British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, February 27, 2002

H0227pm-14

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 3, Number 14 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Committee Clerk................................................................................................................ ......................................................... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 1335 Hon. G. Campbell J.

Kwan Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 1335 Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling) .............................................................................................. ............................................ 1336 Introduction and First Reading of Bills Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5)............................................................. .............................. 1336 Hon. R.

Neufeld Statements (Standing Order 25B) Provincial congress ............................................................................................................ ..................................................................... 1337 J. Nuraney Royal Canadian Legion charitable work.......................................................................................... .................................................... 1337 S.

Orr Hockey coaching in Cranbrook................................................................................................... .......................................................... 1337 B. Bennett Oral Questions U.S. softwood lumber negotiations and raw log exports.......................................................................... ......................................... 1337 J. Kwan Hon. M. de Jong U.S. softwood lumber agreement and exemption for cedar .............................................................................................................. 1338 J. MacPhail Hon.

M. de Jong U.S. softwood lumber duty and provincial bond assistance ............................................................................................................. 1339 R. Visser Hon. M. de Jong School district funding announcements.......................................................................................... ..................................................... 1339 K. Krueger Hon. C.

Clark Motions without Notice......................................................................................................... .................................................. 1340 Education Committee reporting requirements. Hon. G. Collins Budget Debate (continued) I. Chong....................................................................................................................... ............................................................................. 1340 J.

Kwan ........................................................................................................................ ............................................................................. 1343 Hon. K. Falcon................................................................................................................. ........................................................................ 1347 Hon. C.

Clark.................................................................................................................. ......................................................................... 1350 B. Belsey ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................................. 1353 R.

Hawes ....................................................................................................................... ........................................................................... 1355 D. Jarvis...................................................................................................................... .............................................................................. 1359 M.

Hunter...................................................................................................................... ........................................................................... 1362 S. Brice ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................................... 1365

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 Brit- ish 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 Pleas- ant 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 — i s t h a t i t ' s p o s s i b l e t o b e p a s - sionate 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 Van- couver 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 politi- cal 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 send- ing 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 some- one who will be missed.

He was someone who helped shape the largest city in the province of British Colum- bia. 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 f a m i l y . I d i d n ' t h a v e t h e p l e a s u r e o f s e r v i n g o n c i t y 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, sen- ior 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 cham- bers, the B.C. Legislature and other places — the voice of the underprivileged — i s a l w a y s r e p r e s e n t e d 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 in- troduce four guests of mine who are here today.

In the gallery is Mohammed Iqbal Cheema. He is my con- stituency 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] R. 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 May- nard, 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

1336 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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. P. 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 Bur- n a b y t o a l s o c e l e b r a t e t h e f e s t i v a l o f E i d . W o u l d t h e 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 Sin- clair. 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 Legisla- ture.

They heard about parliamentary procedure and some B.C. history. I hope everyone in the House will join me in welcoming the students today. B. Suffredine: I have the pleasure today to intro- duce 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 wel- c o m e t o M r . M e h m o o d A w a n , w h o ' s j o i n e d u s i n t h e 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, fol- lowing question period, the hon. member for Vancou- ver–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 sen- tence in paragraph 2 of the sessional order, which reads as follows: "The member from whose constitu- ency the question comes will have first refusal to put such question to the appropriate minister." The ses- sional 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 ques- tion, 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 ques- tion 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 Van- couver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002. [1415] Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 5, intituled Van- couver 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 Vancou- ver 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 ac- quire 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 agree- ments 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 min- ister 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.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1337 Statements (Standing Order 25B) PROVINCIAL CONGRESS J. Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to record a milestone in the history of our province and yet an- other new-era commitment fulfilled. Yesterday our Premier held the very first provincial congress, bring- ing 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 depo- liticizing the process where, through common grounds, we can find solutions to our economic and social chal- lenges 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: T h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o v i n c e w e h a v e 1 6 1 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 will- ing 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 mem- bers. 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 or- ganization 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 B. 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 Ca- nadians.

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 them- selves, 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 ris- ing 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 Min- ister of Forests has that commitment from the opposi- tion.

The Minister of Forests also needs to stand behind t h e p r o m i s e t h a t h e ' s m a d e t o f o r e s t w o r k e r s . I n D e - cember 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 ex- ports 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 min- ister 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 eco- nomic problems at the moment.

