[ Page 95 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to introduce to the House -- to the chamber -- an outstanding British Columbian visiting us here today, the Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, who sat in this chamber right next to my seat, actually, in 1986. I would ask all members to make her welcome today.

Hon. C. Evans: The prayers for the day made mention of this vast country, and gathered behind me this afternoon are representatives of this vast country. Since about the turn of the century, agriculture ministers from across Canada have been meeting every year to share information and sometimes to beat up on the federal government. This year British Columbia has the honour of hosting the annual agriculture conference.

I will introduce the ministers visiting today so that hon. members can welcome them: from Alberta, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Hon. Walter Paszkowski; from Saskatchewan, the best spoons player in Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Hon. Eric Upshall; from Manitoba, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Harry Enns; from Ontario, where question period lasts for an hour, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs -- and boy, I'm glad it's not the minister of rural affairs in B.C. -- the Hon. Noble Villeneuve; from Nova Scotia, the former Minister of Agriculture and Marketing, the Hon. Wayne Gaudet; from Prince Edward Island, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Walter Bradley; and from Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Forests, Resources and Agri-Food, the Hon. Beaton Tulk.

The federal minister will join us in B.C. tomorrow, and with any luck I shan't have to come back and introduce them again.

F. Gingell: In the House today are the two younger brothers of one of our longtime researchers, Neil Sweeney. I ask you all to make a warm welcome to the twin brothers Mike and Brent Sweeney.

P. Calendino: I ask the House to welcome a very special person from Delta, Mr. Bill Dennison, who was a CCF candidate in the 1957 federal election and again in the 1960 provincial election. Mr. Dennison has the distinction of being the longest-continuing delegate to CCF-NDP conventions. He started in 1952, and he has not missed one. Please welcome Mr. Dennison.

G. Farrell-Collins: First of all, I too would like to add my welcome to one of my constituents: the former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell. I would also ask the House to welcome the young woman who is sitting beside her, Parmjeet Vinning, who is the daughter of a very good friend of mine and who's here for a week to volunteer and see how this place works -- and doesn't work. I ask the House to make them both welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I notice in the gallery another individual who has also served on the floor of this chamber, and I'm glad to see him back to hear the vigorous thrust and parry of question period again. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jim Beattie to this chamber.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

The NDP based their recent election campaign on stating that they had achieved a balanced budget in the year '95-96. Over the weekend we learned from the Finance minister that the government had in fact not balanced the budget, as they had repeatedly told both this House and the people of British Columbia. It is now clear that the NDP ran the most cynical, deceitful and untruthful election campaign in the history of this province. Therefore I take this, my first opportunity, to reserve my right to comment on a matter of privilege raised by the actions of the Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich South.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his notice.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I know that we are all new, so I know the hon. member is just reserving his right. But let me just add comments to his right of reserve, if I may, just very briefly. And that is that....

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think this is probably a point of order coming from the Government House Leader. Am I correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Right.

The Speaker: I'll take that point of order and then I'll deal with the Opposition House Leader. For my clarification, this is a point of order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In light of future practices where one reserves the right, one isn't allowed to make the accompanying statements that the hon. member made without challenge. I would just suggest that as a point of order the hon. member, who is not new to his post -- although very venerated in it, I know.... Really, those matters are for debate during the budget debate which is coming up -- plenty of opportunity. If he truly wished to move a motion of privilege, he should have done so.

The Speaker: I will simply note that the reservation for the point of privilege has been made, and will deal with that accordingly.

Hon. A. Petter: I ask leave to table a document providing an updated forecast from the financial results for 1995-96 fiscal year.

Leave granted.

G. Campbell: On a number of occasions the NDP government has shown its contempt not just for the people and the voters of British Columbia, but for this Legislature.

[2:15]

[ Page 96 ]

Last week the depth of that contempt was exposed by the Minister of Finance. On Friday he announced that the 1995-96 "balanced budget" which was trumpeted in the throne speech was in fact false. It was not a balanced budget at all. It was a budget with a deficit of $235 million. On May 19 the Premier of this province said: "You might be able to get away with changing your position, but you can't get away with outright false information."

The question I have for the Premier is: in view of the outright false information which was tabled in this House, will the Premier demand the resignation of the Minister of Finance today?

Hon. G. Clark: On the contrary, hon. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Finance for, as soon as.... [Applause.]

This is an important point, because as soon as confirmation was given that there was, in fact, a likelihood that there would be a deficit -- and there is no guarantee yet, because the books have not closed -- the Minister of Finance felt it important to lay that before the House at the first opportunity and give members an opportunity to discuss it. That's the kind of integrity we expect from members of this House, and that's why I stand behind the Minister of Finance.

G. Campbell: If this government was as open and honest as it claims, it would have asked all of the members of the media for a special audience with the minister so he could have cleared up his misrepresentations. The fact is that this government, in less than a month, has broken dozens of promises. It misled the public before the election, it misled them during the election, and it has misled them since the election.

British Columbia's Finance officials are known for their professionalism. They knew well before last Friday afternoon there was a shortfall; this minister should have known there was a shortfall. If he didn't, he was exceptionally incompetent, and therefore the Premier today should ask for his resignation.

Do you accept incompetence in your cabinet, Mr. Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: Every year there's a discrepancy between the budget and the public accounts that come in some months after that. A few years ago it was $700 million to the good, and we never heard anything from the opposition then. The books have not even closed yet, but we know that forest revenue is likely to be not what was projected in the budget. Therefore, at the first opportunity, we have tabled that information.

It's important for the people of British Columbia to know that we brought in a budget that cut taxes for small business, that cut taxes for individuals and that cuts taxes next year. We campaigned on that budget, we brought in that budget, we passed that budget, and we are proud of it. That's why we are on this side and you are on that side of the House.

G. Campbell: The budget was presented by this government. The budget in '95-96 was presented by this government, and '96-97, and they claimed it was a balanced budget. They spent millions of dollars advertising the "second balanced budget" in British Columbia -- taxpayers' dollars.

The fact of the matter is that a $235 million deficit is there for all British Columbians to see. Finance officials, I am sure, knew of it; the minister, I am sure, knew of it; the Premier knew of it. The fact is that the people of British Columbia demand better from this government -- from any government.

The Premier must, today, hold his own cabinet accountable. Will he not demand the resignation of the Minister of Finance, who has misled the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: He not only has not misled the people of British Columbia, he has come into this House at the first opportunity and given a forecast to members opposite. The books won't even close for a few months, and he has already come forward and said, at the first opportunity, that it looks like there may well be some kind of deficit this past fiscal year.

We have brought in a budget. We are in debate right now. That budget does many things for British Columbians. We stand by the budget. We are going to work hard to make sure we bring in a balanced budget, just as we have done every year. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, members. Before I take the question from the member for Delta South, may I just advise both sides of the House that it is extremely difficult to listen to speakers if they are being heckled demonstrably and with passion by either side. I ask all members to please let me hear what is in fact being questioned and answered.

F. Gingell: Please, Mr. Speaker, add a little bit of injury time.

The Minister of Finance's budget, delivered last Wednesday, had no references in it whatsoever to a second balanced budget, a matter that had been advertised and talked about all around the province. But in the media on Saturday, he was reported as saying that he only discovered on Wednesday that his 1995-96 surplus had melted away. Does the minister still make the claim that he only discovered it on Wednesday?

Hon. A. Petter: After becoming Minister of Finance, I received considerable briefings on issues such as this. I was advised around revenue forecasts up, down and sideways. It became clear to me that there was a concern around forest revenues, which had been identified before I delivered my budget on Wednesday. However, officials in my ministry also made it absolutely clear that their concern was preliminary and that it was subject to change. I had no reliable information until Friday.

What's extraordinary, hon. Speaker, is not that I had that reliable information on Friday, but that as soon as I had it I made it public so all members of the Legislature and all members of the public could know the true financial picture.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it stretches the limits of our credulity to believe that nobody knew about this for three months after the fiscal year-end. Last Wednesday this minister distributed information to all these members that was untrue, containing estimates on last year's results that were untrue, and he had good beforehand knowledge of it. Does the minister surely not agree with all other British Columbians that such actions on his part are cause for his resignation?

Hon. A. Petter: I have acted throughout this with the utmost integrity and truth, and I will not stand for that member impugning my integrity. The moment I had reliable infor-

[ Page 97 ]

mation to bring before this House -- information that may not be politically advantageous, as the members opposite no doubt realize -- I brought it before the public and before this House. I am committed to being forthright as Minister of Finance, whether it favours me or does not favour me. I have done that here, and I am damn proud of it.

F. Gingell: I understand that it is the practice of deputy ministers during a writ period to prepare briefing books to advise the new government or a new minister of current conditions and issues in their ministry. My questions to the Minister of Finance are: (a) was such a briefing book prepared for the Ministry of Finance; (b) on what day did you receive it; (c) is there any reference in that briefing book to the expectation of lower-than-budgeted forest revenues for the year '95-96?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to this matter, I received oral briefings from Finance officials throughout the week. I received some written documentation throughout the week as well. It indicated concerns around forest revenues. But I was admonished that those concerns were very preliminary and subject to change, that they had not been adjusted and that they were not reliable for the basis of bringing forward statements in this House. On Friday I was informed that, as a result of further review, those statements had now been verified, and at that moment I made the information public. I stand by that statement, because it happens to be the truth.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Finance. He stands up and says how proud he is of the fact that at the first opportunity he made that information available to this House and to the public. On Thursday night and Friday morning, this House sat till 2 a.m. If that information was available to the minister then, why didn't he bring it to the House?

Second, he had a press conference on Friday, where all members of the media were available. Why did he wait until after the press conference to go to one member of the press in his riding and give that information -- to one member, the Friday before a long weekend? If he's so damn proud, why didn't he tell the truth?

Hon. A. Petter: The reason I did not bring the information to this House on Thursday evening or the wee hours of Friday morning is that I was not informed of the information until later on Friday, the following morning.

Secondly, I want to admonish the members that even this information is a projection. This is about projections, and the numbers may still change. But I felt it important enough that this projection, which my ministry felt was sufficiently reliable to bring to me on Friday and to share with the financial community in the following weeks, be brought to the public's attention and this House's attention. And that's what I did.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the numbers will change in direct proportion to how much damage is done to the government over this fiasco and this scam.

My question is to the minister: why did he specifically ask one member of the press gallery to stay behind after his press conference, and give that information to one individual, if he was so damn proud? Why didn't he give it to all the people of British Columbia over the long weekend so they could all read it around their barbecues?

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's concern for the press gallery. The information I had on Friday was based on an oral briefing. What I did today was provide the written material to all the press gallery and the members opposite, so we can all make a judgment.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, in this very assembly less than a week ago, this statement was read into the record by B.C.'s Lieutenant-Governor: "The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years, and includes a reduction in overall debt." If this is an hon. minister, will he today at least stand and apologize to the Queen's representative, who has inadvertently uttered a falsehood in this assembly?

Hon. A. Petter: I find it astounding that I would hear such outrage from the benches across the way for my introduction of a statement to provide better information to those very members. Presumably, if they were in government, they would not release information of this kind when it came to their attention. I released it the day that I received it, and for that reason I have no difficulty saying to the members opposite that what I have said is completely truthful and consistent.

F. Gingell: Well, Mr. Speaker, quite a bit has happened since last Wednesday, when I had the opportunity to speak briefly to the budget that was tabled on that day, and quite a bit more, of course, has happened since the first budget was tabled on April 30. Last Wednesday I took the opportunity to caution this government and to suggest to this government that their credibility is terribly, terribly important. We understand that what triggered the Minister of Finance's making these announcements on Friday and today -- maybe not what triggered them but certainly what was a factor -- was that he will be meeting with the various bond-rating agencies and was going to have to disclose that to them anyway.

One of the issues at the base of this whole difference of opinion and why the official opposition is so upset over this matter -- and I believe rightly so -- is that three months have gone by since the end of the fiscal period. Now, those of us that have been in business know that on the first day after the fiscal period is over you don't have an instant set of financial statements. It takes a little time. But any good manager knows what's going on; they talk about these things.

When the minister was Minister of Forests, surely he recognized his responsibilities to follow the revenues of the Ministry of Forests. Are they up? Are they down? What had we budgeted for the three months? What were they? What's in the pipeline? What's the volume of fibre being harvested? What are the prices? What are the market conditions? How do things look to the end of the year? All the right questions that any minister doing his job would ask. I in no way question that the Minister of Finance, who may have fallen down as the Minister of Finance, was busy looking after his responsibilities as the Minister of Forests.

So what was really the last indication? Early in March 1996 the government prepared and put out for publication the consolidated revenue fund interim financial statements for the ten months ended January 31, 1996. And what do those state-

[ Page 98 ]

ments show? They show that at this point they had estimated twelve months' revenues for timber sales and the small business forest enterprise program to be a total of $1.869 billion.

If you take ten-twelfths of that sum, because this is a ten-month financial statement, the portion that one would believe applies to that period is $1.557 billion. How much had they collected? One billion, two hundred and eighty-nine million dollars. So at the end of January 1996, they realized in the middle of March, they were about $268 million behind in forest revenues.

Originally, forest revenues in the first budget had been estimated at a substantially lower sum. When the Columbia River downstream benefits flowed back to the Americans rather than staying in British Columbia, the government made some adjustments. They said that they were cutting expenses and that they expected additional revenues. So in this January 31, 1996, financial statement, the estimated revenues from forest resources are substantially greater than they had been in the budget that had been tabled in March 1995. That was how they made up those amounts. You can write it down, member from Fraserview.

They also stated that they were going to cut expenditures. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the original budget had proposed expenditures of $20.144 billion. They were going to find these savings to make up for the loss of the Columbia downstream benefits by reducing expenditures. So when the budget was tabled on April 30, 1996, what did they do? Yes, they brought in a budget. They showed the revised estimates for 1995-96, and they showed the anticipated expenditures at $20.114 billion -- yes, truly, not the hundreds of millions of dollars they had spoken of, but a reduction of some $30 million.

When this new document comes out, which the minister has now tabled, it shows an increase of $41 million over the amount that was estimated last April. What is all this, Mr. Speaker? They bring in these numbers; they pull numbers out of the air; they go up and down. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what they do.

We always get into great arguments about what the deficit is. What is this deficit? We were told it was going to be a $14 million surplus; now we are told it's going to be a $235 million deficit. That's a difference of $250 million by which it is going to be worse off. We continually speak in this chamber about differences in accounting practices. It's quite easy for me to stand up and make this statement: "This budget is a dishonest budget. Last Thursday the government told us this is a balanced budget; yet, as I said then, the budget figures show a deficit. The government is planning to spend $305 million more than it will be taking in during the coming fiscal year. That, by any definition, is a deficit of $305 million."

Well, I'm quoting who? I'm quoting the Premier of this province. Yes, I've changed the numbers, because these are words that he said on April 20, 1990. It's in Hansard. That's what the Premier of this province said on April 20, 1990, and it's as true today as it was then.

So let's talk about what these differences are. The Premier of this province, on May 27, 1991, said:

"This government does something that no other government in Canada does, and it's unacceptable. Hospitals, schools and the transit authority all require large amounts of public money to build capital works -- hospitals, schools, the SkyTrain system and the like. Instead of recording that debt as a direct debt to the government, they pretend the debt is associated with other people: the hospital financing authority, the education financing authority or the B.C. Transit authority."

And we would now add, of course, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

"The reason that's unfair and doesn't tell the truth about the government's finances, as the auditor-general points out, is that every year the government has to pay the interest on that debt. That comes out of our spending in this fiscal year.

