[ Page 223 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

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

R. Thorpe: I am pleased today to make my first speech to the Legislative Assembly in the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

Hon. Speaker, please accept my sincere best wishes to you on your election to your office. I wish you well. Also, thank you for your guidance to date and your warm welcome to me personally to this House. As a member representing all of the people of Okanagan-Penticton, I look forward to working with the hon. Speaker and all members of this House. We must all work together for all British Columbians.

I would like to take a moment to extend my best wishes to all of the candidates who sought election in our riding: Carol Ross, Loretta Krauter, Johannes Thoen, Harry Naegel and Jim Beattie. It was a tough campaign, and all candidates and volunteers must be recognized and thanked for their efforts, contributions and commitment to the democratic process. I would also like to express thanks to our former MLA, Jim Beattie, for his four and a half years of service to our community.

If someone had told me two years ago that today I would be addressing this House as an elected member, I would not have believed it. I've always been a non-partisan businessman who lived outside our country twice and who has had the opportunity to live and work in four provinces of our great country. So what happened, and how did I get here?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You'll find out in time.

As a very active member of the British Columbia grape and wine industry, I knew that if we worked hard and were creative and could assemble a team of talented women and men, we would have a chance to be successful, provided we had some good luck. We also discovered something about good luck: the harder we worked and the more committed we were to our vision, somehow the luckier we became.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was hard work. But as we worked harder, we often found government and its officials telling us all the things we could not do and very rarely working with us or advising us on what we could do -- always negative, never positive. This approach started to wear on me. Rick Thorpe is a results-oriented individual. Eventually government did slightly modify its approach, but today there is still far too much interference and bureaucracy. Government is far too intrusive, too big, too expensive and out of touch with reality. This government in particular has no idea of the challenges of meeting a weekly payroll.

Then there was my personal exposure to the Ministry of Finance. This really motivated Rick Thorpe. The truth must always be guarded and protected. When a government begins to manage the truth to where it becomes untruth, some people become very motivated. I am one of those individuals.

Today's government has crippled investment and is, in fact, strangling businesses -- especially small business -- and job creation at all levels throughout this great province. Unnecessary and inflated costs of government hurt everyone. It hurts the needy, it hurts the young, it hurts the elderly, it hurts the sick, it hurts our young families, it hurts students, it hurts investment, it hurts small business and, of course, it hurts all British Columbians. In the long term, even current government special interest groups and their backroom friends will also suffer.

Irresponsible financial management is not acceptable in the 1990s. Government financial results must be timely, accountable and responsible to the residents of our province. Runaway debt is and will be the silent killer of all programs in our great province, especially health care and education.

Leadership has responsibility: namely, to establish measurable programs, accountability, integrity and, above all, the truth. These are the fundamentals that Rick Thorpe thought and knew were missing from the government of the day. The issue was the decision whether to block it out of my mind or to enter the race and try to fix it. I chose to run. On May 28, 1995, I won the nomination for the B.C. Liberal Party for Okanagan-Penticton. One year to the day, on May 28, 1996, the voters of Okanagan-Penticton asked me to represent them in Victoria. I believe they have asked me to help fix government, to make it effective, to work for all British Columbians, to maximize individual potential and to minimize government's involvement in their lives.

Our riding is comprised of the communities of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata, Penticton and surrounding areas. We have a strong history of hard-working people who work in orchards, vineyards, logging, light manufacturing, wineries and tourism, and a cross-section of highly skilled professionals. In addition, our community has many pensioners and retirees who have worked very hard to build our province and country. We have a responsibility to these individuals who have trusted us to build on what they have given us, not destroy it.

[10:15]

The riding of Okanagan-Penticton is also blessed with a wide cross-section of children and young adults who are studying and working very hard so that they too can have a good life and hopefully build and have futures, as we have had the opportunity to do so. I personally have been very fortunate in my life; I have worked very hard and been blessed with a wonderful family.

As I campaigned, the people of Okanagan-Penticton told me what they wanted in a representative: (1) jobs for everyone, not just friends and insiders; (2) education that truly puts the student as a number one priority; (3) health care that looks after all of the patients and the ill people of British Columbia; (4) a business environment that allows small business to develop rather than be preoccupied with unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles; (5) affordable housing, which we all enjoyed as young people, although young people today do not have the same opportunities that we had; (6) to assist those truly in need of our help and assistance; (7) honesty; (8) restoring integrity to politics and politicians; and (9) the truth. I am committed to achieving these results. I challenge the government members to work in true and sincere partnership with all members of this House.

[ Page 224 ]

Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, British Columbians were told: "British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions." Later in the same throne speech, we hear: "My government has listened.... But they also expect them to work together for the common good of this province. And my government is committed to helping to make that happen." On the assumption that the government is not about to break more promises, I challenge this government to turn their ongoing political rhetoric into meaningful, timely and workable action plans. Further, I challenge our supposedly results-driven Premier to lead by real example. His government and ministers have created more cynicism in voters than ever before. Are they really listening to the voices of the voters and all British Columbians or just to their own spin doctors? The people of British Columbia are tired of the talk. They want politicians who really walk the talk. People deserve results that are affordable, fair and equitable for all British Columbians.

Let's just look at what has happened in the past few weeks: promises broken; a payment missed on their own debt management plan -- $500 million; capital projects promised in an election cancelled, frozen, delayed -- $250 million; a promise in their last budget to institute savings of over $400 million, which ended up as an $11 million overrun -- a $411 million broken promise. B.C. Benefits: is it on? Is it off? At best, this government has misled and continues to mislead the needy and those in need in this province. Then, of course, we come to the two balanced budgets in a row, which after the election we find to be another untruth.

We wonder why the people of British Columbia are cynical. Our Premier says it's the media's fault.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: This government has the gall to say: "You spoke, we listened." This House deserves the truth. British Columbians deserve and demand that the truth be spoken to them. Over this past weekend I had more people in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton than ever before question the integrity of government. This government is not listening. In fact, they are ignoring British Columbians who are calling for accountable government.

The budget presented to this House will not be a balanced budget as promised. In fact, that election promise will also be broken. The facts are the facts. Very shortly, British Columbians will know that this 1996-97 budget will be the fifth budget in a row that shows a deficit, mounting debt -- the silent killer -- and eventually a financial crisis. The debt will in time destroy our treasured health care system. The debt will cripple our education programs and impose pain on those truly in need. All the while, this government continues to reward their friends, insiders and special interest supporters.

The annual interest costs are now projected to be slightly over $1 billion. Since 1992 this has increased over $200 million because of mismanagement. I ask: how many school portables could have been replaced? Or perhaps they could have just kept their promise. How many schools could we have built in British Columbia? How many more teachers could we have hired to educate our children? How many long term care beds could have been created in British Columbia with this $200 million, and how many new nurses could have been hired to look after our aging population? Or how many new police officers could we have hired to protect our communities?

When will British Columbians know the truth? When will we get timely, meaningful financial results? This government is out of control, and I am very concerned that we will soon face a financial crisis.

This proposed 1996-97 budget is not in the best interests of British Columbians. Taxes remain far too high. Investors in small business remain penalized. Job creation for our youth is not happening, and it will not happen under this NDP government. Job quotas in the forest industry sector will only create more rules and regulations and bureaucracy. This does not create jobs; it kills them.

As more and more details of the '96-97 budget are made public, British Columbians will surely conclude that this government is fiscally irresponsible, is not capable of managing taxpayers' finances and, in fact, is leading us on the road to a financial crisis. Because of this, I must and I will vote against the 1996-97 budget.

