[ Page 163 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is a guest in the gallery today who is here every day. The guest is in the press gallery, and today is her birthday. I'd ask the House to wish Ms. Justine Hunter from the Vancouver Sun a happy birthday.

L. Stephens: Visiting the precincts today are some constituents of mine from Langley: the Langley school board chair, Ms. Lynda Moir; the district superintendent, Richard Bullpit; and the assistant superintendent, Alex Holm. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Waddell: I would say something about the Vancouver Sun, because I could use the publicity, but I won't.

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Happy birthday!

I'd like to welcome from Vancouver-Point Grey an old friend of mine, a Scottish woman and indeed a good worker in the forest area, Jeanette Leitch. Welcome, Jeanette.

Hon. A. Petter: I notice in the gallery today a former MLA of this House, Howard Lloyd, a representative from Prince George of the Social Credit Party and a good representative for that region. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today. One is Marie Ash, whose husband, Arthur, served this House between 1948 and 1952. She is joined today by Elizabeth Champion, who is visiting from Portland, Oregon. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd like the House to make welcome today Zhao Mufeng, a reporter with the China Sports Daily who is here particularly because of Canada's success in the dragon boat races recently. With her are Mr. and Mrs. Hui Kwai Hing from Hong Kong and Rick Hui from Beijing, Hinton, Alberta, and Vancouver. Make them welcome.

C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have an individual who is an old friend of this House and for many years was a regular observer of our proceedings in these chambers, Mr. Campbell Atchison of Victoria. I'd ask the chamber to make him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery I see Paul McDonell, an old friend from Burnaby-Edmonds and a hard worker, I might say, in our campaign there. Paul is an assistant chief of the Vancouver fire department and also the chair of the Burnaby health board. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to introduce a friend, supporter and former member of this assembly. Would you please welcome Mr. Howard Lloyd from Prince George.

P. Calendino: With Mr. McDonell up in the gallery is a second member of the Vancouver fire department. I would like the House to welcome Mr. George Wadsworth.

M. de Jong: My question is for the Minister of Social Services, whose own ministerial budget is now in jeopardy because of mismanagement and incompetence, for which he shares a great deal of responsibility. The minister said yesterday that as Forests minister he wasn't aware of any shortfall in forest revenues, and that's why he didn't pass that advice along to the Finance minister. But he must have known something, because in April of this year he authorized an increase in revenue forecasts for the forestry sector. My question to him is: what information was he relying upon when he authorized that increase in revenue projections? Why should we have any more confidence in his ability to manage this portfolio, given his history of fiscal mismanagement?

The Speaker: I'm going to take another question for the same minister. However, I assume it will be a question to the appropriate minister, member. Please proceed.

M. de Jong: I can only surmise, hon. Speaker, that the cabinet numbers have been dropped by one and that we won't actually get notice until we ask the question.

Let's go to the Finance minister, then, who tried to explain his latest quarter-billion-dollar budget screwup the other day by blaming it on "harsh weather towards the end of the fiscal year." Well, I've obtained 40 pages of detailed meteorological records from right across the province for January, February and March, and I'll happily provide them to him. And guess what: weather conditions were essentially normal. NDPers are good at weather, because they understand about offshore troughs and things like that.

My question to the minister is: what areas, temperatures and precipitation records was he referring to when he suggested that his incompetence could be excused by virtue of the weather?

Hon. A. Petter: That's a very amusing question, the way it was put by the member. The fact is that if one looks back over recent years at the difference in financial forecasting from the date at which the year ends to the completion of the actuals, you find that there are variations of this order in numerous years. Let me give you some examples.

In the year 1983-84, when Mr. Curtis was Finance minister, the gap was $287 million -- and dollars in those years were worth a fair bit more. In the year 1987-88, the gap between the figure given at the year-end and the actuals was $302 million. I don't want to embarrass the former Finance minister, but in 1993-94, when the actuals reported out at the end of the year, there was a $374 million differential.

The fact is that this is a regular occurrence within the accounting systems of the province and has been for years, because of the accounting difficulties in assessing the numbers between the year-end and the actuals. That's why the process takes six months.

[ Page 164 ]

deficit, the Minister of Finance has blamed first the weather, then accounting procedures. It's now clear that the Minister of Finance really doesn't have a credible explanation for his activities over the last week.

[2:15]

The Premier has claimed that he has confidence in the minister. He also claimed this week that he had confidence and trust in the judgment of the voters of British Columbia. My question is to the Premier. Is he willing to put his trust in the judgment of the voters of British Columbia to the test? Will he immediately amend the recall legislation so the voters of Saanich South can pass judgment on whether or not this government and this minister have betrayed their trust?

Hon. G. Clark: First, let's be clear that we have recall legislation and that the members opposite are free to try to exercise their rights under the recall legislation.

Second, I want to be clear. I not only have faith in the Minister of Finance; I have faith in the Ministry of Finance and in the people who work there. These forecasts take place every year. They are not accurate by nature; they're forecasts. You can see, Mr. Speaker -- even from the actual date of April 1, the year-end, and the closing of the books -- that every year there's a difference between what the budget as presented says April 1 and the closing of the books. The magnitude of the difference is no different this year from several years in the past 15 that we've looked at.

Yes, we have to make sure that we work on these things so we can have better accuracy. We have to be constantly reviewing econometric forecasts to see if we can refine them and make them work better. But honestly, hon. Speaker, when you look at the record, this happens virtually every year. We have acted in a forthright fashion. We have put it out before the people, and we'll continue to do that for the next few years.

G. Campbell: It is clear from that answer that the Premier no longer has trust in the people of British Columbia. He omitted those people who should be holding this government to account and who will hold the government to account.

Like so many other things with this Premier, he says one thing one day and does the opposite the next day. This week the Premier said that he trusted the people of British Columbia. He said that he trusted the judgment of the voters of British Columbia. This government has betrayed that trust; this Minister of Finance has betrayed that trust. So my question again to the Premier is: if you do trust the judgment of the people of British Columbia, will you please amend the recall legislation immediately so we can let the voters of Saanich South decide and pass judgment on whether or not this government and this Minister of Finance have betrayed their trust?

Hon. G. Clark: I trust the people of British Columbia. We listened to the people of British Columbia. They've just passed judgment, not only on this government but also on that opposition. As we look forward to the budget that we're debating now in the House, we are going to continue to listen to British Columbia. We're going to continue to trust them, and we're going to work hard to deal with these things that we find in our way, including deficits. We're going to do our best. We're going to trust the judgment of the people of British Columbia, and I'm very confident that when the next test comes, that member will still be on that side of the House.

The Speaker: A supplemental from the Leader of the Opposition, with note that we have not yet had a supplemental.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I can tell you this: I would rather be on this side of the House having told the people of British Columbia the truth than on that side of the House having misled the people. If this Premier trusts the judgment of the people of British Columbia, why won't he amend the recall legislation so the people of British Columbia and the voters of Saanich South can pass judgment right away on the betrayal by this government and this minister?

Hon. G. Clark: With great respect, this is a silly question. We have recall legislation. If he's so confident in it, why doesn't he use the existing provisions of the recall legislation and get to work, instead of standing up here with this kind of rhetoric? The people have passed judgment; I trust the people. We'll be upfront with them when these challenges come our way. We've been upfront, and we'll continue to be upfront.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Photo radar has been a miserable failure since its inception, right through to the cancellation of the ATS contract. Still, the government projects photo radar revenues of $70 million in the current fiscal year. Can the minister explain? Will the minister advise this House how much revenue will be lost due to delays in implementation and difficulties with identification, and how much the costs will be up as a result of manual matching rather than the computer program purchased from ATS?

Hon. L. Boone: I hope the member realizes that photo radar is not actually in place right now, so it hasn't been a dismal failure, as the member mentions.

You talk about the loss of revenue. Revenue will be down a little bit due to the delay; however, the real issue here is not the loss of revenue but the saving of lives that will come about as a result of photo radar. Photo radar hopes to save 50 lives in British Columbia and reduce injuries from 8,000 to 4,000. I think that's very worthwhile for the people in my community, and I hope you think it's very worthwhile for the people in your community as well.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: Well, first of all, let me tell you that not only has Ontario tossed out photo radar but Alberta is seriously looking at it. Not only has it been a failure in Ontario and Alberta, but it's a failure here, because you don't know how to implement it.

Can the minister advise how much of the equipment has been purchased from ATS, as outlined in schedule 11 of the contract signed by this government in December 1995? How much of the equipment has been purchased, how much hardware, how much software, and what guarantees do you have that it will be serviced when you have purchased it?

Hon. L. Boone: We have spent $2.5 million on the purchase of cameras. Those cameras are currently owned by the province of British Columbia and will be in use next month throughout British Columbia. Those communities that don't wish to have photo radar have the right to vote against it, as several have -- Colwood, for example. So if your community decides they don't want to have it, they can do that very thing: 

[ Page 165 ]

vote not to have photo radar. But I hope they recognize they will not be saving the lives that are at stake and which will be saved throughout the rest of British Columbia as a result of photo radar being in place.

A. Sanders: My question is to the hon. Minister of Finance. The day before the election was called, Elizabeth Cull announced that forestry revenues were up $81 million. One month after the election ended, the current Minister of Finance saddled the B.C. taxpayers with a $235 million deficit, blaming a shortfall in revenue in forestry. What information did the government have that allowed Elizabeth Cull to inflate forest revenues, other than the fact an election would be called the very next day?

Hon. A. Petter: These kinds of determinations are made on the basis of expert advice from very professional staff within the ministries. I want you to know that I have tremendous confidence in the professionalism of the civil service, the advice they give in all of these matters and the decisions that are based upon them.

If you go back to the actuals in the third quarterly report, you will see that forest revenues were up substantially from the previous year.

The other thing I want to point out is that if you look at the fourth-quarter results over previous years, what you will find is that there has been -- in the past four years, if I'm not mistaken -- a constant trend for fourth-quarter results to show upward pressure. This year was an anomaly.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, if you don't like the word "pressure," revenues rose substantially.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I thought the opposition wanted to hear the facts, but apparently they're too interested in the rhetoric.

I assume it was on the basis of that kind of information that the determination was made.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia for 1995-96.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call the budget debate.

Private Member's Statement

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to have you, on our behalf, forward best wishes for a successful conference to "One World, One Hope," the eleventh International Conference on AIDS, taking place in Vancouver from July 7 to July 12. Over 15,000 delegates, representing 100 countries from around the world, will be taking part in this conference. The eleventh AIDS conference is a particularly crucial one, as significant breakthroughs in AIDS research have....

The Speaker: Member, I am dreadfully sorry to interrupt you, but I assumed that we were starting the budget debate, so I must, by way of protocol, ask whether leave will be granted for the statement.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you, member; my apologies for the interruption. Please proceed.

T. Stevenson: My apologies.

This eleventh AIDS conference is a particularly crucial one, as significant breakthroughs in AIDS research have occurred around the world recently and have been adopted here in British Columbia. The Centre for Excellence at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, under the leadership of Dr. Michael O'Shaughnessy and Dr. Julio Montaner, has been on the cutting edge. AIDS is a devastating disease, affecting millions of people worldwide. In Canada alone, approximately 45,000 people are believed to be HIV-positive. In British Columbia the figure is 9,000.

As a gay man who has lost many friends and acquaintances, and as a chaplain on an AIDS ward in a Vancouver hospital, I know only too well the devastating effects of this disease. The one thing that those affected need above all is hope -- hope in themselves, hope in life, hope in the future -- and that's precisely what this conference gives in abundance.

Beyond the scientific discussions and announcements and the interchange of ideas and concepts, the international conference "One World, One Hope" offers hope to millions -- not only those affected but millions more: parents, spouses, lovers, brothers, sisters, friends and acquaintances.

This disease touches so many of us in so many different ways, and we appreciate those who have laboured so long and so hard to both understand and deal with this disease and the people affected. Hon. Speaker, I ask that best wishes be extended on behalf of all members of this House.

The Speaker: Before putting that question to the assembly, I'm going to allow a response from the opposition benches.

[2:30]

A. Sanders: On behalf of the official opposition, I also would like to welcome to Vancouver the eleventh International Conference on AIDS. Fifteen years into the epidemic, Vancouver will host 15,000 concerned delegates. From around the world, they express a sense of urgency. Here they will mobilize government, media, the private sector and the general public, all of whose involvement may mean the difference between our success and our failure in overcoming AIDS.

There is no escaping the fact that the science, the politics and the culture of AIDS have become indivisible. This conference, like no other, brings together the scientific researcher, physician, gay-rights activist, politician, lobbyist, media and, most importantly, those who have, who live with or who work with HIV. Their solidarity results from the knowledge that many of our questions about preventing, managing and curing HIV lie in our ability to unite. It depends on the commitment of people and nations to one another.

I welcome all of the delegates to British Columbia. They come with a profound sense of purpose, and I look forward to seeing their commitment unfold as the days go by. British 

[ Page 166 ]

Columbia has superior advocates who work and live with AIDS, and we will proudly be represented by their efforts at the conference. Thank you to all of the organizers and volunteers who have made this historic event possible in our own back yard, in Vancouver.

The Speaker: Thank you, member and members. The Chair will undertake to draft a message on behalf of the assembly.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My apologies to both the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Okanagan-Vernon for interrupting that. It was well received, and I thank them very much for passing those messages on.

Now I call budget debate.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me congratulate the members of this assembly on their election, whether they're here for the first time, the second time, or, as I and a few others, for the third time around. It's a thrill, an honour and a privilege for us to represent our constituents and constituencies.

