Prayers.

G. Brewin: Today we have a special guest in the members' gallery: Dr. Gero Pfennig, chair of the European Union Affairs Committee of the CDU-CSU parliamentary group of the German federal parliament. Will you all please join me in welcoming him to our gallery.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's with great pleasure that I rise to make an introduction today. In the gallery and touring the precincts are 70 Indo-Canadian senior women and men from Surrey and Delta, led by their president, Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill. Sat sri aral ji to the people who are here. I know that many members of my caucus -- the Attorney General, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, the member for Yale-Lillooet -- have been asked to make introductions, but since my riding is the place that the society calls home, I have the honour to do this today.

I want to comment just briefly on the contribution the people who are in the galleries today make to the community of Surrey. The Indo-Canadian seniors here have a team that goes in our Surrey Memorial Hospital fun run, they participate in Canada Day events, and they've been part of Red Cross events for bone marrow and blood contributions. They make enormous contributions to our community of Surrey, and we are richer because of that.

Also, on a personal note, I want to say that many people here are part of my extended family. When I became a nani ji, which I will mention at any opportunity -- that means I'm a grandmother by my daughter; I have a wonderful grandson named Liam Robert Priddy -- many grandmothers here came forward at the time and shared their joy and advice with me. So as you have welcomed me to your individual homes, let me please ask the gallery to say giayenu and welcome to our collective home.

B. Penner: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Dave Stephen. Dave Stephen, in addition to being a longtime resident of Chilliwack, is a longtime Liberal and a loyal campaign worker. I would ask that the House please make him welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Paul and Cora Velden, and friends of theirs, Gerard and Corrie Zandee, from Oliver. Would the House welcome them.

D. Symons: It is indeed a great pleasure for me to introduce to you my brother and sister-in-law, Rene and Leverne Baxter, visiting from the great province of Saskatchewan. We have been separated since birth -- for more than 60 years -- and we've just been reunited this year.

R. Neufeld: It's not often I get to introduce constituents in the Legislative Assembly, but with us today are Colin Griffith, Valerie Griffith, their daughter Layne Griffith and their son Blake Griffith, along with my wife, LaVerne, all visiting from the fine community of Fort St. John. Would the House make them welcome.

I. Waddell: Vancouver's a little closer, and I'd like the House to welcome a young person from Vancouver who's here on his first trip to Legislature -- I can testify he's not a bad tennis player either -- Bill McAinsh. Bill, welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hugh Watson is in the gallery today. He's a certified general accountant in White Rock and a member of the regional health board of South Fraser. He's also an active and valued member in his community, so would the House please make him welcome.

G. Plant: Present in the gallery today are my three most important constituents: my wife, Janet, my daughter Caroline and my son Graham. At the risk of further compounding their embarrassment, I ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words regarding the seniors that are here from Surrey. If you don't mind, could I please move into Punjabi.

Auj gallery vich Surrey day Seniors Centre valay 70 bazurg aye hun. Eh ethe karwai dekhan aye hun. Meri bentee hai kay sara House inah da swagat kare.

Please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: It's my privilege to introduce to the House Dr. David W. Peters. Dr. Peters was a professor of finance at the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops and has moved to Toronto, Ontario. Would the House please make him welcome.

H. Lali: I too would like to join my colleagues from Surrey in welcoming the seniors from the Indo-Canadian community who have come here from the lower mainland. In particular, amongst the group is a relative of a very good friend of mine, Mr. Lahora Singh Brar. Again, in Punjabi, I would like to just mention that.

Sadi community de jo bazurg aye hun, main ohnan sariyan da dhanwad karda han. Sade bazurgan te sadi sari community noon barha maan hai.

So I would like to ask my colleagues to please welcome the seniors from Surrey.

S. Hawkins: I would like to also extend a very warm welcome to the seniors from the Surrey Indo-Canadian Seniors Society. They sent a very warm letter of congratulations to me on my being elected as the first Punjabi woman in a Canadian legislature. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy the session.

In 1985 Canada and the United States signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty to prevent overfishing and to ensure an equitable harvest balance between the two countries. These goals were intended to prevent the disasters that were looming off the east coast from being repeated in the west.

[2:15]

Since the signing of the treaty, the interception of American salmon by the Canadian fleet has dropped by 25 percent. However, in the same period, the interception of B.C. salmon 

[ Page 200 ]

by the Americans has increased by 50 percent. Obviously, from the standpoint of Canadian conservation or Canadian equity, the treaty has been a mixed blessing and the cause of some friction between B.C. and Ottawa, which has negotiated the Canadian position, occasionally to our disadvantage.

Nevertheless, B.C. has always supported the treaty because it offered a framework to ensure the survival of both fish stocks and coastal communities. Members will understand the importance of such a framework if you know that 82 percent, for example, of western Vancouver Island chinook are actually harvested in Alaska under the provisions of a working treaty.

It is estimated that the American catch of salmon from British Columbia is 5.3 million. For perspective, that's enough fish to eliminate the 1996 planned fleet reduction in British Columbia. I hasten to add that that's five million fish, even under the provisions of a working treaty.

This year the federal government has turned over management of the treaty from the Department of Fisheries to the Department of External Affairs, and there is no functioning treaty, no movement and apparently no interest in Ottawa. Last week, in the absence of a treaty, the Americans began fishing stocks of west coast Vancouver Island chinook, which are so threatened that B.C. fishers have been told that there will be no opening at all here at home. The American harvest is to be almost three times the number Canada requested and may be sufficient to wipe out spawning altogether this year on some Vancouver Island streams.

Last week as well there was an emergency meeting of Canadian members of the treaty commission here in Vancouver, and unfortunately, neither the federal Minister of Fisheries nor the Minister of External Affairs deemed it possible to attend the meeting.

Last week, by coincidence, I met with ministers from the cabinets of all the maritime provinces, and they told me that if we in B.C. left negotiations up to the federal government, as they had for so long, I might expect to be the last Minister of Fisheries in B.C. with a functioning industry left to manage. The federal government says that B.C. is just playing politics with salmon. My purpose in rising today is to give all parties an opportunity to answer that claim.

In two days the Canadian members of the Pacific Salmon Treaty will meet again to discuss the Alaskan overfishing, and this time they will do so in Ottawa, in the hope that federal Ministers Mifflin and Axworthy will actually attend the meeting. I invite members of all parties to join me and the government in demanding that the federal government become seized, somewhat belatedly, by this issue and take what action is required to bring the crisis to a quick and reasonable conclusion while there is still some time and while we are still blessed with a commercial industry, a sport fishery and an aboriginal fishery left to salvage in British Columbia.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer a response to this ministerial statement by the Hon. Corky Evans.

I want to say, first of all, that we agree with the government that there is a legitimate concern. By its unilateral decision, Alaska, with the support of Washington and Oregon, is violating the fundamental principles of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Alaska has indicated, for example, that they intend to take 155,000 chinook this season, when our biologists take the position that 60,000 chinook is the appropriate number. Alaska is already starting to take these fish.

The chinook is a critical species. With respect to the west coast Vancouver Island chinook, our fishing industries are essentially shut down as a result of the recent federal announcement. At the same time, I'm told that sport fishing lodges in Alaska are overbooked. The minister asked us to comment on the federal view that B.C. is just playing politics with salmon. When I look at the recent history, I would have to agree with the federal government. There can be no doubt that the actions of this government, both before and during the provincial election, were politically motivated. Having said that, however, I note that the minister's statement today has a different tone to it than many of the previous statements. It also is devoid of statements that make specific demands and attempt to dictate to the federal government what it should do and how it should do it.

On this basis, I'm prepared to join with the government to endorse an all-out effort by both governments and the Pacific Salmon Commission to seek a solution to this crisis. I provide this support on the basis that any specific actions will be subject to further discussion and that our provincial government makes an honest effort to work on a partnership basis with the federal government. I note that the minister had what I believe was a constructive conference last week with all the ministers of agriculture, including the federal minister.

It is my hope that today will be a new opportunity to initiate a similar approach in the fishing sector.

The Speaker: I note the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rising, I imagine, to seek leave to respond. Is that the case?

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

J. Weisgerber: I too seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

R. Neufeld: On a point of order, the minister asked for a response -- I noted it in his speech -- from all parties on something that is important to all British Columbians. I would think and hope that in the spirit of cooperation, which we were told was going to happen in this House. . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry....

R. Neufeld:...we would have the opportunity to respond to issues as important as this.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I appreciate your raising the issue, but that is not technically a point of order. The rules are very clear that unanimous consent is required. If it's not given, members aren't permitted.

G. Campbell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require the government to prepare a balanced budget and make elected 

[ Page 201 ]

officials personally accountable for meeting those requirements. As this government has shown, taxpayers have good reason to no longer trust the promises of desperate politicians who will say anything to get re-elected.

The Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Act ensures fiscal sanity will prevail, and it does this by making ministers personally responsible for deficit spending. For example, the Premier would have to take a 20 percent cut in his salary for the deficit that occurred in 1995-96, and the current Minister of Finance would have to balance his budget this year or face a similar personal penalty. Two failures would result in a minister being fired from his portfolio. Taxpayers deserve Ministers of Finance that stop looking for excuses and start managing the public purse. Now is the time for a balanced-budget act in British Columbia.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this bill has been available to the government for some time. Had they followed it, we wouldn't have the problems we face today in British Columbia. Of course, it assumes that the government is looking for truth in budgeting.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the financial reporting policies of this and any other government are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This will result in transparent, comprehensive, understandable and truthful reporting of the financial affairs of government to the people of British Columbia.

The government has made it clear that truth in budgeting comes a distant second to its political agenda. Political deception has consistently taken precedence over the truth. We witnessed the deception first hand when the NDP prematurely counted a quarter of a billion dollars of revenue from the Columbia River downstream benefits. We watched as the government missed its debt management plan by $500 million. And the last budget....

The Speaker: Excuse me, I have a point of order. Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it's a very important thing, introducing private members' bills, but perhaps he should stick to the basis of the bill and forget the rhetoric.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please. On the same point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: All I can say is: obviously the truth hurts.

The Speaker: May I simply recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that he does what is required under first reading: simply give a brief description of the intention of the bill and please wrap up. Please proceed.

G. Campbell: Let me briefly sum up the purpose of the bill, hon. Speaker. It's to be sure that this government and any other government tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about the finances of this province.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

The election is now over. My question is to the Premier: will the Premier instruct the Minister of Finance to withdraw his 1996-97 budget and bring in a budget that tells the people of B.C. the truth and that they can rely on?

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously I don't agree with the premise of the question. There is a deputy ministers' transition strategy committee, which has seven deputies on it, that worked through the period of transition to my assuming the premiership. Mr. Gunton was part of that. All deputy ministers in government give advice to the Minister of Finance on forecasts, and that advice is either accepted or rejected by the politician. That's as it should be, that's as it is, and that's how it always will be.

The Speaker: Before I go to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I ask the Clerks-at-the-Table keeping time to be mindful of the time I'm taking out of question period, please -- the last question from the Leader of the Opposition came dangerously close to impugning the integrity of an individual. That's where we cross the line, according to standing orders. So I just caution all members to be mindful of that. We don't name individuals when we talk about what we suggest is dishonest behaviour.

[2:30]

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

You know, the people of British Columbia expect accountability and truthfulness in the budget process. We have seen from this government consistently a misleading agenda in terms of budgets. We watched it with Columbia downstream benefits. We watched it with the missing of the debt management plan by half a billion dollars. Now we understand from this government that there is a quarter-billion-dollar deficit in a budget that was presented as being balanced. The Premier's top political strategist.... The Premier admits he sent that strategist to look at forest revenues. They knew what was happening with forest revenues. So the question to the Premier is very simple: will the Pre-

[ Page 202 ]

mier demand that the Finance minister throw out this budget, which we can't count on and which is based on false promises, and bring in a budget that the people of British Columbia can rely on?

Hon. G. Clark: We're in the middle of a budget debate in the House on these very matters. Members of the opposition have ample opportunity to raise these questions.

I must say that I resent being lectured to by the Leader of the Opposition, who, when he was mayor, made promises about housing starts in Vancouver with VLC which were inaccurate. That member continues to say now that that's a success. Everybody knows that not a penny of the money he said would come to the city of Vancouver is coming, because of his failed program.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. This ideologue has flitted back and forth between the public service and government for the last few months. He has been wearing campaign buttons at the same time as he has been wearing a political hat and the hat of ministerial appointment by the NDP. Will the Premier today scrap his budget, which the people of British Columbia have lost confidence in, and order his minister to bring in a new budget that is untainted by the revenue forecasts of someone who worked hard on the NDP re-election campaign?

Hon. G. Clark: This is scurrilous McCarthyism that shouldn't be accepted in this House. Members opposite like to attack civil servants. They like to stand up in the House and attack people who can't defend themselves. It's unacceptable behaviour for any member of this House to attack a public servant who is not in here able to defend himself.

Attack me, hon. members; attack every member in this House. Do not attack civil servants who are doing a job for British Columbia. It's unacceptable behaviour.

The Minister of Finance has announced an internal review by another deputy minister that one assumes will eventually lead to the truth about this budget fiasco -- another internal review reminiscent of the one that the now famous fence painter from Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, conducted for the NDP on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. On that occasion, instead of Ralph Nader, we ended up with Tom Sawyer. I ask the government today: can the minister assure us that the internal review conducted by his deputy will be one that is free and open to the public? Or will it be another whitewash from a fence painter from Saskatchewan?

