2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Introductions by Members

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

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

Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Provincial congress

J. Nuraney

Royal Canadian Legion charitable work

S. Orr

Hockey coaching in Cranbrook

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

U.S. softwood lumber negotiations and raw log exports

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

U.S. softwood lumber agreement and exemption for cedar

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

U.S. softwood lumber duty and provincial bond assistance

R. Visser

Hon. M. de Jong

School district funding announcements

K. Krueger

Hon. C. Clark

Motions without Notice

Education Committee reporting requirements. Hon. G. Collins

Budget Debate (continued)

I. Chong

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Falcon

Hon. C. Clark

B. Belsey

R. Hawes

D. Jarvis

M. Hunter

S. Brice

[ Page 1335 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

The House

met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Tributes

HARRY RANKIN

Hon. G.

Campbell: As the member for Vancouver-Burrard noted, yesterday we saw the

passing of a British Columbian who dedicated his life to improving the quality

of life for British Columbians. Harry Rankin was a city councillor while I

served on council and, I think, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

served on council. Was it then? The thing that was important about Harry — and

I think it's an example for all of us to recall — is that it's possible to be

passionate about your beliefs. It is possible to pursue those, and it's possible

to do it with good humour and with commitment that is relentless.

For those

of you who may not have known Harry quite as well, Harry Rankin was someone who

ran for office 13 times before he was elected. When he was elected, he

transformed what had taken place in Vancouver city council. As many people used

to say, they were going to elect Harry because he was someone that would keep

the rest of them honest — whoever the rest of them were. It was never me, I

want you to know.

[1405]

Harry was a

man who not only served his country in the Second World War but worked

tirelessly to improve the lives of everyone whom he touched. I can tell you that

his personal convictions always shone out. You could agree or disagree with

Harry, and actually, he was one of those people that understood that. It was

possible to have disagreements about principles, goals and political objectives,

but he never lost sight, I think, of people's humanity. One of his partners, in

commenting, said that Harry was a relentless warrior against what Harry thought

of as political correctness. He treated all of us the same. He was not quiet

about his beliefs, and he made an enormous contribution because of that.

Today I

hope this Legislature will join me in sending our condolences to his wife,

Connie; to his former wife, Jonnie; to his children, Phil and Rosemary; and to

the members of the Rankin family — all of whom have given up on his personal

life so that he could serve the public agenda. He was a character, and he was

someone who will be missed. He was someone who helped shape the largest city in

the province of British Columbia.

I hope the

Legislature will join me in sending our special thoughts and condolences to the

Rankin family.

J. Kwan:

The Leader of the Opposition and I join with the Premier in sending condolences

to the Rankin family. I didn't have the pleasure of serving on city council with

Harry Rankin. However, he was really and truly a person who, when he was on

council, was larger than life. He became a legend. He was involved in politics

long before I even came into this country. He is an icon for people in our

community who fought for the most underprivileged in Vancouver. He spoke loudly

and sometimes with belligerence on issues, and he brought humour, I think, to

the council chamber as well. Oftentimes he was seen debating with a variety of

council members, but the most notable, I have to say, is Councillor George Puil.

Since Harry

left the council days — I often hear this — when I was elected in 1993,

council was never the same again. No doubt the city of Vancouver will never be

the same again without Harry Rankin.

He was the

champion for the poor. He championed all kinds of issues, even when they weren't

politically correct. He was there because he believed in it. The city became

better, I think, as a result of the work of Harry Rankin not only within the

council chambers but also outside in the legal profession. Although I have not

had the experience of facing off with him in the courtrooms, perhaps others

have. Of course, he earned the reputation from his colleagues as one of the most

experienced, senior and respected lawyers in the city of Vancouver.

We will

miss him very much. I have no doubt he is watching down here, from the golden

dumpster up there, as we continue the fight to ensure that the voice of those

who are often not heard around council chambers, the B.C. Legislature and other

places — the voice of the underprivileged — is always represented throughout

our country.

I join with

the members in remembering Harry Rankin and the work that he has contributed to

and his efforts for all British Columbians.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce four guests of mine who are

here today. In the gallery is Mohammed Iqbal Cheema. He is my constituency

president for the great riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. He is accompanied by

his son, Bilal Mohammed Cheema. I would also like to introduce Mr. Sikander A.

Tayob and Mr. Mohammed Saleem Khan. They are all here to attend the celebration

of Eid-Ul-Adha today. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Stewart: The Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute is in town for some

meetings this week, and there are two members in the gallery. Would the House

please make welcome Don Darling, the president of the Manufactured Housing

Institute, and Kathleen Maynard, the executive director. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the gallery today are two good friends of mine whom I had the

honour and pleasure of serving with on Sicamous council for six years. One is

[ Page 1336 ]

Gordon Mackie, who was the first-ever mayor of the district of Sicamous, and

Rollie Durocher, who was a charter member of the council of Sicamous as well.

I'd like the House to make them both welcome.

Sahota: It's a pleasure for me to introduce two very good friends of mine

who are in the House today: Naushie and Shafik Keshavjee, who are here from

Burnaby to also celebrate the festival of Eid. Would the House please make them

welcome.

S. Orr: I

would like to introduce two very special people that are in the House today: Mr.

Dave Sinclair, who is the zone commander for the South Island zone of the Royal

Canadian Legion, and his wife, Ann Sinclair. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 67 grade 5 students

from West Point Grey Academy in Vancouver, along with their teacher Ms. Elliott.

The students had a tour of the legislation this morning — the Legislature.

They didn't see any of the legislation, though, hon. Speaker — just the

Legislature. They heard about parliamentary procedure and some B.C. history. I

hope everyone in the House will join me in welcoming the students today.

Suffredine: I have the pleasure today to introduce a member of my riding,

Mr. Lee Rushton. Mr. Rushton has two challenges in his life. In addition to

knowing me, he's attempting to run a small business in the forest industry and

is succeeding. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: I'd like to join with my colleague from Richmond Centre and extend a

very warm welcome to Mr. Mehmood Awan, who's joined us in the gallery today. I'd

ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Visiting the Legislature today from the city of Abbotsford are

three people: Frank and Beth Bower and Margaret Johnston. I ask the House to

please make them welcome.

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday last, following question period, the hon.

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rose on a point of order relating to the

interpretation of practice recommendation No. 11, dealing with public written

questions. The point of order concerned the

interpretation of the second

sentence in paragraph 2 of the sessional order, which reads as follows:

"The member from whose constituency the question comes will have first

refusal to put such question to the appropriate minister." The sessional

order further provides that a question which conforms to the guidelines

"shall be printed on two consecutive weeks unless answered."

It is the

Chair's ruling that the first refusal accorded to the member from whose

constituency the question arises will remain intact for the first week the

question is published in Orders of the Day . During the second week any

private member may put the qualified question, unless previously answered, to a

minister during question period.

Paragraph 2

of the sessional order provides that the minister may answer the question orally

or in writing by filing with the Clerk of the House. When the question is

answered either orally or in writing, the question itself is dropped from the

orders of the day. Written answers will be published in Votes and Proceedings .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS

PIPELINE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

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

intituled Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002.

[1415]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that Bill 5, intituled Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline

Amendment Act, 2002, be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: As Minister of Energy and Mines, I wish to table an amendment to

section 3 of the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. Under

section 3 of

the act, the Minister of Energy and Mines is authorized to enter into certain

types of agreements with specific parties listed in subsections (

a) through (

e) subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Agreements are

required with respect to the funding, construction and operation of the

pipeline, the granting of service area and any other matter relating to the act.

B.C. Gas

Inc. has entered into an agreement to acquire the common shares of Centra Gas

B.C. Inc. and Centra Gas Whistler Inc. from Westcoast Energy Inc. To allow the

minister to enter into the required agreements under

section 3, the act must be

amended to include the names of the companies that are involved in the

transaction. This amendment will allow the minister to enter into agreements

with all parties and allow the completion of the transaction between Westcoast

Energy and B.C. Gas. An additional amendment under

section 3 of the act will

remove the need for further legislative amendments should the assets again be

sold.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill 5

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

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

[ Page 1337 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PROVINCIAL CONGRESS

Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to record a milestone in the history of

our province and yet another new-era commitment fulfilled. Yesterday our Premier

held the very first provincial congress, bringing together all three levels of

government and the leaders of the first nations to facilitate a dialogue among

elected officials and the leaders to articulate how best we can meet the needs

of British Columbians.

The forum

was well represented, and matters of infrastructure, transportation, softwood

lumber and fisheries were discussed. Concerns about our health and environment

were also raised, and interaction with the leaders of the first nations was

found to be candid and informative. This was a commendable act of depoliticizing

the process where, through common grounds, we can find solutions to our economic

and social challenges and chart a course which is open, transparent and

accountable. I applaud the Premier for his genuine effort in seeking the right

solutions.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

CHARITABLE WORK

S. Orr:

Throughout this province we have 161 branches of the Royal Canadian Legion.

These are very special places for veterans, members of the military and their

families to go — somewhere they can meet old friends, talk over experiences

and generally enjoy themselves. What most people do not know is that you do not

have to be a veteran to join the Legion. All they ask is that you believe in

their traditions and are willing to help with charity programs. It is these

charity programs that are probably the best-kept secrets of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, did you know that, provincially, this organization pays almost $1

million in property taxes every year and owns over $68 million worth of real

estate invested in low-cost housing for seniors? In the south Vancouver Island

region alone — which is headed up by zone commander Dave Sinclair, who is a

guest in our House today — they have 10,000 members. They own and operate an

80-suite complex for seniors. They donate $355,000 annually to charitable

organizations. They donate and provide scholarships for students entering

university or college. They have donated $2 million to the Lodge at Broadmead.

They sponsor amateur sports teams. They operate a poster and literary contest

for students from K-to-10, and the list goes on and on.

[1420]

The Royal

Canadian Legion is a vibrant, viable organization that is responding to the

needs of the twenty-first century. I suggest that meeting with your local legion

will prove very fruitful and worthwhile. I'm very pleased that I contacted them.

I hope you all will too.

HOCKEY COACHING IN CRANBROOK

Bennett: Last Sunday the men's Olympic hockey team won gold in Salt Lake

City, and we were all very proud of that. It made us feel good to be Canadians.

There's a

story behind that; I guess there's probably lots of stories. Two of the people

who played on that team, Scott Niedermayer and Steve Yzerman, are from

Cranbrook, which is where I'm from.

What I

wanted to say today was that those young men didn't get there without a lot of

work by themselves, but they also didn't get there without a lot of work and a

lot of dedication on the part of their parents and their coaches. The city of

Cranbrook has 18,000 people living in it. We send more hockey players to the NHL

than any other town that size in the country. That happens because of the

dedication of the coaching people and other team officials and the parents. In

rising today, I just wanted to recognize the efforts and the dedication of the

parents of those players and the coaches.