I also want to recognize all the people who sought election and were not successful, because those people, too, are a very important part of our democratic system. It's important that we have people who are willing to go out and campaign, put their names on the line and spend the time, money and energy necessary to seek election. I want to thank the people of Peace River South for the confidence they have shown in me, and I want to recognize publicly the 75 members of the Reform Party who ran in each and every one of our constituencies around the province.

We're here to again discuss the budget of British Columbia. It was first tabled on April 30, but an event occurred the next day that prevented us from having any discussion around the budget tabled on that day. When we looked at the budget, we understood why the government wouldn't want to come back to this House and debate that document. It was, at very best, an election budget. It was wishful thinking. It was overoptimistic projections on revenues and overly optimistic projections on expenditures. So the government boldly went forward to campaign on a balanced budget. Of course, we know the events that have occurred since then give lie to that promise and that premise that this government went forward with.

At the time this budget was tabled, back on April 30, one of the most demanding features -- one of the things that struck me most immediately -- was the total failure of the government to meet its debt management plan. I would remind new members that it was only on December 19, 1995, that the government first tabled a ten-year debt management plan. So it was ironic that four months later -- at the first opportunity British Columbians would have to see how the province was meeting its projections for debt management -- it failed totally. In its original debt management plan, the government had committed to pay back $414 million in debt in 1995-96, $225 million the following year, and $40 million in the year 1997-98. Four months later, the government totally abandoned any pretext of paying back the $414 million projected. No, indeed. They brought out a new debt management plan.

First of all, let me remind you that we had a ten-year debt management plan tabled on December 19, 1995. By April 30, 1996, the government had rewritten its debt management projections to completely ignore any payment on debt for 1995-96, and for the current fiscal year, the $225 million debt reduction that had been rejected had all of a sudden reduced itself to $53 million. I think it's pretty clear that immediately upon tabling its budget, as far back as April 1996, the government simply abandoned any pretext at debt management and tried to put that off until some future time. Some time down the road the government now pretends that it will attempt to deal with this most serious problem facing British Columbia: the $20 billion in tax-supported debt. Twenty billion dollars, $10 billion of which was racked up by the previous administration.

It's worthwhile reflecting that it took us, as a jurisdiction, almost 130 years to accumulate our first $10 billion in tax-supported debt and four and a half years under the previous administration to double that debt. That's the legacy of the previous NDP government to the province of British Columbia. I look around, and I don't see many other legacies. I don't see any other monuments that are going to stand the test of time. The one legacy, the one monument, that will stand and will haunt British Columbians into the next hundred years is the debt that was racked up.

They'll try to tell us that it was debt for highways, debt for roads and debt for buildings. The fact of the matter is that it is budget deficits -- expenditures that exceeded revenues of almost $5 billion in five years -- that cause the problem of debt and that will indeed haunt us and future generations in this province.

It's simply unacceptable, and I am surprised, quite honestly -- I raised this issue repeatedly during the campaign -- that British Columbians were prepared to overlook that spending spree of the previous administration. It worries me that it will be seen by the current government as an endorsement of their spending practices. Indeed, if we see another spending binge by this government like the one that occurred with the last government, then we're going to be into the kind of debt spiral that has caused the serious difficulties facing the government of Canada and the people of Canada.

Thirty years ago a Liberal government in Ottawa was doing precisely what the New Democrats have been doing in British Columbia over the last five years. Once you get into that debt spiral, once debt-servicing costs start to eat up 10 or 20 percent -- or, in the case of the federal government, 30 to 35 percent -- of your budget, it's almost impossible to pull out of that kind of debt spiral. There is an opportunity here in British Columbia to turn that around, and that should have been the focus of more debate during the campaign. But British Columbians have made a decision based in part on the budget tabled on April 30 and in part on the promises made by the current Premier of British Columbia to balance the budget, to pay down the debt and to become fiscally responsible.

So it was a surprise to me, after the election, to go into the budget lockup -- I think it was May 30; no, it was later than that -- in June, when the House was called back. It was during the throne speech; I guess it was June 28 or something like that. Anyway, it was a shock to me to be called back to hear the throne speech, to go into the budget lockup and to be presented with the budget that had been tabled months earlier, with a handwritten note on it saying "as amended by schedule F." The person dropping off the material said that it was in order to conserve money, to save the cost of reprinting the budget. It seemed a little thin. It seemed a little hard to 

[ Page 167 ]

believe from a party and a government that had been on a spending orgy for months and months, with government advertising, government brochures, material that went out in the mail, hundreds of millions of dollars.... All of a sudden it's a government so frugal that it amends its budget with schedule F.

Then, a few days later, we found that indeed the revenue forecasts were seriously amiss. Then I understood why we had received those documents for a second time around. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason the government chose to use the budget documents that it had tabled prior to the election was that officials in the Ministry of Finance simply refused to endorse a new budget with the same revenue projections in it. The fact is that a couple of days after that we learned that we are $235 million short of the projections from the Ministry of Forests alone -- and, indeed, the nickel drops, because the staff in the Ministry of Finance have an enviable reputation for forecasting revenues. In one of the auditor general's reports -- two years ago, I believe -- he said, and I quote: "The ministry has an uncanny ability to forecast revenues." So I don't think it was any mistake; I don't think it was any error. I don't think it was any late information that had forest revenues suddenly drop after the budget had been tabled the second time around. Indeed, I believe that staff within the Ministry of Forests have known for weeks and months that the revenue projections originally tabled on April 30 simply were not sustainable, and that they were not projections that staff in the ministry were willing to continue supporting.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty is not only with the revenue projections from the Ministry of Forests. You might recall that the original budget estimates projected about $1.52 billion in forestry revenue. It was revised upward, only days before the original budget was tabled on April 30, to $1.6 billion, with a 1996-97 projection of $1.7 billion. And what happened? Revenues came in at $1.35 billion.

The reason we got the recycled estimates was not to save any money; it wasn't to save the cost of printing a budget, which is a reasonable and predictable cost in government. It was simply because staff in the Ministry of Finance knew that these projections, which were weak in April, simply were no longer supportable or defensible in June of 1996. That's not the only difficulty. I look at the forests revenue projections, and I know that they were simply not relevant; they were bogus by the time the budget was tabled the second time around.

But look at the issue of photo radar and the question that I just raised with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Projections are for $70 million in photo radar revenue. That was an optimistic forecast back in April. By the time the budget was tabled a second time, negotiations with ATS had broken down, and the system had proven to be a failure. People couldn't identify licence plate numbers, the computer program wasn't working, matches weren't being made, and it was very evident to anyone -- to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, to the Minister of Finance, to the Premier, and to everybody else -- that this projection of $70 million in extra revenue from photo radar was simply a pipedream. But still the government tabled its old budget, its recycled budget, knowing darn well, without any doubt, that the revenue projections -- at least in the areas of forestry and of photo radar -- were not valid any longer. But the government put on its brave face.

[2:45]

Another area in the budget that was originally tabled April 30 was the expenditure allocation for the family bonus plan -- the B.C. bonus plan. The government originally announced that project back in November and forecast a cost of $258 million per year to fund the program. They then revised their forecast and included in the budget for a nine-month program -- because the program was to go in effect in July -- $113 million. That's less than half of their own forecast of the cost of a full year's operation of the program.

If we wonder why they have been waffling over there about when B.C. Benefits will start, and about when the program will be ready to go, I would suggest that anyone who wonders about the reason should look at the budget. There simply is not enough money in the budget tabled on April 30 and retabled at the end of June to fund anywhere near nine months of the program at the program levels -- at the benefits levels -- announced and campaigned on by this government.

So as we look through the budget, we find a budget that's flawed, that has been deliberately misleading, that I believe is the most deceitful budget document ever tabled in British Columbia. To retable it, to try to manoeuvre and manipulate opinions by saying we're simply retabling the budget, makes it no less deceptive or manipulative than if new documents had been printed. I again submit to you that I don't believe that ministry staff at the Ministry of Finance would have authorized reprinting of that budget with the forecasts for revenue and expenditures that made up the budget tabled in this Legislature.

We know that the budget document is flawed. Still, in the throne speech in this Legislature when we were called back after the election, reference was made to a second balanced budget. At that time the government had to know that its 1995-96 budget was in deficit. Nobody -- no reasonable person -- can look at the evidence and the facts and come to any conclusion other than that the cabinet, Finance minister and Premier knew that the budget was in deficit. Still, they printed and gave to the Lieutenant-Governor a speech containing the words "a second balanced budget," and obliged that individual to sit in this Legislature and make those pronouncements. Again I say to you that it is the most deceptive, most deliberately manipulative budget I've seen in the years I've been in this Legislature.

I'm surprised with the Minister of Finance, quite honestly. I'm surprised that he would allow himself to be drawn into that kind of political activity to the degree he has. I saw, as a man who had served as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs particularly, someone whom I believed had very high standards for his own personal conduct. Still, I see this minister, now serving as the Minister of Finance, tabling in this Legislature and presenting in the lockups a budget that he had to have known was not an accurate reflection of the finances of British Columbia on the day he presented it. That's pretty serious business.

We placed some basic trust.... We believe there are some fundamentals that have to guide all governments. It's not only the members of this assembly who are misled when documents like that are filed. It's the people of British Columbia, most importantly. It's the lenders and the investors who believe, rightfully, that documents such as budget documents are and have to be believable.

So now we see the government desperately scrambling to try and patch it up, trying to mollify the bond-rating agencies and the major lenders, because they recognize that they have lost face. They've lost confidence with the people who decide on the bond rating of this province -- decide how much it will cost British Columbians to borrow. I suggest to you again that this budget has gone a long way to destroy the credibility of 

[ Page 168 ]

British Columbia in the eyes of lenders, British Columbians and investors, whether they live in British Columbia, in other parts of Canada or around the world.

One of the welcomed announcements by this government was the decision to undertake a review of capital spending projects in this province. I know it's difficult for people who are waiting to have a seniors home built or a hospital extension they think should go ahead or a highway construction project that should proceed this year. I know that it's difficult, because I have all of those in my own constituency. I feel for the people who are now frustrated, having worked through the system and now see a possible delay coming as a result of this government review. But I believe it was necessary. I believe it was absolutely essential for government to sit back and look at its capital spending program.

I think that if the decision was made -- and I believe it was -- by the Premier during the campaign, then he should have been forthright with British Columbians. He should have told voters before election day that, indeed, the capital projects he had promised were going to be reviewed, that there could be delays and changes, and that there could be projects that would be cancelled. I think that was an obligation the Premier had to British Columbia voters. He obviously didn't see it that way. I suspect that some voters may well have voted differently, had they known. Nevertheless, I endorse the decision to review spending.

I believe that a review of capital spending in British Columbia should do at least three things. First of all, it should review the tendering process. It should try to determine the cost of the current tender process, which effectively restricts major capital projects to union companies and employment on those projects to union workers. I believe that British Columbia voters, British Columbia taxpayers, would be better served by a tendering process that allowed every British Columbia taxpayer -- whether they be a corporation or an individual -- an opportunity to compete for work that is being paid for by their own tax dollar. That seems to me a pretty fundamental and pretty basic premise that we should have in British Columbia.

Whether a person works as a union worker or a non-union worker, they pay income tax and they pay property taxes. They pay taxes that make up the revenues that allow the government to undertake new projects. Why in the world should one group of people within British Columbia, one group of taxpayers, be allowed to compete for work in the province, and another neighbour, perhaps, not be allowed? I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong for companies, regardless of whether they have a collective agreement, not to be able to work for the government, to undertake and bid on government projects. That seems pretty fundamental to me as well.

We should look at this fair-wage policy. I think any objective review of the fair-wage policy would recognize that it costs British Columbia taxpayers somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million a year -- almost half of the amount that we're tearing our hair out over forestry revenue shortfalls. And still the government blithely continues with the fair-wage policy -- a policy that's anything but fair. I see the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine shaking his head, and I'm sure we'll hear a stirring defence of the fair-wage policy from that member when his opportunity comes.

I think we should look at the deal on the Island Highway. We should decide whether that sweetheart deal is in the interests of British Columbians, whether it's in the interests of people who live on Vancouver Island, or whether it was simply in the interests of a group of people with whom the current government was attempting to curry favour as they led up to an election. I will allow British Columbians to make the decision, but I can tell you, I think the latter was the case.

Now, I wish that was what was going to happen during this review of capital projects. Unfortunately, I don't think it is. I think what we're going to see is the government waffle for 60, 90 or 120 days, or maybe even longer, and then simply carry on with business as usual.

As I looked at the budget documents -- and again, they're bizarre insomuch as they were tabled first in April and again in June.... They contain a statement, which was made again, that the government -- and it's a proud boast -- has cut the number of ministries from 18 to 15. No comment on the fact that we only have 13 cabinet ministers, but nonetheless, the government printed the material up in April, and in order to save the taxpayers, so they say -- they didn't want to print a new budget -- we've now got 18 ministries reduced to 15, and we've reduced the number of ministers to 13. The interesting thing, when you look at the budget document, is that the number of people working for government hasn't reduced. The FTE count is up; the cost of people working directly for government is up. The point is that there is no saving in reducing the number of ministries from 18 to 15.

Indeed, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of reducing the number of ministers and ministries is simply to move more power and more jurisdiction to the bureaucracy and to reduce access of British Columbians to government by way of their cabinet ministers. When I say this, I say it recognizing that the Liberals campaigned on a promise of reducing the number of ministers to 12 and the number of MLAs to 50 -- or 60, or something like that. It cost them dearly in the interior of British Columbia. People are not looking for less representation, and they're not looking for less access to elected officials; they want less government, and they want less bureaucracy.