Hon. A. Petter: The whole process of forecasting revenues is one that is obviously an inexact science. It involves a tremendous set of assumptions; those assumptions are questioned and varying forecasts are sought. In response to some questions from the media concerning the '95-96 budget, I indicated that I would ask my deputy to review those matters to give me better information, and he is doing that.

The Minister of Finance got advice about pending revenue projections. He chose to ignore that advice, and he chose to mislead British Columbians. My question to the Minister of Finance: does he agree with the Premier that his government's credibility has taken a pounding that it will take years to recover from? If he agrees with that, does he agree that he only has one option, and that is to replace this budget with one that bears some semblance to reality?

Hon. A. Petter: I obviously agree that as a result of the shortfall in revenue in the '95-96 budget, British Columbians are concerned, and that has hurt in terms of this government's credibility. I'm concerned about that, and I will work diligently as Minister of Finance to try to regain that credibility. The way I'll do that is by ensuring that each and every day, in each and every way, the commitments of the '96-97 budget are lived up to and that we deliver on those commitments throughout the year.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: I guess that pretty much settles the issue then, doesn't it, hon. Speaker?

The Premier also made the following confession. I'm going to read the quote: "I would be very surprised if the Minister of Finance isn't now going through all the revenue forecasts with a view to ensuring that they are reasonable...." Well, forgive me, but I thought that's what you did before you tabled the budget. Those words hardly fill us with confidence. What they do suggest is that the same deception and negligence that was at work before the election is still at work now. My question is to the Finance minister. If the Premier believes it's time for a second look at the budget figures -- and apparently he does -- will the Finance minister agree that he has no choice but to withdraw the budget and introduce one that makes sense to British Columbians?

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, apparently the member hasn't understood that forecasting, by its very nature, requires judgments to made about the future, and as that future unfolds, one necessarily makes reforecasts and adjustments along the way. When the first quarterly economic report is made available, that information will assist in making those adjustments. That is the nature of how a budget is managed throughout the year. It would be absolute lunacy not to make changes as it goes along, because forecasts are by their nature inexact. Forecasts require ongoing vigilance and review, and that's exactly what we intend to do throughout the year. As forecasts require review and upgrading, we will make adjustments accordingly and ensure that we, as best we can, live up to our budget commitments.

T. Nebbeling: I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Before the election, the Minister of Finance overestimated forestry revenue in order to present what he called a balanced budget to this province. He missed the target by about $255 million, and because of that we finish up today 

[ Page 203 ]

with a deficit budget. Now, this year, forest exports are down about 25 percent. The estimated forestry revenue in the new budget by this minister is a 20 percent increase. I'm just asking this minister how it is that the people of this province, who have been deceived once by this minister when it came to truth in the budget....

The Speaker: The question.

T. Nebbeling: How is it that this minister is standing here today trying to tell this province that we should believe him one more time? Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Finance: haven't you learned anything yet?

The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- a new question.

T. Nebbeling: This year B.C. is one of the three provinces that sees a deficit or a reduction....

The Speaker: Is there a question?

T. Nebbeling: There is a question, Mr. Speaker. This year this province sees a reduction in manufactured forest products leaving this province. The chief forester has explained to the province that the Forest Practices Code and the timber supply analysis will also reduce the timber harvested in the forest. Despite all this, the Forests minister claims to expect an $87 million increase in revenue. Can the Minister of Finance give British Columbia one good reason why they should trust these numbers now when they failed us the last time?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know how much more I can explain about forecasting. Forecasting requires one to look a variety of factors such as volume and price; the relationship between volume and price; increases that result from increases in royalties, for example; trends internationally, etc. One takes all of those various factors from a variety of different sources and seeks to make one's best forecast. That was done by the previous Minister of Finance in introducing the budget, and in my reintroduction of the budget I was satisfied that those forecasts were satisfactory.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, that was a real novel suggestion. I want to thank the member for asking me the first question anybody's ever asked me in this portfolio. I'll consider his suggestion.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Before we go to orders of the day, I would like to caution all members, please, to review (1) standing order 9, and (2) standing order 40. The level of noise in the House has risen rather consistently since we began -- notably on the Speaker's left-hand side, I must point out in fairness. Members, you charged me with maintaining order and decorum in this chamber. At some point I can no longer overlook the absence thereof and will have to take appropriate action. So I give that notice.

Hon. P. Ramsey tabled the annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board for the year 1995-96.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call debate on the budget.

[2:45]

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure for me to rise in this assembly to address the budget, the fifth budget that I've had the privilege to comment on and the fifth budget that's not been balanced in British Columbia. I must say, hon. Speaker, if nothing else, the excuses and the reasons are getting more novel every year.

Two years ago, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, it was the collapse of the downstream benefits agreement that caused a $250 million shortfall. This year it was the weather and forest revenues, and I wonder how many more excuses and reasons we are going to hear from the government. This particular shortfall in the budget is perhaps the most sinister of all, because it comes so shortly after an election campaign in British Columbia.

I want to touch briefly on some of the things the government talked about during the run up to the election -- the four weeks during the election campaign -- and what has transpired in this House since that date. As we know, during the four-week campaign the government promised to protect health care and education in the province. We found out during the early stages of the debate that that didn't include capital projects. It didn't include hospitals; it didn't include diagnostic purchases for hospitals; it didn't include replacing portables in schools. We find out that the government treats capital differently than it does operating revenue, and in terms of protecting health care and education, capital spending was off the table. So the first thing we learned after the election campaign was that the government's commitment to protect basic services did not extend to those important capital projects.

I want to remind the members opposite -- and perhaps those representatives from Surrey -- about a ceremony that the Premier attended shortly before the election campaign. He showed up in Cloverdale, British Columbia, to unveil a sign for the new $100-million technical university. We're supposed to assume that during the four-week campaign the Premier listened to British Columbians and decided that it was better 

[ Page 204 ]

to try and cover up that sign in Cloverdale. But the sign of the technical university is still there. Hon. Speaker, you should have been there in Surrey. You should have listened to the members who ran, talking about the commitment to the technical university. They must be going home on weekends and leaving their phones off the hook.

During the election campaign we were also promised a balanced budget -- the second balanced budget in a row. They even put it in the throne speech. That was as far as they could carry it -- to the Speech from the Throne -- before it fell apart, as we know, in the last week. The reasons it fell apart, I think, are the reasons that British Columbians have become so cynical about their governments and about how they operate.

Talking about forest revenues, as my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi outlined in question period, there is no mystery to forest revenues. The government should have, would have, had to have known that forest revenues were under budget this year. Who have they been talking to, and who have they been listening to? The small business enterprise forestry program, with an annual allowable harvest of 16 million cubic metres, was three million cubic metres undercut during this fiscal year -- figures that were available from the ministry. The Ministry of Forests is the biggest single perpetrator of the budget deficit. When that information is not flowing from the ministry to the Ministry of Finance -- for whatever reason -- we have to worry about cynical motives. The information was obviously available for the budget that was introduced in April, was available for the budget that was introduced in June, and somehow leaked out in the last week, rendering the government's fifth budget unbalanced. All I can say is that British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a better approach from the government, and they certainly don't have it.

I know that after the election the Premier spent a lot of time talking about the erosion of public trust in the province and about what impact these kinds of machinations have on the confidence of the public in their elected representatives. I want to tell the members opposite and the Premier and his Finance minister that nobody escapes the wrath of the public when these kinds of manipulations -- these kinds of untruths -- pass for public policy.

We all go back to our own ridings, we all listen to the same phone calls, and we all hear people say that they can't believe anything we say as elected representatives. There are a lot of people out there who don't make a differentiation -- they don't make a separation -- between political parties. They just automatically now assume that what their elected representatives are telling them is untrue, fabricated, inflated. I ask the members opposite to consider what impact this budget shortfall has had on the confidence of their constituents, of the public in British Columbia. What impact has it had?

I spent time in my office on the weekend, I spent time in community ceremonies in my riding of Surrey-White Rock, and I can tell you that people are outraged about the government's deception with respect to its budget. They're outraged. I had somebody in my riding come up to me -- the president of a major corporation -- and talk frankly about his concern about this government.

I heard from individuals and corporations and businesses. They all told me that if I went out and floated a share offering, offered a prospectus that contained the inflated information of this government's budget, I'd be in violation of securities regulations in British Columbia. I'd be hauled before the Securities Commission to explain why I had issued a false prospectus.

The Premier had a lot to say about corporations during the four-week election period. He had a lot to say about how they weren't paying their fair share and how he was on the side of average British Columbians. The fact of the matter is that corporations in the province, by virtue of regulation, keep a far better set of books than this government. I can tell you that.

In the last four years, I've had the opportunity to travel throughout British Columbia as a critic for Forests and for Education and as a candidate for the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party. I've certainly been to the Kootenays many times, I've been into the Peace and into Prince Rupert. I've spent a lot of time driving. As you know, in opposition we do carry our own bags and travel the hard road. It gave me an opportunity to talk to British Columbians about their government -- about the state of politics in British Columbia and about their expectations for their government in Victoria.

The reality is that in the last election, 60 percent of the public of British Columbia voted against this government. They did so for a reason. It wasn't a passive vote against the government. Every one of the 60 percent of those people went out and voted against the government because they felt in their hearts it did not deserve another mandate.

We're led to assume that the Premier has listened to British Columbians, that he really wants to govern in the interests of the 60 percent of the people who didn't vote for his party and for his policies. But I wonder how he can rationalize the events of the last ten days with that commitment to govern in a more open and honest manner in British Columbia, when that most fundamental of documents -- the budget -- which lays out the blueprint of the government for the next year, contains revenue forecasts that, quite frankly, are based on political expediency and not on responsible public reporting. They are based on the most narrow vision, the most narrow interest in what was good for the government rather than for the people of the province.

I wonder how he can rationalize the events of the last week with his commitment to govern in this province in a more open and honest way. What the last ten days have clearly demonstrated to me and my constituents in Surrey-White Rock is that it's business as usual in British Columbia: nothing is really going to change.

As I look at the fast-growing regions of Surrey and the people who went to the polls and legitimately supported the New Democratic Party because of the capital spending commitments that the government made to them.... They could have told the truth. They could have said that we can't afford the $250 million in capital improvements that we've now put on the shelf. Does the Premier really expect people to believe that he spent four weeks listening to British Columbians before he put those projects on the shelf?

It's not even a credible position. It insults the intelligence of those people in Surrey who went to the polls and supported the government, based on the commitments that they were going to make on the capital side. There are schools that are overcrowded in my area. There are portables. There are expenditures needed on hospitals.

You know, the capital spending commitments of this government formed an integral part of their re-election strategy, and they were abandoned within seven days of the government appearing in this House.

[ Page 205 ]

I mean, I can't explain it to people who call my office, hon. Speaker. I've attempted to castigate the government; that's what we do in opposition, and sometimes we do it well. But people are asking me how in the world a government can, within days of being re-elected, abandon those commitments that it made during a four-week campaign. How can they do it?

An Hon. Member: Whose side are they on?

W. Hurd: As I said earlier, I've travelled the province trying to find out whose side they are on. Who are these people? Where are they?

Hon. Speaker, we believe on this side of the House that it is time for change in British Columbia. Our party campaigned on the need for change -- real change: responsible reporting of the budget numbers, a system of budget reporting that is transparent and available for all to review.

We have the auditor general of British Columbia today, who has been called in to this assembly to review how the government reviews its own forecast. He has had to step in. It's not the first time the auditor general has done that.

An Hon. Member: That's what he's paid for.

W. Hurd: Well, outside of Ted Hughes, there's no busier man reporting to the Legislative Assembly.

During the election campaign I did tend to avoid -- and I regret that I did -- talking about the two ongoing investigations that continue to dog the government and that will continue into its first mandate. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, those two investigations didn't make it into this year's throne speech. I was waiting for them, but they didn't make it. As we think back on the Hydro scandal, which led us into the election, it really underscores a problem we've had with Crown corporations in British Columbia from day one. Who are they accountable to? When a sinkhole develops, when they drain a lake, who are you going to call? They make periodic forays into the Legislative Assembly; a few times we had them in Committee of Supply A last year.

But there has been no systematic reporting of Crown corporations in this assembly from the day that I've been here. As we look at the budget and at where money is being spent, an increasing proportion of the budget is flowing through the books of Crown agencies. Fewer and fewer dollars are flowing through the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the chamber that is supposed to debate the spending estimates of government and provide some sort of direction to government to continue on some sort of path, whatever that path may be -- and based on the last week, we're not sure what path that is. Clearly we have a pattern developing of fewer and fewer publicly expended dollars receiving the scrutiny they deserve in this province.

[3:00]

I hope that as the government contemplates another mandate, they will at least recognize that there has to be some way of bringing these Crown corporation heads before the Legislative Assembly in some meaningful way, so they can answer for these kinds of mistakes, hon. Speaker, so they can answer for bogus share offerings in the Cayman Islands and so they can provide those answers directly to the people of British Columbia through their elected representatives in this chamber. As I said earlier, that investigation continues. People -- historians -- will later marvel at how any Crown corporation could possibly have structured a deal like this under the nose of the minister, who's now the Premier. The fallback defence was: "Well, we just didn't know."

