

And 2004 is

going to be another stellar year for B.C. According to TD Bank forecasts, we're

going to have the second-highest GDP growth in the country. Some economists

expect 3.3 percent GDP growth this year. That's $4 billion worth of GDP growth.

We're well above the national average. This is just one more example of how we

are taking the lead in B.C.

Small and

medium-sized businesses play an exceptionally vital role in B.C.'s growth and

are a large part of why we're continuing to grow so impressively. In fact,

according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, our small and

medium-sized businesses are more confident than their counterparts in any other

part of Canada, and that says a lot about the leadership of our Premier and our

government.

When the

people who take on the risk and responsibility of starting up and running a

small business feel comfortable investing their time and money in B.C., it acts

as an incentive for the larger investors to make that same decision also.

Because of the growing confidence, the number of small businesses increased for

the first time in 2002, after three years of back-to-back decline.

[1525]

We should

also make no mistake. Individual small businesses may be small, but small

businesses play no small role in our economy. Fifty-eight percent of the jobs in

this province come from small businesses. When small business does well, B.C.

does well. Thirty percent of our GDP comes from small businesses. With 58

percent of the jobs and 30 percent of the GDP, it's hardly fair for us to call

them small business. This entrepreneurial spirit is what drives B.C. to become

the best province in the whole country.

Right here

in Victoria we've seen record-breaking TV and film production. This is a 63

percent increase over 2002. That's $23.8 million invested right here in the

capital region. It is undeniably that 6 percent tax credit for labour costs and

filming outside greater Vancouver…. We are really bringing out the best in

British Columbia.

We also

believe in getting the government out of the business of running businesses. Our

partnership with CN Rail to operate B.C. Rail is going to make B.C. the hub of

trade between Asia and North America. Prince Rupert will be revitalized when

almost all the trade traffic from Asia goes through it, but the benefits of B.C.

Rail aren't limited to the North Coast. By paying off B.C. Rail's debt, it's

going to save the province $30 million every year.

In B.C.

we're excited about the 2010 games that are going to be in Vancouver and

Whistler. With the development of tourism we're going to see as a result of

these games, it is going to blow everybody away. I'm sure of it. The spirit of

B.C. is evident in the growth we are seeing now and will continue to see over

the next six years and beyond.

Vancouver

is a world-class city in a world-class province. This province has grown by

leaps and bounds in the past few years and will continue to do so. I'm proud of

the work done by our government and our Premier. B.C. is open for business, and

the business is coming.

Now the

opposition would chase these companies back across the border with their

draconian tax cuts and their spend-deficit financing measures. During the

[ Page 8629 ]

term of their office over 500 companies moved to Alberta. Alberta has far

more head offices than B.C. Make no mistake. Head offices bring a huge advantage

to their communities.

I would

like to explain, simply, why tax cuts are so important. I would like to bring it

down into the grocery business. Let's assume you run a small grocery store but

find that because of the competition, high wage costs and possibly poor

management, you are not able to show a profit. This means you can't expand or

purchase new equipment to make your store more efficient.

You see,

profits are necessary lifeblood for corporations. Without profits, companies

can't survive, but that's not the point. My point is that if you were an NDP

manager, you would merely say: "Well, I need more money, so why don't I

raise the price of milk to $10 per jug and the price of a loaf of bread to $5.

Then I will have all the money I need." Well, you know what would happen if

you followed that path. Nobody would shop in your store.

It is no

different for this province. If we raise taxes to corporations, why would they

invest in this province when there are so many other places to invest? If we

raise taxes to our doctors up to 40 percent as suggested by the NDP budget —

and in some cases 105 percent — they'll go elsewhere. What about our nurses

and teachers, who are also going to find their taxes taking a huge increase —

up to 40 percent?

This

doesn't include the huge hidden tax on our children by carrying successive

deficit budgets year after year after year. Make no mistake. It is our children

and grandchildren that will be paying the interest on those deficits, and that

interest will have a huge effect on their ability to pay for the social programs

they need.

I looked at

the alternative budget they presented, even further. Mr. Speaker, they plan to

set up a bank to compete with real banks. Didn't they learn from the Four

Corners fiasco? They're now going to run a deficit so they can finance the bank.

Private sector banks know their businesses — we all know, when you negotiate

with your banker — better than any government could ever know the banking

business.

That is the

difference between them and us. They would raise taxes without considering the

consequences. They would increase the deficit without any thought to the future.

They would build a huge bureaucracy under the guise of social spending, without

any thought as to how the costs would be paid by future generations. They would

drive business from the province and slide us back to the decade of decline.

Under the

proposed NDP budget, they would be increasing taxes and still be unable to

balance the budget. Not only would they be unable to balance the budget this

year, but not even next year. Under the NDP's proposed budget, they wouldn't

have a balanced budget into 2010. I believe they would never balance the budget

because they wouldn't have the courage and fortitude to do that. The NDP wants

to tax and spend this province into fiscal oblivion. We've brought ourselves

from last place to first place since the NDP left office, and I don't want to

see us go back there.

