Hansard -- Thursday, February 26, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 20, No. 17 (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

Petitions		8831
	Hon. B. Barisoff

Budget Debate (continued)		8831
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Hon. G. Collins

Hon. B. Barisoff: On behalf of the constituents of Penticton–Okanagan Valley, I present a petition regarding post-secondary funding.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this morning to stand and speak in support of the budget as the MLA for Prince George–Mount Robson. On February…. [Applause.]

Hon. S. Bond: Very generous with applause. Thank you. It's a delight to know that my colleagues are awake and supportive in the House, especially the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. I'm glad to have him here supporting my comments this morning.

On February 17 our government delivered on a major promise that we made to British Columbians. Our Finance minister announced that British Columbia would have a balanced budget this year and every year following that. It is now a requirement by law that the budget of our province be balanced.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that is an even more significant announcement because of some of the things that this government and the people of British Columbia have faced over the last year. As a province, we were hit with more than a billion dollars of unexpected costs last year. That included things like forest fires that were unprecedented in this province, floods, SARS, BSE and changes to federal equalization. Balancing this budget took discipline. It took hard work and sound fiscal management. It also required very difficult decisions to be made.

It took leadership. It took determination. It took a Premier who continues to remind us daily that these are not government's dollars that are being expended. They belong to the taxpayers of this province. Our job is to manage them efficiently and effectively.

It would be a mistake not to recognize the absolute dedication and leadership of the Minister of Finance of this province. He has been diligent, and he has been committed to delivering on a promise that we made to the people of British Columbia. I want to thank him and, most certainly, his staff for the incredible leadership and hard work that resulted in a balanced budget being presented on the floor of this House just last week.

Throughout all of the challenges that we faced as a government and the people of British Columbia faced during the last year, there has been a sense of spirit and determination. It really has brought out the best in the people of British Columbia. I see that regularly in my constituency of Prince George–Mount Robson. I know that when I addressed the House in my response to the Speech from the Throne, I talked about the ingenuity, about the creativity and about the resilience of the people who live where I live.

I want to tell you about two residents that live in my constituency. I want to talk to you about Tim Nusse and Janey Weeks. I want to tell you why a balanced budget is important to them. You see, Tim and Janie believe that Valemount deserves a community school. They know that these are challenging times for the province of British Columbia. I'm delighted to say that Valemount is going to get a new school, but the people of Valemount want that school to be a community school. They want it to be the centre of their community. They decided that the important way to approach that was by looking at a partnership.

Well, I want you to know that the campaign spearheaded by Tim and Janie has resulted in a community, Valemount, raising $250,000 to contribute to the creation of a true and genuine community school in the village of Valemount. That is an extraordinary accomplishment. What it means is that every day when I think about the work and the decisions that we have to make in government, we need to remember that people are prepared to work hard, they're prepared to be partners with us, and they're prepared to do their part to ensure that their children and their communities have a quality of life that is second to none.

I am proud of my constituents. I am proud of the fact that they worked so hard to raise that amount of money to contribute to their new community school. I want you to know that it makes me want to work harder to ensure that we continue to have a balanced budget to provide the foundation for those kinds of programs that are important to all British Columbians.

This balanced budget is a major step in the right direction and absolutely demonstrates our belief that you simply cannot continue to spend dollars that you do not have. The balanced budget also indicates that we will see a small surplus in 2004-05 and surpluses in each of the following years as well.

You know, there have been comments recently about the size of the surplus: "Well, it's just a small surplus. It's just a little surplus." I have news for you. You have to start with small surpluses, and as they grow, those surpluses are going to get bigger and bigger as we continue to manage efficiently in British Columbia.

We know one thing: as a government, we have said that when those dollars are available to us, they will be spent in areas that are consistent with our belief that health care and education are priorities for all British Columbians. Certainly, the balanced budget that we presented reflects exactly that.

Education spending will rise by $313 million over three years. Over the next three years investments in health care will increase by $1.047 billion, or 10 percent of the 2003 budget. This funding will be used directly to improve patient care.

I know that people won't be surprised to hear me talk about some of the exciting and amazing opportunities that are going to be presented for students in this province through the initiatives in the Ministry of Advanced Education. One of the things we committed to was doubling the commitment to adult literacy. People have no sense, at times, of how important that initiative is, because increasing literacy in our province will have wide-reaching effects. As we move forward to train the skilled workers that are required for our expanding economy, increasing adult literacy will allow workers to better access training programs, to complete their apprenticeships and to reach their full potential. The Premier has demonstrated extraordinary leadership in the area of literacy. It's absolutely fundamental to the success of not only individuals but our province. I think it's a significant commitment and one that's perhaps been underestimated.

Our government also committed to increasing the total number of seats in the post-secondary education system over the next six years. In fact, we have created an aggressive strategy to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary education system by the year 2009-10. That is an increase from the current 160,000 seats in the system. That is a large and aggressive number for growth — a growth in the seats — and it is great news for students who will be wanting to access our system.

We are going to be strategic in our investment and focus on those regions that are currently underserved. Regional participation rates and population growth trends in the 18-to-29-year-old cohort indicate that the interior of British Columbia is underserved in terms of access to post-secondary education, and access pressures will increase significantly by the year 2009. Access pressures in our system are growing for a number of reasons, certainly because of population growth but also because of labour market needs in the knowledge economy and society's pursuit of the concept of lifelong learning.

Rising participation rates and rising graduation rates in the K-to-12 sector put additional pressure on post-secondary institutions to meet these growing demands. For example — and let me give you a couple of statistics — the 18-to-29-year-old cohort is expected to grow by 19.1 percent from 2003 to 2009 in the southern interior. It's expected to grow by 9.5 percent in the central interior and 8.6 percent in the Surrey–Fraser Valley region of the province.

These opportunities are important as we, as a government, respond to those statistics. We need to respond to high population growth and demand for post-secondary education. We must improve access to post-secondary education in underserved regions, and we must introduce additional economic development opportunities to regions where universities are expanding. More seats and funding result in a strong economic spinoff.

The addition of 25,000 seats is a core part of this government's overall strategic plan and specifically the overarching goal to establish a top-notch education system. It also addresses my ministry's service plan commitment to expand access to post-secondary education and to ultimately create more choice for students. This expansion of post-secondary access is a key part of the larger vision of this government. Under the leadership of our Premier, we are working to accomplish and to provide opportunities for British Columbians because, you see, we want to bring out the best in our people and in our province.