Oral Questions

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND RAW LOG EXPORTS

J. Kwan:

Yesterday, at the provincial congress, the Minister of Forests appealed to

British Columbians to stand united in the softwood lumber dispute. The Minister

of Forests has that commitment from the opposition.

The

Minister of Forests also needs to stand behind the promise that he's made to

forest workers. In December of last year the Minister of Forests told forest

workers: "We have advised Americans in the clearest possible terms that the

existing restrictions on log exports are not on the table for discussion."

Two months

later the minister signed a cabinet order allowing for 35 percent of the timber

harvested in the northwest to be shipped out of B.C. as raw logs.

To the

Minister of Forests: who prompted the minister to break that promise? And now

that the Minister of Forests has granted the exemption, what is he going to say

to the other regions that come and ask for similar exemptions?

Hon. M.

de Jong: If I were to be flip I would say you did, because it's your

government's report that actually recommended that very thing.

I think

every British Columbian, and everyone in this chamber, proceeds on the

assumption that we want to process every stick of timber that we harvest in

British Columbia. There is a part of this province in the northwest that is

suffering some pretty serious economic problems at the moment.

I should

say, in answering the member's question, that as I looked over some of the

economic plans that her government entered into — and this is very instructive

because they chose a very deliberate

[ Page 1338 ]

mechanism for adopting a very specific strategy…. They signed economic

plans, some of which approved the export of raw logs — up to 50 percent of the

harvest.

We said

that for an area of the province where there is extreme economic hardship being

faced, we are going to help those workers get back in the woods, we are going to

help put them back to work, and we are going to say to them that they have the

option — in a area where the timber is of lower quality and the logging costs

are up to 35 percent higher, reviewable each year — to send a portion of those

logs to other markets. We don't like it. It is not the preferred choice, but

it's pretty easy to sit in your living room in Vancouver and to say to someone

that hasn't had a paycheque in six months: "We're going to stand behind a

principle." It's pretty hard to defend that kind of approach when you've

done exactly the opposite and you're sitting in your living room in Vancouver.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

The minister knows very well that every government with every ministry receives

different advice — a whole range of advice. The fact of the matter is that the

previous government never acted on that advice. This minister has said that he

would never, never allow for 35 percent of export logs. Getting access to the

B.C. raw logs is a key demand of the Americans in the softwood dispute.

Again to

the Minister of Forests: by allowing this exemption, after stating categorically

that raw log exports are not on the table, does the Minister of Forests

acknowledge that he's undermining his own position with the Americans in the

softwood dispute?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm having some difficulty reconciling what that member has just

said in this House, based on the documents and the economic plans — upwards of

11 of them — that her government signed. That's a 50 percent export of raw

logs — 50 percent, 47 percent.

I don't

imagine, to give all of us in this House credit, that they were any more excited

about having to send unprocessed logs out of British Columbia than we are, but

the fact of the matter is this. There is a part of this province where, due to

some pretty unique economic circumstances, there are people that haven't been to

work for a long, long time.

If the

member wants to get on her white horse and charge out there in defence of some

principle that she apparently felt far less compelled to defend when she was in

government, then be prepared to go up to that part of the province and say to

those people: "We are going to condemn you to a further six months of

unemployment." This government is for negotiating a free trade agreement

with the Americans and, in the process, defending the interests of British

Columbians who'd like to get to work.

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

AND EXEMPTION FOR CEDAR

MacPhail: It is interesting how the Minister of Forests rises and tries to

pit one region of the province against another. He actually did that yesterday

at the provincial congress, somehow assuming that people who live in Vancouver

care less about the well-being of our province than other areas. Today he stands

up and tries to say that somehow the fact that previous governments didn't act

on issues that were presented to them makes them as complicit as he is. Somehow

the fact that he rose up and said, "Exports aren't on the table," and

the next month allowed for 35 percent of exports lets him off the hook and makes

us the enemy.

Well, I

want the minister to know, regardless of him trying to pit one region against

another, that the opposition does stand united with the government to fight the

softwood lumber dispute. We were pleased to see today that the federal

government is requesting a NAFTA panel be created. There are some actions that

this government can take that will actually put a lot of forest workers back to

work, not just a few, and maybe put some more money into the coffers. I have….

An Hon.

Member: Question.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, I would ask you now to please put your question.

MacPhail: I am taking as long as the minister is taking, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: I have some letters here from U.S. companies requesting that

western red cedar be exempted, and B.C. companies have asked for exactly the

same exemption. Given the fact that both the U.S. and Canadians are asking for

the same and that they say there will be thousands of workers put back to work,

what has this minister done to proceed with the exemption for western red cedar,

as both sides of the line are asking for?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the member knows the answer to that. At every given

opportunity that we've had in discussions with the Americans — certainly with

Governor Racicot, when he was fully seized of the file — we have made the

point over and over again that cedar and those that rely on the processing and

export of cedar are collateral damage in a dispute that has nothing to do with

them.

[1430]

I truly do

welcome the members' participation and their willingness to lend that united

voice. Let us make no mistake about it. The next three weeks are going to be

crucial — 21 days until the Department of Commerce has a couple of options,

one of which is to turn

[ Page 1339 ]

what is now a preliminary order into a final order. Or we can try and get

that deal.

I don't

dispute the argument or what the member has said here today one iota. Cedar is

collateral damage, and it shouldn't be captured by these draconian and punitive

trade measures. Our objective over the next 21 days is to obtain an exemption

for all British Columbia producers.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the opposition raised this issue

several months ago — last August, as a matter of fact. The opposition did meet

with Governor Racicot, as well, but the fact of the matter is that in obtaining

exemptions, other provinces are further ahead in protecting their province's

interests than British Columbia is.

I have the

document from the coastal forest operators that says they could resume

operations, putting thousands of workers back to work, if an exemption is

achieved. Mr. Racicot was here. The government has to take action on this much

more strongly. I want to know now what it is that the minister is doing to

pursue this exemption publicly and what help he needs. We're here to offer him

help. What more help does he need to make this case?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the member probably understands this, but let me remind her

of the circumstance that exists. She has said to the Americans: "Exempt

cedar." The Minister of Forests has said to the Americans: "Exempt

cedar." The Premier has said: "Exempt cedar." Actually, the

Americans have said: "We're not going to."

It has not

been my experience with them that they take action in advance of a date like

March 21 to make our life any easier. In fact, their whole history on this file

— and the member knows this — has been to make life as miserable as possible

for thousands upon thousands of British Columbia forestry families.

But in the

next three weeks, if the member wants to join with this government — as

admittedly she has in the past on selected occasions — we will continue to

impress that point. It goes far beyond simply the cedar exemption. We are at a

stage now — and the member knows this — where we are going to have either an

agreement that provides the relief and the certainty of access to the U.S.

market that we need by March 21 or a far different scenario. If it's the second,

it's going to be big problems for more than just cedar producers in British

Columbia.

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY AND

PROVINCIAL BOND ASSISTANCE

Visser: I'd like to ask a question on behalf of a person and some people who

live in my riding. It's Darrel Wong, the president of IWA-Canada Local 2171.

This question, of course, is to the Minister of Forests.

The U.S.

Department of Commerce has levied a 19.3 percent interim tariff on B.C.-Canadian

softwood lumber. Therefore, my question is: will the provincial government

provide bonds at fair market value to B.C. forest companies that require such

bonds in order to continue to operate and provide employment and stability to

resource-based communities?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if I might say, this being one of the first questions

that has come to the floor in this manner, I hope I didn't violate any of the

rules of this House by contacting Mr. Wong in advance of answering the question

on the floor of the House. I'll relate to the House what I related to Mr. Wong.

It's partly covered in the previous member's questions. It's a good news–bad

news story.

This issue

goes away in 21 days, but it can go away in one of two ways. It can go away

because a preliminary order becomes a final order, and then it's not bonding.

Then Canadian and British Columbia companies are sending cash south, and the

first cheque is a pretty big cheque. That is not a happy circumstance, and one

we are working diligently with our partners across Canada and with the federal

government to avoid.

[1435]

The second

way to avoid that is because we have a deal, a framework deal that will provide

us with the certainty of access to that market that we need. It is that second

objective that we are working towards. I do want to end by saying this: it is

heartening and, I think, a tribute to all of the public officials who gathered

in Vancouver yesterday that they did speak with one voice on behalf of the

families who are dependent upon our forests and dependent on our mills

operating. They said to the Americans with one voice: "If you value your

relationship with Canada and British Columbia, be reasonable. Come to the table.

Work with us, and let's get an agreement."

SCHOOL DISTRICT

FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS

Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Education. The school district in

my constituency, like school districts all around the province, depends on a

timely announcement of their budgeting from the government — their fiscal

allotment — in order that they can do proper planning and budgeting. In the

past, as everyone in this House knows, the announcements have frequently been

delayed and caused school districts to have to scramble to do their planning and

budgeting.

I wonder if

the Minister of Education can commit that my school district and others around

the province will receive their budget allocation announcement in a timely way

this year.

Hon. C.

Clark: I think, as many members of this House will remember, that it has

been a long time since

[ Page 1340 ]

the government lived up to its duty under the statute to deliver the block

funding announcement on time. This year we did that for the first time in a

decade. We announced the block funding that would be available, and in addition

to that, we recognized that school districts need to have an opportunity to go

out and consult with their local school communities about how they're going to

build their budgets. This Friday we are going to be sitting down with every

school board chair, every superintendent and every secretary-treasurer and

delivering their budgets to them so that they have an opportunity to go out and

consult.

I'd add

this, too, for the hon. member: this won't be the only piece of information that

school districts have when they go out and build their budgets. They will also

have the results of the parent-student-teacher satisfaction surveys which we'll

be doing for the first time in the history of British Columbia. Those will be

going out on time for the first time as well.

[End

of question period.]

Motions without Notice

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, I move that notwithstanding the motion approved on

February 13, 2002, regarding the Select Standing Committee on Education, the

committee be hereby instructed to prepare a report to the House no later than

March 28, 2002.

Leave

granted.

Mr.

Speaker: Government House Leader, give us the motion again, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that notwithstanding the motion approved on February 13,

2002, regarding the Select Standing Committee on Education, the committee be

hereby instructed to prepare a report to the House no later than March 28, 2002.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: The budget debate continues with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head.

[1440]

Chong: When I adjourned debate on Monday of this week, I reserved the right

to resume my spot. I had to check Hansard , because I almost forgot where

I was.