In closing, I would like to express my sincere thanks to each of the 700 volunteers from throughout my riding who worked on my election and to all of those who gave me their vote and the honour of representing them here in Victoria. I will do my very best to discharge with honour that responsibility, and I will represent each and every person from Okanagan-Penticton. Let me say to all of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton that Rick Thorpe is committed to protecting and enhancing health care and education by making patients and students the priority. I will work tirelessly to stimulate small business and job creation, and to care for those truly in need. We must all work with a 100 percent commitment to restoring integrity, truth and accountability to government. That is my commitment to this House, to its members and to each one of the residents of the riding of Okanagan-Penticton.

G. Farrell-Collins: I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the Speaker's gallery today we have an esteemed guest, a former member of this Legislature and, more importantly, a former leader in this House of the B.C. Liberal Party and now an esteemed member of the fifth estate. Would the House, and particularly the new members who may not have met him before, please help me in welcoming Gordon Gibson.

D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: Visiting Victoria today are two members of my constituency of North Vancouver-Seymour: Mrs. Carol Cram and her daughter Julia Simpson. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca, may I just offer a cautionary note to members. I noticed that the last speaker managed to mention his own name -- a proper name -- on three different occasions. I was reluctant to interrupt, but I would remind all members of the convention here. The convention is to leave one's own name at the door and use only one's constituency.

So, having said that, the member for Prince George-Omineca on the budget.

[ Page 225 ]

P. Nettleton: I almost said, "Thank you, Your Honour," but I'll try and make the adjustment here. In any case, hon. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, my first opportunity to address this assembly as a newly elected representative of the riding of Prince George-Omineca.

I would like to extend my congratulations to you, sir, on your appointment to this honoured position as Speaker of the House. You may not recall, but I was a student some years ago when you were a professor at Malaspina College. You certainly have contributed over the years in a significant way to your constituency and to your province, sir. It's with some interest that I find myself here today before you.

I would also like to acknowledge at this time, if I may, my predecessor, Len Fox, who most of you here are familiar with. He was -- and is -- highly respected in my riding of Prince George-Omineca. He was found to be a representative who would respond in a timely and meaningful fashion to his constituents' concerns. While Mr. Fox, for those of you who know him, is a man of modest stature in a physical sense, in many respects his shoes are indeed large shoes to fill.

I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my opposing candidates during the course of the past campaign, particularly the campaign of Chuck Fraser of the NDP. The close result is a testimony to his dedication and to the hard work of his campaign team. My wife, Elite, and I extend to Chuck, his wife and family our sincere best wishes.

I would like to congratulate all members on both sides of this House for their success. There are men and women of character and conscience on both sides of this House who have sacrificed for and contributed to their communities and to this province, and they continue to do so.

[10:30]

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of my family to my success. My father, with the support of my mother, laboured for many years as a minister in the Peace River region, meeting the social and spiritual needs, particularly, of the disadvantaged. This certainly established an example for me very early in life, and it has impacted my values to this day.

I must also take the time to thank my wife, Elite, who unfortunately is not here today. Sensing the demands that it would make on our family, she was initially very reluctant to allow me to make the commitments of time and energy that this job requires. Since then, however, Elite has been my greatest help and shares wholeheartedly the desire to contribute enthusiastically to the constituents of Prince George-Omineca.

I must also take the time to say that I am grateful to the voters in Prince George-Omineca for the trust they have demonstrated in me and in the Liberal Party; they have elected me to represent their interests and the interests of their various communities here in Victoria. I thank them, and I'm honoured to serve them.

The riding of Prince George-Omineca is rather large geographically. It includes, as the name suggests, a significant portion of the city of Prince George. Prince George is indeed at the heart of northern British Columbia.

The lifeblood of this constituency is forestry. The health of the forest industry not only impacts northern British Columbia but is critical to the economic strength of the province as a whole. The forest industry and the people it employs look to this government for policies that demonstrate fairness and certainty. In the past the north has been systematically robbed. Forest revenues have flowed southward, leaving the north with little but promises of some future benefit. Changes should include a portion of forest renewal money allocated to local projects -- money that cannot be used for such projects regionally.

The first priority should be to upgrade and maintain all public facilities that support the forest industry, including highways. The second is regional development grants to finance startup costs for value-added industries that might process forest products into finished products, or for any other promising industry. The third is that the natural resource community fund, maintained as insurance against a disaster affecting the local economic base, should be retained. I think a much larger portion should be set aside in the fund and that the cap should be removed. The fund should be held in trust for the communities, with local trustees, and managed to generate income that may be used at the discretion of the trustees for local community development.

Prince George is also a centre of ethnic and cultural diversity, contributing to the rich mosaic of northern British Columbia. These are people committed to working together to ensure that the quality of life is enhanced in a number of areas. One area in which this is very evident is the recent construction of the University of Northern British Columbia. This is a first-rate university in every sense, and its impact is felt throughout the north.

I presently live in picturesque Fort St. James, set on magnificent Stewart Lake. Fort St. James, Fort George and Fort Fraser were established by Simon Fraser, with Fort St. James acting as what was then New Caledonia. A splendid provincial museum in Fort St. James provides visitors today with an authentic journey back in time. Vanderhoof is another vibrant community within Prince George-Omineca, where the economic base is found primarily in agriculture and forestry. The people of this community -- that is, Vanderhoof -- are known to be hard-working, caring and generous people. Fraser Lake is another incorporated community within the Prince George-Omineca riding where there is tremendous potential for investment and growth under the capable leadership of local government.

In my previous life as a legal aid lawyer I travelled extensively throughout what is now my constituency, including many first nations communities: Tache, Takla Landing, Middle River, Yakooche, Necausley, Stony Creek and Fort Fraser. I found the people in these remote communities to be warm, open and willing to share their experience. I have many good friends throughout these various communities.

On the doorsteps of my constituency during the past campaign I discovered that an issue that is foremost in the minds and hearts of people is integrity in government. In the recent past the party presently forming government was very quick to hold the Socreds' feet to the fire over their indiscretions. This is the same party that subsequently stole from charity in the bingo scandal and allowed party insiders to use their position of power for personal profit in Hydrogate. The individuals involved in these and other scandals -- those who have broken trust with British Columbians throughout this province -- could be forgiven if they had asked. The only time anyone in this party has resigned or admitted any wrongdoing has been when the evidence was public and overwhelming: yes, they had actual knowledge of what was going on. This approach has done little to restore fairness, honesty and integrity in government, or to restore confidence in politicians as a whole.

[ Page 226 ]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

This brings me to the question of fiscal responsibility. I know that this government has tried to paint those of us presently here in opposition as mean-spirited for continuing to harp on this subject. I, for one, would like to ask this government, on behalf of my constituents: where on earth did they ever get the idea that fiscal responsibility is callous and uncaring but that the downward spiral of deficit spending is somehow compassionate? This government has been spending our tax dollars. They are also spending a good deal more than they take from us. The concept of compound interest seems to have escaped them.

Their concept of deficit spending was dreamed up by a man called Keynes. He believed in deficit spending to stimulate the economy in hard times, and that government was to use its surplus in good times to pay down the debt. Even Mr. Keynes, as the founder of deficit spending, would have cringed at the sight of this government's continued deficit spending -- good times, bad times, year after year, budget following upon budget. This is not compassionate. The reality is that more and more of our tax dollars are going to service the debt, and less and less is left for infrastructure and social programs.