I don't believe you gain less government or less bureaucracy by reducing the number of people in cabinet or the number of members sitting in this assembly. I think the opposite is the case. I believe that people are well served by their MLAs, regardless of which party they happen to represent or which party they happen to sit with in this Legislature. I believe that ministers provide good service in the work they do.

I disagree with this notion of shrinking power to an ever-smaller group of people, of reducing access to government by reducing the number of people. If you don't have an opportunity to come to Victoria to talk to a cabinet minister about a problem, chances are you're going to wind up talking to someone senior in the bureaucracy -- good people, but they are not there to perform that function; they're there as administrators. They're not sensitive to the political realities of this province. I think it was a big mistake, and I hope that when the government starts to look around at the effect of this ever-shrinking cabinet and recognize they're not saving any money....

[3:00]

Maybe it's because they simply look around at the area outside of cabinet and don't see anybody else who deserves to be in cabinet, but I don't think that's the case. I look at some folks here, and they've got some pretty good track records; they've got some history. Some of them have some experience; some of them are pretty decent people. But they're not sitting on the cabinet benches; they're not at the cabinet table. 

[ Page 169 ]

Instead, we have this small, very close-knit group. Then we hear that within that group there's another group that's even smaller, and those who sit on the inside in that group have even more authority.

I believe we should take a lesson from this election and the rejection by B.C. voters of fewer MLAs. We should take a lesson from that. I'm sure it will disappear from the Liberal platform; I would stake a fair amount of money on it that we won't see that in the platform next time around. I think we can pretty well guarantee that that one's gone, that it's toast, that it won't be mentioned again. But I think the lesson should go a bit further than that, because I do believe there's application for the cabinet as well.

Before I conclude, I want to spend just a bit of time talking about some issues that are important to my constituents in Peace River South -- to the people of South Peace River and North Peace River, the region generally. This is an area that generates enormous revenues for British Columbia, and has for decades. An area of two constituencies regularly exceeds $200-$500 million a year in gas and oil revenues alone. Royalties and others -- land sales, etc. -- add to that. And we generate an enormous amount of electricity. We finally got a figure on it. Now that we've started spilling water over the dam, Hydro says: "Gosh, that's worth a few million dollars a day. We may have to spill a hundred million dollars' worth of water just to get the dam level down." I understand that. I don't have any argument with that. But it is an opportunity to recognize the value of that water and to make an argument that perhaps the people of the Peace -- the people of the northeast region -- should maybe have some of the consideration that's been given by this government to the people in the Columbia Valley. I don't think that one is necessarily in competition with the other, but I believe there is a strong argument for a return of natural resource revenues to the generating region. So I think there should be more money coming back to the Peace from gas and oil sales and from electricity sales.

We're going to be looking at some of those areas more specifically, and I'll wind up by identifying them and resisting the temptation to make a sales pitch for each as I go through. There is a serious need for transportation upgrades with the rural grid road system. There is need for improvements on the Hart Highway. There is a need to return more revenues to the municipalities to offset the costs of services to the areas outside of municipalities -- something called a fair-share program. There are health care needs. There are transportation needs.

I recognize that we are trying to cut this back to 20 minutes, even though the standing orders allow for 30. But if we're at 30, Mr. Speaker, then I would be happy to thank you for your indulgence and advise you that we will be bringing these issues back time and again.

The Speaker: I thank the member, and I do wish to advise him that we were at the 30-minute mark.

I now recognize the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Even though my colleague from Peace River South went a little over time, that's fine. I think we can allow that on rare occasions. I do recall that when I climbed to my feet for my inaugural speech back in '92, when your predecessor, Emery Barnes, was in the chair.... I guess it was the previous Speaker, but we won't get into that issue, government members, because I forgot Mr. Barnes took over from her. She had to blow the whistle on me because I actually went into the red light. The member for Peace River South did as well. I don't believe I'll go overtime this time, hon. Speaker, but there are a few important issues that I wish to address. Before I do that, as my colleagues and the members opposite have appropriately done, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation, if that's the correct term, to the Speaker's chair.

F. Gingell: Three steps up.

J. Dalton: Well, he is elevated; that is true, hon. member.

Having worked with you on various issues during the last parliament, I know that you will no doubt be impartial and control this House with the appropriate authority.

I also want to congratulate all the new members. In particular, I'm happy to see all of my colleagues here. I was hoping, of course, that we would have spilled around the corner and actually occupied the other side, but that's coming soon, hon. members. I also congratulate the members opposite, both old and new, who are either with us for the first time or returning.

We are addressing the issue of the '96-97 budget. That's why we should be discussing financial matters at this time. But as we detected from the last few days of questions and comment in this House, we've been somewhat distracted by going back a year and being preoccupied with the '95-96 budget. That's unfortunate, because it's the issue at hand and the estimates of the ministries coming up which should be consuming our attention.

Let me just go back a bit to the issues that have led to the controversy over the '95-96 budget. Certainly the returning members will recall that budget. That's the one that presumably brought in a $114 million surplus. At least, that was the case, we'll all remember, of the missing Bonneville cheque that caused some embarrassment for the Finance minister of the day.

D. Jarvis: Where is it?

J. Dalton: As my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour appropriately asked: where is it? Is that cheque still in the mail? However, that's not the problem that has precipitated the recent controversy over the '95-96 budget.

There were revisions necessitated. The Minister of Finance and the Premier have both been on their feet in the last day or two defending why revisions are both necessitated and in fact do happen. We acknowledge that. The revision to the '95-96 budget produced a revised forecast of $16 million. All members will be able to look in the first part of this year's estimates to see that revised forecast of $16 million. Nothing is cast in stone. We on the opposition side are not arguing that. Because something in the estimates or in a budget had to be revised, that's fair enough. That's part of the process.

But as we look through some of the events in recent weeks, we see where things in fact came unglued. Of course, it caused the controversy that we are addressing now. April 29 of this year arrived. That's when the thirty-fifth parliament was called for its fifth and last session, when the previous Minister of Finance tabled the '96-97 budget. Again I remind members that we should be directing our attention to the current budget and that we are distracted by the events that have led up to the current controversy. Well, the ink was hardly dry on that budget tabled on April 29 when, as we all remember, the next day the writ was dropped. The thirty-fifth parliament was dissolved, and we went to the polls.

[ Page 170 ]

There's no question that the Premier and his colleagues promoted a then-stated surplus of $87 million. That is in the estimates that we have now had tabled for the second time. So this government was proudly going around the province advertising an $87 million surplus for the current budget year. Inherent in that discussion and statement was: please re-elect us, and we will do as we have indicated in the budget. I'm sure that at least one, if not many more NDP candidates during the campaign period, proudly advertised a second balanced budget in a row. That's a phrase that many other people reiterated in the interval after that time. I am sure -- it goes without saying -- that many voters were influenced by this statement of a second balanced budget in a row. After all -- and certainly it's true of my constituents in West Vancouver-Capilano, just as anywhere else in this province -- people are concerned about high taxation, over-regulation and, most importantly, the ever-increasing public debt that we are all burdened with. So it was a very important and influential factor in the election in May.

Well, we know the result of the election. It didn't work out the way that we in the opposition had hoped, even though -- and I need not remind the members opposite -- the Liberal Party did achieve more popular vote than they did. However, it's not a numbers game. It's a game of how many MLAs were elected on which side and who had the authority to form government.

June 25 is the next important date -- just last week, hon. Speaker, when the throne speech was presented. I have a copy of the throne speech in my hand, and I'll just make one reference to that, because here is this phrase again: "It" -- and the Lieutenant-Governor was referring to the current budget -- "will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row."

So there we are. We have had candidates proudly advertising balanced budgets, we have had previous Finance ministers proudly tabling balanced budgets, and now, of course, we have the current Finance minister, having also made that same and, I would submit, hon. Speaker, false advertisement -- because it is false.

On June 26, the next day after the throne speech, the budget speech was presented. What did the Finance minister advertise? He said that jobs are up. Well, maybe some of these fabricated jobs they claim in the forest industry will be up. We'll see.

Taxes down. Well, I guess that part is true, because they have indicated as of this month that there is a 1 percent tax relief. I am not suggesting, hon. members opposite, that just because there may be one slight item in this budget that is perhaps correct, the rest of it is. That's not the truth by any stretch.

Here is the important thing, the next phrase: "the budget balanced." So there we go again -- on June 26, just last week. We have a balanced budget, perhaps. The new Minister of Finance presented the same budget as we saw on April 29. In fact, my colleague from Peace River South, the previous speaker, made a valid point that all this government has done is table the same budget Elizabeth Cull tabled on April 29, with the one addition of schedule F to justify why it had not changed. As we know, there was a significant change -- undisclosed at the time, but certainly a significant change -- that should have been incorporated into this current budget.

[3:15]

So we have a Finance minister who presented the same budget to this House last Wednesday, June 26, and he again proudly advertised that that budget was balanced -- allegedly the second in a row.

Well, those words are becoming somewhat tedious, and it's unfortunate that people are being dragged into this who quite innocently have made those comments from time to time, not knowing that they were untrue. I would certainly suggest to this House that clearly the Finance minister should have known those comments were untrue. If he didn't, then I think we certainly have to question whether, in fact, the Finance minister is competent to handle the task assigned to him by the Premier.

Let's identify a couple of other dates. June 28, last Friday, was the start of the long weekend. The Minister of Finance called a press conference, in which he dealt with the capital freeze. I'll make some other comments on that in a moment. However, at the time, he neglected to make any comment whatsoever about the fact that the '95-96 budget was not in surplus, but in deficit. We know it's a deficit of $235 million forecast. Why did he neglect at the time to make that reference? Well, obviously it was for political advantage only and certainly not to be in any way accurate on his economic forecasting.

We know it is because of the alleged weather difficulties for the forest industry that the revenues to the Forests ministry are down; it produced this deficit of $235 million. Well, that stretches one's concept of believability somewhat. Then the Finance minister had the nerve to add that because no one had asked him about the alleged downturn, of course he hadn't disclosed it. However, when we returned from the Canada Day weekend, Tuesday, July 2, we all discovered a copy of the release from the Ministry of Finance dealing with the budget shortfall of last year.

So it's after the fact that he has now acknowledged -- and obviously with some embarrassment, and rightly so -- that the preliminary actual forecast for 1995-96 will result in a $235 million deficit and not the $16 million surplus that was so proudly advertised by the previous Finance minister, by all NDP candidates, and, of course, by the Premier and the current Minister of Finance. I think it goes without saying that there is certainly an element of false advertising, which in part -- in large or in small part; we don't know how much -- contributed to the re-election of the NDP.

Not only that, but over the weekend and prior to last weekend -- and I believe still carrying on -- were ads proudly advertising the current budget. Well, I take exception to at least two comments in that. Number one, what is it costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to advertise the current budget? What possible good can that serve the taxpayers and voters of this province? But more importantly, I think, why is the government still so proudly touting a balanced budget? Given that we know last year's budget is not balanced, I think very few taxpayers and voters in this province would believe this budget is balanced. We will have to see whether in fact it is balanced, or whether a year from now it will work out to be balanced.

It's also unfortunate, given the level of cynicism in politics these days, that this government has hardly contributed to the important task of any government, which is to try and improve the public relations and the image that all politicians suffer from. This government has only contributed to that cynicism, and it gets worse by the day, I would suggest.

Perhaps this government could explain to us at some point in time, firstly, why they are running these ads on a continual basis, which are costly and strictly a PR exercise; and secondly, why revenues such as the important revenue source before us could not have been more accurately forecast in this budget and the previous one. Personally, I cannot 

[ Page 171 ]

believe that an important ministry and such significant revenues are not far more clearly known three months after the end of a fiscal year than what this government and this Finance minister are prepared to acknowledge. It's hardly a credible performance. It's one that causes all of us, certainly on the opposition side, much concern.

Is there any accountability reflected in this exercise? Well, obviously not. Is there any deception in the exercise? Certainly there is. It's a deception that cannot be excused away by weather forecasts or changes in accounting practices or changing market conditions. All of those are predictable factors that should be built into the forecasting process. It is unacceptable three months after the fact for a government to say that, allegedly, some poor weather in the spring resulted in a downturn in forest revenues, turning a $16 million surplus into a $235 million deficit. That is hardly something that you can explain away with a flippant comment such as: "Blame it on the weather."

Earlier I made reference to the capital projects freeze that the Minister of Finance admitted to last Friday, and I want to come back to it now. It is in his budget, of course, and he did hold a press conference. There is one item in particular that is a concern of mine and, I note, of my three colleagues from the North Shore, and that is the Lions Gate Bridge project, which is under review on the '96-97 project list. It describes the Lions Gate Bridge, and then it has in brackets "construction." I don't know what construction they are referring to, other than the rehabilitation of some sidewalks. Next to that, under description, it has "bridge renewal." I'm not sure what that refers to. Are we suggesting that the government may have had in mind a new bridge or a rehabilitated bridge? Have they cast aside the idea of a tunnel or some other project? We don't know.

It is very ironic for this government to be telling us now that the Lions Gate Bridge project, whatever it may be, is on hold or under review, when we think back to three years ago when Art Charbonneau, the then Minister of Transportation, announced a five-year time line to make the decision on the bridge, or whatever crossing, get the design in place and have construction underway. That was in 1993, and three years later we have gained absolutely nothing in that time line and in that process other than to now describe the Lions Gate Bridge as under review. I can assure you that my constituents in West Vancouver-Capilano are hardly impressed by that reference.