What I was

talking about on Monday was the fact that we had a budget that was tabled on a

date according to a fixed legislative calendar, which I was very proud of. I

also spoke of the fact that the budget introduced three-year service plans

which, for the very first time in the history of this province, have been

introduced for the benefit of all members to see and for the public, as well, to

review and to hold this government accountable. I also indicated that as private

members, we will go through those service plans, we will see how they affect our

communities, and we will also hold our cabinet ministers accountable.

addition, what the budget introduced for the first time was a three-year

strategic plan, which I think is very important. I hope people have a chance to

review this. A strategic plan is one that lays the direction and the framework

with which to proceed. It has goals, objectives, key measures and strategies for

the various ministries to follow through on. I think it will be very telling in

the years to follow — how the government measures up to these strategic goals

and objectives.

When I was

here in opposition for the last five years, I found it extremely difficult,

because each and every year, as members proceeded to debate the budget and go

through the budget estimates process, we were not always able — we were rarely

able — to hold the government to account for their ministries' objectives,

because they didn't provide us with a strategic plan, they didn't provide us

with a vision, and they didn't have anything of a substantive nature that we

were able to look further into to ensure that the tax dollars that were being

collected were being used in the best way for the taxpayers. I am very pleased

to see that's happened in this particular budget.

What

probably is also surprising is that this budget really didn't hold too many

surprises. This government, since its election last year and being sworn in last

June, has been open and transparent, such that on January 17 of this year, the

day that many labelled Black Thursday, so much information was provided about

the spending plans for this government that when the budget came out about four

weeks later, very few people looked at it with any kind of concern. It's because

of that openness and transparency, which I think has served British Columbians

well.

I know the

opposition is going to go through and critique the budget, as they should do.

That's their job, and that's what we did when we were in opposition as well. I

know they will be negative, because, admittedly, we were negative when we were

in opposition. But that was because they never told us when they were going to

introduce a budget, their underlying assumptions were rarely reliable, and

generally speaking, they had no plan to restore the economy — much different

than what we have.

I also want

to mention that I acknowledge the comments made by the opposition members about

the fact that they don't like us to remind them of their megaprojects — things

such as the fast ferries. I will try not to do it too often, but they have to

expect that when they rise in this chamber and rail against the things we do,

they need to be reminded. It is exactly those kinds of unaccountable

expenditures that have put us in this particular situation. I

[ Page 1341 ]

will caution

myself and be mindful that it doesn't have to come up too often, but when it does, it will be because they need that gentle reminder.

[1445]

I want to

talk a little bit about what's in this budget. If people haven't had the time to

look at it, they really should spend a little bit of time looking at the

condensed version of the budget and fiscal plan. On page 40 is where they will

see the expenditure, ministry by ministry. What's important to note is that the

budget that was tabled for this current year, 2002-03, shows an expenditure of

$25.556 billion. The amount that is going to be reduced by the year 2004-05, the

time that we expect a balanced budget that has been truthfully developed…. It

goes down to about $24.128 billion — just over a billion dollars; I think a

$1.4 billion decline — over the three years.

When I hear

the opponents and critics say we're moving too far and too fast, I really have

to ask why they're saying that. The overall percentage, I think, is 25 percent

over three years — about 8 percent per year. We did not do what other

provinces and other jurisdictions have done — that is, to take

across-the-board cuts. We chose a more measured and more balanced approach, one

that did look, ministry by ministry, at what needed to be done, what taxpayers

expected.

What we

also did, which was very rare, was consult. The Premier constituted a number of

select standing committees in the last session and allowed these select standing

committees to travel and tour the province to those communities that don't have

an opportunity to have their presence known in this chamber.

I was on

one of those committees, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services, and we did hear a lot from the communities — the rural communities

in particular. We heard that rural communities were affected in a different way

than urban communities. We also heard that they did want us to proceed. They

wanted us to proceed cautiously, and they wanted us to make sure we did consider

our society's most vulnerable.

When I

asked the Minister of Finance at one of our original meetings back in September

whether the report we would table as a select standing committee would be used

in his budget preparations, he indicated that absolutely and positively, yes, it

would. As a result of seeing this budget, I believe he has done that. He has

proceeded cautiously.

As I go

through the budget document, you will find that we have mitigated, wherever

possible, the impacts on our society's most vulnerable, those who are our

low-income earners and those who depend on government services. In proceeding

cautiously, I think British Columbians want it to at least move us ahead. They

didn't say: "Stop in your tracks." They didn't say: "Go back and

do what the last ten years of governance has done for this province." They

did say: "Proceed." That is exactly what we're doing.

The

business plans that the previous government tabled in the past were usually

outdated. They didn't have what I would say are clear underlying assumptions.

Oftentimes, you did wonder about their forecasts. Listening to the Minister of

Finance and going through the budget document, you can see that he has used very

conservative revenue forecasts. That is also something different from the

previous administration.

When I was

first elected in 1996, we found out shortly thereafter about the previous

Finance minister having tabled what is now known as the fudge-it budget. The

reason why it was a fudge-it budget was because the revenue forecasts were more

than a little out of line with what a prudent person or economist would look at.

So I think it was the right choice for our Finance minister to use revenue

forecasts that would be conservative.

When you do

that, you have to face the consequences. That's what the previous government

wasn't prepared to do. On the eve of an election, they wanted to show they had

balanced the budget so that electors would believe them and vote on that basis.

What we've done in our first full budget was that(. We were prepared to put out

for all people to see that our revenue forecasts were going to be reasonable,

that they were going to be conservative and that the other part of the equation,

the spending side, was going to result in a net deficit.

Admittedly,

I'm not happy about any kind of a budget deficit. For five years in opposition,

I spoke against a budget deficit, but what is more important to me is that the

truth be put out in our budget documents, that they are going to be relied upon

and that people — the international investors and those who would judge our

financial performance — can put some reliance on the information that is

presented here. If we put that out truthfully and accept our consequences, I

think we can all hold our heads up high.

[1450]

I believe

that has happened, because the reaction from people around has not been as

negative as the opposition members would have us believe. People have actually

said: "Well, we don't like this deficit — absolutely, we don't like this

— but we see that you have brought in a budget that is believable, that is

reliable."

I would

like to quote from a press release as well — a news release from an

organization that I'm very fond of, for obvious reasons, and that the opposition

members also choose to read into the record. That's the Certified General

Accountants Association of British Columbia. Each and every year after the

budget lockup, they do their job and issue a press release. Each and every year

we used to get up in opposition and quote from it, because it was always good

fodder for us.

I was

surprised to see this particular press release, because it said:

"Confidence in strong budget weakened by tax hike." I didn't much care

for the title, but I do understand where they're coming from. While I may not

agree with their caption title, I do respect that this is the information that

they want to put out.

What the

Leader of the Opposition read in was only that part about the budget weakened by

a tax hike. She

[ Page 1342 ]

didn't quote the very, very first line: "The tough measures enshrined in

the 2002-03 B.C. budget are a solid foundation for a sustainable

economy…."

Well,

that's absolutely what we're talking about. The whole thrust of the Premier's

throne speech, and the premise on which the budget speech is also based, is

about revitalizing and restoring our economy. If this endorsement from the CGA

Association says that it's a solid foundation for a sustainable economy, then

I'm very proud that they issued this press release. It's not all bad news here,

so if other members want to quote from it, I hope they do.

addition, there's the comment about moving too fast. Well, they've addressed

this here as well. They say: "At CGABC we share the government's sense of

urgency." If the opposition members would choose to use this press release,

I think they should have a look at that.

This press

release also mentioned — just one other, final quote — that we had a

"heightened sense of urgency to get our house in order." I heard that

around the province as I toured last fall and last winter. Since the beginning

of this year and after the September 11 tragedy, I've heard people say: "We

really cannot be at the back of the race any longer."

As the

Premier once put it, we weren't even in the race. We weren't even at the

starting line. As people were lapping around us, we were just standing still. We

had to move ahead. That is why I think people have a sense of urgency.

To be

balanced with this news release, the CGA Association did say that they felt the

small tax hike in the PST, the provincial sales tax, sends a strong message. I

appreciate that, because people in the general population were wondering why a

0.5 percent increase had to be imposed.

I think the

Minister of Finance explained it very well. Twenty-four hours before he sent his

budget papers to the printers, he had received information that was material and

significant enough that he felt it was going to alter the reliability or

credibility of his budget. It was time for him to put in another tax measure,

not to ignore the information he'd received, so he introduced a tax hike.

[1455]

It was a

bit of a surprise to all of us. It was a surprise to me. But I'm also mindful of

the fact that people have said — and we do listen to the public and the

stakeholders — that when we get our financial house in order, and we will,

we'll look at that 0.5 percent tax hike with an objective of removing it and

even perhaps looking at the entire provincial sales tax rate anyway. I believe

that the Finance minister will do that, because part of our objective is to have

the most competitive tax regime, and the provincial sales tax is absolutely a

part of that. I expect the Minister of Finance will look at that over the next

couple of years, and I think all of us in this House are going to help him.

That's the

press release that the opposition used, and I just wanted to refer to it to let

them know that I do read some of the same material they receive.

I want to

also share with those people who may be home watching us on this Wednesday

afternoon at five to three that those of us on the government side have been

very proud to support this budget, because we have had an opportunity to be

involved in it. I think it's been a good process. With the government caucus

committees, each and every member sat on one of five different committees. We

had the opportunity to review service plans — to help our ministers shape

their service plans and their goals, objectives and final budget figures. Who

best would be able to provide that kind of information to our ministers but the

private members? We're out in our communities, and because we represent every

single riding in this province, each and every one of us has a different

perspective to bring to those government caucus committees.

I live in

the capital region. I live in an urban riding, and I appreciate and understand

that it is very different here than it is in Dawson Creek, Mackenzie or Prince

George. When I hear people in those communities talk about the need to ensure

that they have a good education system and a good health care system and that

they have difficulties in retaining their health care professionals, I think we

have to look outside of what happens just here in Victoria, the lower mainland

and Vancouver, and think about them.

When I was

in opposition, I remember going to the East Kootenays and Cranbrook.

Interjection.

Chong: Sorry, I did miss Trail.

When I was

there, I do recall speaking to some of the residents who came out to a forum.

They said: "You know, in Victoria you have the luxury of calling up an

ambulance and having them in ten or 15 minutes at your home if you need service.

Here we could wait an hour and then another hour to be transported to a

hospital." That isn't good enough. We have to take a look at different ways

of delivering services that people expect. We can't provide everything — I

know that, and I think all members here know that — but we have to make sure

that those services we must provide are delivered in the most cost-effective and

efficient way so that people will begin to be able to depend upon and rely on

those services.