Given the lack of commitment by this government to fiscal responsibility, the true economic outlook is bleak. One has to consider the effect of increased taxation on the economy. The higher the tax rate, the fewer small and medium-sized businesses and individuals there are that are willing or able to pay those taxes. Businesses fold or, in some cases, move elsewhere. People, in turn, lose their jobs and start collecting UI or welfare instead of paying taxes. The shrinking tax base means the tax rates have to go up again, and so continues the vicious cycle of NDP economics.

I believe that real compassion involves honesty and integrity in every aspect of government. This includes honesty in managing the fiscal affairs of our province.

Hon. C. Evans: I rise to speak on the budget and to congratulate members opposite on their first speeches in the Legislature.

The budget reminds me of social democracy. I can't say that I always knew what social democracy was. I want to tell you the story of my first efforts to find out what it means.

All of us grow up and learn rhetoric and history and stuff like that, but it takes some moment in your adult life before you actually understand what the words mean. In my case, probably like other people here, I was actually running for office for the first time before I gave thought to the real meaning in our lives of the words that were coming out of our mouths.

I had a friend, an older friend, who learned his politics in the thirties. He took it upon himself to try and make a young, firebrand kind of guy, who talked first and thought second, into a more thoughtful politician. His idea of how to do that was to drive me from town to town and try and educate me between events.

We were riding along in the dark one night on the way from Nelson to a town called Nakusp. Bob was driving his car, because that's what he liked to do. I said: "You know, Bob, I always wondered what this social democracy thing is. What does it mean?" He said: "Well, Cork, it's like this. Capitalism works pretty good. It makes money for everybody just as good as yeast makes beer. But it has a problem, just like the yeast thing, you know. I mean, you can't live without money, and you can't live without beer. The problem is that you put the yeast in the stuff, and it's making the beer, and it eats its own environment. Pretty soon the environment kills the yeast. In fact, the yeast dies. It's like that with capitalism." He said: "It works; it turns into beer; it makes money, for sure; but it destroys the very environment in which it's working. In fact, ultimately it poisons itself."

He said: "You know what, Cork? I think the lesson of my generation" -- that's his generation, older folks -- "is that socialism doesn't work all that well, either. Just like pure capitalism, it's an idea more than a functioning thing. Pure socialism makes jobs, for sure, but unlike the yeast, it doesn't make the money, and it still consumes itself."

He said that when the country was broke and the people were looking for a solution, they said: "Okay, we've got to make money, but we've got this cancer that's eating us from the inside. We have to figure out a way to create a medicine that allows that capitalism to live inside of us and generate wealth but that doesn't kill us and the land in the process." He said: "That's what social democracy is; it's the medicine." You get the capitalism and it works and it changes, just like your body grows up and it changes as you get older. The diseases change, but you never, ever get to stop taking the medicine, because if you stop taking the medicine, of course, the very disease that makes you rich will destroy your land.

Hon. Speaker, I kind of think the budget is a little bit like that. It's like medicine. The market ideology.... These guys -- the guys with the red suspenders who went to university and think that the market is an idea and not something where people actually have to live -- have captured this country. They captured the federal government, and the federal government said: "Whoa! What we used to call Canada isn't going to be Canada anymore." We used to have a deal. It was a beautiful deal. We grew up in the deal. It said that the principles of life were that when you get sick, you can get well -- that's called health care -- and when you get born, you can get educated, and when you get poor, you can get social assistance. Those were the principles that said everybody in the land will have an equal shot. And it will be a partnership: there'll be the province paying half, and there'll be the federal government paying half. Now these ideologues have captured Ottawa and have said: "Never mind our half anymore. We're cutting it loose."

[10:45]

So this year I'm out running for office and the electorate is basically saying: "I don't want to hear the rhetoric; I don't want to hear all that stuff anymore. Just tell me how you're going to run this province when the other half of the deal is gone. Tell us what you're going to do to make the thing work when $435 million of what came last year doesn't show up. What are you going to do next year when $600 million doesn't show up? What are you going to do by the end of the mandate when the whole partnership disappears and you're trying to float the ship on your own?"

The option put forward by the opposition -- because they're seized of the problem.... It's a real problem, isn't it? Like, you had a deal and the deal changes. They know there's a problem. The option put forward by the opposition seemed to be kind of what my kids would call "go with the flow." If Ottawa says we're going with the market ideology -- cut the taxes on the rich, cut the services to poor -- just go with the flow and let the market sort it out. Well, my old friend driving along in the dark, he would have said to me: "Cork, that's like letting a cancer go. It's like saying, 'It's a problem with money. We know that the capitalism disease inside of us makes money. Just let her rip. We'll sort it out some other day.' "

[ Page 227 ]

The budget says that maybe we should apply social democracy to the problem and maybe we can make it work for another generation. The budget says: "Okay, so the feds aren't going to show up with their $400 million. Let's try and constrain our expenditures where we can to protect that stuff that we used to define as Canada here in this place called B.C., where these people come from and which we all represent." Let's see if we can't constrain our spending on highways and constrain our spending in a dozen other ministries, and say to the people, one way or the other, that if the doctors don't take too much money, and the teachers don't take too much money, and everybody just sort of settles down and says, "Okay, status quo...." Can the government, through the budget, guarantee that those services that we define as Canada continue?

My same old friend, the guy who was talking to me as we were driving along in the dark.... As it came to pass, while I was out running for office on these principles, he was living in the hospital. I went to visit him and, sure enough, he didn't want to talk to me about how he felt that day or stuff like that. He said: "You know, Corky, now I'm living in the hospital, and I think you should pay attention to the wages of these people who are working in the hospital, because they've become my family and this has become my environment. I'm thinking that this is life for people of my generation now, and your job, as the politicians we educated, is to somehow guarantee that my generation continues to have the same expectations in our old age as what we built when we built this land."

The other thing about this budget that strikes me as pure social democracy is that when you have unbridled capitalism, on the federal model, it's kind of everybody for themselves -- whether or not you have a job, whether or not you compete properly. They get people standing up over there saying that government should just get out of the way, and the people will solve the problem for themselves.

Social democrats say something a little bit different. They say: "Gee, you know, it's the people's trees out there, and it's the people's salmon in the river, and it's the people's hydroelectric power out there." Social democracy says: "Yeah, for sure, you have to use those resources to make money, but what the people need most is jobs. Go make the money, but honour the social contract -- that you're using the people's land, the people's water, the people's trees and the people's fish, so you've got to give jobs to the people in exchange for their resources." That's sort of a novel idea, you know.

In terms of trees, I'll tell you a story to try to explain what I mean. My friend -- my same friend who was explaining this stuff to me -- told me a story about when he was working in the sawmill as a machinist and the IWA negotiated the first contract with the companies that involved a pension plan. He told me this story over and over. I think he told me this story for ten years before I got it. He told me how he went to convention and stood up and said to the leaders of his union: "The pension plan is wrong -- not because everybody doesn't have a right to a pension plan but because it's the people's trees, and what we should be bargaining for is a pension for everybody, with the people's resources."

Of course, we all know how history went. In the 1950s and the sixties, unions and management negotiated pension plans for people, and Bob's way never came to pass, and he never quite figured it out.

In this budget, we're saying the same thing he was saying: if you have the people's trees out there, and the companies want to use the trees to generate wealth, what they have to do is acknowledge that it's everybody's wealth and, for the first time in history, make a commitment that they take those trees and create a certain number of jobs per cubic metre, so we can all share in the wages, share in the pension plan and share in the health benefits. It's a principle. There are some folks who don't get it, but it's a principle of how to try to make capitalism work for the people, instead of just working for a few folks.