I should say, in answering the member's ques- tion, 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

1338 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 mechanism for adopting a very specific strategy…. T h e y s i g n e d e c o n o m i c p l a n s , s o m e o f w h i c h a p - proved the export of raw logs — up to 50 percent of the harvest.

W e s a i d t h a t f o r a n a r e a o f t h e p r o v i n c e w h e r e 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 qual- ity 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 de- fend 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 ad- vice — a whole range of advice. The fact of the matter is that the previous government never acted on that a d v i c e .

T h i s m i n i s t e r h a s s a i d t h a t h e w o u l d n e v e r , never allow for 35 percent of export logs. Getting ac- cess to the B.C. raw logs is a key demand of the Ameri- cans in the softwood dispute. Again to the Minister of Forests: by allowing this exemption, after stating categorically that raw log ex- ports 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 eco- nomic 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 un- employment." This government is for negotiating a free trade agreement with the Americans and, in the proc- ess, defending the interests of British Columbians who'd like to get to work. U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT AND EXEMPTION FOR CEDAR J.

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 gov- ernments didn't act on issues that were presented to them makes them as complicit as he is.

Somehow the f a c t t h a t h e r o s e u p a n d s a i d , " E x p o r t s a r e n ' t o n t h e 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. J. MacPhail: I am taking as long as the minister is taking, Mr. Speaker. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. J. MacPhail: I h a v e s o m e l e t t e r s h e r e f r o m U . S . companies requesting that western red cedar be ex- empted, 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 ex- emption 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 — 2 1 d a y s u n t i l t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m - merce has a couple of options, one of which is to turn

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 dam- age, 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. J. 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 mat- ter 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 opera- tors 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 un- derstands this, but let me remind her of the circum- stance that exists.

She has said to the Americans: "Ex- empt cedar." The Minister of Forests has said to the Americans: "Exempt cedar." The Premier has said: "Ex- empt cedar." Actually, the government of Canada has said: "Exempt cedar." Indefensibly, 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 thou- sands 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 R.

Visser: I ' d l i k e t o a s k a q u e s t i o n o n b e h a l f o f 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 lum- ber. Therefore, my question is: will the provincial gov- ernment 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 sta- bility 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 prelimi- nary order becomes a final order, and then it's not bonding.

Then Canadian and British Columbia compa- nies 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 operat- ing. They said to the Americans with one voice: "If you value your relationship with Canada and British Co- lumbia, be reasonable. Come to the table. Work with us, and let's get an agreement." SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS K. Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Educa- tion.

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 fre- quently 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

1340 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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 an- nounced the block funding that would be available, and in addition to that, we recognized that school districts n e e d t o h a v e a n o p p o rt u n i t y t o g o o u t a n d c o n s u l t w i t h 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 superinten- dent 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 sur- veys 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 notwithstand- ing the motion approved on February 13, 2002, regarding the Select Standing Committee on Education, the commit- tee 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] I. 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 his- tory 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. In 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 frame- work with which to proceed. It has goals, objectives, key measures and strategies for the various ministries to fol- low 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 al- ways able — we were rarely able — to hold the govern- ment 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 Columbi- ans well. I know the opposition is going to go through and cri- tique 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 be- cause they never told us when they were going to intro- duce a budget, their underlying assumptions were rarely reliable, and generally speaking, they had no plan to re- store the economy — much different than what we have.

I also want to mention that I acknowledge the com- ments made by the opposition members about the fact that they don't like us to remind them of their megapro- jects — 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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 ta- bled 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 mov- ing 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 Stand- ing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and we did hear a lot from the communities — the ru- ral communities in particular. We heard that rural communities were affected in a different way than ur- ban 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 soci- ety's most vulnerable.

When I asked the Minister of Finance at one of our original meetings back in September whether the re- port 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 gov- ernment 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 assump- tions. Oftentimes, you did wonder about their fore- casts.

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 conse- q u e n c e s . T h a t ' s w h a t t h e p r e v i o u s g o v e r n m e n t w a s n ' 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 pre- pared 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 docu- ments, 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 conse- quences, 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 reli- able." 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 r e l e a s e .