Another

initiative this government had — again, to do with our financial house — was

the appointment of an independent fiscal review panel last year. I think it was

a good thing. These people were volunteers and were prepared to take a look at

the government's books. As we know, in the past, when one government is defeated

and another one comes in, they usually go out and hire a number of auditors and

accountants and spend all these taxpayers' dollars, poring over government

books. I'm not saying that isn't an appropriate thing to do, because you do have

to be a little bit cynical when you take over from a government that you haven't

trusted for the last five years.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Our Premier

understood — already knew — that we would have had fiscal challenges and

didn't want

[ Page 1343 ]

to go out and spend millions and millions of dollars having this review take

place, so he went out and sought volunteers, experts in their fields, who were

prepared to come forward, comprise this fiscal review panel and do the job that

was asked of them. That was to take a look at our government finances. They did,

and they a good thing for us, as British Columbians. They went through, and they

said: " You're going to have a deficit." They prepared us. We already

knew we were going to have a deficit because of the spending patterns of the

past.

[1500]

This

is why this — I wouldn't say it's a new phrase — more commonly used phrase

has surfaced: a structural spending deficit. It's when government after

government spends more than they take in, introduces new programs one after the

next — never evaluating them, never dropping off programs that perhaps are no

longer valid, and continuing to add on — that you develop a structural

spending pattern that becomes no longer sustainable.

The fiscal

review panel, I think, opened up our eyes and just made it that much more

important for us to appreciate the next step, which is what the Premier went

through with a number of private members on another committee — the core

services review. Again, I didn't envy any of my colleagues who were on that

committee, because I imagine that the work they had to go through was

horrendous. I imagine that they had to hear from minister after minister — not

just once; perhaps a second or even a third time — as each minister went

through their ministries, and really challenged themselves and asked the

question of what the core services are that taxpayers expected and needed —

what core, essential, vital services needed to be provided to them. They had to

make some choices as to those that no longer would be provided. In the end, this

is what has helped form the budget that we see before us.

Again, I

don't think that's a bad thing. As I recall, there were at one time many

organizations that provided a number of social services, I guess you would call

them, to our society's most vulnerable. They sprung up from the grass roots.

These were volunteers who were prepared to meet a demand that the government

hadn't considered. These volunteers took pride in what they did. They formed

their non-profit organizations. They went out and fundraised. They bought

equipment when it was necessary. They provided a service to the communities that

we all live in.

Government

could never do everything. The fact of the matter is that we depended on our

volunteer organizations and agencies. Whether they are people who belong to

Rotary or Lions Clubs, whether they are people who belong to the Kinsmen or

Kiwanis, these are all organizations which we have grown to appreciate and which

have added to our quality of life. These organizations provided many services.

Over the years, over the course of the last decade, some of them either

redirected their objectives or decided that they were no longer going to provide

certain services — not because they didn't want to but because, unfortunately,

the previous administration went after them and attacked our volunteers.

Organizations, particularly, that raised money….

Interjection.

Chong: I see the opposition member shaking her head. I just can't believe

how quickly she forgets that her government went after organizations that

fundraised, that built community care beds and that were under the threat of

being…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members.

Chong: …expropriated. I had one in my very own riding: the Queen Alexandra

Centre. This government wanted to take it. I fought to have that be retained.

That is why last session we had the Minister of Health Services introduce a bill

that finally gave assurance that no organization for whom volunteer dollars were

raised to provide a quality-of-life service in their communities would have the

threat of their asset being expropriated. I supported that piece of legislation

last year. I've heard back from that organization, and they say that's a good

thing. These organizations now have the opportunity again to know that they can

continue to fundraise, to do whatever they felt was their mandate, their vision,

and to contribute to their society.

Speaking of

volunteers, I think another laudable and excellent measure in our New Era document,

a commitment that we've now delivered on, is to refund the provincial sales tax

on purchases for schools made with parent advisory council–raised funds. That

is a very good measure. I think parent advisory councils around this province

are very pleased with it. I haven't heard anybody complain. I know that when we

were in opposition, we raised that very issue. When someone brought that to our

attention and said that we need to look at the sales tax, we did.

[1505]

Mr.

Speaker, I didn't realize how fast the time goes by when there is so much to say

about such a wonderful budget. I just want to say on the record that I support

this budget. I hope all members of this House support this budget.

Thank you

for the time.

J. Kwan:

I can't help but note the previous member who rose up and said that this

government supports volunteers. You know what? This government cancelled the

Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. You know what?

That ministry was established to provide support, to build capacity in

communities and particularly to assist people who volunteer in their

communities. You know what? All of that work in the ministry is now gone from

this government. This is their dedication.

[ Page 1344 ]

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Let the member have her speech.

J. Kwan:

The members in this House rise up and they say: "This budget is just

glorious. It's absolutely wonderful; it's great for British Columbians."

You know

what? I'd like to ask the members how they'd feel if you were this person who

sent out a press release on the impacts of this budget. I'm going to read this

entire press release and quote her. These are not my words, because I'm not in

that situation, but real British Columbians are. Single parents out there are

hurt by this budget. People with disabilities are hurt by this budget. Seniors

are cut by this budget, and youth are hurt by this budget.

I want to

know from the government benches, the seals that bark every time the executive

council speaks, where they are when the community raises these issues. Are they

just deaf to these issues, or are they just not listening to them?

Here's one

comment from a woman who is faced with challenges and hardships as a result of

this budget. I'm going to read the press release into the record. To put it in

context, this came from a large meeting that was held at Langara College. A

variety of people came to this meeting. Over 80 people attended it: concerned

citizens and representatives of educational, human service agencies, individuals

who need social services, legal support and community services in British

Columbia.

These are

the words of a woman named Suzanne Barton, a single parent and domestic abuse

survivor:

"Income

assistance recipients who are working hard to get off welfare are the ones

who face taking the deepest cuts with the loss of their access to a decent

education, the loss of any child support or decreased child care assistance

and the loss of any earning exemptions they may have received from

low-paying employment.

"What

do these cuts mean to me? They mean the abuse hasn't stopped. They mean the

Liberal government of B.C. has sided and joined forces with every

perpetrator of domestic abuse because they have tied my hands legally,

financially, medically, academically and psychologically"

Another

speaker deplored the lack of compassion and justice shown by these cuts:

"The Premier in his televised address to the province made no reference at

all to the plight of the tens of thousands of poor and vulnerable citizens of

British Columbia that will be affected by these cuts," said Graham Riches,

director of the UBC school of social work and family studies.

"Many of these actions are unlawful. They have serious implications for

human rights. They violate the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights."

Taking the

government to task on its rationale that it is faced with a structural deficit,

Michael Goldberg, research director at SPARC-BC, asked: "How can the

government have a structural deficit when it is the government that controls

both revenues and expenditures?"

Mr.

Goldberg added: "What is the logic of taking $600 a year away from the

people who only receive $6,600 a year and giving a tax cut of over $6,000 to one

person who earns over $200,000 a year?"

[1510]

I wonder,

hon. Speaker. From the chambers here, from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head:

are there no single parents in her constituency who need support from government

that she's spoken with? Do they not exist at all in this entire province for the

government members? Or are they just out there somewhere far, far away, because

they are the people that this government has chosen not to represent and not to

hear their voices?

When the

government backbench members rise up and speak proudly of this budget, I wonder

if they've asked the questions. When they say that they have participated, I

wonder if they've asked these questions. These are some of the questions that

Langara College had put together — the forum that was hosted at Langara

College by a variety of people who attended, who asked these questions. I wonder

if any of the government members asked the executive council, asked the Premier,

asked the Minister of Finance, asked the Deputy Premier these questions.

One of them

says: "Have you identified the risks in your cost-cutting? What are they?

What other plans do you have in place to respond to them?"

Another

question is: "Do you think that cutbacks to social needs will not increase

harm in all areas, increase crime, diseases, addictions, suicides? Reduction in

welfare benefits equals increased crime. How will your government deal with

this? Reducing income assistance equals loss in pride, self-esteem, self-worth,

hope, and increases the rich-poor gap. How will the government deal with

depressed neighbourhoods?"

Another

question that was asked by the community was: "What do you mean by special

interest groups? Why is everyone except business designated as a special

interest group? Why not give the tax breaks to the people with lower incomes,

since these moneys will almost certainly be spent in British Columbia? Is it

fair to the next government, which would have to deal with the social

disintegration that you're creating?"

I wonder if

any of the government members asked any of these questions, looked at the

government programs and the budget that was introduced with a poverty lens —

to look at the impacts of this budget from a poverty perspective impacting

British Columbians. Look at any of these issues through a women's lens. Well,

you know what? Is it any wonder that women's issues are actually not highlighted

by this budget — not at all? It is no wonder, because you have a minister

whose view is that the ministry for women's equality is sunsetting. Its days are

sunsetting. "It's getting closer to the sunset." That is a quote from

the Minister of State for Women's Equality. The Minister for Women's Equality

goes on further to say that people have choices to make for themselves:

"The opportunities are

[ Page 1345 ]

exactly equal. A single woman and a single man have exactly the same

opportunities with the same education."

Well, you

know what, hon. Speaker? The minister must have missed all of the years, the

history of women struggling for pay equity, trying to get access for recognition

in the economic system that exists right now for pay equity. Women are suffering

because they actually earn less than the men. You know what? The Minister of

State for Women's Equality's perspective is that the disparity between men's and

women's average pay exists because women want to work part-time. She says that's

a choice they have made. They choose to earn less money. Well, is it any wonder

that for this budget, women's issues are not highlighted by the government as a

priority? It is not a priority.

I know the

government says: "You are our priority — women, children, the poor, the

most vulnerable. You are a priority. We're going to put your issues first."

But when they say that, you know what it actually means? It means cutting the

programs that you most depend on. That's what it means when the government says

you are their priority — unless, of course, you're in the business community;

unless, of course, you are the wealthiest British Columbians in British

Columbia.

[1515]

The stats

actually show this. Marc Lee at the CCPA has established that the top 8,000 B.C.

taxpayers got a larger portion of the tax cut than the bottom 50 percent of all

taxpayers. So if you are in the top 8,000 British Columbians in terms of your

tax bracket and your income, yes, you got the greatest benefit from this budget.

Make no mistake about it. But you know what? If you were in the bottom 50

percent, you got the least benefit from this Liberal government's budget. That's

when the government says: "You're our top priority." Well, you know

what? Pray that you are not in that 49 percent or 50 percent bottom end, because

top priority for you means increased taxes. For you, it means cuts in services,

decreased access to government programs. That's what it means for you.

During the

last election campaign the Premier made a lot of promises to British Columbians.

He insisted that his planned tax cuts would pay for themselves. He promised that

he would not increase taxes. He swore that his economic strategy would benefit

low- and middle-income individuals and families. All the evidence points the

other way. Top economists and even his own economic advisers said that the

Premier's plans would not work. They said it was unwise to cut taxes when the

economy is in a downturn. They said that the Liberal government would have to

run a deficit or drastically cut services to make up for the revenue lost to tax

cuts. They advised the Premier to proceed with caution.