I am also proud of another goal that was outlined in the Speech from the Throne — to work toward our goal of ensuring that students who achieve 75 percent in their secondary school studies will have access to university in this province. That is a great news announcement for students. We believe that if you work hard and achieve marks of 75 percent or better, you should have an opportunity to attend a post-secondary institution.

More than 60 percent of the job openings in the next decade will require some form of post-secondary education. We believe we are standing up and meeting the challenge of providing enough spaces to give students the choices they deserve and the choices that will allow them to excel. We are going to be growing the opportunities in the public post-secondary education system at twice the expected rate of growth in the 18-to-20-year-old age cohort; $105 million will be invested in the advanced education budget by 2006-07. In addition, a new Spirit of 2010 human resource strategy will also be launched later this year to ensure that the skills training we offer in this province matches both the needs of students and the needs of the economy.

As our economy improves and it continues to grow, we will need to focus on training for the sectors that are facing shortages, such as the oil and gas industry, communications, transportation, technology, construction, and hospitality and tourism. We look forward to continuing to build on a post-secondary education system that is second to none. Together we will achieve our goals that we have laid out for ourselves in the post-secondary education system, and also the broader vision for government.

Our Budget 2004 is laying a firm foundation. It is so important for us that we build a foundation for continued growth and optimism in this province. It is a balanced budget. It is as we promised, and it shows that our plan as a government for B.C. is working. Our costs are under control, and the economy is being strengthened. Government is continuing to make more than $1.3 billion worth of new investments in im-

proved health care services; a better education system; greater access to advanced education; enhanced services for children, youth and families; and a continuing commitment to open up the heartlands of our province to renewed economic growth.

While a balanced budget has always been part of this government's vision, it's not just balanced. It has been balanced under legislated generally accepted accounting principles, commonly known as GAAP. That is something no other province in Canada has accomplished. That is something for this government and the people of British Columbia to be proud of. A balanced budget also shows the benefits of prudent management. As I mentioned previously, even though we have faced enormous challenges over the last number of years, we managed to balance the budget.

As we look forward — and that's exactly what we want to do — building on a firm foundation, working to bring out the best in British Columbians, we are now projecting surpluses in each of the next three fiscal years. These numbers in our budget are based in part on economic growth projections of 2.8 percent in 2004 and 3.1 percent in each of the following years. Independent private sector forecasts expect even better growth.

As the economy continues to gain strength, overall funding to our ministries will increase. You see, because the government has managed prudently, we also have savings. We are going to address needs, again, with wait-lists and with looking at maintenance costs for post-secondary institutions. That has been a challenge and a concern for a number of years in this province, and we are going to do something about addressing those concerns.

The future is absolutely full of opportunity, and the balanced budget provides the foundation for the prosperous economy that British Columbians want and most certainly deserve. Our plan is working, and together we have built and will continue to build a foundation for a much brighter future.

Let's just look at some of the things that have been important over the last year. We are number one in job growth. Over the past two years B.C. has created 159,000 jobs, enjoying the fastest growth rates in the country. We are number one in new housing growth. B.C. saw a 21 percent jump in housing starts in 2003, the largest increase in Canada. We are number one in small business confidence. New businesses are being created at the highest rate in nearly a decade — 9 percent in 2003.

We are the number one destination for new investor immigrants. For the first time in six years, more people are moving to British Columbia from other parts of Canada to build their future than are moving away — in fact in my constituency, for the first time. While the increase was small, it was an increase. Our population actually increased in Prince George and region.

Balanced Budget 2004 will continue to build on these successes, because it's important to us that we deliver a sustainable future that brings out the best in British Columbians. The next year will see infrastructure improvements that will continue to drive economic development and stimulate job growth in our region. Much has been done to create a climate for economic improvement, but there is much more to be done. We are on track and looking forward to another year of progress for our province.

It has been great during the last number of weeks to meet with a number of my constituents who have shared exciting plans and dreams and ideas for projects in the northern part of this province. I very much appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit that my constituents have. I know that as we continue to build a firm foundation, continue to manage our resources well and provide opportunities, the people — not just the people of Prince George–Mount Robson but of the province — will indeed have a foundation that will bring out the best of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: It is my pleasure to rise to reply to the budget. I must start by referencing the comments made by the Deputy Premier yesterday during question period.

The Deputy Premier, as we will recall, questioned the fact that the opposition had not responded to the budget to date, and I want to put this on record. The reason why we had not responded is because we were waiting for the Premier to speak. We wanted to respond to what the Premier has to say to this budget. Then we find out that in fact the Premier is not going to speak to this budget. Maybe he's embarrassed about this budget. Maybe he's too ashamed to stand in this chamber to defend this budget. Maybe that's why the Premier is not going to speak to the budget.

The House Leader for the opposition caucus, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, has already replied to the budget. I know it's not the first time that perhaps members from the government side are asleep at the wheel, because obviously the Deputy Premier missed the Opposition House Leader's response to the budget — completely gapped those moments.

Maybe that's the trouble with this government. This government takes the approach that they would put on blinders for anybody who has anything different to say about this government's agenda and this government's approach. They completely shut down when others offer a different point of view. They don't listen to it. It is no wonder that the Deputy Premier missed the entire response from the Opposition House Leader, the member for Vancouver-Hastings. It is no wonder. It's automatic pilot for government-side members to simply shut down when anybody has anything different to say about their agenda. Any criticisms, any advice that doesn't agree with them they immediately shut down, and they pretend as though those comments were never there. I think that really summarizes the problems this government has demonstrated. They refuse to listen to people. They only hear the things that they want to hear, but they don't hear anything else.

Here we are today. I'm rising to respond to the budget. The Premier has yet to speak, and it is my un-

It's difficult to hold him accountable, because yesterday my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, during question period, asked a direct question of the Premier, quoting his own words when he said: "Openness beats hiddenness every time." If the Premier's words were to be true and practised by this government, we would have seen the government and the Premier yesterday rise up in this House to respond to my colleague's question around the scandal in the Ministry of Children and Family Development relating to Doug Walls. He would have rose in this House and committed right then and there that he would release the entire internal audit of the Doug Walls scandal.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to relate the matter to the budget, because it is precisely the issues around the budget and the Doug Walls scandal that I want to get to.

Mr. Speaker, $400,000 has disappeared in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The government says: "We didn't do it. It wasn't our fault." There's an internal audit of which…. The Premier refuses to release the entire report when it is completed. Only a selected portion will be released. So much for the Premier's own words about openness beating hiddenness, because the practice of this government is that hiddenness — to use the Premier's own words — beats openness.