[1530]

Under the

NDP budget the average family in B.C. would face up to a 40 percent tax

increase. Under their budget they would take nearly $3 billion more in taxes.

That's $3 billion of discretionary spending they're taking out of the economy.

We've had a

huge increase in housing starts, and we've had huge housing sales. One of the

reasons we've done that is because take-home pay has increased. What do young

families do? They look at their take-home pay, and they say: "How much

money am I taking? What's my mortgage going to be? I can buy a house." Take

that $3 billion discretionary spending away, and we would have hundreds and

hundreds, maybe thousands, of families that would never be able to afford to

live in a house or send their children to university. Access would be denied.

That's $3 billion they're taking away from working British Columbians — so

much for sticking up for the worker.

The NDP

wants to raise taxes and increase the deficit, and that just doesn't make sense.

It's not good enough for the NDP to make us pay for their waste; they want to

saddle our children and our grandchildren with it too.

The path

we've set out for ourselves is a path that has worked in other parts of Canada,

other successful parts of Canada. It's hard to believe, but it wasn't that long

ago that Canada's economic superpower, our neighbour Alberta, itself had a

deficit. In 1993 when Ralph Klein took office, Alberta faced more than a $2

billion deficit. They promised to have a balanced budget by 1997, and in fact

they had it sooner. Alberta's success is a testament to fiscal responsibility

and staying the course. It's no wonder business left British Columbia under the

NDP and went to Alberta.

When we

came to office, we made promises, and we're keeping them. We promised to

maintain health and education funding, and we have. We promised to cut red tape,

and we have. We promised to make B.C. the best province in Canada in which to do

business and to live, and we have. We promised to balance the budget, and as of

yesterday we have.

I got into

politics to help bring our economy back in line, and I have to say that today I

feel pretty satisfied with the work we've done. We have some of the best-paid

professionals in Canada, we have a world-class health care system, we have some

of the best schools in Canada, we have the best cities and the best islands in

the Americas, and we are truly bringing out the best in B.C. and in Canada.

I'm glad

that the NDP gave us a choice by coming out with an alternate budget, because

the choice is simple. I choose a balanced budget, freeing our children and

grandchildren from the shackles of debt. I choose a budget that keeps our taxes

at the lowest possible rate. I choose a budget that encourages business

investment. I choose a budget that creates jobs. I choose a budget with a proven

track record. I choose a budget

[ Page 8630 ]

that has taken British Columbia from the worst position, under the NDP, back

to first.

I choose a

budget which will make British Columbia the best province in Canada to live, to

work, to invest, to play and ultimately to retire. I choose to live in British

Columbia because it is the best place in Canada to live, and I want to see that

for my children and for my grandchildren and for their grandchildren.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and speak to the budget

debate, for a number of reasons. I look back at when I first came to this House

in 1996 through to 2001. I saw the inability of a group that probably never had

to do anything more than collect a paycheque — never actually had to make a

decision to make an investment or meet a payroll or decide how to make an

investment — take my province and my future and my grandchildren's future and

my children's future down the road to disaster.

When this

government came into place in 2001, we had made some commitments to British

Columbia, and one of them was to balance the budget. It was probably the

cornerstone commitment to the people of this province.

Everybody

knows that if you continue to spend more than you take in, you eventually go

broke. Everybody knows that if you cannot find efficiencies in how you operate

your business or your home or your daily life to meet what you have coming in

and you're not prepared to make the changes to do those things, you find

yourself in financial trouble. Everybody knows that you have to make prudent

investments at the beginning of a plan in order for the end of the plan to work.

[1535]

Could you

imagine somebody today saying that they still wanted to build automobiles on the

same assembly line as they built the Model-T, because they refused to change and

modernize and make additional investments so they could improve their

efficiencies and deliver their product to marketplace? Could you imagine that

somebody said: "We're going to stay with wire and never do fibre optics

because we only have wire and don't want to find anything new that we can do for

efficiencies and improvement of our business"? Could you imagine if you

never invested in your infrastructure? You just watched the roads go downhill,

the rails go downhill and never actually opened an airport or made it larger so

you can actually attract people to come to your country.

That's the

philosophy of a socialist. The philosophy of a socialist is: let's take

everybody else's money, give it to special interests and friends and insiders,

and never actually do what is right for the future business plan of a province

or a country or a community.

Back in

2001 we undertook a core review of government. It was no easy thing to do. We

had to look at how government did business. We actually had to take a step

outside the box and ask, first of all: is this program or this expenditure core

to what government should be providing to our citizens? Then, once we made that

decision: is this the best way to deliver to the people that are citizens of our

communities?

We found a

whole number of things out there that were being funded by the previous

government in certain ways that had excess administration, excess overheads and

very poor delivery on actual services to people in our communities. We saw that

in such a way that we noticed that we had to actually change how the people did

government. We did that as we moved forward to get to a balanced budget and at

the same time try and find a way we can improve services and improve funding to

our communities to build a strong future for the people of this province.