"It's not that hospitals don't need to be built; surely they do. It's not that schools don't need to be built; of course they do.... It's not that we don't need transportation vehicles or rapid transit vehicles, which are very expensive. We need all those things. But be honest. If you're honest about it, that debt has to be paid back by the taxpayers of British Columbia and is therefore a direct debt of this administration...."

With my words added, that debt is properly includable in the expenditures of the consolidated revenue fund. They're all words of the Premier.

There is an organization that this government refers to quite often. It goes by the acronym of DBRS, the Dominion Bond Rating Service. They look at the finances of all of the provinces, and they put out reports. The latest report of theirs that I have is dated June 30, 1995. You will remember that this government, in the late days of March 1995, had tabled a budget that showed a projected surplus of, I think, $114 million for the year 1995-96. Did the Dominion Bond Rating Service accept those numbers? No. Their projections on this report -- which has B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland, etc. -- showed their calculation of the deficit as $595 million. And that did not include the Columbia downstream benefits, which were about to get washed away.

Yet this government carries on with these stories that the way they keep the accounts is acceptable. Last year we had the issue of the Columbia downstream benefits. What else is there that one has to glean by reading through the budget reports? Well, the Americans charge us countervail. British Columbia forest product companies had amounts from their revenues from the sale of softwood lumber deducted and held by the Americans. A series of court challenges and a series of negotiations went through. We were all pleased, I know, last year when we heard that British Columbia had been successful and that the countervail funds were going to be refunded.

The accounting policy of this province, as set out by Treasury Board and as practised by the comptroller general, requires the government to only include in revenue the corporation income taxes for returns that have been filed and have been assessed. But what did they do this year? Well, this year, to try and get a balanced budget, they added an extra $86 million for refunds for corporate income taxes that may come about as a result of countervail refunds.

Now, they didn't take into account -- or so it would seem -- that Price Waterhouse clearly stated that forest profits were down, the pulp market had gone into a steep dive. They maybe looked at all these things, but in any case it's against their own accounting policy to include such amounts unless they believe they are going to be included in the T2 corporation income tax return file and assessed.

[2:45]

I question that. I believe that this $86 million that they have included in revenue, which came to light because they were $450 million out on their debt management plan.... That's one of the causes of the debt management plan: they had included in revenue an amount they maybe will get -- but they are not going to get it very soon.

Another thing they have included, which also caused problems with their debt management plan, was the $47 million that the federal government deducted from the Can-

[ Page 99 ]

ada Assistance Plan payments. Do you know the famous $47 million, because of the residency rules? Well, they have included it in the budget. They have included it in last year's numbers. They say that it's going to be collected, but it's probably going to finish up in the Supreme Court of Canada to get settled. Well, any good accountant knows that you don't anticipate those kinds of profits. The golden rule: anticipate no profits and provide for all losses.

But not with this government. They look for every little excuse, every little thing that they can pick up. So is $86 million for countervail duty refunds? Is $47 million for CAP payments that you hope to get? And I hope you get them; I'm with you 100 percent of the way. But damn it, include it in revenue when you get it; don't put it in revenue when the federal government says they're not going to pay it to you. They're bigger than you are, for goodness' sake.

There's $133 million there. There is $250 million in forest revenues; $250 million of Columbia downstream benefits. And seeing as I have a new minister -- I haven't got the old one anymore to nag about it -- the Columbia River downstream benefit issue was a matter of great import. And the issue, Mr. Minister, wasn't whether or not we would get the money. The secret of accounting, and the secret of government accounts, is to match revenues and expenditures over periods of time.

If somebody comes and pays whatever a driver's licence costs now -- I think it's $35 for seven years or....

An Hon. Member: It's $45.

F. Gingell: How much is it? Forty-five dollars for five years, or $9 a year. Does the government take the $45 into income right away? Hell, no. They defray four-fifths of it. They take in one-fifth each year for five years. It's in the financial statements; you'll see it under the heading of deferred revenue.

The Columbia downstream benefits exercise was an agreement whereby this government agreed to limit the amount of electricity they would take at any one time, and they agreed to limit the amount of power they would take in total each year. For what years? From 1998 to 2025.

Those are the years that that would have been income. If you had sold it at a discount, it would have been deferred revenue -- exactly the same way that the driver's licence deferred revenues are. There's a whole series of deferred revenues, and that fitted it exactly. It was not income of that year; it was a financing transaction.

You know, one of the things that confuses MLAs, particularly when they are new here, is all these financing transactions.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: They confuse me, too, member for Yale-Lillooet.

It's terribly confusing to work out exactly why these financing transactions aren't in the consolidated revenue. They get there in the end, if they are written off or if they are income. But that Columbia downstream benefits amount was a financing transaction. It would have become income in the years it was earned. When was it earned? It was earned in the years we gave up the right to take the electricity -- that's when it was earned, not when we gave up some rights at this point for rights in the future.

Members who sat through the estimates debate of the Ministry of Finance know that I was truly upset about that. I was upset also because this government had gone to the comptroller general, and he'd said: "It's not income; it's against Treasury Board accounting policy." So they went to the auditor general, and the auditor general said: "It's not income." I agree with the auditor general's arguments, and I agree with the conclusion the comptroller general came to, but I didn't agree with how he got there.

But that wasn't good enough. They'd got two opinions from the two most important accounting authorities for this government: the comptroller general, with legislated responsibility; and the auditor general, with legislated responsibility. Not good enough; let's go for one out of three. So they went to an independent chartered accountancy firm and got an opinion from them, which is a bit convoluted. You read it, and I guess, if you really push it, you could take the opinion that this could be included. I don't think they intended you to believe that, but perhaps their opinion wasn't worded as clearly as it might have been.

The reason I'm bringing all this up, Mr. Minister, is that from this point on you are, I believe, the most important minister in this province.

An Hon. Member: Mr. Speaker.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, the minister is.... Would you tell him, please, Mr. Speaker, that I think he's terribly important? It's critically important that he retain his credibility. Credibility in government finance -- credibility in any finance -- is number one. It's critically important.

This province, I believe, has had a good reputation. We tend to be at the leading edge of accounting practices. Yes, you've got to struggle to find everything; it's all hidden away. Perhaps my saying that I believe we are good is more a bit of condemnation for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland -- although Alberta has just agreed to some changes in which they are going to conform to recommendations of the Public Sector Accounting and Auditing Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Canada.

Our credibility is important, and this government has done reasonably well. But it's deals like the Columbia downstream benefits, the countervail income tax thing I spoke of and the CAP $47 million that tend to lose us our credibility. Short-term gain for long-term pain. We must maintain our credibility. We must maintain our credit status.

I'd like to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that the test isn't that we're better than anybody else, because that's comparative; what's important is that we have the best ratings in that our bonds cost us less money than the borrowings of other provinces.

That brings us to the issue of the B.C. bonds and the warehouse. As you are well aware, I'm sure, last October the government raised $1.3 billion -- rather than $300 million, which is what they had intended to raise -- through the sale of B.C. bonds. The reason that happened was that they offered a 6-3/4 percent interest rate, and when the Canada savings bonds came out a few days later, they offered 5-1/4 percent.

An Hon. Member: Oops!

F. Gingell: You can imagine -- oops! -- where everybody invested their money.

[ Page 100 ]

The fact of the matter, I believe, is that had we had good discussions going on with the federal government.... I appreciate that we compete, but we would have been able to have got a feel for whether they were going to be aggressive or passive in their borrowing practices, and we could have perhaps found out that a lower than 6-3/4 rate was appropriate, and you would have got the $300 million you were seeking rather than the $1.3 billion.

Now the Ministry of Finance, under this minister's predecessor, immediately made that a good-news announcement: "The people of British Columbia have shown their faith in us by investing $1.3 billion." But they didn't say: "Because we're getting 1-1/4 percent over the market, this particular arrangement is going to cost the people of British Columbia $18 million a year -- every year those bonds are outstanding."

What happened in April of this year? In April of this year the Minister of Finance was required to state what the interest rate was. So the minister said: "This is good news for current B.C. savings bond holders because we have renewed it at 6-3/4 percent." The truth of the matter is that there was a 6-3/4 percent floor. It could not be reduced. You couldn't say: "Hey, good news, guys: we've brought it down to 6 percent or five nought." In fact, what would they have brought it down to? These B.C. savings bonds should be priced at about 20 points below 30-day government bills, which, in the last days of April, were under 5 percent. I looked at April 30; they were 4.8 percent on that day. So you would have expected these bonds to be renewed at about 4-1/4 percent. But you didn't have any choice. We understand that.

I'd like to suggest that it's cause for you to revisit whether B.C. bonds are a good debt instrument for the province to use. With interest-rate floors you always have the problem: heads I win, tails you lose. And that's certainly the case with these bonds. I do think that it's an issue that you should revisit.

What you should stop doing, Mr. Minister, is losing the credibility of this government and of this ministry by announcing it as good news. It was rotten news. Where we'd been 1-1/4 percentage points over the market, we're now 2.15 percentage points, and that cost British Columbia taxpayers.

How does the market think about the creditworthiness of British Columbia as compared to other provinces? Well, you look at yield rates. For those of you who are interested, I'm sure you were excited to learn on Saturday, when trading for Friday had finished, that Alberta bonds due in December of '95 sold at a yield of 7.663, and B.C. bonds with a slightly earlier due date sold with a yield of 7.715. So Alberta bonds are now cheaper than B.C. bonds. I know we have the same credit rating, or B.C.'s may be a fraction higher. But the truth of the matter is that the market now feels that Alberta bonds are a better risk than B.C. bonds.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce came out with a report quite recently that indicated that the boast that this government makes that our net debt in relation to GNP is the lowest in Canada.... They said that Alberta's is lower. And the Minister of Finance -- the predecessor to the present minister -- said: "I don't believe that," and I read it and I said: "I don't believe that." And I agreed with the minister.

But I've done some checking since, and it seems that Alberta came in with a $1.1 billion surplus. It's virtually all been.... Well, for the time being, anyway, it's all been applied to debt. I think their per capita debt may be fractionally higher, but their debt in relation to the GNP is lower. So in future, Mr. Speaker, you should advise the minister to watch his rhetoric. What was true before may not be true anymore. It's a changing world, as the minister discovered between Wednesday and Friday.

[3:00]

Getting back to the defence that the minister made. One reporter who was asked to stay behind forgot, so they had to phone him to get him to come back. Here were all of the media. It was true what our House Leader said. We were all in this chamber until 2 o'clock on Friday morning, admirably supported, I know, by the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who thought we should carry on until 6 o'clock, anyway. But credibility also involves being open and frank, and I'd like to suggest to you that another alternative the minister could have thought about was announcing it in this House today -- not to one reporter on a Friday, with a long weekend coming in.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that when I come back with my motion of privilege, you will look on it with favour. I think it's important for the reputation of the minister and of the government to really have a feeling that we got to the bottom of the issue of who said what and when did you know it.

Moving along -- the debt management plan. Well, we got the bad news on April 30 that we're out $450 million. I hate to tell you this, but it's now $700 million. This difference is not $235 million; this difference is $249 million. You take the $14 million that you suggested on April 30 was going to be your surplus and you add it to the deficit to get the difference: $235 million plus $14 million is $249 million. Add it to the $450 million and the answer is $700 million.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Right.

An Hon. Member: Wrong.

F. Gingell: Right. Wrong, right. Wrong, right. I'll fight you for it. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, well. The minister says it's an accrual. I'll say it's an accrual! It's a cruel trick they played on the people of British Columbia. And actually, it is an accrual: it is accounts receivable....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Okay, it's accrued income that you won't be getting, and you'll have to borrow the money to replace it.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, not last year -- of course not. No, we're getting broker now, Mr. Speaker. The minister is right: we're getting broker now.

Mr. Speaker, it's always interesting to go back and look at some of the early things that affected this government and maybe moulded its early actions when the NDP came into office in late 1991. One of those things, of course, was the famous KPMG Peat Marwick report, which I don't have -- the million-dollar study, indeed. That report said that it is critically 

[ Page 101 ]

important for the government to control program costs. It showed its concern that program costs were accelerating at a rate that was concerning them. This government obviously recognized that too, because when they came out with a debt management plan -- and finally, I'd like to suggest that it wasn't a plan to manage debt, but it was called that -- they made some projections about what they anticipated their costs in future years would be.

The debt management plan showed that for 1996-97 they were going to keep their total expenditures to $20.210 billion. Now, if you go back to the budget reports, '95, under the debt management plan -- I think it's section D -- you will find projected out the anticipated target expenditures for the province for five years: for 1996-97, it was $20.210 billion; this year's budget has been tabled at $20.542 billion -- $572 million, or $500 million or $500-and-a-bunch million.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's how the minister counts; don't worry about it, Fred.

F. Gingell: I can't read it. I think it's $572 million. They're out the first year. You know, you can have some financing transactions -- these famous financing transactions -- that are going to put the debt management plan out from one year to the next. Cash balance is going to be out; accruals are going to be.... There's some funny exercise.... You're not going to get some money from the federal government. Receivables are higher.

G. Farrell-Collins: VI Gas.

F. Gingell: Then there's the exercise about VI Gas, which is most interesting, because the budget reports state that it was negotiated in 1994-95 before the end of the fiscal year, but they forgot to include the pay-out provisions in '95-96, and that's one of the reasons the debt management plan is out.

I haven't had time to chase that down yet. I don't have all the staff that the minister has, who picks up a phone and says: "Tell me about VI Gas." But if it was negotiated and settled in 1994-95, surely the government was aware of the need for financing in 1995-96. I hope that the minister will be prepared to respond to that question during the estimates debate.

I was very pleased to see references in the budget to program review; I was disappointed at the same time that a little more space wasn't spent on it and that it didn't envisage a little wider range. I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, to bring to the attention of this House, again, an important initiative by the auditor general and the deputy ministers' council to improve accountability and, with it, the performance of government. It is, I believe, an initiative that if carried forward will benefit not only this House but ultimately will also result in better government for the people of this province by providing meaningful measures of whether or not programs are achieving their stated objectives. This initiative is best described in two reports issued jointly by the auditor general and the deputy ministers' council and tabled earlier with the Legislative Assembly. They are the 1995 report Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector, and then the follow-up report, Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan.

I don't have it with me; I usually carry it around and read it at every possible opportunity -- an important document. In essence, the initiative is based on the premise that the public disclosure on a timely basis of both performance plans and actual results should improve performance and accountability. It calls for accountability information from all of government -- from its ministries, Crown corporations and funded agencies, and from government as a whole, and as such has implications for how this House can fulfil its own accountability obligations to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that the assembly's own Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviewed the first report of the auditor general and the deputy ministers' council in some detail. The committee, which for the first time in its history met while the House was not in session, not only endorsed the initiative but made a number of significant recommendations of its own in a report to this House. These recommendations include, for example, reform of the estimates process and a restructuring of the committee system.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is timely, as government seeks to improve its accountability to this House, that the House should seek to review the way it scrutinizes the performance of government. That is why I believe it is incumbent upon government to refer the second annual report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was adopted by the assembly, to a select standing committee for action. Let's move this along; let's not sit upon it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the minister to another report called Creating a 21st Century Government. It's the second report of a committee on government reform and oversight of the U.S. Congress. There were eight recommendations.... Well, there were more, but there were eight recommendations that really stuck out in my mind. The first is that we've got to involve the citizens. It's not good enough for government to try and make the decisions about what services citizens want. I know that we all believe we know what's best for everybody else, but the truth of the matter is that we will understand better if we go out and listen to what the citizens think.