You know

what? The Premier pressed on, choosing ideology over expert opinion. On his

first day in office, before he even looked at the books, the Premier gave away

billions in tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the highest-income

earners and the wealthiest corporations in British Columbia. He said that his

high-income and corporate tax cuts would be a cure-all for everything in British

Columbia. He said that it would be done without pain, without sacrifice and

without cutting the services in B.C.

Nine months

later, on February 19, the budget was introduced. The government introduced its

first full budget, and now we all know the truth — that tax cuts don't pay for

themselves. Social program cuts pay for tax cuts. Record-setting deficits pay

for tax cuts. Low-and middle-income families pay for tax cuts, and British

Columbians are starting to see and feel the damage and the hurt that result. For

most British Columbians, the measures the government has taken in this budget

have wiped out whatever was left of the tax cut after nine months of service

cuts and fee increases.

Just to put

it in perspective, the average income of my constituents in Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant is $20,000 a year. Their tax cut is $110 a year in total. That's not a

monthly tax cut. It's $110 a year. The promise that came from the Premier was

that he wouldn't raise taxes. But in this budget, what did he do? He raised the

gas tax. He raised property taxes. Worst of all, he raised the tax that would

hit families the hardest: the provincial sales tax.

He said he

would put patients first, but his budget says that 10,000 surgeries will be

eliminated.

[Interruption.]

Deputy

Speaker: We'll have a short recess.

That's

fine, member. You can sit down for a moment and take it easy.

Are you

ready?

J. Kwan:

I'm still struggling with a cold. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy

Speaker: The House will come to order.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

The Premier said children will be the top priority, but do you know what the

budget says? There will be fewer resources for children at risk.

The

government said that they will build safer communities, but the budget says

there will be 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions. There will be 60 community law

offices closed throughout British Columbia. These are the law offices in which

the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, the people who need to get access to

legal aid, the people who need to get access to their legal rights, the people

who face multiple barriers, who depend on the lawyers in these offices…. Sixty

community legal offices will be shut down. That's what this budget is bringing

to British Columbia.

The

Premier, I understand, cannot control how many surgeries will take place this

year in B.C. or how many children will be put at risk or how many crimes will be

committed. But the Premier can set the priorities of this government. They could

decide to not give away billions of dollars in tax cuts to the highest-income

earners or the big corporations. They could put

[ Page 1346 ]

aside the ideology and look at the needs of B.C. and really put the

priorities of the people who are most in need first.

But what is the ideology of the government? What is driving this agenda

behind the budget? I suppose that ideology could best be summed up by the woman

who was appointed by the Premier to be the Minister of State for Women's

Equality. In her interview with her local paper, the Langley Advance News ,

the Minister of State for Women's Equality stated very succinctly what her

Premier and her colleagues have always believed. That is the notion that the

rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The

Minister of State for Women's Equality says that's the world we live in. That's

the world we've always lived in. In that same interview, she provided some

advice to anyone who feels disadvantaged or left behind by the Liberal

government. To them she said: "Well, then make more money."

That is the

approach of this government. If you are middle-income or if you're low-income,

and this budget does not provide for your needs — too bad. Go out there and

make more money so that you can get into the higher income brackets, so that you

can get into the benefits of those tax cuts.

What of the

people who are faced with multiple barriers and are not able to do that? What

happens to them? They're not the minority in British Columbia — quite the

opposite. They're the majority. The majority of British Columbians who don't

make $200,000 a year in income will be hurt by this budget. Make no mistake

about it.

The

government claims that every effort has been made to mitigate the impacts of

cuts and the elimination of public services, especially on women, seniors,

children and those who are most vulnerable. But the reality is that women,

children, seniors, people with disabilities and the poorest British Columbia

citizens are specifically targeted by this government, by their extreme and,

quite frankly, mean-spirited agenda.

[1525]

Welfare

cuts are being made in a variety of areas. The justice system and legal services

are going to be impacting the people who need access to legal rights. The

closure of 24 courthouses throughout British Columbia, the gutting of funding to

support family law and poverty law, slashing the budget for the debtor

assistance program, eliminating Crown victim services, eliminating family

advocates, gutting the Human Rights Commission, cutting the child care

program…. Most British Columbians, unlike what the Minister of State for

Intermediate Care thinks, are not tennis moms. They need child care services so

they can get out into the workforce to support their family.

The

abandoning of the responsibility for child protection and family development,

the axing of the inner-city school funding…. This government claims it wants

to give every child and every student in British Columbia the opportunity to

enhance their educational outcomes. What are the government's plans for the most

vulnerable children, many of whom live in my riding of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant and in my colleague's riding of Vancouver-Hastings? They are the most

vulnerable children living in the inner city, and the funding from this

government for the inner-city schools is gone. Do you know what? That funding

goes directly to assist the children to stay in school. It's direct services to

assist them to stay in school. It's counselling services so they can deal with

the challenges and the traumas that they experience, unfortunately, early on in

their lives.

It is

services to ensure that the parents can participate in the school system, which

the Minister of Education claims she values so very much. What is she doing to

ensure that the inner-city school parents have opportunities equal to the

west-side schools? What we did was ensure that inner-city school funding is

provided for and that the school meal programs are introduced and that the

community school funding is in place.

The

Minister of Education fails to see that the children who are most vulnerable are

the children living in the inner city who live in poverty and who face multiple

problems, and aboriginal children who have the lowest educational outcomes.

Without consultation the minister has cut that funding — without consultation

not just with parents, not just with educators, not even with the trustees. They

read about it in the newspaper. How is that helping the people who are most

marginalized?

The

Minister of Education thinks it's funny, and she's chuckling to herself and

smiling broadly. I invite her to my riding to meet with the parents and the

children who have the hopes and dreams that every member in this House has for

themselves and for their children. I want those hopes and dreams, as well, for

the children from the inner-city schools. The minister is just mocking the needs

of these children. She's saying: "Yadda, yadda, yadda; whatever, whatever;

blah, blah, blah." Shame on her as the Minister of Education, who just

belittles and casts aside, as though those children somehow don't count and as

though somehow those families don't count. They do count. They're real human

beings, and their lives count for something. Their hopes and dreams, too, must

be realized.

Today in

this House we recognized the loss of Harry Rankin. He must be sitting up there

right now in the golden dumpster looking down and thinking: "My God. What

will this Liberal government do to ensure that the voice of the underprivileged

is heard and that their needs are met?" I have to say that in looking at

this budget, I see very little that is being offered from this government to the

people who are in greatest need.

[1530]

On the

education and training programs front. The budget speech doesn't tell you. You

have to comb through this information to find out and really, really look for

the information. Read between the lines. What have they done? Well, they've

eliminated the training programs and the Welfare to Work initiatives, the Summer

Student Works program, the skills for employment program and the Job Start

program that are

[ Page 1347 ]

targeted toward welfare recipients to assist them to move from income

assistance to work opportunities.

The tuition

deregulation that was introduced by the Minister of Advanced Education was

somehow supposed to enable access. What of the families who are middle-income

and low-income, who don't have a bottomless pit for the tuition fees they will

now have to fork out in order to get post-secondary education?

Opportunities

will be lost for many of those students: disbanding the Industry Training and

Apprenticeship Commission, known as ITAC; the closure of employment services

centres; the cutting of funds of the entire network of women's centres in B.C.;

eliminating even the audio books programs for the blind; cutting multicultural

language programs; bridging employability programs; and Bladerunners.

Bladerunners

was the program designed to help youth at risk, street-involved youth, to gain

employment opportunities, to learn a skill and move into the workforce, and to

gain self-esteem. That program is now gone. Funding for treaty advisory

committees is cut.

This

government wants to highlight the Olympic bid, yet what is this government doing

to assist amateur athletes in the Olympics? The government has cut the athletes

assistance program and all the funding for the National Coaching Institute,

denying any assistance to B.C.'s young athletes and the programs that support

them.

They have

fired the senior advisory council and slashed support in the women and seniors

bureau in what is known as the ministry of lost causes — that is, the Ministry

of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — cutting the staff from 11

full-time positions to the equivalent of 2½ full-time positions. Prior to this

budget, what else has this government done to help the people who are most in

need? They have cancelled the universal child care program. That started in

August last year.

They

lowered the minimum wages for all the people they're going to cut off income

assistance that they want to push out to the workforce. They will now be making

$6 an hour, as opposed to $8, for the first 500 hours. That's how this

government is helping you: reducing your salary, reducing your income, cutting

your services, increasing your taxes. That's how they prioritize you when they

say you are their top priority.

Victims

assistance, rape crisis counsellors — they're faced with cuts as well. These

are programs targeted, without a doubt, toward the most marginalized British

Columbians. Pay equity? The pay equity provision is gone. When the members in

this House say they're there for you, what it really means is that it's only if

you are the richest British Columbians that this government will be there for

you. If you don't fall within that income bracket, then you are faced with the

most drastic cuts this province has ever seen.

I'd like to

wrap up just by quoting Paul Willcocks from February 27 in an

article he has

written in the Vancouver Sun :

"Premier

Gordon Campbell likes to characterize opponents as 'special interests,'

fighting to preserve privilege. It's a tough sell, especially when the

Premier's post-budget speeches have all been to carefully selected and

Liberal-friendly chambers of commerce in the lower mainland. Recent polls

suggest the 'special interests' now make up more than half the people in the

province. An Ipsos-Reid poll found 55 percent of those surveyed think 'the

provincial government is going too far and too fast with its actions and

unnecessarily hurting too many people.' One in four people who voted Liberal

now say the government is imposing unnecessary harm on its citizens. It's

not something a prudent government would ignore."

That was in the Vancouver Sun , February 27, 2002, from Paul Willcocks.

[1535]

For the

members who want to just simply say that people are not worried about the

government's direction, that they are heading in the right direction, I ask them

to pause. Stop and reflect for a moment and think about the people who speak

otherwise, and work hard to make sure that their interests, too, are

represented. For all the members who are silent, representing the most

marginalized people in British Columbia: look in your hearts and make sure that

their voice is heard in this chamber.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Having listened to the previous member talk about this budget, I

must say that I'm having real difficulty trying to understand what she said and

to put it into any sort of realistic perspective about what we face here in the

province.

You know,

it's amazing that they continue to trot out the same, tired class warfare

rhetoric that they've used for years and years in this province. They just

haven't learned. They talk about how, when they were in government, they

represented the working families of this province — the working people. Well,

let me tell you, the working people of this province had the worst, most

devastating time under ten years of NDP government. That's one thing that we

certainly recognize.

They forget

to talk about the almost 60,000 mostly young people that had to leave this

province over the last decade to look for opportunity. They had to look for a

future, unfortunately, outside of British Columbia — again because of their

NDP policies.

One thing

that we recognize, and that I certainly recognize, is that British Columbia

needed a bold change in direction. The budget that we brought down under the

leadership of this Premier and this Finance minister does exactly that. It is a

bold response to a decade of neglect, incompetence and mismanagement.