If you want to talk about something besides trees, we'll talk about fish. Fish are also the public's resource. Some would say it's God's resource; they were certainly here before we were. We in B.C. have the east coast example of what happens when you forget that, when you decide that it's like mining -- there's some ore out there; we'll go and remove the ore, process it, turn it into wealth, and that will be that. Like trees here in British Columbia, the fish belong to all the people. We've got the federal government's example. What is it that they, the market ideologues, want to do with fish? They acknowledge that there needs to be some conservation, so they say: "Oh, we have an idea. Let's take the licences that people own to go and fish, and reduce them by half, and somehow or other that will deal with the conservation question."

As the member from the Peace knows, it's the same thing we did with the forest industry, and the same guys were doing it for conservation in the 1960s. The net result, of course, will be what? It will be that we'll catch the same number of fish with half the jobs.

You have to apply the principles of social democracy to this solution. Does it make sense for the people who actually live here to go catch the same amount of fish -- and to have only half of them working? And the other half, what are they going to do -- be paid their wages to stay at home?

This government says we have to deal with the conservation issue, for sure. But the people who catch the fish and the people who issue the licences should issue those licences on a jobs basis and on a communities basis and on a technological basis, as well as on a conservation basis, so that you don't have to go to a rich man and rent the right to a job in order to go fishing next year, and so that you have the possibility of living in Port Hardy, Sointula, Prince Rupert or Queen Charlotte City and have the same shot at getting a job that you have in Vancouver.

Social democracy says it's the people's fish. We will solve the conservation problem, but the people have to have access to a job to go fishing. When you take that away, you are following that pure, market-driven ideological version of capitalism that will ultimately eat the fish as well as the community.

There's another example I want to raise here about what I am talking about that's reflected in this budget. I've been sitting here day after day listening to those folks stand up and attack the government for the management of money, and every single time that the leader gets up, one of his examples of something that we did wrong is the solution we attempted to apply to the broken system that was called the Columbia River Treaty. Pure capitalism at one time lost its head and decided to kill a river system, to make it dead in exchange for the cheap power to drive the industry that created the economy that was British Columbia. Thirty years went by, and then, as some members know, we came in here in the last mandate and attempted to apply the principles of social democracy to that problem.

We came up with a solution that resulted, in this budget, in transferring $45 million to the people of the Columbia River 

[ Page 228 ]

basin. To do what? To give it away in grants? I don't think so. To entertain the whims of politicians? I don't think so. To do what the people in this room told them to? Absolutely not! We said in law that we'd give them this money to create jobs to make up for the loss of jobs created by the flooding of the land. That means that the people of the trust will invest that money -- I think they will, I presume they will; I argue with them to do so -- and put that money on the market for business to borrow to create jobs in functioning businesses, to pay back a return on the investment and to create a legacy that never dies.

That's not pure capitalism, like the mind-set of the people who were in government when they created the treaty, and it's not pure socialism. It's not saying take the dams down and let's go back to an era that's unsustainable; it's social democracy saying that if there is profit to be made by the death of something, let's invest it in the people who are there, so they can make something else live in its place and make jobs, because the number one solution to poverty and to an economic system in trouble is jobs for all the people.

I want, though, to talk now about -- maybe it's the last thing I'll talk about; I'm running out of time here -- the question of poverty itself. One of the things that my friend, who I have been talking about here, could never understand was idleness. He actually felt sorry for rich people, because he figured it gave them no reason to get out of bed in the morning, unless they had an early tennis date.

[11:00]

He also felt angry at the failure of my generation. As I look at the rest of the people in this room, I think we're pretty much all the same generation. He figured that we had failed to deal with the question of unemployment in our economy. And -- worse than failing -- he was angry at us for giving up, for what he perceived as basically accepting it. You know, all of us come here to this chamber from jobs. He figured that our generation, even if we didn't say it in places like this, had decided in our hearts that our middle-class income, or business, or logging job, or farm, or teacher's position was really quietly dependent on 8 or 10 or 20 percent of the people staying home. In fact, he figured that we had decided we really didn't want those people in the marketplace for jobs, because it put our wages at some risk. He figured it was the biggest step backward from the commitment of social democrats 60 years ago to today -- our abandonment of the issue of unemployment.

Well, this budget, I figure, is the first attempt of people of our generation to deal with that question of poverty and jobs and unemployment in our lives. This budget says the system was broken when we allowed the system to say to the poor: "You're better off at home than getting a job. You're better off on social assistance than going to work because if you're on social assistance, we're going to give your kids health care. We're going to give you a day care subsidy. If you're lucky, we'll fix their teeth. But if you dare to go to work and compete with us in the marketplace for jobs, all that stuff in the safety net is gone. You can find a way to feed those kids on $7 an hour, sink or swim." That has been the paradigm of our generation.

Maybe the most progressive thing in this budget is that it says that, for the first time in our lives, we're going to be brave enough to try and change that. I don't pretend to know what's perfect. I don't think anybody does. If the people of our era had thought we knew what was perfect, we'd have fixed it a long time ago. But this budget says we're going to give it a shot and say to people: "If you're poor, we will give your children the rights to health care and dental care and day care. We're going to give you $103 a month for those kids, to ensure that they have a decent life while you go to work."

This budget says it's the ultimate expression of faith in the human condition and in humankind. It says the people want to go to work. The thing that's been stopping them for all these decades is that the folks who were doing just fine said: "We don't want them in the marketplace for jobs." This effort at social democracy is going to try and fix what's been broken all of our political lives. I'm hugely proud of that.

I'm going to wrap this thing up. I'm pleased to be able to stand up here and tell you those things that I believe in. I'm real glad that I had a friend who taught me these things and helped to get me here so I could say them. I'm going to go home now and bury him with the dignity that he thought every human being was worth.

Thanks a lot.

F. Randall: It's certainly a pleasure to be back here again to represent the constituents of Burnaby-Edmonds and speak in support of this budget.

This budget delivers on a major election commitment of a tax cut for families and small business. This government has listened to British Columbians, and we're acting on their priorities. Health care and education, as you're all aware, are two major priorities, and there have been increases in those budgets every year since we've been elected. We've certainly listened to British Columbians' concerns regarding the debt and the costs of government, and we're acting in that direction.

On the matter of making choices and the differences, the government has provided a tax cut for the middle class and for small business. We've had a $27 million increase for universities and colleges. There has been $6.8 billion for health care -- a 2.5 percent increase -- and that's very hard to do with cuts that are coming from Ottawa, which have been mentioned previously. It's about $435 million this year. There's been a $19 million increase for more police officers, a police homicide squad, and action against gang and youth crime. Also, our position of maintaining and supporting B.C. Rail will protect economic benefits for all British Columbians. There are 40,000 new jobs proposed for this year and 43,000 next year.

The Liberals have provided, in their program, no tax relief for the middle class; there's only a tax break for large corporations and banks. They also proposed a 5 percent cut for post-secondary education this year and a freeze for the next four years. They have also proposed higher tuition fees and fewer student spaces. The Liberal leader has stated that $6 billion is plenty for health care in British Columbia. There was a $19 million cut from the police and jails and a $17 million cut from criminal prosecutions, which would affect a number of organizations. They proposed, of course, to sell B.C. Rail and reduce the number of MLAs from the north and the interior. I still can't understand that kind of proposal. Informica, an independent economic research firm, said that the proposed Liberal plan would result in 41,000 fewer jobs over four years.