And $400,000 has gone missing from the Ministry of Children and Family Development — $400,000 that could have gone into a number of programs. In addition to the cuts the Ministry of Children and Family Development is faced with under this budget, the government is wasting money. It has mismanaged moneys. Taxpayers' hard-earned moneys have disappeared into thin air, and the government cannot be bothered to come clean to ensure that mismanagement is accounted for.

The important part about this is that not only does the government need to demonstrate to British Columbians that they have learned their lessons around mismanaging taxpayers' funds, but they must demonstrate that to the public to earn their respect and trust back — which is why the internal audit in its entirety must be released. The Premier refused to do that yesterday and couldn't even be bothered to answer the question.

Never mind his failure to come into this House to defend his own budget. Never mind that. I wonder if the Deputy Premier herself is embarrassed by the fact that the Premier himself is not in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I've allowed you considerable latitude here. You know full well that we do not comment on other members' attendance in this chamber — okay?

J. Kwan: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. My intention was simply to say that we have not heard the Premier respond to the budget. My understanding, as I've been advised by the government side, is that the Premier is not going to be defending his own budget. That was my only point — not about whether or not he's in this House. My apologies.

Anyway, here we are. The Premier, as I understand it, is not going to be defending his budget. Let's talk about the Liberal MLAs who have been in this House responding to this budget. Let's talk about what they have to say. To hear the Liberals in this House talk about the budget, you would have thought they had just discovered the passion of GAAP, the generally accepted accounting principles. The reality is that they've only demonstrated the widening gap in their passion for those who are bearing the cost of their misdirected fiscal plan.

We have listened as speaker after speaker trips over themselves to praise the unconstitutional raising of taxes. That is the tobacco tax grab this government put in place illegally — illegally — back in December. On December 22 the Minister of Finance announced that he would collect the tobacco tax starting December 22. Now, why I say this is illegal is because when you raise taxes, when you change the tax structure as it applies in the province, it is required under the Constitution Act that you bring the matter into the House and have it properly debated and passed by the members of this House. Then you institute the tax grab. Well, that wasn't done in this instance with respect to the tobacco tax grab. The Minister of Finance thinks he can do anything, irrespective of the fact that it is illegal. He introduced the tax grab anyway, without legislation, on December 22.

I would remind members of this House that the House was in fact sitting as late as December 19. The Minister of Finance and this government had every opportunity to introduce legislation to say they're going to grab another $6 million of moneys from taxpayers, but the Minister of Finance didn't do that. Instead, he snuck it through on December 22 and illegally — illegally — is instituting a tax grab of $6 million on taxpayers. That's what we heard — speaker after speaker in this House tripping over themselves, praising the government for their unconstitutional raising of taxes.

Then we heard, speaker after speaker, the MLAs on the government side rising up and praising the government on what a wonderful job they are doing, when in fact they're slashing $70 million in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development — $70 million being cut from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Doug Walls got paid over $200,000 in an untendered process, and then $400,000 went missing right under the former minister's nose, but the children and families who need the support of government will face $70 million worth of funding cuts.

I just want to touch on this for one moment. The Minister of Children and Family Development also has a program which funds what used to be called inner-city school funding. The term "inner-city school funding" has changed over the years. Now, as I understand, the government has renamed it and called it Community LINK. That's what that's called.

Let's just look and see, for Vancouver, what Community LINK is supposed to fund and what happened there. The provincial government, the Liberal government, has reduced funding for Vancouver inner-city school funding — the Community LINK programs — for 2004-05 by $3 million. The cut represents 36 percent of the funding provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Vancouver school board inner-city school project…. Its operating funds for this particular initiative are $2.1 million. The project receives $2.1 million from district operating funds. The current funding for '03-04 provides for an allocation of one teacher and three support staff in nine project schools.

The schools primarily — but not all of them — are in my riding and in the riding of my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, but not in their entirety. There are schools in the ridings of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the member for Vancouver-Kensington. Their schools will also face these cuts. I believe the member for Vancouver-Fraserview would also be impacted.

Some of these schools — what are they? Britannia Elementary, MacDonald School, Queen Alexandra School, Carleton School, Nightingale School, Seymour, Grandview, Queen Victoria, Mount Pleasant and Strathcona — these are the schools that will be impacted. The implications of the reallocation or the reduction of funds…. I know the government would like to call…. When they cut funding, they like to call it redirection, reallocation. The reality is that on the ground for the kids, it's a cut. A cut is a cut is a cut. When the dollars are gone from their programs, it's called a cut. That's what it really means. I know that the Liberal MLAs are masters at making up new phrases and redefining them to shield the real actions of what they are really doing, but the reality is that it's a funding cut.

The funding cuts to our current project schools would, according to the school board…. And I'm not making this up. These are the people who are in charge of ensuring that schools have the funding to pay for the programs, and the funding that they receive from the provincial government is allocated accordingly. When the provincial government makes a cut, the school boards are jammed, because they have to be the bearers of the bad news. They didn't make the cuts. It's the provincial government that has made the cut, but they have to bear the brunt of the bad news.

Here's what they have advised us — the public — about the impacts. It would result in disruptions in academic and support services to students and families. It would result in the loss of service to at-risk students and families, and it would result in program loss and a reduction in some schools. The implications of the funding cuts to additional project schools would also affect the startup of academic and support services for at-risk students at the expense of loss of service in other schools.

In 2002 and 2003 the Vancouver school board received an allocated $8,280,283 for the following programs: school meals, community schools, inner-city school programs, school-based support programs, Healthy Schools programs. Then in '04-05 the Minister of Children and Family Development reduced the community funding by 36 percent. That's $2.893 million. The total remaining funds available for allocations to programs in the coming year is at $5.135 million.

What are the implications of this reduction? They would have to entertain either reduction or elimination of elementary school programs which in 26 schools currently serve school meals, which is 7,500 meals a day. In the secondary school programs, currently three schools serve 2,700 meals a day. In the secondary alternative programs, 24 schools currently serve 600 meals a day. They would have to entertain reducing or laying off meal program staff and then, of course, stick it to the parents even more — that is, have the parents contribute to the program.

The implications for reduction to the community school KidSafe program is another area where this funding cut would impact. It would reduce or eliminate the number of community schools that are receiving this funding and that have this program in place. It would potentially eliminate the KidSafe program altogether. It would reduce or lay off community school staff, would reduce or eliminate community partnerships for funding and support, and would reduce and eliminate community-based structures for support of at-risk children and families.

The implications for the school-based support programs. It would reduce or lay off, once again, elementary, special, remedial, social development, behaviour and support programs, and at the secondary alternative side, the same thing. It would also reduce the Bridges and behaviour and transition programs. It would put at-risk students at greater risk.