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah, right. The weather was bad.

W. Hurd: One thing about the Grand Caymans: I know the weather is never bad. That's the reason why the share offering went offshore, not to mention a minor issue of avoiding Canadian income tax laws.

I neglected also to mention the ongoing inquiry into the bingo scandal in Nanaimo, which is now the subject of the Nemetz inquiry and of an ongoing police investigation. I was looking back in a Hansard of 1992, and I believe that I have the honour and privilege of being the first member on this side of the House to ask a question about the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. That was back in 1992: four years, four lost years -- that was the subject of a book, I believe. That's four years -- and it could even be going into five years -- of that scandal hovering over the government, and we know that it will come back. It always does. I'm sure that it will as we proceed through the first year of the mandate of this government.

What we have in British Columbia is a fundamental erosion of public trust in government and in the institutions that it represents. We have a lack of confidence in the budgeting process. We have in the province a bitterly divided population. I caution the members opposite to carefully consider the kind of population and the kind of voter we have in British Columbia: the polarization has never been as deep. The gulf has never been as wide as it is now. Frankly, I'm concerned that a Premier who deals with a budget in the way this one has in the last week to ten days simply lacks the kind of pragmatism and commitment to consensus that this government will need if it is going to govern with even the tacit or remote support of 60 percent of the people who voted against them.

As I said earlier, I believe that the people of the province have lost confidence in their government and in the budgeting process. I hope the members opposite will give careful consideration to the two bills introduced today by the Leader of the Opposition about truth in budgeting and balanced-budget legislation. You can't go out and tell people the budget is balanced when you have a $250 million sinkhole.

H. Giesbrecht: Last year.

W. Hurd: Well, the member is right; it was last year. We're worried about this year. That figure of $250 million seems to follow us around. Last year it was the Bonneville corporation. I remember only too well the Premier standing in this House and castigating this evil corporation in America for backing out off a deal; but when you got into the fine print, it was another revenue forecast based on weather projections. There was nothing in the agreement that bound the company or this government to anything. Yet the former Finance minister, who is no longer with us -- and who, I noticed, was given credit in the throne speech for delivering us to the place we are today -- decided to count the $250 million anyway. It's sort of like selling your house through the want ads and then counting the revenue when somebody calls. We had a $250 million deficit last year; we have a $250 million deficit this year. If nothing else, the numbers are consistent. We give the government credit for that.

[ Page 206 ]

I have before me an amendment standing in my name on the order paper that I believe accurately describes the confidence that British Columbians have in their government. I would move:

"Be it resolved that the motion 'that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply' be amended by adding the following: 'but the House regrets that the Minister of Finance has publicly acknowledged that the budget presented to this House, and foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne, does not accurately reflect the true nature of the Province's finances. This House is concerned that the balanced budget described in the Speech from the Throne is actually a deficit budget of at least $235 million. This House further regrets that despite commitments made in the pre-election budget brought down in April, the government's current budget freezes more than $250 million in capital spending for roads, schools, hospitals and other public projects."

Hon. Speaker, I would so move.

On the amendment.

L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to rise today during the budget reply and support the amendment as stated.

First, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his acclamation. I know that your appreciation of this House and its traditions will serve us all well in the days and weeks and years to come.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to the people of Langley for their support and confidence. I'm very proud to represent such a very fine community.

I'd also like to congratulate all members of this House who are returning and those who are newly elected. I especially congratulate and welcome all of my caucus colleagues, who I know are looking forward to keeping this government accountable for their policies, practices, programs and procedures.

This budget, hon. Speaker, demands that the government be held accountable for the shocking and shameful misrepresentation of $3 billion in promises to the people of British Columbia before the election. It is difficult to know where to begin. It is an incredible feat for the government to increase spending and at the same time reduce services to the people.

This government said that they had a balanced budget, and we know now that there is a deficit of more than $235 million, plus no debt management payment of over $400 million for '95-96. If you want to factor that money into the government financial obligations -- and you should -- it adds up to around $649 million. That's over half a billion dollars in the red, not just $225 million.

The fact that the government missed the debt management plan in and of itself puts the lie to the balanced budget for '95-96. Now the Finance minister is asking us to believe that his '96-97 budget will cut taxes, protect health care and education, and produce a surplus. Hogwash, hon. Speaker! If ever there was a bogus budget, this is it. If ever there was a demonstration of why the province needs truth in budgeting legislation, this is it.

Today in this House my leader, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, introduced two private member's bills calling for truth-in-budgeting legislation and balanced-budget legislation. Again, if ever there was a demonstration of why the province needs both of these two pieces of legislation, this budget is it.

The government talks about balancing the budget, but that's all it is: it's just talk. The first thing this government did in 1992 was rescind the budget stabilization act. This was to clear the decks for the taxing and spending and borrowing that was to come. Over the last five years government budget expenditures have increased by 34 percent: $9.4 billion. The revenue raised from taxes and rent on British Columbia's resource industry increased by 48 percent: $5.6 billion. The direct debt-servicing costs have risen by 84 percent. The total taxpayer-supported debt increased by 112 percent: $10 billion. Direct debt-servicing costs are where the money is going -- not to those community resources, not to services for people, but to servicing the debt because of this government's tax, borrow and spend policies. As a result of these, this government is now in a serious, serious cash flow problem. So what about the 1996-97 budget? Can the people of British Columbia trust this Premier and the Finance minister to make good on their promise of a balanced budget and spending cuts? I don't think so.

It's painfully clear that this government says one thing and does another. Before the election, they promised to protect health and education; after the election, they froze all of the new capital spending for health care and education projects. Broken promises. The totally shameful and outrageous misrepresentation of this government to the people has reached new heights.

The so-called capital spending freeze is nothing more than a political ploy of the worst kind. Before the election, the Premier promised the sun, the moon and the stars, bribing people with their own tax money into voting for him and his party. In order to look like he's listening to the people now, he comes up with the cynical ploy of a capital spending freeze -- never mind that people in health facilities and schools have been working in good faith with this government and in the best interests of their communities; never mind that because of delayed tendering and increased planning and operating costs, the whole exercise is going to end up costing us more money, demonstrating once again this government's inability to manage the affairs of this province.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Five years of tax, borrow and spend are beginning to take their toll. When you release the monster of runaway spending, you reap the whirlwind of crushing debt and higher taxes. Does anyone on the government side of the House understand the concept of expenditure control? Does anyone on the government side of the House understand that the burden of regulations and labour agreements like the health labour accord and fixed-wage policy leave little flexibility for institutions -- primarily health and education -- to serve the public more effectively and efficiently? The regionalization of health care has been a disaster, and even the government has had to admit to that.

The budget said nothing about the debt management plan. Debt management is very important, and a controlled and accountable plan is even better. The fact of the matter is that the taxpayer-supported debt has increased from $8.9 billion in 1990 to $18.7 billion in 1995. This government knows that when they transfer capital expenditures from the operating budgets of ministries and agencies to borrow money by other means, such as the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, they are setting up our children and grandchildren to pay it off. Members know that, and the people of British Columbia are beginning to see this clearly, day after day.

[ Page 207 ]

[3:15]

I recommend that government members read the Public Accounts report on government benchmarking and accountability. I am proud to have been a member of that committee. We did some good work, in very large measure due to the guidance and hard work of the Liberal member for Delta South, our chairman. This report is a look at how we can make government more accountable for what it intends to do and why. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock referred to the Crown corporations; this is one of the areas that the government should seriously look at if they want to stand up in this House and talk about accountable government.

Finally, I would like to say something positive about this budget. The government has finally realized the importance of the small business sector. Small businesses provide the most jobs and contribute in a major way to the economic prosperity of our province. Cutting the small business income tax rate and a two-year income tax holiday are welcome changes. Also, cutting the personal income taxes for British Columbia families by 1 percent on July 1, 1996, and a second point on July 1, 1997, is a start. The reduction in personal income taxes should have been greater. Raising the homeowner grant threshold and the property transfer tax for first-time homebuyers are also welcome initiatives. But while they are welcome, they are nevertheless a token gesture.

And so, on balance, this budget is a cruel hoax. It promises a balanced budget; it promises the debt will drop; it promises to cut the size and cost of government; it promises to protect health care and education. But the budget is only a week old, and already the promises are broken. The credibility of government is gone; the deception of this government continues. I cannot support this budget of increased spending and debt. I urge all members to support this amendment.

R. Neufeld: Thank you to the member who just changed places with me.

I'd like to congratulate everyone who was elected or re-elected -- elected for the first time or maybe elected for the third time -- to this Legislature to represent their constituents in this province. I would like to personally thank the 50 percent of those in my constituency of Peace River North who put their faith and trust in me again to represent them for the next term that this government could be in office.

Hon. Speaker, I'd also like to congratulate you on being elected as the Speaker for the Legislature. I'll just hark back to a few words from the Premier when he was talking about you and what not, saying that possibly you would have to send out some dictionaries to different members so that we could understand some of the things and instructions that you're giving us because of your command of the English language. Well, hon. Speaker, I would suggest that possibly you could bring forward a course in mathematics for the Finance minister, so that he can also learn to add and subtract, and also for all of cabinet, so they can learn to add and subtract and understand where our tax dollars come from and where they go.

Mr. Speaker, one usually stands and says that it is a pleasure to stand and speak to the budget. Well, unfortunately, today it's not a pleasure for me to stand and speak to this piece of information.

A second thing happened today that just comes to mind. I didn't have it in my speech but it also bothers me to some extent. It is the level of cooperation that's happening in this House. I listened to part of Rafe Mair this morning. The Leader of the Official Opposition was on Rafe Mair and talked about cooperation in this House. He talked about the fact that he had been to visit the leader of the B.C. Reform Party and myself, and that we're going to cooperate. It was absolutely amazing to me when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stood in the House today and asked for contributions from all parties about something that's as non-partisan in British Columbia, I believe, as our fish stocks. It's absolutely disgusting that someone in the Liberal caucus would say "nay" to either the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast or the leader of the B.C. Reform Party standing up and speaking about something as important to British Columbians as fish. That's the second reason why it's a little sad for me to stand in this House today.

But the bigger reason is the deceiving nature that this government has portrayed over the last year. It's absolutely unacceptable to British Columbians that this government would bring forward a budget over a year ago that said they had a surplus of about $114 million, then reduce it, then fudge around and finally come up with a number that's about a $235 million deficit. That's a miss of the mark by about $350 million. This is all at a time when we have the best economy in British Columbia, the lowest per capita debt, the most businesses started and the most jobs starting. My goodness -- I've said it many times -- what would happen if this group of incompetents were in government when we had a recession? Obviously we would be in a lot worse shape than we are today.

Unfortunately, what has happened lately is more the norm for this government. The truth is a lie; there is no balanced budget. There is no surplus; there is no repayment of accumulated debt. Election promises are being broken daily -- absolutely unacceptable to British Columbians. This is deceit at its best.

Let us hark back to a few years ago, when the now Premier was in opposition: "There's no magic to balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy, absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

R. Neufeld: That was the now Premier of the province of British Columbia. I wonder if he really believes those words today.

I want to go back -- because we have Hansard, it's good to go back and see what happened in the past and to read a few words -- to May 22, 1991, and quote a few lines from Hansard. These are actual quotes from the now Premier when he was in opposition, attacking a budget of the last administration, which was in fact misleading also:

"The budget is a big-lie budget, Mr. Speaker. It contains misleading bookkeeping.... It has shown a lack of commitment to financial accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty."

This is our Premier saying these words when he was in opposition.

"This basic lack of honesty and openness has permeated everything this government has done. It has been front and centre in their financial dealings."

Those are words that kind of hurt, I think. They come back to haunt you when you stand up in this House and talk about how easy it would be to do different things. Then all of a sudden you have to live up to it, and it's not quite that easy.

In fact, I go back -- I believe it's promise No. 1 in the NDP manifesto -- to open and honest government. Do you believe that this is open and honest government? If this was 

[ Page 208 ]

open and honest government, they would be telling the people of British Columbia that they increased the debt by 66 percent or brought it up to $28.6 billion in four short years -- that's what they would have been telling the electorate during the election -- or that the debt now exceeds $7,500 for every person living in British Columbia -- absolutely shameful -- or that they brought in 29 separate tax increases in four years, bringing forward an average tax increase of approximately $2,000 a year for a typical family of four.

This is a great group of people which, it was once so notably said, couldn't run a pop stand -- or a popcorn stand.

An Hon. Member: Either one.

R. Neufeld: Either one.

I have a few more quotes from our illustrious Premier. This is also from May 22, 1991: "Let us now turn to the third dimension of stability: the avoidance of erratic and sudden policy changes."

Hon. Speaker, what have we witnessed in British Columbia in the last month? Talk about erratic policy changes. I don't think there have been any like them before. Let's take a look at the freeze on all capital expenditures for six months. Is that erratic? I heard someone talk about a university that was going to be built. The sign is still up in the lower mainland, but everything's frozen.

How about the change in New Directions? Ask the people on the health care boards and what not what they think of the change in New Directions.

An Hon. Member: No directions.

R. Neufeld: No directions. Whether they're happy, whether they believe in what's happening.... Talk about an erratic change in policy. Or the B.C. Benefits -- that was obviously something that was very difficult for this government to deal with.