E a c h a n d e v e r y y e a r w e u s e d t o g e t u p i n 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 weak- ened 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

1342 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 didn't quote the very, very first line: "The tough meas- ures 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. In 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 ur- gency." 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 ur- gency 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. W e h a d t o m o v e a h e a d . T h a t i s w h y I t h i n k p e o p l e have a sense of urgency. T o b e b a l a n c e d w i t h t h i s n e w s r e l e a s e , t h e C G A Association did say that they felt the small tax hike in the PST, the provincial sales tax, sends a strong mes- sage.

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 mate- rial 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 sur- prise to me.

But I'm also mindful of the fact that people have said — a n d w e d o l i s t e n t o t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e 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 re- view 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 educa- tion system and a good health care system and that they have difficulties in retaining their health care pro- fessionals, 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. I.

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 mem- bers 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 w e r e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e a l o o k a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' 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 govern- ment books. I'm not saying that isn't an appropriate thing to do, because you do have to be a little bit cyni- cal 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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 struc- tural spending deficit. It's when government after gov- ernment 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 de- velop 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 sec- ond or even a third time — as each minister went through their ministries, and really challenged them- selves 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 pro- vided 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 gov- ernment 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 pro- vided 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 or- ganizations 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 appreci- ate 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. I. 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 fund- raised, that built community care beds and that were under the threat of being… Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. I. Chong: … e x p r o p r i a t e d . I h a d o n e i n m y v e r y own riding: the Queen Alexandra Centre. This gov- ernment wanted to take it. I fought to have that be re- tained. That is why last session we had the Minister of Health Services introduce a bill that finally gave assur- ance 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 man- date, 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 w i t h p a r e n t a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l – r a i s e d f u n d s . T h a t i s 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 wonder- ful budget. I just want to say on the record that I sup- port 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 w h o r o s e u p a n d s a i d t h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t s u p p o r t s volunteers. You know what? This government can- celled the Ministry of Community Development, Co- operatives and Volunteers. You know what? That min- istry was established to provide support, to build ca- pacity 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.

1344 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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 is- sues. 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 re- cord.

To put it in context, this came from a large meet- ing that was held at Langara College. A variety of peo- ple 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 Brit- ish 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 de- cent education, the loss of any child support or de- creased child care assistance and the loss of any earn- ing 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 govern- ment 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 g o v e r n m e n t h a v e a s t r u c t u r a l d e f i c i t w h e n i t i s t h e government that controls both revenues and expendi- tures?" 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 par- ticipated, 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 Lan- gara College by a variety of people who attended, who asked these questions.

I wonder if any of the govern- ment members asked the executive council, asked the Premier, asked the Minister of Finance, asked the Dep- uty 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 wel- fare benefits equals increased crime. How will your government deal with this?

Reducing income assis- tance equals loss in pride, self-esteem, self-worth, hope, and increases the rich-poor gap. How will the govern- ment 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 spe- cial 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 pro- grams and the budget that was introduced with a pov- erty 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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1345 exactly equal. A single woman and a single man have exactly the same opportunities with the same educa- tion." 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 s a y s t h a t ' s a c h o i c e t h e y h a v e m a d e . T h e y c h o o s e t o earn less money. Well, is it any wonder that for this budget, women's issues are not highlighted by the gov- ernment 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 in- come, 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 in- sisted that his planned tax cuts would pay for them- selves.

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 defi- cit or drastically cut services to make up for the reve- nue lost to tax cuts. They advised the Premier to pro- ceed 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 bene- fited 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 Brit- ish 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 prom- ise 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 mo- ment 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 commu- nity 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 priori- ties 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

1346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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 be- lieved.

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 al- ways 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 elimina- tion 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 Co- lumbia, 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 pro- tection 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 Co- lumbia 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 col- league'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 di- rect services to assist them to stay in school. It's coun- selling 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 partici- pate in the school system, which the Minister of Educa- tion claims she values so very much. What is she doing to ensure that the inner-city school parents have oppor- tunities 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 chil- dren who are most vulnerable are the children living in the inner city who live in poverty and who face multi- ple 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 marginal- ized? T h e M i n i s t e r o f E d u c a t i o n t h i n k s i t ' s f u n n y , a n d she's chuckling to herself and smiling broadly. I invite her to my riding to meet with the parents and the chil- dren who have the hopes and dreams that every mem- ber in this House has for themselves and for their chil- dren. 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 hu- man 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 em- ployment program and the Job Start program that are