It could potentially mean the entire elimination of the Healthy Schools program. Inner-city school support — what does that mean? There'll be fewer resources to support student learning for at-risk children. It would have fewer placements for secondary students in alternative program settings and fewer resources to support at-risk families in the learning process, crisis intervention, community transition, language transition, counselling and health.

It would reduce community and school partnerships that support at-risk students and families. In fact, I know that as a result of this cut, many counsellors have already been laid off. They've already lost their positions. The impact, of course, is that the students who are at risk and the families who need support to be more involved in their children's education…. Those programs are no longer there.

Multicultural support for families with ESL backgrounds is now at risk. I wonder what the minister of multiculturalism has to say about that. The whole idea of multiculturalism is to promote and to support families in those situations. But you know what? This budget allows for this government to cut that funding. That's what's happening. I wonder: where are the MLAs for Vancouver-Kensington and Vancouver-Kingsway, who have significant numbers of immigrants in their communities? Why aren't they speaking up, advocating for their constituents? Why are they silent?

In fact, the school board had a meeting asking the public what they should do with respect to this situation. The member for Vancouver-Kensington said: "Oh, we needed to take the money away from inner-city school kids, low-income kids, from the hot meal programs and the counselling programs in Vancouver, because of the forest fires." I can't tell you how outrageous that statement is. That statement was backed up by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

I sat there and thought to myself: Wait a minute. For this government, for at least these two MLAs, the approach is: let's pit communities against communities. Let's say one community deserves more than another. Then I say: all children who need these programs deserve to be funded. The government should not raid Peter to pay Paul. Shame on those members for suggesting that the valid thing to do is to take money from the needy kids in Vancouver for students elsewhere around the province. That is just simply unacceptable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may wonder if maybe it's just the opposition who's ranting about this and who's angry about this. No, it isn't. Parents have written letters — hundreds of letters that I've received and have yet to table because still more are coming in — raising their concerns with this cut. I know that the same situation is happening elsewhere, not just in Vancouver. Now, I'm only talking about Vancouver because I'm a Vancouver MLA. As it happens, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is greatly impacted, because we are the lowest-income, poorest riding in all of Canada. But I know that other places, other communities, are hard hit by this cut as well.

The mayor of Vancouver was so alarmed by this that he in fact wrote a letter to the Premier:

This is what the mayor of Vancouver has to say. Now, I wish that the Vancouver MLAs would rise up in this House and advocate for the constituents in the same way that the mayor of Vancouver, Larry Campbell, is doing. But we don't hear any of that. We don't see any of that. That is a great shame because, quite frankly, the Liberal MLAs are not representing their constituents with respect to their concerns on this issue.

Now, let's turn for a moment and look at the public education system. The government, of course, claims — and we hear this claim — that they're defending our public education system, in spite of the fact that they're cutting the Community LINK program funds. What they're doing, in fact…. On the education budget, half of the money added to the budget will never find its way into the classrooms.

Let me just break down those numbers for one moment. This is in the area of K-to-12, and this is directly from the budget book. The government claims there is $83 million more in K-to-12. We heard MLA after MLA on the government side saying: "Hurray. We're protecting education. We're prioritizing education, and we're putting more money into education."

Well, let's see what happened to this $83 million; $33 million of it goes to a thing called GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles. That is, in effect, money that never materializes. It's just simply a redoing of accounting and rewriting of the accounting numbers. That's all it is; $30 million out of the $83 million is actually not real money. In fact, that's what it means in the real classroom setting.

Ten million dollars of that goes into independent schools, not into the public school system — independent schools, the private school system. Four million dollars of that goes into executive and support services — again, not money seen in the classroom. That leaves some $36 million that would actually go into schools across the province. There are some 600,000 students across the province, and the increase that this government is so proud of that MLA after MLA got up and sang its praises is only $36 million divided into 600,000 students.

The government claims that for this budget year, it's at least $50 million. Well, I'm waiting to see through the budget estimates — and I'll give a heads-up to the Minister of Education that I'll be asking him to explain — exactly where that $50 million is, because by my account we're short 14 right off the top. This is without deep analysis at all — just looking at it in a cursory kind of way.

Now, the numbers don't add up. I want to point out that this $36 million that was there only last year, in 2003…. The provincial government had imposed major costs on school boards, including the teacher and support staff salaries this government had legislated, including MSP premiums this government had increased, including the fuel tax this government had increased and imposed — increased hydro costs, increased insurance premiums, just to name a few.

With that the per-student cost increase is $336, just to account for inflation and the increased taxes and the imposed costs that this government had brought in — $336 per student. The $36 million that's been left from the $83 million doesn't even pay for a third of what the increased costs are.

What does that mean? The net result is that it means a reduction in services in the classroom. That's what it means for children and families today. That's the reality of it. I hope, when we get to the estimates stage, that we will actually have a civilized conversation with the new Minister of Education where he will own up to these impacts and be the advocate that I hope he will be for students — unlike the former Minister of Education, who had blinders on and who could not see the reality of what is really happening with respect to education funding. I'm forever hopeful that the government will see that and that they'll correct their ways.

That's the K-to-12 public sector side. Let's talk about the post-secondary education side. We just heard the Minister of Advanced Education singing her praises and singing the government's praises about what a great job they're doing in post-secondary education and how they're advocating for students and how everything is just wonderful. Well, reality check. The illusionary promise of more university spaces turns out to be this. The 25,000 new student spaces to B.C.'s colleges and universities and institutes by 2010 — at least two elections away…. Let me just break down that illusion to see what it means in reality today.

The advanced education budget, according to this budget, will increase by $105 million by 2007 — not the here and now, not even next year, but by 2007. Let's break down what that means, because those numbers are so big that sometimes when you hear it you think: "Oh wow, great." In reality it means this: how is the government going to fund the 25,000 additional spaces? Right off the top they took $30 million directly out of students from the financial assistance program. That is now gone — eliminated.

I heard the Minister of Advanced Education…. I read, actually, a letter to the editor from the Minister of Advanced Education saying they are reallocating the moneys to help students — reallocating by taking the money away. The $30 million that was there for bursaries to support students to get an advanced education is now gone. The government took it so that they can say they're funding 25,000 new spaces — on the backs of students, but not only that, because $30 million is not enough to fund the 25,000 spaces.