The second recommendation that I'd like to get into Hansard is the critically important need to review barriers to reorganization and innovation. In government we have set up, through regulation and other means, all kinds of barriers to doing things better. We have to remove those barriers.

Third, we have to bring in an attitude of competitive bidding. We have to find out if we can get the same levels of quality and of services and spend less of the taxpayers' resources.

The next recommendation this committee made to the U.S. Congress was that they should listen well to the private sector. That doesn't mean to say that we all go madly rushing around on a downsizing exercise, which perhaps the private sector should have looked at with a little more care, but a lot of things are being done in the private sector that will be applicable to government -- and useful to us.

There should be no unfunded mandates. Don't push responsibilities down to lower levels of government and not give them the wherewithal. There should be clear mission statements, clear criteria, clear benchmarks or milestones -- whatever word you want to use -- that tell what you're going to accomplish, when you're going to do it by, how much it's going to cost and how you're going to measure it. That's critically important.

The last thing -- and that's why I left it till last, because I believe it's the key to what British Columbia is doing differently from other provinces.... You can't mandate this from above. Government can't pass legislation; government can't pass rules and tell everybody this is what they've got to 

[ Page 102 ]

do. You've got to get the employees -- the bureaucracy, the people who are involved in service delivery -- involved. You've got to get them excited; you've got to make them realize that they can make a difference.

One of the most encouraging things that I think the Public Accounts Committee had was a discussion. I arranged, through the Clerk of Committees, for two middle-management members of the public service to attend the hearings. We had the director for firefighting services, and we had a program director for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. When we were all through -- we'd heard from the university professors, from the deputy ministers, from administrators in the city of Vancouver and from all kinds of experts, and they'd all gone.... We sat down with these two people, talked about what they heard and what they thought the key issues were, and whether they were excited by it. I finished up with really good feelings. These people care; they want to do a good job. They just want to be given the tools. I am convinced that if we go about this in the right way, we'll all get a dividend -- a really big dividend that's well worth having.

[3:15]

While we're on the subject of dividends, I'd like to just mention one particular dividend that gives me a little bit of a problem. That's the proposed dividend in this year's budget of $214 million from B.C. Hydro -- B.C. Hydro, whose results are down. The most recent financial statements I've seen are the ones in the public accounts, which are for the year ended March 31, 1995. They certainly don't have $214 million cash floating around to pay this dividend, I can assure you. If you go back to the KPMG report of January 1992, they were very critical about the previous government -- the Social Credit administration -- causing Crown corporations to borrow money to pay a dividend to feed government revenues; they were very critical about it indeed. If you just make up a little schedule of the dividend income that has come from B.C. Hydro to the consolidated revenue fund -- you take the B.C. Hydro statements; you look at their debt maturities, at their source and application of funds, and at what has been happening in the last couple of years -- it makes you question strongly whether or not they are in a position to pay a $214 million dividend. Somewhere here I have the statements.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: This is for the year ended December 31, 1995, for the nine months. They're in the quarterly financial statements.

They have a net income of $72 million. In the last quarter of the previous year, they made a total of $44 million in income, $7 million of which came from electricity trade. I understand there has been no electricity trade income in this last quarter. So if you take that off, it will sort of show that B.C. Hydro might make a profit of $109 million or $110 million. But you've already sucked it dry, you know. You've already taken what's available. So a $214 million dividend really does sound to me like another item they popped into the budget so that they could say it was going to be balanced. How could I suggest such a thing? But it does kind of....

Interjections.

F. Gingell: And then when you think about what has happened to B.C. Hydro in the last little while, with sinkholes and Downton Lake and water that they've been stealing out of the Squamish River.... "Stealing" is a bit of an exaggeration, but you know -- borrowing it and not having the means to return it.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Yes, no intention of paying it back.

When you think about the circumstances that B.C. Hydro faces, it's hard to believe that a $214 million dividend into the consolidated revenue fund this year is the best thing for B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about -- and have just found -- the program expenditure growth, and I spoke about the Dominion Bond Rating Service report that they came out with in June 1995 called: "Provincial Overview Summary and Comparative Statistics." In there is an annual table of program expenditure, the growth trend since 1990-91. Well, it was a good year to pick, because that was the start of this government's mandate. Program expenditure growth in British Columbia has gone up 133 percent. The next-highest province is Ontario, at 115 percent. You may want to take out the year '90-91 -- that's the Socreds -- and you might argue about how much of '91-92 you are responsible for, but I think you're responsible for most of it. Even if you take those out and recast all these numbers, you are still number one in program expenditure growth.

What did the Dominion Bond Rating Service have to say about it? B.C. is in a class all by itself in terms of expenditure growth, which rose 33 percent in the period. Ontario and Quebec had the next-worst records. So if they used the words "worst records," guess who has got the worst record. B.C. Although their trend is improving, our trend is not improving. You can't even live up to the projections you put in your own debt management plan.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Time? Well, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that time flies by when you're having fun.

In my budget response in April, which I had to make in a great panic and rush because I was afraid the government might rush out and have the House dissolved before they had even asked for interim supply.... No one would ever do that. That gives me an opportunity to quote some more from the Premier, but I won't bother. Everybody on this side of the House and on that side of the House knows that that was improper, undemocratic.

In that speech I likened the problems British Columbians face in dealing with the promises of this government to the issue of Lucy holding down the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Every time -- it doesn't matter -- the ball is whipped away, and poor old Charlie Brown is flat on his back. It has happened once again. They've made a Charlie out of us and out of all the people of British Columbia.

What's the sad conclusion about that? This NDP government believed that re-election was a higher priority than truth or good government. I hope in the six months this government has left in its mandate -- we all hope and pray; 42 percent of the people of British Columbia hope and pray; in fact, 61 percent of the people of British Columbia hope and pray -- that that changes. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be watching. We may look asleep, but one eye is open a crack.

[ Page 103 ]

B. Goodacre: I welcome this opportunity to rise for the very first time as the newly elected NDP member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- the second person to hold that seat for this side of the House.

An Hon. Member: Unfortunately.

B. Goodacre: Oh no, no, no! You're not supposed to be nasty to me on my first speech.

My predecessor, Jackie Pement, did a wonderful service to the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, and I thank her very much for the ground she has blazed for me and for having made it possible for me to win this election and to be here with you today. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to extend my personal congratulations to you for holding this chair, and I look forward to learning a great deal from you and obviously from the members opposite over the coming years. I think five years is the year that we were aiming at.

My constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine is, as you are all aware, the largest riding in the province: some 220,000 square kilometres. The issue of geography, of course, is a real major one for us. To put it in perspective for people who don't think in terms of kilometres, the state of Washington is somewhat smaller than Bulkley Valley-Stikine and the state of Oregon is just slightly larger. We have some 34,000 people living in this area. The largest community is just slightly over 5,000 people, and that's my hometown of Smithers. The vast majority of people in Bulkley Valley-Stikine live in rural areas where there are no incorporated jurisdictions except for regional districts. We also boast the one area in the province that has no municipal government whatsoever. That comprises almost one-fifth of the land mass of the province, and that's in the upper reaches of the Cassiar district, formerly known in this House as the Atlin seat.

In that whole riding, we have only one airport, which brings to light the kind of geography that we have to deal with, and we have many diverse communities. Twenty percent or more of the population of our area is first nations people, which presents a very interesting challenge for anybody who represents that area, because we have five different first nations: the Wet'suwet'en people, the Gitxsan people, the Taku Tlingit, the Tsay Keh Dene and the Tahltan people, all of whom are engaged in the treaty process with the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada.

Also in Bulkley Valley-Stikine, we boast some of the finest wildlife areas not just in British Columbia but in the entire world. Thanks to the efforts of this government, we received the Tatshenshini wilderness area, one of the finest wildlife preserves on the entire face of the globe. We have also protected the Khutzeymateen, which is the home of the largest grizzly bear population in the country, probably in North America -- probably the world. The famous Spatsizi area is also in Bulkley Valley-Stikine, an area that is unrivalled in its beauty and grandeur. It has been attracting people to visit it for two or three generations now.

We also have in Bulkley Valley-Stikine five forest districts. We have the Cassiar district, the Kispiox, the Bulkley and the Morice and Lakes districts, to give you some idea of the size of this riding and the challenges it presents to anybody who wants to fairly represent this riding in this House.

We also have two mining projects that have pushed their way through the toughest environmental laws that have been brought into this country, and rightfully so. Through the Huckleberry process and the south Kemess, we have shown that it is possible for environmentalists and miners to coexist in this province and for both to prosper. I look forward to three more projects in my riding that will again put themselves through this process. We can look forward to many years of prosperity in that industry and also protect the environment.

[3:30]

Now, I'm very proud to sit on this side of the House and do my part to make this an effective government for the province of British Columbia. I was attracted to this party years ago because of the wonderful record they have had in terms of working for people, especially working for communities. When you come from the north, communities are your lifeblood. You depend on community in order to survive. We have been blessed in our part of the world with wonderful community spirit, and in the short time that I've been sitting in this House, I've received very warm support from both the people who voted for me and the people who didn't. I'm looking forward to a wonderful working relationship with my friends in the communities of Bulkley Valley-Stikine over the coming years.

You can appreciate that in a riding our size, transportation and communication form some of the biggest issues that we have to deal with. The distance from Smithers to Atlin, for example, is twice the distance from Smithers to Vancouver. The two northernmost communities in my riding have to be accessed through the territory of the Yukon. That alone presents some very interesting challenges to an MLA, inasmuch as the communication link with those two communities is through the CBC in Whitehorse. It's a wonderful opportunity, of course, to continue to keep in touch with Yukon issues as well, but it certainly poses a challenge.

The kinds of issues that I hear about from people in my riding deal in large part with treaties, land use and social issues. The treaties, of course, are the biggest issue. And as much as they appear to have been downplayed in the media out of Vancouver, in the area where I live, the biggest issue that we are faced with is the treaty issue.

Now, one of the things that disturbs me when I hear the treaty issue talked about in this part of the world is the suggestion that "third parties," "municipal interests," have been shut out of the process. I sit on the town council in Smithers. When the treaties first came up, this issue of municipal and third-party involvement was quite disturbing to us, because at that time we didn't see a role for third parties and municipalities in the process.

We got to work with the UBCM, and we got a wonderful agreement with the province to be included in the provincial team at that time. Now, our inclusion in the provincial team is through the acting mayor of Smithers right now, a man by the name of Jim Davidson. He has confided in me that his participation is full, his participation is welcome, and his ability to report back what's going on at the table is also quite complete. It has provided the people in the municipalities and communities in our area with ample opportunity to know what's going on and also to have some input at the table regarding their concerns.

We also have a treaty information office in our community dealing with the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en treaties. The people working in that treaty office are working for the regional district, and they have done a wonderful job of keeping everybody informed about what's going on and carrying issues to the table. It is an open process, and I commend the government for having created it. I hope to do my part to make it work better in the future.

[ Page 104 ]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

With respect to land use, our government also brought in one of the most wonderful pieces of legislation when they created the Crown corporation Forest Renewal British Columbia -- FRBC. That particular vehicle exists to rechannel moneys earned from the forest industry, in terms of royalties, into the communities that they were extracted from, in order to preserve the infrastructure of that industry -- to reclaim some of the damaged environment that unfortunately resulted from forest practices that neglected the existence of fish-bearing streams in far too many places. Also, the new Forest Practices Code is going a long way towards ensuring that this kind of damage is not going to be something that we're going to have to deal with on a regular basis in the future.

Social issues come forward in my riding, very telling social issues in terms of small communities. As I said, the largest community in our area has only 5,000 people in it. So issues like domestic violence and fetal alcohol syndrome children have become very large in terms of the size of our communities -- issues that too often we've looked to the federal and provincial governments to try and solve, when in fact the solution to these kinds of problems lies with the empowerment of communities to deal with these them. We'll be looking forward to greater movement in initiatives that were taken by the last administration to bring more resources into the communities in order to deal with those kinds of telling social problems.

The kinds of economic issues that I hear about from my constituents deal mainly with the impending drop in the annual allowable cut that we all know is coming. We have in our area far more milling capacity than the ability to provide fibre flow, in both the short and the long term. The focus on more value-added and more silviculture work in order to increase the productivity of our forests is something that my constituents are very concerned about. In the villages, especially in the first nations villages, the need for community economic development initiatives especially related to the forest sector.... They are something that is long overdue and something that we really hope to see come to fruition under FRBC.

One of the highlights of our area is the rapidly growing presence of tourism, particularly ecotourism. The tourism that used to be called hunting and guiding is now just under the guise of guide-outfitters. They bring people out into isolated areas of the constituency and take them hunting, fishing and sightseeing. Sightseeing has become a larger part of the guide-outfitters' job in the last five or six years and continues to grow each year. Tire traffic coming through our area on its way up to Alaska continues to increase each year as well. Providing an infrastructure for this industry is something that is always there in front of us and something that my constituents want to see more work done on by this government.

The health care issues that we are dealing with are the same as the health care issues everybody else in the province is dealing with. We are looking forward to the time when Closer to Home becomes a greater reality. We have, like other communities, an aging population that doesn't want to leave our area. My own grandmother is on a waiting list for an extended-care facility that we would dearly love to see built soon. Those kinds of issues are going to be facing us time and time again. We'll work closely with everybody else in this House to see that we can do our part to ensure that our seniors are taken care of, and in their own communities. That is an incredibly important issue in our area.

The environment is also a very important issue where we come from. We have a very interesting take on environmental issues up where we live, because rural people have a somewhat negative attitude towards urban environmentalists. It poses an interesting challenge for those of us who tend to be attracted to a more green philosophy, to work with people whose intentions are good but whose actions don't necessarily work to the benefit of the people in our area. We're looking for ways to work closely with people in other parts of this province to ensure that the environment of our area continues to be improved and that life in our area continues to improve as well.

Poverty is another issue. I hear from my constituents that they want to see more action taken. Some of the rural realities that poor people face are things that urban folks don't really give too much thought to. The fact that a woman on welfare with kids happens to live ten miles out of town and can't get any money to bring her kids into town when they need a dental appointment and things like that.... Those kinds of issues don't seem all that big in the greater picture of the province, maybe, but in small towns like Smithers, Telkwa, and Dease Lake, they are incredibly important, and those things really need to be addressed.

When you think of marginalized groups in the area that I come from, unfortunately the group that automatically jumps to mind is always the first nations. Despite all the good intentions of people and social planners, we continue to see unemployment rates on reserves higher than 50 percent; we continue to see tremendous dislocation in these communities, tremendous dysfunction. Despite the wonderful work that is going on in these communities by the communities themselves in terms of healing and social development, as time goes on, we have to spend far more attention dealing with the issues in these villages and thinking in terms of the kinds of social and economic development that is going to contribute to building self-esteem -- to the pride in place, to the pride in person that has been so sadly lacking in so many of the communities in the past two generations.

We are, fortunately or unfortunately, the generation that has been granted the opportunity to address some of these issues in a meaningful way. And if I do nothing else in this House, I certainly intend to see that that issue gets more attention than it has in the past.