In fact, when you think about all the promises that were made prior to the election, you almost think that this group of individuals didn't think they'd make it as government and that they were going to leave the problem of trying to deal with all these issues up to someone else. I believe that to be the truth. If they were open and honest, they would tell us about the debt. They would tell us about the increase in costs for each young family to survive. They would have told us about this before the election, and not after.

Another issue. I quote again from the now Premier when he was in opposition. May 22, 1991:

"We will be honest with British Columbians about the finances of this province" -- you know, that can almost bring a laugh and a smile to some of the NDP members that are in the House today; I see them getting their noses deeper into the books all the time -- "and we will be consistent in our policy directions" -- another bit of a laugh -- "rather than reversing course with every shift of the political winds."

I think every part of that fits exactly with how this group of individuals on the far side of the House has performed in the last month. It's absolutely disgusting. Open and honest? I believe not.

There are so many good little quotes in Hansard that it's just absolutely unbelievable. I'm going to read a few more, just so they're in the record. Just a little bit more?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Again, from our now illustrious Premier, May 27 -- just a few days later -- 1991: "It's more important than ever before that governments tell the truth when it comes to their financial status. It's more important than ever before that the government tell people the bottom line." There it is. This was said by our now Premier.

I quote again. This is real interesting.

"It's dishonest to try to portray the books differently, and it's fundamental in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a right to know what the bottom line is. They have a right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable. That's not happening."

J. Weisgerber: Who said that?

[3:30]

R. Neufeld: This is our Premier when he was in opposition.

"It's unacceptable that in this age, when politicians are held in low esteem and mistrusted, when the public are fed up with political manipulations, we would not have a government that would tell the truth about the finances of the province."

These are pearls of wisdom from our Premier when he was in opposition -- pearls of wisdom that this Premier has forgotten all about from just a few short years ago when he jumped over to the other side of the House. Unfortunately for all British Columbians, this affects them and troubles them deeply.

I just love these quotes, and I'm going to go on to a few more. We're not going to go back to 1991; we're going to come up to April 1995. This is the present Minister of Education, who spoke eloquently about the virtues of the budget and all the wonderful things his government accomplished. I quote from April 3, 1995 -- not that long ago. That's when the government was talking about a $114 million surplus. "I expect the opposition in British Columbia to take umbrage with the success of the economic policies of this administration." That's just a great line, isn't it? From a fellow who had his papers jerked from him -- not his driving papers but his legal papers. Again I go on: "The opposition says that the budget is not balanced, and that it's smoke and mirrors." This came from the now Minister of Education when he was the Minister of Environment.

An Hon. Member: That guy from Esquimalt.

R. Neufeld: The guy from Esquimalt.

"There are two ways in which one can determine whether the budget is balanced. There is the method the auditor general spoke to some months ago, and there is the method of bookkeeping that we as a province have been engaged in since Confederation. Under either methodology, the budget is balanced, in one case by $141 million and in the other case, by about $31 million."

I wonder which number that member would like to pick today. Would he like to pick 235, would he like to pick 16, or would he like to stick with the 141? Obviously that's what this government is all about.

This person who knows all about debt talks to us a bit about debt and lectures us a little bit more: "Debt. It is true that the administration has made conscious decisions to build schools, hospitals and transportation facilities throughout British Columbia. We've done that in the context of affordability." Wow, I'll say! Ten billion in four short years. That's affordability? This government created almost more debt than all other governments did in 130 years. "We will do that which we can afford to do in terms of attending to the needs of ordinary British Columbians."

[ Page 209 ]

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: A few of them over there are beginning to heckle a little bit. Unfortunately for British Columbia, you were in government for a while before, and now are again.

That's from the now Minister of Education when he was Minister of Environment. Maybe he should have again told people that debt is up 66 percent, to $28.6 billion. The interest cost on tax-supported debt is up to $700 million a year. This amounts to the same as what is spent on natural resources, economic development and policing in this province. Just think what we could do if we didn't have this group over here increasing the debt so fast that we are going to get to that same wall that the federal government is at, and has been at for a while.

Talking about our debt service charges being only 8 cents on every dollar -- that's exactly what happened federally with different federal governments, Liberal or Conservative. We can get to that wall real quick under this group. Unfortunately, it's the people of British Columbia and our children who are going to pay the bill.

It goes on, and it gets better -- promises broken. I am just going to read a few things that the Minister of Education talked about -- all the wonderful things that they were going to do in the constituency of Esquimalt. Again from April 3, 1995: "It is wrong to try to cram 1,500 students into a school built for 900. That is why we as an administration have made a commitment in my constituency to build a new school for the children of View Royal Elementary." Well, that's one of them that's under review.

Would you say that that's being a little less than honest with the people? You can bet that this person campaigned on that. If you had a Hansard of the campaign, you could go back and find where that minister talked about that. Today he is saying, "Hey, you elected me; I'm gone again," or, and I quote: "We have made a decision to invest in communities in my constituency. We make no apologies for coming forward with an integrated transportation plan for the Western Communities." Again, that's under review, and if anybody wants to see it, I have it in my little pile of papers. It is totally under review.

Health care. The minister even talked about health care, and this is what I always hear from that group over there: "We're going to look after health care and education; we're the saviours of that." Well, if we keep spending the way we are, we will not have any health care or education. It's just that simple. We have to start spending our money wiser -- and that's not NDP-wiser, I can tell you that.

Health care. They talk about that terrible Alberta, about how terrible health care is in Alberta. I live close to the Alberta border, and we send almost all the people that need special care out of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John to Edmonton, and they can get it quicker than they can in British Columbia. That's because we look after health care so well in British Columbia, because this government cares about health care.

In fact, a lady who is on a WCB claim was told that she'd have to wait eight weeks to get to Prince George to see someone about her arm. That lady paid her own way to Edmonton, and in less than a week had seen a specialist. That's slash-and-burn Alberta for you, where health care doesn't mean anything. So I think we have to look closely at what this government does.

I'm going to read another little quote from the minister -- I call him the "tearful" minister; when he had to step aside, the tears were falling. This is a direct quote from the now Minister of Education. The quote is also from the April 3, 1995, Hansard:

"They don't stop in the areas of education and transportation; they continue into areas such as health care. I remember that in 1986, when I first ran for office, senior citizens in the Western Communities were coming to me and saying that we need health care services so the pioneers from the Western Communities side of Victoria could, with dignity, spend time with their families in the later days of their lives. Again, I'm proud that, in concert with the Minister of Health, we've finally been able to announce the construction of a new Priory facility in Langford."

There it is: it's under review, along with all the other broken promises that this group of individuals -- the socialists across the way -- have made. It's all in the act of getting elected again, for their friends and insiders -- because they've put new meaning to that term in the last four years. I guarantee you that.

It's a sad day for all British Columbians. Deceit and blatant truth-distortion, all to get re-elected. I think it's pretty sad that in today's world, people have to put up with this. The B.C. Reform Party campaigned on a tough budget -- a real, tough budget, and real repayment of debt, and realistic taxation levels to encourage development and investment in our province.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member for Skeena asks: "What happened?" Well, I'll tell you what happened. This group over here was better financed, and they were much better able to put the lie across that they were going to do all the things that I talked about earlier. But they really had no intention of doing one iota of them. It was all to get elected: "Tell them anything they want to hear, folks, because we just want to get elected. We want to be back on that side of the House."

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I ask you, member: what happened to that group over there? They used to fill the benches halfway down on this side. Many British Columbians are catching on to this group. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker....

Hey, let me digress. I congratulate you on being appointed Deputy Speaker.

B.C. needs a government that will govern for all British Columbians, not just a few. That's what has to happen in British Columbia. When we talk about change in politics and changing the way government operates, it should be much the same way we run our constituency offices: once you're elected, you're responsible for each one of those constituents, regardless of their political alliance. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that that's the way I run my constituency office. Maybe that's not the way members opposite run their constituency offices; I'm not sure. But that's what we have to start doing.

J. Weisgerber: A lot of them don't even have an office.

R. Neufeld: Until the last election, there were many of them who didn't.

[ Page 210 ]

We need a government that will deal fairly with all individuals, regardless of where they live in British Columbia. In my constituency we need some basic services that have gone begging not just for the last five years but for many years: roads and infrastructure services in the north. Obviously the north makes an enormous contribution to the province of British Columbia. If we look at the papers, we see daily.... I think each one of you, or a lot of you, may be receiving faxes daily about the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. Far too often forgotten is what those people endured so that the rest of British Columbia could enjoy cheap hydroelectricity.

Oil and gas. We see a government that gets excited when the price of gasoline gets to 65 cents a litre in Vancouver but could care less when it's about 80 cents a litre in the constituency where I live -- and all the oil that makes the gasoline is produced in my constituency. That's what I mean about starting to govern for all British Columbians. Or when you turn your heat on in your house, knowing that all that natural gas comes from our constituency, along with all the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, to help the infrastructure down here in the lower mainland.... But we don't respond to those people in the north the same as we do in the south.

We need some assistance for health care travel so that individuals who have sore arms or who have sick children don't have to drive to Edmonton to get good health care services. We need a little bit of help with that, but obviously we're not getting it. Health care is something, again, that this government is forgetting in the north. I ask: what would Vancouver be without rural B.C. -- without forest products from rural B.C., sulphur products from rural B.C., mining in rural B.C., coal from rural B.C. and agricultural products from rural B.C.? And that's not just the north. I think Vancouver might be a little slimmer town. It's time that all British Columbians recognized that.

When I look back over the past four years and see the $10 billion in debt and the approximately $80 million spent in operational costs, I look around my constituency -- which is the second-largest in British Columbia -- at the 2,000 kilometres of gravel roads and over 100 bridges, and I look at our health care travel. I look at those things and I say that we haven't got our fair share. Yet people in the north get to contribute more than their fair share when it comes to tax revenue.

Those are things that governments have to start looking at. I don't deny that you need the Island Highway; I don't deny that we need ferries; I don't deny any of that at all. What I'm saying is that we have to look fairly at the whole picture, not just in isolation at Victoria, Vancouver and the Okanagan. We have to start looking fairly at constituencies like Peace River South or Kamloops-North Thompson, or at other constituencies where they have been unfairly treated. It's a fact: it goes on today.

But I digress a bit. Like I say, it's a sad day for British Columbians that they have to learn it through the newspapers, late on a Friday night of a long weekend. "My goodness, I really wasn't telling the truth, Les. It's more like $200 million in the red. Gee, on Tuesday I'll tell you what the real numbers are."

[3:45]

That's deceit, that's dishonest, and it's less than truthful; it's not telling the people of British Columbia the truth. On top of that, coupled with cancelling or putting on review all the capital projects in the province that they promised during the election that they would do.... I tell you, hon. Speaker, there are some very sad people out there in British Columbia. Hopefully this government, the Premier of the province, will do the right thing and ask that Minister of Finance to resign his post and put someone in there who may be able to bring some credibility back to the province, so that across Canada and in the world where we borrow our money, we're credible.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Peace River North and welcome the hon. member for Kootenay.

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I stand before this assembly today for the first time as a newly elected member from Kootenay riding, a riding which I am extremely proud to represent. I offer to you my congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. Further, I offer congratulations to all the members who have been elected or re-elected for this term of government.

I would like to take a moment to thank my predecessor, Anne Edwards, for her dedication and hard work for the people of Kootenay. Anne unseated former Socred Labour minister Terry Segarty in 1986 and represented the people of Kootenay very well for the past ten years. Those years were not easy ones, so a heartfelt thank-you goes out to Anne. I thank my campaign manager, Dennis Atkinson, for his hard work and endurance through our campaign. Great thanks to my family and to all the volunteers and supporters who worked so hard for our successful campaign and our election.

The Kootenay constituency, located in the southeast corner of the province, stretches from the Alberta border some 200 kilometres to the west and from the American border some 70 kilometres to the north. The prime economic drivers of the region are mining, forestry and tourism. Our resource industries and beautiful environment make for one of the province's richest areas in which to work, live and raise a family.

For many people who don't know where the Kootenay is, I would like to share our area with you. The history of the Kootenay constituency is the history of mineral exploration, forestry and rail expansion since before the turn of the century -- the Wild Horse gold rush, the arrival of the North West Mounted Police in the Fort Steele area and Fort Steele, the development of the Sullivan mine at Kimberley, the coalmines of Michel, Hosmer and Coal Creek near Fernie, the harvest of the Kootenay fir and spruce forests, and the spur of the Crowsnest railway which is north of Fernie, where the fir trees of good size and strength were cut and sent by rail to make the masts and spars of Her Majesty's sailing fleet. The modern community of Sparwood still bears the name of this very rich title. It is the history of the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket people, who have ranged and hunted within the Canadian Columbia Valley trench from Yoho National Park down through to central Montana for the past 10,000 years. I am very proud of this region of our province -- its people, its beauty and its promise for the future.

As with other rural areas of British Columbia, the Kootenay constituency has many concerns about accessing health care, education and employment for our youth. In February of this year, a new CAT scan opened up in Cranbrook. The regional hospital there has been working for years in order to see the opening of this CAT scan. This culminated a four-year effort in raising funds and public awareness about the need to provide modern diagnostic tools in order to truly repatriate many of our local patients, who have in the past travelled many miles by air ambulance or ambulance to access health care facilities in southern Alberta.