It's also,

frankly, a prudent response to some of the external challenges that we face in

this province. The softwood lumber imposition of tariffs clearly has had a

devastating impact on the forestry workers in this province. The issues

surrounding the September 11 terrorist incidents are clearly having effects not

only around the world but here in British Columbia. I'm proud of the steps that

we have taken.

[ Page 1348 ]

There are

some that are against these changes. There are some who have benefited from the

financial excesses of the last decade and are strongly resistant to any kind of

change. Let's be frank about this. I recognize that the public sector union

leadership were the chief beneficiaries of the previous government. You see, the

previous NDP government really saw their role as the chief union organizer in

the province. Frankly, many of their contract settlements — while I recognize

that they served the interests of the public sector unions — certainly didn't

serve the public interest. That's why we've made a decision that we need to

start serving the public interest in British Columbia. I have absolutely no

hesitation and make no apologies for doing so.

Let's think

about the history and where we've come from over the last decade in British

Columbia. Virtually every other government in Canada has dealt with the

financial challenges they were facing over the last decade. Whether it was

Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba or even Saskatchewan, they've dealt with the

respective financial challenges that they faced in the early 1990s.

They had to

make some tough decisions. Let's not forget that they, too, faced enormous

opposition in many cases from the public sector unions. They, too, faced budget

deficits and growing public debt. They, too, faced demands from doctors, nurses

and teachers that in many cases were financially unaffordable, but you see,

ladies and gentlemen, they faced those challenges in the early 1990s. Many of

those other provinces made the difficult decisions to rein in spending and

control expenditures and try and create a foundation for growth and opportunity.

They and many of those provinces are now benefiting from the difficult decisions

they made in the early 1990s.

[1540]

I recall

doing a fair bit of business in Alberta in the early 1990s, when they were going

through a period where they had to rein in spending and make some difficult

decisions, not unlike the kinds of difficult decisions we're making here in

British Columbia. Let me tell you, you could hear the rain of criticism come

down on them, the same thing we're facing today: the public sector union

leadership yelling about how they were destroying the province, how the whole

foundation of the Alberta economy was going to collapse under the weight of the

poor decision that Premier Klein was making — same thing in Ontario.

You know

what we found? What I noticed in Alberta was that over the years, as they made

those difficult decisions, the response of private sector investment was

incredible. Capital started to flow in. Capital and investment rewarded the

government for controlling its expenditures and coming forward with a tax

structure that made sense. Because of those decisions being made in the early

1990s, today they have surplus budgets. They virtually eliminated their public

debt and now have the opportunity to reinvest in health care and reinvest in

education, and they have the financial means to put forward first-class health

care and education.

Even in NDP

provinces like Saskatchewan they were dealing with their financial challenges,

and even they had to make difficult decisions rationalizing health care and in

many cases having to close hospitals. They made the difficult decisions that

needed to be made so they could ensure that they had an economy that would

support the services their public needed.

But in

British Columbia? No, not in British Columbia. Over the last decade in British

Columbia we continued — the previous government continued…. The member

opposite who was speaking here was part of the leadership that continued the

failed policies of tax and spend, continued cranking up the spending, continued

hitting the public with tax increases.

What

happened? We just saw endless increases in taxes, endless increases in public

spending. It was a decade of deficits and increased debt; a decade of

extravagant public sector union agreements that certainly benefited special

interests over the public interest; a decade that saw this great province go

from the number one economy in the country, back in 1991, to virtually dead last

in almost every economic indicator; a decade not only of managerial incompetence

by the leadership here in the previous provincial government but of a staggering

level of incompetence that infected the Crown corporations — again, under

leadership appointed by the provincial government — and that saw things like

$500 million blown in the B.C. Ferry Corp with the fast ferries, that saw the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia blowing what looks to be somewhere

around $100 million in real estate deals in my community of Surrey that made no

financial sense whatsoever. It was widespread right across government.

This was

the reality and the landscape we faced as a new government coming in, after a

decade of financial irresponsibility that was unparalleled in this country. We

had some challenging choices to make in British Columbia. Granted, we could have

continued with the failed policies of the past. We could have ignored the

challenging financial circumstances we face in this province. We could have said

yes when the nurses were asking for a 60 percent wage increase. We certainly

could have said yes most recently with the teachers when they asked for a 34

percent wage increase. We could have ignored many of the sweetheart side deals

that were negotiated by the last government and that imposed huge, enormous

costs on the provincial taxpayers. We could have done all that. That was an

option.

[1545]

But let's

be clear about where continuing along that path would have left us as a

province. It would have jammed down the accelerator of decline that has

characterized our economy over the last ten years. It would, frankly, have set

us on a course of decline at warp speed that would have been devastating for the

taxpayers and the citizens of this province, but it was a choice. Now, we

correctly rejected that option. That wasn't a path we were going to take British

Columbia on. Instead, we chose to make more difficult — granted

[ Page 1349 ]

— and sometimes more unpopular choices, at least in the short term.

We went

through this process very thoughtfully and very openly. That's why we set up a

core services review process. We wanted to examine every single ministry and

Crown corporation in this province and look not just at how we're spending money

or how much money we're spending but at how effectively we're spending the

taxpayer dollars in this province. We wanted to say not just how much money

we're pouring into a program but what kind of results we are getting for British

Columbia. What kind of outcomes are we actually achieving in the province? Is

the spending that we're currently doing effective? Are we achieving the goals

that we should be achieving?

Those are

questions that just have not been asked in at least a decade in this province,

and we're asking them. That's a real philosophical shift. What we need to do is

educate the public that the success of public spending programs and the success

of how our health care or education systems are operating is not necessarily in

how much money we're spending. It's how we're spending that money, and it's what

kind of results we're achieving. That's why I'm proud of our Minister of

Education, who is sitting next to me here and who is going to demand results

from the dollars we're spending in education. She's allowing parents to be

involved in the process, and I want to tell you how happy the parents in Surrey

are about the opportunities and challenges that she's putting into the education

system in British Columbia.

That is

leadership, ladies and gentlemen. We're also providing political leadership as

we go through these difficult times. That's why we as MLAs have taken a 5

percent pay reduction, and we've frozen that reduction over the next three

years. I want to let the public out there know something. There is a

misunderstanding. Some people write letters to the editor and talk about how

we've given ourselves big wage increases. There've been no wage increases for

the MLAs that serve. That's been confused with some federal Members of

Parliament who voted themselves an increase, but it's not provincial. We've cut

our pay 5 percent, and we're freezing that cut over the next three years.

We've done

more than that. We've cut our legislative caucus budget by 25 percent. Again,

we're demonstrating that we're going to make the difficult choices for

ourselves.

Ministerial

accountability has been reinforced. Back in July we voted that we would withhold

20 percent of ministerial salaries that would not be earned back unless we met

our personal ministerial performance targets and that we as a government overall

met our budget targets — 20 percent ministerial holdback that will take effect

this April 1. That, again, is reinforcing accountability. I remind the public

out there listening that back in 1996 we eliminated pensions for provincial MLAs

— again, just to reinforce that MLAs are doing their part.

What we've

done with this budget is address some of the structural barriers to growth that

characterized the B.C. decline. We've done some exciting things not just in this

budget but in the previous budget, dropping the personal tax rate by 25 percent

across the board. I'm proud of the fact that the greatest percentage increase

goes to those folks who are earning $60,000 or less. You know, the members

opposite will talk about how this is tax breaks to the rich. Well, let me tell

you that the greatest percentage increase — I say it again — went to those

folks earning $60,000 or less. That is representative of the folks from my

district, and I'm proud of the fact that the single parent, the single mother

that cuts my hair — and I think, frankly, she does a pretty darn good job….

[Applause.] It's getting easier for her every year, but that's another story.

[1550]

I want to

tell you those tax cuts are meaningful for that lady, and they're meaningful for

the folks that are working hard and struggling to raise families — and really

struggling during tough economic times. We've put more money back into their

pockets, and that, again, is a very important philosophical difference. The

members opposite believe that government can better decide how to spend your

hard-earned tax dollars. We believe that the public, who worked hard trying to

earn those tax dollars, can better decide how they can spend that money. So,

that lower tax rate is going to be important in generating future economic

opportunity and future revenue growth.

I want to

tell you that I never cease to be amazed at the critics who will tell us:

"Oh, my goodness, you've made this tax cut, and eight months later we

haven't seen the results of the revenue growth." Nobody with any serious

credibility believes that when you make a tax cut like that, eight months later

you're going to have all of it returned. We recognize that what we are doing is

laying the foundation for future economic and revenue growth. It doesn't happen

overnight, and the public out there understands that when you lay down a

foundation, you will get a return. We will get that return. It doesn't happen

overnight; it will happen over the next coming years.

We've also

tackled corporate taxes. We knew back in July that we needed to reduce our

corporate tax rate, which we did — from 16.5 to 13.5 percent. But in this

budget I'm pleased to say that we've also increased the threshold for the small

business tax rate to $300,000 from $200,000 to ensure that we would be in line

with our major competitors in Ontario and Alberta.

We've

fulfilled yet another new-era commitment by introducing refunds of provincial

sales tax on school supplies that are purchased with funds raised by our parent

advisory committees — another important new-era commitment fulfilled.

I'm very

proud of the fact that as we went through this process, we've preserved the

funding for the two very important departments of health care and education.

That's something we ought to be very proud of.

I want you

to know that in spite of the protests and the loud voices of special interests

that are talking about how the world's coming to an end with this budget, the

folks in my community have been very

[ Page 1350 ]

vocal in phoning my office and stopping me in the street and telling me what

a great job we're doing as government — that they support the direction we're

moving in, they understand that we inherited a mess and they understand that we

need to rein in government spending.

I've always

been clear about one thing in my mind. I get that the union leadership may not

understand or feel that they benefit from our policies, but I'll tell you that

the union membership will. When we're creating jobs and investment and

opportunity in British Columbia, that directly helps those hard-working union

members out there who ought to benefit and will benefit from these policies. I

feel very good about that.

I had a

constituent that approached me and said: "You know, Kevin, a lot of what

you're doing reminds me of a family household. It would be like if our family

doubled our mortgage and our expenditures were exceeding our revenue in our

household by several thousand dollars a month and our kids were going to all

these great after-hours programs, and we were funding them to do this and that.

If we were facing a situation like that, we would recognize that we would have

to rein in our own spending in our household budget so that we acted

responsibly. You know, that may mean we may have to say to the kids that they

can't go to this particular summer camp or we're going to have to cut back in

certain areas so that we can meet our responsibilities as a family." He

likened that analogy to what we're trying to do as government.

I thought

that was a fairly good analogy. I think many of the folks out there understand

that we in government are doing what many households have to do, and that is to

be responsible in their spending and to ensure that we are responsible in our

spending as government.