The government, in their own budget document, actually talks about that for '06-07 they project an increase in tuition in the amount of $175 million — an increase of $175 million over three years. That's a total of $205 million taken directly from students' pockets, to fund the 25,000 new spaces. That's what it means.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The promised space wouldn't even materialize…. The promised 25,000 spaces won't be there until 2010. By 2010, I dare say that at this rate the students, particularly those from middle-income and low-income families, would not be able to afford to go to university. It would be completely out of their reach, at this rate. That is, of course, keeping in mind that the increases from the last two years are on average at least 30 percent per year. That's just being kind, because some programs have had over a 100 percent increase. I'm just taking the average, and I believe the average is a 64 percent increase over the last two years. That's to be added on top of what's to come.

On per-space funding, what does that look like? It means $4,200 per space. What was it before this Liberal government took office? It used to be over $7,000 per space. That's what these numbers break down to, and that's what they mean. Effectively it means cuts in the post-secondary education system, the same thing as in the K-to-12 system. In fact, let me give you the exact number. In '02-03 the per-space funding was $7,238. That per-space funding is being reduced to $4,200.

If the government were honest and sincere and genuine about funding 25,000 new spaces in post-secondary education, then they would have to promise, at the current funding levels, a $181 million increase in the education system. That is not the case, and as a result, the government is stiffing B.C.'s colleges out of $76 million. Of course, this doesn't even account for inflation.

In their attempt to find good news anywhere — this is what this budget is about, trying to find good news anywhere — the Liberals have actually made an empty promise that their 25,000 spaces promised will in fact force significant burdens onto students and, by their own account, at least $205 million more on students. The institutions themselves will have to find another $76 million. That would likely, if they don't have any other sources, result in tuition increases.

The government wants all students with a 75 percent average to get access to university. By the time 2010 rolls around, when those spaces actually exist, as I

said, post-secondary education will be out of reach for many students. That's the real situation in post-secondary education.

Let me touch on the welfare situation. That's a cut, under this budget, of $117 million in welfare. That's what it means. I know the government likes to say: "No, no, no. We increased welfare by $80 million." No, that's not what it means. If you look at the budget books from last year and the year before, what it means is that the government is cutting $117 million out of welfare. That's the reality of what this government is doing.

They didn't have any qualms when they wasted the money — $5 million worth — on this ill-conceived disability review. When their own internal officials, from their own internal document…. Government officials warned them that by doing this, they were going to create fear and anxiety and confusion amongst people with disabilities, particularly those with mental illness.

J. Kwan: Well, read the documents. If the Minister of State for Multicultural Services suggests this is not true, then I would urge the minister to actually read the documents for himself and not just take the word of the Minister of Finance or the spin doctors from the Premier's office or the Premier. The numbers don't lie, the budget books don't lie, and the internal documents we have obtained through a leaked document say exactly that. We're not making it up. Look for yourself. Don't just trust the colleagues around the government side, because if you ask me, whose word would you take — the Minister of Human Resources, who says the whole exercise around the disability review was not about finding cost savings, or the auditor general, who says it is exactly about cost savings? Well, I would take the word of an independent auditor — an independent auditor who in his findings finds exactly that.

Let's just look at the welfare situation. The information, according to the budget books, actually says that the Human Resources budget, under the temporary assistance category, would be cut by $79.4 million. That is 17.2 percent in 2004-05. The ministry's own service plan indicates that further cuts to the temporary assistance area would be $8.5 million in '05-06 and $10.7 million in '06-07. In other words, that is an 80 percent cut planned for temporary assistance to be made in the 12 months starting April 1, 2004. That's right in the budget document, page 23, which said: "Since 2001-02, the expected-to-work caseload has fallen from 84,114 to 33,140 in 2003-04, a decline of 50,974 or 61 percent." Then it goes on to say: "Over the next three years this caseload is forecast to decline to 20,200, a further decrease of 12,940 or 39 percent."

The caseload is expected to drop. Now, they say this is a moderate rate, according to the budget book — an 80 percent drop. I say an 80 percent drop is anything but moderate. What does that mean, potentially? I think it would mean that for people on income assistance, if these budget numbers prove to be correct, there would be a lot who would be found to be ineligible, irrespective of need. That would be my prediction. We'll wait and see what happens. That is the area of welfare.

In all of that, I have just touched on some of the cuts. Let me just turn for a moment to look and see who benefits in this budget, because it's actually quite easy to see. Let's just look at the table on page 138 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2004/05 to 2006/07. In this budget you see there who is paying. Let me just start by saying who is paying, and then I will go to who is benefiting.

Seniors on a fixed income of $30,000 will pay more. In fact, a senior couple with a pension income of $30,000 will pay $128 more in provincial taxes. Let's look at a two-income family of four with two parents, let's say, working at minimum wage — not an unlikely scenario. My parents, before they retired, worked at minimum-wage jobs. Now, they had more than two kids; they had a whole whack of us — six, in fact. Anyway, that's another story for another day. How much more are they paying? Two-income families of four earning $30,000 pay $435 more in taxes. Let's look at two-income, two-parent, two-child families earning $60,000. How much more are they paying — $128 more.

Let's just contrast that for a moment to the single-income person making $80,000 a year. What does that person get? Oh. Under this government and their approach, that individual gets a tax break. How much of a tax break, you ask? Almost $500 of a tax break. How about that? Oh, in fact, sorry — my apologies — $631.

So there you have it. The reason why I raise this is not necessarily to say that the individual person making $80,000 should not get a tax break. I raise it to contrast the approach of this government that if you are lower income, you have a greater set of responsibilities by way of children — dependents, that is. Then, under this government's ideology, you have to pay more taxes.

If you are a senior who has worked all your life to support your family, to pay taxes into this province — what we call in the Chinese community a senior who is retired…. Those years are the golden years. That's what we call them. Those are the years that they can sit back and look at and enjoy the fruits of their hard labour. The children are all grown up, their debts paid off, and they can just sit back and relax and enjoy those golden years.

That is not so under the ideology of this government. Seniors find themselves having to pay more taxes than before. More fees are off-loaded to them than before. That's the ideology of this government. I don't begrudge people getting tax breaks, but I do have a difficulty with a government where they look towards regressive tax approaches as the way to implement their economic policy. That's where I have trouble. I have great difficulty seeing seniors who struggle all their lives and then have to pay more taxes in their

golden years and receive fewer services. I have great difficulty seeing young families struggling with low incomes, minimum-wage jobs, to have to pay more taxes under this government.

That is not the Canada that I know. It is not the Canada that we came to, that my family emigrated to. The Canada that I know is one….

J. Kwan: The Minister of State for Immigration asks where I would like to go. I'd like to go to the Canada where it respects Canadians, where it respects immigrants, where it supports programs in the education system for those who have ESL difficulties — for at-risk students. It is a Canada I know, where MSP premiums and Pharmacare costs are not going up for seniors — where they worked all their lives. That's the Canada where I want to go. I want to go to a Canada where the government does not attack poor people — that scares the heck out of them by threatening to cut them off of the disability benefits.