Accompanying the capital spending freeze was a press release. I want to make reference to two criteria that are set out in this press release as to whether a project would or would not be frozen. One criterion is health and safety. I'm sure that from the government members' perspective the Lions Gate Bridge is hardly a health and safety issue, but I can assure you that for those of us who regularly use the Lions Gate crossing, it is certainly more and more becoming a safety issue. I would submit to all members of this House and all the people of British Columbia, not just the regular users of the bridge, that if we don't learn from the exercise of the Second Narrows fiasco and other infrastructures that are becoming more and more unsafe and causing economic and other hardship, then there is no point in our discussing this one any further.

The other criterion that I want to make reference to in the same news release is the maintenance of capital assets. I would suggest to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and to all government members that the Lions Gate Bridge is a capital asset of some importance. The longer we neglect the significant maintenance of that bridge -- rehabilitation or otherwise -- the more that capital asset will be compromised. So I'm suggesting that putting the Lions Gate crossing issue on hold flies in the face of the minister's own categories whereby, through safety and maintenance of capital assets.... I think he should reconsider that particular project.

And I don't believe that's a self-serving comment. I represent a riding that in large part is naturally very concerned about the Lions Gate crossing, but I think the Lions Gate represents far more than just an access point for some people from North and West Vancouver to the downtown core. There is more and more traffic from ferry use, from Whistler and the Sea to Sky corridor and people going to Pemberton and up through Lillooet to the interior -- people who want to access the North Shore for reasons other than just a bedroom community. For example, Grouse Mountain and the Capilano Suspension Bridge are the two most significant tourist destinations in the entire lower mainland, and the more frustration on both the First Narrows and Second Narrows bridges, of course, the more those industries are affected. So it's time that this government moved away from its rather lame excuse that some things have to be placed under review -- due to its fiscal incompetence -- and move projects such as the Lions Gate Bridge to the top of the list.

There are certainly other comments that could be made about the budget, but I want to pass on a few words of advice to this government, if they care to listen. My comments will be under the heading of accountability. Accountability is something that is certainly lacking from this government; there's the fiasco of the '95-96 budget, and of course there are the questions that we will all have, naturally, in the light of that, about the current '96-97 budget.

I have in my hand the report that the auditor general released on April 29 of this year -- in fact, it was the day before the writ was dropped. It's titled Enhancing Accountability for Performance. The theme of George Morfitt's report -- and I commend it to all members, both old and new -- is accountability. Let me just read into the record, hon. Speaker, two comments that the auditor general made. The auditor general started off in his comments by saying: "Last year I committed to providing the Legislative Assembly and the public with a comprehensive accountability framework that would guide the whole of government in reporting more fully on its performance."

I certainly think that the government of the day should take those words to heart. I have one other observation from this report. In the executive summary the auditor general made an interesting comparison between government and private enterprise, and business in general: "Companies that provide good service and operate efficiently are usually rewarded with healthy profits and repeat business. Those that don't, go broke."

[3:30]

The auditor general, of course, hon. Speaker, was referring to private business and private enterprise, and I would suggest that if we were to draw some parallels between that and the way this government has got off to such a poor start, if they were honest and aboveboard and told the voters and taxpayers of this province the real state of the economy and the accurate information about the deficit, then this government would have gone broke and they would not have been re-elected. It's unfortunate that because of their deception, they were in fact re-elected. Again I commend to all members the report of the auditor general, because I think his theme of accountability as the watchdog of the public dollar is one that all of us, whether we are on the government's side or in opposition, can take to heart.

[ Page 172 ]

Let me conclude by saying that it is a rather sorry state when we seem to have to be on our feet and not getting into the issues of this year's budget so much as being distracted because of the government's combination of incompetence and deception which permitted last year's budget to fall into such a state of disarray. I hope that we've all learned from that exercise.

I guess the other comment I would have to add is that, needless to say, we in the opposition are hardly convinced that the current budget as presented, with an alleged surplus of $87 million, will hold true any more than last year's budget held true. That is something we will have to see as the days and months go by. Hopefully, when we get to the estimates, starting probably next week or soon thereafter, the ministers will at least be forthcoming with some honest and accurate information, so that we in the opposition, in our responsibility to hold the government to account on behalf of all British Columbians, will at least have some confidence as we move forward into this new parliament that it will not produce the same sort of results we saw coming out of the last parliament.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise today in this House to make some comments on behalf of my constituency, and in particular with respect to the budget. As other members have done, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate all of the members who've been elected in this recent provincial election.

I am pleased to represent the people of the constituency of Abbotsford. The constituency that I represent includes about half of the city of Abbotsford. It also includes the residents of Yarrow, Cultus Lake, the Chilliwack River valley and the Columbia Valley. Each of these areas has its own unique issues and concerns, but they also share the concerns of all British Columbians -- concerns for their health care system, the availability of a proper education and the fundamental need that most people have for meaningful employment. Above all, my constituents believe that fiscal responsibility is absolutely a basic requirement from their provincial government.

Abbotsford is a rapidly growing area, with many new residents moving in to take advantage of our proximity to Vancouver, in combination with our rural heritage and the beautiful Fraser Valley scenery. The people in my community tend to be hard-working, self-reliant and financially responsible. The people in Abbotsford are leaders and builders in both the literal and figurative senses.

Our main industry is still based on agriculture, despite the ongoing pressures of urbanization. Abbotsford is the heartland of Fraser Valley agriculture, which in turn represents 50 to 60 percent of the industry in British Columbia, based on gross dollar value. Dairy, hog and poultry enterprises are very active in Abbotsford, as well as vegetable and small fruit production -- crops like blueberries, raspberries and strawberries.

Not only do we have a very important farming sector, but we also have the largest representation of agribusiness in British Columbia. On the input side -- that is, in providing services and products to farmers -- we have a number of major feed mills supplying grain to the livestock and poultry sector. These feed mills have leading-edge nutritionists and modern technology to help keep B.C. farmers competitive in the face of some extremely aggressive market conditions, both at the farm-gate level and throughout the delivery chain. Also on the input side, Abbotsford has within its boundaries three of the largest farm equipment dealerships in British Columbia, as well as a farm equipment wholesaler who markets throughout all of the Pacific Northwest and, on some equipment lines, across Canada.

On the processing and marketing side, primary agriculture cannot function without the ongoing involvement of strong and competitive processing organizations. The member for Chilliwack yesterday mentioned the closure of Fraser Valley Foods in his constituency, a corporate decision which has serious implications for many farmers in my constituency as well. Despite this setback, we still have major processing operations for vegetables and small fruits in Abbotsford and Matsqui.

We also have the largest cheese plant in western Canada, right next to the No. 1 freeway in Abbotsford. This plant serves the function of the balance plant in British Columbia. By that I mean that whenever milk is not required for the fluid market or for other uses, any surplus milk in B.C. ends up in the Abbotsford plant. There it is made into the award-winning Armstrong cheese. This cheese plant is operated by Dairyworld Foods, which is the operating name for Agrifoods International Cooperative Ltd. Agrifoods is owned by farmers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and operates plants in five provinces, as well as a joint plant operation in Quebec.

I could quote you the usual statistics about the importance of agriculture in my constituency; however, I have my own thumbnail indications. These are: the largest accounting firm in the city of Abbotsford, KPMG, tells me that 60 percent of their business is still based on agriculture. That's a very significant number.

The other thing that is very interesting to me in my travels between my office and my house, which is still on the farm near the Fraser River, is that it doesn't matter what time of day I'm travelling that route, I always see at least one feed truck and one milk truck plying the highways, delivering product to and from farms. This is an activity that goes on at least 20 hours a day in my constituency. When I see those trucks, I see jobs and economic activity; I see a local industry providing a growing population in the lower mainland with a basic food supply.

Agriculture provides a stabilizing influence in many B.C. communities, including Abbotsford. That's not to say, however, that there aren't some legitimate questions on the horizon about the industry's future. B.C. agriculture faces constant pressure on our high-capability food lands which make up the agricultural land reserve. Another concern is the ongoing uncertainty of trade negotiations, NAFTA panels and countervail actions by the U.S., and the dominance of the food industry in Canada by a very small number of large-scale grocery marketers who are engaged in a winner-take-all battle for market share. This situation creates tremendous price pressure on the farmer, whether he is a rancher, a dairy farmer, a blueberry grower or an apple producer.

So the next time you drive by a local farm operation in your constituency, you might just consider parking some of those romantic notions about farming and the perception of peace and tranquillity down on the farm. There is a major transition and adjustment taking place in B.C. agriculture. The intensive commercial agricultural industry which is evolving is a very far cry from the traditional nostalgic vision we have of the family farm.

With that introduction, let me turn my attention to the budget which was presented to this Legislature on June 26. First of all, I'd like to express my extreme disappointment 

[ Page 173 ]

with the fact that the minister presented one set of numbers on June 26 and two days later felt a need to release a different set of numbers to a single local reporter. It's one thing for a political party to say things and make certain claims in the heat of a provincial election; it's quite another for a new majority government to carry on a charade of fiscal responsibility which is sloppy management at best or, alternatively, may well be intentional deception. It's easy to dismiss this as politics or how it works in the political game. However, I continue to cling to the old-fashioned belief that it doesn't need to be that way and that it shouldn't be that way.

In my previous career, I spent 14 years on the board of directors of a large farmer-owned cooperative. As directors we were accountable to the members who owned the co-op, just as taxpayers presumably own and operate their government. Over the years, I learned that members had some clear but fundamental expectations: they wanted to know where you were going and how you planned to get there; they wanted to know what challenges and obstacles you were facing and how you planned to deal with them. But above all, they appreciated hearing the truth, at least most of the time.

I heard a prominent open-line radio host say one time that he had been told as a young reporter by a veteran provincial Premier that there are two things in politics that you absolutely have to watch out for. One of those things will most certainly kill your political career, and the second one will most certainly almost kill it. The two rules that the old Premier set out were: (1) never tell a lie; (2) never tell the truth. I guess the Minister of Finance is working on No. 2 in terms of his recent budget activities.

The June 26 budget promises British Columbians a small personal income tax reduction, no new taxes and no tax increases. It sounds good, but is it real? Is the government in B.C. serious about going down the same road as those populist governments in Alberta and Ontario? Or is it just mouthing the words without any solid action plans to back it up?

Managing finances effectively is not easy. Controlling spending takes a lot of commitment, focus and discipline. There is no magic formula for reducing costs. Managing taxpayers' money effectively is something that needs to be done every day of every week of every year, not just for a few months around election time. Managing money takes leadership by elected people. They set the tone for the whole government by their example and their actions. It also requires some basic understanding of financial reality, as many individuals and businesses, large and small, have found out. It's very easy to run up more debt, but it's a whole lot harder to pay some of it off.

The government has announced a freeze and review of capital spending and a comprehensive review of all government programs. Right off the top, it may be a useful exercise for the Minister of Finance to ask himself how much of the government's current level of spending is actually discretionary in the next few years or within the term of this government. What the NDP government will be struggling with is the overhang -- or maybe that should be hangover -- from the freewheeling spending of the past four and a half years. Even if the government is sincere, it faces a difficult and challenging task. The "collective agreements" imposed by the government on civil servants -- such as health care workers, teachers and others -- represent a major cost to the government, which is now essentially a fixed cost. Not only are there cash costs of the salary increases, however modest, but there is a significant hidden but real cost attached to the administration of these collective agreements.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

[3:45]

Let me give this House one example of such a hidden cost, given to me by a human resource manager in a hospital outside my constituency. He was talking about a clause in the original health labour accord. If an employee is injured, he or she would go on workers' compensation, which provides a non-taxable payment of 75 percent of their normal salary. Note that the WCB payment was 75 percent of the normal salary, but was non-taxable. However, the government agreed in the health labour accord to provide a top-up of that WCB payment of another 25 percent of the worker's salary. If you do the math, hon. Speaker, the hospital human resource manager ended up with an injured employee who was off work but was making more than 125 percent of their normal salary.

That's not all of the story. A further concern was that it was often very difficult to get these people back to work. After all, who wants to go back to work just to get a cut in earnings? I'm sure there are many other examples that will hurt the government's ability to manage the productivity and effectiveness of staff.

Another example of a variable cost that in effect has become a fixed cost is interest expense. In the last four and a half years the total government debt has increased by about $11.5 billion. At a 6 percent borrowing rate, that $11.5 billion of debt represents another $700 million of interest costs per year -- every year.

Then there is the gift that keeps on giving, whether it's Christmas or not -- the West Coast Express -- which will continue to incur major operational losses every year for the foreseeable future. These kinds of ongoing costs -- namely, salaries, interest expense and losses from bad investments -- do not go away by themselves, and in effect, they all become fixed costs.

With respect to the freeze and review of capital expenditures, I want to mention one item that is particularly galling to my constituents. The project title in the list is "MSA Hospital," and the project description, "Planning for replacement of obsolete hospital." The capital expenditure category is under review, and this item deals with planning. The inclusion of this item as a project that should be under review is almost as ludicrous as the Ministry of Health's decision a year ago to downgrade population projections to levels which had already been exceeded by the actual numbers. This is the second or possibly third time that the MSA hospital is being planned, and the holding costs of the site are running in excess of $200,000 per month. I find it to be insulting to our intelligence that the government continues to be less than frank about its true intentions with respect to the MSA hospital. The end result is a continued waste of staff time, both for the local community and the government, in talking about a hospital that the government has apparently no intention of building.