The fact of

the matter is that in British Columbia we have, in almost all cases, the most

generous social programs in the country. Unfortunately, though, we have one of

the worst-performing economies in the country. That was certainly highlighted by

the news that in the year 2000 we were officially declared a have-not province

in this country. What a shame that is for this great province to actually have

been declared a have-not province.

[1555]

That's what

we're working to change. If we're serious about protecting health care and

education — indeed, if we're serious about protecting all of our important

government programs — then we have to recognize that we need a thriving

private sector economy. We need to create the kind of opportunity that is going

to attract investment, attract capital, restore confidence in the private sector

and ensure that we are generating the kinds of revenues and taxes we need as a

government so we can fund first-class health care and education systems in this

province. That's exactly what the policies we've laid out are going to do.

Ladies and

gentlemen, as I come to the conclusion of my remarks, I would just like to tell

you that for all of us, as we go through this process, it's not always easy. The

decisions that we make are not always easy decisions. We're keenly aware that

sometimes the decisions we make impact real folks out there, but I am proud of

the fact that we as a government have the courage to make those decisions, that

we are honest enough with the people of British Columbia that we can say to them

that we are prepared to make difficult decisions in the short term so we can

enjoy the benefits in the medium and the long term. I'm proud of the fact that

we have the courage to do that as a government.

Let me just

say that one of the things that used to frustrate me so much over the last

number of years was hearing about how great things were in Ontario, how great

things were in Alberta. I used to hear that all the time in the course of doing

business and talking to other people — about how bad things were in British

Columbia. Well, I, for one, am tired of hearing about how great things are in

Ontario and Alberta, and I want to see British Columbia pole-vault past Alberta

and Ontario and become the greatest wealth-producing province in the country

once again.

conclusion, I just want to say that I'm proud of this budget. I'm proud of

working with my colleagues. I'm proud of the direction that we've launched in

British Columbia, and I look forward to seeing the great opportunities that are

going to result from the decisions we're making today. Thank you very much.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, like my colleague, I'm delighted to rise in support of this

budget today. I don't think that when any of us ran for office, we ran because

we thought it would be easy to make tough decisions — because it's not. This

budget includes a lot of tough decisions.

One of the

things we've seen over the last decade is a government that refused to make

tough decisions. That was an abdication of their responsibility to British

Columbians, because each of us gets elected to do the things that we know are

right, not to do the things that are easy to do. We get elected to sometimes say

no to some of the special interests that come knocking at our door, not to say

yes to everybody who comes looking for a handout.

We get

elected to do what our constituents have asked of us, and what they have asked

of us is to get British Columbia's fiscal house in order, to get our economy

back on track. Most importantly, British Columbians want to go back to work.

They want to go back to work in the forests. They want to go back to work in the

mines. They want to go back to work in the tourism industry. They want to be

able to go back to work, and when they get back to work, they want to earn a

decent wage.

One of the

things we've seen over the last decade — and we saw this yesterday when the

progress board reported out at the provincial congress — is that British

Columbia, over the last ten years, has become sixth out of the seven

jurisdictions that they were comparing in our standard of living. That is

disgraceful. It's disgraceful in a province that used to boast the best economy

in the country, in a place where everyone who lived here

[ Page 1351 ]

was proud to say: "I'm from British Columbia. Come on, folks. You'll

find work in British Columbia. Come on, folks. Come to the best education system

in the world, the best health care system in the world, the best economy in the

country."

[1600]

As our

economy has diminished over the last decade, so has our ability to be able to

support a great education system and a great health care system. Ultimately,

this last ten years of neglect have meant that thousands of British Columbians

have found themselves out of work and that tens of thousands of British

Columbians have found themselves further and further behind, year after year,

even though they work harder. It's also meant that for those of us who care so

deeply about supporting our social programs, for those of us who care so deeply

about ensuring that our children have the education they need to compete

globally and that our parents have the health care they need when they need it,

where they live…. For those of us who care about those things, those programs

have also been badly endangered by a decade of a government that abdicated its

responsibility to do the right thing, to make the tough decisions.

Do I stand

here today delighted to be able to say: "Boy, we're going to give everybody

everything they want"? No, I'm not going to be able to say that. Nor should

I say that, because that's not what budgets are about. This budget is a budget

full of very, very tough choices. There is no question about that. This budget

is one that has a large deficit. This budget is one that has even a few small

tax increases. It's a budget that meant we had to make very tough decisions in a

lot of very important ministries.

One of the

decisions, though, that this government made — and this distinguishes us from

every other government across the country that's undertaken a restructuring —

was to protect education funding from any reductions. We are maintaining

education funding not just this year but over the next three years. That's

because we believe that we have to put students first, and if you're going to

put students first, the only way to do that is to maintain the budget for

education.

Every

single other government across Canada that has undertaken a restructuring like

this one…. All of them did it in the nineties. All of them did it in the

decade before us, so that they were able to take

part in the largest economic

expansion in North America's history — the one that we sat out. They put their

houses in order, and they participated in that expansion. Nonetheless, we are

putting our house in order today. Every single one of those jurisdictions that

did that cut education funding as part of that restructuring. We didn't do that.

We chose, consciously, not to do that.

I'm not

going to argue that that means that there still won't be tough choices for

school districts. There will be, but what we want to do as a government is give

them the opportunity again to lead in their communities. Just as we as a

government know it's our responsibility to show leadership, to make tough

decisions, it is also school districts' responsibility to be able to lead.

That's why they get elected.

One of the

things we saw happen over the last decade was an erosion of school boards' right

to be autonomous and to make the decisions that they are elected by their local

communities to make. Increasingly, the Ministry of Education made decisions

about programs in the smallest amount, determining for school districts what

programs they should be providing. That isn't the business we should be in. We

elect school boards. They are no less elected than any member of this House, and

they're elected with a set of responsibilities that people expect them to

fulfil. The Ministry of Education has over the years — slowly, through

policies and practice — eroded that autonomy for school districts.

Part of

what this budget is about is giving back that autonomy to school districts,

saying to them: "We know that you are just as elected as we are. We know

that you have rights and responsibilities, just as we do. We know that you have

jurisdiction to make decisions." So let's let them make their decisions.

This budget sets out a three-year rolling budget for school districts so that

they know in advance how much money they're going to be getting. What an

innovation. Think of it: school districts will actually be able to plan in

advance how to run their schools, how to staff their schools, how to manage

their budgets.

Not only

will they be able to do that but because, for the first time in a decade, we've

actually delivered the budget on time for school districts, this year they're

going to be able to go out and consult with parents in their communities about

what programs they'd like to see. What an innovation: to go out and actually

talk to parents and talk to school administrators, principals and

vice-principals — to talk to students, if that's what you choose to do — and

to go talk to your individual teachers, find out what's going on in your local

community and design an education system that meets their needs.

[1605]

That's why

we elect them, and that's why we're supposed to deliver our budgets to them on

time. That's why this government has seen fit, for the first time in a decade,

to make sure that that's actually going to happen.

This budget

demonstrates to parents that we respect them. It keeps our government's

commitment to exempt purchases for parent advisory councils from the PST so that

the money that parents spend for their children in their children's schools goes

a little bit further.

Parents

work very, very hard to support their children in education. We should be

encouraging parents all around the system as much as we can. We know that the

single most important determinant of a child's educational success is parental

involvement, so shouldn't we be welcoming parents into the school system,

providing as many opportunities as we can for them to have input? Of course we

should. Of course we should be saying to parents every day: "Here's how

[ Page 1352 ]

you can help. Here's an opportunity for you to plug in and have meaningful

input on your child's education."

Anyone

who's a parent will tell you that there is nothing more important to them than

their children — nothing. There is nothing they treasure more than their

children. There is nothing more important to them than their children's future.

There is nothing that they will sacrifice as much for as their children. Across

the province we have parents who are involved in schools everywhere, parents in

huge numbers who are involved in their children's schools, who are making a

difference every day so that they can better their children's future.

This

government's committed to making sure that that input is meaningful. Yes, we

want to make sure that every penny a parent raises for their children's

education goes into their education — absolutely — but we don't think that

parents are just fundraisers. We think that parents are valuable for a whole lot

of things in our school system other than just selling chocolates and putting on

fundraisers. We know that parents certainly do that well, and we know that

parents do a heck of a lot of it. Is that the reason they get involved in their

parent advisory councils? Of course it isn't.

They get

involved because they want to do something for their children. They want to make

sure that they have an impact on the outcome of their child's educational

program. Maybe they've been annoyed about something. Maybe they see something

that they could do better. Maybe they just see it as their responsibility, their

obligation to their child, to get involved and do something about it. That's why

parents get involved in parent advisory councils.

As a

government, we're saying: "Let's make those opportunities for input

meaningful. Let's give parents as many opportunities as we can to get in and

have their say. Let's not just make that say on paper. Let's make that

meaningful. Let's translate what they say into results."

Another

thing we're going to do to ensure that is parent-student-teacher satisfaction

surveys. We want to know how they think we're doing in our education system. No

one's done this in a systemic way in British Columbia before. We want to go out

and ask parents what they think of our education system, what they would

improve. Not in general — we want to ask them specifically about their

children: "How could we do better for your children?" That's what we

need to know as a government. It's the first time anyone will have ever done

this.

We won't

just be asking parents. We'll be asking students; we'll be asking staff. The

results of those surveys will be made public. School districts will be able to

act on those results and will have a good sense of how we're doing year on year

when we compare those results. Surely that must be an important part of the

information we'll gather every year.

One of the

things that we're doing, as I'm sure you know, is entering into accountability

contracts with every district in the province, where we sit down with them and

say: "All right. Let's agree on your goals for improvement for the next

year. Let's look at your data. Let's look at your foundations skills assessment

results, which is some of the standardized testing that's done across the system

at certain grades. Let's look at parent-teacher-student satisfaction surveys and

see how you're doing in your districts. Let's look at your graduation rates and

see what we can do to improve those. Then let's set goals for improvement —

goals that are based on results."

That's what

education is about. This is something we can actually measure, so shouldn't we

be measuring it? Shouldn't we be holding ourselves to account for improvements?

Let's set those goals, and then let's strive to meet them. Let's set our goals

as high as we can, and then let's work to meet them so that we can make sure

that year on year our education system is improving for children.

[1610]

One of the

most shocking things, I think, about our education system is the fact that one

in four kids in British Columbia doesn't graduate from high school. That's

pretty bad. That puts us amongst the worst of the jurisdictions that the B.C.

Progress Board measured. We can certainly do better than that.

That's for

the general population, but the story is even bleaker for first nations kids.

For first nations kids, the graduation rate is 38 percent. We can do better than

that. We need to recognize that it's not those kids' fault that they don't make

it through the system. If we suggest that it is the fault of those children,

then aren't we suggesting somehow that those kids maybe aren't smart enough or

aren't working hard enough? I don't believe it's the children's fault that they

maybe drop out in grade 5 or grade 6 or grade 10 or grade 11. I think we've got

a problem in the system.

When the

system doesn't graduate one out of four children, we have a problem in our

system that we need to fix. We need to design a system that meets a greater

number of children's needs so that we can create different pathways to success

for those children. I simply refuse to accept that one in four children just

isn't good enough to get a grad certificate in British Columbia. I refuse to

accept that. One of the commitments we are making in this budget is that we will

improve graduation rates in British Columbia. We will move us from the bottom of

the heap so that we can eventually get to the top.

I know we

can do better, because we spend a lot of money on education. We will spend $4.8

billion on education this year. That's a lot of money. If we aren't spending

every single one of those dollars to benefit children and to make sure that we

are improving academic achievement for each of those kids, then we're not doing

our jobs.

When I talk

about academic achievement, I don't just mean measuring who's doing the best at

the best school in the best city in the province. I wouldn't suggest that for a

second, because there are a lot of children who won't always get 90 percent on

an exam. There are a lot of children who would never get 90 percent on an exam

at the end of the year. There are some neighbourhoods where there are children

who face

[ Page 1353 ]

significant challenges in trying to reach those high levels. For some

children, learning to read is a miracle because of the challenges they face. If

a child goes into our system not able to read because of the challenges they've

had at home or elsewhere in their community or their lives, and they score 60

percent on an exam at the end of the year, isn't that something we should be

cheering? Isn't that a success we should celebrate? Shouldn't we celebrate that

teacher, that parent? Shouldn't we celebrate that child who worked his tail off

to get that result? It's not 90 percent, and maybe that child will never get 90

percent. Maybe 60 percent is the best that child will ever do, but it's a heck

of a lot better than that child would ever have done if they hadn't been part of

a system where their teachers cared, where their administrators and their school

cared, where the staff at the Ministry of Education cared, where their school

trustees cared, where their community cared. That's what this is all about:

making the lives of each of those children a little bit better and giving them

the tools that they will need to cope in an extremely and increasingly complex

world.

[1615]

This budget

is the result of the most open budget process that I've ever seen in British

Columbia and, I'm told, the most open budget process that anyone has ever seen

in British Columbia. It's been open; it's been inclusive. You'll know that

government caucus committees played a huge role in helping to design this

budget. You'll know that Treasury Board did a whole lot of work to ensure that

the impacts of this budget on people who were low-income were minimized.

You'll know

that the Finance minister made information public about our financial status as

a province as soon as he had it, even though that didn't always mean the

government got a great headline in the newspaper the next day. He conducted the

most open process for budget-making that we've ever witnessed in this province.

That is a fundamental change to the way we manage British Columbia. It's a

recognition that British Columbians deserve to know how their money is being

spent on their behalf. It's a recognition of the fact that taxpayers and

citizens deserve respect, a recognition of the fact that information is power.

This Premier, this Finance minister and this government intend to give citizens

the information that they need to be able to make judgments on their own.

The days of

fudge-it budgeting are over. The days of casting a light on the budget process

are here. This is a dramatic change. I know that every member of the government

has appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this budget process. Certainly,

as a member of the government, I have appreciated, as well, the openness of the

Minister of Finance in designing this budget.

conclusion, I'll say that this budget — as I said at the beginning — isn't

full of easy choices. It isn't full of opportunities to say yes to everybody, to

every special interest group that wanted something. This budget is full of

difficult choices. There's no question about it. This budget contains some very,

very tough decisions, but the decisions that we made in this government speak to

our priorities.

Our

priorities are ensuring that British Columbians have the education they need to

be able to cope with an increasingly complex world and compete internationally,

and ensuring that British Columbians have the health care they need to be able

to care for themselves and their families. Those are what this budget sets as

priorities, and I think we share those priorities with every British Columbian.

Health and education are at the top of our list, not by accident but because we

know those are the programs that British Columbians truly treasure the most.

That's what this budget is about.

It hasn't

been easy to make some of the decisions in here, but the decisions that we have

made are the right things to do. Make no mistake: we will get to our goal of a

balanced budget. We will get to our goal of a British Columbia that is

prosperous, that boasts the best economy in Canada — a British Columbia where

we can all say: "We are so proud to be from the greatest, best economy in

the country."

We will be

able to say that again; we will be able to reach that goal. This budget, for the

first time in a decade, is a budget that will set us on that course.

Thank you,

hon. Speaker.

Belsey: Let me start today by saying what a pleasure it is to hear the

Minister of Education talk about education, when I contrast that to what we

heard a little earlier on from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. If we

believe that the sky is falling, as they have been telling us — or told us for

20 minutes in here — what a shame. It's so refreshing to hear exactly what we

have in store for health care.

The 2002

budget that was brought down a week and a half ago has many benefits, many

positive messages, for the people of the North Coast riding — my riding. I

have only 20 minutes to speak, so I can't touch on all of those points, but I

will touch on what I think are some of the most important.

[1620]

One of the

most important messages that came out in that budget was the good news for small

business. That's the engine of northern communities and certainly in my riding.

In the budget, small business heard of the increase in the threshold for small

business income rate. It went from $200,000 to $300,000. That means that the

hundreds of small businesses throughout British Columbia, throughout northern

British Columbia and throughout my riding — the ma-and-pa operations, the

home-based industries — are going to have less money taken off in the way of

tax and more profit at the end of the day. That is good news.

Profit is

not a dirty word. It's what companies and corporations and industries need to

grow. It's what we need to create jobs. It's what we need to create

opportunities in my riding. We often hear the phrase that profit is made on the

backs of labour. Well, here's a fine example how. My government has changed the

tax rate. It has moved that threshold to $300,000. That will

[ Page 1354 ]

increase profit to small businesses, and it won't be created on the backs of

labour.

The

increase in the threshold to small business income tax is good news, but when

you combine that with the good news we heard in the throne speech, where we have

the Premier's commitment to small business round tables, this is proof positive

that my government is committed to revitalizing our economy. His commitment

remains strong and unwavering. We will work with small business.

Let me

share with you some of the examples throughout my riding, some of the companies

that may benefit from this tax change. In Stewart, the northernmost community in

my riding, there's a company called Brand New Video. They haven't been in

business that long, but it is a company that has the potential to move into that

tax bracket. With the extra profits that they could realize, they may increase

their stock. They may increase the size of their store. They may hire more help.

That's the kind of message we want to get out there.

In Masset,

the owners of a coffee shop called Haidabucks coffee shop are going to realize

an increase in profit. They will benefit from the threshold of small business

income tax, and who knows what they'll do? They may hire somebody else. They may

get a new product line. They may put a new piece of equipment in. The thing is

that the money goes back into the communities. It goes back into expansion. It

goes into hiring. It goes into creating jobs.

There are

many businesses in my riding — Barry's On Location Fabric Care in Prince

Rupert, Bella Coola Valley Seafoods, Bella Coola hotels, Hagensborg hotels in

the Bella Coola valley. They could benefit from this. This is good news. I have

not spoken to these companies. I have no idea what their revenue is today, but I

know, after being in small business for many, many years, that when you have

more profit at the end of the day, you have more money to spend.

It gets

spent, and for the most

part it gets spent in those communities in which it's

generated. Small businesses in this province are the biggest employers. They

create the greatest number of jobs, and I'm proud to say that my government in

this budget recognizes that fact.

I think the

second-most important issue that came up in the budget is a solid commitment to

a three-year plan to protect funding for health care and education. True to our

commitment during the election campaign, we're putting patients and students

first. The 2002 budget increases funding for the Ministry of Health Services

from $9.5 billion to $10.2 billion — an increase of $700 million that is going

into health care, an increase of over 7 percent.

[1625]

This is

good news for the people in my riding. This is good news for the patients. This

is good news for those dedicated health care providers that work in the

hospitals across my riding. What a positive change for the province. Instead of

half a billion dollars going into fast ferries, we're going to put

three-quarters of a billion dollars into health care.

People

throughout my riding once again know that there is a plan for health care that

includes hospitals in Bella Coola, Queen Charlotte City, Masset, Prince Rupert

and Stewart, and that the plan also includes nursing stations and nursing

facilities in some of the smaller communities like Waglisla, Kitasoo, the

Gitga'at, Lax Kw'alaams and many of those small first nations communities. This

is great news, especially when we consider the state of health care across our

country. We now have a long-term plan that puts patients first.

The other

point was our plan to put students first. Education is the cornerstone of

civilization. Education is the foundation upon which society builds and is

developed over the years. Education is a priority of my government. In this

budget we guaranteed $4.86 billion to the Ministry of Education and $1.9 billion

to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

It always

fascinates me when I listen to the members opposite. They stand there, and they

sit there, and they bring in this fearmongering. They tell us that students

across British Columbia will not be able to afford education. There are

provisions in the budget so that students are assisted with the cost of

education. Both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education

have spent time travelling around this province talking to students,

administrators and parents, and trying to understand what it is that students

really need.

We had a

freeze on tuition at one time. We supported that, but we also made it very clear

that we would look at that freeze and talk to students and administrators, and

we would travel this province and try to understand where we should be going

with tuitions. The minister consulted extensively with many people in the

province, and as a result she began to understand the hidden costs of tuition

freeze.

Some of the

concerns expressed by students regarding hidden costs were that educators and

administrators were unable to fund courses and that students were losing access

to courses. The availability of courses was disappearing, and the wait-lists

were increasing. Degree-completion time was being extended. Students were

telling us that what used to be four years to complete a degree was five and

sometimes six years. If we take a look at the costs of that extra one or two

years — costs in administration; costs in not being able to work, lost wages;

costs in the extra course times; costs in accommodations — all that adds up.

All that adds up to a huge extra cost. Maybe an increase in some tuition could

shorten the number of years and offset those costs. My government listened to

students, instructors and administrators across this province and took the

action they requested.

[1630]

Students

are a priority of my government. The opposition wants the public to believe that

lifting the freeze on tuition will be the demise of post-secondary education. I

say they're wrong; they're very wrong.

[ Page 1355 ]

This budget is also a major step forward. It's our commitment to balance the

province's books while we maximize the province's opportunity for new growth and

increase in private sector investments. This commitment is at a time when

revenues lag, spending pressures climb and the world economy continues to

change.

government has stuck with its plan to take full responsibility for people's tax

dollars. Those dollars must be managed wisely. They must be spent wisely. It's

not an easy job; it's a very difficult job, but it's a job that my government's

committed to and that my colleagues are committed to.

Mr.

Speaker, the 2002 budget is a reality check. It will, as we move forward, help

to put this province back to the have-province status that we once enjoyed. At

one time this province was looked upon as a leader in Canada, a pla