That's the Canada that I grew up in when I came in 1975. That's the Canada that my family made the move to come to, to settle in a new land. That's the Canada that I want to see in the future to rebuild the province that this government, this Liberal government, has dismantled day by day. In less than three years they have dismantled some fundamental Canadian values that we can no longer see.

Some days I must admit that I am ashamed — ashamed to be a Canadian because of what this Liberal government is doing. When I walk down and see the poor people in my community starving, when I see in Vancouver that the homeless rate has doubled in two years from 600 to 1,200, I am not proud of that record. I am not proud of the report the GVRD just came out with most recently, which finds that homelessness has increased by 1,000 in the lower mainland. Incidentally, that number just happens to coincide with what this Liberal government has done by cancelling about 1,000 units of affordable housing when they came to office.

If the Minister for Immigration wants to know what country I want to go to, I want to go to the Canada that shows caring, compassion and fiscal management as opposed to mismanagement and uncaring for the people who are in greatest need. That's the Canada I want to be in. That's the province I want to be in. That's the place I want to raise my children. That's the place and those are the values I want to teach my young child, who is only 11 months old right now — to care about people, to value humanity, to set aside the class structure and to understand that we should all have equal opportunities to maximize our potential, no matter who we are, how much money we make or what backgrounds we come from. That's the Canada and that's the British Columbia that I aspire to, that I dream about.

Let me get back to numbers. Let me close with this on the budget number question. When this government attacks our leader, Carole James, by suggesting that she will put forward a platform in the upcoming election because she cares about British Columbians and that it would be a balanced budget, that it would be a balanced approach, that it would look towards balancing out the inequities that exist in our society and that this government has created…. I am proud of Carole James as a leader who has that vision. I am proud, and I am ready to go to an election with this government right now. I would be glad to stand up with a platform of Carole James and the NDP against this Liberal government's platform any day.

If the Minister for Immigration has the gumption to say to the Premier, "Call the election; call the election now," then I urge him to do so. Maybe if the Minister for Immigration has the gumption to say to the Premier around this budget that, by the by, the immigration budget has been reduced to some $6 million from $9 million…. That's not saying that prior to this government coming into office, the Minister for Multicultural Services actually had $23 million in his budget. This minister may rise up in the budget response, I hope, and say to the Premier: "I am ashamed of what this government is doing with respect to multiculturalism because that $6 million, with a reduction of at least $3 million from $9 million previously, is tokenism. I'm ashamed of this government's action." I dare the Minister for Multicultural Services to rise up and challenge his own government on their record around this front.

I will be proud to stand in an election to say this is what the NDP stood for and that's what we stand for against this government's record. Call the election now. We're ready to go. I may add that we will balance the budget, and we have balanced the budget two years in a row.

No, actually. The two budgets that were balanced were prior to when this government took office. They increased the deficit to a record high in the history of British Columbia, ever — the two highest deficits in the history of British Columbia — and all the while increased the debt load. I'll get to that in a moment. It was the NDP who balanced the budget, and you know what? Subsequent budgets from the NDP will be balanced budgets.

Do you know how the Minister of Finance explains these regressive tax increases for those with lower income? He says they're because of rising property taxes. Well, what nonsense. What kind of government wages war on low- and middle-income earners and then blames the casualties on the overheated real estate market in greater Vancouver? This may come as a shock to members of the Liberal benches, but minimum-wage earners don't own homes in Kerrisdale, generally speaking, or on the east side or Surrey or Coquitlam, for that matter.

The Minister of Provincial Revenue, before sneaking out the side door of this chamber when the question was raised to the minister during question period, tried to explain away this tax grab by saying that low- and middle-income earners are better off now than they were five years ago. Well, let's just take a look-see. Five years ago we had subsidized child care for low-income and middle-income families. We had a tuition fee freeze that saw the rate of participation in post-secondary education soar to number two in the country. We had a provincial housing program that was actually building social housing in British Columbia for those who are now homeless.

Here's an example of just how far this government is prepared to go to justify its failed economic policies. Yesterday the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development kicked out a press release claiming that an international study demonstrated the success of their cutting of taxes, regulations and employment standards and increasing the competitiveness of British Columbia. Well, the minister correctly notes that when compared to other cities on the Pacific coast, we do have a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, that is the only fact taken from the study that he gets right.

What he fails to mention is that when compared to other 16 Canadian cities in the survey, Vancouver is dead last in competitiveness. We're even less competitive than those bastions of capitalism, Winnipeg and Saskatchewan — less competitive, Mr. Speaker, in case the members heard me wrong. Maybe the headline on the press release should have said this instead: "B.C. Liberals Play Catch-up to NDP Provinces." Maybe that should have been the headline for the press release.

The other fact the minister overlooks is that the report places up to 75 percent of our competitive advantage on lower labour costs — not taxes, as they make up only 10 percent of the costs, and not regulations, as they were not even part of the study. This is what passes for success by this government — spin in the face of failure. That's what passes for success under this Liberal government.

When this government took office, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 20.8 percent. In the government fiscal plan it is 20.7 percent. Oh, three years of grinding it out to reduce the debt, and what is the result? The projected decline of 1/10 of 1 percent. How much debt was added in this time? Hold onto your seat, Mr. Speaker, because it is a record high of $9.7 billion for a total of $40.966 billion.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the Opposition House Leader, says, what do they have to show for it? Let's just see now. There are 97 school closures across the province, hospitals closing all over the province and long-term care homes closing for the seniors. Let me just stop and think for a moment. What do they have to show for it? A big fat zero. They call that progress. Ha. Maybe it's just me. If I look around, I sit there and think: wait a minute…. When schools close, courthouses close, hospitals close, services are declining, homeless people are on the rise, there are no more housing programs, seniors are getting kicked out of their long-term care homes…. I sit there and I think that's not progress. It's a funny way of defining progress, but that's what the Liberals are doing.

Now let's just look at some other things that are equally tangible. Average weekly earnings over the last year have increased a mere 0.2 percent. Inflation last year averaged 2 percent. It is expected to be about that in the coming year. Workers are, in fact, falling behind. Low-paid workers are falling behind and, of course, thanks to this government with respect to their regressive taxes. Personal disposable income increased a mere 1 percent — 0.1 percent; 1 percent is giving them 9/10 of an increase. That's not true. It was 0.1 percent last year.