[ Page 211 ]

Recently a regional behavioral disorder unit opened in Cranbrook, which serves the needs for many people in the riding. This unit provides special care for those people requiring it and also ensures that families will no longer have to travel hundreds of kilometres in order to visit their families and friends. I continue to support the need for adequate funding for this very important facility. The need for further modernization of Kootenay facilities is very important to me and our party.

In 1991, if 100 high school students graduated in the lower mainland, 71 of these went on to further studies in post-secondary education. In the Kootenay constituency, only 42 enjoy these opportunities. In the past four years, our region of the province has seen the development of two community skills centres, expansion of the adult distance learning network and a variety of alternative programs for our youth. These programs include apprentice training and enhanced student loan availability. I will continue to work toward the goal of the construction of the much-needed secondary school of Fernie. The East Kootenay Community College students in Cranbrook today are able to use college computers or modem-equipped home personal computers to engage in course-related discussions with classmates and instructors, collaborate on group projects, and pick up or drop off assignments. I believe these programs are vital in our continuing efforts to provide the tools that our children will need for the future workforce.

In the past six months, I've spent many hours speaking with my constituents about their thoughts on issues of the day. Their concerns ranged across the full spectrum of both the private and the public sector. Kootenay region has seen discussions and proposals put forward for power projects, and plans for gas cogen, waste and wood-waste cogen plants. The market had been elusive until last year when the Purcell power project was given the nod and was successful in its proposal to convert energy from burning wood waste into steam used in the pulp-making process. Even in today's fast-changing market for electricity, opportunities will continue to present themselves now that our government has put processes in place to facilitate competition by independent power producers.

In April this year, the minister responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust presented the East Kootenay regional district and the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council with a symbolic piece of a $45 million cheque to be invested by the Columbia Basin Trust in projects and programs. Other funding will include $2 million a year for 16 years for operating and program development, and $25 million over ten years for investments in power projects in the region. The Columbia Basin Trust will be run entirely by the people of the Columbia Basin region, and this will oversee more than $1 billion in downstream benefits for Columbia-Kootenay residents.

These investments will provide tremendous opportunity for the people of the Columbia Basin region, who so unjustly bore the brunt of the Columbia River Treaty 30 years ago. Even though the Bonneville Power Administration has not honoured our original agreement, the province remains committed to the principles behind the Columbia Basin accord and is working closely with the region to put those communities into a formal agreement.

In June of this year, I had the honour to break ground in anticipation of beginning the construction of the new Fernie aquatic complex. The $1 million B.C. 21 community grant to aid in the construction of this facility will bring much-needed employment to the Fernie area.

There are many issues that affect communities in Kootenay, some of which include creating a strong tourism sector in the local economy, flooding problems in the Elk Valley, recycling and local-hire issues.

Our government has recognized hiring agreements with power dam builders signed originally by the W.A.C. Bennett government and has created similar agreements for the building of the Vancouver Island Highway. Both favour local, then regional and then provincial hiring. We are committed to ensuring jobs for British Columbians on publicly funded projects. The close proximity of Kootenay to other provinces and the U.S. border, in competition with their low wages and unemployment, has made it increasingly difficult for our residents to find employment. Historically, approximately 30 percent of the employed coal workers have come from the Pass area, while our residents remain unemployed. Elkford and Sparwood still carry the scars of the mine closures of years gone by, beginning in the era of the Socred days. The healing process has been a lengthy one, but grim reminders remain when one looks at the for sale signs still apparent in the yards of those residents. The private sector will do well to show preference for local hiring also.

The development of jobs is ever more important to the people of Kootenay -- jobs which include tourism, mining, forestry and technical; jobs which will enable our children and their children to remain in and work within the Kootenay. The protection and creation of jobs fostering economic security and making key investments that ensure B.C.'s future growth and their prosperity will continue to build the future of the people in the Kootenay. One issue remained constant across the Kootenay region, and that was employment -- to feed our families, provide a roof over our heads and give our children an opportunity to remain in and work within the Kootenay region.

It is with great pleasure that Forest Renewal B.C. is targeting a $34 million investment in the Kootenay-Boundary region. Kootenay will see an investment of over $5 million for enhanced forestry and watershed restoration and over $330,000 for resource inventory. This inventory is so crucial to the sustainability of our forests, our forest workers and our forest communities.

In October this year, Cranbrook will be hosting a 1996 Kootenay value-added wood forum. The first forum was held in Creston almost two years ago. Initially, this forum was greeted with much skepticism by many key players in the forest industry. Today they have found that there is nothing to fear from this value-added industry. We are anticipating somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $400,000 in economic spinoffs in the community. Industry, artisans, students and future entrepreneurs will continue to get long-term value in networking and in the exchange of ideas. This value-added sector will play a large part in helping government achieve its goal of creating 21,000 forest sector jobs over the next five years. Mining, one of the Kootenay's largest industries, was a victim of land use uncertainty in the past. Historic progress was made when the land use plan was introduced, and I'm proud to say that it was our government -- the first government in the history of B.C. -- that introduced a land use plan for Kootenay, thus eliminating the greatest disincentive to mineral exploration and development.

I am committed to assisting the mining and forestry industries within our region in the development and marketing of value-added products -- to attempt to add value to the coal we mine and the timber we cut, be it through coke production, electrical cogeneration or secondary wood man-

[ Page 212 ]

ufacture. The next five years -- or if we look at the next 1,782 days -- will be about choices in how we make our living, how we educate our children, how we care for them when they are ill and how we as British Columbians meet the needs of those in our society who have fallen on hard times or who cannot help themselves. Kootenay families feel very strongly about the need for quality medical care, education, a social safety net and safe communities. That is why the people of British Columbia and Kootenay elected a New Democratic government for the second term.

However, we must work together to solve the issues -- growing needs and expectations -- at a time when the federal government has cut $435 million this year in transfer payments to British Columbia. Our government has listened and is continuing to listen, and we are acting on the priorities of British Columbians by protecting medicare and education, by cutting taxes for the middle class and small businesses, and by creating and protecting jobs that are so crucial not only to the people of Kootenay but to all British Columbians.

Part of the creation of those crucial jobs within Kootenay is our tourism industry. This industry is flourishing, and I would like to invite each and every one of you to visit and enjoy all that our local attractions have to offer to all the people of British Columbia, be it a trip back in time at historic Fort Steele or to stand beside the world's largest truck near Highway 3 in Sparwood -- and by the way, its name is Titan.

The Kootenay constituency is famous for its scenery and environment. It hosts some of the largest big game populations in North America. Combined with the raw beauty of the western slopes of the Rockies, the Purcell Range and the biodiversity of the Columbia Valley trench, the region attracts outdoor enthusiasts from all walks of life, from all around the globe.

We have the added advantage of living in two time zones. What other area of the province allows you to live and travel in the past, the present and the future, all within one region? If you make a mistake in one time zone, you go to the next time zone and try to correct it.

I look forward to working with all members on all sides to build our province and to provide opportunities for all people who choose to come and live here in beautiful British Columbia and beautiful Kootenay.

[4:00]

H. Giesbrecht: It has certainly been an interesting debate. Much has been said in the last week or so about last year's budget and the actual results, and little about this year's budget. I'd like to talk about this year's budget and why I support it, and perhaps get into some general comments at the beginning.

Before I do, though, let me say that it's nice to be back, and it's nice to see the members opposite. I must say that it gives me a great sense of relief to know that they will not be able to turn back the clock in B.C. to the same cavalier style of government, the same priorities and the same lack of vision that plagued this province in the 17 years prior to 1991.

I'd like to thank my constituents for their support over the years, particularly for the support during the recent election. I had the opportunity to knock on many doors during the month of May and hear what their concerns were. Strangely, I didn't hear that much about debt. Perhaps that's something about being in a northern riding; our concerns have more to do with services and jobs. Health, education and transportation services are major issues -- and then, also, all those concerns about jobs and the economy.

In particular, in my discussions with young people it was very clear that they did not accept the opposition Liberal -- and I use the term "Liberal" loosely, of course -- notion that they should put their lives on hold while we pay down the debt, which was already the lowest, per capita, in the country. They wanted education opportunities and they wanted jobs. This budget, then, invests in young people and jobs. This budget protects health care and education, and it provides tax breaks for working British Columbians.

I live in a resource-rich part of the province -- 25,000 square miles of what I think is probably the best of B.C. We rely on forests because the underpinning of the economy in both Terrace and Kitimat is probably forestry. It's also the underpinning of the economy of the surrounding areas and the smaller villages. We have a lot at stake in making sure that our forests are sustainable, but we also recognize that there must be a balance set between harvesting and environmental protection. You see, tourism in our region still has tremendous potential. The environment is still one of the attractions for people living in Skeena and for people who move up there for the clean air and clean water that we have.

Kitimat -- and I would include Kemano -- has, on the other hand, a strong industrial economic base. Alcan, Eurocan, West Fraser and the Methanex petrochemical plant provide the base and the major source of employment -- along with forestry, of course. That's also there.

Ensuring Alcan's power supply for its Kitimat operations is also a big issue in Kitimat. Kitimat has one of the highest per capita incomes in the country. It contributes more than its share to the B.C. economy just in taxes. It contributes far more than the community gets back in services, and for people in Kitimat the apparent lack of that recognition is a real source of concern.

Kitimat lost the benefit of the Kemano completion project, the $800 million of construction. This government is currently negotiating a power-purchase agreement with Alcan, and I'm committed to seeing that those negotiations are completed. A mutually beneficial agreement between Alcan and the province, ensuring existing jobs in Kitimat and creating more job opportunities for Kitimat and the rest of the province, is the goal. It's a challenge which I am confident this government will meet, and while the opposition snipes from the sidelines, we are moving ahead and working with the company to ensure such an agreement.

Our reliance in Skeena on these industries has made us like most communities in the north and the interior: still dependent on the jobs in the primary resource sector. It has also made us very possessive of the resources that are in "our back yard." Around the two major centres in Skeena there are many small villages, and many of these are still struggling with the limited funding from the federal government. They're still trying to develop their economies, when most of the forest tenure is controlled by the major companies. They're also still trying to negotiate fair treaty settlements, sometimes in a climate not helped by the simplistic and politically self-serving comments of the Leader of the Opposition.

To all those people in the villages of Gitanyow, Gitwangak, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and to the Haisla of Kitimat, whom I have gotten to know over the past four and a half years and who have been patient and understanding, and who provide moral support but never hesitate to remind me of the tasks that are still left to do: you have my commitment to continue to work hard to represent your interests as well. In Skeena our future is dependent on working together. Our first nations people must be equal partners in any vision of the region. I'm sure we could say that of all of B.C.

[ Page 213 ]

Skeena means water of the clouds. I assure you it rarely rains in Skeena. It's rich in resources, rich in ethnic and cultural diversity, and it's certainly rich in promise. When I made my first speech in this House about four years ago I referred to the trickle-down theory. That's where you give the rich and the big corporations tax breaks and such, and the people at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder will eventually derive some benefit. The economy will be stimulated -- at least that's the theory. There will be a job, maybe even at minimum wage, for everyone. But remember, this theory doesn't permit any minimum-wage legislation, so you might have to take that with a grain of salt. It's a theory which had been practised to varying degrees by a succession of Liberal and Tory federal governments since Confederation, and it hasn't worked marvellously well. A half-trillion-dollar national debt, made up not by costs of social programs but by tax incentives to big corporations and the wealthy, exists today.

The feds just cynically off-load their health, education and social services costs as though the people who need those services across the country caused the national debt. You know what? That side of the House advocated exactly the same thing in the last election -- the same thing we had in the 17 years prior to 1991. I guess that's one reason that they're still sitting over there.

I want to again remind people here of the geographic version of trickle-down economics, and this is probably one area where I might agree with the member for Peace River North. You could call it trickle-north economics. That's where you focus on the south: you feed the southern economy and hope that somehow the north will derive some benefit. But I am pleased to say that over the last four and a half years there have been some very positive changes in that regard, and that change has been particularly evident in the forest industry. We've been in government for over four years; we have the leanest public service in Canada. We have created 30 percent of all Canadian jobs in the last four years. We are about one-tenth of the population and have created 30 percent of the jobs. We're actually making the federal Liberals look like they're doing something about jobs. Then they reward the citizens of B.C. by making us pay a greater share of health and education costs.

It started in 1991. A member earlier alluded to the fact there had been a lot of changes since then, and it's true, because change was being demanded on almost every front. If you'll recall, forestry was demanding changes. Health had just gone through a consultation process; education the same. Social services needed change. Land claims were on the back burner and needed to be brought forward. The environment needed to be looked at. There was a host of issues, all due to the neglect by what's left of the remnants of those who now fill that side of the House -- except, I suppose one should say, for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Health, education and vital services have increased in spending in four years, while every other province has been slashing. We've created 20,000 new university spaces, increased day care spaces, funded women's centres and revamped social services. We're protecting medicare. We've banned extra billing by doctors, and we took steps to protect Pharmacare. Certainly a lot more needs to be done, but you must have courage to tackle those issues. We have made a commitment and a promise to protect health care and education in this budget, and we're going to do it again. We are doing it in spite of the fact that every year the federal Liberal government tells B.C. that we have to pick up a greater share of the cost.