As you do

that, there are a number of confidences you've got to bring back into your

society. First of all, you have people internationally — whether it be

bond-rating agencies or the banking industry or investors — who look at your

jurisdiction and ask this: "Are these guys going to manage their province

in such a way and change their structure in such a way that it makes sense for

us to make an investment in their province?" When we became government, we

had a high level of personal income tax, so we cut it by 25 percent. We had a

punitive tax on investment, called the corporate capital tax, in this province

which pushed people away from building a mill or making an investment in this

province because of the ongoing cost. To tax somebody's actual risk money in an

investment to create jobs in your jurisdiction is absolute nonsense as far as

wanting to let people know that you are a place for business.

As we laid

out our plan over the last few years and started to put in three-year plans in a

cycle and build towards a balanced budget that in a three-year planning cycle is

now going to be balanced in three successive years with surpluses, we did that

knowing that if we did, we would start to have a whole shift in how people

looked at British Columbia. The shift would be that investment would come back,

that confidence in this province's ability to deliver on the international stage

would come back, and that the confidence of its own people as we created jobs

and saw an increase in jobs would come back.

More

importantly, as we did that, we would also make the tough decisions that would

allow us to revitalize our key sectors of forestry, mining, tourism and other

job creation areas. You have to do that with the confidence that you know you're

doing it right, with the confidence that you know at times you're going to have

to adjust your plan, and with the confidence that you know at the end of the day

your province and the people you represent will be better for it.

[1540]

On July 2

one of the most significant international bodies in this world showed confidence

in British Columbia, as the International Olympic Committee awarded the 2010

Games to British Columbia. Now, they awarded those games to this province

because they saw a number of things. They saw a vision and stability in the

Premier of the province of British Columbia. They saw stability in their

government, and

[ Page 8631 ]

they saw stability in the fact that we would actually be in a fiscal position

through planning and balancing our budgets to make an investment in the Olympics

and meet the commitment we made to them to pull off an international event.

By getting

our fiscal house in order, we have actually saved our interest costs, we've

lowered our bond rating and our interest costs, and that money can now flow to

things like health care and education. I don't know that you would find a

jurisdiction anywhere which, six years out from an international event like the

Olympics, has already funded over 20 percent of its infrastructure costs,

because they actually have some planning in place and they actually believe and

know exactly what they're trying to accomplish.

What

happens when you get this momentum with something like the 2010 Olympics is that

along comes the 2006 World Junior Hockey Championship. What also comes along is

the 2009 World Police and Fire Games — three significant international events

to be staged in British Columbia in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In 2006 communities

across this province will see international junior hockey in their communities,

and three communities will host international games as part of the tournament.

In 2009 the second-largest sporting event, by participant, in the world will

come to Burnaby in the World Police and Fire Games.

I want to

talk about that for a second, because I want to talk about two people — two

firemen in Burnaby who put $2,500 (U.S.) on each of their Visa cards to pay the

deposit to go after the World Police and Fire Games. They told their spouses

after they did that. They then came to us as a government and asked if we could

support them in the bid. There was support from the people at 2010, and there

was support from the province. We met with the people, and they secured the bid.

Over 13,000 people will come to participate in the World Police and Fire Games.

The unique thing about that event is that most of them bring their family,

because they turn it into their holiday for the year. In Barcelona there were

over 12,000 people at the World Police and Fire Games.

This event

will have a significant impact on the lower mainland, but it will also give us

the opportunity to actually test our volunteers in preparation for six months

later, the 2010 Olympics, which — if you can think about it — will be the

most significant thing that can happen on an international stage for our

province since Expo 86. There are opening ceremonies that take place at the

Olympics. At the Salt Lake City Olympics there were two billion people that

watched the three-hour opening ceremonies.

If you went

to any international company, any business anywhere, and said: "How would

you like to have a three-hour full-paid commercial to two billion people about

your business…?" Can you imagine that? All of those people are going to

be looking at British Columbia. I remember the day a week ago, when I was

walking over to do an interview at a radio station, in the sunshine. It was the

day that was exactly six years away from the opening ceremony of the 2010

Olympics. There was snow on the North Shore mountains, the sun was out, there

were ships in the harbour, and it was one of the most spectacular sights you

could ever see. That's what people are going to see when the 2010 Olympics come

to British Columbia.

All of this

is possible because we have been gifted with a leader in our Premier who can

focus on the ball and actually reach the goal to achieve something on behalf of

the people of this province and who does not go out and seek the accolades to do

it but rather builds a team to make it happen.

[1545]

The winning

of the 2010 Olympics is no different than the balanced budget. It takes

leadership, and that leadership comes from the Premier, who, along with the

Finance minister, has stayed the course. Frankly, sometimes for a minister that

can be frustrating, as you think of some little thing that you think is more

important and you have to be reminded, as a minister, what the long-term goal of

the province is and that you have to keep your eye on the ball. Sometimes you

have to suck it up and make the sacrifices that are necessary so that everybody

will balance their budgets.

