Hansard -- Thursday, February 20, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 11, No. 10 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		4911

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		4911

Budget Debate (continued)		4912
	P. Nettleton E. Brenzinger J. Les B. Belsey R. Nijjar

R. Visser: I'd like to take this opportunity to make mention of an exchange that's going on. In Campbell River this weekend there is a large basketball tournament at Carihi. Unfortunately, that's my rival high school; I went to a different one. More unfortunately, they have a long-storied history of basketball success — unlike our school, which didn't. However, their coach was a teammate of mine.

Anyway, I want that tournament to be successful. Good luck to the schools from Campbell River in that tournament. More importantly, the junior team is travelling to Victoria for a large tournament here. I know this because Alex Izard is coming, and he happens to be the nephew of our Clerk. I think he's staying with the Clerk for a bit during the tournament. He wanted to make sure that this House wished the Campbell River team luck and welcomed them to Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on Thursday, May 30, 2002, the Leader of the Opposition rose to present a matter of privilege relating to an alleged disclosure of the contents of a report of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process by the Chair of that committee. I thank the hon. member for her succinct presentation — and the Government House Leader's contribution of Thursday, February 13, 2003, on this question.

In her submission, the Leader of the Opposition stated that the article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 28, 2002, violated her privileges as a member of the House. The article in question noted the Chair of the committee in relation to committee proceedings. For his part, the Government House Leader argued that when the Chair spoke to the media, the committee had not yet considered its report, that there was no report on May 27, and therefore the member could not possibly have released details of a report that simply did not exist.

I will now carefully outline the facts and chronology of events because of their pertinence to this decision. After several meetings to review the complaint process, the committee held a meeting of significance on Monday, May 27, 2002. The first part of the meeting was in camera. The committee then met in public forum. In the public segment of this meeting, the Chair made a statement that the police complaint commissioner had tendered his resignation to the Speaker, effective that very day.

The Chair, continuing in public forum, further explained the details of the terms and conditions respecting the resignation. An examination of the committee's minutes of proceedings and the Hansard report of May 27, 2002, clearly confirms that the terms and conditions of the resignation were in fact discussed in the public portion of that meeting. Upon adjournment of the committee, the Chair then proceeded to share exactly the same information with the media outside the committee room. These facts specifically — the resignation and its terms and conditions — were then reported in the May 28 Vancouver Sun article submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.

On May 30, 2002, the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process presented its report to the House, a report that contained no additional information other than that which had been made public at the committee meeting earlier in the week. Again, the report strictly addressed the resignation and its terms and conditions.

I have carefully examined the material presented by the Leader of the Opposition in her submission, which included the committee's report to the House. A report to the House by extension is composed of and is complemented by the corresponding minutes of proceedings and the Hansard report of all the committee meetings. It appears to me that the information which the Chair disclosed to the media was not information relating to decisions and recommendations arising out of in-camera proceedings. The Chair's information to the media related to matters, and only matters, that had been made public by the Chair when the committee was meeting in public forum. This was all in the public domain well before the committee tabled its report to the House on May 30.

On the facts, I cannot find that there was a premature publication of confidential or in-camera committee material. On the question before the House today, I must rule that the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not constitute a prima facie matter of privilege. The Chair notes that the premature disclosure of the contents of a report to the House before tabling in the House is a potential breach of privileges of this House and its members, a situation that the Chair considers extremely serious.

Erskine May's nineteenth edition at page 146 states: "By the ancient custom of Parliament, no act done by any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House. Where the public are admitted, this rule is usually not enforced." In this instance, the committee had made a public statement on the matter at its public meeting, and the statement was not a committee proceeding conducted with closed doors — again Erskine May, page 146.

I would, nevertheless, remind the House that when a committee is mandated to undertake a certain task, the committee usually presents a report to the House at the conclusion of its work. Committee re-

ports should be presented to the House before public release. The practice of discussing the contents of reports to the House in public session should be discouraged, as the committee has a duty to report its findings first and foremost to the House. Thank you for your attention.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate the comments, I would like to discuss some other matters with you arising from this at a later date.

P. Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, thanks for this opportunity to respond to the budget. I'm glad, on a personal level, to see that the government has finally decided to loosen the purse strings, for whatever reason. I hope that the measures announced in Tuesday's budget are not misdirected into feel-good schemes that are designed to benefit the usual recipients of pork-barrel disbursements. Instead, I hope that those measures will indeed go towards services for individuals affected by the cuts.

As well, over the coming weeks I intend to closely monitor whether the government lives up to the spirit of these announcements and puts these funds where the greatest human need is. The proof of all of this, of course, will be somewhere in the pudding. It's a time-will-tell kind of thing, a wait-and-see scenario.

I mean that if a heart, indeed, has been located, it will take effort and it will take persistence from people like me and others to keep that heart beating. It will take further effort and persistence to make sure, as well, that the beating heart pumps blood to all parts of the province. For example, the heartlands economic strategy must, and should, include more than just the interior and the Okanagan. It must be about more than economic concerns, but about social concerns as well. It's a head-and-heart kind of thing, balancing fiscal prudence with social responsibility. Perhaps W.A.C. Bennett saw it best. He saw the role of government to conserve its resources wisely so that it could, in turn, play more of a role in helping those that need the help. His words sound like sage advice to me, and I will be working towards seeing that this, indeed, is heeded.

Those are my comments with respect to a response to this budget. I look forward to hearing from other members as they respond to this budget. Thank you, again, for this opportunity.

E. Brenzinger: It gives me great pleasure to stand up in this House today and respond to the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance, Hon. Gary Collins.

What I find most encouraging is that the 2003-04 budget shows that our plan is working. Certainly, we have had to make some tough choices and will continue to have to make them. However, now we can see the light at the end of the tunnel of red ink. It is exciting to realize the benefits of fiscal discipline and see that there is, in fact, a surplus projected for the 2004-05 budget.

Most alarming, in my opinion, is that after health and education, we spend the most money on servicing the debt. This is why it is crucial that we work to balance the budget and start to pay down the debt. The lower the debt, the less money we spend on interest, which means that we will have more choices about how we spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

We also know that it is necessary to have a strong, vibrant, thriving economy to provide the revenue to government for services such as health care and education. We now have the lowest base rate in Canada of personal income taxes on the first $60,000, and we are starting to see positive effects when you leave more money in the pockets of British Columbians.

In 2002, 78,000 new jobs were created in B.C. Housing starts and mineral exploration are up 25 percent. Consumer and wholesale sales are up as well. In 2002-03 our economy grew by nearly 2 percent, almost three times the rate projected by the Economic Forecast Council a year ago. As the economy grows, we are able to provide increasing funding for the services that are vital to British Columbians and to my constituents of Surrey-Whalley. Over the next three years we will increase the Ministry of Education budget by $143 million and direct $1.3 billion in expected three-year funding to health care needs.

We know that an efficient, integrated transportation system is essential in building a prosperous economy. We certainly know that to open up B.C., we must provide safe roads and efficient borders. This is why we have committed to invest $650 million in transportation infrastructure. In fact, transportation is a key aspect of our heartlands strategy.

Now, some of my constituents may ask me why we need to focus on the heartlands. Our rural communities are a vital contribution to the British Columbia economy. The new B.C. heartlands economic strategy will open up new opportunities for economic growth throughout our entire province, including Surrey-Whalley, but there is more that needs to be done. The completion of the South Fraser perimeter road will have a significant impact on the development of Surrey city central and the surrounding industrial areas. The addition of a third crossing on the Fraser River, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, the widening of Highway 10 and eliminating the bottlenecks at our borders will all go a long way to improving the total goods and services infrastructure and will, in turn, increase the economic advantages not just for Surrey but for the province as a whole.