Do you ever hear a word of criticism from the Liberals in opposition here directed at their friends in Ottawa? Never -- not a peep. But they are the first to demand more when the money doesn't go far enough in their ridings. There's never a critical word to the feds, that would take courage. That would take a recognition that this government has a major challenge in protecting health and education. That would also take a recognition that we are meeting the challenge. They don't have the courage to deal with it. Political opportunism at the expense of every British Columbian is the opposition Liberal way. Shame on them!

Even on the issue of the West Coast fishery, where entire communities depend on fishing for their livelihood, the opposition can't set aside partisan political rhetoric. When the Premier expresses his frustration at the stubbornness of the federal government, they criticize him for being too aggressive. I think it's about time Ottawa heard from B.C. in a very direct way. We've been ignored by Liberals and Tories long enough, and I and many of my constituents applaud the Premier and this government for taking the position that they have.

The opposition promised the courage to change. Some courage! Some change! I guess that's the luxury of being in opposition: never having to keep your election promises -- even the ones on election night about working together for the good of British Columbians -- never having to do anything but criticize, and never having to offer a workable alternative. On the last note, it might be useful for the opposition to prepare their own budget and allow the public to look at what they would do. But remember, it would have to be more complete than the Swiss-cheese economic plan they unveiled last May. They won't do it; they don't have the courage.

Let me talk for a minute about the forest industry prior to 1991. Too much wood was being cut for industry to be sustainable. There was a war in the woods. International markets were being threatened. Fewer jobs were available for every tree cut. The forest practices were internationally criticized. Penalties were less than the possible profit. The answer always seemed to be to cut more trees -- and to do it with less labour, of course. Did the opposition have the courage to change? No.

We passed a new Forest Practices Code with million-dollar fines -- enforcement, which the Liberals opposed. We doubled the stumpage charge to forest companies and created Forest Renewal B.C., which will put $400 million a year back into the forest for silviculture work, watershed restoration and value-added products. The opposition voted against it. Even though it was a venture in cooperation with the forest industry, they voted against it. We've created thousands more jobs in an industry which was considered a sunset industry five years ago. We now have 15 percent more jobs in the forest industry than we had in 1991.

This budget expands on those initiatives in the forest sector. New jobs need to come from better utilization of the harvested timber. The target of 21,000 more forest sector jobs through the jobs and timber accord must be met. I'm pleased to see this budget focus on more job creation in the forest sector. The regions in those communities which rely on the forest industry will benefit. These initiatives correct in a real way the damage done by the trickle-north economics of the past. They still, on that side of the House, don't have the courage to admit it.

We also passed a fair Labour Code, which the Liberals and the Reformers said would destroy the B.C. economy. It didn't happen. We've experienced remarkable labour peace. 

[ Page 214 ]

But these new Liberals still want to get rid of the Labour Code. Day after day in this House, they ridicule labour leaders and belittle the struggles of working women and men in the workplace. They belittle the right of workers to join forces in unions or to become politically active, as though that were some special right of the right-wing organizations like the Fraser Institute. Unionized labour can claim much of the credit for the good quality of life we all enjoy in this country.

[4:15]

Let me remind this House of a statement made by a former President of the United States -- and the U.S. is not known for its progressive social policy. It was made by Abraham Lincoln:

"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail. Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher considerations."

Then a remarkable quote by J. Paul Getty, reputedly the richest man in the world -- and if anybody should have had a right-wing bias, it should have been J. Paul Getty. Here's what he had to say about labour:

"The gains organized labour wins at the bargaining table contribute not only to the welfare of union members but to the prosperity and growth of the entire nation. I sometimes suspect that businessmen occasionally vent their anti-union feelings because they are jealous and resentful of the really good union leaders' initiative, drive and ability. I've dealt with many representatives of organized labour. Some have been outstanding men who would make top executives and formidable business competitors if they were on the other side of the fence. Unions are here to stay. A smart businessman accepts, understands and respects them."

If such an enlightened view can be held by the richest man in the world, one wonders where some of the opposition are coming from. The opposition says repeatedly that they will demand open tendering on all projects in B.C. [Applause.] Hold your applause for a minute, hon. member. What that means is an open door to Alberta construction firms that bring in Alberta workers and pay them less. What is wrong with providing fair wages to B.C. workers on projects paid for by B.C. taxpayers?

On tax rates: this budget extends the tax freeze for individuals and families until the year 2000, and it prohibits any new taxes on individuals and families in that same period. When you vote against this, it will be clear whose side you're on. Personal income taxes for middle-income earners -- that's those making under $80,000 a year -- are going down by 2 percent over two years. Hydro rates, ICBC rates, and college and university tuition fees are frozen. The total saving for taxpayers will be $485 million by the 1998-99 year. When you vote against this, it will be clear whose side you're on. Low-income families will get a substantial benefit through the B.C. family bonus. For example, a single-parent family with two children and an annual income of $30,000 will get up to $700 per year. When you vote against this, it will be clear whose side you're on. There is $80 million going to the working poor in this province, hon. members; more than 100,000 families -- poor families -- will benefit. When you vote against this, it will be clear whose side you're on. There are benefits to homeowners and first-time homebuyers. Small business, the sector that creates most of the jobs, gets a 10 percent reduction in income taxes. That's $29 million in tax relief. This budget also includes a two-year tax holiday for new business. When you vote against this budget, it will be clear whose side you're on.

An Hon. Member: We want you to take a holiday.

H. Giesbrecht: I'd love to, hon. member.

It's customary for the opposition to vote against the budget put forward by the government. I don't really expect them to break from the tradition. With all the strings attached to them, it might be difficult for any freedom of movement.

Here is a budget that is balanced. Taxes are down. Jobs are up. Health care and education are protected. That is good news, and this is a good budget. This is a budget that shows courage and vision. This government listened to the people of B.C., and it listened to the people of the north. I'm very pleased to support this budget.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Skeena and recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: Gratitude is the emotion I feel when I stand in this House. I stand here alone, but I will never forget that I stand to represent the voice of Okanagan-Vernon. They have entrusted me to do so.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for accepting your difficult post. Being non-partisan is a challenge for any politician, and I'm confident that in future years, we will recall your tenure as one marked by fairness and impartiality.

For me to stand in this House is due to the consummate toil of many. My husband, my mother, my in-laws and my children have all sacrificed and contributed immeasurably to this day. Their support for me never ends. I must mention, too, the volunteer team that has placed me here. A highlight of my life was the experience where family, friends, colleagues, former students -- now grown up -- past and current patients, seniors, neighbours and strangers all came forward to help, because they collectively believed I could do the job. My gratitude to them all I extend here today.

My predecessor Lyall Hanson leaves me big shoes to fill. I thank him for providing an honest man as a role model. I'm proud to follow such an individual as Lyall.

Okanagan-Vernon encompasses the communities of Vernon, Lumby and Cherryville. The area is one of the crown jewels of British Columbia. It is a four-seasons area with a friendly climate, natural beauty, rich history and recreational wealth. It is one of the most desirable locations in the province to visit, holiday in and live in.

Manufacturing and retail trade make up one-third of the economic base, but most think of the Okanagan as a tourist destination. Every season we host national and international guests at our world-class golf courses, ski resorts, lakes, parklands and convention facilities. Entrepreneurialism is strong in Vernon, as many people become self-employed and start their own business. People create work where no work exists to live in my riding. Home-based and small businesses are prevalent and ever increasing in our community.

British Columbia is the best province in the best country in the world. Despite my love for B.C., I see myself as a Canadian first and a British Columbian second. I am a third- generation Canadian and very much a product of my culture. My Canadianism is rooted in the pioneer spirit that turned the first sod in 1901 in the new province of Saskatchewan. My grandfather and father farmed there until death. My mother taught in a one-room school.

My step-dad, a pilot in the Royal Canadian Air Force, took my family the breadth of this country. Like many, we lived and travelled from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia. As a by-product of my culture, I can milk a cow, 

[ Page 215 ]

bead a moccasin, bait a lobster trap and chum for salmon. I know where to pick dulse, saskatoons and huckleberries. Menus at home may include bannock and chokecherry jam, or tourtières, fiddleheads, smoked salmon: "I say aye" and box "no-see-ums" all summer.

My most cherished memories include hiking in the Rockies, the RCMP Musical Ride, caving in Gold River, exploring Drumheller and the Cabot Trail, and seeing, as a young person, Her Majesty's Sailing Ship Bounty set sail for Hollywood from the Yarmouth shipyards in Nova Scotia.

In the arts, my influences -- without reaching -- are Canadian. Without the strong arm of Canadian content, I still prefer Céline Dion, k.d. lang and Leonard Cohen. Emily Carr, the Group of Seven and Bill Reid take my breath away. My only valuable jewellery is Haida. The person I most admire is Margaret Atwood.

My generation exemplifies the hybrid state of true Canadianism: my husband is seventh-generation Canadian; my sister-in-law, Métis; my cousin's wife, Cree; my best friend, Ukrainian Canadian. My children are bilingual. We all share a common creativity and intellect.

Many questioned why I ventured into public life, and over the last two weeks I've often asked myself the same. My political interest was sparked in 1991. Then British Columbia had a government rife with dishonesty. We saw 13 ministers, including a Premier, toppled by scandal. In such a cynical climate grew our official opposition, the New Democratic Party. They promised that if they were given a chance, things would improve. Open, honest government was their election sound bite, and I bit -- hook, line and sinker.

Honesty was a welcome change in philosophy, and I looked forward to 1991 as a year of renewed optimism in B.C. politics. Within months our newly elected, open, honest government introduced Bills 13 and 14. These bills rescinded agreements bargained in good faith between the previous government and the doctors of British Columbia. The content is irrelevant, because it was the pontifical wording that stuck and struck a chord with me that I have yet to forget. The translation into layman's terms from governmentese read: "The previous agreement between government and the doctors of B.C. is deemed never to have existed." Further governmentspeak declared, in translation, that no legal recourse was possible to this reversal of decision. This high-handed autocracy left little room for openness and honesty.

I entered public life because I resented government's disembowelling of a word so important to me: honesty. It had become defunct, a non-word when used by this government. The last two weeks have seen the death throes of honesty, as it was effectively drawn and quartered when used in reference to this budget in this House. I ask you: how can I teach my children right from wrong, with the NDP in office? So I thank this government for rekindling my interest in politics. I am here to do whatever I can to resuscitate honesty. I want my children to be able, without cynicism, to use the words "honest" and "government" in one sentence.

As we move into the year 2000, there are concerns my constituents wish government to address. We want removal of the job-killing corporate capital tax that cripples small businesses, the backbone of our economy. This has already been looked into by government, and I commend them for this. We want real jobs in the Okanagan, ones that are long-term and that result from a stimulated economy that favours investment. We don't want more government jobs, phony forestry jobs, part-time jobs or welfare jobs.

We want our school children out of portables. We recognize that the money that keeps them there is being spent in other areas -- perhaps the fair-wage act -- instead of in schools.

We want to know there will be no more Matthew Vaudreuils in Vernon. We want a streamlined Social Services ministry that implements measures such as the Gove report.

We want to know there will never be another Gakhal family. Whatever government can learn from this tragedy and implement to prevent any recurrence of such a scenario, we would be grateful for.

We want to keep our clean air and clean water.

Traditionally, the maiden speech is a response to the budget or throne speech. Suffice it to say that many before me have risen in opposition to denigrate its contents, and others from government to extol its virtues. This has been done so admirably by both sides; I see no reason for repetition. Succinctly, I cannot support this budget. The government has been disrespectful to the Lieutenant-Governor by crafting for him a throne speech laced with falsehoods. The budget and the throne speech are the first black marks on this government's report card.

[4:30]

Following every election comes a wave of hope around the province. The public elects the government and puts its hopes in the hands of the victor: hope for a new start, hope for accountability, hope for responsible governance. They are forgiving, and they present the new government with a slate wiped clean of past indiscretions, a second chance for us all. This government has let them down. Shame on you for taking away respect the public wants to give! Shame on you for the abuse of the trust of decent people!

Mark Twain said: "Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Madam Speaker, I stand to offer this government a challenge: let's recognize that the first two weeks lacked integrity and move forward by reinstituting honesty and accountability. I'd like to see in this House only four things during the next four years: no special interest groups to dominate government agenda and policy; common sense never to be abandoned in favour of ideology; respect for the intelligence and needs of the taxpayer; and honesty in government.

"Public life" and "politicians" are words that have fallen into disrepute. It is up to government -- by deeds, not by words -- to restore these important positions as ones of value and respect. William Carlos Williams said: "All that is needed for a new universe is a new mind." It starts here; it starts today.

F. Gingell: The member for Surrey-White Rock's amendment to the budget motion gives me the opportunity to speak once more on the '96-97 budget, and a lot has happened in the week since I previously spoke. A great deal has been said about reasons that caused the miscalculation, or the mis-estimation, of forest revenues for 1995-96. Whether it be the weather, which evidently was all right, or the accounting practices of recording forest revenues, which evidently haven't changed, this government has gone from one exercise to another to explain this embarrassment.