But as you

move forward and you do this, there are a lot of things you can do. If you

actually take the funds you spend on something and retarget them, great things

can happen. I want to use one small example. We had victims programs in this

province when I became the minister and we became government. We were given the

challenge to see if we could improve that program within the envelope of money

that exists today. We looked at the duplication. We looked at the

over-administration. As a result of thinking outside the box — like the core

review and all these other exercises taught us — we were able, within the

funding envelope, to create 18 new police-based victims programs, on top of the

ones that were already being funded, and five to seven new specialized victims

programs in communities of over 100,000 people. We're able to do that because we

focused our eye on the ball. The eye on the ball was: how can we get the maximum

number of services to the victim within that budget? Not the eye on the ball

that in the past would have seen: "Let's give a contract to some

organization that is a friend of ours."

As we move

forward, we have to remember that everything we've done in the last two and a

half years is setting the stage for a great future. To achieve that great

future, we have to stay the course. We have to remember that our own fiscal

responsibility as members of government will continue to be challenged as we

make sure that budget is balanced and we reach our goals in the next three

years.

As we do

that, we will continue to see things start to happen in this province. We will

see, on top of the already great increase in investment in the mining industry,

significantly more increase in investment. We will see our competitiveness start

to be relished by other jurisdictions as they see the impact of cutting

one-third of our red tape and regulations in the first three years, as they see

how by retargeting our funds we can actually invest in the future and deliver

better

[ Page 8632 ]

on programs, and as they start to see how those changes and that focus will

actually bring us better health care and education for our citizens. It will

also show people how you can get to low unemployment and how you can actually

create jobs, because you let the power of free enterprise do it for you.

A mistake

of socialist governments is that they think they're job creators. A mistake of

socialist governments is that they think they just need to go out and tax you

more, as Carole James has told the people of this province, so that they can

give you more of what they think you need and so they can tell you how to live

your life and spend your money back to you. But you know, if that budget of

Carole James and the NDP were ever to come forward in this province, all those

people that have had the opportunity of home ownership — as the growth in

housing starts and sales has grown in the last two years — would be facing an

inability to pay their mortgages, because somebody would come along and take

between 40 percent and 110 percent of their income in increased taxes in British

Columbia. That's not acceptable. Leave the money in the pockets of the people

who can make the best decisions as to where their money should be spent, and you

will reinvigorate the economy and create jobs in British Columbia.

As we've

gone through this to this budget, this budget outlines the money we're prepared

to invest in forests — money that is needed so we can expand and enhance our

timber sales to put ourselves on a more level playing field in competition with

our neighbour to the south and eventually get to a long-term solution to the

softwood lumber deal. It also allows us to invest money in salvage operations,

something that has been called for by small salvage operators since I was

elected to this Legislature in 1996.

[1550]

We're also

going to build on the Premier's efforts and the efforts of my colleague the

Minister of Forests to open new markets for British Columbia timber as we go

forward to actually say to people — and hear this here: "This is not a

sunset industry; this is a sunrise industry. It's important to the future of the

people of British Columbia, and we're going to work with it to make it better in

the future, because we can actually think outside the box."

When

we were in opposition, investment in mining reached an all-time low. It was

actually disgusting. It was disgusting that there was a government which did not

recognize that an investment in exploration led to significant investment in

mines, which created very good-paying and sustainable long-term jobs for people

in British Columbia. They didn't care. Their attitude was that you weren't

welcome here.

We had

people in my riding, people that I knew, who had been involved in mining for

years — still living in British Columbia — who were doing all their

investment in Chile. They were actually doing their business in other countries

around the world because they told me the worst place to do it was in the very

province that they came from. They told me the best geologists and engineers

were actually going offshore to other countries because we were the worst place

to do business.

Well, it

has taken a lot of work, but you now see today the investment and the

exploration in mining going up. We've actually made some changes on flow-through

shares that can help us attract back the investment in British Columbia, but

there's a lot more work to be done. We're going to do it because it's actually

good for the people of the province.

You know,

it really strikes me as interesting when I drive through the lower mainland of

B.C. and I look up on a hillside and see it covered in homes. Homes from door to

door, from wall to wall, from ceiling to ceiling — basically, a clearcut of a

mountainside. A residential subdivision sits in a larger footprint than a mine

that can create jobs for 30 or 40 years in British Columbia and can be reclaimed

at the end of its lifetime.

It strikes

me as amazing that people don't get the fact that mining is environmentally

sustainable. Not only that, its mark on the landscape is like a pinprick on the

side of a mountain, when you look at the landscape and the size and the breadth

of this great province of ours. So, we're going to attract that investment.

If you

listen to the opposition — and even the member for Prince George–Omineca,

who seemed to believe that we shouldn't go after the resources of coalbed

methane, natural gas and offshore oil and gas — they seem to think we

shouldn't have that investment attracted into the province so that we can create

jobs and wealth, which creates more jobs, which also helps us sustain health

care and education. What it is, I guess, is that they feel they could never

actually accept that people of a free enterprise government could have a good

idea, that they could deliver on something they couldn't even get out of the

front gate as far as a discussion was concerned.

We're

fortunate in this province because we have the leadership of our Minister of

Energy and Mines, who has actually gone after the improvement of the oil and gas

sector. We have a caucus that had a mining task force that went looking at how

we can improve the investment in mining in B.C. — a group of people who have

all worked together to actually enhance how we can get investment on the ground.