I would like to end on a positive note, however. The comprehensive review of all government programs represents an opportunity to make some changes, to trim some inefficiencies, to simplify procedures and to improve service quality. This review provides the opportunity to do some things that might not otherwise get done. One would hope that the government will be sufficiently motivated to take this exercise seriously.

I believe that it is critically important that elected politicians take a greater interest in the actual delivery of government services to people. Elected politicians need to take a 

[ Page 174 ]

closer look at the operations of government. It's not that cabinet should get involved in day-to-day management, but I do believe that politicians need to be more proactive in establishing expectations for operations, in establishing standards of performance for such things as service quality, and in then measuring results.

Deputy ministers should know clearly what is expected of them in terms of operational performance. They should also know that their individual rating will depend on the actual results they achieve. I am a strong supporter of some of the recent work of the Public Accounts Committee and its focus on enhancing accountability within government. A willingness by the government to implement the recommendations of the committee will help improve results, while at the same time reducing or holding the line on costs.

I am a firm believer in independent audits of ministry operations or programs, whether they be done by the auditor general or some qualified person from outside government. All of what I have talked about in connection with improving accountability and operational performance is really quite routine. These types of initiatives have been taking place for at least the last ten years in the private sector.

However, in doing this comprehensive review of programs, I sincerely hope that the government is prepared to be aggressive. I hope that the government is prepared to be courageous. I hope that the government is prepared to do more than just an internal review driven only by staff. I hope that the government will be willing to involve not only the opposition but also the public in generating ideas and discussion to identify ways and means to streamline bureaucracy, increase government efficiency and cut costs.

If the government is willing to do these things, then I believe this review will be an opportunity for change -- a positive change. For my part, I intend to plug into this review process as effectively as possible on behalf of all British Columbians and my constituents.

In closing, I wish the government well in its agenda for greater fiscal responsibility and overall effectiveness within government.

I. Waddell: The members will have to forgive me; I'm a bit rusty, here. I haven't spoken in an assembly for a couple of years. I'm told....

F. Gingell: Didn't we hear you last Thursday night?

I. Waddell: I mean really speaking.

I'm told that there is a policy in this House for former federal Members of Parliament, and that is: when they give their maiden speech, the opposition can't heckle but all the government members can.

First of all, let me thank the electors of Vancouver-Fraserview for electing me to this place. I'm very proud to be here; it's a great honour.

I should say to the House and be honest that I didn't win by much. It was about 370 votes. One of my friends says that if you win by one vote, that's enough. A Greek friend of mine says that if you win by half a vote, that's even enough.

An Hon. Member: What do the Italians say?

I. Waddell: Please, Italian....

I'm very pleased to be here representing the electors in Fraserview, which is in southeast Vancouver. It's an interesting combination of old neighbourhoods and new neighbourhoods: older people from the United Kingdom and Europe, and new people, mainly from Asia and Southeast Asia. It has a sizeable group of Chinese Canadians in the riding. I'm very interested in the issues that concern that community, and I always have been, both in the federal House and now, I hope, in this House.

That is a mixed community. As you know, Madam Speaker, it has people who have been here for four or five generations, who came to build the gold mines and the railways of this province. You've got new people from Hong Kong that came here, you've got even newer people from the People's Republic of China, and you've got even newer immigrants from Taiwan. I welcome those people to our community and to Canada -- many of whom I worked for on immigration cases -- and I'm proud to see them, as I saw them door-to-door in the election campaign.

We have, of course, people from other parts of the world: Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea and so on. We also have people from India. The Ross Street Sikh Temple is in my riding.

I want to say special thanks to the Indo-Canadian community of Fraserview for their support in the campaign. It wasn't easy for them. The Liberals had a distinguished candidate of Indo-Canadian background, and the choices came down to policy, as it should. I was very proud of the help I got from the Attorney General, who is sitting in the House, the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh; the Minister of Environment, Moe Sihota; and Harry Lali, the member for Yale-Lillooet, who came and helped me in the riding and who is very popular there.

I'll never forget the debate in the Sikh temple with Moe, if I might call him that. No, I'll call him the Minister of Environment. When we had the debate in the Sikh temple, it was like politics should be. It was a great debate. Unlike most of the all-candidates' debates, which members know are kind of boring -- everybody knows where everybody stands -- this was a real debate amongst people with different principles appealing directly to the voters there.

I want to acknowledge the other candidates who ran against me, especially Dr. Gulzar Cheema, the Liberal candidate, who ran a fair and honourable campaign. I ran into his campaign manager the other day, and I said to him that it would be tough to lose by 370 votes and that I felt for him. I thought they ran a good campaign.

I want to say a few words about the election. Of course, everybody's got an idea of why we in the NDP won the election and what happened. I have no monopoly on that, but I want to say a few things about it. First of all, it's a new experience for me to sit on the government side of the House. Indeed, it's nice to be back in politics, although I must say....

G. Farrell-Collins: Even if it's just for a little while.

[ Page 175 ]

I. Waddell: Even for a little while. Maybe ten years or so.

Madam Speaker, maybe I could tell a little story to the House. When I was in Ottawa, Ed Broadbent was the leader of the New Democratic Party -- my leader. On Friday he was in the House of Commons and there was a battle, and they were calling him everything. Over the weekend there was a party meeting and he decided to resign, as he had been leader many years. He was a great, distinguished leader and a great Canadian, and he announced his resignation. We got back in the House on Monday and I was told by the Whip, "Sit beside Ed," because unexpectedly he came back to the House. Of course, everybody rose up and said what a wonderful person he was. Someone called him a statesman, and Ed looked aside to me and said: "You know what a statesman is, Ian? It's a dead politician."

As the Speaker of the House of Commons said last week to a reunion of parliamentarians in Ottawa: "When you're out of politics, you get accolades, and when you're in politics you tend to get a lot of criticism." Now that I'm back, I know what it's like. I'm back in politics and I've seen at least a week in the House.

Politics is being alive. Politics is fighting and struggling for the issues that you really believe in. I used to say to students when they said, "We've got medicare," that we got medicare because people went out there and fought for it; politicians lost seats and governments fell to get that. Now we accept it in Canada, and we've got to remember that the struggles were worth it. The struggle over aboriginal rights and so on, which I had the honour to participate in a little bit, was something that was there. We had to make progress; we had to make changes. And when you see it happen over a period, it makes politics worthwhile. And I'll remember that, when the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is throwing slings and arrows at me in the future.

I want to say some other words about the election. I think there were a number of reasons why we won the election. I think one is that the present Premier had perhaps more popularity, if I might put it that way, than the present Leader of the Opposition. I'm proud to be here with the present Premier and to serve under him. I know him from a long time past when he worked on my campaign as a young man. He's gutsy, he's energetic, he's principled, he's intelligent, I think he's going to be a great Canadian political figure, and I'm proud of him.

[4:00]

Second, there were issues in the campaign that came to the fore. I think that in the end, people wanted to build British Columbia. I know they're concerned about the debt; we all know that. They were concerned that they didn't want to go the way of Klein in Alberta or Harris in Ontario. Our economy isn't that bad here, and they didn't want to take the chance of plunging our economy into more radical measures. It's a challenge for us to face some of those issues that came up during the campaign. I still think people want to build B.C. They want medicare, education and safe streets, and they want us to be careful with their money. But they want those priorities, we spoke to that, and that's why people voted for us.

Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to my old friend Mike Harcourt. Can I call him that now? He's not in the House. I wasn't in the House and I know you all struggled with some of his environmental initiatives and so on -- I see the former Minister of Environment here. They really have had an effect and will have an effect on the future of British Columbia. I remember going into the Stein Valley. "Save the Stein." Do you remember that? "Save Carmanah." I remember the fights over land use and so on. I know it was difficult, and I know it was difficult in the communities as well. But we've got some peace there. We've got some building to do, and we have land use plans basically for the province of British Columbia. That puts B.C. in the forefront of Canada -- in the forefront of the world -- and that will lead to B.C. having the strongest economy and being the best place to live in the twenty-first century.

Let's get to the present Legislature. Like most of the members, I went door to door. As a matter of fact, I've gone door to door so much I'm getting tired of doors. Federal campaigns are 58 days. Thank God provincial campaigns are about 28 days. I've fought five federal campaigns and one provincial campaign, so add up all those days and all those doors. But when you go door to door, you at least talk to people -- real people -- and you have to deal with some of their issues. I remember talking to a couple just behind David Thompson school in southeast Vancouver. The fellow comes to the door -- I assume it was a husband and wife -- and says to me: "You tell Glen Clark not to spend all that money." Then the wife says to me: "You know, my son is going to Thompson here, and he's going to graduate. We need a new university." I thought: why don't you two speak to each other? Those were the issues in the election. If we can talk about it and work it out, I think we've got it -- that balance we have and that big challenge we've got.

We're blessed with a good economy. We're blessed with people coming into this great province, and we have to build the province, but we have to face the question of affording it as well. It's a balance that we have to take, and it's a double demand that the electorate has upon us.

We've got another challenge economically, and that is that we have had these great resource industries: the forest industry, oil and gas, agriculture, mining. We're still resource-based, and we shouldn't forget that. I am an environmentalist, but I don't forget that the driving force of our economy is still very much the resource industries. But we've got a new economy and a new world. We've got, for example, the service industries. A good example would be engineering companies in Vancouver that are spreading out to the Asia-Pacific, using their skills. Many of them are immigrants themselves, and they're going to the Asia-Pacific and selling their Canadian services. This is the new economy, and this is where there are a lot of jobs. They're highly skilled jobs and high-paying jobs. This is our challenge too -- to deal with that.

I want to say a few things about the budget. I've noticed it kind of got lost. I'm talking about the present budget, not last year's budget. I feel it's my duty as a member of the House on the government side to remind the House of what that budget said, some of the good things. There are about six things that are important, at least for the people of my riding and, I think, for the rest of the province.

The budget did drop personal income tax. It was a small drop, but it was an important drop. In my riding a two-parent family with two kids in university or in community college will save $494. That is a saving; that is important. B.C. Hydro rates have been frozen for three years; it's about time. ICBC -- there's been a two-year freeze for car and truck insurance. We said right there that we're on the side of the people. "Enough is enough. You keep those rates down."

More importantly, there has been a two-year freeze for post-secondary education tuition fees. This is absolutely key to building our economy and to get kids, including working-

[ Page 176 ]

class kids like me when I was a kid, to go to university. This gives them a bit of a break there. We've still got lots to do, but this was very important. In my view -- perhaps when historians write about it -- it was one of the keys to actually winning the election and dealing with the election, because we showed the young people in this province that we in the NDP were on their side.

Small business got a break, and small business is the creator of jobs in this economy. There's a two-year tax holiday, and 40,000 small businesses in the province will get a 1 percent tax cut. That's important to build jobs and to build the economy. Let's not forget that when we talk about all these other parts of the problem in question period.

Finally, which is important for my riding, the homeowner grant rises to $525,000, the value of the house. I know many of you think: "Gee, that's a high value." But in southeast Vancouver there are many houses that get up to that value. So people can still get the homeowner grant. That's very important for my area, and I want the people of Vancouver-Fraserview to know that.

The debate in question period has focused on last year's budget, and I want to say something about that very quickly. Budgets, as I understand it.... I'm new to this and new to the House, so it seems very simple to me that budgets are about forecasts. Last year the figures seemed to go up and down, and then they settled some time around November or December, when the public accounts are due. So a budget is a forecast, and it's made in the spring.

Last week the Minister of Finance revealed figures that said there were shortfalls in forest revenues in last year's budget. I take him at his word. He's an honest guy who puts forward this information as soon as he can, and it's a movable feast. This could change. Far be it from me to take away the opposition's attack. You know, I've been there and done that, and I understand that. But I just want the public, and the electors of Vancouver-Fraserview, to understand that the budget and the finances of this province are in pretty darned good shape. As a matter of fact, they're the best in Canada.

We have to get a message, however, from this experience. I think the message is that we're on the right track when we talk about the capital spending freeze. It's a six-month freeze on capital spending, as I understand it. Two hundred and fifty-eight capital projects, with a total of $1.2 billion, will proceed.

I'm happy to say.... I guess maybe I'm a bit blasé on this because none of the projects in my riding are affected. But I want to tell the electors of Vancouver-Fraserview that the Moberly elementary school will proceed, the Finnish Canadian institution, the beds there, will proceed, and the Royal Arch Masonic program will proceed, because they're all legally committed to, and I'm pleased with that.

But I'm committed, too, to looking at other projects and supporting cutbacks in other projects -- even ones that may affect my riding, if I might say. So far they haven't announced any, but when they do I promise to be fair on that. There are 271 projects to be reviewed, and I think that's important. I think that's a message to the people of the province that we've heard the message about debt. We want to build B.C., but we've also heard that we've got to be careful with the finances.

I want to just outline, in the time I've got left, some of the challenges I feel we're facing in the House. I want to talk about three things. I want to talk about sustainability, I want to talk about federal-provincial relations, and I want to talk about land claims, in the context of my perhaps a bit unique background in these areas.

First of all, sustainability. Sustainability means living and managing our activities in a way that balances social, economic and institutional considerations to meet the needs of this generation and future generations. Every high school kid in this province can tell you what sustainability means. That's the hope of the future.

Tomorrow I'm going to speak on this, on the Fraser River. There's been a report on the Fraser River and our battle to save the world's greatest salmon-producing system. I think this is a non-partisan issue, and I'm going to treat it as such. But I think it's an issue that this House will have to deal with.

Sustainability is key to building for the twenty-first century, because we are on the verge of creating a province, and hopefully a country, that's the world's first really sustainable economy. But I'll talk about that later.