One of the keys, in thinking about this, is the statement of the Minister of Forests, when he spoke in his private briefing to a member of the media who had forgotten to stay behind 

[ Page 216 ]

and was called back, and who asked the minister: "Why haven't you said something about this before?" The minister answered: "Because I have been waiting for somebody to ask me."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On a point of order, the member did say "in a meeting with the Minister of Forests," and I just want the record to read that it was not in a meeting with the Minister of Forests.

Deputy Speaker: It's not exactly a point of order, but the intervention is fair.

F. Gingell: I accept the correction. In no way would I suggest that the Minister of Forests would have said that; it was the previous Minister of Forests. This Minister of Forests has impressed me, in the five years that it has been a privilege to know him, with his straightforwardness and his honesty. I believe that had this particular minister been involved in this exercise, the throne speech would have been different. The budget speech would have been different. He wouldn't have sat on this for three or four days, waiting for someone to ask: "What is this log that you are sitting on? What is it made of?"

It brings up an interesting question about this issue. In the year 1889 a court case had travelled through the British courts and finished up in the House of Lords. It is known as Derry v. Peek, and is a very important decision that has been used as a basis for innumerable decisions since. In that statement, Lord Herschell said:

"Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false."

He goes on to say later in his judgment:

"To prevent a false statement being fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its truth.... If fraud be proved, the motive of the person guilty of it is immaterial. It matters not that there was no intention to cheat or injure the person to whom the statement was made."

Does this particular set of circumstances fit the judgment of the House of Lords in that case? I believe that it does. The statements were made without having taken caution and precautions, and without having asked the specific questions that clearly the Minister of Finance, as the representative of the people responsible in the government of British Columbia for these issues, was bound by his responsibilities to ask. Did he ask them? We don't know. That isn't stated. Should he have asked them? Unquestionably. Having been advised -- and we now have some words from the Premier this weekend that shed a little more light on this issue.... Whether it be this Minister of Finance or the previous Minister of Finance, there was good and valid reason for them to be responsible, conservative, and to have dealt with this matter in a fair way.

The Minister of Finance keeps saying: "Well, they're just estimates. Estimates are estimates, and they can be up one day and down the next." But that's not the way the world works. When you have that kind of responsibility, you have to bring professional questions and professional responsibility to your role as the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh yes, you do. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith shakes her head. But that's not right, Madam Speaker. When you are a minister you have taken a certain oath to fulfil your responsibilities diligently. Had I thought that this member would even question that, I would have brought the particular wording. But clearly, you're not made minister to look after your responsibilities in a ne'er-do-well, careless fashion. You have to bring due diligence to your responsibilities.

When Price Waterhouse, who are the experts among the management consultants, are reporting on the state of the forest industry, this government pays a great deal of attention to them. They attend their conferences. I have been to their conferences with their senior officials from the Ministry of Forests and the minister, too. The minister goes to address them as their lunchtime speaker. There were clear messages coming out: pulp prices down, exports down, harvests down. The Ministry of Forests was constipated; they were tied up in a Gordian knot. They needed to take a chainsaw, first of all, not to the trees but to the Gordian knot that was stopping permits from coming up and approvals from happening, and cut it apart. Such was the fraud -- a lack of due diligence that clearly should have been brought to the exercise of determining whether or not you were going to increase the estimate for the revenues from the forests and natural resources.

The other day the Minister of Finance very kindly offered me a briefing on the way all these accounts are brought together. I'd be happy to have that briefing and to give them a briefing about how you go about determining estimates. It isn't some casual exercise; you ensure that you've got the best information available.

We are proud of the improvement and the increase in the ability of information systems at the end of the twentieth century. This government spends a fortune on information systems. They know what's happening; it's important that they do. Yet they don't know whether forest revenues, the next most important revenue after federal government transfers -- in this modern era of computers at the end of the twentieth century -- are going to be up or down. You review the facts, you get the best information available, and then you make logical conclusions as to what are reasonable estimates to be included.

I strongly support the amendment of the member for Surrey-White Rock. What faith can we have in the budget estimates for 1996-97 when we see what was done in '95-96? That's not the end of it. They say: "Well, you know, the deficit is only going to be $235 million." But this government, which argued about the accounting practices of the previous government and said that it would change them immediately, has not included in its calculation some $315 million being spent on highway infrastructure in this province. Virtually every other province in this country includes that in the calculation of the deficit and in the consolidated revenue fund. When you take that into account, the deficit for last year comes up to $550 million.

[4:45]

Are we finished there? Oh no. They've got a couple of other skeletons in their closet, waiting to come tumbling out. They've included in the income for '95-96 some $47 million that the federal government is refusing to pay them because of the residency requirements for welfare. Now, I hope you win; I'm with you 100 percent. Sue the devils. But it's going to go to the Supreme Court of Canada; it's going to take years, probably, to settle the issue of whether it was proper for the federal government to deduct $47 million in payments from the Canada Assistance Plan to British Columbia. You know, you don't count it yet; you count it when you have a reasonable expectation of receiving it. At this moment in time, you don't have a reasonable expectation. That will happen when you win the court case in the Supreme Court of Canada. I wish you all the very best in that exercise, but you shouldn't include it in last 

[ Page 217 ]

year's income. Nor should you make some rather unusual assumptions about increases in corporate income taxes that will finally get into income tax returns and come back to British Columbia under B.C. taxes for refunds made by the United States government under the softwood lumber countervail -- which case we won. Very good, wonderful; we will get that money one of these days. It will come into the corporate income of the various companies that get the refunds. They will report it in their T2 corporation income tax returns in the appropriate fiscal year. They'll get filed with the federal government, the federal government will send British Columbia back its share.

But you've done something a little different this year. Instead of just taking the federal government's estimate of what British Columbia's share of corporation income taxes are going to be, you've added on this extra sum. Pulp prices have gone through the floor; exports are down. Your natural resource forestry revenues are down, so it may well be that we don't get those refunds because of losses incurred in the forest industry. Listen carefully to what the forest industry is saying to you. You've increased their costs dramatically. That, of course, is going to affect the taxable income of those corporations and whether those countervail refunds flow through to the bottom line.

What else has this government included in its estimates of income for '96-97 that brings it into question, if not into disrepute? They've included a $214 million dividend from B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro income this year is below what it was in the previous year. B.C. Hydro is now expected to pay a dividend for this year in the amount of $125 million, originally estimated to be $146 million. Negotiations or whatever between B.C. Hydro and the government have reduced the $146 million to $125 million.

You've told them they can't increase their rates; that was one of your election promises. Remember that? "You can't increase your rates." They've got problems in taking water that they weren't allowed to, out of one of the tributaries to the Squamish River. They've got problems at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, which we all hope and pray will be properly resolved. But this isn't the time to be taking an extra-large dividend out of B.C. Hydro; B.C. Hydro have all kinds of requirements.

They're going to have to borrow this money. Remember what KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne told you, members of government, for the million dollars that you paid them in the spring of 1992? They told you it is unreasonable for you to require dividends from Crown corporations that have to go and borrow the money. It's a way, isn't it, of moving it from tax-supported debt to non-tax-supported debt. That's in effect what happens. We all say: "Well, we don't worry so much about B.C. Hydro's debt, because it is covered by its customer base." But this government is increasing the debt of B.C. Hydro for the purpose of reducing the government-guaranteed debt that they will have to borrow under the deficit.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

[The Speaker in the chair.]

F. Gingell: It's a shame. It's wrong, and it's not responsible management. This government keeps saying, as the previous speaker, the member for Skeena, was saying: "What side are you on?" Well, this government should be on everybody's side. I cannot think of a more divisive battle cry than: "Whose side are you on?" You've got to be on everybody's side; this government should be acting in the best interests of everybody -- all British Columbians.

This is no time to divide British Columbians; this is a time for us all to recognize that we have to pull together. We have a much more serious financial problem than this government will admit. They go out and borrow an additional $900 million, which they call the warehouse plan. They manage to get the GVRD to take $305 million of guaranteed debt for the sewer and water district and pass it off to the Municipal Finance Authority, and treat it in this Budget 96 Reports as though it is debt that has been paid off. Those two issues allowed them -- or didn't allow them, but they did it anyway -- to go on saying: "Debt is down."

Well, the problem is that government should be telling the people of British Columbia exactly what the situation is. They should be going to the people and saying: "We are going to spend" -- it's going to be financed by long-term debt -- "an additional $1.1 billion." That's what they are going to do, but they will make the excuse: "Well, that's not going to show up as any increase in debt, because we borrowed an additional $900 million last year, which we hadn't planned on borrowing, but we won't go back and talk about what happened to that. We borrowed it only because we offered 1.5 percent over the going rate for government bonds, and we've managed to talk someone else into taking over $305 million worth of debt. We didn't pay it off; we've just played around with the books to make it look like it's paid off."

Mr. Speaker, all these things give us cause for concern. All these things make us worry that the government doesn't manage and administer our finances in a responsible manner. All these things give us concern, because the government appears to act like hucksters selling some program.

G. Farrell-Collins: Snake oil.

F. Gingell: Snake oil, a new brand of something. Just dress it up a little differently, and people won't recognize it.

There is no question that when this budget was being finalized, before it was tabled on June 30, sufficient information was available in the public domain, primarily from B.C. stats -- the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Well, what do you know? Their own ministry was telling them unemployment went up in May, instead of down. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for males rose from 8.5 to 9.4 percent. The unemployment rate for B.C. students looking for summer jobs was 17.3 percent in May, almost three percentage points higher than May 1995. May retail sales were down.

I don't want to paint a picture of gloom and doom. These changes are very small. But your budget is based on dramatic increases. It is suggested that provincial sales tax would go up in excess of something like 5 percent. Government spending, they are telling us, is going to be....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, they don't pay the tax, do they?

But there's a whole series of cautions out there that say to hang on, stop, think about this, get the best information available, and then make reasonable and sensible decisions about what the estimates and projections for government revenues and government expenditures should be. That is what they should have done originally, and they have failed to do it.

[ Page 218 ]

They had an opportunity when the fiscal period was three months old. Normally they finish this exercise in the three months before the fiscal year starts, but this year, because they decided to call an election before the truth came out about the true state of the deficit, they had an additional period of time. That allowed them to bring common sense, sensible management practices and thoughtful reconsideration to the numbers they had used. They haven't done it, and I think it's a disgrace.

I think that what has happened fits clearly in the reasons for judgment in the Derry v. Peek case from 1889. These things have been going on, obviously, for a long time. This government has the opportunity to bring a new level of responsibility, a new level of honesty, to government finances -- to tell it like it is -- and it has failed to do it. That is why I support the amendment of the member for Surrey-White Rock.

W. Hartley: It's an honour to be re-elected by my constituents. What a great privilege it is to continue representing the people of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in this NDP government in this great province of ours.

Congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, on your elevated position in this Legislature -- a reminder of the high esteem in which you are held by all members of this House. Congratulations to our Deputy Speaker. Under such guidance this House promises to be a more civilized place.

I also congratulate our Premier for the office he holds and for the leadership he provides. We are all proud of the style of government and the change of government that our Premier represents.

I wish all members of this assembly the very best in their efforts to serve the people of their constituencies and the province.

I know that each member wants to contribute in a meaningful way to the quality of life in our province. I look forward to working with all members in a positive and productive process in the next four or five years of this Legislature.

[5:00]

In the 25 years I've lived and worked in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, I've met many wonderful, hard-working people whose number one priority is the support of their families -- securing a good quality of life in a clean environment. I meet young people pursuing their education. I'm pleased that this provincial budget provides increased access to universities and colleges -- a $27 million increase -- and that student tuition fees are frozen. I meet seniors dependent on health care, and I'm pleased that this Health budget for '96-97 is $6.8 billion -- a 2.5 percent increase that protects medicare from the federal Liberal government cuts.

In the recent election campaign, like many other members, I was on the doorsteps of the residents of my community, and those voters were very clear on a number of issues: protect health care and education; cut the cost of government; hold the line on taxes; give our youth opportunities for advancement; safeguard the dignity and comfort of our senior citizens; put a lid on the debt; job security; help small businesses.

I really enjoyed the election campaign. I was able to talk about those issues, about the budget we tabled in April and about the government's commitments to cut taxes for middle-class working British Columbians, to create over 40,000 new jobs, and to protect health care and education.

The provincial budget for 1996-97 delivers on everything I talked about on the doorsteps, and at the all-candidates' meetings I listened carefully to what people in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows said to all the political candidates. This budget delivers on the people's priorities: protecting health care and education, creating and protecting jobs, and guaranteeing opportunities for young people. This budget addresses what I heard about debt, the cost of government and taxes.

The centrepiece of this budget is a tax cut for B.C. families -- a modest cut, a reduction of one percentage point. But what it means is fewer tax dollars off the paycheque, starting this month, and another tax cut next year. There is a freeze on all other taxes for individuals and families until the year 2000. The budget also freezes B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC car insurance rates, and college and university tuition fees. Together these measures will save the average B.C. family up to $500. A single-parent family with two young children and an annual income of $30,000 will save even more, up to $700 a year, thanks to the B.C. Family Bonus.

There's more good news in this budget for homeowners and for first-time homebuyers. The homeowner grant threshold has been extended; now 96 percent of B.C. homeowners receive the full benefit of the grant. We're also raising the threshold for the property transfer tax so that more first-time homebuyers won't have to pay the tax, saving them up to $3,500 on the purchase of their home. That's good news for my constituents.