Another key aspect of our plan is strong fiscal management. This may not sound too exciting to many of

my constituents, but good fiscal management often means that we are able to provide extra funding to essential programs. Because debt-servicing costs in 2002-03 are almost $200 million lower than anticipated, we are able to immediately redirect $112 million to students, children in need and patients. In other words, good fiscal management is about much more than numbers. It's about having choices and flexibility to deliver quality services to the people of British Columbia without mortgaging our children's future.

What makes me especially proud is that we are able to invest additional dollars in priority services for families, communities and people in need. Budget 2003 will increase the number of child care spaces eligible for subsidy assistance by 50 percent in the coming year. We also have committed to one-time funding of $10 million to establish an early childhood partnership fund with the United Way and Credit Union Central of British Columbia.

In the Premier's address to the province and again in the Finance minister's budget speech yesterday, it was announced that the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to offer evidence-based services aimed at helping children in need succeed in the classroom. We are talking about school-based programs like hot meals, counsellors and early academic intervention. I know that Holly and Hjorth Road elementary schools in my constituency will be extremely pleased. Here's what the program director of their community program had to say: "At a time when so many programs are struggling or failing, the community school is a shining example of success. While the obvious benefit of this program is increasing the utilization of schools, the benefits are more far-reaching."

As a catalyst for cooperation between schools, community partners, local businesses and the families in the community, the community school program has a tremendous effect, drawing additional support from the residential and business communities into our schools and integrating our schools with the community. I've been to this school quite a few times, and I'm very proud to say that this is a perfect example of communities working together with the schools and providing many extra programs for children after school and through the summer.

It's wonderful to hear that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has evidence to back the anecdotal stories like this one and, more importantly, that the Finance minister has listened and included funding in this budget. It will help ensure that children in my riding are able to get the kind of services they need in order to excel. We have also committed up to $11 million a year in funding for intervention for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder.

We have already raised the monthly income exemption for people with disabilities from $200 to $300. Effectively July 1, the exemption will rise another $100 to $400 per month — double what it was when we took office in 2001. Since last year the number of people on income assistance has dropped by 55,000 people. More British Columbia income-assisted clients are successfully leaving assistance for work, educational opportunities or a change in financial status. It is necessary that we provide the tools for the people to realize their full potential. This budget commits $110 million to employment programs for people in need.

This is just the start. The Ministry of Children and Family Development's budget will increase by $23 million in 2005-06, and the Ministry of Human Resources' budget will also rise in 2005-06 by $45 million. This just underlines why it is necessary that we stick to our commitment to get our fiscal house in order and revitalize our economy. The proof is in the pudding. If we balance our budget, lower our debt and increase revenues through a growing economy, we will be able to provide more in the way of services for my constituents and all British Columbians.

Education is certainly one of those services that are very important to my constituents. As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Education, I travelled around the province and heard how important education is to all British Columbians. This budget recognizes the importance of a high-quality education system and how it shapes the lives of our young people.

Today our total per-pupil funding amounts to $6,455 for each and every student in kindergarten to grade 12. The Leader of the Opposition says, in her response to the throne speech, that our education system is in serious decline. I think that is just another example of how the opposition likes to fearmonger instead of talk about the facts.

The facts are that we have maintained education funding even though there is declining enrolment around British Columbia. Last year we granted $42 million in new money to school districts. This year we've granted $50 million in new money for school districts. We will be committing a further $100 million to our education system over three years.

We have introduced a new, simplified funding formula to give school districts flexibility to allocate funding to meet the needs of their students. We have given school boards multi-year funding envelopes to improve long-term education planning and budgeting. New accountability contracts have been established, and school planning councils are responsible for developing an annual plan for each school, including goals and outcomes for improvement.

The February 2002 budget provided PST refunds on purchases by parent advisory councils. The School Amendment Act was passed in August 2001 to guarantee that parents of students attending schools are entitled to volunteer their services, providing it does not result in the displacement of existing staff services.

Each and every one of those initiatives makes our education stronger and better for our students. We aren't done yet. Students are top priority for this government, and we will continue to work to make our education system the best possible for our children.

I would like to take a moment to talk about health care. Our health care system is something each and every British Columbian depends on, whether it is a

senior in the heartlands or a baby being born in Surrey. We are all touched and affected in some way by health care. That is why it makes me proud to be part of this government, a government that says health care is one of its top priorities and takes action to ensure that patients receive the care when they need it and where they live.

All too often in the past, announcements were made and money was committed with no plan on how it was to help the patient. With this government, that has stopped. We are committed to putting patients first and focusing resources on patient care. It is not easy. There is no doubt our health care system was in crisis when we took office in 2001. It will take time, but we are making progress. We are starting to see real improvements. We are making changes in health care, improving the system and embarking on a wide-range plan of renewal to better manage resources, increase efficiency and ensure that every health care dollar goes to meet the patients' needs.

This government has increased health care funding by $1.1 billion, but that is only one piece of the puzzle. We reduced the health authorities from 52 to six so that the money went to the patients and not administration. We have also established provincewide standards, and each health authority is preparing a three-year service plan and performance reports. It is essential to have a clear plan that sets out the path we must take and ensure that with each and every decision made, the focus is on patients.

When we took office, there was a nursing and doctor shortage. Nurses and doctors were leaving. They were burning out, and as a result, services were being limited. We took action. In August 2001 we introduced a nursing strategy. Thus far, it has brought more than 400 nurses back to work, provided 315 nurses with specialty training in critical and emergency care, and helped nurses on workers compensation and long-term disability return to work.

We have increased funding by 50 percent to $1.25 million for locum support to relieve pressure and reduce workloads, to enhance health care professionals' quality of life. We are funding over 1,400 new college and university spaces for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and care aides over three years. By 2005, we'll also have funded 224 first-year medical school spaces to nearly double the number of doctors graduating every year by 2009.

We are taking action. As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, we reject the path of inaction. We choose the path of courage, determination and hard work, and we are going to get this job done. Budget 2003 makes me proud. It is a good budget. It is good for the constituents of Surrey-Whalley. It is good for all British Columbians. We set out a clear path, and this budget shows that we are on the right track. We will balance the budget in 2004-05. We will build a bright future for all British Columbians, one full of hope and prosperity.

These are exciting times, made even more so by the prospect of hosting the 2010 Olympic Games. We all know that the games would be good for B.C.'s economy, creating jobs and attracting visitors from all over the world, but hosting the Olympics is about much more than the dollars and cents. It's about the creating of excitement and hope in our young people.

I recently had the pleasure of presenting $7,500 in seed funding to the speed skating association of B.C. to start two new clubs, one of which is planned for Surrey. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about a young constituent of mine. His name is Brendan, and he is ten years old. He is a speed skater. Recently, this is what Brendan told me: "I have been speed skating for one and a half years. I enjoy the sport because it is fast and fun. I would love to go to the Olympics in 2010." Brendan knows that he will have to work hard, training up to five times a week as he progresses in his sport, but he is inspired to train hard to be able to represent this nation at home with all his family and friends watching him race.

What a great thing for our young people to be inspired by the excitement of the Olympics and working to be the best in the world. The value of a dream is immeasurable. Hosting the Olympics will bring that not just to our young people but to each and every British Columbian. It's a chance to show the world what a jewel this great province is. For too long we have toiled in the shadows. It is truly our time to shine. It gives me great pleasure to support this budget. It is a blueprint to lead our province forward with confidence to a brighter future.