Secondly.... I reluctantly get into this, but I'd like to. It's called federal-provincial relations. I was there; I saw....

Interjection.

I. Waddell: Yes, I know. I get blamed for everything that happened in Ottawa. Strange, isn't it?

But I had a chance to see the most effective provincial leaders in Ottawa: Premier Lougheed, when he took on Trudeau; Quebec, all the time, in dealing with the federal government; Premier Peckford of Newfoundland, when he took on the feds over fisheries. I was proud to see our Premier fighting for B.C.'s interests in Ottawa over the salmon and against the Mifflin plan. I think it's long overdue that a B.C. Premier is clear and articulate and takes a strong stand with Ottawa. That's all they listen to.

I want to respectfully suggest as well that we think of a double-edged strategy. I say we, because I think we're all in this; I think we need the stick and we need the carrot as well. If you look at the issue of the fisheries, that's a good example. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- DFO -- needs to compromise on this issue. They need to listen to B.C. We are saying that some of our coastal communities are in peril. Listen and change and help us -- that's all we're asking.

We also want B.C. to have a bigger role in salmon habitat and maybe comanagement in the fisheries. As members know, fisheries are, basically, under our constitution, a federal matter. But there's room. The Canadian constitution is a great constitution; it's very flexible. There's room for them to give, to help the province.

I'd like to set a context for that new approach, and I direct these remarks at a friend of mine who sits in Ottawa, called Jean Chrétien. I ask Jean Chrétien and those people in Ottawa to go back and have a look at an old colleague of Chrétien who brought him into politics, a fellow called Lester Pearson -- the late Prime Minister Lester Pearson, a great diplomat who spoke about cooperative federalism.

We have lost that in the debate. Have you noticed? Cooperative federalism: he talked about that as a spirit of compromise, and it was very much based on a reflection by Mr. Pearson, who was a diplomat in his own style. As a good diplomat, he recognized that issues were not black-and-white and that sometimes the feds did not have all the wisdom.

[ Page 177 ]

I want to give a quote that was given in the House of Commons -- if I can see this -- on February 20, 1964, at page 64 of Hansard. Mr. Pearson said:

"The solution, on the essential foundation which I have mentioned, to our problems must be found at what we call cooperative federalism. That means to me that the federal government must of course always seek the approval of provincial governments, when that is necessary under our constitution, before decisions are made. That is obvious. But there must also be consultation on matters which, while within the jurisdiction of the federal government, are shared constitutionally with provincial governments, or are of such great and immediate importance to provincial governments that, for good results, provincial support and cooperation must be obtained."

So Mr. Pearson was saying to consult with the provinces even on matters that you have sole jurisdiction in, and certainly on matters that affect the provinces. He was faced with this issue when he had to deal with the Quebec Pension Plan in 1964. He said this then, and again I quote:

"In every federal state is the necessity for having a central government strong enough in jurisdiction, in resources and in resolve to discharge its responsibilities to all the people" -- that's our Ottawa government -- "but a central government which will not encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces or which acts so as to prejudice their ability to do their job within their jurisdiction. The reconciliation of these things is not easy."

So I say to this House, and to Jean Chrétien in Ottawa: there are issues that we must cooperate in. The fish issue is the.... We have to save the salmon. Our future generations will not forgive us if we don't save the great salmon. We ought to work together for that.

We've got other things to do. We've got to cooperate. A good example is Kemano and building the Kenney Dam release facility there, which will cost $100 million. Why isn't DFO there? Why isn't the federal government there cooperating with us? We've got to deal with that in this session and see whether we can't get some sort of compromise, so that we can deal with the problems with Alcan, with Kemano, with the low river flows in the Nechako River -- again showing what I think the public wants, and that is cooperative federalism. We've got to do it in Asian trade. We've got to do it in training and education. There are a whole host of issues on which some of us, who are interested in these matters and have had some experience in this area, should speak out.

Even my old nemesis, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, spoke on this. I have to quote him. He said in "Federalism, Nationalism and Reason," in 1964: "Federalism is by its very essence a compromise and a pact. It is a compromise in the sense that when national consensus on all things is not desirable or cannot readily obtain, the area of consensus is reduced in order that consensus on some things be reached."

[4:15]

So what he's saying is to reduce your focus and try and get some consensus on some things. I don't think there should be any assumption on behalf of federal officials that decisions made by the central government are somehow inherently better or more legitimate than those made by the province. It's a recognition of that fact -- what Pearson was talking about in cooperative federalism and what Trudeau sometimes had and sometimes didn't have.... I believe in a strong central government; I always have. But you have to consult the provinces within their jurisdictions. You have to begin cooperating with the provinces in a new way. That means the civil services as well.

Well, enough of that. I just want to bring my remarks to a close by talking a bit about land claims. I also had the chance in Ottawa to be there with Jean Chrétien when we negotiated section 35 of the constitution. That perhaps was the highlight of my political career. Just recently I was able to go up to the Nass Valley, to New Aiyansh, and see the signing of the Nisga'a deal. It was incredible. It was really historic and heartwarming, spectacular.

I am concerned that for some reason the Reform Party in this House is attacking this. They seem to be trying to have it both ways. I don't think you can. You can't say we're for a settlement and then not be willing to make the compromises that are necessary for the settlement.

Now, I don't know the Liberal position on this issue; I haven't seen it yet. It seems to me a bit on the fence. Someone was trying to define liberalism the other night, and it reminded me of Mark Twain, here on this issue.

An Hon. Member: The mugwumps.

I. Waddell: About them being mugwumps, you know, sitting on that fence with your mug on the one side and your wump on the other is a classic definition of modern liberalism. But I'm hoping they won't be mugwumps on the issue. I hope they'll fall on the side of first nations people, because we in this generation have to bring justice to first nations in this country.

We have a people who are living in the Third World in this country -- among a First World country. We have people living in poverty in aboriginal communities. There are jobless people, and there are people who are overrepresented in our prisons and our jails. Yet there's a miracle going on. There's a tremendous renaissance in aboriginal culture and leadership, and that's really the light at the end of the tunnel.

I talked before about political courage and change. It's going to take courage, and the last government had the courage to go ahead with the Nisga'a deal. I say to the opposition -- and, I hope, to the Reform Party, because the hon. member for Peace River South is an honourable man.... I see the member across from me, from Richmond, who knows a lot about this area. I say to the Liberals: come and join with us, so that we can begin to settle these land claims and really build B.C. for the twenty-first century. Enough. Maybe I should sit down.

Some Hon. Members: More! More!

I. Waddell: Enough, enough. Thank you.

One of my heroes in politics.... Well, he was in politics and he was in literature. His name was Frank Scott. F.R. Scott was a great constitutional lawyer and a poet. He wrote a poem on Canada, and he called it "A Northern Country." He said that it was silent, awaiting the struggle. That's the great thing about Canada. In my short political career, I've been there when we created it. I was there when we repatriated the constitution; I was there for the great debates on Meech Lake; I was there for the native land claims debates and for the energy policy debates, in which we had to deal with some raw issues between the east and west in Canada.

I know about Canadian regionalism. I love this country, and I've seen it in all aspects. I've travelled throughout the north. We have a great country. Canadians are a northern people. George Bush said that he was looking for the kinder, gentler society. It is here. But we have a struggle here to build British Columbia, and it's not going to be easy. We are lucky; we've got a great flow of immigrants, new people and skills, 

[ Page 178 ]

and a good economy. But we have to deal with our debt and our deficit, and we have to be straightforward with people. I think that will emerge. So I'm very proud to be back in politics, and I'm very proud to be part of building B.C. and Canada.

I want to end by just paying a little tribute to a little thing about what Canada means, in maybe a more concrete way. There's a young girl; her name is Aven Hardy. She's the daughter of one of my former assistants, Lynn Hardy from East Vancouver. The little girl is four and a half years old now; she was born with a bad heart. Her lips were blue, her fingers were blue, and her toes were blue. On the Canada Day weekend she was flown to the sick kids' hospital in Toronto and put under. The doctor brought in a heart from London, Ontario, and the heart was not right; he wouldn't transplant it. So she had to wait another day -- just before Canada Day. A heart came in, and she got the heart. Now she's got red lips, her mother tells me, and red fingers and red toes. Incidentally, the heart was from Ottawa -- I don't want to make a big point about that. But I think this is the kind of compassionate, caring Canada that we love. This is really what it means. That's why we're all proud to be Canadians.

We're going to differ; I'm going to say some bad things to the opposition in this House, and they're going to hit me. But I think that there are some things that we agree on. I challenge the opposition, and my party and myself, on the issues of sustainability, of Canadian federal-provincial relations, of the interests of land claims, and of some of these other budgetary interests. I'm pleased to be in this House. It's a great honour.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview, and welcome to the podium, hon. member for New Westminster.

G. Bowbrick: I'm honoured to rise today to speak in favour of this budget. First, I'd like to offer my congratulations to all members on their election to this House. Congratulations to all those who ran, stood for what they believed in, but were not successful. That's a very honourable thing, I think.

It would be trite to say I'm delighted to be here. To adequately convey my feelings about being a member of this House and the honour that has been bestowed upon me by the people of New Westminster, I have to offer some context. I now stand in this House where so much history has been made. Decisions have been made over the years -- some good and some bad, but mainly good, I think -- which have helped to mould this province into what it is today: the best province in the best country in the world.

Now I reflect on how I came to be here. There are so many people to thank and acknowledge. Of course, if it were not for the good people of New Westminster, I would not be here at all. This is stating the obvious, to say the least, and I will return to the people of New Westminster shortly. In preparing for my first speech, I have looked at the first speeches of so many who came before me. It is daunting, to say the least, to see how articulate and well-read so many of them were, or how much wit they demonstrated, or how poetic their speeches were. I'm not sure that I can live up to the standards set by them. What I know best is to speak from the heart and to offer my sincerity. I hope this will prove to be enough for my constituents and my colleagues in this House.

I would like to speak first of those closest to my heart -- my family, the people for whom I have to offer the most thanks. It is fair to say that without the incredible support of my family, I would not be standing here today. I have been fortunate enough to have parents who taught me to care about the world around me, who raised me to believe that I could make a positive difference in the world. Most importantly, perhaps, they taught me to believe in the political process. From a young age, I saw my parents work on election campaigns and indeed work between elections. I grew up to believe that politics could be and was an honourable thing, and that good people could do good things in politics. It may sound odd for an MLA to refer to his childhood in his inaugural speech, but at the age of 30 I think that, relatively speaking, my childhood is not so far behind me.

Now I have a young family of my own -- my wife, Ana, and my eight-month-old son, Colin. They played the most important role in my decision to enter politics; it is a difficult decision. As a family, we face all the challenges and dilemmas of any young, working family in British Columbia. We both have to work to make ends meet. We want to be the best parents possible with the limited time we have. So a decision to enter political life is very difficult. I am very fortunate that my wife and partner has given me her complete support. We have always been equal partners, and this means she has an absolute veto over this type of decision. I thank her for not exercising that veto power.

Of course my son, Colin, is too young to have participated in my decision to seek election, but he certainly figured prominently in that decision. I believe there is no greater good a parent can do than raise a child to be a good and decent human being. I have to hope that my being here in this House will not compromise my responsibility in that regard. I hope that, as my parents did with me, I can be an example for my son -- that when he is old enough to understand what I'm doing, he will see that his father believed in public service and in trying to make the world a better place, and that this is a good thing.

I wanted to offer this background about how I was raised, about my family, about my profound belief in public service and the good that can be achieved through public service, in order to place in a proper context my gratitude to the people of New Westminster. I will be forever grateful for this chance to serve, whether for one term or for several -- whatever the people of New Westminster should decide.

Standing here today, I am also only too aware of the political history of New Westminster and how much I owe to those who came here before me with the support of the people of New Westminster. New Westminster has had CCF and NDP representation for 44 consecutive years. I understand that it is the only piece of territory in British Columbia where a Social Credit candidate was never elected. In view of the long reign of Social Credit in this province, that's saying a lot.

In 1952 Rae Eddie, a CCF candidate, defeated coalition Premier "Boss" Johnson in New Westminster. He went on to represent New Westminster for 17 consecutive years. I have not had the good fortune to know Mr. Eddie, but I have spoken with people who knew him. They say he always got elected because he was in touch with the people, particularly the everyday working people of New Westminster. The most common word they used to describe him was "decent." That is not a word that is overused these days; it still has great currency, in my view. To be described as decent is, I believe, an honour. If your life is remembered in this way, I believe your life has been a great success.

Rae Eddie was succeeded in 1969 by Dennis Cocke. Dennis and his wife, Yvonne, are legendary in NDP circles, and probably outside them as well. Their formidable organizational skills were the basis of what came to be known as the 

[ Page 179 ]

"Cocke machine." It was either feared or cheered, depending on whether the machine was on your side or not. But to gloss over Dennis Cocke with only a reference to the Cocke machine would be to do him an injustice. Dennis is one of the most compassionate people I know, and his compassion was reflected in his years of service to the people of New Westminster, particularly in his area of greatest interest -- health care.

Dennis was the Health minister of this province between 1972 and 1975. He certainly left his mark on the health care system, and it was an exceedingly positive one. By way of example, he was instrumental in establishing the B.C. Ambulance Service, which has served the people of this province well ever since and is a fundamental part of the universal health care system which we all cherish. But perhaps the greatest testament to Dennis Cocke's tenure as Health minister is the myriad of people who say he was the best Health minister B.C. ever had. Indeed, it is even said that many doctors said this. I am sure that any current or recent Health minister in this country, of whatever political stripe, would agree that this is quite a feat.