And it's working.

It's

working because something innovative happens here. You can actually come and

speak to government. You can actually have a conversation, and if it makes sense

and it is environmentally sustainable, that government will move forward for the

benefit of the people of the province and not for some special interest group

that is not prepared to put real science on the table to justify their position

that is opposed to a development.

also know that as we build an economy, we need to build our educational process.

That's why in this budget over half of the new post-secondary education

positions that were promised by the Premier in the throne speech are being

funded into 2006-07. Let's understand something here. The cost of a

post-secondary

[ Page 8633 ]

education on the tuition level is one of the lowest costs that people getting

a university degree actually spend.

[1555]

I've had a

child go through post-secondary education. I can tell you that the food, the

rent, the transportation, the books and then the tuition are all combined in a

cost of education. If you have to take a year more or two years more or three

years more because there aren't the courses for you, every single year is an

exponential cost to your education. The goal has to be to get people into our

post-secondary institutions sooner and to get them out in an expedited time with

their degrees, so they can get into the workforce and contribute back to

society.

You can't

do that the way the socialists did. The socialists thought: "Let's freeze

tuition and underfund, not fund, our post-secondary institutions." When we

freeze tuition, there is less revenue to the post-secondary institution, but you

can't get any more money from us. So what you do to cut costs is cut courses.

You cut access. You cut opportunity. We happen to believe the investment in

post-secondary education should be an expansion of opportunity, so a person can

invest in their education and have the expectation of success in a timely

manner. That's what we're going to accomplish by actually having our fiscal

house in order in post-secondary education.

I sat here

and watched these guys in opposition, the former socialist NDP government. I

watched them talk and talk and talk about things like literacy skills and early

childhood development, and never make a move or take an initiative. I've

actually seen, in this government, us move forward with a plan to improve on all

of that for our young people and for the people in general in this province.

That's because we actually believe in planning for those things and following

through on what we've committed to do.

I've seen

us, because we put our fiscal house in order, being able to put an additional $2

billion into health care. Remember this, folks. It's not just the dollar; it's

always how you spend the dollar. You also have to structure and restructure and

redeploy how your resources are used within the health care system to get the

efficiencies. As you do that, like in any other kind of change — whether it be

the changes I mentioned when you're talking about an assembly line or people

that are working in health care today — they also have to start to recognize

that in a modern health care system, you can't have processes from the 1960s and

the 1970s. You can't have shifting in areas where you have no efficiencies. You

cannot have work areas where you can't actually give people the opportunity to

grow in their careers and in their opportunities.

It's going

to be a continuing challenge for us in health care — whether it be this

government or any other provincial government or the federal government of this

country — as we go forward, because we have an aging society. The cost of

health care will increase. As we move along and deal with that, we have to

understand there's always going to be tough choices to be made, which can only

come from good planning and understanding the industry that you're dealing with.

One of the

issues that's out there these days in our province, no different than any other,

is crime. Now, it would not be prudent of me to give a speech with regard to the

budget in this House or the throne response when I do that and not actually

mention crime, as a person who is responsible for the police in British

Columbia. I want to make it clear to this House that we have had the best

working relationship with law enforcement probably in the last 20 years, in a

relationship with this government, as they build a five-year plan to police the

province.

I also want

to make this clear. We have never cut the police budget. As we moved forward

with the entire operation of this ministry, not once did we take a dime out of

policing to put somewhere else. As a matter of fact, what we did, because there

was a thirst to build a modern police organization, is bit the bullet on some

technology called PRIME, which the members of this House have talked about. We

bit the bullet on actually making an investment in capital funds for the future

of policing. As a result of that, today we can honestly say we deploy our people

better. We have more efficient information available for people that will only

get better as we move forward.

[J. Weisbeck in the

chair.]

We are

going to continue to enhance the ability of not just the RCMP as our provincial

police force but as the municipal forces where they are and with the municipal

forces in the municipalities that their own police forces in an integrated

manner….

[1600]

We are

actually making the tough decisions to break down the barriers that existed

between jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction prejudices with regard to the fact that

they didn't want to cooperate many years ago. We have broken that down through

PRIME-BC. We now have an integrated homicide unit. We're building an integrated

drug unit. We're actually building an integrated organized crime unit and

finding out of that additional money to go into investigations on organized

crime.

When we

talk about that, often people tend to say: "Well, what really is it? What

really is organized crime? What is crime in the province of British

Columbia?" It all goes from different areas, but it flows from our drug

trade, which are the marijuana grow ops. It flows up in cocaine, speed,

methamphetamine, Ecstasy, the gun trade. It flows down into people needing to

support their habits by going into petty crime, auto theft and those areas.

Frankly,

the jurisdiction to the south of us in Washington State has only one attitude,

and that is that they want punitive penalties in their state so people go do

crime in British Columbia. We do continue and will have to continue to pressure

the federal government and other jurisdictions on the criminal justice branch to

give us some assistance so we can push back on these crimes with penalties that

are meaningful and will actually act as a deterrent in our society.