J. Les: It's a real pleasure for me today to be able to take my place in this budget debate and to offer some of my perspective on the budget that was presented by the Minister of Finance just two days ago. It was clear to me, as we listened to the budget the other day, that we are very much staying the course in British Columbia. We're back on track. We are, in fact, fulfilling the commitments we laid out to British Columbians in the 2001 election. There is no course correction being outlined in the budget, as some commentators have indicated. There is no loosening of the purse strings. We are doing exactly what we said we were going to do. This is a budget that is full of predictability. This is a budget that is full of stability. This is a budget that tells everyone that British Columbia is going to be an economic outperformer as opposed to the economic underperformer it has been for far too long.

Clearly, a new era has dawned in British Columbia, a new economic era where we're going to provide good, long-term, sustainable jobs for British Columbians that will support important social programs in so doing. It hasn't been easy to get to this point, as everyone in this House will know. We inherited a horrendous financial situation just less than two years ago. The finances of this province were absolutely in chaos. As the Finance minister used to say some months ago, there were more bad days than there were good days.

More recently he has come to encounter more good days than bad days, and I think that bodes well for British Columbians. In fact, if you look at our commitments and if you look at the predictions that are in place in the budget as I stand here today, we are exactly 363 days away from having a balanced budget in British Columbia.

That predictability and stability is important for British Columbians and those who would invest in our economy. The lack of stability that was evident throughout the nineties in British Columbia cost us a tremendous amount of investment, cost us a tremendous amount of jobs and caused a lot of people to move away from our province. That tide has been reversed and is flowing back into British Columbia very strongly.

The agencies that supply important social and government services have also benefited very strongly from the course we have charted as a government in British Columbia. Health authorities, for example, now know they have a three-year budget within which to work. There is predictability there. They know, next year and the year after, the economic environment within which they have to provide the services to the people in their health authorities. That is extremely important.

I remember under the previous system of hospital boards that we used to have in British Columbia…. I served on a hospital board for seven years. I was personally witness to the shenanigans that used to go on where it used to be July, sometimes August or September before you knew what the budget for a particular hospital was going to be. That was absolutely no way to prudently manage the public's dollars. Now we have a situation where on the third Tuesday in February every year, the provincial government brings forward its budget. That budget contains no surprises because it's part of the rolling three-year budget we supply British Columbians with every year. Everybody knows, generally speaking, what the environment is within which they need to work.

School boards similarly. Prior to our administration they had no idea from one year to the next whether their funding was going to be stable, whether it was going to be cut, whether there were going to be some increases. They had no idea what kind of labour settlements were going to be imposed on them. They were always operating within this huge sort of air of uncertainty that didn't allow them to most prudently manage the taxpayers' dollars either. That, again, has been substantially cleaned up. Throughout this very difficult process of managing through the horrible legacy of debt and deficit we inherited, we have been able to not only protect education funding, but because of the prudent management and the results which flowed from that in terms of saved interest costs, we have been able to provide school boards with additional, unexpected funding both last year and this, which has been very much welcomed by school boards and has enabled them to take the edge off some of the cutbacks where they were required.

We need to remember that although we held the line on the education budget, school enrolments in British Columbia have very significantly declined over the last five or six years. In the current school year, it's my understanding that enrolment has further declined by about 4,500 students. So the per-student funding in our education system in British Columbia is certainly very much on the increase, and I think we need to keep that in mind.

Closing schools, of course, is a necessary part of this process to make the best possible use we can of taxpayers' dollars. That is not something new. In my riding and in my colleague's riding of Chilliwack-Kent, having lived there all of my life, I know that schools have closed from time to time as demographics shifted. One or two of the schools I used to attend when I was in elementary school today are no longer schools in the public system. They closed because the population within the city of Chilliwack shifted.

Just in this last year we had a new school that opened in Greendale, which is at the heart of my constituency. As part of supplying that new elementary school to that community, another elementary school not too far away was consolidated into this brand-new school. I'm proud to say today that Greendale Elementary School is a real gem in the Greendale community. When we were at the open house when the school was officially opened just a few months ago, the community of Greendale was extremely proud of and pleased with the new facility that's available to the children of that community. The fact that Chadsey Elementary was closed and was included within the enrolment of Greendale was nothing but positive, and it was broadly supported by that community.

It seems to me that when we're talking about budgeting, we're talking about what the legacy is we are leaving to British Columbians and, more importantly, to our children and our grandchildren. This has always been one of the motivators for me in public life. We need to be very aware that we're not only dealing with the here and now. We're dealing with what is going to happen in our communities and in our province ten, 20 and 30 years from now, because many of our decisions will in fact have those kinds of long-range impacts.

The legacy we saw left to communities in British Columbia throughout the nineties was one of a rapidly increasing debt, to the point where debt servicing is now the third-largest draw on the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of British Columbia. That is not the kind of legacy that I as a publicly elected official am very proud of.

I can tell you that when I was mayor of the city of Chilliwack, I worked very hard to bring about a circumstance where, when I left office, there was no taxpayer-supported debt — none whatsoever. It was all paid off. It did me a lot of good to be able to tell Chilliwack taxpayers that when they paid their property tax bill in July of every year, every dollar of their tax dollars went to supply public services. Not one cent went

to pay interest on any kind of debt whatsoever. Would that we had that kind of good fortune here in British Columbia. It's going to take some time, but I dream of the day when that can be true for all British Columbians.

What is the NDP's response to all of this, to the predictability and stability that has been built into B.C.'s public affairs? This once-significant political party — which was reduced to stealing from charities, which reeled from scandal to scandal when it was in office in the nineties, which provided us with four different Premiers in six years, which almost literally threw away taxpayers' money on things like fast ferries and Skeena Cellulose, which took a great British Columbia company like Carrier Lumber and abused the stakeholders in that company — what is their response?

I was listening keenly to the comments the other day of the Leader of the Opposition. She was reduced to quoting George Bush Sr. and mumbling something about voodoo economics. Well, I'd like to see her get just a bit more creative. I'm not sure how a member like that actually responds to what is finally some prudent financial management in British Columbia. When, just before the '96 election, for example, they claimed that they had balanced the books of the province of British Columbia, shortly after the election they then announced that they needed some more wriggle room. They constantly were trying to appease special interests and completely lost sight of the public interest in British Columbia.

I'm not sure what they're trying to get across when they talk about voodoo economics. Perhaps they needed some more wriggle room. Perhaps they're actually talking about boo-hoo economics. I'm not sure. The whole thing really didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems that they still want to retail the politics of pessimism and envy. They refuse to believe that average British Columbians indeed have a lot of creativity and entrepreneurship that, if given the chance to flourish, they will display in spades.

It is time that we as British Columbians and we as government allow people in British Columbia to show us how they can be the world's greatest in pretty well any field of endeavour that they wish to engage in. We're seeing some early evidence of a complete revitalization of this province already.

In my own riding of Chilliwack-Sumas, a company by the name of Stream International came to our community about 18 months ago. They today employ over 1,500 people in an international call centre. The other interesting thing that I'm very proud of is that this company has 28 such locations around the world — the ministers of education should take note of this — and of all of these 28 operations around the world, the location in Chilliwack provides the very best service and customer satisfaction of any of those locations. That is a real testimony to our education system in British Columbia.

More recently we had another great announcement in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas. This one took on a bit of a different flavour. As we all know, throughout the nineties foreign investment into British Columbia pretty well dried up all together. After then-Premier Harcourt announced that he was going to bring in the corporate capital tax, investment fled this province, as one could only imagine it would. It was one of the major negative factors in the nineties that dried up new employment and new investment in British Columbia. So it was very heartening to me when, several weeks ago, a Japanese company announced that it was investing $25 million in Chilliwack to build a new flour-milling plant in my riding. This company already has an operation in Armstrong, British Columbia. This is Rogers Foods Ltd. They're going to be building a second mill, a $25 million investment that will provide 30 long-term jobs in my riding.