Dennis Cocke was succeeded in 1986 by Anita Hagen, my immediate predecessor. Anita came from a background of community activism. She was truly a grassroots politician who knew her constituency and her constituents well. She was a school board member prior to coming to this House and was very active with the significant seniors community in New Westminster, where she is held in very high regard and is much loved. She served as Deputy Premier and as Minister of Education in the previous government, and I am very grateful for her tireless assistance in the recent election campaign.

The CCF and NDP electoral record in New Westminster is one that probably any political party would envy, but I believe that to characterize this record as blind support for the NDP would be to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the people of New Westminster, as well as the nature of their representatives in Victoria for the past 44 years. My predecessors have consistently won in New Westminster in every election since 1952, but not by landslide margins. Indeed, in 1969 Dennis Cocke won by only 117 votes.

[4:30]

I believe that the secret to success in New Westminster has been that my predecessors have listened to the people of New Westminster and have earned their support as a result. To do this -- to listen to the people and to represent them accordingly -- might be referred to in political science parlance as populism. Personally, I don't care what it's called; I just think it's the right thing to do. I am not vain enough to believe that I am now in this House because of my own personal appeal. I do believe that I'm here because of a combination of the trust the people in New Westminster have historically placed in the NDP generally and the hard work and good reputations of my predecessors at the grassroots level. With the political history of New Westminster in mind, and with the solid reputations of my predecessors in mind, I believe I now shoulder a great responsibility -- a responsibility to listen to the people of New Westminster and to act accordingly as their representative.

The people of New Westminster, the people I must now listen to and respond to, are a diverse group. Seniors comprise a significant and proud community in New Westminster; many of them helped to build New Westminster. I have spoken to them at Century House, at Legion Manor, at Dunwood Place and at other seniors residences in New Westminster, and on their doorsteps.

There are also solid middle-class neighbourhoods in New Westminster. I've been on the doorsteps in neighbourhoods like Kelvin, where I live with my family and where more and more young families are moving. There are lower-income areas with many single-parent families who are struggling to get by. There are students in the public school system, of course, but also post-secondary students at Douglas College. There are other young people, many of them struggling to find their place in this economy and to get a good job with good pay. There is an increasing number of urban first nations families, some of whom I have met at the Urban First Nations Education Centre. There is a significant Indo-Canadian community, many of whom I have had the good fortune to meet, and I enjoyed their gracious hospitality in this recent campaign, whether on their doorsteps or in the Sikh temple in Queensborough.

I am pleased to say that I am listening to these people; this government is listening, and that is reflected in this budget. I am very pleased to speak in support of this budget, because I believe that this budget reflects the fact that we are listening to the people of British Columbia and the people of New Westminster.

I spent a lot of time on doorsteps during the election campaign and talked to a lot of people. They were never shy about offering their opinions on what they wanted to see coming out of Victoria. People almost universally told me that they wanted to see their health care and education systems maintained and protected. Seniors in New Westminster, in particular, made this very clear to me. This is why I am so pleased that in this budget both health care funding and education funding are being increased. To do this, we have eliminated 2,200 positions from the civil service this year to restrict costs of government elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to do; it's not a fun thing to do. But do it we must in order to respond to the concerns and priorities of British Columbians.

Young people are also being heard by this government. This is why we have committed to freezing tuition fees and adding 7,000 new spaces to our post-secondary institutions.

People from all walks of life made it clear to me that they did not want to see any tax increases. This is why I strongly support the income tax cuts in our budget for middle-class working families and middle-class people. It is why I am so pleased to see that all other taxes, ICBC rates and Hydro rates are frozen, that small businesses get a tax cut and that new small businesses will get a two-year tax holiday.

Families who struggle to own a home in New Westminster have also been heard by this government. This is why the property transfer tax threshold has been raised. More first-time buyers will be exempt from the tax. I know how difficult it is for a young family to buy a home in the lower mainland; it's something my family only did in the past year. We have raised the homeowner grant so that 96 percent of B.C. homeowners receive the full grant. This gives a break to all those families who struggle to own a home.

We have also listened to low-income working families, and as I have said, there is a significant number of them in New Westminster. Therefore we are carrying through on our commitment to provide a family bonus to low-income working families in British Columbia.

We have also listened to the concern raised by people about jobs, that they want to see more jobs created in B.C. Now, government cannot take credit for all jobs created, but it certainly can take credit for helping to create the conditions in 

[ Page 180 ]

which jobs are created. I believe the previous government did a great job in this regard: laying the foundation for job creation, maintaining a great education system, building roads, ferries and schools -- all the things which help to encourage business and the creation of jobs. It appears to have worked: 34,000 jobs were created in B.C. in the past six months alone, and 40,000 are forecast for this year. The government intends to continue along this path, and that's reflected in this budget.

This leads to another very important issue: capital investment and debt. The people of New Westminster voiced their concern about debt to me during the election. They wanted to see this government reduce the size of debt, and I have to say that supporters of all political parties, including my own, told me this. This government is listening and is responding in this budget. A freeze on all new capital spending has been announced by this government, pending a review of all capital spending. This is part of the responsibility of being in government: to listen to the people and change course when necessary.

I am proud that we are showing such leadership on this issue, and I am disappointed that during the election campaign I saw little leadership from the opposition on this issue. In New Westminster there were many investments made by this government in the past four and a half years: Buchanan Lodge, an extended-care facility for seniors; improvements to Queens Park Hospital, a long term care facility; the construction of new premises for the Justice Institute; the construction of Herbert Spencer Elementary School in Queens Park; a new MRI at Royal Columbian. This is to name just a few.

I was repeatedly criticized by my opponents in New Westminster for the accumulation of debt under the NDP government, but when I asked them -- many, many times and very publicly -- to tell us exactly what they would not have built in the past four and a half years, they were mute. They apparently didn't have the courage of their convictions on the issue of debt, and I suggest they failed to show leadership.

This brings me to something else I wish to comment on today: the notion of responsibility -- the responsibility which a government bears and the responsibility which an opposition member bears. I am now 30, and I have to say that I'm finding that as I get older, and the more I learn, the less I seem to know. For the past four and a half years, being involved with a political party that has been in government has caused me to learn a great deal about the difficulty of being in government, about the complexity of so many of the issues we face and how glib answers to complex questions may make for good rhetoric but certainly make for poor public policy that does not serve the people of this province well. It is my responsibility as a government member to listen to the people, to weigh what different people have to say, to have a sound understanding of the problems we are dealing with and to try with my government colleagues to come up with solutions to those problems.

If I may be so bold as to comment on the role of the opposition, I would say that their role is in many ways very similar. They must hold government to account, but they must also present well-thought-out solutions of their own. It is not enough to simply criticize and constantly impugn the integrity of government members. I regret to say that in my short time in this House, I have already seen this, and I fear that it contributes to public cynicism, which is already very high, and that this is bad for democracy.

This is not to suggest that this House will not be a partisan place; it should be partisan and we should be partisan. But in my view there is bad partisanship and good partisanship. The former consists of name-calling and mindless heckling; the latter consists of a thoughtful approach to the business of the people -- an approach which is grounded in a particular point of view, a set of basic principles. Although I should add the caveat that pragmatism is always good. Ultimately the people just want to see us get the job done and address the issues that matter in their everyday lives, and I think that is what is reflected in this budget.

I believe that both the government members of this House and the opposition members have important roles to play. The people have spoken and put some of us on one side and some on the other side. I don't say this with any sense of smugness, just as a matter fact. We all have responsibilities to fulfil for the next four or five years, and then we'll be judged by the people again.

I would like to reserve my final remarks for young people -- in fact, a couple of generations of young people who are generations or decades apart. First I would like to say that I am very pleased to see that there are four members in this House who are, if I'm not mistaken, 30 years old. There are two on the Liberal side and two on the government side. At this age, all of us are at the front end of the so-called Generation X. Unfortunately, this is a generation of young people who are so often stereotyped as lacking ambition and hope and as having a fatalistic view of the world. The fact that there are four members of this generation in this House is an indication, I think, that this stereotype is not entirely accurate. They have all demonstrated ambition, they have shown that they want to make a difference in this world, and my hat is off to them.

I intend to work hard to ensure that the interests of young people are heard in this House. I believe the Premier has already made that commitment and has shown leadership by freezing tuition fees, making funds available for youth employment and increasing education funding for both public school and post-secondary. All of these are reflected in the current budget. I believe that the previous government, by raising the minimum wage, by way of example, to the highest level in this country, also demonstrated its commitment to young people in this province.

I don't want my emphasis here on young people to sound in any way exclusionary, and I don't believe it will be taken this way by the people of New Westminster. I know that all people care about the fate of our young people, because young people are their sons and daughters, their nieces, nephews and grandchildren, and they want them to have the same opportunities and standard of living as they had.

Finally, I wish to refer to another generation of young people, the young people of 50 and 60 years ago. I began my speech today by emphasizing the importance of context, and I wish to end on that note by talking about that generation of young people in order to put this parliament, the thirty-sixth parliament, into some context.

In all of our lives there are defining moments, and one of mine occurred three years ago. My wife and I were in Europe, and we decided to go out of our way and go to Dieppe, the site of one of the greatest Canadian sacrifices of World War II. We managed to find our way to a cemetery on the outskirts of Dieppe, where there are the graves of hundreds of young Canadians who died in World War II. Most of them were not fortunate enough to have lived even as long as the youngest members of this House. They were the people who lived through the Great Depression. They grew up in an era before social programs, before universal health care, before widely 

[ Page 181 ]

accessible post-secondary education, before decent labour laws and before there was any support for the poor and the unemployed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

These people fought for our country, with the support of the other women and men of their generation, and laid the foundation upon which we in this House now stand -- the democratic foundation which allows 75 of us to be here in this House, and the foundation upon which was built the great social programs that offer opportunity to all of our citizens and that ensure there is some measure of justice in our society.

This is the legacy that all members of this House have in their hands. I am proud to be a member of a political party and of a government which I believe takes the responsibility of maintaining and building on this legacy very seriously. This is why I'm so pleased to support this budget.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, members of the House in the Legislature of British Columbia, it is my pleasure to stand before this House and formally speak to you for the first time. I am indeed proud to be here as the B.C. Liberal MLA for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

The electoral process in British Columbia is an invigorating experience, followed by a period of quick study, doses of reality and the scrambling to set up offices and structures. While doing all this, the Members of the Legislative Assembly must maintain their ties to home, family and community. All members of this House are to be congratulated on their electoral success and commitment to the people of British Columbia.

I want to formally thank in this House the electorate of Fort Langley-Aldergrove for their support during the recent election. The support of hundreds of volunteers and my friends and my family, and the large margin of victory, were indeed humbling. I believe the constituents of Fort Langley-Aldergrove made their choice because we offered them the commitment of hard work, openness and common sense -- something that isn't so common.

I would be remiss if I didn't recognize my colleagues in the B.C. Liberal caucus. They are, without a doubt, the most capable and dynamic group of people ever assembled in any legislature in any jurisdiction in this country. They are a cohesive and hard-working team that will be the base of the most responsible and dynamic government in our province's history after the next election.

For now, they will hold the government's feet to the fire and show the province of British Columbia that there is only one alternative to a government that misled them before, during and after the last election -- that being the B.C. Liberal Party.

Although the NDP misled the people of British Columbia, I would like to believe that it is the roughshod bulldozing of the executive elite on the government side, coupled with the inexperience of the back bench, that has allowed this to happen. I am ready to be convinced that other than a few select members, the government caucus is made up of people who will do what is best for their constituency and will eventually do so for all British Columbians.

[4:45]

The Fort Langley-Aldergrove riding encompasses a diverse cross-section of the Fraser Valley, including farming, industry, manufacturing, forestry and a variety of other sectors. It has experienced dramatic growth over the past ten years, which puts pressure on services beyond the capacity of normal community development.

As the urban sprawl meets the agricultural community, understanding and acceptance of various land uses becomes critical. At the same time, the protection of resources, particularly groundwater and air quality, becomes a priority. Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the latter first.

The Fraser Valley experiences some of the worst air quality of any jurisdiction in North America. Because of inversions, the pollution created by the lower Fraser Valley and Vancouver areas gets trapped above the upper Fraser Valley, causing incidents of respiratory ailments and allergies to be higher than in most areas.

The government has chosen to ignore these concerns by not providing for adequate corridors and access for commuters, and by not providing adequate transit options for our citizens. Although the government has begun the development of high-occupancy vehicle lanes west of the Port Mann Bridge, they have failed to address the two longest and most difficult bottlenecks in the Fraser Valley, those being the Port Mann Bridge and the 200th Street corridor. The 200th Street corridor services the downloading of traffic created by more than 80,000 citizens. The scourge of commercial and personal delays is unacceptable. In peak times, vehicles will wait 30 to 40 minutes, with engines running, to gain access to Highway 1 from Langley City and Walnut Grove. The social and economic impact of these delays, coupled with the ensuing pollution, is unacceptable. The problem is correctable. The ministry has simple solutions, and they should be implemented.

Additionally, it does not escape the notice of the people on the south side of the Fraser River that this government provided commuter rail through a series of NDP ridings, while people in the Fraser Valley pay additional gas taxes to support regional transportation and cannot even get a bus to Vancouver without extensive transfers and inordinate amounts of time. My message to the government is not a direct opposition to commuter rail, but rather to improve the regional transportation system for the entire lower mainland of British Columbia.

Groundwater is the most reasonable and cost-effective source of water that we have. It is an invaluable resource. We need to protect this valuable resource. The impact of chemicals, pesticides....

Interjection.

R. Coleman: The chemicals and pesticides....

Mr. Lali, thank you very much for pointing out that you are not really....

The Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet.

R. Coleman: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. The member for Yale-Lillooet is unaware that this is what we refer to as an inaugural speech. You will have plenty of time to heckle me over the ensuing months. Believe me, this will not be the first or the last time you will see me on my feet in this House. And most times I'll be making points that are well beyond the level of intelligence that you may want to....

We need to protect this valuable resource. The impact of chemicals, pesticides and older, inadequate septic systems on groundwater needs to be addressed. Groundwater runoffs 

[ Page 182 ]

affect the healthy state of drinking water, fish habitats and streams, spawning grounds, and healthy watercourses in general. The scientists and officials at the Fraser Basin Management Board have sounded the alarm bells about the Fraser River, which runs through a portion of my riding. They have graded our performance: on protection of fish, we got a C minus; on cleaning up pollution, we got a C minus; on managing population growth, we also got a C minus; moving to sustainable living, D minus; and on protection of groundwater, D. Legislation to protect groundwater, geared to proper maintenance of septic systems and the use of contaminants to protect groundwater, should be a priority. British Columbia remains one of the few places left without regulations for groundwater in aquifers.

Education of our children in a safe and proper environment must be a priority. We all recognize that the delivery of education services is a priority and must be delivered in a timely and cost-efficient manner. In the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove we face a crisis in education as it relates to overcrowding and lack of facilities. It is a profound disappointment to me that in one of the fastest-growing areas of the province, the New Democratic Party and its government ignores the taxpayers. It is beyond acceptance to me that the government of British Columbia should use the children and parents of this province as pawns for political gain.

In Fort Langley, the home of the first capital of British Columbia, sits one of the finest fine arts schools in North America. This school is partially finished, and will remain so, because the Ministry of Education felt it necessary that the renovations to the school be done in two phases. It doesn't work. The students of this school will arrive this fall to a partially completed school with poor air quality, numerous seismic concerns and no plans to complete it in the near future. The health of the 700 children attending this school will rest solely with the Ministry of Educations's inability to listen to the school district when they told them that in this area the recommendation was to do the school in one entire phase.

Prior to the election, the Ministry of Education advised the parents and children of Walnut Grove Secondary that the first phase of expansion to their school had been approved. Last week that expansion was ten days away from tendering. A group of parents and students had worked tirelessly over many months to bring the critical situation in this school to the attention of the ministry. The school, originally designed for 1,000 students, presently has well over 1,400 and is expected to grow to over 1,600 come September. It already has some 18 portables and will have well over 20 this fall. The hallways are so crowded that you can hardly walk down them during class changes. Children eat in the halls at noonhour because they have nowhere else to sit at lunchtime. Art class students haul buckets to portables, and the school literally bursts at the seams.

Can you imagine how ecstatic these parents must have been when the ministry advised them that the school would be expanded? Can you also imagine how incredulous they were when they found out, in just a few short weeks, that the written promises were merely propaganda to deflect the awareness of the crisis in education created by this government and that the word of the NDP is worthless and not to be relied on and not to be believed?

Safety and crime are concerns to all of our citizens. The Young Offenders Act, reform to the Legal Services Society and the like need to be addressed. I am sure that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House will address this in the future. However, I ask this House not to ignore the people, and their families, who have the two toughest jobs in the system. Think of the police and the corrections personnel. Think of the corrections staff who work while you sleep and while you are awake. These people live under constant stress, abuse and indeed fear. The impact on their families is dramatic, especially when we consider that it costs more to keep one of their charges incarcerated than what we pay them for an entire year.

The police are the front-line protectors of society. With inadequate resources, they are asked to be enforcers, counsellors, social workers, advisers and compassionate friends to children and families in need, and a myriad of other things. They have to make split-second decisions that everyone gets to second-guess for days. The next time you go to judge or criticize the police, ask yourself what you'd do when confronted with a fatality, a threat to kill or a real living crisis.

Mr. Speaker, our police need better resources, but don't arbitrarily give those to them. Ask the men and women in the field what they really need; don't give them what the government says they need. The morale of policemen is vital to their success as well. Members of the RCMP patrol the majority of this province. However, their morale is low and our expectations are high. Members of the RCMP have not received even a cost-of-living adjustment in some years. In the lower mainland this is creating a critical situation. They are living in an area where the cost of living outstrips their income. An RCMP officer in Surrey makes $1,000 less than a Delta policeman doing the same job right across the border. These keepers of justice deserve a better fate than having to work second jobs on their days off. The various levels of government should step up and correct this inequity on a regional basis. At the same time, if the government is truly committed to community policing, it might consider at least providing them with the basics needed to operate. It's a good thing there are volunteer organizations out there that raise funds for gas, furniture, computers, faxes, etc.

I have been involved in volunteer work for over 25 years. I've been a member of fraternal organizations, chambers of commerce, church groups, community groups and service organizations. I recognize how hard the volunteers in the province of British Columbia work to provide for citizens in their community who are less fortunate. From food banks to community services, from children's organizations to handicapped groups, from sports organizations to self-help groups, volunteer and charitable organizations make British Columbia a better place. If you've ever seen the impact of a food hamper at Christmastime, or assisted in relief to those who can't clothe their families, when help arrives -- or any other charitable work -- you'd be aware of the special relationship that humanity has with itself.

I have difficulty, therefore, putting into words my disgust that funds that were supposed to go charities were diverted by the New Democratic Party. Having seen people on their feet cooking thousands of hamburgers to raise money to improve community parks; seeing volunteers give freely of their time to work at casinos, bingos, raffles, dances and other projects; having seen people who canvassed door to door to assist those with heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, living with disabilities and others; and having been honoured to have been associated with thousands of caring people that contribute to their communities, it hurts me to see this government turning their back on charities.

[ Page 183 ]

It was once said that the rent we must pay for being on this Earth is service to your fellow man through community service. Unfortunately, on this subject this government is performing a disservice by taking money from charities. It is immoral, it is wrong, it is unethical, and it must be paid back.

We in the B.C. Liberal Party believe strongly in the positive impact of volunteers in the communities across this vast province. The NDP, on the other hand, do not. They systematically have begun a process to replace volunteers with friends and insiders on boards of directors that have functioned and served communities well for many years. It saddens me when a political party in this province takes money from a charity and further neglects the responsibility of immediately paying back the funds to those groups that need it most. Ask yourself: was there a street kid that fell through the cracks because money was taken, or a family that needed help that didn't get it?

I urge the NDP: don't wait for an inquiry or criminal proceedings to rightfully punish or identify the perpetrators. While you wait for that procedure to take place.... Don't wait. Make the wrong right. Pay it back, pay it back with interest, and pay it back now.

Mr. Speaker, in my role as Housing critic, I trust that a ministry desperately looking to do more with less can see the value of our suggestions. I bring extensive experience in housing, private-public partnerships, rental projects, cooperatives, seniors housing, and special needs and health-related projects. There are many ways to improve the delivery of services: utilization of land, refinement to specifications, etc.

[5:00]

I am also fortunate to be able to connect with a large cross-section of experts in the housing industry. It is critical, if we are to provide affordable housing to our citizens, that we adapt and change our directions. It is possible to do more for less and provide more efficient service and more housing for our citizens. You may choose to work with us or against us on these issues. Be aware, however, that questions asked and information requested and suggestions given are done so in order to provide the best results for all of British Columbia.

If innovative land uses and housing initiatives were to be pursued, housing from government could actually be a net producer and not a negative producer to the services and the provincial budget. I have seen the good and the bad in housing delivery. I have seen the positive impact that caring, well-managed housing can have on people's lives.

Hon. Speaker, as a Canadian and as a British Columbian, I believe that we are here to serve our constituents as best we can by representing our contrary ideas. However, having said that, it is also important that we all listen to the solutions that make us all successful on behalf of our constituents. I look forward with optimism to the future of this province, and I look forward to working vigorously on behalf of my constituents in Fort Langley-Aldergrove and with the members of this House for the future of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers at the microphones....

I'll recognize again the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who.... Perhaps an adjournment was the intention, was it?

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, prior to adjournment I would like to apologize to the Chair for using the name of a member in the House. It was due to my inexperience, I'm sure. I will try not to do it in the future. I'll make sure that when I want to take a shot at the member for Yale-Lillooet, I'll do so by saying: "The member for Yale-Lillooet."

The Speaker: I thank the member for that, and I would ask him if he is also rising in his place to move adjournment of this debate. There is some confusion. I thought we had other speakers, but.... Government House Leader, perhaps you can help.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion with respect to the speakers list. I don't know whether we need to officially recess for a few moments to see if we can't sort that out, or whether an unofficial recess will suffice.

The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to entertain that suggestion. I will simply declare a very brief recess until we can sort that out. I thank you, House Leader.

The House recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

Hon. S. Hammell: It's a privilege to speak to the budget that was presented in this House by the Finance minister last week. This first budget of our government's renewed mandate sets out a plan for delivering on the promises we made to the people of British Columbia during the election campaign. I spoke to voters on their doorsteps during the month of May, telling them of my continued commitment to the protection of our public education system and to the preservation of medicare. Everywhere I went during the election -- on radio talk shows, at all-candidates' meetings, and at the kitchen table -- the voters of Surrey shared their concerns about the challenges posed by rapid growth and the chronic game of infrastructure catch-up that has been our legacy in Surrey from the era of restraint, when nothing at all was done to build for future generations.

Some voters have a long memory. One grey-haired gentleman told me the amazing fact that after the defeat of Dave Barrett's government, during the last period of Social Credit, not one single new high school was built in Surrey, despite the explosion of population in our city -- not one. That's what happens when an ideologically driven agenda throws things out of balance. Some voters told me how much they fear a return of the devastating recession that was caused by the government's restraint in the 1980s.

I listened as voters assured me that the government was doing the right thing by investing in schools, hospitals, roads, colleges and transportation systems. They understood that we need a high level of services to support continued economic growth and prosperity in this province. I listened on the doorsteps as families told me that they want the government to maintain the high standards of service that we have in Surrey, but that they also want the government to pay down the debt. I asked them: "How do you think we can do both? How can we invest in new schools without borrowing?" The families of Surrey told me, as their representative, to go back to Victoria and figure out how we can have it both ways. They 

[ Page 184 ]

expect their government to build for the future, and to do it without excessive borrowing. In fact, they want us to pay down the debt in a relatively short period of time, over a decade or two, while we continue to provide for the growing needs of our communities.

Voters told me: "Go in there and find a way to stimulate jobs, especially for young people. Get them the education and training they need. Make our communities safer and preserve our medical system without borrowing or raising taxes. And while you're at it," they said, "hurry up and pay down the debt, because we don't like paying the interest."

The election that brought hon. members back to this House provided very explicit instructions for the work we have to do here in this place. We have been told to maintain a balance between those two sets of values, both held equally dearly by the electorate. That is precisely what the Minister of Finance has done in the budget that he put forward for the province in the year to come.

Voters want a lean but keen government, and that's what we're providing in this budget. The proposal to make a modest cut in taxes suggests a new direction that is reinforced by the government's prohibition on new taxes until the turn of the century.

It is a direction, a signal that increases in revenue will come from the growth in the economy rather than from the pockets of the taxpayer. The size and cost of government has been under close scrutiny since this government was first elected in 1991, and this budget has assured us that vigorous scrutiny will continue.

In Surrey-Green Timbers, jobs are a top priority. My constituents know that the very best security for the future of their children is a robust economy with strong job creation. The budget's projection of 83,000 new jobs for the province by the end of 1997 means hope for the young people in my constituency. It also means renewed hope for many who have been the unwilling victims of restructuring and downsizing in the private sector.

The ability of this province to maintain the highest possible standard of services for citizens, while expanding our economy and keeping our fiscal house in order, has earned us the highest levels of respect in international financial markets. That translates into confidence, and confidence generates investment from all over the world.

My constituency will be pleased with this budget. My constituents are average families, many of whom have recently established their first home. It's a constituency of young people: 30 percent of the population of Surrey-Green Timbers is under the age of 19. Their families have chosen to live where services are excellent and the quality of life is superb.

The Green Timbers Urban Forest Park provides a sanctuary for those of us who live here. Last year work began on transforming 40 acres of clearcut into two lakes that will provide habitat for trout, frogs, waterfowl, birds of prey and songbirds. This wonderful place is being built because B.C. 21 partnered with the city of Surrey and the Green Timbers Community Association.

Hon. members may be interested to know that 15 percent of all new students in the province have been moving into this district of Surrey. That's an incredible amount of growth for a community to sustain. We've responded by building new schools and updating old ones. The funding formula that used to leave Surrey behind in education dollars was changed so that now each student in the province receives the same amount of funding, and there are special provisions for growing districts like ours.

My constituency is home to Surrey Memorial Hospital. In the past four years Surrey Memorial Hospital has become a regional facility with high-tech diagnostic and treatment facilities and staff skilled in very sophisticated medical procedures.

Surrey Memorial now includes the new Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, a diabetes centre, a pulmonary function lab, a child heart murmur clinic, a suspected child abuse and neglect program, a special care nursery and a youth clinic.

[5:15]

So my constituents rely on me and on all of us here in this House to ensure that our plans for the future include support for maintaining and expanding the services they need to raise their children and see them safely into jobs, to help them look after aging grandparents and to have a confidence in their own personal goals for a decent and rewarding life. That confidence is well served by the budget the Minister of Finance has presented to this House, and I urge hon. members to join the minister and support this budget, which responds to the voice of the voters of this province.

Hon. S. Hammell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

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