One of the

things you hear about is an organization called the Hell's Angels. Some people

actually look at

[ Page 8634 ]

this group of people with some nice colours on their backs and motorcycles,

and they think they're just rebels with a cause. Well, the Hell's Angels in

British Columbia are the franchise in organized crime. Not only are they the

franchise, but they're also in these following countries with chapters

throughout these countries: the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Australia,

South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy,

Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, England and Wales, Finland, Norway, Sweden,

Denmark, Greece, Bohemia, the Czech Republic and Portugal. They have prospect

and hang-around gangs in places like Chile, Russia, Croatia and other countries.

This is an

integrated organized crime group of people that we will, as we get our

breakthroughs — and we will get our breakthroughs with our integrated

organized crime unit — have to prosecute and deal with and push back on,

because we don't want the message going that they're welcome in our province. As

we move forward, we are going to deal with those issues on crime collectively as

we push back and start to get our judicial system to reflect the standards of

our community.

On the

other side you will see the birth and the growth of what will be the great part

of our community — thousands of volunteers involved in the world hockey

championships, the 2009 World Police and Fire Games and the 2010 Olympics. You

will see community group after community group coming forward and getting

stronger on what they want to deliver to their communities, because the spirit

of volunteerism and belief in their province is only going to get stronger.

It is time

for British Columbia's children to actually see that there's an opportunity

going forward in the future. It is the opportunity, and it is now time for the

parents of those children to do the most significant thing on May 17, 2005, that

they'll ever do for their children. That's to re-elect a free enterprise,

B.C. Liberal government in British Columbia, because it will send the

message to the world that the economic stability, the belief in balanced budgets

and the belief in actually delivering on a plan are strident positions of the

people that live in this great province of ours. It would only send the message

that our children's and their children's opportunities are greatest in one

single place in the world — in British Columbia, in the greatest country in

the world.

As our

children grow into that realization and as we do our thing, which is our

responsibility to continue with the plan and build a future, we're going to see

the world come here. They're going to come here for events, and they're going to

come here because they believe that we will stand by our obligation to do better

for those who follow us than those who came before us.

[1605]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise in the House and

speak to the budget and, in fact, speak glowingly about a budget that takes us

into the real world of balanced budgets and living within our means.

This was

something that our Premier promised British Columbians during the election. He

promised British Columbians prior to the election, when we were in opposition,

that he would move forward to try and put power back into the people's hands, to

put money back into the people's hands, to grow our economy in British Columbia

and actually have governments start living within their means and start running

their budgets similar to how we run our budgets at home.

Today,

under the leadership of our Finance minister — and I give him lots of

credit.… But let me tell you, had it not been for the vision, the drive and

the hard work by our Premier, we may not be here today. I think we should all be

thankful that we have someone with that kind of leadership capability in British

Columbia as our Premier. It is great.

I was given

the opportunity to be the Minister of Energy and Mines. I was ecstatic to have

that given to me. I cherish it, and I respect it. It's a ministry that's small,

but it's got an awful lot of punch in the province. It always has had, but it's

starting to get a lot more recognition than it used to get. We've increased in

the province not only investment in oil and gas and in mining but also jobs,

economic activity and the stabilizing of communities in the northeast, in the

southeast and in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is a great ministry that has a great

future in British Columbia and especially under the leadership of our Premier.

There's

been a lot of talk just these last few days about offshore oil and gas. That's

another vision that our Premier had. He made the commitment in the New Era

document that we would develop offshore oil and gas off the west coast of

British Columbia only if we could do it as scientifically sound and

environmentally safe. Those are the conditions we said we would look seriously

at it.

There's a

huge opportunity for British Columbia, an absolutely massive opportunity for

British Columbia, to develop those resources off the west coast of our great

province. We can do it as scientifically sound and environmentally safe. We

commissioned a group of scientists from British Columbia, scientists that

actually live here — our government, my ministry — to go out and do a study

and to find the scientific gaps that had to be filled before we could move

forward to do that kind of work.

[1610]

They came

back with a plan and a report that had 15 recommendations. Most importantly,

they had a conclusion that said that with the proper regulatory regime in place,

there are really no scientific gaps to move forward with lifting the moratorium.

That was good news. That was a scientific panel totally arm's length from

government who were asked to go out and look at all the science that had been

developed over many years. There is a lot of science out there that had been

developed prior to us being elected.

In fact,

interestingly enough, when we listened to the leader of the opposition, Carole

James, talk about a

[ Page 8635 ]

dirty economy including coal, oil and natural gas…. She's leading a party

that used to be in government. Thank goodness they're gone, but when they were

in government, interestingly enough, they also commissioned a report on the

science of lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. That was a report

that was tucked away in the corner in the ministry, never to see the light of

day under the socialists. That report also said that with a proper regulatory

regime, the review processes you would do, you could do it safely — lift the

moratorium and actually access that wealth for British Columbia.

It's

interesting to listen to the leader of the opposition, Carole James, and the

present two members of the opposition who sit in this House and talk negatively

about those processes, when they were a part of it when they were in government.

They just didn't have the guts to make it public. That was the only problem.