The government likes to make much of its job creation record. You see ads out there saying what a great job this government is doing. I think I just saw one yesterday about the 2004-05 budget with respect to job creation. You know what? What it fails to acknowledge is that the actual number of people working has increased by 83,000, while the number of jobs is up by 153,000. What that means is that 46 percent of those jobs are part-time. That brings us back to $30,000 per year for two-income families. This one the government has chosen to punish. That's how they can create these numbers.

In reality, if you look at how much money the people are bringing home, British Columbia is the only province where the weekly earnings for British Columbians have actually decreased. We're the only province where that's happened. In the 2002-03 budget and fiscal plan the Minister of Finance stated, regarding the B.C. family bonus: "The policy for the next three years will be to allow annual increases in the combined benefit equal to one-half the federal inflation adjustment. Thus, families will receive an increase in benefits each year." That's from page 121 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2002/03 to 2004/05.

In fact, that's not what's happening. Our $30,000-per-year family is seeing more and more of its child benefits payment clawed back. It is the Liberals here in Victoria and those in Ottawa who are complicit in this attack on their families.

At a time when everybody is concerned about the safety of the food we eat, the Ministry of Agriculture is cutting the budget for food safety — cutting back on food safety in this budget that we are to vote on later today. Only yesterday we voted to put more money to cover the costs of BSE.

This budget does nothing to improve the lives of average British Columbians. It does nothing to improve the competitiveness of the provincial economy. It is the fiscal equivalent of treading water. That's being kind. That's not what British Columbians voted for. You know what? British Columbians deserve better.

Now, I want to close off with this. I mentioned it earlier and actually neglected to do it. I do want to touch on it for one moment. It is vitally important that we look and see what happened with the tax shift that this government has implemented with respect to taxes. I mentioned that I was going to highlight who actually benefited from this tax shift. Let me just outline that information for you before I close off.

The Liberal government's tax-shift shell game — here it is. They balanced the budget on the backs of lower- and middle-income families. The Premier promised to take less money from the pockets of ordinary British Columbians and provide for better services. Instead, he is taking more in taxes and providing fewer services. Government took in, in 2000-01, in millions of dollars — $15,177,000. That's how much government took. In 2004-05, let's look and see how much they took — $50,683,000. That's just a comparison, beginning in 2000-01, with 2004-05.

Then let's look at the corporate taxes. In 2000-01 corporate taxes in millions of dollars, was $1.513 million that was collected, and the 2004-05 is $993 million. That's in millions of dollars. That's the comparison. In income taxes, in 2000-01 it was $5,963 million, and in '04-05 it's $5,005 million. In other taxes, $7,701 million and in '04-05, $9,685 million. As you can see, taxes have increased under this government, and the people who benefited from this would be the big corporations, because their taxes have gone down substantively.

To make up for that difference, who paid for it? Lower- and middle-income families. That's who paid for it — and that combined with the service cuts. So after slashing corporate taxes for the highest income, the B.C. Liberals hiked taxes for the rest of us by nearly $2 billion. That's how much it is.

Sorry, I was mistaken when I said $1.513 million. I meant billion. My apologies, and that flows with all the other numbers as well. My apologies.

The $2 billion increase in taxes includes sales tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, property tax, MSP premiums and many, many other taxes. So that is what we have. This government may want to sing their praises with blinders on, but the reality is different. The reality for the families on the ground is completely different, and you know what? British Columbians know it. It doesn't matter how much money they will spend on their advertising. It doesn't matter how many millions of dollars they are spending on advertising, and according to this budget book, that is at least $33 million they're spending.

It doesn't matter how much they spend on advertising. It's not going to make a difference, because British Columbians know this government has lost its credibility. They have betrayed British Columbians. They have broken promise after promise after promise, and British Columbians want a different alternative. We look forward to going into an election, and I dare the Minister of Finance to ask the Premier to call the election now.

Hon. G. Cheema: I'm very honoured, as the Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services and as the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, to rise in response to the budget speech. You just heard one of the messengers of the NDP, a messenger of doom and gloom with a negative attitude. We are the messengers of hope and prosperity for this province. The people of this province will never forgive or forget the NDP's failed policies of borrow and spend.

This is a responsible budget, an honest budget. It is a budget that I am very proud of, a budget that all British Columbians can be very proud of. It is a hugely positive step forward to making British Columbia number one again. You can be sure it took a lot of hard work to arrive at this point. Each step along the journey to a balanced budget required discipline, determination, patience and persistence. We listened to the people of this province, and we laid out a plan, a road map to responsibility over three years. We said we would produce a balanced budget. We said it would take three years. We said that it wouldn't be easy, but that it had to be done.

We took responsible action; we made tough decisions. Now, after three years, the results are evident everywhere. For example, for the first time in six years more people are moving to B.C. from other provinces than moving out — more people to pay taxes, more people to consume goods and services and to enjoy the quality of life in British Columbia.

A promising economy attracts higher-income people to move here — higher-income people, who pay more taxes. The number of families moving to our beautiful province will continue to grow as our confidence in our economy grows — and as confidence grows, our will to continue to do what's needed for economic growth. The people who left this province seeking opportunities elsewhere during the NDP years are returning. Young people who sought opportunities back east and abroad are coming back home. They are returning because opportunities and hope have returned. Individuals and their families and quality workers are coming from outside Canada to make this province their home, and we welcome them. I'm happy to say that B.C. is attracting 43 percent of all immigrant investors to Canada — the highest since 1997 — because of the policies of this government.

There is optimism out there, optimism grounded in real progress. A recent poll showed that owners of small and medium-sized businesses are more optimistic about their future business prospects in B. C. than anywhere else in Canada. Small business makes up, up to 98 percent of the business in this province. If these business owners are optimistic, they will reinvest in their businesses and hire more workers as demand for the goods and services increases. In doing so, they will contribute even more to the economic health of their communities and this province. Confidence in the economy, optimism about business growth and devel-

Over the past two years B.C. has created 159,000 jobs, enjoying the fastest growth rate in the country. More than two million people in B.C. are working, and British Columbians' take-home pay is growing. From 2001 to 2003 the employment in B.C. grew by over 8 percent — the highest increase in Canada, well ahead of the 5.5 percent national average. Over 83,000 jobs were created in 2003 here in British Columbia.

Wage increases for B.C. workers continue to grow. Better still, wage rates are increasing faster than inflation. Early on, this government cut personal income taxes by 25 percent, creating more disposable income for families throughout the province. For example, a person in B.C. earning up to $64,000 pays the lowest tax rate in all of Canada. In fact, the average income tax paid by B.C. families has gone down over 13 percent, the largest decrease in 20 years. As the wage earners in this province know, this means that more of their hard-earned money shows up in their pay pockets.