Poverty is another issue that has been with me as a concern ever since the eighties, when I worked as an advocate for welfare recipients in the city of Terrace. The persistence of poverty in an affluent place like British Columbia is something that should be of concern to everybody in this room. To be perfectly honest, I don't think any of us can comfortably say that we have any answers to the issue. The one thing that I think we all need to commit ourselves to is paying a lot more attention to the fact that we have a very large marginalized population in the province and no really good excuse for it except our inability to find answers to deal with this situation. I think it behooves us to work a lot harder to search for solutions.

The vision we all want to hold for the future of this province is that we can all feel quite comfortable that the people care about each other, that we're prepared to embrace the challenge of change in such a way that we will move in advance of problems, that we will anticipate problems and that we will be proactive in responding to emerging needs.

We have to think very carefully about how we plan to deal with the emerging job shift we're faced with: the demise of the blue-collar worker. I think that we on this side of the 

[ Page 105 ]

House are certainly committed to these objectives, and I really welcome the opportunity to do my part in the coming years to ensure that the people of this province will see at the end of four years a much more humane and much more egalitarian society than we have at this time.

[3:45]

C. McGregor: It is with great pleasure that I stand before this assembly today, giving my first speech as the new member and the first woman to represent the Kamloops constituency. I am honoured to have the chance to serve the many people of my constituency and all the people of British Columbia. I use the word "serve" with all sincerity, because it describes best the role of those elected to this House: putting first the priorities of the people who have given us their confidence, assisting them in accessing government and community services, and working together to achieve an agenda that acts on the priorities of all British Columbians.

Other members have offered congratulations to the newly elected Speaker, and today it is my pleasure to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker. I look forward to many wise and judicious rulings in the five years ahead.

In the weeks since my election, I have received much advice from many friends, family and constituents, but perhaps the most clearly stated came from a group of seven- and eight-year-old students at A.E. Perry Elementary School. These students wanted me to hear what their priorities were for the future. Sonia said: "I have some ideas for you when you go to Victoria. Please make some more jobs, and please help people with cancer." From Neil: "Can you please make less cars on the street, and more trees?" From Nigel: "Please try to work hard for Kamloops and try to save the animals in the forest." And finally, from Kayla: "Could you please stop people from polluting in Kamloops, because it's terrible that people pollute. I know it will take you a long time to do all that stuff."

In simple language but with a clear and strong vision, these students reinforce the priorities we have achieved and continue to address as a government: health care, air quality, protection of endangered animals, auto emissions and job creation. I want Sonia, Neil, Nigel and Kayla to know that their government has been listening.

We can point with pride to the achievements of this government in its first term in those priority areas. We have cut the wait-list for cancer and heart surgery in half. We've increased levels of funding in health care to continue to ensure that B.C. residents have necessary medical treatment. Environmental issues have been a priority. There have been improvements in air quality and new standards announced to reduce auto emissions. We have protected water quality by reducing pulp mill emissions. The Forest Practices Code protects our vital forest resources. And we have maintained a strong economic climate, allowing B.C. to lead Canada in job creation.

These measures demonstrate a vision and a commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all British Columbians.

As the new MLA, I had much help and support from my constituents and friends, and I would like to acknowledge their efforts on my behalf. More than 750 volunteers worked with me during the election campaign, and while time may not permit me to read each of their names aloud, I would be remiss in not acknowledging their significant contribution.

In particular, I'd like to thank Sharon Clark for her work as my campaign manager. I'd also like to extend my dear thanks to my friend and colleague Nelson Riis, our federal New Democrat in Kamloops, for his ongoing advice and support.

Special mention must be made, too, of two past members in this House: Art Charbonneau and Fred Jackson. Fred Jackson was my running mate in this recent election. He and I worked together as a team, putting forward the clear vision of our leader, Premier Glen Clark, and of our party. It was a great disappointment to all of us when Fred was not re-elected. He will be missed by his constituents, who knew him as a hard-working MLA and someone who never pretended to be more than he was: a railroad man who clearly understood the issues and concerns of ordinary working people.

Art Charbonneau was my predecessor and guide. He worked tirelessly with me during this campaign. He taught me that an MLA must work hard to earn the respect of his or her constituents, and that listening to their issues and concerns must be at the top of your list. He was admired and respected because of his open and honest dialogue with the people in our constituency. His reputation is one that I hope to maintain in the months and years ahead. Art served our constituency and this province well, not just as an MLA but also as Minister of Highways and Minister of Education. His legacy as Education minister will long be remembered by educators. He was appreciated for his commonsense approach to issues, his commitment to making schools better places for students to learn and, most especially, his defence of public education. He was a tireless advocate for all students' rights to a quality education system.

Kumloopa, as it was first named by the Shuswap people of the Thompson, is a relatively small geographic area, edged on two sides by the North and South Thompson rivers. The rivers are a key feature of our area geographically, but no one can come to Kamloops and not notice our stark and majestic hillsides and the semi-arid desert climate for which we have become famous. While relatively small in size, extending from downtown Kamloops to the small communities of Savona and Cherry Creek, we are one of the largest urban centres outside the metro area.

Kamloops has a population of approximately 80,000, and it continues to enjoy an influx of people to our region. As a result, we have had a significant growth in many sectors of our community. Sun Peaks has become a major ski resort and draws thousands of people to its slopes, including our own former Premier, Mike Harcourt. The Sun Peaks development has grown substantially, thanks to the efforts of this government in opening the doors to its investment potential.

Our own University College of the Cariboo has expanded rapidly, bringing new educational and retraining opportunities to the many young people in our area and the surrounding Cariboo region. During the first term of this NDP government, our college was granted official degree-granting status and this year honoured the students who completed its first independent degree program, the bachelor of natural resource science. I was proud to be in attendance at the convocation ceremony which recognized these students and 1,300 other graduates. As programming has expanded, so too has the need for additional space, and our government's capital investment in the new technology centre currently under construction will provide even greater opportunity for the students and other adult learners of our region. Education continues to provide significant and stable employment for Kamloops residents.

[ Page 106 ]

Mining, forestry and ranching remain important to our region. The efforts our government has made in developing models of sustainable resource management have benefited our region. Exploration initiatives in the mining industry, the introduction of the job and timber accord which will provide additional employment opportunities in our area, and the introduction of the farm preservation act have all helped support these major economic activities.

Our government has also worked hard to promote and build a strong value-added sector in the province. In the small mill town of Savona, which is within the Kamloops constituency, we have an excellent example of a value-added plant. In this Ainsworth mill, extremely durable and high-quality plywood is created for use as forms for concrete in the construction industry. The products from this mill are in high demand from both Canadian and international markets. They make the best product in the world, and in doing so they have also created many highly skilled and good-paying jobs for the residents of our area.

Kamloops is also known as the tournament capital of British Columbia. No region hosts as many tournaments and events as Kamloops. We were the host of the Canada Summer Games in 1993, and most recently we have hosted the 1996 Labatt Brier, the 1996 Seniors Games, the 1996 B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability and the 1996 Mainstage competition for theatre groups. Each of these events has given Kamloops the opportunity to host people from around the province and has helped us keep our recently coined nickname, the Heart of the West.

And who can forget those ambassadors of the ice, the Kamloops Blazers? I am most grateful that the election was not called during the western Canada hockey playoffs, for I may have been unable to recruit sufficient volunteers.

Kamloops is also culturally rich and diverse. We have deep historical roots provided by the many Shuswap bands in our region. Recently I had the opportunity to visit our local Secwepemc cultural centre along with that organization's president, Chief Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn band. This society has developed a multifaceted strategy which it can use to promote the language, history and culture of the Shuswap people. They have a museum, ongoing educational programming and an interpretive centre. Their efforts to develop this centre will provide an opportunity for visitors to understand the significance of the traditional native experience as well as the natural habitat of the region.

Many leaders emerge in the first nations community, but I want to make mention in particular of Mr. Basil -- or as those who know him, "Buzz" -- Morrisette, who was recently awarded the Order of British Columbia for his longtime work with native peoples, including his pioneering of the native courtworkers program.

I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution made to the community by our Indo-Canadian residents. They have a rich history and deeply held religious beliefs. They have strongly supported our NDP agenda for working people, including our efforts to ensure that Punjabi became a recognized language of instruction in our schools. Their help and support was instrumental in my election, and I offer my sincere gratitude and thanks.

While I and other MLAs were busy working in this House during its first week in session, I was sorry to miss a very significant event in Kamloops, the official opening of Mt. Dufferin Park. Through the efforts of our government, the city of Kamloops and a group of hard-working citizens, we have created the largest urban park in British Columbia.

Most fittingly, this park is to be named after the late Kenna Cartwright, a well-known and respected Kamloops New Democrat, as well as a personal friend and mentor. I know Art Charbonneau has paid tribute to this remarkable woman in this House in the past. However, her work on behalf of Kamloops is not forgotten. This city has chosen to recognize her significant contribution through this action. She was one of the first women in Kamloops to become a widely respected community leader, and she opened the door for women like me to follow. Her contributions were many. She was an active promoter of our city throughout her life, and she was an avid environmentalist. I know she would be proud of the legacy of parks created by this government.

The budget speech that has been delivered in this House demonstrates this government's commitment to the people of British Columbia. Our priorities are those of all citizens. We want to protect vital services -- including health care and education -- reduce taxes for working and middle-class families, reduce taxes for small business, and focus on job creation.

Health care was a major issue raised during the election campaign, but it was only this government that confirmed its commitment to universal health care through the creation of a medicare charter and a patient bill of rights. We are placing our efforts into ensuring that the models of service delivery reflect the needs of patients and families. We have pledged that our commitment will ensure universal access to basic health care for all -- no private clinics, no extra billing, no two-tiered health care systems. As the new MLA for Kamloops, I'm anxious that we continue our work in decentralizing provincial health services. Part of that decentralization is the plan to bring the psychiatric facility to Kamloops. The jobs created during the construction and operational stages by this decision will be good news for Kamloops residents.

Education is also key to our success as a province. It is an investment in our future, ensuring that we have the means for continued economic prosperity and a high quality of life for all British Columbians. That means that education, from kindergarten to post-secondary, must be a priority of this government. A two-year commitment to a tuition freeze for post-secondary students means that education continues to be affordable for all. Reducing costs in education through limits on administrative spending and school district amalgamation are ways in which we can achieve the savings necessary to maintain and protect educational services for all students.

[4:00]

Job creation is critical to our province and is certainly a concern to the residents of my constituency. This government has developed a jobs strategy which includes a component for the Thompson-Okanagan region. This plan targets the creation of thousands of new jobs for Kamloops and the Okanagan. It recognizes the economic strengths of our region, with an emphasis on tourism, small business, forestry, agriculture, mining and manufacturing. The announced tax cuts for small business will provide many benefits to this sector of the Kamloops community and will create new opportunities for employment. Part of this economic plan also includes investment in infrastructure. Continued investment in these capital programs will ensure good, stable jobs for the people in the Kamloops area.

The salmon resource is also one which provides employment for many citizens of our province and of my constituency. I am convinced that this government's plan to bring in a fish protection act will do much to protect this endangered resource. The salmon habitat is critical to the survival of many 

[ Page 107 ]

different species. In my region the Adams Lake salmon run is known worldwide, and visitors are awed as they witness the inevitable cycle of life and death each year in the Adams River. But this unique cycle of life will be threatened without strong conservation efforts. Our government's work in Ottawa and here in British Columbia will be critical to saving this vital resource for B.C.'s fishers, sport fishers, industry and first nations.

Maintaining our commitment to universal social programs like health, education and social services makes our government unique in Canada. We have shown that we are a government that is committed to a different approach -- one which puts people first. British Columbians want a government with compassion and sensitivity. They want a government that will protect those who are not able to care for themselves, they want a government that puts people at its centre, they want a government that puts more dollars in their pockets through reduced taxation, and they want a government that listens and responds to their concerns.

I am looking forward to working within this government to achieve these goals, for the benefit of the citizens of Kamloops and all British Columbians. I am pleased to support this budget tabled here in the House, and I look forward to serving in what is certain to be five more years of good government.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this is my first opportunity since the last provincial election to rise in the Legislative Assembly as the duly elected leader of a new political party in British Columbia. As people in British Columbia will know, in the last number of years, having served in this capacity in this chamber, I did so in that capacity without the mandate of the people of British Columbia. It's truly an honour not only to stand and represent my constituents of Powell River-Sunshine Coast but also to serve in that capacity with a mandate from the people of British Columbia -- a growing mandate, one that I believe will hold us in good stead over the next three to four to possibly five years, as we prepare for the next election.

I do want to say that there's been much made of this budget as to whether or not it provided an accurate or a less than accurate description of the state of the financial affairs of this province as they went into the last election. We heard much today in question period as to whether or not the government had been less than forthright with respect to matters of the budget. Hon. Speaker, I can honestly say that as I travelled the province in my capacity of leading my party, the PDA, most people were aware that there was a big debt. They were aware that there was some kind of deficit and that that deficit was going to be adjusted one way or the other to be able to demonstrate that there would be some level of balance.

I don't think, frankly, there is a great deal of confidence among the people of British Columbia that what they hear and what they read and what they see in the budget figures is accurate anyway -- no matter which political stripe that politician may wear when they take that to the people. There's a high level of cynicism out there. It's a level of cynicism that says that all politicians and representatives of every political party will fudge things to make things look good for them and look bad for the other. There's really no directive within this chamber -- and there certainly seems to be a limited spirit within this chamber -- to shed one's partisan coat and get down to the business of working on behalf of all British Columbians, regardless of our political stripe.

So they view budgets generally with a certain level of skepticism and, I think, with a great deal of cynicism. All they know with certainty is that their cost of living will continue to go up; that the taxation demand against them will continue to rise; that the cost of government services will continue to go up; that their ability to access the services they want will at best stay the same, if not diminish; that we see our highways slowly falling into disrepair and that there is not much attention paid to getting them completed; that more and more our children are being educated in portables; that our health care system has.... Today I just heard from constituents who are involved in trying to get angioplasty surgery and are now being told they have a one-and-a-half-year wait. That person won't make it one and a half years. What they were given today was essentially a death sentence for that individual, because one and a half years to get that surgery means that they're not going to make it.

We hear that, yet we see a budget here that says we're going to have increased expenditures in health care. If we look at the hard numbers and figures, we ask: what is it that we're doing? We're putting more money into health care, but there's still a year-and-a-half wait. Still we have children in portables; still we find our highways are decaying; still we know that the services to senior citizens, who a generation ago looked after us and now need us to care for them.... Yet it seems that our ability to do so becomes less and less possible, even though the overall cost to this government of servicing these kinds of issues has indeed gone up, and even though we look toward projections for increased revenues if we were to look after our forests and primary extractive sectors more reasonably.

So it's no wonder there's cynicism out there; it's no wonder the public are jaundiced about it. I hear from the members in this chamber about who got the most popular vote and who got the least popular vote. Well, the fact of the matter is this: the last election was the New Democrats' to win, and they did so. It was the Liberals' to lose, and they did so. We are here today, sitting with the members in this chamber whom the people have elected to represent them, and we must now shed that partisan coat. We must now forget the election rhetoric, and we must now get down to the business of looking after the needs of the people. That is our challenge, that is what we were elected to do, and that is what the members of this chamber should be focused on.

It's interesting, hon. Speaker, because what I'm talking about is an unparalleled, unprecedented level of cooperation in this chamber. We have a limited difference in the numbers in this chamber. What I hear is a great deal of rhetoric around the fact that this might be a six-month term or a one-year term or a two-year term. I know there are those in this chamber who are anxious to get the reins of power; they're anxious to get to the governing side of the chamber. I know that on the other side we have those people who would argue that they are equally as anxious to make sure they hold on to those reins of power.