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 sup- posed to enable access. What of the families who are middle-income and low-income, who don't have a bot- tomless 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 stu- dents: disbanding the Industry Training and Appren- ticeship 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.; eliminat- ing even the audio books programs for the blind; cut- ting multicultural language programs; bridging em- ployability programs; and Bladerunners. Bladerunners was the program designed to help youth at risk, street-involved youth, to gain employ- ment 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 b i d , y e t w h a t i s t h i s g o v e r n m e n t d o i n g t o a s s i s t a m a - teur 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 peo- ple 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: re- ducing 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 gov- ernment 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 direc- tion, 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 hav- ing 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 recog- nize.

They forget to talk about the almost 60,000 mostly young people that had to leave this province over the l a s t d e c a d e t o l o o k f o r o p p o r t u n i t y . T h e y h a d t o l o o k 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 e x t e r n a l c h a l l e n g e s t h a t w e f a c e i n t h i s p r o v i n c e . T h e 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.

1348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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 recog- nize 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 un- ions — certainly didn't serve the public interest. That's why we've made a decision that we need to start serv- ing the public interest in British Columbia. I have abso- lutely 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 dec- ade.

Whether it was Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba or even Saskatchewan, they've dealt with the respective finan- cial 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 chal- lenges in the early 1990s.

Many of those other prov- inces made the difficult decisions to rein in spending and control expenditures and try and create a founda- tion 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 de- cisions 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 founda- tion of the Alberta economy was going to collapse un- der the weight of the poor decision that Premier Klein was making — same thing in Ontario. Y o u k n o w w h a t w e f o u n d ? W h a t I n o t i c e d i n A l - berta was that over the years, as they made those diffi- cult decisions, the response of private sector invest- ment was incredible. Capital started to flow in.

Capital and investment rewarded the government for control- ling 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 fi- nancial 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 Colum- bia. Over the last decade in British Columbia we con- tinued — 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, con- tinued 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 ex- travagant public sector union agreements that certainly benefited special interests over the public interest; a decade that saw this great province go from the num- ber one economy in the country, back in 1991, to virtu- ally 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 Cor- poration 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 govern- ment. This was the reality and the landscape we faced as a new government coming in, after a decade of finan- cial irresponsibility that was unparalleled in this coun- try. We had some challenging choices to make in Brit- ish 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 cer- tainly could have said yes most recently with the teachers when they asked for a 34 percent wage in- crease. 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 provin- cial taxpayers. We could have done all that.

That was an option. [1545] But let's be clear about where continuing along that p a t h w o u l d h a v e l e f t u s a s a p r o v i n c e . I t w o u l d h a v e jammed down the accelerator of decline that has char- acterized 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 tax- payers 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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 spend- ing that we're currently doing effective? Are we achiev- ing 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 necessar- ily in how much money we're spending.

It's how we're s p e n d i n g t h a t m o n e y , a n d i t ' s w h a t k i n d o f r e s u l t s 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 spend- ing 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 chal- lenges 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 Mem- bers 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 legisla- tive caucus budget by 25 percent. Again, we're demon- strating 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, drop- ping the personal tax rate by 25 percent across the board. I'm proud of the fact that the greatest percent- age 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 get- ting 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 im- portant 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 educa- tion. 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

1350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002 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 govern- ment 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 Colum- bia, that directly helps those hard-working union members out there who ought to benefit and will bene- fit 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 ex- ceeding our revenue in our household by several thou- sand 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 responsi- bilities 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 gov- ernment 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 gov- ernment.

The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia we have, in almost all cases, the most generous social pro- grams 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 prov- ince 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 seri- ous about protecting health care and education — in- deed, if we're serious about protecting all of our impor- tant government programs — t h e n w e h a v e t o r e c o g - nize 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 govern- ment so we can fund first-class health care and educa- tion 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 deci- sions we make impact real folks out there, but I am p r o u d o f t h e f a c t t h a t w e a s a g o v e r n m e n t h a v e t h e 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

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0227pm-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0227pm 14
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fc7f2692ca0378b0339d3797e5f8627a00ae1c36

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).