Effective Monday, July 1, the personal income tax rate is reduced one percentage point for anyone earning up to $80,000 a year, and next July 1 there will be another 1 percent reduction in personal income tax. All family taxes are frozen until the year 2000. The tax cut, along with a freeze on B.C. Hydro, ICBC and post-secondary tuition fees, will save the average B.C. family up to $500 per year.

[ Page 229 ]

Also effective Monday, July 1 -- this past week -- the income tax rate for small business is reduced by 10 percent; it drops from 10 percent to 9 percent. Eligible businesses incorporating on or after May 1, 1996, and on or before March 30, 2001, will enjoy a two-year income tax holiday.

Also, in the budget, the government is dealing with those who are considered the working poor -- people who are working for $7, $8, $9, $10, $11 an hour. By providing the family bonus, about 130,000 families who have children will be getting an extra cheque. The cost of this is $80 million in new money in the budget. Taking a family with three children, just as an example, the children will still continue to receive all the benefits provided -- such as dental, etc. -- up to $30,000 income a year. The phase-out of the benefits would be at $42,000 a year; you would in effect phase out the benefits. I think most of us are aware that all the dental benefits for kids started this April 1. It's certainly an innovative and first-in-Canada program to assist those who are receiving very low wages. That, I think, is a very good step, and I'm sure other provinces will also be looking at that.

Also, the Minister of Finance announced a six-month freeze on all new capital spending and ordered a review of government capital projects, with the very clear goal of reducing spending and the related debt. The review does not affect those projects which are under construction or to which we're legally committed. This fiscal year 258 capital projects with total expenditures of almost $1.2 billion will proceed, while projects with expenditures of $271 million will be subject to review. This is not a cancellation of projects; this is a six-month freeze to enable a review, in response to voters' concerns about debt. The review will identify those projects which can proceed in accordance with a lower capital debt level and those which need deferral, cancellation or a more cost-effective approach. These decisions will only follow completion of the review.

Remember, though, that people here, like elsewhere, have expressed concern about debt levels, and they want to see government respond to those concerns. Remember also that this review will look for more cost-effective ways of planning, financing and constructing projects so that we can maximize the number of priority projects built while responding to concerns about spending and debt.

What I find very hard and very confusing are opposition MLAs who are sort of talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. I find it very difficult when I read articles in the paper where an opposition MLA is condemning the government for reviewing these projects. I just look at the MLA for Surrey-White Rock. I was out there recently and picked up the local paper, and there was a story in the paper, with a picture of the smiling MLA, who said: "It's devastating news in Surrey, particularly for students and parents." The freeze is devastating news, etc. Then on the next page there's a paid advertisement -- by taxpayers' money, of course -- saying: "Roads, schools, hospitals and effective transit -- they're the keys to maintaining our quality of life in the Semiahmoo Peninsula." Then another paragraph farther down says: "The most important promises are on the revenue and spending side. If they're kept, those promises will force the government to do something it has been unwilling to do -- bring about a reduction in the cost and size of government. The throne speech was delivered on Tuesday, with a budget to follow. Let the games begin."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I just really have a problem when MLAs are, in effect, in this House and outside the House, saying: "Spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow," and "Spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend." They're making statements that these projects are important and have to go, and it's very confusing to me.

If I had my way, for any project in a particular constituency, the opposition leader and the MLA for that area would have to sign a request in support of that project and justify why it's necessary. I know we do that now with regard to.... We're always asked for comment on any B.C. 21 grants in our area. I take a position on whether I support it or not and put it in writing. It just seems to me that MLAs who support a school being built in their constituency should send a letter of support, saying: "This is necessary. We support this project being built, even if it means borrowing money to build this school project." It's also worth noting that this government has spent $1.7 billion on new schools since we were elected the last time. There's just a horrendous demand. Of course, you have to borrow to build a lot of these facilities, whether it's courthouses or jails or schools. The population, as we're all aware, is growing very rapidly here. People are still screaming about kids in portables, regardless of what has been built.

[11:15]

So I really think that if there is a real need in a constituency for a project, the local MLA should be submitting his support for that project -- it makes it much clearer in my mind where they stand -- rather than saying we should be reducing debt and not borrowing money, etc.

Also, I have a report here that I found very interesting, and I'd like to make a few comments on it. It's a report by Robert Allen, an economist in Vancouver. I'll try to pick out some of the points I found interesting in it. Strange as it seems, the report almost.... Well, I'll just read these quotes:

"Commercial debt is issued by money-making Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro. They pay the interest and principal on this debt out of their business revenues. This debt will not become a burden on government revenue unless the commercial Crown corporations become unprofitable -- an unlikely event. For this reason, commercial debt is often ignored in analyses of provincial debt, and attention is concentrated instead on taxpayer-supported debt -- the sum of direct debt and non-commercial debt. In any event, commercial debt increased by only $0.3 billion under the NDP and is not anticipated to grow much in the future.

"When the NDP took over, total provincial debt was already substantial. It increased $8.5 billion under their regime. Leaving aside the debt of commercial Crown corporations, taxpayer-supported debt grew by $8.2 billion. A bit under half of this growth was due to the accumulation of deficits in NDP budgets, and the rest" -- which is over half -- "was due to investments in schools, roads and hospitals.

"When the NDP took office, they inherited a budgetary situation in which spending already exceeded income. The last Vander Zalm budget" -- or the last Social Credit budget -- "of 1991-92, generated a deficit of $2.4 billion. While that government had been running deficits previously, the situation was exacerbated in 1991 and 1992 by the recession, which caused tax revenues to fall and social assistance payments to rise.

"To meet this situation, the NDP chose a policy stance based on: (1) restraining the growth of government spending; (2) raising taxes on the well-to-do; and (3) counting on the growth of the economy to generate enough additional tax revenue to close the deficit.

"The public sector unions that supported the NDP did not reap big wage gains at the taxpayers' expense. Real average weekly earnings of employees in public administration, education... and hospitals fell 2.4 percent from January 1992 to December 1995. Public sector spending was controlled in that way."

The NDP accumulated $4.6 billion in additional non-commercial debt. This debt was incurred to build 79 new elementary and secondary schools, four new hospitals and the 

[ Page 230 ]

University of Northern B.C., as well as roads, jails and many other facilities. Much of this expenditure was required to offset population growth; the rest, such as the University of Northern B.C., improved services to B.C. residents.

The Liberals and the Reform Party have both criticized the NDP for increasing debt during its mandate, but if they make that criticism, they have a responsibility to propose alternatives. Were there any? Of course there were. On the left, some economists urged the NDP to spend more, tax less and accumulate more debt in order to reduce unemployment during the recession of the early 1990s. The NDP government chose not to follow that advice. On the right, there was the standard conservative prescription of less spending and/or higher taxes to balance the budget. B.C. could have followed that approach. It would have involved terminating more civil servants and lowering their wages further, reducing welfare payments even more than the NDP did, curtailing support for groups like multicultural groups and transition houses, and raising the taxes of middle-class British Columbians. This approach would also have included not building the schools and hospitals that were actually constructed. The NDP government chose not to follow that route.

It is not enough for the Liberal leader and the Reform leader to deplore the growth in debt. They were here; they knew the financial situation. Would they have raised taxes in 1991 to balance the budget? How many civil servants would they have fired? How many of those 79 schools and four new hospitals would the Liberals not have built? Would Reform have cancelled the University of Northern B.C.? If they are not prepared to endorse moves like those, then their objections to the increase in debt mean nothing.

All the parties claim that they will reduce the debt. To do that, they must run a surplus on the provincial budget and curtail non-commercial investment in schools, hospitals, etc., or sell assets and use the proceeds to pay down the debt. The NDP and Liberals have both offered financial projections that show how they will approach these choices.

Both the NDP and the Liberals propose to run surpluses into the next century, and to use the proceeds to pay down direct debt, as follows: there's a chart here that shows the New Democrats propose $1.814 billion to reduce the debt and the Liberals propose $1.468 billion. This table is remarkable, in view of the image of the leader of the Liberal Party as a deficit-cutter. Between now the end of the century, the NDP proposes to run a larger surplus and thus pay down more direct debt than do the Liberals. One ought to be skeptical about projections that run far into the future, since the economy could change in unexpected ways and derange today's forecast. For that reason the forecasts in the immediate future are the most pertinent. They tell a most unexpected story.

The NDP is proposing to run a surplus in the next fiscal year, 1996-97. What is really strange is that the Liberals are proposing to run a deficit of over half a billion dollars next year. This is either uncontrolled spending or erroneous accounting. In any event, how can the Liberal leader propose such a course and still be regarded as financially prudent? Direct debt under the NDP falls slowly, as their budget surpluses accumulate. Under the Liberal plan, direct debt rises in 1997 because of the large proposed deficit. Debt then drops by $2.2 billion in 1998; $1.2 billion of this is due to their proposed spending reductions. The remaining $1 billion is anticipated revenue from the sale of B.C. Rail and B.C. Systems Corporation. Of course, one can debate whether or not B.C. Rail should be owned by the province or owned privately.

In any event, the billion-dollar debt reduction is an illusory economy, since it is matched by the loss of an asset. You can always eliminate your mortgage by selling your house, but that doesn't necessarily put you any further ahead. For the same reason, we cannot regard the reduction in debt from the sale of B.C. Rail as pure gain. If this item is set aside, it is remarkable that there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP plans in the proposed rundown of the provincial direct debt. That is a surprise, I think, to all of us.

There is also little difference between the Liberal and NDP plans with respect to non-commercial debt. Both parties proposed to increase this item by essentially identical amounts. Since there is little difference in the components, there is little difference in the totals. Both the Liberals and NDP proposed to keep the level of taxpayer-supported debt constant. If we keep a level playing field by adding back to the Liberal debt total the billion dollars they hope to get from selling B.C. Rail, then the Liberals.... The higher level of debt is $22.1 billion in the year 2000. The principal conclusion is that there is no important difference in the proposed evolution of debt between the NDP and the Liberal plans.

The Liberal leader has been promoting himself as the man with the plan who can slay the silent killer: the provincial debt. It was always unclear how he, or anyone, could raise spending, cut taxes and pay off the debt all at the same time. His taxpayers' plan shows that he has abandoned the objective of debt reduction. He does, indeed, propose spending cuts. Whether they will work or not is another matter, but the proceeds are all dedicated to tax reduction.

Despite the fact that he berates the Premier for the debt growth since 1991, the Liberal leader's own figures show that he has no intention of paying down the debt any more rapidly than does the NDP. The Reform leader has been saying all along that the Liberal leader's plan won't work any better than the Premier's. It looks like the leader of the Reform Party is right on in this regard.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to close by saying that B.C. is in good financial shape. We have the least indebted province in the country, and we certainly have the best credit rating in the country. I would urge all members of this Legislature to support this balanced budget.

K. Whittred: It is a privilege to speak in this House as the newly elected member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Like those who have spoken before me, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the historic position as Speaker of the House. It is one of the most important positions in our democracy and one that I have every confidence you will execute with skill and grace.

In keeping with the traditions of an inaugural speech, I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of North Vancouver-Lonsdale for the confidence they have shown in me. It is an awesome responsibility and one which I intend to honour. I would also like to express my gratitude to the many volunteers who worked so very hard on my behalf and made my campaign a success. It is my personal challenge to retain and build on that respect.

The constituency of North Vancouver-Lonsdale is situated along the waterfront, with two bridges, the Lions Gate and the Second Narrows, as its boundaries. One of the smallest ridings in the province geographically, it incorporates, for the most part, the city of North Vancouver, a portion of the 

[ Page 231 ]

district of North Vancouver and, for some totally inexplicable reason, about one block of the municipality of West Vancouver. Also within the riding are the Mission and Capilano bands of the Squamish nation. I look forward to working with the mayors and councillors of these municipalities and with the chiefs of the Squamish nation on the many issues of mutual concern.

North Vancouver-Lonsdale is a microcosm of the economy of the province. Within walking distance of my home, lumber, coal, potash, wood chips, sulphur and grain are loaded to be shipped around the globe. North Vancouver-Lonsdale incorporates such a large segment of the port of Vancouver that it alone rivals many North American ports. Lonsdale Quay is the gateway for tourists to the myriad of North Shore attractions, visited by thousands of tourists each year. Cates Tugs, one of the oldest tugboat operations in the port, is a regular feature at the waterfront. North Shore Studios is home to a rapidly growing film industry and is one of the fastest-growing employers in the community.

Shipbuilding is a historic industry. Sadly, it is no longer a major employer. I was disappointed that the government broke its promise and froze construction of the second and third fast ferries, jeopardizing many jobs on the North Vancouver waterfront.

[11:30]

North Vancouver-Lonsdale is the heart of economic activity on the North Shore. The Marine Drive and Lonsdale corridors display a range of small businesses and industries that include everything from manufacturing to service to high-tech industries, such as Ballard Battery Systems. It is home to Lions Gate Hospital and nearly all the community, professional and cultural services that serve the larger community of North Vancouver.

It is a closely knit and historic community. Its history is reflected in its street names: Mahon and Fell, Jones and Heywood. Lower Lonsdale, also known as Moodyville, is rapidly becoming one of the lower mainland's major tourist destinations. The cohesiveness of the community is reflected in its many institutions: the North Shore Winter Club, Big Red, Mahon Days, Carson Eagles, Sutherland Sabres, Clam Chowder Cook-off, Flicka Gym Club, Hose and Reel Festival, and North Vancouver Youth Band. It is home to the Centennial Theatre Centre and Presentation House Arts Centre, and enjoys some of the finest community recreation facilities available.

The citizens of North Vancouver-Lonsdale represent a full range of the mosaic that is Canada. In recent years our culture has been enriched by many new Canadians, particularly from west Asia. Nowhere is this more evident than on Lonsdale Avenue, which has become as cosmopolitan a street as you will find anywhere on the lower mainland.

Now I would like to address some of the concerns of my constituents. The status of the Lions Gate Bridge is of paramount concern to nearly every citizen in North Vancouver, not only in my riding but in the ridings of my colleagues for North Vancouver-Seymour, West Vancouver-Capilano and West Vancouver-Garibaldi. The Lions Gate Bridge is a structure that is more than a means of transportation; it is a historic landmark not only for the Vancouver region but indeed for the entire province. Built during the Great Depression, it bridges the sea to the mountains -- the two most visible aspects of our magnificent landscape. It is part of the skyscape associated with greater Vancouver, just as the Golden Gate Bridge is associated with San Francisco.

The Lions Gate Bridge serves not only as a transportation route for residents of the North Shore, but as an important corridor for tourists -- our number one industry. Indeed, it stands as a tourist attraction on its own. But sadly, the Lions Gate, built more than 60 years ago, is no longer adequate. Not only is it no longer adequate, it is so badly in need of repair that some suggest it is no longer safe.

The status of the bridge has been studied to death. The previous government delayed and delayed the presentation of a final proposal to either replace or repair the bridge. You can imagine the betrayal felt by the residents of North Vancouver, to learn that the budget has put a freeze again on this project -- another broken promise and more delay.

Meanwhile, the bridge deteriorates even more. Costs to maintain it increase, and as time goes on it will probably cost even more to replace. It has to be dealt with; the present bridge will not last forever. I, along with my colleagues of the North Shore caucus, hope that at the very least the Minister of Highways will release forthwith the proposal for dealing with the crossing at First Narrows, and I urge the government to get on with this project.

Over and over in his budget, the hon. Minister of Finance spoke of his government's priority to protect education. In my riding, education is not being protected; it is being eroded. Its very foundations have been kicked from under it by a government that talks at length about protecting education.

Several months ago the then Education minister, now the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, fired the North Vancouver school board. He fired the board in spite of repeated requests from the board for help. To fire an elected board is a draconian measure. To deprive the citizens of North Vancouver of their democratic right to an elected board is outrageous. And what was accomplished? Is education in North Vancouver better protected? Has a long-range solution to the problem been found? Did it occur to anyone that maybe North Vancouver had a legitimate problem that needed addressing? The answer to these questions is no. Nothing has been accomplished other than throwing the education of the children of North Vancouver into disarray.

The citizens of North Vancouver place a high value on education. Our schools rank among the top in the province in provincial exam results. Our music programs are envied, greatly respected and valued by parents and students. Our outdoor education program is unique; it is a program that every child who ever attended school in North Vancouver will talk about long after leaving school. These are the types of experiences that will be rehashed over and over at school reunions.

No one will argue that the North Vancouver board did not have problems; however, the appointed special trustee pointed out that the North Vancouver school district has been systematically underfunded for years. The North Vancouver school district is the second-lowest-funded district in the province. Why is it that if you live in North Vancouver on the east side of the Capilano River, the board will receive $5,228 for each child it educates, while if you live on the west side of the Capilano River, the board will receive $81 more? If you're lucky enough to live across Burrard Inlet, in the district where I have spent my career working, the board would receive $125 more. If you were even luckier and lived a little farther south, across the Fraser in Richmond, the board would receive $220 more. This makes very little sense. It does serve to point out that there are drastic inequities in the block-funding formula that need addressing.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to tell you about a little boy named Rowan. Rowan lives not far from me, and he is about 

[ Page 232 ]

to enter school this fall for the very first time. He lives a few doors from a school. When his parents went to enrol him a few weeks ago, they were told that there was no room; the class was full. I have been a teacher in the public school system for 30 years. Never in my life have I heard of a child being denied access to his neighbourhood school.

I would like to tell you about the numerous calls I have had from parents whose children cannot continue with their band or strings program because these programs have been cut. I would like to be able to say that I believe this government when it says that education is a number one priority. However, from where I sit in North Vancouver, I cannot say that. I cannot think of a faster way to erode confidence in public education than to deny a child access to his neighbourhood school. I cannot think of a faster way to erode confidence in public education than to deny a child who is partway through an instrument or strings program than to say, "You can't finish this," and simply eliminate the program. From where I sit, it would appear that the education of the children of North Vancouver is well down the list of government priorities. It is yet another betrayal to the citizens of North Vancouver, another broken promise.

I would like to conclude my remarks by addressing the theme of integrity in government. I believe that every member of this House, regardless of party, comes to this House with the belief that integrity is important and is to be valued. Unhappily, to the citizens we represent, all the talk about integrity and truth in government appears to be just that: talk and more talk. Nothing has reinforced this perception more than the rhetoric surrounding the government's promise of a balanced budget that turned out not to be balanced at all.

For all of my working life, it has been my privilege to teach senior high school students about their history and government. In recent years I have noted an alarming change in the attitude of my students about their government. For the most part, our young people regard politicians and, by association, their government as essentially immoral and irrelevant. Concern about this perception among our young people was one of the principal motivations for me to run for public office. Addressing it remains a primary challenge.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with all members in the House and to an active exchange of ideas. I look forward to representing the constituents of North Vancouver-Lonsdale with all the energy that I possess.

B. Barisoff: As the newest member to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Boundary, I consider it an honour and a privilege to speak to you today. I would like to share with you information about the riding and some of the specific issues and challenges facing our corner of the province.

The role of MLA for Okanagan-Boundary is a challenging one for many reasons, some of which I will explain. I ran for office because I really felt that I wanted to make a difference and that I could represent all fairly, regardless of their political persuasion. The whole experience has been very exciting, along with a number of very tense moments. Just the process of being elected, which has taken weeks longer due to a judicial recount, resulted in a roller coaster of feelings. I want to assure you that I will never take this position, or the voter, for granted. My predecessor, Bill Barlee, was well-liked and appreciated for his efforts with tourism and heritage. This was also apparent by a very close race. The lesson to be learned, of course, is that every single vote counts.

Let me first tell you a little about what makes the riding so interesting and challenging. The geography of Okanagan-Boundary spreads from the outskirts of Penticton to the north, south to the town of Osoyoos and our American border, west to Keremeos and Hedley, and east to Grand Forks and Christina Lake, which we call the Boundary country. This means a driving time of over four hours from one end of the riding to the other. It also means travelling through at least 15 different communities. As a result, it means communicating with a number of municipal and regional governments, five school districts, and a point of view that ranges from one end of the political spectrum to the other.

[11:45]

There is quite a diversity in economy and local industries. We vary from ranching, mining, forestry and logging in the Boundary country to a growing agriculture and tourism industry in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys. We also are a prime retirement destination in the province, so we have a per capita senior population that rivals Victoria. As a result, the demands for senior-related housing and health services are very high. All of these dimensions create their own unique set of challenges. The demand for an MLA can be overwhelming, as the needs of the various communities are very diverse.

During the past few months, I have travelled throughout the riding. I have discovered some important facts. Generally, many of the concerns are the same, regardless of political belief. Voters and taxpayers feel they have reached the wall in areas of taxation, red tape and government; they really do want to see a smaller, more efficient government. They are also concerned about maintaining health care and education standards, and even about improving delivery of these services in some areas.

There is almost a sense of panic about meeting educational and technological requirements for future job markets as we approach the twenty-first century. The small business sector is feeling discouraged by economic trends: the trend toward megabusiness, takeovers and the level of taxation and regulation. There is a universal opinion that all levels of government need to be fiscally responsible. In fact, I have seen ratepayers' associations gathering momentum and even gathering petitions to stop any further tax increases.

It has become increasingly clear that the taxpayer is more cynical, more volatile and maybe even less forgiving of their elected representatives. They are tired of lip service. The issue of integrity and honesty in government has become very real.

For far too long politicians and governments have succeeded in passing the buck. It has been too easy to pass the blame on to the last government or political party in power. Sooner or later, accountability comes to rest at our doorstep. We didn't arrive at this point in time without many governments assuming collective responsibility, for both the good and the bad. It is my belief that the time has come when government has to demonstrate leadership, integrity and political courage in resolving the challenges of the nineties and beyond.

I would like to be specific about a few local examples and issues in my own riding which I hope will reflect similar concerns elsewhere in the province. If I can give you a small view through my window, hopefully all can benefit from the experience. I would like to make a few short comments about some of the areas I have just mentioned. In the interests of time, my remarks will be brief and to the point.

Let's talk about education in Okanagan-Boundary and one example of a budget impact. Due to the budget shortfall 

[ Page 233 ]

and deficit, the new Osoyoos Elementary School construction has been put on hold. It's interesting, though, that the recent agreement with the BCTF and the resulting wage increase has cost $23 million -- $23 million that is not available for capital costs or for maintenance of special education programs, something that would directly benefit the student.

Having been involved with school boards for 18 years, I have some experience in this area. In my opinion, rural B.C. would take the brunt of the funding formula change which was supposed to equalize education throughout the province. In fact, special needs students in rural areas will be the hardest hit. With the current budget situation, it's clear that we will have students in portables for some time. This government needs to re-examine its priorities, examining the needs of the student first. Hopefully, the politically motivated decision to freeze tuition fees will not result in a greater increase at the end of the freeze, just because a short-term goal of re-election was in sight. It takes some political courage to do the right thing, keeping longer terms and goals in mind. The future of education in B.C. depends on the re-examination of priorities and a hard look from the top down.

Has health been affected in the Okanagan? First, let's take a quick look at New Directions, which has become commonly known as "no directions." This is another example of a solution of one size fits all. This is just not working. While the concept of regionalization may be good, it isn't good if more layers of the same old thing are created under a different name. How do you change the structure if you're dealing with some foundations? Hospital boards and ministry programs have done little to help the cause. In fact, they are resisting it. Deadlines have come and gone. Community councils, which have put in uncounted hours of volunteer time, still do not have the authority of funding granted. They are without power or authority to do the job they were asked to do. A local newspaper editor and health council volunteer recently wrote an open letter to the hon. minister, Joy MacPhail, in charge of health and confusion. I quote some statements from that letter:

"What astonished me most about the past three years of New Directions reform or regionalization is the total absence of substantive change. As an unpaid volunteer, I have devoted a significant portion of the past three years waiting for the ministry to move on whatever was to be the next step. In spite of brave talk about client-focused health care, our system remains stoutly job-focused."

Also in the area of health, there is a multilevel-care facility proposed for the community of Keremeos. This facility is badly needed, but even more importantly, it appears to have been a political football for almost ten years -- always promised and never delivered.

Please allow me to read a few quotes from the Keremeos Gazette and local papers of these past few months. Here is an editorial from April, prior to our most recent election: "On Saturday our MLA, Bill Barlee, attended the annual volunteers' recognition luncheon and announced that the provincial government had approved its share of $560,000 in planning funds for a new multilevel-care facility in Keremeos." The local community had originally proposed a facility at a cost of $7 million. Later the NDP Ministry of Health personnel revised the plans in conjunction with the local community, and over a number of years the proposed cost ended up at $14 million. These proposals had been turned down by Treasury Board. Former MLA Bill Barlee encouraged a revision closer to the revised proposal of $7 million, which was done.

This pre-election announcement caused concern that the election might once again change the outcome. I refer to the same editorial once again:

"Barlee assured the Gazette that the planning funding was secure and would not be affected by the results of the upcoming election. However, Barlee stated that should the NDP not be re-elected, he could not assure the people of the valley that actual construction would follow the planning phase. He also stated that should the NDP be re-elected, construction is scheduled to start in the '97-98 fiscal year, but depending on budget constraints, it might not start until the '98-99 fiscal year, a time frame he is prepared to guarantee."

Several such newspaper articles in my office or on file confirm this. This government pulls back on its promise once again. Shame on them! I understand that funding for the planning has been withdrawn.

My point here is that the government is risking its integrity and credibility by continuing to deny Keremeos this care facility. The economic reality isn't relevant when promises have clearly been made, and when hopes and expectations have been raised only to be dashed once again. These are real people with real needs, in a community that is becoming increasingly cynical about the integrity and honesty of government. I believe that this government needs to do all it can to address this need. I am here to act upon their request and the promise made by the former MLA of this government.

In the area of fruit farming and the agricultural land reserve, we continue to hear concerns from farmers about rising costs and inequities. Generally, I believe there is support for the preservation of the agricultural land base; however, there's some frustration expressed about the viability of farming with the rising costs and regulations.

At the last fruit growers' meeting, the Minister of Agriculture promised to review the right-to-farm legislation in its draft form and to review any constructive improvements that might be suggested for the ALR. I think it's logical that after 25 years of existence, the ALR zoning should be reviewed and regional input requested. It's necessary that British Columbians be consulted and be heard. While they may not get all they wish for, they need to be part of a democratic process and not more of a bureaucratic process.

I might add that the agriculture industry in the Okanagan does appreciate those programs which have continued to be supportive of this vital industry in our province.

In the field of mining, I would like to encourage the minister responsible to seriously examine this area. There was incredible disappointment and frustration expressed about the dissolution of this ministry. Groups of local miners, prospectors and suppliers have been organizing and meeting throughout the Okanagan-Boundary-Shuswap area for these past months. They've attracted hundreds of members, and they're also very alarmed about mining and its future in our province.

Some small miners and prospectors are frustrated and angry about regulation and multiple levels of bureaucracy. They're working to increase public awareness for their plight. They have cited examples of local prospectors and miners who cannot explore their claims due to impossible and unrealistic restrictions, long permit approval times and unaffordable costs. In one instance, a local prospector had to meet a requirement of building and closing a 60-foot access road to the claim. It became impossible to meet the requirement.

In some cases it is completely unnecessary and unreasonable. Environmental concerns have merit, but should they exclude all other considerations without including a balanced and scientific working solution? The land area in B.C. cur-

[ Page 234 ]

rently committed to mining activity and its related job and resource returns is far more profitable and of less environmental concern in some areas than the number of miles of highway and pavement used by our urban sprawl and related development. I believe that the important word here is balance.

I will continue in the coming months to bring these concerns to the minister's attention in order that the ordinary working people in Okanagan-Boundary are not overlooked. While there have been improvements in forestry and logging, these are some areas which are carrying overregulation without consultation, and the process is too lengthy or costly. There is already a negative fallout from the Forest Practices Code, and the comment from the industry in our area is that changes will have to be made if the forest industry is going to survive.

Today we are dealing with a budget that is going to affect all these areas. What is absolutely surprising and unbelievable is that this government had no idea two months ago, in the heat of promises in the election, that it would have a $235 million deficit. In the stroke of a pencil, the promises have evaporated and the cold, hard reality has set in. This government has made challenges, not the least of which are putting its financial house in order, restoring some shred of integrity and credibility, and working hard to find solutions to the problems facing all of us.

I believe that each of us is here to assist in finding these solutions. I believe that we are here to listen, to consult and to offer constructive answers to whatever problems we face. There is far more that holds us together than separates us. Regardless of our cultural, religious or political differences, I am sure that the basic needs of every person, family or industry in my riding are very similar to those in every riding throughout British Columbia.

In closing, I would like to say that I am excited to be part of the government of British Columbia, which I hope recognizes the importance of teamwork and the need to work together to form a common goal. The belief that we live in the greatest province in Canada is shared by all of us. I believe that our collective responsibility and potential is to keep it that way and to show leadership by example. It is my solemn commitment to you, hon. Speaker, to the members of this House and to every resident of Okanagan-Boundary and of British Columbia that I will do my best to honestly and fairly represent those who I serve. Together we can maintain, improve and even build on a greater heritage for our communities and our province.

B. Barisoff moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Hammell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

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