Well, that's not what this job is all about -- at least it shouldn't be all about that. This job should not be all about how we can seek to undermine those members opposite, whether they're in government or in opposition, so that we can build a scenario, a strategy, to try and take that undermining to its fullest conclusion, which suggests that this government is no longer competent or that members opposite should be able to take that to the people to show how bad they are and by contrast, hopefully, how good we are.

That contest happened for 28 days in the month of May, and the facts are as they are. We must accept that, and we must now come forward, in an unprecedented level of cooperation, to show that we in this chamber can put as our first 

[ Page 108 ]

priority, our first consideration, the well-being of all the people of this province. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, 100 percent of those who voted voted for somebody in this chamber, and they did so with a view to having that elected member look after the interests of them, their family, their community and this province. That's what we have to do.

In this budget I think there are a number of issues that were raised that must take priority, that we must show a number one priority for. The first issue -- and I can't help but come to this first, because I believe it to be the most important -- is making sure that we in British Columbia have an opportunity to take to Ottawa a clear B.C. position which outlines to Ottawa that we will no longer accept the loss of transfers into this province of moneys that are owed to it, that this province needs, that the people of this province need in order to maintain an adequate health care, education and social service system. We have to take that message as clearly and as forcefully as we can, in a united way.

I must say that I was a little amused, perhaps a bit saddened, in the mini-debates we had around the advance the government wanted in this budget, to hear that in the one area of the Canadian constitution where certainly there will be a great deal of cooperation from this member and members of our party and members of the government opposite, in order to demonstrate that that cooperation can indeed put forward a united position, a concern that came from members of the official opposition, as outlined by the member for Richmond-Steveston -- and I have the Hansard here -- was whether or not I was getting paid.

It wasn't: "Oh, this is an interesting initiative, that we're finally reaching into opposition ranks to include us in the proposition of looking after the people of British Columbia." The question was: is the member going to get paid? "If I could continue the tradition of being modest" -- not a bad start.... He wants to know if I'm going to be paid, if there is going to be any benefit coming to me.

The next issue is: if I'm not going to be paid.... And I can understand that, hon. Speaker. The member for Richmond-Steveston is a lawyer; he's not used to doing anything without getting paid. So I understand that. But to suggest that we as members of this House can't come forward in an honest attempt to put the people of British Columbia first without seeking some kind of personal remuneration is, I think, really quite unacceptable. Members opposite should also know the number of years that I worked for that particular party without getting paid what was owed, never mind what should have been paid. And that, of course, will be a matter for the courts to decide later in October.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to respond to the member from North Vancouver - Lonsdale, but I'm not going to. I'm not going to respond. I want to stick to this draft.

An Hon. Member: What discipline!

G. Wilson: It demonstrates discipline; this is true.

The matters of the Canadian constitution that are before us are critically important, because the loss of those transfers is a major reason for, a primary cause of, the difficulty that we have in this province right now. It seems to me that all of us should come forward, regardless of which party we represent, and we really should seek to try to put in front of the people of British Columbia a series of options that they can discuss, that they can communicate to us, so that we have a united position -- so that we can, in hopefully keeping this nation together, take some leadership on this question, on this role.

Right now there is no leadership on this question, certainly not at the national stage. How lamentable it is, when we talk about our overall budgetary process and how we see the evolution of British Columbia, that the Prime Minister of this country seeks to bury his head in the sand -- and possibly other parts of his anatomy at the same time -- in order to try to pretend that somehow, if we don't address this matter of constitution, a referendum in Quebec next year isn't going to happen; that the increasing discrepancies that occur between Ottawa and the provinces will somehow magically disappear; that rising deficits in our nation will somehow not be a factor; that the free trade agreement with the United States, which is killing this country -- along with NAFTA, which is increasingly killing this country -- is somehow going to take care of itself.

Do you know that the softwood lumber deal that we just cut with the United States now provides not only a monopoly of supply to the major forest companies but also a monopoly on marketing, because they are the only ones that will get tariff-free shipping into the United States? Is that somehow going to magically cure itself? The communities of this province that depend on that export are going to be crippled, will have more unemployment. Somehow the Prime Minister thinks that that's just going to take care of itself.

[4:15]

It's sad, hon. Speaker, when we hear.... I have a letter from the former Minister of Fisheries, who now sits as the Premier of the province of Newfoundland. It says to me that my concern over the West Coast fishery is exaggerated; there is no evidence.... This is within a year and a half of having the Mifflin plan. A year and a half ago he said that my concern over the fishery was exaggerated and that there was nothing to suggest that the West Coast fisheries would not flourish under that administration. Well, my riding takes up virtually one-third -- almost half -- of the coastline of British Columbia, and there are people whose livelihoods are dependent upon that fishery. It's sad -- lamentable indeed -- that we do not have any leadership on the national stage with respect to the provisions of that fishery.

That's why, in this particular budget, one of the issues that I can support and that I applaud this government on is the initiative they are taking with respect to protection of the West Coast fishery. It's something the people of British Columbia have to do. We have to take it on; we have to look after the habitat. We must be involved in salmonid enhancement. We must do all we can to protect this most incredibly valuable resource, not just to protect the livelihood and well-being of the coastal communities of British Columbia -- and that's important enough -- but we have to take it on because they are a very vitally important part of the whole marine ecosystem. If that fishery declines, if that fishery dies, part of the reason is that we haven't looked after herring; we haven't looked after eelgrass; we have not looked after habitat generally. We have not taken care that forestry companies have not violated their rules and regulations and skidded materials through salmon-spawning streams. We haven't been good enough at doing that, and we better start to get better at it and get better at it right now.

It's going to take a collective effort in this Legislative Assembly to make sure that the dollars that are necessary will be there. I believe that if we do not take to Ottawa a united B.C. plan, we aren't going to get that revenue. The revenue 

[ Page 109 ]

will not be forthcoming, and we will find ourselves -- two years, three years down the road -- mourning the fact that one of the finest natural fisheries in the world is gone. The livelihoods that once made our coastline a vital, wonderful place to live will be gone, and all of those people who made their living off marine services and activities -- fishing or related activities, whether it's sport fishery or commercial fishery or being involved in conservation efforts -- will no longer have a fishery to concern themselves with.

That will be a legacy that every single member in this chamber and every British Columbian will have to wear, and wear for a long time. When our children ask, "Where did all the fish go?" -- and mine will for sure, because I come from a long line of commercial fishers, and I put that on the table today -- we will say they went the way of government intransigence, disbelief, lack of vision and a priority to spend our moneys on other things, whatever those other things may be. They went that way because we were not, as Canadians, prepared to stand up and fight for this country. We bought into the continental economic agenda, driven by large multinational corporate enterprise south of the border, that says we'll put in place a free trade agreement, a NAFTA agreement, that is strangling us.

This little budget that we bring in here, that we debate today, is so inconsequential in the larger picture, so inconsequential in being able to try to deal with that issue, that we have to recognize that if we don't make that voice heard here, if we don't look at the larger and bigger issue, the more important issue -- the issue with respect to the protection and maintenance of our economy -- nobody else will. Nobody else is in a position to have that level of commitment -- other than those of us that are elected right here in this chamber. Therefore it is our duty to do that: to come forward and to make those voices heard.

Hon. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about the forest industry. I heard the member for Kamloops a few minutes ago talking about value-added production in her particular constituency, the production of plywood and how important that is. I was hoping that we would hear in this budget from this government a real, honest commitment to tenure reform in the forest industry, and I don't think I heard that. I heard some rumblings about it. I heard a little bit about some commitment to review it, to examine it, but I didn't hear anything that said that we were going to start to get away from area-based and volume-based tenures and move toward those tenures that will provide value-added employment to communities through local value-added production. That's what we have to do. We have to recognize that the time is now for us to put in place a limits-to-growth economic strategy. What that means is that we have to get maximum value from every stick of standing timber we take out of the forest -- maximum value: no more exporting of raw logs and no more exporting of cants that can be shipped out at $980 a cubic metre when we could be putting them into value-added mills at $2,000 a cubic metre and creating long-term viable jobs in this province for British Columbians. Putting British Columbia first: that's what the idea of a limits-to-growth economic strategy means.

If we do not have that tenure reform, those who now control the supply -- because they virtually have an oligopoly in this province, with five major companies, who now, because of the agreement that this government has been complicit with in the signature with respect to the 14.5 billion board feet of timber allowed to go into the United States tarifffree -- will have all of it. And those small companies, the small companies that are the lifeblood of the interior communities of this province, the lifeblood of many of the small communities on the coast, will get none of it. Why? Because the people who sat on the committee, along with this government, represented those interests. And those interests deemed that that's the way it should be.

That is not a good thing. It is not a good thing because what it means is that those companies that are trying to make a living in the interior, in the north in particular -- in Prince George and the Prince George area, in the Quesnel area and farther north into the Peace -- are going to struggle. They're going to have a hard time because they're not a functional part of that deal, and they will no longer be able to get access tariff-free across the line. And that's a problem. It's a problem as far as I'm concerned because the majors, the oligopoly, are not putting value-added to their timber. They're not shipping it into local mills. They are exporting it in as cheap and as raw a form as possible, and there is no return in terms of local job opportunities that British Columbians should be enjoying. That's why it's a problem, and that's why, collectively, regardless of our political stripe today, we have to say: "Look. Let's find a better way."

There is a better way. And that better way is to reform the tenure system and say that we are going to put as a priority B.C. timber into B.C. value-added production for British Columbia jobs so that we can generate the revenue -- not just revenue to government through increased stumpage, which obviously will occur if the values at the market are increased, but also provide a greater degree of revenue to the communities from which those logs come -- so that we can put money back into the communities that generate the wealth in this province and not have all of that money concentrated in the lower mainland and the urban centres, which is the case today.

So, hon. Speaker, when I read in this budget that there is a proposition with respect to forestry reform, tenure reform, I hope that this government.... And I note that the Minister of Forests is listening to my concerns today. As he listens to my concerns, I hope that he will hear me say that tenure reform is essential to make sure that we put more value-added production into those local mills so that we maximize the value that comes to our small communities.

Let me say also, as we move to the question of education, that there's a line in this budget -- and I'd like to read it -- that says: "In colleges and universities, we're adding 7,000 spaces in the upcoming academic year. This will guarantee a space for every qualified post-secondary student." That's what it says; that's what the minister told us. The minister is an honourable man, and I'm sure he meant what he said.

So I then raise this issue where we have a gentleman from my riding whose name is Dale Christenson. He's going into graduate work at SFU, has an outstanding B-plus-to-A average, and he's well qualified. We hear from Mr. Manley Casimir, the associate dean of education and director of graduate programs, that approximately 140 individuals applied to the counselling psychology program. "We could accommodate only 16 students. The number of spaces in the program varies from year to year, as does the number and quality of applicants. Also, depending on faculty workload..." etc. He goes on to say: "The competition was fierce. Some of this year's unsuccessful applicants had B-plus-to-A averages, adequate experience related to counselling," and so on. And then he goes on to say: "We simply did not have the resources to accept as many qualified applicants as applied."

So I go back to read this again, because he is an honourable man, and he said: "This will guarantee a space for every 

[ Page 110 ]

qualified post-secondary student." I say, then, that that's good news for Mr. Dale Christenson because, notwithstanding what he hears from Simon Fraser University, at some point there are going to be additional dollars, and he obviously is going to be able to get a spot. I'm being a little facetious, because we know that isn't going to happen. We know that this gentleman isn't going to get in, because he can't get in -- not because he doesn't have the qualifications, but because there aren't resources.

What I'm saying is that one should not come forward and make such a statement in a budget, because people hear it and believe it and find it isn't true. When they find that it isn't true -- that in fact there will not be a guaranteed space for every qualified post-secondary student -- it draws into question the integrity of the entire government, of their programs, of this budget and of what all of us in this political arena are trying to accomplish.

Post-secondary education is critical if we're to stay on the cutting edge of our economy, and we must direct more dollars into research and development so that the best minds, the best brains, in British Columbia can be put to work looking after the issues and dealing with the concerns that I think we should be dealing with, especially on the matter of the environment.

We've heard an awful lot about our commitment and concern around the environment. It was not an issue in the last provincial election except for those of the Green Party, who made it their cause cél�bre -- and some of them did a very fine job, I might point out. Some of them, I think, put their position out extremely well in an articulate way, and my hat is off to them for doing so.

However, it generally was not a big issue, as I think most of us will agree. Yet it is the most critical issue outside of the fact that we have rising national debt, that we've got all kinds of problems with deficit and that we've got to find a way to deal with it. We have to develop research technologies that will address those environmental issues that are slowly choking us as they kill our air, that are slowly contaminating us as we find less and less potable water and that are slowly eroding away the amount of soil we have that is actually arable and can produce our food.

None of those issues is so big or so broad that we cannot, as British Columbians, address them and solve them. We have the finest brains available in the world today here in this province. We have some of the finest educational institutions anywhere in the world right here in British Columbia. We have people who are dedicated to the cause right here in B.C.

We have the opportunity to work together collectively to recognize that now is the time for us to understand that there are real limits to growth, that we need to put in place a limits-to-growth economic strategy, that we need to direct moneys into the research and technologies that are necessary in order to move us off a fossil-fuel-based economy and into a system of transportation, both local and long distance, that will meet long-term transportation needs that are not dependent upon carbon-based fuels, so that we can start to understand that the time for expanding and widening highways and putting blacktop in the urban centres is gone. Where that expansion should be taking place is in the rural outreach areas where people have no alternative but to drive in their cars. We have to stop prioritizing the expenditure of moneys for transportation and highway development in the urban centres and start to put it where the people need it: in the rural regions.

When I first came into this chamber, I talked about Highway 101, affectionately known as the goat trail. And do you know what, hon. Speaker? We spent $17 million to put in place a bypass that's about 1.5 to 2 kilometres in length. And do you know what it does? It connects right back to the goat trail; it doesn't bypass anything. Seventeen million bucks, hon. Speaker -- that's ridiculous.

What we need to do is put in place a B.C. transportation strategy that understands one very simple concept. Where does the wealth of this province come from? Well, I can tell you where it comes from. My friend and colleague from Peace River North will tell you where it comes from. It doesn't come from Vancouver; the wealth isn't generated in Vancouver. It's spent there, but it isn't generated there. The wealth of this province comes from its regions -- from the north, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the North Island, the North Coast. That's where it comes from.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour says "from the mines," but he should know better. He's been the critic long enough to know there isn't one left -- or maybe there are one or two left.

D. Jarvis: Twelve of them.

G. Wilson: He tells me there are 12 of them left. That's shameful.

[4:30]

We must recognize that the wealth of this nation comes from its regions, and we have to start to prioritize our investment in those regions so that we can maximize the wealth generation. There's no point in simply shuffling the same dollars around and telling everybody that they can go and program a computer, because that isn't going to work. For the unemployed loggers, who, we are told, can go now and retrain, the question is: retrain for what jobs? They can go and plant trees, they are told. Well, there are already companies established with people involved in that industry. So will you displace one set of workers in order to guarantee another? At what cost? At the IWA wage rates? And there's nothing wrong with those wage rates. If that's what they negotiated in the collective bargaining process, then fair enough. But recognize the value of the dollars paid for the work done.

Understand that when you have a trained individual, you are not going to easily retrain that individual from somebody who runs a machine or is a faller or is involved in a high-lead operation in a logging camp. They are not going to easily train for something else, especially those people who are senior in their years.