We've taken

this seriously and have created a division in my ministry to move this file

forward, remembering always the commitment that our Premier made —

scientifically sound and environmentally safe. One would think that this is a

new phenomenon, that it's never happened around the world. They've been drilling

for offshore oil and gas around the world for a long time, because — you know

what? — we all consume a lot of those products.

They've

been doing it in the Cook Inlet just north of us, in harsher conditions than we

have — ice — and they've been doing it for 40 or 50 years. They've been

doing it in the Beaufort Sea for many years. They've done lots of seismic up

there in some pretty pristine areas of Canada. We've done it on the east coast

of Canada. In fact, Quebec is moving up the St. Lawrence Seaway and doing some

more work there. They want to do some more drilling offshore. They've done it in

the North Sea, the Shetland Islands, South America, Cuba, the Gulf of Mexico —

the Gulf of Mexico, where all those people go.

I mean,

there are thousands of Canadians that go to the Gulf of Mexico for a holiday.

Isn't it interesting? Only in British Columbia would someone stand up and say

you can't have offshore oil and gas and tourism. We do hear that. It absolutely

astounds me how they don't work together, yet they work in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are literally thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico where the cruise

ships go through, and people continue to go there. In fact, it's a mainstay of

the Florida economy, I believe, when you look at the cruise ships in Florida

that go through the Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis — hundreds of them.

We have

some people in the province other than the opposition who are also not so keen

to see people having well-paying jobs and see British Columbia doing well. It

astounds me that people would look at it in that light. We see the David Suzuki

Foundation actually go around the province and tell people how terrible it is to

have this dirty economy and that we shouldn't have it. It's always interesting

to me how people like Adriane Carr — I believe she's the leader of the Green

Party; that's part of the NDP — Carole James, the David Suzuki Foundation and

a number of others that I won't mention talk about how we shouldn't have this

and it's bad for us.

They will

fly all over the province — in airplanes, helicopters — and drive their

cars. They live in wood houses. They heat their homes with natural gas. Yet they

tell us we shouldn't have it. One wonders what goes through their minds, how

learned people could have that go through their minds: "It's okay for me to

fly out there and tell you how bad it is."

[1615]

You know

what, Mr. Speaker? Maybe unbeknownst to those folks, what really makes that

propeller turn or that turbine go around is a product called jet fuel. And jet

fuel is made from oil. Interestingly enough, that's how you make jet fuel.

Gasoline to power your car to get to the airport, the SUVs that some of them

drive — my goodness, that's made from oil. Half the car is plastic nowadays.

Guess what that's made out of. Natural gas.

Can you

believe it? These people are saying we don't need these products. They get on

the airplane. It's made out of aluminum. Guess what. That's produced from huge

amounts of electricity. It comes from the ground; it's mined. It's actually

smelted and then made into airplanes. These people that fly around in them —

with their great, wonderful thoughts about how we don't need this — have not

had one suggestion for how we replace it, other than…. Maybe they do have one,

because some of them say: "Well, everything should be electric, because

that's immaculate conception out there. That just happens in the sky and we

capture it."

You know,

it absolutely amazes me how some people can actually be so simple and so bright

on the other side of the fence as to think that we don't need electricity, that

we don't need oil and gas, that we don't need mining, that we don't need copper,

that we don't need zinc, that we don't need all the things that we consume on an

everyday basis — and some of them we even eat. If they would just come to

their senses a little bit and start talking about the benefits of it — the

benefits to the province of British Columbia, the benefits for jobs…. They're

high-tech jobs, hugely high-tech jobs.

When you go

out in the ocean or are onshore and you drill a well…. In the ocean they can

drill in 10,000 feet of water today. They do it environmentally soundly and

safely in the Gulf of Mexico, that great playground for cruise ships. They'll go

into 10,000 feet of water and drill a well 30,000 feet into the earth and

produce oil and natural gas. They'll bring it in on pipelines that are laid on

the ocean floor, and then they process it on shore. Interesting. Can you imagine

the jobs that creates? Can you imagine the high technology and the training that

it takes to do that kind of work? It amazes me that folks wouldn't want to have

British Columbia have that opportunity.

Hon. C.

Clark: What's the average wage?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The average wage is probably about $100,000 or better. The average

wage for mining

[ Page 8636 ]

is right up there — the average wage — and they're good, solid, paying

jobs. In fact, the member before me talked a little bit about how much of

British Columbia has been disturbed by mining It's 1/10 of 1 percent of the land

base of British Columbia. It's smaller than the city of Richmond. Now, who

complains about the clearcut for the city of Richmond? Is anybody here from

Richmond? There are probably a few.

Interjection.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: No, I don't hear that. Who complains about the clearcuts…?

Interjection.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There you go. Who complains about the clearcuts in the Fraser

Valley for people to build houses? You know what? One-tenth of 1 percent, since

mining started in British Columbia, has been disturbed. Think about the wealth

that's brought to the province.

You know

what? It's not just the wealth. It's because we consume it. We consume those

things on an everyday basis. Copper — my goodness, we consume a huge amount of

copper.

Gravel. We

probably sit in here, each one of us, and think we don't consume any gravel. But

we consume tons of gravel, on average, per individual. When you look at all the

roads that are built and when you look at asphalt…. By the way, you know where

asphalt comes from? Asphalt comes from crude oil. It is the very dregs; it is

the bottom of the barrel. It is the dregs of crude oil that you can't use for

anything else. We mix that with gravel and make asphalt. Most of it is in the

lower mainland, and none is in northeastern British Columbia.

[1620]

Actually, I

josh a bit, because the government has done a good job of paving roads, mostly

in my counterpart's region south of the Peace River, but we're going to look

seriously at that next year.

There are

others that say we could have a catastrophic event with a blowout, anything like

that. Yes, we could. We had a few catastrophic events last summer. That happens.

We had forest fires that were huge in the province — Mr. Speaker, in the area

where you come from, that affected your part of the province and the province

hugely — and cost an awful lot of money and a lot of heartache in the whole

province. So those things do happen.

But what

people tend to forget is that along the west coast of British Columbia, before

we even drill…. I talked about cruise ships and all those kinds of things that

go up and down the coast. There's an awful lot of oil tankers that go up and

down the west coast of British Columbia. They come from Valdez, Alaska, bringing

North Slope oil down to refineries just south of us in Washington State. It's

refined, made into gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, and then brought back to

Vancouver to be consumed. There are, at a minimum, two to three tankers a day

that go up and down the west coast. There's a tanker a day that goes through the

strait of Juan de Fuca every day, seven days a week, and that's been going on

for over 20 years. We've had one catastrophic event, and I believe that was

because somebody had a little bit too much to drink that was in charge of a

ship, unfortunately. Those things can happen. They can happen in our everyday

lives, regardless of what we do.

It is a

good industry; it provides a good living. It provides a good, solid background

for communities in the heartlands of the province, and it provides a huge

service to those people that live in the larger cities across the province,

regardless of where they're at, because we all drive cars. I look around this

room and I can't see a person here who probably doesn't have a car — maybe

two. I'd be surprised if David Suzuki may not have one or two himself. I'd be

surprised if Adriane Carr doesn't drive a car. I'd be surprised if the Leader of

the Opposition that sits in the House here — I guess the member for…. I

can't remember your constituency.

Hon. C.

Clark: That's from Los Angeles north.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Los Angeles north — yeah.

The said

Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure, drives a car and flies back and forth on a

helijet quite often between Vancouver and Vancouver Island. Now, all that is

provided by the oil that's produced in the province and the natural gas that's

produced in the province.

There's a

huge reserve of onshore oil and gas, whether you're in the northeast, where

there's an awful lot of activity this year — in fact record-breaking activity

— or whether you're in other parts of the province where we have not yet

accessed it. The Bowser basin and Nechako basin are two basins that we really

want to get into to have the industry start developing oil and gas in those

good, long-term, high-paying jobs. There's that opportunity here because we have

a Premier with vision, a Premier that says he wants to move this province

forward. I can see how we can move this province forward by using those

reserves, developing those reserves for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We have

huge opportunities in mining. When we took office, exploration was at about $20

million a year or $25 million a year. As the member before me spoke, most of the

people…. There are so many people living in Vancouver that are very highly

qualified people that work in the mining industry, yet do it in another part of

the world because the past administration drove the mining industry out. We're

trying desperately hard to bring that mining industry back to the province of

British Columbia, to bring that investment back to the province of British

Columbia, to bring those high-paying jobs back to the province of British

Columbia.

[1625]

It's not

just because we think it's fun to mine for copper or gold. It's because we

consume it. We consume it on a daily basis, each and every one of us. If you

look at the computers right here today, the laptops

[ Page 8637 ]

that are being used, there's probably a fair amount of copper in each one of

those. You think about how many of those are out there in society, just in that

one thing. We need those resources in British Columbia.

Mining has

some of the highest-average paid jobs that we know of. They're well-paying jobs;

they're long-term jobs. It's a sustainable industry, and we're blessed in this

province with some of the best geological reserves of any jurisdiction in

Canada. What we have to do is just be able to go out there and have the people

that want to do it — not government but the people that want to do it, that

want to develop these areas, that want to develop mines and create the jobs —

and allow them the opportunity to do it.

Those

people that live in Vancouver, that live in the lower mainland, that work in

that industry — I'll tell you, they'd rather go to work in British Columbia

than fly all the way to Chile on about an every three-week rotation. That's not

what they like doing. They would rather be here. They would rather be with their

families in British Columbia. And you know what? The Premier says: "I want

you here too. I want you back in British Columbia." People are coming back

to British Columbia and starting to create those long-term jobs in all natural

resources, whether it's oil and gas or mining or forestry, because they're all

items that we consume, each and every one of us. Young people that just walked

into the House — they consume it also. We as a society consume this every day.

We have to

start talking about how we consume this so people understand that we actually

need it. When you talk to people like Geoffrey Ballard, the leader in

hydrogen…. Hydrogen is something for the future, and we're working hard on

hydrogen. The Premier's technology committee…. My ministry has a hydrogen

division. We'r