Many of the new jobs created in the province have been created by small business. When I was the mayor of Maple Ridge and when I owned my own business in Maple Ridge, I was always amazed at how little the provincial government did for small business in this province -- those so-called freeenterprisers. Beginning July 1, 1996, the small business income tax rate will be reduced by 10 percent. There's also a two-year tax holiday for new small businesses that create jobs. That's good news for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, where more businesses are opening their doors than ever before.

Job creation is a top priority of this government. This is a budget that fits in well with Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, where there's an obvious transition occurring from what was becoming a bedroom community to what is now becoming a self-contained community with growing business, commercial and industrial sectors. Budget 96 forecasts strong economic growth and projects that 83,000 new jobs will be created by the end of 1997. In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we will help achieve that job target by continuing to develop jobs from tourism to advanced technologies to more value-added jobs in the forest sector.

Thanks to the NDP government of Dave Barrett in the early seventies, which created the agricultural land reserve, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has a large and productive agricultural community: blueberry and cranberry farms, dairy farms, greenhouse produce, seedling production and organic farming. There's a large, active 4-H Club -- young farmers of the future. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows is also called the horse capital of B.C. It is the community that has protected horse trails designated in the official community plan.

In previous speeches in this Legislature, I've invited all members -- and I now invite them again -- to attend the Ridge Meadows Agricultural Fair on July 26 to 28. It's a first-class agricultural fair, a fair that I have often said has room to grow into the major showpiece for agriculture and horse events in the lower mainland.

[ Page 219 ]

This provincial budget allows for the completion of the Mary Hill bypass and the Pitt River counterflow project, which will greatly reduce the traffic bottleneck at the Pitt River. That is great news for our commuting workforce.

The West Coast Express has been a great success in reducing the number of cars on the road and, of course, has the potential, with added trains, to serve more people. There is much potential for the West Coast Express to service the major agriculture and horse show I spoke of earlier. What's required is an additional train station in Albion, and that station would also service the Albion ferry. To keep up with our growth in population, what we need to do is double the capacity of the Albion ferry from Maple Ridge to Fort Langley, with minibuses on slightly larger ferries servicing the industrial sites on both sides of the river. But that's a subject of a future budget.

This budget commits $2.5 million to the urban salmon habitat program. There are three community grants for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows: the Alouette River Management Society receives $30,000 to do inventory, mapping and assessment of the Alouette River watershed, as well as public education and involvement; Harry Hooge Elementary School receives $10,000 to restore the Balbanian Creek watershed by developing a five-year stewardship plan; and the district of Maple Ridge will receive $15,000 to help create a new environmental coordinator position.

Fish is too important a subject to leave out of my speech about my constituency. In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows we have people working at both ends of the fish cycle: in habitat protection and enhancement of the Alouette River and local streams, and in commercial harvesting on the Fraser River and the Pitt River. Unfortunately, harvesting of any kind is unlikely this year unless sockeye runs are higher than expected. There's no question that we need to give value and recognition to the stewardship of our rivers and streams, and I'm pleased to see our government moving to protect commercial fishers as well.

I want to conclude by thanking the many supporters and campaign workers who helped re-elect me to this House. I especially wish to thank my campaign managers, Dennis Blatchford and Carolyn Chalifoux; the members of the election planning committee, chaired by my old friend Craig Speirs; the constituency executive, chaired by Les Buss; and the hundreds of party members and friends who donated their time and money to the cause.

I want to give special mention to my spouse, Alice, and our daughter Wallis for making that 28-day campaign turmoil in our lives seem so natural, and to my mother, Betty, living in Penticton. Of course, without her none of this would be happening. And to every resident of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, I thank you for your increased support and your trust in me. I'll continue to listen to you and to act on your behalf over the next five years.

The Speaker: On the amendment, I recognize now the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let me first congratulate you on your election. It is going to be a difficult task, but I'm sure you're up to it. I have to say that this hon. Speaker has provided me the greatest compliment that anyone ever paid me in my life. He said: "Of all your colleagues with a couple of university degrees, you disguise yours the best." I think that's a compliment, because I like to think I'm one of the people. I take it as a compliment. I mention it here because it shows just how delicate you are when you speak to us.

Congratulations also to the Deputy Speaker. I think it's also a difficult task, and we'll back you up when you need it.

Let me thank my constituents for re-electing me. It is an honour to have been re-elected a third time in the constituency of Cariboo South. It's tough country for New Democrats, but in my way, I think I've been able to express what this government can do and make it work for the people of the Cariboo, and they have returned me to carry on doing what I've been doing.

I'm also proud to stand for the first time and speak here as the Minister of Forests, and I'm going to address in my speech many of the initiatives that we're taking in forestry.

First of all, though, the budget in general. I'm pleased that this budget responds to what we have heard from the people of British Columbia and to what I have heard from my constituents. There are two things that were made very clear to us. People want health and education protected -- they want a good classroom environment so our students can get the skills they need for the age in which they have to be employed -- and they want the cost of government to be kept reasonable. They want it reduced where it can be reduced, and they want to make sure that the debt is manageable.

We delivered on those commitments. Those were promises we made, and we have delivered on those. We also promised a cut in taxes, and we brought in a cut in taxes. We promised the protection of health care. The opposition parties would have inflicted on British Columbia massive cuts in health care. We voted to protect them. We promised that education spending would not be cut, and we have added increases that reflect the population increases. We promised a tuition freeze for university and college students, and we have frozen tuition fees of colleges and universities. We cut the gold-plated pension plan of the MLAs. Although we listened to the opposition, they denied that during the election campaign.

All of these promises will benefit the people I represent, and I have to remind people opposite that all of this is in spite of massive transfer payment cuts from the federal government, cuts that next year will total about $731 million. That's money that we have to find somewhere in our budget, to maintain spending on health care and education. I have to remind the people opposite that when those cuts were first introduced by the federal Liberals a couple of years ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that those cuts didn't go far enough.

We also promised, and are delivering on, a comprehensive review of all government programs. The program review will examine our spending and the program objectives to make sure that we are getting value for the people of British Columbia. Where we can reduce those expenditures, we will.

We have focused in this budget on jobs. We're predicting growth of 2.7 percent. Other people say more; some people say less. We have targeted 2.7 percent growth, and that growth should yield 40,000 new jobs in 1996 and 43,000 new jobs in 1997. Just this Saturday there was an article in the Vancouver Sun about B.C.'s jobless rate resisting the nationwide explosion into double digits. In fact, B.C.'s jobless rate is down a third of a point from last year. The government is committed to this trend.

I know too well what happens in the economy. Cariboo South is a large, rural-based constituency with forestry, ranching, tourism and mining. All of these are affected by what 

[ Page 220 ]

happens in the general economy. I have to say that for the third quarter of last year, we had a record low of 7 percent unemployment -- that's down from 10.3 percent. It hasn't been that low for over a decade. In fact, I'm proud of the fact that Williams Lake, in my constituency, has been nominated as the mining capital of B.C. Two major mines will be operating later this year. The Mount Polley and Gibraltar mines started up again during our term of office.

I want to say a word about the tourism industry. We have indicated that new partnerships between the industry and government will create 23,000 jobs over the next five years. Tourism will continue to expand; it's a large-growth sector.

[5:15]

We've also targeted new forest sector jobs in partnership with industry. I'll just remind the members that in fact we have a vision there. They always pick out a little piece and try to criticize it, but if they look at the whole picture, they'll see that the picture shows that there's vision and a strategy. In March, government set the target of 21,000 more forest sector jobs over the next five years by developing a jobs and timber accord in partnership with industry -- not alone, not a blueprint that we imposed, but one that we negotiated and agreed upon. I'm happy to report that I attended the first meeting of the forest sector strategy group last week and recommitted to that objective. Industry agreed to cooperate, as they did in developing the forest renewal program.

Then, in April, a plan was made to expand B.C.'s value-added wood manufacturing sector. That was launched, and that will help meet that target. We are committed to getting more value in jobs from every tree cut in British Columbia -- in other words, to increasing the jobs-to-timber ratio. There are technical disagreements about just how much we can achieve, but I know this: if we don't set that as a vision and an objective, then the slide that we witnessed when we became government would have continued. We have turned that around. We have increased employment by 15,000 in the forest sector, and we intend to keep that employment carrying on. The Liberals say it can't be done. Members on the opposite side have said that you can't achieve the objective of 21,000 more. You sure can't if you don't set it as an objective and get people working. We won't have certainty for the people in the forest sector if we don't carry on and set that objective, and work hard to achieve it.

Let me remind people that we have a forest sector job strategy, and a lot of the pieces are in place. We have dedicated the forest land reserve. It wasn't there. We brought in the forest land reserve to protect a substantial part of the timber base on public and private lands as a sustainable resource. So we know where, with certainty, the best investments can be made in the forest land base.

We brought in an enhanced forest management pilot project that's being tested on two sites -- in the interior and on the coast -- in order to designate land use plan areas for intensive forestry. The zoning that we have brought about, under our land use plans, has identified areas where you could do more or less harvesting and areas where investment and harvesting cannot be challenged as a use in the zone.

We have also brought in pilot job target tenures that are a cooperative effort on the part of the Ministry of Forests, the major licence holders and Forest Renewal B.C. Specific job creation commitments by the companies are tied to assured access to timber and enhanced forestry support from Forest Renewal B.C.

We have partitioned the cuts in the timber supply to encourage a growing number of companies that utilize waste: chips, sawdust and other forest fibre out there, including some of the hardwoods. So we are encouraging oriented strand board and medium-density fibreboard plants that utilize wood in a value-added way that was never used before. We have pilot programs for timber salvage -- which will be announced -- to encourage less waste in recently logged areas and the removal of diseased trees. The Ministry of Forests and Forest Renewal B.C. are promoting research to increase the growth and yield on the more productive sites around the province.

You all know that we have slipped behind in terms of the amount of research that has been done. If we don't stay technologically and biologically in the forefront of what's happening in the industry, we will continue to slip behind. I am proud to say that those investments are being made in British Columbia, and we will become leaders in forest productivity.

Forest Renewal B.C. is funding a super-U study -- a utilization study -- to find ways of putting more of the tree to good use by existing mills and the new value-added operators in the Nelson forest region. That constitutes a major strategy that will bring the certainty to the industry that we need for the creation of those jobs.

I'd like to add a couple more things about what we have done with respect to the forest industry in the international scene. By bringing about a timber supply review, we have looked at the sustainability of the resource. We have said we must know, for the future of our communities and of the industry, what volumes they can predictably deal with. What is the base case around the province? Of course, we're not happy to stick with just the simple base case; we want to add timber production where we can. That's precisely what the zoning incentives and forest sector strategy are designed to achieve.

We have brought additional certainty to the industry by our forest practices, by our land use planning and by dealing with treaty-making -- by dealing with the problems that that member over there and his previous government ignored. By dealing with the tough problems confronting the forest industry, we have been able to put our best foot forward in the international community. We have held off the boycotts that, by not improving our forest practices, would be there. So there is additional certainty.

The members over there can't stand up and say they have an alternative vision or an alternative strategy.

An Hon. Member: They have both.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They have neither. All we have is criticism. That's fair enough; we can take criticism. But we can stand back and give you the list, which I have just done, of all of those things that are there, that will create a world-class industry and continue to ensure that we are competitive. We know that the Forest Practices Code is going to have a few bumps in being implemented; it's going to create a few problems along the way. But we're committed to addressing that. 

[ Page 221 ]

We said when we launched the Forest Practices Code that it would be a living document. We know what that means: it can be adjusted as it goes along in order to achieve the objectives that we want.

But to turn back the clock and say we're going to have another era of sympathetic administration, which members opposite seem to be saying....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sympathetic administration, you remember from the previous Social Credit government, meant that they quit policing out in the woods. The forest practices deteriorated to a point where we had a terrible reputation internationally. We've turned that around. Those members opposite have to admit that there is more certainty in the industry now than there has been over the last ten years. It's a certainty that we have achieved by putting in place various pieces of strategy.

Let me just remind members opposite of one of the things we have done in this budget. We have frozen capital in order to review our expenditure plan. This review is going to look at more cost-effective ways of planning and financing and constructing projects. The Liberals are saying that we spent too much before the election; now they're complaining that we're not spending any money. Who are they listening to? They're not listening to the same constituents I'm listening to. We are listening, and we are going to adjust our capital plans to make sure we get excellent value for the dollar. I know there's a project that is on hold in my riding. It's a project that I intend to see come to fruition. But I can say to them that all projects are on hold, and they're on hold in order to make sure we can make our commitments.

The cost of government in this budget is down 2.2 percent. We've reduced the number of ministries to the smallest number in 35 years. We've cut spending in two-thirds of our ministries in order to focus on health and education, to make those our top priorities. This government has been listening to what we've heard, and we are responding.

[5:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Hurd
Sanders	Plant	Stephens
de Jong	Coell	Anderson
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Thorpe	Penner	G. Wilson
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Hawkins	Symons
Abbott	Jarvis	Weisbeck
Chong	Coleman	Nettleton
Masi	McKinnon	Krueger
Barisoff		Neufeld
NAYS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Geisbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Brewin
Randall	Sawicki	Lali
Doyle	Gillespie	Robertson
Farnworth	Smallwood	Conroy
McGregor		Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:32 p.m.

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