So what are they going to do? In my own community of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, where we have two pulp mills -- one in the south, which has become ever more efficient, and one in the north in Powell River, which is becoming more efficient -- efficiency means displacement of working people. That's an economic fact of life.

But our job is to make sure we look after their concerns and their well-being. We have a program we are presenting to the government now with respect to displaced fishers. And it's good to see that the Minister of Employment and Investment is listening carefully to this debate here today, because he will know that the program we'll put forward will be an outstanding one, one that I hope this government will 

[ Page 111 ]

embrace. These people are desperate. They are family people whose families are breaking up. Alcoholism is becoming a problem, and suicide is now something that's not undiscussed and not unknown. We must care for the people of this province. Those of us in this chamber have a duty to.

I read on the weekend a comment from the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who was written up in the Globe and Mail, where she lamented the fact that she was in opposition. Don't do so. It's an honourable thing to serve in this chamber, regardless of where you serve. It is an honourable thing to be elected in this province. Regardless of what role we are asked to play, regardless of whether we believe in the detail of this budget today or in future budgets, every one of us has to take off our partisan coat at this stage.

This province is far too precious. This country is too much in need, and we cannot -- we must not -- allow the partisan politics that is personal to our own grab for power to get in the way of the broader and larger vision. That's a vision that has to care for and look after the people of British Columbia the best we can. The best way we can do that is to give them the resources to look after themselves, because nobody can do it better.

There will be much more to say on this budget as time progresses and as this government enters into the fall and puts together its legislative program for next year and the year after and, possibly, the year after that. At that time, I will have further comment.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and now recognize to the podium for the first time the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to deliver an inaugural speech. I know there are some traditions of an inaugural speech, and one is to acknowledge the previous member for the riding for long service. It's on the assumption that that member is no longer a member in this House, but in this case, the previous member for Vancouver-Quilchena is now the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, just as the hon. previous member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is now the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. You know, it's much like the game of musical chairs, except with one very important difference: when the music stopped, we added a whole bunch of seats.

I also want to observe one of the other traditions of the inaugural speech, and that's to try to outline briefly what motivated me to run for public life, what motivated me to seek the honour of representing the residents of Vancouver-Quilchena in this chamber. I guess what it boils down to is that I am motivated to run out of a deep commitment to the social safety net as we know it. I am very concerned that over the last four years the government that is now in power has been taking us down a road that is going to lead to the ruin of the social programs that we know and cherish so deeply.

To preserve that social safety net we need the best education system in the world. We need a health care system that will ensure that every resident in this province can count on world-class medical attention when they are injured or when they are ill. And we need social assistance programs in this province that will help those who are in genuine need of government's and society's help. Poverty is an issue that this government has not dealt with adequately. Their approach has been to throw more money at the problem in the hopes that this alone will solve the problem. But I was appalled to learn that in this province we have one of the highest rates of child poverty. I was appalled to learn that over the last five years -- since 1991 -- the number of people on social assistance in this province has risen from 240,000 to now in excess of 375,000, and I understand even that may be a conservative number.

There are many British Columbians living in poverty, such as the physically and the mentally challenged, who need to be able to count on the long-term help of our society. It's not just cash that's needed; we need programs and training so that they can aspire to make the very best out of their lives. There are those such as single parents and those who have temporary challenges in their lives who need to count on assistance for several years. But what is the future? What is there to give them hope for the future? How are we willing to help them attain self-reliance over the longer term?

I decided to run for public office because I see that this cherished social safety net is threatened. There are those who say that we can't afford the social programs that we have today. There are those who say that we have to turn our back on universality of health care, and that we have to have larger class sizes in our school system. And there are those who say that the charities should take responsibility for caring for the poor. I profoundly disagree with those arguments, and so does the B.C. Liberal Party.

Our social programs are not being threatened by right-wing curmudgeons who would like to cut the social safety net; instead, they are threatened by those who support the status quo in how our government operates. Our social programs are threatened by a government that understands only how government revenues are spent and doesn't understand how those government revenues are created in the first place. Our social programs are threatened by a government that thinks it's okay to use taxpayers' money to protect union jobs as a higher priority than protecting services to the public. Our social safety net is threatened by those who abuse our social assistance programs.

I see far too many in this province who have an attitude that somehow government owes them a living, and the problem that I have is that this government is encouraging that attitude, rather than trying to correct it. I hear of examples such as a 17-year-old and his 16-year-old girlfriend who decided that the rules at home were a bit too strict. So they panhandled their way around Vancouver Island until his eighteenth birthday, at which time, as a matter of right, they walked into a Social Services office to collect social assistance. The public is prepared to see a strong social safety net, but they are not prepared to see that net used as a hammock by those in our province who want to abuse it.

Our social programs are threatened by a structure of bureaucracy in this province that has grown incrementally over the years. Now in ministry after ministry we see very dedicated public servants who are on the front lines of delivering services to the public but are made to feel that they are not there to serve the public, that they are there in fact to serve the administrative bureaucracy and the whims of the NDP government in power. We have a Ministry of Health that has more bureaucracy than any other province in this country. Decentralization and regionalization were noble objectives, but how could you let it get so screwed up? Our province has more non-caregiving employees in the Ministry of Health than in any other province in this country. You know, the government had the opportunity to streamline the administration of health care, to de-layer that ministry so that more money could be put where it really counts, in patient care. But instead, we wound up with yet another layer of bureaucracy 

[ Page 112 ]

being created, and now we have even less money going into patient care because of the cost of scaling down a poorly planned and poorly implemented "no directions" policy.

Quite frankly, the taxpayers in this province have had enough. They have watched as this government raised taxes. They have watched as this government ran up a debt at an unprecedented rate. And at the same time, they see a government structure that is enormously inefficient because it has not found the most effective ways we can deliver the services that the public requires. If government does not deal with the inefficiencies in how it administers programs, and with high taxes, and with the rising debt that we are saddling our children with, then those who want to cut social programs are going to win the day. Our social safety net is threatened by big government, by high taxes and by high debt; those are the hallmarks of this government in power.

I was recently discussing this need for change with a senior government employee, and his comments to me were very telling, because he said: "It's not that the public service doesn't know that it has to change, and it's not that the public service isn't willing to change, but the problem is that there is no leadership for that change." That leadership has to come from cabinet, from the Premier, and from the government.

I want to take a few minutes now to talk about the leadership that we have seen in this province over the past five months. I want to start by congratulating the Premier for the very overwhelming victory that he had at the NDP leadership convention in February. But I'm sure that even then, when he was sworn in as Premier, he didn't feel totally comfortable as Premier, because he wasn't totally a Premier at that point; he still had to go out and seek a mandate from the voters before he could truly become a Premier.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

For those months leading up to the election, however, we did see his style. And the style of this Premier is a style of a magic-wand Premier. First of all, he took out his magic wand and he waved it to protect all the voters and the public in this province from those mean folks at ICBC, at B.C. Hydro and at the universities. And you know, he waved his magic wand and said: "Zap! You're frozen." And suddenly all their rates were frozen. His mystical powers that he used with his magic wand had absolutely no basis in fact; they were simply fairyland stuff. He offered everybody the candy, without telling them the price that would have to be paid down the road.

But before the May 28 election, he was waving his magic wand to create highway projects, and he waved the magic wand to create hospitals, and he waved the magic wand to create other capital projects around this province -- some new schools. You know, we in the B.C. Liberal Party also promised capital projects, but there was a big difference: we had been listening to the voters for the previous four years. We heard their concern about rising debt. I love this sudden realization that came out in the budget. Suddenly the NDP, during the election campaign, heard the voices of the public and said: "No more debt." But we have heard that voice for the last four years, so we were very responsible in what we promised during that election campaign. We did our homework. We did our economics very carefully, and we knew that we could promise capital projects that would not now today be frozen. We promised that there would be $116 million a year in university construction. We promised that there would be a $100 million a year -- over the term of government -- for new jails. We promised that there would be $360 million for hospital construction, including the MSA hospital in the Fraser Valley, which has now been frozen with the Premier's magic wand; and including the refurbishing of the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, which is now frozen.

An Hon. Member: Who promised that?

[4:45]

C. Hansen: The Premier told the voters of this province that they could have even more than that. He promised them more capital projects. He also promised to eliminate the debt. He was wrong, because he misled the public.

But that's no problem, because after the election he simply takes his magic wand, he takes all of the election promises that the NDP made during the election campaign and before, and he says: "Zap, they're frozen too." Before the last election we saw the Premier wave his magic wand to make last year's budget disappear. We know today that it was a tall tale, and no one should have believed him. We also know today that when the Minister of Finance stands up in this House and says there will be no deficit next year, it's a fairy tale, and we should not believe him either.

Next we saw the Premier take his magic wand to create jobs. I know this is a subject that is of dear interest to the minister of employment and immigration, one that we will have many fruitful debates about in this chamber. Do you know what he did? He called together all of the chief executive officers of the forest industry for breakfast one morning. But instead of listening to them for advice on how jobs could be created, he told them: "You shall create jobs." It was obvious that he had no idea how jobs are created in this province. Nevertheless, I understand that it was a cordial meeting and that the forest industry was at least willing to work with this new Premier, because they thought maybe he could learn something.

Then the breakfast ended. They walked out of that breakfast, and there was the Premier standing in front of the TV lights. He was hammering them, threatening them and betraying the spirit of cooperation that had existed at that breakfast. Do you know something? They felt ambushed and they felt betrayed. This is a Premier who will be pleasant to your face and then, when the TV lights are on, he will make cheap political gain. This is a Premier who thinks you can simply wave this magic wand and magically create 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry.

But he was really catching on to his magic wand, because next he wanted to create summer jobs for students, you know, as part of something called a Guarantee for Youth. He waved his magic wand, and he invented something called Opportunities '96. With a wave of that wand, he pretended that there were 3,500 jobs that would be created by the private sector for students in this province. To call that announcement a cheap political trick would be too generous. It was cynical, deceitful and a manipulative announcement that raised the expectations of students across this province who were counting on those jobs in order to go back to university and colleges this fall. But it turns out there were no jobs, because you cannot simply wave the magic wand and create jobs.

But do you know something, hon. Speaker? This Premier does have the power to create jobs, and it's not with a magic wand. You create jobs by sitting down and listening to employers in this province. You ask the small business owner who has two employees: "What would it take, in terms of changing government policy, to allow you to create one more new job in your company?" You sit down with the major employers in this province, and you ask them: "What would it 

[ Page 113 ]

take for you to increase the labour force in your company by 2 or 3 percent?" The only way this government knows how to create jobs is by throwing around taxpayers' money.

That is not the advice that you're going to get from business owners across this province -- in fact, quite the contrary. They will tell you how you can create jobs. It will start with speeding up the approval process that is needed for resource-extraction projects. It will start with reducing the paper burden that is smothering job creation in all companies of all sizes, big and small, across this province. You can start with rewriting legislation, such as the Employment Standards Act, for which the minister the other night said he was going to welcome debate from this side of the House in terms of how that can be rewritten. It should be rewritten to deal with the small number of bad employers that we have in this province -- a very small minority. And it should recognize that most companies -- by far the overwhelming percentage of companies in this province -- treat their employees very fairly. This government should rewrite the Labour Code to recognize that the vast majority of workplaces enjoy a cooperative spirit between labour and management, and it's not the class warfare that the union organizers in this province are trying to perpetuate.

You can create jobs in this province by eliminating the corporate capital tax, which is doing more to drive investment out of this province and to discourage companies from creating new jobs and investment in this province.... You can reduce income tax, so that some of the highly skilled entrepreneurs we have in this province will be willing to stay in this province and build companies and create jobs. You can also look at some of the fees and rates that are charged by government and that have been skyrocketing over the last four years, and you can work to bring those rates and fees in line with the governments of Alberta, Washington State, Oregon and all of our other neighbours who impact on our ability to attract investment. Generally, the government can help create jobs in this province if it simply works to get government out of the way and allow the private sector to create real jobs, as the documents from the Ministry of Employment and Investment show.

The fact of the matter is that the election is now behind us, and by deceiving the public, by making promises he knew he could not keep, he is still the Premier. But just like before the election, he's not yet really a Premier. He has to accept the fact that 61 percent of the voters in this province voted against the New Democratic Party. He's still only a 39 percent Premier.

We now know why he has that magic wand: because he knows that he is who he is -- the Premier of this province -- because of the NDP. He is a creation of the New Democratic Party. Last fall and in the first part of this spring, when it was clear that the New Democratic Party in this province was going through a near-death experience, it was he who stepped in and saved them from being swallowed up. And now he expects his reward. He has that magic wand, because any day now he is hoping to see that bright blue light coming in through the windows of the Premier's office. In that blue light he expects to see the good fairy, and the good fairy will take that magic wand and will wave it and make him a real Premier. But you know, it still won't happen, because it's not good enough to just save the NDP from a near-death experience.

There are two more important steps this Premier has to make before he can become a real Premier. The first step is that he has to learn to not say one thing before an election and another thing after the election. Second, he has to stop letting people like Ken Georgetti and the other trade union leaders in this province treat him as if he were just a puppet.

Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be in this chamber. I am very proud to be here representing the constituents of Vancouver-Quilchena. I look forward to getting to know all of the members of this House and the staff of these buildings, and I look forward to serving the people of this province during this session and in the years to come.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his first speech, and now recognize the member for North Vancouver-Seymour for not his first speech.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Maybe my last. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm arriving to make a few comments on the '96-97 budget, but first I'd like to thank the voters of North Vancouver-Seymour who participated in the May 28 election. It was probably one of the great examples of our participatory democracy -- about 75 percent of them turned out to vote. I'm also grateful for those 60 percent who voted for me. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I intend to represent all the constituents in my riding to the best of my ability, and I also wish you well in your new endeavour.

This budget is certainly a hypocritical one. It indicates that the Premier and the NDP government have, in less than one month, broken the majority of their campaign promises -- promises that they based the election on. They made these promises in May and then cancelled them in June. No one knows what they're going to do next. This NDP government has again re-established the cynicism and mistrust that the public has of us.

The premise is that they now discover there could be an economic downturn. Well, surprise, surprise! This is what the economists and we in the opposition had been telling this government for months prior to the election and during the election, and we're still trying to tell them that now. We said that spending is out of control; curtail it. We must reduce our debt. We must also create an environment that will attract more investment and development, to bring new wealth and permanent long-term jobs to this province. Revenue to this province is what we need.

The budget does not show any evidence that the NDP government understands how important it is to pay down the debt. This budget indicates -- if we can believe it as to how it is presented -- that we have a debt of $28.6 billion, and growing. The government says that we have in place a debt reduction plan, yet we all know that they failed to make their first payment of $441 million. Now we see, today, in the '95-96 budget -- last year's budget -- that it has been revised. We're now being told for '96-97 that we again have a surplus, not a deficit. Last year we had a surplus and now it's a deficit. This year we have a surplus, and they're trying to say that it will remain a surplus. Well, it's hard to believe.

Last year we had a surplus, but two weeks later we also found out, just like we are finding out in this budget, that it included the $250 million that the Bonneville power corporation was supposed to pay to this government -- $250 million from the Columbia River Treaty which we did not receive and we still haven't received. So we therefore had a deficit last year, as well, prior to them saying there was a surplus and 

[ Page 114 ]

admitting again now that there is a deficit. Today, as I said, it's revised again. The government says it's $235 million. Our critic for Finance, from Delta South, says it's close to $700 million. Someone is right and someone is wrong, and somewhere in between is probably the right answer. But I would tend to believe our certified accountant over the lawyer who has now turned Finance chairman.