These are the kinds of news events that hadn't happened in British Columbia for quite a number of years. It is certainly impressive to see that the Japanese are back and that people from Hong Kong are back. Many people from around the world are coming back, and they're investing in our communities again. They're investing in our communities because we got rid of that hated corporate capital tax, which is basically a tax on anything that moves and is a horrible disincentive and a terrific investment killer. We got rid of the machinery and equipment tax. You can imagine, when you're talking about a flour-milling plant, that the machinery and equipment tax, as it existed before 20 months ago, was another investment killer.

We are also — as everyone, I'm sure, is aware — ensuring that we do away with the copious amounts of regulation with which we were blessed in the province of British Columbia. The Minister of State for Deregulation, whose efforts I support 1,000 percent, did a count of all the regulations that governed our lives a year and a half ago. We were told that British Columbians were guided by some 404,000 regulations. I wonder whether people ever stop to think about the enormity of that, the enormity of that burden — 404,000 regulations. I wonder whether there was anything left that we do in our lives that wasn't governed by some kind of regulation.

I am a person that loves freedom. I am a person that loves liberty, and frankly, I want governments to respect that as much as possible. When you have a regime in place that…. This is only one level of government; let's keep this in mind as well. We also have municipal and federal governments that supply their volumes of regulation too. But just the provincial level of government, you know, purporting to regulate our lives with 404,000 regulations…. I found that to be astounding.

It was no wonder that the economy of British Columbia had become so sclerotic that almost nothing could be accomplished and that people were becoming frustrated. They were moving away to Washington State, Alberta, Montana, Ontario and all kinds of other

places where even friends of mine were going, to liberate themselves from this oppressive burden. So I strongly support the efforts of the Minister of State for Deregulation. As the Finance minister pointed out the other day, we are now 39,000 regulations fewer than we were a year and a half ago, and we still have a long way to go. To live up to our commitment, there's something close to 100,000 regulations that will need to be taken off the books before that job is done.

Regulatory burden, as we had it in British Columbia, was something that acted like a smothering, heavy, wet blanket of regulation over this province. As I said, I intend to do everything I can to make sure that the minister can accomplish his task.

What government needs to do before anything else is create the conditions where people and their businesses and their industries and their jobs can thrive in a legal and secure environment. As we've seen around the world where governments do not respect the rights to private property, where governments do not have a legal framework in place that sets out clearly the limits to government powers and the limits to government regulation, it is in those economies where everyone fails. We need to put together a system in British Columbia that allows everyone maximum possible opportunity in a secure, legally protected environment, an environment that brings out the best in all British Columbians.

We talk about the heartlands economic strategy, and I am pleased that we are really focusing on the heartlands of British Columbia. Now, my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas is really neither fish nor fowl in that regard. It is very rural on the one hand. Sometimes I like to refer to it as the milk bucket of British Columbia. On the other hand, the city of Chilliwack — growing rapidly as it is today, around 75,000 population — is a significant urban environment as well. But given that….

J. Les: It's not the foothills, no. It's this side of Hope and all of those good things.

Given the kind of community that it is, it does give me a unique appreciation, I believe, for rural British Columbia as well as urban British Columbia as we straddle those types of communities. As I've travelled around British Columbia over the years — and I think I've said this in the House before — all I ever see is opportunity — opportunity waiting to be tapped, people waiting to be able to tap that opportunity.

As I said a few minutes ago, once we get the unnecessary regulations out of place, once we get — as we have — the punitive taxation regime out of the way, I think you're going to see the heartlands of British Columbia flourish. Already the activity levels in the oil and gas industry are at unprecedented highs.

The mining industry is coming back into British Columbia after having been driven out of this province by the previous socialist government that, frankly, seemed to hate mining for some reason, and I can't put it any other way. We went through this in the early seventies under the first NDP government in British Columbia. Mining left this province. The second NDP government came into power in 1991, and mining fled this province. There was clearly a cause-and-effect relationship there. I think that's been proven twice over in this province. But mining's coming back. Last year mining investment was up by 25 percent in British Columbia. I think it bodes well for the future and gives us some indication that that once-proud industry is going to provide some of the economic fuel for the revitalization of this province.

The tourism industry has enormous potential in British Columbia. It got a huge boost during the 1986 Expo year. That was one occasion when the door was really opened to British Columbia, and the whole world — maybe for the first time — had a real opportunity to look in a significant way at what we have in British Columbia. I think the tourism industry is going to go through another cycle of growth like that, which will be more related, perhaps, to the 2010 Olympic Games. I'll say more about those games in just a few minutes.

I also want to talk for a moment or two about the fish-farming industry. Some people seem to have some difficulty with fish farming. I would point out that fish farming has been a fact of the economic life of British Columbia for some 25 years, and it is a major factor in some of the northern and coastal communities. Now, I do not know all there is to know about fish farming, but I do know that I took a few days last summer and visited some of the fish-farming communities up the coast of Vancouver Island with the member for North Island, because I wanted to see firsthand what these fish farms looked like and what those activities were all about. I talked to some of the people who were employed in that industry. It was a real pleasure to be able to do that, to learn, to see and to gauge what the potential of this industry might be.

I talked to 120 or so people working in a fish processing plant near Port McNeill. These were all good jobs. People were very proud of what they were doing and what they were contributing not only to their families but also to their communities. As I said, I do not know everything there is to know about fish farms, but all those I talked to on those several days that I was up there were people who were concerned about the environment, people who took a lot of pride in the industry in which they are involved and in turning out a good and acceptable product to the marketplace.

Frankly, I think you have to wonder about the agenda of some of those who decry the fish-farming industry — perhaps betrayed to some extent by Lynn Hunter the other day, who is a central figure in the David Suzuki Foundation, and her comments that she enjoyed and had a lot of fun tormenting fish farmers. That is an unbelievable attitude, and I think it shows us a lot more about what some of these people are about. Perhaps it isn't even about environmental concern. Perhaps it has a lot more to do with ideology and just

the simple joy of pestering people than anything else. I think that those kinds of comments are absolutely shameful and have no place in the public debate in British Columbia.

There is much that remains to be done as we clean up the economic affairs of British Columbia, but I think there is much to be hopeful about as we look to the future. One thing that will be required of us, though, is discipline and focus to ensure that we stay the course, that we stay on track, and that we don't become diverted by naysayers and others who share some other kind of economic philosophy or agenda. It is important that we maintain stability and predictability so that British Columbians — business people, people who work in jobs in the forest industry and people who work in the mining industry — will know that their industries will be stabilized and that they can have the confidence to buy houses, for example, and to take out mortgages because they will know that we are laying the groundwork for a stable future in British Columbia.

I mentioned briefly the 2010 Winter Olympics, which I am confident British Columbia will be awarded on July 2 of this year. Although I am long past the point where I could even dream of being an active participant in these games….

J. Les: Perhaps, if that's a new sport, but I haven't been made aware that it is. It is an opportunity that should be exciting to all British Columbians.

As I said earlier, Expo 86 was one of those huge opportunities that British Columbians were really able to capitalize on. It was an enormous success. It was just a joy to be able to invite people from all over the world to come to our beautiful province. Many people had never seen British Columbia before, and they came in 1986. They oohed and they aahed, and they came back and brought their friends and brought their business acquaintances.

J. Les: I do recall that in about 1983, for example, the then-prospective NDP Premier, then mayor of Vancouver, was opposed to Expo 86. He was a naysayer. Later on, after it was all done and its success was proven, he became a believer — 2003, shades of 1983-84. Some of these naysayers, these eternal pessimists, never seem to want to get on board with such an endeavour as this until after the fact to try and reap some of the glory.