Aftertax income in B.C. jumped almost 5 percent in 2001, the third-strongest increase in Canada and the largest increase in aftertax income for B.C. families in almost two decades. The total tax burden, including income and consumer taxes as well as municipal taxes — all the taxes that individuals pay in this province — is the second-lowest amount in the country. That is the reason the housing starts are the highest in the country. Is it any wonder that B.C. is leading in job growth, in retail sales and in retail sale opportunities?

It is clear that a huge economic turnaround is underway. This is what the people of this province elected us to. They said: "Turn things around. Give us a government that is responsible. Restore our pride in British Columbia." That's exactly what we have done. With a lot of hard work by the Minister of Finance and lot of determination, we have turned the economy around. We acted responsibly, planning carefully and spending taxpayers' dollars with care and consideration. We acted personally as well. All the MLAs took a 5 percent pay cut — all except the two opposition NDP members. We were willing to be part of the tough choices that had to be made. We acted responsibly.

Our government proved that you can cut taxes and have a thriving economy. You can cut taxes and have a balanced budget. We have been able to accomplish this and will accomplish much more because we listened and continue to listen.

Our Premier has taken a giant step forward by building bridges between B.C. communities and diverse countries around the world. By visiting India and China and participating in their cultures, the Premier has displayed what we all know to be true — that mutual respect, trust and understanding are the key to a healthy, safe and prosperous community. We will continue to build on those partnerships.

Under Premier Campbell's leadership we have restored accountability in our government, we have restored confidence and created optimism for the future of every citizen of British Columbia, and we have balanced our budget. A balanced budget means that we can now plan for the future in a prosperous British Columbia. A balanced budget means we can attract future investment. A balanced budget means we can make spending choices based on real priorities like education and health care, choices that bring real hope for the future. A balanced budget means we can invest in our future — a secure future for ourselves, our families and our communities.

Ultimately, a strong provincial economy is an investment in our future and in our children's future. I'm proud to be part of this government that has taken financial responsibility seriously, a government that understands that taxpayers deserve value for their money. I'm proud to live in a province where we can look forward to prosperity and the promise of an even better tomorrow. I'm proud to say to my family, to the community, to the residents of Surrey–Panorama Ridge and to the citizens of British Columbia: we are back in business in this province.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to extend my thanks as we wrap up the debate on the balanced budget — not just for this year but for the next two years as well. I want to extend some thanks to, first and foremost, the people of British Columbia, who have carried the workload in trying to make sure that British Columbia got its costs under control and that we put ourselves in a fiscal position where we, as a province and as a society and as a people, had choices that were available to us in the years ahead; where we have surplus dollars from the budget and can start to focus those on priorities and needs of British Columbians in an effort to grow this province and continue to expand the economy, provide opportunities for our young people and make sure British Columbia is a place where people can grow their families, grow their businesses and build their futures.

I also want to extend my thanks to my caucus colleagues who, as well, have spoken, I think, very eloquently in the last week or so in response to the budget, talking about their priorities, the priorities of their constituents and the efforts that they've put into this over the last couple of years. It has been a very difficult and challenging job for all of them. I appreciate their support. I have had absolutely no lack of support from the members of the caucus over the last two years as we tried, on behalf of British Columbians, to get our costs under control, bring this budget into balance and build a better and brighter future for British Columbians.

I also want to speak for just a moment, if I may, about the support, the guidance and the leadership that we've all received from the Premier, who has been unstinting in his energy and his effort to ensure that we delivered on what many would think was our number one key commitment during the election campaign,

which was to balance our budget and get our costs under control. There are many times when people would prefer not to have to make difficult choices. There are many times when people would prefer to be able to just keep the status quo, because that's comfortable. The Premier was unstinting in his commitment to deliver on the promise he made to people in British Columbia to get our costs under control, balance our budget, grow our economy and make sure we focus tax dollars on the priorities of British Columbians. I want to thank him for his work over the last two years as well.

I want to respond very briefly, if I may, to some of the comments we've heard from those who oppose this government and think things would have been so much better had the NDP remained in power after the last election.

It's important that people look at what we've accomplished in British Columbia. We have balanced the budget, and not in a way that's a flash in the pan or that's going to happen for one year because of a big California energy crisis or something like that. It has actually been done in a way that's sustainable — not just for this year but next year, the year after and the years in the future as well. It's important for those people who rely upon the services the government provides to be able to know that those social services and those social programs are sustainable, that they will be there in the years ahead. Putting them on a sound footing gives everybody a sense of reassurance that those services will be there for them in the years ahead.

It's also important to note the progress that's been made in the economy. Mr. Speaker, if you look at where British Columbia was a short two and a half years ago, it was number ten in economic growth in Canada. We were seeing one of the most important and significant measures you can take of people's confidence in the future of a province — whether or not people are choosing to move there or whether or not people who live there are choosing to stay there. We saw an exodus of British Columbians — our best and our brightest, our highly skilled workers, our people who would normally help to build the future of this province — starting in 1997. Actually, it started before that, but the tide turned in 1997 to the point where more people were leaving British Columbia than were choosing to come here from other parts of Canada. People were voting with their feet. They were voting with their futures. They were choosing to leave this province.

For the first time since 1997, in the third quarter last year, we turned that corner. More people chose to come to British Columbia — more importantly, back to British Columbia — than we'd seen in the previous years. People are choosing B.C. as the place of opportunity and the place where they want to build their future.

That's helped to create an opportunity here in British Columbia for growth. It's no surprise to people — and certainly, I think, a very strong indication of the turn of events in the last couple of years — that British Columbia has led the country in new job growth in the last two years, well above the national average and ahead of every other province in Canada. That's because people are seeing that British Columbia is where the opportunity is. Small and medium-sized businesses, as well, are choosing to invest here and grow here.

The fact is that we're number one in job creation, number one in housing starts. We've turned the corner. British Columbia is moving up the pack in economic growth. British Columbia has turned the corner. Our future is brighter than our past, and our best is yet to come.

I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 55

L. Reid	Chong	Brice
Cheema	Hansen	Barisoff
van Dongen	Bray	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Plant	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Harris
Christensen	Abbott	Coleman
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Hogg	Nuraney
Brenzinger	R. Stewart	Hunter
Chutter	Long	Johnston
Belsey	Krueger	J. Reid
Hayer	Nebbeling	Stephens
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Visser	Lekstrom
MacKay	Halsey-Brandt	K. Stewart
Bloy	Whittred	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 3

MacPhail	Kwan	Nettleton