It's a sham bookkeeping system that we have here now. There's no other way to say it: it's very hypocritical. The government misses its debt management payment and is trying to say: "Believe us this year. We know we are reneging on the promises we used in order to get re-elected, but we are fiscally responsible now. Please believe us."

Do we have a balanced budget? No, we don't. Is our debt going down? No, it isn't. We are now paying over $1 billion a year for debt servicing alone. This has got to stop. We are out of control. One month after the election and four and a half years after the biggest debt-loading in this province's history -- some $28.5 billion that we know of -- and this NDP government has suddenly realized that we must slow down the red-ink stain that we are leaving our children and our grandchildren. This government is tinkering with their future without any concept of how debt and wealth are created.

We do know that when the Premier was Finance minister, he tried to tax this province to prosperity. It didn't work and he was fired for it. Then, when he became Premier, he tried to create wealth by promising capital projects -- $2 million a day -- by borrowing money again. We now see that this plan has failed as well. All his capital cost promises are on hold pending another review.

My question is: is this government being prudent? Are they now listening to the opposition? Are they listening to the economists? Did they know ahead of the election call that the province's spending and its policies and indebtedness were finally catching up on them? All the election promises were just that: inflated promises to get elected. I guess time will tell what will happen to this province and to the finances of this province in the next few months.

[5:00]

I cannot go on at this time without criticizing the lack of foresight in this budget towards the education system of this province. Our education system is being challenged seriously, not just on the academic side but in the need for more classrooms, books and maintenance. It's a disgraceful situation. The population is exploding in many areas, and every district seems to have a monetary problem. Many of the districts in British Columbia are already in debt or approaching that wall of debt that only Victoria can help them get out of -- without hurting the students.

This budget only provides for $58 million extra in education in this province, leaving every district having to cut more and more services to their children. Parents are not asking for the world, just for fair spending in those areas that are affecting them the most. New schools were promised; they're on hold. The growth of the portables continues and the lack of new books persists, yet the teachers' union was given a raise by this Premier. It's not that teachers don't deserve a raise, but when school boards are in debt and cutting programs, is it not time that we should be delivering services and our dollars to the children first, and then to the teachers and the administration -- and in that order? I think it's about time.

Then we've come to that unbelievable aspect of this government's programs: the decision to review New Directions. After the total disruption of our provincial health system -- the closing of hospitals, the destabilizing of volunteer health boards with the formation of new boards, and not even allowing nurses and doctors, etc., to be on them.... It has created a situation in this province that is hard to express.

With the collapse of health care's New Directions, where do we go from here? In another state of transition, confusion will again prevail. How can you put forward a new system without at least some type of pilot program or prototype and expect it to work -- without doing something like that?

This government will owe our health system a lot before we're finished, before this mess is cleaned up. How many people will suffer as a result of this ill-conceived and ill-planned system? We have waiting lists and a growing bureaucracy now, and I'll hate to see what we'll see later this fall. I would remind you that the Health minister said the other day that it's still a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy.

One more decision that will come back to haunt us, Mr. Speaker -- and you can put your money on it, because you probably will have to put money out anyway -- is the fact that the Premier froze ICBC rates for two years. The Premier should be ashamed of himself. This is a short-term benefit that will in the long run cost every driver in this province twice as much.

I wonder where he got his advice from. Was it from the CEO of ICBC? Here he appointed his acquaintance, who was a vice-president of Hydro in the aboriginal department, and put him in charge of the largest auto insurance company in North America. Was it his advice -- the CEO's -- or did cabinet come up with this idea? Was it to gain votes? I imagine it was. I remind you of the Dave Barrett government, which tried to interfere with the rate structure. The consequence was the infusion of $178 million from the taxpayers by the time they had been pushed out of government in '75, and that was done in order to save the plan.

This rate freeze and the obvious downgrading of photo radar's revenue are going to affect ICBC very, very drastically. The plan will have to be bailed out in some way -- we know that. It's obvious it will be a giant infusion of money or a restructuring of ICBC. The latter is what's probably going to happen. No-fault or no-tort insurance is what the Premier has in mind, and perhaps this will result in millions of dollars being saved. But at what price to the taxpayers? It may be good, depending on what no-fault plan is used. All I can say to the Premier and the cabinet is that surely any decision must be made by professionals in the industry, not by the Premier and his cabinet -- and not by NDP hacks or appointees.

We must remember why we got to this point. It is because of political interference, not the industry. It was interference by the government, with no knowledge of business, seeking favour at the ballot box only.

We see political interference in advanced education, with the freezing of fees. Will this improve our system, benefit the students? Or will it just compound the problem for future generations? Again, this was more than likely trying to seek favour at the ballot box; I would think so.

Again we see the Premier's involvement in the business world he really knows nothing about. Two years with the steelworkers' union does not make you a CEO. He has now frozen Hydro rates for another two years. We have a surplus of power in the northwest; prices are dropping all over North America. IPPs, or independent power producers, are crying to get into the market. They've got enough projects in this province to power close to 4,000 megawatts, and that's what we need to run this province with.

[ Page 115 ]

Now the Premier says no; he's told Hydro no. So what he's done in actual fact is frozen the rates up when they should be going down. Instead of environmentally friendly IPPs that would help us out, he has now got us into the position where he's going to crank up the pollution giant of the Fraser Valley, Burrard Thermal, from a zero cost to the $800 million more it's going to cost the taxpayers to be polluted.

It appears that the Premier does not understand that B.C. is in debt, and we are not addressing that problem. We need to create long-term jobs from investments and development in order to protect the funding of our health care and education systems. Those are issues that this budget avoids, and the issues are important to British Columbians. The taxpayers are worried. Will they have jobs in the future? Will their children have a quality education, which they are entitled to? Will their families have a health care plan that works? We get lots of rhetoric from this budget, but no new solutions.

British Columbians are working harder and harder and not getting further ahead for it. The debt is not going down, but is going up. Health care is in chaos, education is floundering, and long-term jobs are very suspect.

The voters took the Premier at his word and have been shamefully treated by this budget. It is a budget that continues to allow debt to grow without the economic climate that we need to allow this province to flourish.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget, as you are probably aware, and I ask all the MLAs in the room to seriously consider how it will affect future generations -- not just in the future but as of today as well. I'll tell you that your job here is to make sure that the truth is told in this province -- the truth about our finances. So don't go back to your ridings and let your noses grow. Remember that you should stand up for what you really believe in and vote against this budget.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the last speaker. I know that I've counselled him on many occasions to sit down calmly and have a glass of milk and some cookies. I think the subdued nature of his comments just now reflected that he has taken that advice, and I want to commend him for that.

I also want to commend the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. Having heard this member speak for the first time, I thought he acquitted himself very well. I know that as we enter this new session, there are outstanding new members on both sides of the House who are taking their place in what I profoundly believe is an honourable profession. In fulfilling their role as government and in providing a critique, I know that all will do so to the best of their ability, and I wish you all well.

I am proud to have been elected to serve here with you for the third time. In my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville this is quite unusual, because our riding has always been considered a bellwether riding that switched with every election, going back for several years. We've managed to hold Coquitlam-Maillardville three times now, and I am very pleased about the confidence of the electors in my riding who have returned me to the House.

I want to emphasize that I know the House can be a pretty intimidating place sometimes. Everything is so new when you come here for the first time. I know that the only consolation for our own members on this side of the House is that it's far better to be on this side than on that side.

Our first term as government was full of accomplishments. I am very proud of those accomplishments. We made outstanding progress in the area of land use, in the area of forest policy, in the area of environmental protection and in the area of achieving sustainability. In doing so, we have taken some tough decisions that recognize that the health of the future economy depends on doing well in all of those areas. We have managed to maintain support for delivering the best health care system in Canada and North America and the best education system in Canada and North America, and we've done that in the face of devastating federal off-loads. That's a remarkable accomplishment, and I am very, very proud of that. We can very justly be proud of that legacy.

I think what distinguishes ourselves from the members opposite is our ability and willingness to listen to the citizens of the province -- to all the citizens of the province, no matter who they are. It's obvious that the members on the opposite side tend to be persons who call themselves Liberals at this point in history. Many of them -- too many of them -- have turned in their Socred cards and taken out Liberal cards. Now they find themselves campaigning against their own record, and it's a very convenient approach. We have a consistency on our side of the House which enables us to carry on in a very progressive way with regard to the kind of government that is so necessary within this province, and I think it's tremendous that we are able to continue to do so.

We have pledged to continue to listen and respond to the concerns of our citizens. His Honour, in the Speech from the Throne, refers at least ten times to the government's willingness to listen; again, in the budget, the Minister of Finance refers to our willingness to listen some 13 times. In my ministry we are listening very closely to what British Columbians are saying about treaty negotiations and the need to get on with treaty negotiations within this province. We are not talking about tearing up deals. We are not talking about exploiting areas where there is a great deal of anger and frustration. We are talking about building solutions -- about building bridges -- and therefore we are listening carefully.

We have an agreement in principle that was reached with the Nisga'a last February. When we achieved that agreement in principle, we set out to inform the people of the province about the content of that agreement. And we are listening. My ministry's toll-free telephone line has since recorded more than 2,550 calls for more information and for copies of the agreement, which have been sent out. More than 1,800 people have written letters, and a further 177 have sent faxes. My ministry has mailed out more than 15,000 copies of the agreement-in-principle and its summary. On our web site on the Internet, where copies of the agreement are available, we have recorded more than 45,000 hits.

[5:15]

Obviously the people of British Columbia are very interested in learning about this agreement, understanding it and enabling all of us together to get on with addressing the treaty-making issue and resolving the land issue in this province. I think that we have been successful in informing British Columbians about this particular agreement. Recent polling has shown that most British Columbians have heard about it, and we have seen a good level of interest.

In our efforts to communicate about the Nisga'a agreement, we have not simply been involved in one-way communications; there has been a dialogue taking place. To date, members of the Nisga'a negotiating team have participated in close to 100 public meetings and briefing sessions to listen to people's concerns and provide answers to their questions. We have listened to the concerns from guide-outfitters, the Wildlife Federation, and the truckers' association. We 

[ Page 116 ]

have listened to city councils, citizens' coalitions and chambers of commerce. We have listened to ordinary British Columbians about their concerns, not only over the Nisga'a agreement but also over treaty negotiations in general, and I can tell you that British Columbians tell us we are on the right track. They know that vital sectors of our economy are being held back by a lack of certainty over our lands and resources. They are becoming very much aware of the fact that financial institutions have advised us that over $1 billion in investment capital is being parked outside the province because of the uncertainty with regard to the unfinished issue over treaty-making in the province of B.C. They are telling us to get on with the job and to end that uncertainty once and for all.

So, while one year ago at this time there were seven treaty tables in stage 3 and none in stage 4 in the Treaty Commission process, the B.C. Treaty Commission has just announced that there are 22 first nations now in stage 3 of the framework negotiations and 11 in stage 4. I think this is remarkable progress when you consider that there have been 125 years of this issue simply being shoved aside.

Over the course of the next five years, as we move into a new century, there are many challenges facing us. The cuts from Ottawa are going to get worse, not better. People will need their government to stand up for services and the resources that they rely on. The pressure for a U.S. style of health care will continue to grow. We need to take a strong stand to protect the vital salmon resource in this province and not allow the devastation to occur that we have seen on the east coast.

We need to protect jobs and enable the creation of new ones, and we need more and better jobs for our youth. These are not easy times for young people. These are times in which all of us must take our responsibility in returning hope for their future. Our success in these areas will be based not on bigger government but on better government. So there are tough choices to be made; there are complex issues and competing interests. But in the end I know the people of the province are up to the challenge.

British Columbians can be proud that our province has the strongest economy, the best credit rating and the lowest debt in Canada. Our job now is to make sure that B.C.'s success is shared by everyone in the province, not just the privileged few. That's what this budget is all about. It's about protecting and improving health care for all British Columbians, not cutting back. The June 26 budget marks the beginning of a new mandate for our government. We are turning now to the challenge of lowering debt while ensuring continued economic growth and protecting health care and education. This budget shows that government is listening to the people of this province and acting on their concerns. The people of this province deserve a government that listens and acts on their priorities. This government is delivering on those priorities, and we make that commitment.

L. Reid: I, too, am pleased to rise in debate today, but I believe quite honestly that this government has reneged on their promises to the people of British Columbia. I will, during the course of debate this afternoon, elaborate in some detail.

My comment first off must be to thank my constituents in the riding of Richmond East. I represent a superb free-enterprise riding. They are committed to bringing industry, to bringing commerce, and to starting new business initiatives that will indeed employ British Columbians. All of us know that the economic driver is business. It is not government, and it has never been government. Yet we continue to have members of the New Democratic Party suggest somehow that they can take that role and do it more effectively. It is, again, simply untrue.

The businesses in my riding that I would especially point out for having done some very fine things in terms of business development and job creation -- particularly Avcorp Industries, a very fine aerospace business located in the riding of Richmond East.... They are today in the throes of discussion around job expansion, around new programs, around creating opportunities for students to move from the school setting to the worksite with some ease of transition. Those are all very good things.

Richmond East is also home to some of the finest scientists the west coast has to offer. We believe that the future of this country is the west. We're committed to seeing science and technology, to seeing research, become the focus for the west coast of British Columbia -- particularly the southern part of Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. That will be the home to extensive growth and development around research and development, if indeed this government could see the light and do some things about their levels of taxation. They've not once answered the question about how important it is to invite investment, to attract investment, to allow the private sector to come into partnership with government. They've never got that part of the discussion. I think that has been a tremendous loss to those of us who see the private sector as a significant, vital and essential player as we lead into the next three or four years.

I also want to speak this afternoon about liberalism, because I do believe that it does focus extensively on the individual -- that it is about seeing the individual as a serious decision-maker, and that is what is required in the 1990s from politicians particularly, but from all members of society. It's free enterprise with a human face. It's about understanding that we have responsibilities to deliver programs but we have a responsibility to the voter, to the taxpayer in this country, to get the best possible value for those programs. Gone are the days when politicians can suggest anything else and expect to have any type of credibility left. Those days are gone. I think everyone has to approach politics with a particular passion. I think it's vital that we come together and have a passion for finding a solution.

I was encouraged by the Premier's word that he's going to invite participation from every corner of this House. I trust that he will be true to his word in that instance. Yet what we have today before us in terms of a budget debate is not that same sentiment. This government is about misleading the public; they've done nothing else. That alarms me, because I think the sentiment has to be true in all discussions with all members of this chamber -- not particular issues that allow them to selectively cherry-pick which issues they're going to have some integrity on and which issues are going to be sent out for further discussion.

I'm absolutely committed to ethics, to the fact that public life should be something that people can look upon with tremendous pride and integrity. I believe that we are here -- members of the Liberal Party, members of the Liberal opposition on these benches today -- because we are convinced that we can improve the character of public life in British Columbia. We come at it from a position of trust. We on this side of the House have not broken our word. The difference between the New Democrats and the Liberals in the last election campaign was that we told the truth, bottom line.

[ Page 117 ]

Frankly, people are interested in seeing ethics in government, in public life -- and it certainly goes into all professions. People wish to know that those entrusted with making decisions for them will do so with the best possible motive in mind. Once individuals begin to question the motive of government, it tarnishes us all. I am totally dismayed that again this government would put all politicians in a position where the public can once again question the integrity of any elected member of this House -- any one of the 75 of us. What this government does not understand is that they have indeed, once again, tarnished the image of politicians in this province.