British Columbians are all going to be reaping the glory of the 2010 games. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to once again showcase our province. It is another wonderful opportunity for us to invite the world and enjoy what we are able to enjoy here in British Columbia every day.

As many people have pointed out, when the Salt Lake City games were held just a year ago, over two billion people around the world watched the opening ceremonies. Now, can you imagine two billion people? I can't, but it's a lot of people. Two billion people plus will be focusing their eyes on British Columbia in 2010. It is the kind of advertising, the kind of showcasing that no amount of money can buy. It comes simply for the price of us saying yes, we want to host these games.

All of the very best economic projections, even those that have been totally vetted by the auditor general, demonstrate very clearly that this can be done at no significant cost to the taxpayer. What an opportunity. We should grab it with both hands and make the very most of it.

Some people would say the entire province's economic strategy is all built around the 2010 Winter Games — clearly, not so. I think I've illustrated quite a number of things this morning that are going to set the stage for a healthy economy in British Columbia. I look at the 2010 Winter Games as an opportunity to really put the icing on the cake. That is what I think we will do.

J. Les: I know members would like me to carry on. If time would allow, I would love to carry on and hold forth some more about the future prospects of British Columbia, but I am sure I will be given further opportunities as the days and weeks unfold in this session.

For now, all I want to say is this: I think we're on track. We're going to stay the course as a government. I commend the Finance minister for all the hard work he has done to bring us where we are today with some real hope again in the future prospects of British Columbia and British Columbians. Thank you very much.

On Tuesday we had the opportunity to listen to two Finance ministers bring down their governments' budgets — two very important budgets. Both of them affected British Columbians, but only one budget affected our British Columbia. This was the budget and

the financial plan of the Minister of Finance. This budget clearly shows that we are on track for a brighter future. This was our second full budget since being elected, and it clearly focused tax dollars on people who need those dollars the most. It is in keeping with our pledge to all British Columbians to balance the books in '04-05.

I know there are many British Columbians out there that remain skeptical about government budget figures, and rightfully so. What the people of this province were put through with the last government's budget figures is akin to a lottery. A number popped up; it went in. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. Especially in the heartlands, we seem to lose on a regular basis.

They took away access to resources. They drove out resource-based industries, and they crippled our right to make a living and to contribute to the economy of the province of British Columbia. On budget day we heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings use a term, "voodoo economics." She went on to say: "For the first time ever…." What short memories these members opposite have. Lodged in the memories of every British Columbian are the years of NDP fudge-it budgets — budget figures that changed shortly after the budget speech. Voodoo economics, she called it.

Let me share with you a little bit of the history of budgets when the NDP were in power. Before the 1996 election the NDP told British Columbians that the '95-96 and '96-97 budgets were surplus budgets — surpluses of $16 million and $87 million respectively. These budgets each resulted in a deficit of $356 million and $337 million respectively — a net oversight of almost $700 million.

In June 1999 the NDP covered up the truth behind the '96 fabricated budget by shutting down the Public Accounts Committee charged with reviewing the findings of the auditor general's report. Not one member of the NDP, including the two members that sit in this House today, challenged the authenticity of the 1996 budget, even though they were all briefed by the finance officials in September 1995 on the potential billion-dollar deficit in 1996. That was shameful.

In keeping with our new-era commitment to British Columbians, this budget — the budget we brought out this week — meets the requirements of section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Although not required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, material assumptions and sensitivities for the subsequent two years of the fiscal plan are also disclosed — the first time ever that has happened. This new budget and fiscal plan is in keeping with our commitment to restore sound fiscal management, revitalize the economy and put students and the people in need first. It is our commitment to the people of this province to be open and accountable. It is the right budget for the right time, and we are on track for a brighter future.

As a result of prudent spending controls by every ministry and by sticking to our fiscal and economic plan, we have been able to protect more programs, provide additional funding for other programs and still forecast a balanced budget for '04 and '05. Let me share some examples that will be welcomed by the people across my part of British Columbia's heartlands.

In education, $143 million over the next three years will be provided by the Ministry of Education. This, at a time of declining enrolment, means many more dollars spent on a lower number of students. When the NDP were in power, education funding for students was at a level of just under $6,000 per student. Our government today funds students at a level of just over $6,500 per student, an increase in excess of $500 per student since we came to power.

I get e-mails regularly saying we've made cuts to education. I got one today. The e-mail lists all the things that we've done, and you read at the end that they still claim cuts to education. But the most significant thing was that the e-mail came from the B.C. Teachers Federation. I can only suggest that they go back, redo the math and get the answer right — just like I had to do when I went to school. That was a long time ago.

Just as important in our commitment to post-secondary education was the fact that almost $900 million has gone to advanced education and to research in the last 20 months.

Health care is another issue that's important to all of us in this province. No greater challenge faces governments across Canada than the ever-increasing cost of health care. Paramount is the challenge to provide patients with the best doctors, the most qualified nurses, the best of dedicated hospital workers, the latest equipment and the newest medication available.

However, I learned a very interesting fact the other day that I would like to share, and that is that currently in British Columbia, it costs more than $1.4 million every hour of every day. Our health care system is certainly challenged. In the first 20 months of being in office, our government has increased the health care budget by $1.1 billion. Health care now represents 41 percent of all money spent by government — $1.4 billion in MSP premiums, $4 billion in social service tax and $4.7 billion in personal sales tax all going into the delivery of health care.

The province contributes approximately 86 cents of every health care dollar, and the federal government contributes approximately 14 cents, yet we still are directed on a regular basis by the federal government on how those dollars must be spent. Right or wrong, it makes for some difficulty for the ministry. I've heard the comment that maybe we have the tail wagging the

dog, but those challenges are before us, and certainly the federal government is coming across with additional funding. Most importantly, our new budget contains the commitment to put every dollar of the $1.3 billion of new three-year federal funding into modernizing public health care that allows us to move towards a sustainable, patient-centred system for future generations.

Another important part of the budget for the communities I represent was transportation. This budget identifies $30 million for airports and ports. I was hoping the member from the Kootenays would be here so I could point out that unfortunately, it was only $1 million for airports and $29 million for the Port of Prince Rupert, but he's not here. That isn't true, but I was hoping he would be here so I could tell him that. Specifically, this money was identified in the budget for the development, in part, of a container facility for northern British Columbia — a container port located in my riding that will do two very important things. It will provide jobs and opportunities to receive those containers from around the world when they arrive in the port and are shipped across the province, across Canada and across North America. That port is uniquely located and is connected by rail from Prince Rupert right to the eastern seaboard and down into the southern states, so the transportation of any container that arrives in that port can easily be handled.

More importantly, what that will do for northern British Columbia is allow northerners to ship their products around the world; it will give northerners access to ports around the world. If you are a log home builder, maybe in Prince George or 100 Mile House, or a specialty grain farmer in the Peace or a lumberyard operator in Terrace or Smithers, you will be able to fill a container with your product and ship it to markets in locations around the world. Between 1970 and 2001, the total movement of containerized cargo through all American and Canadian ports on the west coast of North America has grown from 10 million tonnes to 180 million tonnes annually. This represents a growth in containerized cargo over that 31-year period of approximately 1,700 percent, or almost 10 percent per annum.

Prince Rupert hasn't been able to take advantage of that. Northern British Columbia hasn't been able to take advantage of that. Breakbulk traffic, as we refer to it today, which is the most common form of shipment out of the north, has been stagnant over the same period. For northern communities to be able to load containers and ship them out to purchasers around the world will be a tremendous step forward for the economy of that part of British Columbia's heartlands. In addition to the above was the $132 million for highway corridors. The 3.5 cents per litre on the clear fuel tax will be applied directly to road maintenance and road construction projects around this province.

The new regional highway committees that are being put together by the Ministry of Transportation will be involved with the planning and completing of projects in regions around British Columbia. The interesting part that these new committees…. These new groups of locals will look at how projects are funded, and they will take out of the political arena the planning and the choice, the selection of where this new money will be spent. Now we have locals and private citizens throughout these regions looking at their roads and deciding what they want as a priority, and not Victoria deciding it for them.

Mining. This budget contains the commitment to extend the B.C. exploration tax credit for the next three years — very beneficial to northern British Columbia. This tax credit contributed to quadrupling the exploration last year. You know, when we came into power, there was approximately $19 million spent in exploration that year. Last year it was close to $80 million spent on exploration. It's the commitment from Energy and Mines, that ministry, to look at things such as the tax credit that is going to spur on the development in northern British Columbia in the heartlands.

Family and community needs. I have heard from around my riding the need for funding for child care spaces. We have listened as a government. We are now increasing the funding by 50 percent — the number of child care spaces eligible for assistance throughout this province. The Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue to offer school-based programs, as we heard from my colleague, like school meals and inner-school funding programs, which are geared to help schools like an elementary school in my riding, Roosevelt Park Elementary in school district 52. The principal of that school, Steve Riley, and a number of his staff have lobbied long and hard to protect that very important program. I've had the opportunity to tour that school, to talk to staff, to talk to teachers and to talk to Steve, the principal, and it's very impressive what he has done with that school. I am pleased to be able to say that our government has listened.

Another important announcement in this budget was the increase to $400 per month in earning exemptions for people with disabilities. I know there are people in my riding that will be able to take advantage of that, and it's well deserved. Since June 2001, our government has provided 27 tax relief measures with a net benefit of about $900 million to individual British Columbians and more than $350 million to businesses. Let me say this again: British Columbians have about $900 million more in their pockets than they had when the previous government was in. I repeat for the benefit of the members opposite: we still have competitive tax rates, including the lowest personal income tax rates for the first two tax brackets in Canada and the second-lowest top marginal personal income tax rate in Canada.

This government was elected to do things differently, and my constituents wanted change. They wanted debt reduction. They wanted truth in fiscal management. They wanted an open and accountable government that would listen to their concerns.

The member opposite spoke yesterday about the budget. After 20 months of sitting in opposition, they still think the old spending habits were positive for the province. They still think that doubling provincial debt was appropriate for the future of you, your children, and your grandchildren and mine. The member for Vancouver-Hastings said: "Since the moment the Liberals took office, these same British Columbians have been told over and over again that the price for long-term prosperity was short-term restraint." She goes on to say: "But over time it's become clear that the promised payoff is not coming to pass and that the new era is a mirage."

I completely understand that this member is powerless to understand our efforts to balance the provincial budget as requested by the people across my riding and across this province. The member for Vancouver-Hastings was at the helm when this province started down the path to become a have-not province. Any government that could take a province like British Columbia — so rich in natural resources, so diversified in determined, hard-working people, so ripe with industry, wanting to work and do business, but ending up a have-not province…. I recommend that she sit quietly and pay attention and see how we're doing it.

We have contributed a lot over the last 20 months, and we have a lot to do, but we can be proud of every single thing that we have done. British Columbians lead every other province in increase to the average weekly wage. British Columbians' paycheques are growing. British Columbia now leads other provinces in job creation.

As I mentioned earlier, we have increased funding to students in schools by almost $500 per student. We have increased monthly earnings for people with disabilities. We've increased the number of subsidized child care spaces. We've put $10 million into new early childhood partnership funding and $11 million for school-aged autism spectrum disorder children.

One other area that we haven't mentioned but that I think is very, very important is the increase in spending to the Premier's office. The member opposite, during her response to the budget speech, was incensed by the fact that we would increase spending in the Premier's office. It was as if she had found the key to Pandora's box and she was going to open it up that day. The member opposite said: "Where was spending increased? Was it in the office of the Premier? Yes." Well, the answer is clearly yes. It was clearly outlined in the budget documents, and I know people around my riding will support this increase. This increase will go to help advertising costs to inform people of just what it is this province is doing for them.

More than once while travelling around my riding, people have said: "You have to start telling us what you're doing. You've got to start getting the message out there about the changes that are being made. All we have is the propaganda and the rhetoric that comes from unions, from special interest groups and from the NDP."

In one discussion I had with constituents in Stewart at a public meeting I held, it was made very clear to me that they knew that our election promise was not to spend hard-earned British Columbian taxpayers' dollars to get the message out about what a good job we're doing. That was the old school, that was the way it was done in the past, and that was a commitment that we made as government.

We promised people that we would not spend their hard-earned dollars, that we would not break promises, and that we would not take their money and spend it telling them what a good job we're doing. But you know, these same people made it very clear to me that the two Premier's addresses to the province, paid for with party funds, did not give them enough information. They want more information. They are as tired as the rest of us in this House of the fearmongering and the misinformation coming from members opposite and their disciples. They want to be able to counter the rhetoric that pours from these special interest groups. This increase is substantially less than the NDP budget, much less than what they spent on advertising.

Some of the other areas in my riding that are important and should be mentioned are the development of, and the commitment of this government to, offshore oil and gas exploration. We've heard in both the throne speech and the budget speech that offshore oil and gas exploration in British Columbia can and will be developed, and will allow the people in the Pacific Northwest to contribute to the bottom line of this province. I hear the naysayers on a regular basis saying that it can't be done because of earthquakes. Well, it can be done. Earthquakes are all over the world. That formation that causes earthquakes is exactly the formation that traps gas and oil. Find me a place where there's no gas and oil, and you'll probably find a place where there are no earthquakes. It's just a fact of nature. There are many positive things that can happen with the development of offshore oil and gas, and as long as it can be done with a sensitivity to the environment and to the people in the north — and so that northerners can benefit — then this province, this government, knows that there is support.

In closing, let me say that none of us here are naïve enough to believe that we can please everyone in this province. However, we do know that if those naysayers would only spend the time, go out and find out the truth for themselves — that eventually, like everything else, like that quart of milk that used to be delivered to my back door, the cream comes to the top. They will see that we are doing our best to turn this province around. I can only encourage everyone in my riding, including the naysayers, to visit their government agent, to get on the Internet or to call their MLA and get a copy of the budget and find out for themselves how carefully thought out this budget really is.

R. Nijjar: I want to speak about a few of the issues that resonate with my community, especially in context of the rest of British Columbia and the four million

people that we share this province with. Often when I speak to constituents in my riding, they ask me various questions. Regardless of what the question is, the theme around it is: why aren't you doing something to stop them?

I never answer that question in the context in which they ask, because them is me. I am a part of these decisions. That's one of the things that's so great about this government. As a member that is not part of cabinet, I'm not told what the decision is. I'm not told what the policy is. I don't go to a caucus meeting before the legislation is going to come in and be told: "This is the legislation, and this is how you vote." We are part of the development of the legislation.

For example, I'm in the GCC on Economy. In the GCC on Economy for eight months, with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Advanced Education, we went over legislation step by step by step. The minister would go back with his staff and come back to us. We'd give our input. The changes to the Labour Code, the changes to WCB…. I'm a part of those decisions. You don't always get everything you believe in, but you have your input, as my colleagues do, and together, representing various parts and various segments of our communities throughout British Columbia, we come up with what is the best decision overall for the four million people that occupy this great province.

I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that we are part of the decision-making. So when I go to my constituents, I say to them: "Whether you like it or not, this is my decision." I'm accountable for it. I don't hide from these decisions. I'm proud not to, because if you look at what we are doing — the tough decisions that we said we would make — it is starting to show the redirection of our province and the right direction of our province.

One of the things that we said over and over again: you are not going to see a turnaround in six months. In six months you will not see this province better off. You will not see a turnaround in 12 months. In 12 months we can't come to the people of British Columbia and say: "Look how better this province is." It's going to take a lot longer than 12 small months to turn around ten years — and quite frankly, more than that — of government overspending and planning for four-year periods because that's their political interest. To turn that cycle around takes a lot longer than that.

We said: "We'll see you in three years. In three years we'll sit down and see what direction this province is in." Well, after two years I'm proud to say that many things, many economic and social indicators, are showing that we are going in the right direction. For example, this year's deficit is $600 million below budget. Why is it below budget? Because for the first time in recorded history, which is 1951 — for the first time ever — every single ministry has met or beaten its budget requirements. That is a fantastic, fantastic achievement.

To the people in the gallery and to the people watching, they can say: "What does that mean for me?" I'll tell you what that means for you. That means when the banks around the world that loan us money ask us, "What are you doing with your money management?" and we can show them what we're doing, they lower our interest costs. When we manage our money well, we have to pay less — make less interest payments. This year we made $200 million less payments in interest; we saved $200 million.

Where did that go? Well, that went into paying for children's education, paying for people's health care and paying for those that need the money the most.

Often in government we speak in terms of dollars, and we speak in terms of how much money we're saving off the deficit and so forth. Then the people throughout our communities say: "Well, that doesn't resonate with me." I agree; it doesn't. The reason why we speak about it is not that we particularly care about money. The money represents something. Good money management represents our ability to pay for the services you care about.

For example, we have a group of people that ran government for ten years. They're the NDP. They have the same values and the same beliefs as we do when it comes to taking care of our children, valuing our educational system, valuing our public health care system and providing services for the needy. We all have the same values. The question is: how do you meet those needs? To sum it up, those who represented the NDP believed that the way to provide those services is to say: "We care about you and that service so much that we're going to pay for it no matter what. If that means we have to go to a bank to borrow it, we're going to do it. That's how much we care about you."

There are many people in the community that say: "Wow, you're right. You do care about us, and therefore we're going to support you." What happens year after year is…. What they don't tell you is that because they keep borrowing from the bank, without managing the money well, today we take taxpayers' money — $2.6 billion every 12 months — and put it to interest payments. Yes, we take your money — $2.6 billion — and give it to the banks around the world. So when people say to us, "Well, what about education funding, what about health care funding, what about highways, what about roads, what about this and what about that?" I'll tell them they can ask the former ministers in the various governments before us. Ask them why they cared more about their political interests that day and serving those who yelled and screamed the most that day and sold out the future of this province for our children and our grandchildren.

There came an opposition that said we have to change doing what is short-term gain. We have to look at the long-term gain. If we look ten years back, if the government had done that, we wouldn't be in this position today. We want to be able to say — many of us may be long gone — that ten years from now, those people sitting in this Legislature can say: "At least we have more money to put into various programs." They may differ on where they're going to put it. They should have that right to put it wherever they wish on behalf of British Columbians.

Our goal is to balance our books — actually, in a few more months. The next budget that will be introduced will be a balanced budget. We're well on the way to meet that. In the process of doing the right thing and managing your money well, just like everybody does at home, we see that we have more and more money left over — like, for example, the Ministry of Education did last year, managing their money well. They had $42 million left over. As we said in the New Era document, when we have money left over, we will put it into education and health care. So what did the Minister of Education do? She put $42 million into education.

This year we had money managed well and left over, and so the Minister of Education put $50 million into education. Because we have managed our money well and because we can forecast where we're going to go, the Premier, in the various addresses that he made in the last week or so, announced another over $100 million for education. The significance of that is that we're not saying we're putting $198 million into education that is borrowed money, where you're going to pay interest. What we're saying is: that is money that is there, that is ours and that is interest-free. It is there because we manage our money well. There's a big difference in where that dollar comes from, which dictates what that dollar is.

As we've often said, Mr. Speaker, we are moving from putting dollars in priority areas, those being education, health and those in need…. Constituents of mine in East Vancouver, where I deal most often with our so-called social service ministries, come to me and say it's the people in need that are actually on the short end. Well, let's try to look at the facts on this and see what short end means when people say that.

What we've said repeatedly — an example is with our MSP — is that those that are at the lowest income, those that are most in need, will receive assistance based on the overall parameter of their ability to pay. What happened? Under this government, the MSP payment for 230,000 British Columbians went down or was completely eliminated. It was for those of the lowest income. Other people are paying a bit more, but quite frankly, didn't we hear over and over again that those most in need are the ones that should be taken care of? We're doing that. Of course the opposition will say: "Oh my God, MSP is going up, going up, going up." Well, I'll tell you, go anywhere around the world, my friends, and ask people if our MSP payments, our public health care system, are too expensive. You ask them. We are very lucky to pay the rate we are paying as middle-income earners. The fact that we have reduced for those that needed the reduction and we have eliminated for those most in need is something to be celebrated — a caring and just society.

The disability earnings exemption went up, not down. It went up to a total, a record high, of $400. Provincial taxes, the income tax for those that earn $15,000, $18,000, $22,000, single mothers earning $20,000 or $25,000…. Their provincial income tax rate is down, and it's lower than any Canadian's throughout this country. There is no province that has a lower rate for their income earners of zero to $60,000 than British Columbia. That's good for working families. For those in British Columbia that earn $30,000 or less, the total payment in provincial taxes and their MSP and Pharmacare…. All that combined, they pay less than any other province.

When we hear those at our opposition rallies brainwash us with their propaganda, and so forth, and get the union leaders to disseminate information, as they do with their $100 million budgets…. The fact remains that those of lowest-income earnings have one of the best and highest levels of services with the lowest amount of cost of any group of people in Canada. That doesn't mean there isn't more work to do. There is, and we will continue to do that within the context of our growing economy and balancing the budget.

Another thing I hear often is: "You cut taxes. That was great the first day, but you've clawed that back." Actually, we haven't clawed that back — not all of it. We've clawed back parts of it. Out of the $2 billion in provincial income tax reductions, British Columbia's workers still keep $900 million in their pockets. I'll tell you that when it comes to the gas tax, and people say that's a tax grab and so forth…. I'll tell you a quote by the Leader of the Opposition. Two days ago in question period when the issue of transportation and the gas tax was brought up, she was heckling, and she said, in reference to that tax, "Yeah, and where is the money going to come from?" — i.e., the money to pay for the transportation plan. "Where is the money going to come from?" Then she laughed and said, "Yeah, from taxes," mocking us that it's coming from taxes. That's the whole point. Of course it's coming from taxes. It's coming from taxes because it's supposed to come from taxes. When British Columbians need a service, the payment for that service comes from British Columbians.

She laughed because she doesn't believe that. What she believes and what the former government believed was if there was a service that was required, you borrowed that money. You don't tax people, because you lose political points; you lose votes. You just borrow. You borrow because it's endless, and so if you borrow everyone's happy. The people are happy. They don't have to pay more taxes. You borrow, and it just goes on the books.

The former government believes — and there are still people in British Columbia that believe — it's just numbers on a book. Debt is just numbers on a book. That's fine. I guess there are people who are always going to believe that, but you tell the children, the elderly, the seniors and all those in need that the $2.6 billion that goes to banks is just figures, and there's nothing real about it.

I represent a riding that is in the heart of the big city, the heart of Vancouver, and people say: "Well, you know, a great transportation plan and everything like that. You guys speak of the heartlands, but there's

nothing about road improvements in our area. We have congestion all the time." Well, you know, I don't buy that. I'll tell you this. I say it to people living in the big city all the time. I was born and raised in the city, but I can see that what is good for the heartlands is good for my family.

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. If you go sit on a satellite and look down at British Columbia, what you see is this vast province, and you'll see all these things moving around — cargo coming into our ports, big rigs driving down the highway, airports with planes coming in and out. It's movement. Movement of what? People and goods. What goods? Well, we're a resource province. Surprise, surprise. It's great that we have tourism, and it's great that we have high-tech, but we're a resource province.

If my constituents want good health care, my constituents want good education and my constituents want good social services, those things are going to come from the taxes we collect from the heartlands. When they extract and they do their mining and they do offshore oil and they do forestry and they do their fishing, the heartlands create the core of the wealth of this province. What's good for the heartlands is good for my family, because then the government has the money, the creation of jobs and taxes to pay for the services we care about.

Conversely, quite frankly, the heartlands can't do it without the big city either — right? You know, we have….

R. Nijjar: Separation is big in Alberta and Quebec, but we'll keep it away from B.C.

In the heartlands is where the work is done to extract the resources, and you can say that the big city is where the negotiation and trade with other jurisdictions is done. We work together. We work together in appreciation of both types of British Columbia.

The 3.5 percent tax hike is a right thing to do for a province that needs to invest in infrastructure right now. And why do we need to invest in infrastructure right now? Maybe because for over the last 30 years, no government did invest in infrastructure. Why didn't they invest in infrastructure? Easy — because they knew if they were going to invest in infrastructure, they would have to raise taxes. They didn't want to do it, because it wasn't in their political interest. So what happened? The roads became neglected. Now we barely have money. Since 1989 the only thing that's been done is maintenance of roads, and even then not enough money has gone into transportation to maintain many of the roads.

Some of my colleagues from the north tell me that in the wintertime there, when the roads break from the freezing, you will find a gap that is maybe three or four feet wide. Well, that's it. That road's closed down. It's very easy for us to sit in Vancouver and say: "Well, you know, winter has harsh conditions up in the north, and that's a part of life, but we can't keep spending money to fix roads." We're not talking about little cracks here. We're not talking about maybe a flat tire because the roads are bad. We're talking about roads that are unusable. So what does that mean? That means no mining happens. If there are no roads to where the resources are, it doesn't take place. If it doesn't take place, no jobs — no jobs, no taxes; no taxes, no money for the resources we need. It's as simple as that.

In regard to the school funding and all of the issues around that, the Minister of Education has said and shown us numerous times — it's been in the Vancouver Sun and so forth — that, I think, since 1998 enrolment in British Columbia has gone down. Yet funding for education was maintained at its level. We said over and over again, and in our New Era document, that when we have the resources, we will reinvest them in education. And we've done that: $198 million into education — $42 million last year, $50 million this year and an announcement of $100 million over the next three years.

Per-student funding, which is at $6,455, will increase by another $243 per student by '05-06. Right now, today, depending on how you calculate your numbers, per-student funding in British Columbia is higher or second highest of all provinces in Canada. We hear from various groups, those that are unionized and their affiliates, that say: "Education cuts, education cuts." Before they started this anti-government program, British Columbia's per-student funding was the highest or second highest of every province, and we're increasing it by $243 by 2005-06.

I've heard in the last week or so from school boards that have said: "Well, that's great that you guys are putting money in. Now we don't have to close some schools and lay off some teachers." You may not hear this too often, but I'll tell you, that's wrong. The school closures that were planned were not planned — and, quite frankly, encouraged by some of us here — because of a funding issue. It wasn't that the provincial government did not give enough money and therefore schools had to close. That's what they try to sell. Let's not kid ourselves. I'm telling you: some schools should close. There are schools in British Columbia that have students and that should close.

I'll give you an example. In Coquitlam there's a school that's 35 percent full. Its neighbouring school is 85 percent full. I don't care how much funding there is. It's not a funding issue. The school that is 35 percent full should amalgamate, and the students should move over to the other school that's 85 percent full. That one school should be 100 percent full. The money that was spent on maintaining that building should be put towards educating students. That's managing money well. I'm glad that after managing our money well, we have money to put into education. But the purpose of

that money is to help the students, not to help school boards not to do the right thing.

I'm glad that through the Minister of Education and through our cabinet and my caucus colleagues, we've been able to find that money like we said we would. But I don't know if I'm going to be too thrilled with how that money is going to be spent. You know, when our enrolment in schools across British Columbia is going down by thousands of students, nobody can tell me that the number of schools just coincidentally needs to remain the same, that there just is no room and that there's no betterment of the educational system. Suppose if we take all the schools…. I don't know how many K-to-12 schools we have in B.C.

R. Nijjar: The Minister of Education tells me there are 1,500 schools. Suppose we had 1,900. Would parents and school board trustees and BCTF say that we have to have those 1,900 schools? If any school closes, you are destroying education? If any school closes, you're destroying that community? It happens to be 1,500 schools, so now they're saying: "Fifteen hundred schools. If you close one school, you're destroying education. You're destroying that community." What if it were 1,200 schools that we had? Then would they say: "If you close down one school…"?

I'm telling you, these are arbitrary numbers — how many schools there are. They're partly arbitrary and not based on best practices, because our funding formula, before our Minister of Education changed it, was based on the square footage of schools. A school board got funded based on how many square feet of school space they had. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. So of course it's an incentive for school boards not to close a school. If they have a school that is one-third full but they get funded per square foot, of course they're not going to close it.

People can go around blaming school boards all they want. "The school boards should have done the responsible thing; they should have closed the school." Quite frankly, the provincial government is responsible for having a formula that entices an organization, a school board, to keep that school open. We changed it. We changed it so that we would encourage best practices. Based on that, regardless of how much money we put into education, there are schools that should close so we can better the education of British Columbians.

Social equity is a part of the services that we provide through the Ministry of Children and Family Development in our schools. Some people call it inner-city school funding. Again the question comes up: the government is tightening its budgets, so how much money do they have for social equity? People say: "If you really cared about social equity and if you just understood it, you would value it enough to put more money into it."

I'm on the Education Committee that travelled the province. I'll tell you, it's not an issue of: does one understand the value of social equity programming or community schools? We all value it. I've never met a caucus colleague or opposition colleague or anyone in the public that's ever said anything different. Now that we all agree in British Columbia, the question again remains: how do we fund those services? How do we provide those services?

I'll tell you, there is something wrong with social equity funding in our programs when we have, say, a hot lunch program — I think it's in the Okanagan — that provides $4,000 worth of food to students. The cost of providing that $4,000 worth of food is $39,000. It's a total cost of $43,000 — a $43,000 program — and $4,000 goes to the students.

That's like me saying to you, Mr. Speaker: "I have a great car to sell you. I'm going to charge you $4,000. It's worth $8,000, but I'm going to charge you $4,000." You say: "Well, great. If it's worth $8,000 and you're going to charge me $4,000, I'll buy it." I say: "Great, but I'll let you know the shipping and handling is $40,000." Who would buy it? I don't know a single person who would ever buy it. But those are the kind of hot lunch program services that we have.

In other words, we have to reformulate it. We have to provide the same service differently. The Minister of Children and Family Development, with community groups and advisory groups, is working with doing those programs efficiently where the service actually gets to the child. I'm proud to be part of a government that's working on really providing that service rather than just being able to say: "Look how much money we put into it. We must be doing something great."

Unfortunately, my time is up. I could go on for another hour, but it's lunchtime. Noting the time, I move to adjourn debate.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.