Again, I don't have to hark back into history very far. I mean, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society is a scandal that once again has tarnished the integrity of politicians in this province and, frankly, in this country. It has allowed the public at large somehow to suggest that politicians are responsible for a different code of ethics. It's absolutely irresponsible, scandalous and, frankly, criminal. There are issues before us today that have allowed the public to have a tarnished view of politicians.

I for one don't accept that notion. I for one am not putting the future of politicians in this country in the hands of any New Democrat found on the government benches. In my view, this government has done their damnedest to disillusion the public about the integrity of politicians. It's not my goal to be part of any group that intends to continue to disillusion the public. It's not fair to any of us who would bring a new honesty and a new understanding to public life. It tarnishes everyone. That message will be a message that emanates from these benches, that indeed your actions on behalf of this budget are reprehensible.

Peter C. Newman said it best. Prior to 1992, prior to the Charlottetown accord, Canadians had a certain deference, a regard for the political process. As a society, we have somehow crossed that line from deference to defiance -- a lack of regard for the process of politics. Again I submit that it tarnishes us all. Frankly, it causes concern to the people who we would attempt to serve. That's a huge concern to people who come to this life from a perspective of liberalism, where it is important to always advance the issues of individuality and to always look for fairness and justice.

I suggest to you this afternoon that the role of government is about setting standards. It's definitely about ensuring compliance to those standards, but it is to set an example. It is to be on the high road. It is to do good things and be seen to be doing good things, not to be down there in some huge sinkhole wondering where the right answer may lie and how best to avoid being honest with the public.

The strategizing and the scheming that's going on about how best to present a bad budget in a good light is alarming, because it says this government is only interested in once again covering up the facts, hiding the truth from the general public and hoping that this too will blow over. Whether it's the Grand Caymans, Nanaimo Commonwealth or the budget, the big lie is that somehow this will blow over, as have some of the other issues in this government's history. I'm not prepared to accept the history. I'm prepared to say today that the public has every right to expect honesty and integrity from their politicians. Unfortunately, the election is not that old. These folks have not stood before us for very long, and they have, in my view, tarnished what should be the decency of public life.

I'm going to quote something to the hon. members. These words were first shared in this chamber by the member for Nelson-Creston, and I can only assume that he heartily believed these words when he said them. Now I wonder how he's dealing with the misconceptions emanating from the benches opposite.

"Let us teach ourselves and others that politics should be an expression of a desire to contribute to the happiness of the community rather than a need to cheat or to rape the community. Let us teach ourselves and others that politics cannot only be the art of the possible, especially if this means an art of speculations and intrigues, secret deals and pragmatic manoeuvring, and that it can even be an art of the impossible, namely the art to improve ourselves in the world."

[5:30]

These words were spoken in a 1990 New Year's address by the President of Czechoslovakia. The words are important today, because this is about improving the quality of public life. It should be an expression of a desire to contribute to the happiness of a community. We can only do that if we start from a foundation of trust, if we start from a foundation of honesty and integrity.

This is the opening of the thirty-sixth parliament. The Lieutenant-Governor said some fine words to us very, very recently about collegiality, about pulling together to do what's best for the people of British Columbia. We can only do that if both sides of this House are willing to be honest and decent players. We have no sense that that is indeed possible. I don't believe this Minister of Finance or this government when they leap to their feet and suggest that they weren't aware of the finances of this province. I cannot accept that notion. For almost five years this government has sat and has deliberated and has received reports, has started surveys, has done a myriad of different consultations. They knew the state of this province's finances, and they know today they are on very thin ice when it comes to suggesting to the public that they were unaware.

I do not accept that notion, and I can tell you that my constituents and constituents around this province will not accept the fact that they didn't know. Certainly the entire message -- and even, if I might, ads in the newspaper: "B.C. Budget '96. You Spoke, We Listened. Taxes Cut. Budget '96 cuts taxes for British Columbians and their families...." It lists many, many things, and then it says: "Tax cuts and a balanced budget. You spoke, we listened. For more information about how Budget '96 benefits you and your family, please call...." The bottom line is that "Budget '96" doesn't benefit you and your family.

We are in a province today of 3.7 million people, $27 billion worth of debt and a $235 million deficit -- which is the number of the moment. That is certainly climbing. These individuals opposite are not decent money managers. When they came to office in 1991 there was $17 billion worth of debt in this province. This government bench has nothing to be proud of when they know for a fact that they have added $10 billion worth of debt to British Columbia -- to every single taxpayer in this province, every child, every grandchild. The children you are leaving this legacy of debt to will never say thank you. They will never come to you and say thank you.

The deceit, the dishonesty is rampant. In the last election in 1991 the previous Finance minister, who is now the Premier, said: "No new taxes." He promptly turned around and instituted 29 separate new taxes. The litany of deceit is rampant. In fact, there had been a $1.5 billion tax lift for British Columbians during the previous mandate. Based on previous history, we are now, hon. members and hon. minister, asked to take with some amount of disregard, if you will, a budget that is again put before the people of this province and is not an 

[ Page 118 ]

honest document. It alarms me; it saddens me. It does not sit well that this minister opposite somehow looks in wondrous amazement. He knows full well his government is not telling the truth.

What is interesting to me is that we have as a Premier someone who says, "No new taxes," then brings in 29 new taxes. He finds that his deficits are out of control and calls for a tax freeze. When we talk about ICBC, every car owner in this province knows that this tax freeze will result in an enormous thaw -- that there will be huge costs that we will also bear because, yet again, members of the New Democrat Party have proven to be terribly, terribly ineffective money managers.

The direction they are heading is not sustainable. Again, $17 billion worth of debt to $27 billion in four and a half short years -- a deficit today that's rather fluid. The minister and Mr. Speaker must agree that this kind of dilemma we now see ourselves in is a threat to the programs we wish to offer British Columbians.

People talk about the cost of health care. It is the cost of government today that is threatening health care. It's not the other way around. We on the Liberal benches have always said patients first. Members opposite have said worker first, government first, anything first but the patient. It doesn't sit well, and it's not what British Columbians believe they are paying tax for. They believe they are paying it for timely, affordable, accessible health care, and they believe they are paying it for education, which is an essential service in the province of British Columbia, in our view. That is a view that has never been shared by members opposite.

This is not about denying anyone the ability to collectively bargain. It is about ensuring that our schools remain open and that we are not disenfranchising learners in British Columbia. This again is a message that the New Democrats have not managed to absorb into their thinking. This has somehow again allowed them to put students out and put them somewhere down the list. It's not appropriate thinking, and it's not where the average British Columbia taxpayer is today. We want to see things differently in this province, and frankly, we want to see things done differently in this province.

Again I'll refer to the pursuit of opportunity as being a very, very strong Liberal plank. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, for an order of the day, did you know that the rate of female entrepreneurship in British Columbia is twice the rate found anywhere else in Canada? Now, indeed, if we are going to suggest that business is an economic driver and that people are going to come to this province and do some wondrous things, they have to know that their government at least understands basic economics and that it's not having extreme difficulty reading a balance sheet. That is what we were subjected to over the last number of days, and that is certainly the performance that the Minister of Finance engaged in today. Somehow the briefing book hadn't connected, and he hadn't become aware of just that balance. I don't accept that, and I know that British Columbians do not accept that.

Many members in this House have heard me say over time that the best social program in the world is a job. I fundamentally believe that, and I know that Liberals, members on this opposition bench, will do everything in their power to ensure that job creation is the order of the day on behalf of businesses in this province. We agree that it's only the private sector who has that ability. Government can continue to suggest that they have some abilities in that area and continue to toy with the marketplace. We don't accept that notion.

An Hon. Member: We've done a great job up until now.

L. Reid: We don't accept that notion, Mr. Minister. Please join the debate at your leisure.

Another issue that I wish to touch on, because I know it's not one that's been particularly well served in the past, is the issue of seniors. In particular, seniors' housing comes up as a significant issue. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that from a Liberal perspective, from where we were at the last Liberal convention, it's time to stop building institutions and start building homes. We need to have people, as they advance in age, believe in and receive privacy, independence and choice when they are seeking housing alternatives once they've decided to leave their own home, if that is indeed their choice.

Liberalism is about choice, and we want to come back repeatedly to the notion that we believe seniors have every right to expect to make some choices as they advance in age.

During my tenure as justice critic for my party, we spent many days in debate around this province with people who want to live in safer communities. That is an issue for all of us, and I know that each one of us, as elected members of this House, will need to confront that issue in our own riding. We've discussed community policing in some detail, and we've discussed changing the attitude around justice. Many delegations have come to me -- and I know they've come to members of the government -- about victims' rights, about how they no longer wish to see the perpetrators of horrible crimes receive better treatment than the families of the victims do. That is something we on the opposition benches will stand for very strongly: the system must not only be seen to be fair but it must deliver on that commitment to the voter.

We've talked for some time on our benches regarding regional policing -- whether or not it's possible to put in place drug and alcohol teams around the province, teams to handle issues of child prostitution, a violent crime unit -- and whether or not we can put in place sufficient training to assure that those areas are enhanced and advanced in this province. We hope that some of those issues will receive intensity of debate in this chamber.

Another area I'm delighted to discuss -- and I'm pleased that the Premier has come into the chamber -- is science and technology, because I do believe that it is the future of this province. If we can do anything around new ideas and innovations and, frankly, have government step back a little and allow those businesses which are economic drivers today to proceed, we would all be better served.

Hon. Speaker, I might, for the record, suggest that the keys to our future when it comes to science and technology are definitely around medical instrumentation; they're around the communications industry; they're around a strong research and development base. It's no longer appropriate to have the majority of research in this country done in eastern Canada. There's no reason in the world why British Columbia cannot be a significant player. We can attract the finest minds, but they must believe that this province is interested in spawning fine research and development companies, and growing some larger science and tech companies. We must convince those players that this is about creating a strong manufacturing base. That hasn't been the sentiment emanating from the government benches, but frankly, for the success and for the future of this province, that is the message that we need to send from this province.

We must deliver on value-added. We have survived; we've had the luxury of not taking that issue seriously for 

[ Page 119 ]

many, many years. Again, those days are gone. We must promote centres of excellence, and again I would suggest that we can do that best by partnering with discovery parks, by having new science and tech business partnered with universities, so that there is some technology transfer into the communities and into the marketplace. I believe we can do that.

Another issue I want to spend a few moments on this afternoon is the issue of the Workers Compensation Board, because I know that this will have some ramifications when we continue to talk about trust and integrity in government, which is what I believe this budget is about. I had the privilege in 1994 of chairing the Workers Compensation Board official opposition review panel, hon. Speaker. You will know that this report is almost two years old -- it will be two years old this fall -- and that indeed the number of suggestions and recommendations we have made have not been acted on.

Today we find the terms of reference for the royal commission -- yet to be appointed -- on the Workers Compensation Board. What alarms me is that the issues are the same. Very little, if anything, has changed at the Workers Compensation Board over the last two years. We have definite concerns around compensation services and treatment of injured workers. I know those concerns are not just found on the opposition benches but that every single member of this House has had someone, or will have someone in their offices very, very soon, who has not received appropriate or adequate treatment from the Workers Compensation Board. That's a significant issue, and it's one that we need this government to take seriously.

[5:45]

You will have heard me refer in my remarks to the first throne speech some two months ago that it was a throne speech about making promises to strike yet another committee. I fear that the same mandate, if you will, will be found in this new Workers Compensation Board commission that has yet to be appointed, that it will spawn a number of committees that will spawn a number of committees, and that the injured worker in this province will not receive decent service from this government.

This government can make the case that the Workers Compensation Board operates at arm's length from government. The injured worker perceives that service to be a government-sponsored service, and if this is about this Premier inviting members of this opposition to assist in making government more user-friendly, the Workers Compensation Board is a big part of that. It hasn't been user-friendly, and frankly, it needs to be.

We've had the discussion many times about doing more with less at the Workers Compensation Board, and the number of claims that have gone up, and all those issues. My comment this afternoon is that very little has changed, and it indeed needs to change.

So, for the record, I look forward to this government taking some decisive action. I don't see striking a committee as falling into that ballpark. Again, this is the course of action that this government has chosen. It is not what the people of British Columbia have asked for. They have asked for serious solution-providers and serious decisions. They've asked for a response that touches their families, that touches the fact that they as injured workers can't afford their mortgages, are losing their homes and have not had significant time spent on retraining. Those issues were not reflected in the throne speech, other than to suggest naming yet another committee. I trust that we can deliver on the promise to injured workers that something useful will happen for them in the next number of months.

I have some serious concerns in terms of where this government goes next. They haven't put forward a solution. They're doing the budget dance, if you will: today it's this; today it's that; stand here; stand there. "Where was I? Did I know? When did I know?" All of that is not helpful to the exercise of finding a solution for funding projects in this province.

I would bring to this debate a proposal put forward on behalf of school district 38, Richmond, by the Steveston funding partnership. Members of this government will know that Steveston Secondary in Richmond needs to be modernized, if you will. It is currently built for about 1,100 students, and it's operating at about 1,600 or 1,700 students. What I am proposing is a solution. I would like to suggest that there are solutions before us today that we need to take very seriously. This is a committed group of educators and parents that have said: "We are prepared to enter into partnership to build a new school." They are not looking to this government to spend future dollars. They are looking and asking to be the pilot project for a new partnership, a new approach, a new solution to buildings that are required in British Columbia. I commend this group of individuals, because I think -- and I'm convinced -- that this is the way of the future.

I want very much to share with you what the board of school trustees has said, because I want this government to respond, and hopefully respond to them very soon. This memorandum is dated May 29. It is now the second day of July. I hope, sometime in the next one or two weeks, that these individuals will get a response to what is a very fine solution offered up during this budget debate. Because the budget debate is about mismanagement of dollars, frankly. So if we can find some other revenue sources, do all members of this House need to look very carefully at this proposal? I believe they do.

I quote from a school district 38 memorandum, which reads that "the board of school trustees (Richmond) approve further investigating replacing Steveston Secondary School with a multi-use facility that may include separate commercial light industrial areas and is funded with the cooperation of private business." That is a very new approach to building a public building, yet it is one that deserves the utmost scrutiny, the utmost attention, the utmost deliberation, because it could indeed be a solution. "And further, that this project be approved as the pilot project for the Steveston Secondary site and that resources be provided to solicit private funds, subject to the approval of the board of school trustees."

So it seems to me that the request has been put before government on May 29 and has asked that the government consider this a pilot project. This group of individuals, both parents and educators, in the school district of Richmond wants to be part of this solution, wants to assist their students to receive the finest education and the finest building, and are prepared to do so with their own initiative. I think that's a wondrous thing. I only hope this government looks upon it with tremendous favour. That would be my desire.

There are a number of issues that I know will continue to be raised by members of my Liberal caucus. I trust that we will continue to get to the bottom of this issue -- another scandal around this budget. I believe that this government was elected on the strength of their promises, and they have broken their word. What alarms me is that all you have in this life is your word, and if you as a politician give it away, frankly, it's gone. It alarms me that this minister has not received that message.

[ Page 120 ]

An Hon. Member: It's fairly late.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of this debate.

L. Reid moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House do now adjourn. However, before I do that, I'd like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: Thank you. We're always mindful of that particular standing order, for those watching this debate, that you must make clear that the House sits at 2 o'clock the next day. The motion therefore is adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada