The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: We have with us in the gallery today a group of 20 political science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, along with their professors, Donald Balmer and Mervyn Brockett. They have come here today to learn a little more about how our political system works, and I'm happy to say that this morning I gave them a perfectly objective presentation about the government's accomplishments. This afternoon I'm sure they are expecting the same from the official opposition and the third party. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

B. Penner: It is indeed my pleasure to introduce to the House my parents Wilf and Frieda Penner, who took the day off from their apple farm in Chilliwack to be here today. In addition, joining my parents are some other relatives of mine. A number of cousins are present, Michael, Nathaniel and Matthew, as well as my uncle Harry Kroeker and his wife Heather Kroeker. They are visiting here today from the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today the father of my ministerial assistant, John Wilson. He's another John Wilson, and this one's from Kelowna. He is in the members' gallery visiting us today, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

A. Sanders: It's my privilege to introduce to the House Cindy Bourne. She is my constituency assistant in Vernon and a very fine person. Would we please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to introduce to the House Maria Bucar and Rob Ferrier. Rob is my nephew from Prince George, although he's now residing in Victoria. Also in the gallery is Lawrence Pilon from MacMillan Bloedel, who is here as a guest of members of my office staff. Please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting Victoria today from Bulkley Valley-Stikine is Jamie Sterritt from Hazelton. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, we had all hoped that we would have learned lasting lessons from the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. Events of the last week have suggested that we may not have learned enough.

Matthew's mother repeatedly rejected requests for access to her home. When they finally did get into her home, they found a place that they called unfit for human habitation. Now, in the Flanders case, we have a similar circumstance. Again, ministry workers were denied access. Again, when we finally did get access to the home, we found a place that was, I think, in the minds of all members of this House, unfit for human habitation: used syringes, bottles of pills, rotting food, garbage -- certainly not a place that any of us would want any young British Columbian to be brought up in.

Can the minister tell the House: why, when a ministry worker is denied access, are there not immediate suspicions raised? And why does it not generate an immediate response from the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to actually rise for the first time as the Minister for Children and Families. I would have chosen to rise on a happier issue had I had that choice.

I think it's important to acknowledge -- all of us, I think -- that nobody would want any child to go through the kind of tragedy that this little boy has. As people know, I have ordered a review of the circumstances surrounding this. It's important to note that with this particular family, this little boy had been apprehended and had been returned to mom under a court order with mandatory conditions of supervision, which included ten weeks of alcohol and drug counselling, which she successfully completed; family or parent classes, which she successfully completed; and drop-in counselling and visiting with social workers, all of which she successfully completed.

The supervision order therefore was not continued, because she had met all of those conditions. Since December 12, when the supervision order finished, she has visited every single day at a neighbourhood house, where she has seen homemakers who provide respite care for her child, and social workers and workers at the neighbourhood house, none of whom raised any conditions around child protection with us.

However, just to be very sure, I still want us to look back and see if there is anything -- anything, hon. Speaker -- that could have been done by this ministry, by the community, by the police, by the neighbourhood, by anyone to prevent this tragedy -- which is what all of us would want.

G. Campbell: I understand the minister's concern with regard to this, and I appreciate her response. But I am still perplexed as to how a child can go from requiring intensive supervision, or a situation can require intensive supervision. . .one where the woman is going every single day, and suddenly for six days she's not there and no one notices. I think that is cause for concern for all of us. I think, when you see the home that that young person was brought up in, that is a huge concern for all of us.

Again I ask the minister: how do you go from being a child who is apprehended, to requiring intensive support and intensive care from ministry officials, to being virtually unsupervised, in the space of a month?

Hon. P. Priddy: Clearly those are the issues that the review will look at. But I did say and will just note again that it had been a very significant supervision order. The mother had met all the criteria of that. People were seeing this mom and child every day until about three or four days before her death. In point of fact, her family and the people who were working with her were very shocked at what happened, had no idea that this could happen to her, were very pleased with her progress and were pleased with the services she had accessed.

This is clearly a horrible tragedy, and we will review that. We will make that public. If any members of the opposition have additional thoughts about how we should approach this -- and I mean that most sincerely -- I would really be grateful if they would come and talk with me, because we'll be pleased to include that.

G. Campbell: I have a suggestion for the minister, then. I would ask the minister to undertake that the review will be a

[ Page 2222 ]

full, impartial and independent review, because we know that the Children and Families ministry does not have a very good record with their own reviews, and I think an independent review is what's going to be essential for us to make sure that we don't make these same mistakes again.

[2:15]

To the minister: whose explanation should we believe, the minister's or the front-line social workers'?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think what I was quoted as saying was that the preliminary information I had on the weekend did not indicate that this particular tragedy was a result of high caseloads. I have never said that caseloads were not an issue.

I was actually quite saddened and disappointed to hear both the member opposite and people from the BCGEU, without any of the information around this case, assume that social workers had done something wrong -- without any of the preliminary information. I find it sort of disappointing that people would make that leap immediately and assume that a colleague had made an error without knowing any of the information around it.

M. Coell: Mavis Flanders was known to the ministry as a substance abuser. It was reported that Ms. Flanders died sometime around March 20, apparently hours or days after receiving her income assistance cheque. Can the minister tell us if there are any special procedures for monitoring the children of known substance abusers on the days after income assistance cheques are issued?

Hon. P. Priddy: There will be in certain circumstances, based on the circumstances of the family. But I would note again that this was a mother who had successfully completed a drug and alcohol counselling program. We do not yet have the results of the coroner's report. The substance abuse that the mother was known to have done is totally unrelated to what we have seen in the paper. So I do await the coroner's report to have that kind of confirmation.

If the question is, for everybody who is known to receive income assistance and have any kind of issue with alcohol or drugs, does someone see that family -- of which there are literally probably tens of thousands -- every single time they receive a cheque? the answer is no, that would be based on the circumstances of the family -- and this mom had successfully completed drug and alcohol counselling.

M. de Jong: The obvious fact is that, as successful as this lady might have been, those programs weren't successful enough. As we've heard from the minister, this lady and her son were well known to the ministry. They were receiving -- or were supposed to be receiving -- home care, apparently twice a week. Ms. Flanders was supposed to be receiving the assistance of an assigned social worker. She was supposed to be receiving counselling and support. She was supposed to be receiving all of that. She was well known to the minister and to the ministry.

Can the minister tell us, though, in spite of all that she's offered this afternoon, approximately how many times an official from the ministry actually went into the Flanders home in the month preceding this woman's death?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that I don't as yet -- and I will at the end of the review -- have the information about how often someone was in the home. I do need to remind people that the mandatory supervision was completed. I guess we could all have the debate about whether we insist we go into everyone's home, and maybe that's a debate we should have and that people would agree on.

But I do want to make the point that Ms. Flanders was supposed to be receiving counselling, respite care at the neighbourhood house from home support workers, etc. She was not "supposed to be"; she indeed was receiving those on a regular basis until very shortly before her death.

M. de Jong: We're advised, and the minister has confirmed again this afternoon, that Mavis Flanders's son was returned to her on a number of conditions. One of those conditions was that she submit to regular visits by home care workers. Apparently those home care workers did attend, but when they knocked on the door and there was no answer, apparently, they simply left, and there was, apparently, no follow-up.

Can the minister tell this House what instructions her home care workers receive when families known to the ministry are failing to comply, either purposely or inadvertently, with the terms and the conditions of the release of their child?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things again, I guess. One of them is that the services that this mom was receiving, the home support services. . . . We have to be careful when we talk about homemaker or home support. It doesn't always mean someone going into the home. This was respite care she was receiving at the neighbourhood house, where she left her child with a home support worker so she could do courses, so she could go to doctors' appointments, so she could do whatever. So that was respite care she accessed at the neighbourhood house.

The condition was not that they go to the mother's home, as I understand it at this stage. Now, the review will obviously pull out that information, but my understanding from what I've looked at so far is that she received that service at the neighbourhood house. The condition was not that they go to her home. Let me again say that she met all the conditions of her mandatory supervision.

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This government's rush toward a Las Vegas-style casino begs the question of jurisdiction on-reserve. The Nisga'a agreement-in-principle provides for shared jurisdiction over gambling on Nisga'a lands. Could the minister explain to me why on earth any native band or government would require constitutional protection and jurisdiction over gaming? Or has the minister still decided, on the lack of evidence coming out of the courts, that aboriginal rights to gaming exist in this province?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question, as I understand it, is in the context of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. That agreement-in-principle is being negotiated towards a final document. The issues that the hon. member is referring to are issues that, of course, inform those who are in the process of those negotiations.

[ Page 2223 ]

J. Weisgerber: One would have assumed the negotiators might have spoken with the minister responsible. To come and say that it's going forward for debate and for final resolution. . . . We've been out debating the elements of the Nisga'a agreement for six months. Part of that covers gaming.

Does the minister believe that the right to game and to manage gaming is an aboriginal right that exists in this province today? That's the question. Do you believe, in spite of the rulings by the courts, that the right for aboriginals to manage gaming on reserves exists today?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the value of a treaty in the modern context is that it will define such issues.

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Minister of Health. Hospital societies around the province have voted overwhelmingly against being forced into amalgamation with this NDP government, because they don't trust them. The minister's solution was to fire the volunteer hospital boards without notice and to abolish community elections. The minister is going around the province vowing better teamwork, but she has eliminated the team.

Can the Minister of Health tell us how firing community health boards and replacing them with Victoria appointees can possibly bring health care closer to home?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's unfortunate that the Health critic for the Liberals continues to fearmonger and to put in jeopardy people's confidence in our health care system. There are 15 hospital societies that have voted against amalgamation, out of 122. The vast majority of health societies have voted to amalgamate, to get on with better teamwork and better care, to take the $300 million more this year than last that they have to deliver health care services.

They're working together. They're working with continuing-care homes. They're working together with acute care hospitals, with public health officials, with mental health officials. The vast majority of health societies in this province have voted to amalgamate. They're getting on with it.

For those that refuse to move forward, that are worried about their own concerns -- which have all been answered, which are unfounded -- in their own communities, it is necessary for us to put in place a public administrator, so that we can actually get on with better teamwork, better care -- a government that's leading on this issue in Canada.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 666 constituents of mine concerned with the possible closure of Chase courthouse. The petition reads: "We the taxpayers of Chase, B.C., are losing our courthouse, and we are enraged that another of our vital services is being taken away by this government."

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present on behalf of 235 constituents of mine concerned about the erosion of Bolean Creek, near Falkland. The petition reads:

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, in Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned, residents and property owners of Falkland, in the regional district of Columbia-Shuswap, states that:

"Whereas the townsite and adjacent properties of the community of Falkland are located on the delta and floodplain at the intersection of Bolean Creek and Salmon River, and

"Whereas the banks of Bolean Creek were seriously destabilized by the severe flooding in the spring of 1996, and

"Whereas expanded logging activity in the watershed for Bolean, Chase and Silver creeks continues, increasing the rapidity and volume of runoff, and

"Whereas it is impossible to predict when the combination of rapid snow melt, heavy rain and further diversion of Bolean Creek will recur,

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House take such action as may be deemed appropriate, before April 1997, to restore Bolean Creek to its original streambed, and, for as long as necessary, to enhance the natural containment factors that will prevent further damage to property and displacement of community members.

"Dated this second day of December, 1996."

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to stand and respond to the budget speech. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to respond to what the minister rather wistfully referred to as a prudent budget. One can only think that if he were speaking at the university, he might have referred to it as a politically expedient budget, because that certainly is a far better description of what we heard read in this House last week.

Tragically, members of the government believe they are going to be rewarded -- in public opinion polls -- by continuing to mislead taxpayers about the true growth in the size of the government's spending. They think it's politically expedient to pull the wool over the eyes of international investors and bond-rating agencies. They'll never succeed. Bond-rating agencies saw through this budget in the blink of an eye -- a budget that was crafted to deliberately mislead British Columbians as to the direction this government is heading.

There's one fatal flaw in this budget, one fatal flaw in this line of thinking: it doesn't add up. The budget doesn't add up, and neither do the numbers in the budget. The budget has about as much credibility, Mr. Speaker, as O.J. Simpson. It's a fraud just waiting to be exposed, and it, too, is its own worst witness.

There's one overriding fact that makes a mockery of any pretence to fiscal responsibility. It's right here in black and white, on page 83. The total provincial debt is up another $1.4 billion, and it will soon stand -- if it doesn't today -- at $31 billion. It's incredible to know that in this same document, taxpayer-supported debt -- debt exclusive of those moneys owed by Crown corporations and other agencies of government -- now stands at $23 billion. Only six years ago, when this government took office, that figure stood at $10 billion.

[2:30]

It's important for us to realize that successive British Columbia governments -- Liberal governments, Conservative governments, coalition governments, the NDP government of the 1970s and all of those bad old Socred governments; all of them combined over a period of nearly 130 years -- built a deficit and a debt of $10 billion. Too high, too much money for British Columbians to owe, but after 125 years this province had a taxpayer-supported debt of $10 billion. It's incredible,

[ Page 2224 ]

it's alarming, it's frightening to understand that after six years, that debt is up by 130 percent. Today we owe $23 billion, which is going to be paid by taxpayers.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Oh, the members. . . . We'll hear another pathetic defence, I'm sure, from the Minister of Education, who, to his great embarrassment, announced the first round of school construction, came away from that with his tail between his legs, and has now promised schools for which the planning hasn't even started yet. That minister has a lot to answer for. His heckling in here falls just a little bit flat. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I digress.

I think back. I look at this province, a marvellously developed province, with port facilities, with rail facilities, with good public infrastructure. That wasn't built in the last six years while the government debt was increasing by 130 percent. It simply is a fact of life that that $13 billion in new tax-supported debt was, in large measure, spent on government operations: money borrowed to buy groceries, if you put it in the parlance of the household budget. Not a new home, not a renovation, not another room on the back, but most of that money was frittered away on daily operations that should have been paid out of the operating budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say "prudent" is to believe that anybody in British Columbia is gullible enough to believe that kind of rhetoric. It's sad to think that if you simply say often enough that it's prudent, it becomes prudent; to say often enough that it's balanced, somehow, regardless of what the figures say, it becomes balanced. Taxpayers know it's not prudent to raise hidden taxes. Anglers know that another broken promise was no tax increases. We've looked at a combined debt that has grown 130 percent, while other governments everywhere are controlling debt. Even the NDP government in Saskatchewan actually balances its budget.

You have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker. . . . If in fact the government states that the deficit last year was $395 million and this year will be $185 million, based on the consolidated revenue fund, I have to ask: who could I get, in a non-partisan way, to look at this budget and give me the honest goods, the true goods? My first answer would be the auditor general. So I looked to the auditor general to see what the auditor general had to say about the government's continued use of the consolidated revenue fund as its mechanism for reporting the finances of this province. Back as far as 1993-94, in his annual report, the auditor general said:

"We believe that using the information from the consolidated revenue fund in government publications could be misleading, as it does not reflect the government's total operations. For example, the government's frequent reference to the deficit taken from the consolidated revenue fund likely causes considerable misunderstanding amongst the public as to what the government deficit really is. We therefore believe that in all its financial publications, the government should communicate its fiscal position using information extracted from the summary financial statements."

Here's what the auditor general says the real deficit is, and again I refer to the budget -- page 25, for anyone who might be fortunate enough to have a copy. According to the budget itself, using the auditor general's methods of reporting debt, last year's deficit was not $395 million; it was $748 million. The deficit this year is not $185 million; it's $886 million.

The budget deficit is not going down, as the Minister of Finance likes to portray. When he can't talk about a balanced budget any longer, he says that the size of our deficit is shrinking. But that's not so, not according to the auditor general, not according to the proper way of reporting. The deficit's going up, and it's going up by $886 million this year. The real amount of overspending is almost five times higher than is claimed in the budget documents themselves, and that's just the deficit. The total debt of the province this year: up another $1.4 billion.

The government continues to try and cause enough smoke around this issue, create enough mirrors, to lead people to believe that perhaps the fiscal situation in the province is improving, if not under control, but the numbers themselves suggest exactly the opposite. When debt is falling, deficits are falling in most other jurisdictions. One has to only look across our border to the east, to our neighbouring province of Alberta -- which is only ten miles from where my home is in Dawson Creek -- and see a dramatically different picture: budgets in surplus, deficits gone and debt actually being reduced. The minister says that here it's impossible; it can't be done. But until we get debt and deficit under control, we are going to pay a very high price.

Anyone that owes money on their credit card understands what higher debt means. It means a higher interest payment to the bank. Mr. Speaker, the government's debt is no different than your credit card debt or mine. If we don't make the payments on time, if there are interest payments that accrue, they go to the bank. Isn't it marvellous that this party, this government, that is so contemptuous of banks and financial institutions, actually winds up being their biggest supporters?

I suppose, on a somewhat partisan note, it will be encouraging that in their latest convention, they allowed for contributions from corporations to the New Democratic Party. Indeed, one shouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the major financial institutions show up on that next list of contributors, because who is a better customer than these folks here? You've got the backing of three million British Columbians borrowing a nice tidy $30 billion a year. That's a very, very good customer. And this very good customer across the way has taken the direct debt up by 130 percent. When the bank's other customers are shedding debt, this very good customer over here -- the B.C. government, the New Democratic government -- is adding to the debt. Their debt's getting bigger. They're buying more from the banks, relatively, than any other government in the country. So I expect the bagmen will be knocking, and I expect disclosures will show that they won't come away empty-handed.

Looking at budget figures, interest on taxpayer-supported debt will be $1.8 billion this year. That is more than double the amount paid by the province in interest in the year 1991 -- at a time when we have all-time low interest rates. Imagine the mess we'll have, Mr. Speaker, if the trend continues in the other direction, as it is today, and we start to see interest back at 10, 11 or 12 percent. Then the rubber will hit the road; then the government is going to have to decide whether we continue the spiral of debt, albeit accelerated, or whether services then have to be cut back in a dramatic way.

[ Page 2225 ]

As one looks at those government documents, it's important to understand that the province now spends more money on interest payments to banks and other institutions than it does on children, families and seniors programs combined -- again, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, at a time of all-time low interest rates. Worse yet, this prudent budget will most likely result in the province's credit rating being downgraded and interest rates increasing to compensate. Lenders say that you're a poorer risk than you were last year or the year before, so the spread between prime and what they charge you will have to go up a bit. You'll move not into the category of the provinces enjoying the highest credit ratings but into that second group for this time, and if you carry on at the rate you're going, your credit rating will continue to deteriorate. There's no magic to this. It says either keep your promises, pay your bills on time, follow the trend of the country at reducing expenditures and paying down debt, or your credit rating will suffer as a result. No magic.

Ask the people of New Zealand. They ignored the warnings, and the people who wound up paying the most serious price were those that the government would describe as those they seek to protect. When the international community moves in, when the International Monetary Fund takes control of an economy -- which it will do if spending continues to move out of control -- they are far more heartless than any government and any party in this Legislature would ever dare to be. Therein lies the risk and the tragedy of this so-called prudent budget, which doesn't reduce government expenditures and doesn't reduce the deficit, but in fact does the opposite.

[2:45]

One has to wonder what is happening with international investors. What are they thinking about British Columbia? Moody's Investors Service Inc. has put B.C. on a credit review, and they say:

"The review is prompted by the continued difficulties confronting the current government in instituting strategies necessary to restore fiscal balance and financial flexibility. For the past two years, the province has enacted budgets which, although initially projected to be balanced, have failed to meet this target. The continuing poor financial performance reflects the lack of sufficient policies to address the deficit."

That's what the international community thinks when it looks at the shenanigans that have gone on in this province around budget, budget reporting and performance by the government at the end of the fiscal year.

In fact, the government announced with this budget -- my interpretation -- that it has given up entirely on the notion of debt reduction. It has simply said: "We abandon any pretext at trying to control or pay down the debt." Instead, we've thrown out the debt management plan, much heralded by the previous NDP government just two years ago. Gone is the commitment to maintaining B.C.'s top credit rating. Gone is the plan to reduce the debt to 18 percent of the province's wealth creation, or 18 percent of GDP. Instead, we see it moving upward to 21 percent. Gone is the commitment made only two years ago by this government on the eve of an election to eliminate the direct taxpayer-supported debt of the province. It's gone. It simply doesn't exist anymore in the financial documents of the province. Somewhere in the translation -- the printing -- between last year's budget and this year's budget, the debt management plan just disappeared. It's tragic. And that's the new, prudent fiscal management plan.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that the Finance minister is having a little fun with us as he reads off some of these documents.

This year, in a year when the government has promised no tax increases, new fees and increased fees and licences will actually add $300 million to government revenue. Instead of cutting spending, the government is breaking yet another election promise, and it's looking to gambling, looking to gaming, looking to the slot machines and looking to Las Vegas-style casinos to answer the problem.

You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that not everybody on the government side agrees with that strategy. I don't agree with it. I don't mind people going to Las Vegas. I don't mind people gaming, if they are in a position to do so. But I do disagree with putting slot machines in bars, convenience stores and corner groceries. I do disagree with people using money directed for families -- money that's been budgeted for children winding up in a slot machine in an unprepared gambling activity. If somebody wants to put out $100 or $1,000 -- or, heaven help them, if they've got it, $100,000 -- and fly to Las Vegas, knowing that they're prepared to lose it, that's one thing. Going down to the corner store for groceries and vegetables and coming home with used lottery tickets is quite another, and that's where I personally find government-sponsored gambling to be offensive.

In addition to looking to gaming to bail itself out, the government has looked to municipal government to do its dirty work. They have said to governments: "Look, there's going to be 30 percent less in transfer payments to you. We expect you to provide the same services, but we're going to give you a lot less money to do it. We're not going to increase taxes. We're going to make municipal government increase taxes." That is how that little game works, and I don't think anybody has been fooled by it.

Unconditional grants have simply been eliminated unilaterally in the face of a law that says they can't be. Government has simply said: "We're not giving you the money anymore. Albeit we have legislation that limits even reductions in those payments, we are going to eliminate them." That's not a prudent budget. It's one which is simply duplicitous, and deliberately so.

Crown corporations are being forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in extra contributions to government. Hydro doesn't have the money, but they're being forced to pay.

B.C. Ferries. You've got to be kidding! They're trying to get over this other debacle with the fast ferries. They're trying to figure out how to pay for those fast ferries, and they're hiking up ferry rates. It's not because they have excess revenues they want to contribute to government. It's kind of like Forest Renewal saying: "Gosh, government didn't ask us to give any money to government, but we just felt like we wanted to do it. We just felt this urge to give them a few hundred million dollars. I don't know what it was. It sure wasn't those government representatives who sit on our board. It was just something that we thought would be such a good idea."

I expect the Hydro board probably feels the same way. They probably just had a flash, and said: "Gosh, let's give the government a couple of hundred extra million. Gosh, they're nice fellows, and gee, they're doing it. Things are a little tough, and we're doing so well. Heck, we can just hike up hydro rates. We'll go to the Utilities Commission; they'll look after this."

[ Page 2226 ]

After today, anybody who wants to take a ferry anywhere in this province will understand precisely how the system works when they buy their ticket to get on the ferry, because the rates are up today. In part, they're up because this government is demanding more money from a corporation that many argue is a necessary part of the transportation system. The government, with all this kind of activity, still can't balance its books.

I had a little laugh when I read the summary of user fees. It's in "Budget 97 Reports" as well. On page 51, it says: "In some cases, program efficiencies can be realized by eliminating fees that are too costly to administer, streamlining fee schedules and simplifying licence-issuing and regulatory inspection processes." That suggests to me that there are some fees that government charges that are simply more expensive to collect than they're worth.

In his response to the budget, I challenge the Minister of Finance to outline for me three fees or licences that are being eliminated. I won't say one, because there actually might be one. So I'm going to put him on the hook and say that out of the four or five hundred thousand different fees, licences and regulatory collections, I'd like him to find three that will actually be eliminated, consistent with the budget. If he does, I will take comfort in knowing that for at least two groups of people, I was successful in getting the minister to drop a couple of fees.

An Hon. Member: Retroactively.

J. Weisgerber: Retroactively.

Does anyone really believe the government is going to drop fees and licences? I don't think so. This little section on page 51 says: "Wherever possible and practical, user groups are consulted and notified about changes. . .prior to the introduction of changes." I wonder if the folks getting on the ferry today wonder if they were away when the consultations were made. Did they miss the phone call? Were they out at the grocery store? When the next people who get in an ambulance find that fees are way up for ambulance services, I wonder if they will wonder where they were when the consultation was done. Were they down at the doctor's office getting a bit of health care and they missed the call -- missed the consultation?

I wonder which fishermen will come forward -- which anglers will come forward -- to identify themselves as among those who were consulted. I wonder who you consult about jacking up probate fees, because the people who are most affected usually aren't in a position to be able to respond to consultation. Perhaps some of their families may have been consulted. I guess I could stand here for the rest of my 30 minutes and tick off the number of people who might have anticipated consultation and found themselves denied it.

I'm not going to repeat all the various ways in which this government is masking the true size of government and the growth in government. The official opposition's Finance critic did an excellent job of making that case, and I'll leave it to him, except to say that it's reprehensible for this government to be shuffling millions of dollars in spending every year off to Crown corporations, the Transportation Financing Authority being a classic example.

When I was elected to this House in 1986, the budget for the Ministry of Transportation was a billion dollars, more or less, and it stayed at a pretty consistent billion dollars a year over most of the five years after I was elected. About half of that billion dollars went into paying for new highway construction; the other half went toward rehabilitation -- about $200 million, as I recall, and another $300 million for maintenance.

The Ministry of Transportation has been reduced to the ministry of maintenance. Everything else is off the books. None of the rest of it shows in the government's budget. If, for example, the government simply accounted for the capital expenditures on highways in its budget, we would have a real deficit near $1.5 billion, if one takes the auditor general's figures and properly accounts for highway construction.

Forest Renewal B.C. is a story that has been told many times over, but now we have a new agency for tourism -- and for fisheries renewal. My, it must send shivers up the spine of any commercial fisher in this province to think that after Forest Renewal the government would actually have the audacity -- the absolute cheek -- to create a fisheries renewal program. It does say that if you're just willing to go out there and stick your face out, sometimes you get away with it.

The real tragedy is that not only is the government spending more money, it's getting less bang for every buck it spends. The more money is spent on interest, the less money is available for services. Public sector wages and benefits have gone through the roof. The Premier said he was going to cut 5,500 positions. I saw John Shields with Vaughn Palmer on "Voice of the Province." He said that 14 was the count he had. Now we know that since that time, a month or so ago, the government has actually gone back and got authorization to hire 1,400 people.

[3:00]

I know that unfortunately my time has elapsed. I wanted to speak a little bit about the effect of this budget on the people of Peace River South, and perhaps I will take that opportunity during the throne speech debate.

Hon. L. Boone: Before I get into talking about this budget and telling everybody what a wonderful budget it is, I want the House to join me in a momentous occasion today. Today we are celebrating the win of the Prince George Cougars -- formerly the Victoria Cougars -- in the first round of playoffs against the Portland Winterhawks. It took taking the Cougars from a losing team here in Victoria and transporting them to the middle of the province to make them into the winners we have in Prince George today, and they are going to go on and win in the second-round playoffs. So please join me in congratulating them.

I am proud to stand and support this budget. You know, it's not an easy time for governments or for taxpayers in this province. Our expectations are high. We want for our children what we had for ourselves, and you know that's not always possible. We want good-paying jobs for them, we want a clean environment and we want a good social safety net. That's hard to achieve today.

I remember when I first went to Prince George in 1969. I was teaching then, and I had students coming up to me and saying: "I don't need to learn this. I'm going to go out into the woods, and I'm going to earn more money than you do." And you know, that was true. They did that. Without getting a graduation certificate, they could go out into the woods and earn more money than you did in many professional jobs. Well, those days are over, and they won't be coming back again. Tech changes made it so. There are fewer jobs out there for everybody. The types of jobs are changing so that you can no longer go onto a greenchain and learn to operate it. You have to have some skills in the workplace.

[ Page 2227 ]

We have higher social costs. We have an aging population -- and I am one of them, unfortunately, who is aging.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's true. I am one of the generations that is aging. In this House, we are all aging rapidly -- some of us faster than others -- and our social safety net has to support all of us baby-boomers when, in fact, we get to the point where we are going to require those health care costs. We've got people moving to this province. We welcome them here, but those are costs we have to absorb.

Tech change is driving our health care costs. For each and every new technology that comes along, every time we are able to keep somebody alive longer -- and thank goodness we are able to do so -- it costs a lot of money. For every child that comes along and is born prematurely. . . . Ten years ago, that child may not have lived. I'm glad they are doing so now, but that costs a lot of money. Those are the costs that are driving up our budgets.

This government was faced with a huge problem this year. We do have a growing population. We have increased needs, and we have, unfortunately, reduced income. We have federal cuts that we have to deal with, and we have less coming from our forest sector. How do we respond?

We could have responded by continuing to spend, and increase taxes. We could have cut all our services, as they did across the border -- as the member before me spoke about and promoted. But we rejected that because we believe that our social safety net and our social programs are very important to us. We could have reduced spending and protected services such as health and education, and that is what we have chosen to do.

I have stated that I am proud of this budget. I am proud of it because it makes some difficult decisions and some difficult choices, but I can't say that I particularly like it. I would like to have a lot more money for just about everything there, but the money is not there. To keep our commitments in health and education, we've had to take cuts in just about every other part of government -- some very, very difficult decisions and some very, very difficult choices.

Hon. Speaker, in question period today you heard a petition from some individuals who did not want to have their courthouse closed. Those are the sorts of tough decisions that have had to be made throughout government.

We've reduced the size of some offices, we've seen closures of offices, we've seen closures of courthouses and we've eliminated programs. Across government we've had to do that because, if we didn't, we would not be able to support those programs that we consider essential, which are health and education. We must keep our health and education systems healthy.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has taken a 19 percent decrease. That's a huge decrease to take, and it's very, very difficult for us to keep up our services with that. We have lost literally hundreds of employees. They may not actually have had pink slips, because we have done this through attrition and through early retirement, but we have hundreds fewer people doing the work within the ministry than we had in previous years, and that's very hard. It's very hard on employees, and it's very hard on families. I make no bones about the fact that the employees throughout this government and throughout my ministry have had a very difficult time of it when they are faced with the possibility of losing their jobs and the possibility that they may not have incomes.

I want to congratulate those people who are working within the ministry -- and working very hard -- to make sure we can maintain the services that are delivered to people, and I want to thank them for helping us make some of the reductions in costs that have enabled us to not lay off as many people as would have been necessary if we had not made some of those reductions. As I said, we have made reductions through early retirement and through attrition, but it has not been without pain, and the pain, I think, has to be recognized -- not just by this assembly and by the people in this assembly, but by the province as a whole, because our employees out there are doing an excellent job in working under very stressful conditions right now.

This budget recognizes the needs of working people. We have a tax cut for middle and low income -- not corporations, hon. Speaker, like the members opposite would have liked to have seen. We've kept the freeze on ICBC premiums, hydro rates and tuition fees. We've increased health care spending by $300 million and education spending by $63 million. We are the only province in Canada to maintain and increase spending on those very essential services. I think the people out there will eventually recognize that this province is doing what no other province has done, and that is maintaining and increasing our commitment to health and education, and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner.

If you listen to the members opposite -- the Liberal members in particular -- shouting loud and clear about the deficit and debt, they say: "We must reduce. Don't mortgage our children's future. Cut, cut, cut." I understand that philosophy. It's one that I don't necessarily agree with -- that we should cut at all expenses -- but I understand that philosophy. What I can't understand is how these individuals, most of whom come from the business community, can justify saying, "Cut, cut, cut; reduce, reduce, reduce," and then stand in this Legislature over and over and demand that we spend more. I don't understand that. I don't think anybody can understand it. Perhaps we should get some kind of an economist in here who could really try to make us understand how that is possible. I don't know. Is this voodoo economics? It certainly isn't the kind of economics I understand.

They say: "Build my school." Members from North Vancouver, Langley, Richmond East, Richmond Centre, Okanagan-Vernon, Parksville-Qualicum, Vancouver-Quilchena and Quesnel, and the Leader of the Opposition, all stood here and said: "Build my school. I want my schools built. I don't want you to have a freeze on construction. I want you to build my school, but do it and don't increase the debt. Do it and don't spend any money." It can't be done. It's not possible.

Almost all of them want more programs in everything. I was looking through some clippings the other day, and I saw something about manure. Somebody wanted something to do something. I don't know whether they wanted to study it, but they should certainly know a fair amount about manure over there. But it was something about spending more money on manure over there, more money for schools, more money for health care facilities and for programs. You name it, they want the money for it.

How hypocritical can you be? If they really cared about the debt -- if they really wanted us to reduce spending -- then wouldn't they not be demanding more money? That type of economics just doesn't ring true.

The federal government has been causing us a bit of pain with some of the things they are doing, but the federal govern-

[ Page 2228 ]

ment takes in some $600 million per year on a 10-cents-per-litre gas tax they take into the federal coffers. Provinces across this country have asked the federal government to look inward and see about putting in a national highways program. We are the only developed country in the world that doesn't have a national highways program, and we are asking for a modest 2 cents a litre. We're saying: "Federal government, please give us 2 cents a litre back from your $600 million that you take out of this province every year to put toward a national highways program." Currently, we have received $12 million per year over the last three years. That's $600 million, $12 million. . . . It doesn't really come out.

For years now, the federal government has been reducing its deficit. They've been reducing it how? By off-loading on us, by off-loading their debt onto this government, by saying: "You reduce." They have literally neglected and abandoned their commitment to health and education by off-loading onto the provincial government.

Now we're asking the Liberals over here to ask their federal counterparts not to do that. But what have they done? The Liberals over there actually have defended their federal counterparts. They've said: "It's okay if you off-load on the provinces, because there's only one taxpayer." I've heard that -- how many times have you heard that? -- many times over the past years. There is only one taxpayer; they're right, hon. Speaker. We've watched them cut transfer payments in health and education -- no objection, no whimper. They praise the deficit reduction. They've never said: "Don't do this; this is hurting my hospital." They've never said: "Don't do this; I can't get the school in my riding." They said: "Right on, federal Liberals. Continue to cut there; cut in health and education."

But when it comes time for us. . . . When we turn around and say we can no longer absorb this -- we've done this for years, taken these dollars, handled the cuts, and we say we are going to pass on some of these cuts and ask the municipalities to make some reductions in their costs -- what do they say? All of a sudden it's sacrilegious. "You shouldn't do this. Don't touch those things. You can't off-load." Suddenly, the one-taxpayer idea goes down the tube. Suddenly, it doesn't matter that there is one taxpayer.

[3:15]

Hon. Speaker, there is only one taxpayer. We all have to be a part of the solution.

But we can't be expected to be the sandwich being squeezed at both ends, which is what the Liberals opposite want to happen. They want the feds to reduce, but they don't want us to pass on any of those costs down to the municipalities. It's interesting, because what they say to us is that it's okay for the feds to cut but it's not okay for us to cut.

If members opposite are really concerned about the deficit, if they want to be taken seriously, then I would like to ask them to do a few things. Don't ask for more money with every breath you take. Don't stand here in this House, and in every newspaper around, saying: "I want more money for this. I need more money for my highways, my bridge, my school, my hospital -- you name it. I don't want to see the downtown revitalization program end." Don't say that you don't want these things to happen. Don't complain about every reduction made by government. Don't complain when your courthouse or your Human Resources office is closed, or one of your Transportation and Highways offices may be downsized, or your Forest Service office is downsized.

Members, when you cut in government, you lose services. When you cut, you reduce employees. That is the result of cuts. It cannot be done without having some pain. We have to have those pains.

Don't demand tax breaks for your corporate friends, because the people out here will not stand for that. The people will not stand for corporations getting tax breaks while the middle-income earner is picking up all the load. Don't object when fees are increased to make programs pay for themselves; don't do these things. And don't defend federal off-loading of health and education responsibilities.

If you do that, then we'll believe you're serious about reducing the debt and the deficit. If you do those things, then we will take what you say to heart. If you tell me, "Don't worry, Lois, I am not concerned about my bridge; I don't need my bridge; I want all that money to go back into the debt and the deficit," and if you go through estimates and not one of you comes forth and asks for something instead of the $2.6 billion worth of spending that you asked of me last year, then I'll believe you're serious about reducing the debt and the deficit. Until such time as you're willing to stand there and say you don't want those things, then I will not believe you. When you do that, I will join with you in making sure that we obtain those things.

This is a budget that we can defend. It is a good budget. It's a budget that we can live with and be proud of. Health care dollars are up. The deficit is down. Education dollars are up. Spending is down. Jobs are up. Taxes are down. Given the conditions we have today, with the problems that the average taxpayer has out there, I think this is the best, most prudent budget that we as a government could put forth today. I am pleased to stand here and support it in this House and vote with it. I urge the members opposite: stand by your principles. Vote with us in support of this budget.

D. Jarvis: This is about the fourth or fifth budget I think I've stood up to speak to. It's rather interesting. I was looking back at '93, and I saw where I said almost the same thing as I plan to say today, ostensibly because this government hasn't done anything in the last three or four years. So my job here -- as you probably are aware, Mr. Speaker -- as a member of the opposition is not really to criticize government. It is to be here as the watchdog, to make sure that government knows what they're doing, that they're making a viable contribution and helping put forward legislation that is to the betterment of all the citizens of this province.

However, I do not find this to be a prudent budget, as the Finance minister has said. Nor do I half disagree with him when he says: "They don't really have to believe what I say." Now, those are two remarkable statements made by the Minister of Finance, especially when he asks us not to believe him.

Then the Minister of Highways, who just finished, makes the statement that we've got to create more jobs. I guess there weren't as many jobs around as were available to her when

[ Page 2229 ]

she was younger -- obviously a lot younger. However, I see there's no possible way that this budget's main theme, which is to create jobs, can be done if we do not have some kind of a workable plan in which we are going to invite business and industry into this province to create jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. Government creates an environment in which jobs are created. This budget asserts that the government will create some 44,000 new jobs. Now, where will these jobs come from -- when this same Premier last year promised that we'd have 40,000-odd jobs and none of them appeared? It wasn't fulfilled.

I guess the intention of the government is to blackmail the forest industry into producing new jobs, or their supplies will be cut off. I think the actual wording is that they will trade their cut allowances for jobs. This is sort of nonsense, because you cannot create jobs when you are going broke or you have no supply. The world markets are down. Things are a little different from what they were before. How do companies that are in a loss position expect to finance new jobs? When government intends to pull out revenue from the forests at the same rate as they did last year, and everything is going down, it's an expectation beyond realization to think they can do that. If the forest companies lost money last year, and if the market conditions are down from last year, where is the common sense in this situation -- to create more jobs?

Or is this just more rhetoric? The Minister of Finance said it was one of the reasons why the budget was overestimated last year. To create 21,000 new jobs with this scenario is perhaps more than can be expected, Mr. Speaker. So although the rhetoric is for 21,000 new jobs from forestry, the expectation will probably be what this government said they would do last year when they wanted to create jobs. That was zero -- zero, the number of jobs that they create.

As you're probably aware, the Premier's favourite book, we have been told now, is The End of Work. He even brought the author to your convention this year -- so you would all learn how to stop working, obviously, because you're certainly not doing a good job where you are, in creating jobs in this province.

The Premier and the Finance minister are working on the premise that we deserve a shorter workweek. This is one of the government's answers, a short workweek, on the theory that more people will be able to have a job. Well, we know that this does not work, Mr. Speaker. It only makes industry less competitive. We saw what happened in the health care accord, in this instance: costs went up. Another social experiment is not the answer to create wealth and work and revenue for this province. It's bound to fail.

We have already had examples of our industry losing its competitive edge to Alberta, Washington State and other jurisdictions, where they don't pay sales tax on equipment and machinery, for example. When you have a deficit and a ballooning debt, you should try to create incentives for business. Our industry needs to be on a competitive basis if it wants to survive. You don't put on heavy taxes to pay, like the corporation capital tax, even though you have never made a profit. We need a plan to ease costs, not restrictions -- a plan that creates jobs, one that will not result in or rely on a system of blackmail of an industry so that if they don't create more work, they don't go into business; a plan that encourages, not discourages, economic growth in this province.

When our debt is $30 billion plus, and it's not going down, when we are paying up to approximately $7 million a day in debt service costs alone, we know we are out of control in this province. When our resource industries are healthy and profitable, budget deficits decline. Since 1991 we have had a 100 percent increase in our total debt. What does this mean? This means it is time for some discipline, time to change our spending habits and curtail our excesses that we have going on.

The government has exercised deception. They say one thing and they mean another. We have to look for the real meaning behind the words or their intent. Deception always does appear to follow. The resulting effect is that the citizens in this province are suffering. We have to be smarter than the competition. The taxpayers only want this Premier to present credible, substantive and sensible legislation, which we don't appear to have been given over these past years.

It's time for this government to send quick signals to business that we are ready for investment and open for business. This is not happening. It's time this government said to small businesses that we are prepared to put in adjustments, to lower their corporation taxes and fees and everything, to put them on a sustainable basis so they could be competitive with other jurisdictions that we ourselves trade with. Companies that create meaningful jobs cannot exist or compete when their tax rate is the highest in Canada. More and more, businesses are contemplating moving to Alberta, Washington State and other jurisdictions.

When do we see that the lights have gone on in the Premier's and Finance minister's heads? That is the question, I guess. We all know how. But when are they going to make a change that's to the benefit of the people of British Columbia? We have to look for, as I said, the real meaning behind those words that the Premier has said about trying to create jobs.

One aspect I'd like to go on to is the question of mining in British Columbia. As you know, I've spoken of it before, once or twice. Mining is being hampered by legislative barriers in this province. Environmental groups and aboriginal groups, after years of mineral exploration, have been coming down with a heavy hand as to what this province should be doing with regards to resource industries.

We now see the potential of some small revitalization in the mining industry: the Kemess project, as you know, in central B.C.; the Huckleberry project near Smithers; and the Tulsequah Chief up in the northern part, the northwest corner of British Columbia. Actually, we have nine potential mineral plant mines in this province that are going through the Environmental Assessment Act now and looking forward to creating some wealth for British Columbia -- and for themselves as well.

As a result of the two working together, they're going to create about 7,000 jobs. They're going to be family-supporting jobs, not hamburger flippers. They are going to be paying high wages and benefits. This is what we require in this province, not what we see this government planning through enforcement and blackmail, like in the forest industry.

[3:30]

All those projects that I was mentioning earlier, up in the northern parts of B.C. and in the middle of British Columbia,

for example, are facing threats to their existence. Thousands of men and women and the province as a whole receive economic benefits generated from mining. We can't afford to lose these benefits. Yet this present government supports and gives credence to those groups who wish to see no mining whatsoever in British Columbia. Well, this is wrong.

Our forestry industry is facing the peril of our growing lack of investment, as well. This will result in an increase in unemployment throughout B.C. So all over B.C. we can see our resource-based communities slowly but surely facing some hardships over the next few years as the jobs continue to disappear. Nothing is put there -- or the environment is not put there -- by this government so that industry and investment could come into this province and enjoy hiring people in the resource areas.

We are seeing this dichotomy between rural and urban areas growing and growing. You cannot blame the rural areas, for this government -- for all of what they say and for all the members that they have from these rural areas. . . . It's a shame to see that they are doing nothing for them. I wonder sometimes how these members of this House that are from rural areas can go back to their constituents and say, "We are doing the best we can for you," when all around them the people and families are having hardships and no work to go to. But the government wants to create more jobs.

The B.C. Forest Practices Code is probably a good example of it, in the sense that overregulation and a lack of good business acumen have caused everyone to question this government's lack of a commonsense approach when it comes to work. Since mid-1994, the FPC or Forest Practices Code has been in effect to look after our forests and to look after our displaced workers. This government said that as a result of hundreds of millions of dollars surcharged by super-stumpage -- a form of taxation -- they would create 5,000 new jobs a year.

Well, it's now been about three years since the Forest Practices Code first went in or has had any effect, because it started in mid-'94. As I say, it's now 1997, and approximately three years have passed. They have only created 947 jobs out of 15,000 that they promised. Where did the other 14,000-odd jobs go to?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

It appears, Mr. Speaker -- or Madam Speaker, as there has been a change up there -- that the FPC is an out-of-control Crown corporation created by this government to increase more bureaucracy for their benefit and not for the benefit of the resource industries and communities in this province. Administration is spending millions of dollars on the Forest Practices Code without concern for the growing unemployed -- 85 percent of Forest Practices Code funds go to administration and the provincial bureaucracy.

Now this government is going to pull more money out of them to keep their Highways ministry afloat and Education and all the rest of it. They're taking moneys that were put in there for the displaced workers -- taking out their future -- and putting it back into the general coffers of this province. And that is wrong. Their purpose was to create jobs, and it is not working.

So where do we go from here? Overregulation is causing unemployment and a lack of development. The Crown agency set up to help place the workers has failed at this point. We are going to lose our competitive edge in our wealth, caused by a government that is only able to come up with short-term measures, measures that will only postpone the inevitable unless there's a relief of taxation to some degree and the overbearing regulations are relaxed to some point.

It's obvious that our debt is climbing. We're now at $30.9 billion, and we increased it by $1.4 billion through this budget. As the count rises, we wonder if this is even an accurate projection. Or are we being asked to be deceived again, as we were last time? Well, my favourite quote of Gaglardi's, "If I'm telling a lie, it's only because I think I'm telling the truth," may have some bearing in this budget again.

What really is our revenue? What really is our spending? Is this just another jumping-bean projection of this government? Do we have the credibility that we have lost? Do we have it back yet?

This is the government of policy and paralysis; it really is a concern to us here on the opposition side. With no credible economic growth plan, an ever-increasing bureaucracy and no accountability framework which sets targets for this province, we are in a very transparent position.

This government is changing or trying to change the work structure of a resource economy to an information economy. What are they going to do about the retooling of thousands and thousands of our workforce out in those resource areas? Is this part of their plan? Or are they just again hoping that those situations will go away? If it's not their plan, why are they downsizing the resource sector? How do we create wealth and keep our lifestyle a meaningful one? What specifics does this government have, as I said, to retool tens of thousands of workers who are trying to support their families? Do we re-educate them? Then do we have tens of thousands of unemployed tradesmen? There's something wrong with the way this government is handling the situation.

We have to give more consideration to how to create wealth and encourage investment and development in this province in order to create jobs. All we see at this point is the downgrading of our resource wealth, Madam Speaker, and the uncertainty for investment in this province. All we see is the continued, alarming rise in the relocation of small and large businesses into Alberta, Washington, Oregon and, as I said, other jurisdictions.

Our unemployment figures are growing. Bankruptcies are at record-breaking levels. Taxes and fees and regulations continue to grow, with no plan, I say -- I repeat that there's no plan -- by this government or any positive way to increase our revenue supply on the premise that they are working on.

Our leadership these last five years has been worse than incompetent. Actually, it's been downright dangerous. The Premier and Finance minister are ruining the cornerstones

[ Page 2231 ]

of B.C.'s economy. Forestry and mining, once the two major employers and revenue producers, are under attack. There doesn't seem to be any way out. We are looking at our advantage over other jurisdictions evaporating as our resource market and industries become sunset industries. This government is making B.C.'s economic advantage come down to the common denominator instead of in the opposite direction.

An Hon. Member: Gaming subsidies.

D. Jarvis: This pathetic excuse of a government, I'm afraid, is reaching out to gambling, no-fault insurance and FRBC funds, which were there for displaced forest workers, to help them support their line ministries, instead of. . . .

An Hon. Member: What kind of ministries?

D. Jarvis: Their line ministries.

The Economist magazine, as you are probably aware of, a short while ago -- it's read worldwide -- reported that the people of B.C. have just elected a pack of incompetents, or just a pack of plain -- dare I say the word?

An Hon. Member: No.

D. Jarvis: No, I won't. But you know it starts with a big L. The big L, in this province, is what we've been faced with. This is what other jurisdictions around the world know of us. This is where they're considering putting their money. There's not much confidence being instilled out there by this government.

It's obvious that this '97 budget has not turned the obvious around, Madam Speaker. This NDP government's debt management plan was obviously just another deceitful promise to help them get elected, as with the debt management plan they had last year -- nothing was paid into it or paid down. They convinced the voters that they were serious about keeping their province's debt under control. Yet no attempt was made to follow through. It is obvious that this plan has now been abandoned. No financial responsibility is being shown in this province.

The only real or true way to solve B.C.'s financial problem is with a balanced budget. This naturally should be backed up with truth-in-budgeting laws, which we have asked for over these past years and not received. Our experience in the '95 and '96 budgets shows that just saying you are balanced is obviously not sufficient with this government. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are fiscally responsible in this government. None of this fiscally responsible attitude has been shown in this past two years. The feeling that this is being shown again is here in this budget. Only time will tell whether we are going to come out of this without real hurt to our communities throughout this province. Not only are British Columbians watching the budget, but so are the bond-rating agencies around the world.

In most jurisdictions they have a problem of either spending or revenue. However, we in B.C. see both revenue and spending as our main problems, and that's a large, large part of our debt problems. If real wages are to rise and our standard of living is to continue to improve, productivity must increase. I believe there is ample evidence and experience elsewhere to support supply-side politics, even with tax cuts to help boost economic activity and income growth, which is what we need. It goes without saying that this activity also requires a tight monetary policy with it.

We are obviously in trouble in British Columbia's economy. It's growing at less than the Canadian average. Our exports are down, and our GDP has not kept up with the Canadian average or with the increase in our population. We are the only province where our real capital -- our standard- of-living indicator -- fell below the Canadian average this year.

All we ask is that this government show us a plan to create honest wealth, not a plan that gives deficits, debts and loss of rights. We are endowed with the resources, and I think we should use them properly.

[3:45]

I see I have a few minutes left to speak, and I might add a few things about our education system, which this government seems so proud of. They're telling us they have added so much money into it. Well, that's probably going to go right into new construction -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- to get rid of the portables, etc. The important thing is what we have left, which is very little, and the lack of funding for our students in order for them to learn and for our teachers to teach. The funds aren't there. In North Vancouver-Seymour, for example -- North Vancouver school district 44 -- we have a little over 16,000 students, and this government decided that in their best interests the per capita would go down to $43 per student. That's an approximate $700,000 shortfall in our education system.

How do we expect to compete with other jurisdictions? I'll tell you: because this government, in their stupidity, decided that they're going to have equality in our education system through all the districts around our province. Instead of bringing us all up to the top, they decided that they were going to bring everyone down to the lowest denominator, or so it appears. This is going to be a tragic circumstance that's going to cost us in the years to come. We have 77 percent of our students who are going into grade 1 right now, who will not go to university or a secondary college, or an institution such as BCIT, which is going to teach them a trade.

Not only that, I had figures given to me the other day suggesting that four out of ten students in British Columbia are illiterate. It's really hard to comprehend. I think that this government and previous governments should be ashamed of this situation and should hang their heads. When the Minister of Education says he is doing more for our students than any other jurisdiction in Canada, I tend to wonder whether he is smoking something.

It's just unbelievable when we see these kinds of figures. These kids are coming out of school, anywhere from grade 9 to grade 12, with no skills to compete in this world, because they're not going on to university -- not that there would be a job waiting for them if they went on to university, because we do question that sometimes. There are a lot of people out there with university degrees who are flipping hamburgers, but the majority of our students coming out of school do not have training. They don't have skills in how to compete. So what is this government doing about it? It appears that there's nothing being done about it, and this is a crying shame.

I think I'll close at this point and say that it's kind of a hostile world there, and that this government and its budgetary problems are creating hardships throughout British

[ Page 2232 ]

Columbia. Although we may not feel them right here in this House, believe me, hardships are being created, and even more are going to be created over the years if we do not get our debt under control or put some kind of a management plan in there and seek jobs by saying: "Come to British Columbia. We're not a bad place to be. We have lots of wealth here and lots of hard-working people." We'll create jobs that way. Remember that government doesn't create jobs. It is industry, investment and development that create jobs, and they'll only come to British Columbia if the environment is right. That's this government's job: to create the proper environment.

G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to rise today and join in this historic debate. This is a historic budget for a couple of reasons, at least. Among the other things the NDP government has done in its most recent budget is bring us to a record level of debt in this province. This is a historic debate as well, because this NDP government has done something no government has ever done before in British Columbia, and that's to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget.

No previous government has even come to close to matching this rather sorry record of six consecutive deficit budgets. Not even the governments of Premier Tolmie and Premier Pattullo back in the 1930s during the depth of the Depression even came close to this pitiful record of six consecutive deficit budgets. In contrast, the NDP has governed through prosperous times, times we enjoyed despite -- not because of -- the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the NDP government.

I suspect that this sorry record of six consecutive deficit budgets is unsurpassed by any provincial government anywhere in Canada. We on this side of the House never doubted for a moment that the NDP would produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget, nor do we doubt for a moment that the NDP will go on to produce seven or perhaps even more consecutive deficit budgets. In reality, not many governments after four or five consecutive deficit budgets are likely to get the chance to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget. Only by advancing the false claims of surplus budgets in 1995-96 and 1996-97 was this NDP government provided with the opportunity to produce a sixth consecutive deficit budget.

The theme of my speech today is that these two Betty Crocker budgets -- the '95-96 and the '96-97, the two supposedly surplus budgets that were subsequently revealed as bogus budgets -- made inevitable the shameful ripoff of local government in the 1997-98 budget. I know that some of my friends across the floor are asking why these last two budgets are Betty Crocker budgets. It's because both are cookbook budgets, both are recipes for economic diaster in this province and both, in abbreviated terms, are a crock.

An Hon. Member: You don't like Betty Crocker?

G. Abbott: I love Betty Crocker. I just don't like this government.

Budget day in B.C. reminds me more and more of the movie Groundhog Day. The years pass, the circumstances change and sometimes the Finance ministers even change, but the result at the end of the day is always the same -- another deficit budget.

NDP budget days also remind me of a movie I enjoyed with my kids a few years ago, called The NeverEnding Story. I'm thinking that the NDP ought to consider a slight name change here. The NDP, after all, is no longer new. I believe there are a number of members of this House who are younger than the NDP itself. I'm not among them, but you may be, Madam Speaker. You are, I know, quite a bit younger than myself.

Regardless of that issue, the NDP is certainly no longer democratic. The evidence is overwhelming there, particularly with respect to the implementation and the structure of health regionalization in this province. I'd suggest that a change of name to the "never-ending deficit party" would not only have a nice ring to it but would also very accurately convey what the NDP has to offer the people of British Columbia, and that's a never-ending string of deficit budgets.

I was fascinated by the emphasis in both the throne speech and the budget speech on film-making in British Columbia. Perhaps this was a result of the happy convergence of budget and throne speeches with the opening of Planet Hollywood and with the Academy Awards, or perhaps members on the other side, sensing the future, are looking forward to alternative careers. I understand, in fact, that a whole series of Hollywood remakes is being planned to celebrate the first-year performances of this pants-on-fire government.

For example, I understand that there's going to be a remake of Sleepless in Seattle, recast as "Clueless in Victoria," and a remake of Flipper entitled "Flip-Flop," which will feature the Premier and the Attorney General on photo radar. There's also a remake of Casino Royale planned, featuring the Minister of Employment and Investment, in a movie entitled "Casino Sounds Swell." I'm sure the Premier is really excited about his movie role in "Honey, I Shrunk the Provincial Economy," just as the Finance minister, I'm sure, is very excited about his sequel, "Honey, I Blew Up the Budget Deficit."

In fact, there is a whole series of remakes planned around the Betty Crocker budgets. One is the story of a Finance minister who clones the bogus budget of his predecessor. It's entitled "Hello, Dolly." Another is a remake of The Cable Guy entitled "Fable Guy," and Desperately Seeking Susan will be recast as "Desperately Seeking Revenue." However, the movie that the people of B.C. are really looking forward to concerns the court case of Mr. David Stockell, and the name of that movie, of course, is "Total Recall."

Speaking of Mr. Stockell, and shifting sharply yet smoothly to a more serious theme, the pending court case surrounding the impact of the Betty Crocker budgets on the 1996 election is certain to provide valuable insights into the motives and actions of this NDP government. We have already learned a good deal just from the NDP's feeble attempt to have this case thrown out of court. For example, let me quote briefly from the Globe and Mail account of the court proceedings of February 6. This is a direct quote from the Globe and Mail of February 6:

"`Telling voters things that are not true to influence how they vote does not constitute election fraud,' a lawyer for the B.C. New Democratic Party told a B.C. court yesterday. `It's not the same thing as pointing a gun at their head,' said Robert McDiarmid, responding to questions from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bryan Williams about the meaning of election fraud and illegally enticing voters. `Election promises can be unkept after the campaign is over,' added Mr. McDiarmid."

[ Page 2233 ]

but I do know a bit about political history. Everything I know about political history suggests that the controversy surrounding the Betty Crocker budgets and the 1996 provincial election will continue to fascinate historians 50, 100, 200 years from now. The reason. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I appreciate you finally coming out of your shell. I'm distressed by the absence of interest across the floor here.

The reason that political historians will take such an interest in this for a long time is that the questions at the heart of this controversy are fundamental to democratic government. Were the facts with respect to the provincial government's financial health wilfully misrepresented by the incumbent government? Were British Columbians deprived, as a consequence, of their opportunity to pass judgment on the record of this government? Political historians will look to a variety of sources in attempting to answer these questions: the debates of this House, the comments made outside the House by prominent figures in the controversy, and perhaps most importantly, they will look to internal documents obtained through freedom of information.

[4:00]

I would like to quote briefly from a couple of these documents to convey a sense of the advice the government was receiving during the critical period. For example, we have here a February-March 1995 briefing note to the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations of the day. The subject is the emerging fiscal problems in 1996-97: "As outlined to you by Michael Costello and Chris Trumpy at a meeting on February 17, fiscal problems are emerging in 1996-97. The problem is that a fairly large 1996 deficit -- $600 million to $800 million -- is likely."

We also have another communication. This one was between the Minister of Forests of the day, who is now our Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance of the day. This is December 20, 1995, and the memo notes:

"You should be aware that information obtained in recent days indicates a significant shortfall in revenue from the 1995-96 forecast due to less harvesting and billed volumes than forecast. This trend is attributable to a rapid decline in markets from last year and less volumes sold than forecast."

Surprisingly, not long after that memo, the projected revenues from forestry were actually increased -- one of the bizarre and as yet unexplained questions associated with this whole controversy.

A final document I would like to quote from is the May 22 revised forecast with respect to the 1995-96 budget:

"Revenue is now expected to be $169 million below the 1995-96 revised forecast. Expenditure is expected to be $58 million above the 1995-96 revised forecast. As a result, the $16 million surplus shown in the 1995-96 budget revised forecast will not materialize. A 1995-96 deficit of $211 million is now expected."

That was May 22, just a week before the provincial election.

Now, did this advice that was tendered by the ministries to the Minister of Finance cause the NDP to be circumspect in their claims regarding provincial finances? Heck, no. They bragged every day in every corner of this province that they had produced two surplus budgets. They didn't say: "We might produce two surplus budgets." They didn't say: "We may produce two surplus budgets." They said: "We have produced two surplus budgets."

The Premier bragged, for example, in response to a question about mandatory balanced-budget legislation, that. . . . This is a quote in the Province, May 22, from the Premier: "We turned a $2.4 billion deficit into two consecutive balanced budgets." The Premier then went on to add, surprisingly, in retrospect: "Actions speak louder than legislation." Given what we now know about the evolution of the Betty Crocker budgets, the Premier's latter comment positively drips with irony. Or, as Betty Crocker used to say, the proof is in the pudding.

This irony has not been lost on the political columnists and commentators of this province. There are now literally hundreds of columns that draw the same conclusion: the NDP leadership knew full well that their budgets for '95-96 and '96-97 would not be balanced, but they clung to that fiction in hopes that they would win re-election.

Let me provide the House with just one example, the interview between Hal Wake and the Finance minister on CBC-Radio, January 31, 1997. It began with a quote from Hal Wake, who says:

"I have heard a lot about the forecasting, but what we didn't hear in the election, in any of the NDP promises or platform, was that we will balance the budget if. . . . Or, these things being true, this will happen. You said: 'We have balanced the budget.'"

To which the Minister of Finance responded:

"What I was going to go on to say was that I think we did overstate the case in the election campaign. I think the rhetoric of politics around election campaigns is one which perhaps encourages politicians on all sides to do that. But I think that our rhetoric did go beyond what I feel, in retrospect, it ought to have been, and I think that has contributed to some of the problems we now face in terms of regaining public confidence."

The two Betty Crocker budgets left the government with a huge credibility gap. Far more seriously, they left the NDP with an enormous sinkhole financially. This resulted in a long series of ill-conceived and half-baked moves designed to cover up this budgetary deception.

Among the more prominent victims of these moves were local governments, and through them, homeowners, renters and small business in this province. The obvious intent of these shameful moves was to dump the burden of this government's deception and incompetence onto the backs of local governments; and through higher property taxes and reduced services, onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business across this province. Most prominent among these shameful moves was the fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act.

In 1994 -- just two years ago -- the NDP brought in the Local Government Grants Act to replace the Revenue Sharing Act, because the latter. . . . I want to quote from the debate between the government and the opposition on the introduction of the Local Government Grants Act. The government said the Revenue Sharing Act "simply didn't deliver the certainty and predictability that local governments desperately need by January 1 of each year." The new act, the NDP promised, "sets local government grants on a sustainable foundation well into the future, removes the element of whimsy and lobbying, and introduces elements of partnership, proper negotiation and consultation."

What a cruel hoax that turned out to be. For this government, "well into the future" amounted to about two years, and certainly there was a complete absence of negotiation and consultation preceding the cuts that were made on November 26. What local government got on November 26 of last year was a fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act, without any sort of negotiation or consultation -- this despite the Premier and his then Municipal Affairs minister signing a protocol promising just that at the UBCM convent-

[ Page 2234 ]

ion in Penticton two months earlier. In fact, the UBCM executive first learned of the extent of the cuts through the media on November 26 -- absurd, insulting, unprecedented and totally unacceptable.

At the district of Salmon Arm, in my home riding, there was a transfer cut of well over $300,000 -- a cut of over $20 for every man, woman and child in that community. On the one hand, in the election of 1996 the Premier of this province promised us a tax freeze, and on the other hand, not long after, he dumped property tax increases and service cuts onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business in this province by those shameful cuts under the Local Government Grants Act. Absolutely shameful!

An Hon. Member: You were going to cut $500 million.

G. Abbott: The interesting thing is that the member across says we were going to cut, and I'm pleased that they've raised that issue. The thing that they don't get is that we have some vision of where we're going with local government; they have none. They cut. What we propose to do, and still continue to propose to do, is to not only to further empower local government but also to provide them with corresponding resources -- something that this government has miserably failed to do.

The NDP followed up their breach of the Local Government Grants Act -- again, without any sort of negotiation or consultation -- with a half-baked scheme to download provincial roads onto local government. Imagine, for example, the shameful spectacle of this NDP government trying to dump provincial roads onto the back of the tiny village of Sayward. Let me just briefly quote from a letter from the village of Sayward to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways. They were kind enough to send me a copy, as well. It says:

"Dear Ms. Minister:

"The village of Sayward has recently learned that the province intends to hand over a 4.4-kilometre stretch of provincial highway, along with the expectation that the village will repair and maintain it as part of its municipal road structure.

"We have a population of 444, and a total of three kilometres of municipal roadway at present. Adding the proposed section of highway would more than double the amount of roadway to be managed by this village. We have neither the resources nor the specialized equipment necessary to accomplish this task. The piece of road in question is also badly in need of repair, now.

"We strongly object to receiving this hand-me-down from the province."

This letter was signed by the mayor of the village of Sayward.

[4:15]

Have we really come so far in this province that we have to download provincial problems onto the backs of small villages that simply don't have the resources to deal with them? I think it's shameful. And even more shameful is the fact that this was repeated in municipalities all across this province.

Not even the right of people to justice in this province is exempt from the consequences of the NDP budget cover-up. The courthouse. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order. The member opposite is accusing this government of a cover-up. I don't think that's parliamentary language. He's imputing a motive. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the hon. member will take that under advisement.

G. Abbott: The courthouse in the village of Chase, in my constituency, is one of 11 across this province that were slated for closure. This courthouse was built only a few years ago at the government's instigation, and there are five years remaining on a ten-year lease at over $100,000 per year. More importantly, closure will have the immediate effect of undermining both community policing and community access to justice. In larger communities, the threatened closure of courthouses also means the further downloading of policing and court maintenance costs onto the backs of municipalities.

Madam Speaker, the NDP's disgraceful treatment of local government is both a symptom and a consequence of the budget deception which was foisted onto people of British Columbia during the past year. History is not going to be kind to this NDP government. It doesn't matter what this government does for the balance of its term. It can move mountains; it can claim surplus budgets; it can turn water into wine. None of this will matter. History will judge that this government deceived its citizens, and this government will be cursed by that judgment forever.

Madam Speaker, I would like to move: be it resolved that the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House go into Committee of Supply be amended to add the following: "but this House regrets that the government appears determined to unfairly download significant costs onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business through the arbitrary and unilateral breach of the Local Government Grants Act."

On the amendment.

S. Hawkins: In 1844, Benjamin Disraeli wrote: "No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition." I'm honoured to have the opportunity to serve British Columbians, and I trust that the members of this House will recognize this amendment as fulfilling that important role.

Hon. Speaker, at 2 p.m. on March 25, I believed that I had seen and heard just about every form of deception that can be perpetrated. But just one minute later, the Minister of Finance demonstrated that I had been incorrect. My awareness of deceit and falsehood has taken a sideways shift since last Tuesday afternoon. I'll talk more about that theme a little bit later in my remarks.

The theme of this budget is apparently that of illusion. Perhaps we should call this the 3-D budget: the deception, diversion and delusion budget. We've heard the minister crowing about his wonderful budget document for days now. This minister claims that his 3-D budget will increase jobs, improve health care, protect education and lower the tax burden on middle- and lower-income British Columbians. The minister wants us to believe that this will all be accomplished within his government's sixth successive deficit budget. The only ones who appear to be fooled by this illusion are the members sitting opposite.

[ Page 2235 ]

The minister says that this government has accepted the responsibility of meeting the needs of British Columbians in a fiscally responsible way. How truly interesting! Is this government also ready to accept the responsibility for the crushing burden of debt they've created and that this 3-D budget is adding to? Are these so-called fiscal managers prepared to explain to the people of British Columbia that this 3-D budget is actually causing the provincial debt to increase by yet another $1.5 billion and that it will now exceed $30 billion?

In reality, the minister and his NDP government can only shamefully take responsibility for the near-doubling of the provincial debt since the NDP took over in 1991. The deception of this budgetary 3-D illusion comes from the claim that the deficit will rise by $185 million, when the minister knows that the accumulated debt will be increasing by closer to $1.5 billion. It is the same taxpayer who will be responsible for the ever-increasing debt that this government continues to pile up, no matter how masterfully the Minister of Finance off-loads his responsibilities. How utterly deceptive the budget charade has been.

This minister claims to be proud of this budget document. I really have to question his pride. It's almost as though he's congratulating himself for foisting a get-rich scheme on some poor, unsuspecting, honest yokel. If the minister truly has cause for pride, shouldn't that be reflected at the end of the fiscal year when his budget comes in on target or better? In that context, where is the minister's sense of pride over the budget he presented to this assembly last year?

The people of British Columbia are right to feel insulted by the arrogance and deception of last year's bogus budget. This minister's sense of pride has done nothing to create confidence in the people of British Columbia about this government's ability to do anything except create illusions.

Not only is this budget an illusion of deception, it is also an illusion of diversion. This government has diverted some of its fiscal responsibilities onto municipalities. This diversion or downloading, if you prefer, unfairly burdens homeowners, small business and renters. This government thinks nothing of unilaterally and arbitrarily breaching the Local Government Grants Act. The duplicity of this government is self-evident. On September 18 the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, now Minister of Employment and Investment, signed a protocol of recognition with the Union of B.C. Municipalities at the annual meeting of the UBCM in Penticton. One of the principles that was agreed to by the minister concerned notification and consultation: "In the spirit of fairness, openness and good faith, any proposed significant change in legislation, regulations, standards, policies or programs will be preceded by appropriate consultation among the affected parties, including timely notification of the proposed change."

Did the minister, the Deputy Premier -- whose empty seat I'm looking at on that side of the House -- sign this protocol of recognition on behalf of this government on September 18 in Penticton? Yes, he did. Did the minister issue a press release bragging about this protocol as a landmark accomplishment on November 5, 1996? Yes, I believe he did. Since this agreement was signed, has there been significant off-loading of provincial responsibilities and programs onto the municipalities? Well, yes, there has been. Has there been prior appropriate consultation among the affected parties? No, I believe there has not. Were the changes in policies and programs preceded by timely notification? No, they were not. Did the government deliberately break their word within weeks of this signed agreement? Yes, I believe they did.

Now, hon. Speaker, we seem to have a difference here involving what was agreed to by this government and what they actually did. This is a breach of promise; this is duplicity; this is dishonesty. The people of British Columbia expected that an agreement signed by a minister of the Crown in September would hold true. However, with this government, a promise apparently only holds true until the Premier changes his mind. The pattern emerging from this government is that they say one thing and do another over and over again.

As I look over there to the government benches, I see mostly sad and disgusted faces of decent, hard-working politicians who have to carry this government's burden of deceit and shame not only in this House but in the hallways, the dining room, the library and the offices of this building -- and in their own homes and communities, as well. For anyone, it's a hefty price to pay, and it casts a rather ugly shadow on our roles as MLAs representing British Columbians.

We as elected members of the Legislative Assembly have a responsibility to all British Columbians. The budgets of last year were deceitful and offensive. There isn't a member in this chamber who can categorically deny that. This year's version -- although written on different paper with some clever diction and camouflaged by the minister's sense of pride -- carries the same tone and is being received with an even greater degree of skepticism.

The off-loading to the municipalities is not the only example of the diversion of responsibility found in this 3-D budget. The budget also includes an increase of $55 million in fees for various government services. The budget also includes an increase in the dividend paid to the government by B.C. Hydro in the amount of over $600 million in the last two years, while at the same time Hydro's debt grew by over $300 million.

But the penultimate diversion -- the mother of all diversions, as the member for Matsqui referred to it as -- is the sideways shift of $100 million for the forest silviculture program to Forest Renewal B.C., so that it wouldn't show on the government's books. The Minister of Forests is quoted as saying that FRBC has agreed to consider this $100 million shift, but it won't fund silviculture until the jobs and timber accord is settled. So the Minister of Finance has shifted $100 million worth of expenditure onto the books of FRBC, while at the same time the Minister of Forests says that the FRBC is not yet committed to paying that expense. This is more than double-entry accounting. This is illusion by diversion. It's dishonest, and it's misleading. When adding the total Crown corporation deficit to the government's deficit, the figure is closer to $900 million. The claim of a $185 million deficit is an insulting illusion. Shame on the Minister of Finance!

The Minister of Finance has made mention of his prudent accounting practices, but I haven't been able to find the term "sideways shift" in any references on accounting principles. For lack of an official accounting term, I guess I'll create a term for this new accounting practice here in the House today. I propose to refer to this type of accounting as "shifty accounting." I believe that shifty accounting practices would allow for sideways shifting of an expense to an agency that hasn't accepted responsibility for that expense.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. You made a comment just a minute ago that is clearly unparliamentary and refers directly to a member in this House. That is not what is done in our traditions. So would you withdraw that particular comment. It referred to the minister, and that's not appropriate.

[ Page 2236 ]

S. Hawkins: I'll withdraw it to the Minister of Finance.

It would seem that what was decided was that the budget's bottom line needed to appear to be something, and then a shifty accounting practice was applied to make the books arrive at the politically motivated total. What masterful use of diversion to create an illusion!

This government and this minister are also sadly plagued by delusion. A delusion is a false belief which is strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. This government believes that this 3-D budget shows real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path, and that the budget is "consistent with the priorities of British Columbians." Sadly, this government holds these beliefs in spite of invalidating evidence to the contrary. The people of British Columbia have repeatedly voiced their instructions to this government to get the crushing provincial debt under control. This government has repeatedly failed to follow its own debt reduction plan, and in this budget we see the debt to taxpayers increasing by $1.5 billion.

[4:30]

The Minister of Finance puts forward the Business Council of B.C. as endorsing the financial management plan included in this budget. But as the member for Delta South so eloquently advised this assembly last week, the Business Council did not endorse the financial management plan. As for the budget document as a whole, they said: "Because of what has happened in the past, we are somewhat skeptical."

This year's 3-D budget has all the elements of successful illusion: deception, diversion and delusion. What a proud moment for this government. Harry Houdini would be proud, too, I'm sure. So where do we go from here? How do we earn the trust of British Columbians and move forward? I ask: what are we doing here? What are we doing to the people of this province? What are we doing with their money? This budget is filled with numbers and estimates based on assumptions, forecasts, predictions and, no doubt, some political medicine, as well. I ask you: whose assumptions, whose forecasts and whose predictions and what spin doctors were instrumental in putting these papers together this time? When will honesty step in and illusion step out? It seems that I have more questions than comments. It is kind of hard not to, when you're faced with a document as bland and as plagued with both vagueness and superfluous diction as this budget document.

Once again, we have here a budget filled with financial optimism and promise. Yet I feel more discouraged than encouraged. It's interesting to note that the word "balanced" is nowhere to be seen in this budget. Perhaps that will be one of the hidden surprises that will emerge from this illusion of 1997-98, but I wouldn't hold my breath. This government has proven six times in a row that they don't know how to balance a budget. Once again, we're left with a bunch of empty words, a bunch of rhetoric spewing from the mouths of this government. Last year's two budgets, although neatly packaged, were fraudulent and misrepresentative, contrary to what we were led to believe at the time of their presentation in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. There was a word in there that was also inappropriate and unparliamentary. The word you used was "fraudulent," and that's one of the words that is in the dictionary of things we don't do.

S. Hawkins: I withdraw "fraudulent."

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, there is one. There are many of these words listed in our own MacMinn's book.

S. Hawkins: I replace it with "misleading."

Contrary to what we were led to believe at this time, in the budget preparation those budgets were not based on sound fiscal and economic analysis. My concern reflects the concern of each and every member on this side of the House and of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians across the province -- British Columbians who are not happy with this government, who were burned by its fiscal policies, its empty promises and its broken commitments. It is difficult for me to even pretend to be optimistic. It is difficult for any British Columbian to pretend to be optimistic.

The theory behind cutting back on government expenditures is that it is supposed to result in the reduction of taxes and increased economic growth. This government has reportedly made significant cuts to the public service over the past year; it has amalgamated some departments, apparently, and eliminated others. But we have seen no tax decreases and no economic growth. This concerns me. This concerns my colleagues, my friends, my neighbours and my constituents. This concerns the constituents of the members on this side of the House, and certainly constituents of members on that side of the House.

This government and its policies have become the enemies of prosperity in our province -- enemies of the prosperity of all British Columbians. This is not rhetoric. The facts speak for themselves. British Columbia has an enormous debt and deficit problem. We have to be clear about that. No amount of colourful language and tone of confidence will solve that very serious problem. No amount of hedging, name-calling, finger-pointing or humour from that side of the House will solve that very serious problem. No amount of announcements or Premier's television addresses will solve that very serious problem.

Members on this side of the House have toured the province over the past several months, talking with regular British Columbians. A year ago, this Premier claimed to be on their side. The overriding message they have given is very clear to me, and I'm sure that my colleagues have concluded the same. The public, the taxpayer, the labour force, the business community, the unemployed, single-parent families, professionals -- just about every British Columbian says they lack confidence in this government. They lack confidence in the competence of this government. They lack confidence in the initiatives of this government. They lack confidence in the policies of this government.

This budget clearly does not acknowledge those concerns. The public are skeptical of this budget and this government. This skepticism needs to be addressed, because the growth of our economy, the retention and creation of British Columbia's jobs and the reduction of people dependent on social assistance can only happen when the risk factors in this case -- this government's economic and social policies -- are adjusted to restore confidence and to encourage job creation, innovation, investment and business growth.

I can assure the taxpayers of this province that I and my hard-working colleagues on this side of the House will work tirelessly to hold this government to account. When it comes to the handling of finances in this province, this government's record speaks for itself. All of their budgets to date have been illusions; they hide the dismal truth. I would like to believe

[ Page 2237 ]

this is not the case this time. I would really like to believe this, but I fear it's another hollow promise. I believe it's another illusion.

I must say, hon. Speaker, that I look forward to participating in estimates debates, and I will endeavour to at least try to listen to the responses of the various ministers as they try to justify the accounting in Budget '97. As for today, I ask for this House to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Shuswap.

J. Doyle: I am pleased to get up and speak in favour of Budget '97.

First of all, before I speak on the budget, I would like to make note of the passing last November of a very good friend of mine, a very good friend of our province and a constituent of mine: Ian Jack, a citizen of the community of Edgewater. Ian was a retired park naturalist with the federal government. He was very active in the rod and gun community all throughout British Columbia, and one of our outstanding citizens. I would like to make note of his passing at this time.

Hon. Speaker, this budget is about a job strategy for B.C., a job strategy that will support the creation of 40,000 new jobs this year, building on the best job creation record in Canada. It includes: investing $1 billion in schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure to create more than 13,000 jobs; 12,000 new jobs for young people, through a $23 million Guarantee for Youth program -- something very dear to my heart; pursuing the jobs and timber accord with the forest industry, with the goal of creating 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector by the year 2001; creating a new agency to promote tourism, in partnership with the tourism industry; promoting growth in the airline industry through the phase-out and reduction of the international jet fuel tax from 4 cents per litre to 2 cents by 1999; encouraging small business job creation; continuing the income tax holiday for eligible new small businesses, reducing costs by $29 million; and working with B.C.'s high-growth film industry to expand opportunities and encourage Canadian products.

Also, this government is protecting health care and education. While overall spending is down, spending on health care and education is up. Health care is protected, with an increase of more than $300 million to fund hospitals and physician services and to reduce surgery wait-lists. Education is protected, with a $63 million increase in the K-to-12 school system and 2,900 new spaces for students at universities and colleges. And to help B.C. students, tuition fees continue to be frozen.

Back in my riding and in the Kootenays, the Columbia Basin Trust, which we promised in the last session of our government, is up and running. The moneys that we promised to send to the Columbia Basin Trust are in their bank account now. It is up and running. The opposition were all over the map when we set up the Columbia Basin Trust. One day they were against it, one day they were for it -- according to what part of the province they were in.

I am pleased to have worked with our Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Minister of Forests and other ministries in this government, through Forest Renewal. Last fall, the major employer in Golden, Evans Forest Products Ltd., was in financial difficulties. I was pleased to have worked with our government to put Forest Renewal dollars to use in getting that company -- and also their operations in Revelstoke and Malakwa -- up and running again. It had a big effect on the economies in that area. I am very pleased, and at this time I'd like to thank our Premier and members of the cabinet for their assistance.

I was also pleased, since we were last in this House, to work with the communities of Golden and Revelstoke in directing value-added wood sales to operations in Golden and Revelstoke. Mills will be built and jobs will be added to diversify further the forest industry in those communities.

I was pleased some weeks ago to have been up at the community of Field, a small community of about 110 homes 35 miles east of Golden, where we inaugurated the hydro line, which we worked to build through the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program over the last couple of years. Now those people are on the hydro line and the same service as other people in the province.

We are also pleased to have opened in the last year new skills training centres in Kimberley and Revelstoke.

We are carrying out and doing what we promised to do during the election: protection of health and education, and creating jobs. Let us look at the opposition. Just imagine for a terrible moment if they had won the election -- those great defenders of Howe Street over there. We could start off. . . . It's really nice, you know, with this list we have on our desks with all the seats and where the members sit in the House. We now have, compliments of Michael Smith, a $70,000 picture of the members over there. There are several of them kind of growing quite a bit. Others are sitting on three-legged chairs. What will happen if they lose one other leg of that chair?

An Hon. Member: They're all football players.

J. Doyle: That's right.

It's really nice to have this. I'd like to thank Michael Smith for passing this on to the members on the government side of the House.

The opposition, if they were in government today, would have already initiated a $3 billion cut to the budget. They would have initiated their 15 percent cut to local government. The Leader of the Opposition said that any governments -- anybody -- that can't accept a 15 percent cut are not very good managers. We made a 3 percent cut in funding to local government.

[4:45]

The large cuts from Ottawa were mentioned by the other speakers earlier on. The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition said that the cuts weren't big enough. Of course, they would have been in the stages of killing off the homeowner grant, which we found out during the election they wanted to do. That would have been phased out as we speak.

Also, of course, we found out during the election that the idea of going from 75 MLAs to 60 didn't fly. But if they had won the election, they would have been cutting back to 60 MLAs. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition on his farewell tour around northern B.C. a few weeks ago wouldn't have been around there then if he had been cutting back from 75 to 60 MLAs.

[ Page 2238 ]

Of course, they would have also been through the stages of saying: "We're selling off B.C. Rail." That's what they promised during the election, although their promises are quite flexible. That's one of the great things about being in opposition. You can change your mind once or twice a day, as the people on the other side of the floor do.

There are even people over there that said the reason they ran for the B.C. Liberals in the last election was because the minimum wage was too high. That was the stick that just made them run with this opportunist party over there. So it would have been frozen, if not lowered. It was funny to hear the Leader of the Opposition speaking last week about somebody he met in northern B.C. -- when he was on his farewell tour -- that was earning $10 per hour. I'm sure he thought that likely was a very, very good wage, because he thinks the minimum wage is too high.

Post-secondary education. Oh no, sorry -- they forgot about that during the election. We have increased funding for post-secondary education, but they forgot all about it.

Of course, with labour legislation, they would have already changed the Labour Code. Believe me, this was a big vote-decider during the election. They would have already made changes to the Labour Code, and scabs would be out there doing the work of men and women in our province. That was a big vote-decider.

Interjection.

J. Doyle: Maybe the member from Kamloops-North Thompson should go to his own seat, if he wishes to roar in the House.

It's funny, the fact that they didn't win the election, hon. Speaker. Now they're saying: "What about new schools and hospitals in our ridings?" In the same speech, they are talking about how we should cut the budget and cut spending. That does not add up, members of the opposition. When they have a spare moment, they should read through some of their campaign literature. I would say that they should read through it, and maybe then they wouldn't stand up and talk out of both sides of their mouth in the same speech in this House.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Also, they talk about gambling. During the election, of course, they received the amount of $5,750 from the Great Canadian Casino Supply Co. And what did they say about their new spokesperson? "We looked at all the parties, but the B.C. Liberals have the policies that are most compatible to us as an industry." I am sure they are already writing cheques to send that money back; otherwise it's another one of those very flexible promises of theirs.

Then, hon. Speaker, we have the great mailout they did a couple of months ago up to the tune of $1 million for partisan material out of their caucus. When he was approached about it, the leader said: "I know nothing about it." I don't know who's in charge over there. They sure would never put the sign on the desk that Harry Truman had some years ago, with the buck stopping at the leader. In this case, he said: "I don't know. It was somebody in one of these offices here."

But we haven't yet heard an apology in this House. I understand that he did apologize somewhat when they had that gathering in Penticton a couple of months ago, where the leader of the party was speaking and said that he had decided to make some changes in policy. No thought of any policy discussion on the floor. No, no, that wouldn't do. The B.C. Liberal Party is a party of convenience. I think they should change their name to the opportunist party, because they change their policies that often.

I am pleased to speak on this budget. The opposition speeches so far -- to me, they're a bunch of negative Nellies: "The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Lighten up; it's better for your health. Remember back a year or 18 months ago, when there was an election on in Ontario, where the B.C. Liberals went to campaign for some of their key Tory people? They now work for this B.C. Liberal opposition. They were over there working for the Harris party, the Tories. That's who they were working for. Of course -- again, for a terrible moment -- if they had formed the government a year ago, it would be like Ontario. There would be 39 students crowding into a classroom. Maybe they wouldn't need as many new schools built, but there were 39. . . . That's what's happening in Ontario. That's what your friends that you helped to elect in Ontario are doing over there.

So I say I'm pleased to have been re-elected. I'm back here for a second budget. Since the election. . . .

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased that these guys are still feeling so sore. Just listening to their speeches last Thursday night, some of them even made reference to Good Friday. Then they stood up and said a whole lot of stuff that was quite opposite to what they initially talked about in relation to Good Friday. But I would say that it makes my heart feel good to see they're still hurting so much to have been put back in opposition where they truly belong. I'm very, very pleased, hon. Speaker, to speak in support of this budget.

E. Walsh: Good afternoon. As MLA for Kootenay, I am honoured this afternoon to respond to the 1997-98 budget. The budget reflects our government's goals and the funding which will flow from our budget. In a time when provincial governments across the country are facing rising challenges in ensuring that budgets are met, and in light of the fact that there are challenges from federal deficits and cutbacks, we must work together to assist British Columbians, from my constituency on the eastern border of this province, to this chamber, to the west. I believe that we should all be very aware of what many of us in British Columbia are having to contend with in light of many of the challenges that we have to face in government.

I would like to take a moment this afternoon to pay tribute to Toto Miller, who was the longest-serving mayor of the district of Sparwood within my constituency -- four terms. His given name was Othon Eduardo Charles Miller, and he passed away on August 18, 1996. Toto was a school teacher, a small business man and, as I've already said, a four-term mayor of that community.

Toto truly lived for the pure joy of a heated political debate. Many times Toto would look at me across the room or across the table whenever we were talking about any issues that would be coming up in Sparwood. As the debate heated up, he would wink at me and continue his debate "just to test the waters a little bit," he would say. His style was sometimes what some may have considered unorthodox, but he was always true to his goal. And he was always true to the people of Sparwood and to his friends and his family.

[ Page 2239 ]

He had a style all his own, and it went all the way from kissing a woman's hand to daring Mike Harcourt to buy him a Diet Pepsi at a Sparwood general store. He challenged the conventional when no one else would, and he even asked Kim Campbell for her hand in marriage. And never let it be said that he was not gallant. I used to tease Toto and tell him: "Well, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." But you know, he's not in Sparwood anymore, either. But his memory will live on in the hearts and the minds of everybody in Sparwood, and I believe that it will live on forever. He was a very good man, and our region will miss him. I would like to thank all the members of this House for sending all those caring letters to his family and to the community on his passing. I know they meant a lot to his family and friends, and to the district and the people of Sparwood.

My constituency stretches some 240 kilometres, from the community of Sparwood to the east -- just in case there are people that haven't travelled my constituency. It goes from Sparwood-Alford all the way west to Yahk, and that's the American border. In the past ten months I have travelled this distance many, many times. I've travelled to many communities for events, meetings, etc. I have travelled to speak and to listen. I think it is really important that we listen to the people -- not just in my constituency, but for every MLA to be listening to their constituents.

As an MLA I believe that we must do both, and in equal measure. We need to hear our constituents' concerns. We need to act on their concerns and to discuss any problems and solutions that we see that are common to them. The concerns in Kootenay aren't much different from what they are in Victoria or Vancouver or Kelowna or Kamloops or Prince George. My constituents want quality, accessible health care. They want good schools for their children, employment that pays a fair wage, and a clean environment in which we, our children and our grandchildren can live.

However, the Kootenays face an ongoing battle, and that battle is in the numbers of miles or kilometres that one has to travel in the face of a medical emergency or in accessing education; also, the fact that in the Kootenays, not just our children but our grandchildren have to travel to post-secondary education.

I believe that the regionalization of health care and the development of skills centres within rural communities is really important, but these will also address some of the inequities that we face in the rural parts of British Columbia.

I had the honour of attending the Elkford Winter Carnival in February, and I would urge anybody that's out there visiting Elkford to attend that winter carnival. I've also attended the opening of the world's largest truck display. I believe that I mentioned the Terex Titan the last time that I had the honour of speaking in the House. Also, I attended the community skills centre in Sparwood, the sod-turning for the aquatic centre in Fernie and a number of B.C. 21 community grant projects in Cranbrook. I was also fortunate in attending a waterworks community grants project in Mooyah -- that is a very small community just about half an hour outside of Cranbrook. Again, I would urge anyone to come and visit my area of the province. These events I have attended have made for a very interesting and enjoyable first year as an MLA for my constituency.

The Ktunaxa-Kinbasket peoples of the Kootenays have been working very hard these past few years to develop a four-season destination resort which will reflect their cultural past, while at the same time enhancing their future. I believe that they've achieved this balance at the St. Eugene Mission. It's on the site of the St. Eugene church school, where many of today's Ktunaxa feel that their historic culture was taken from them. This new development will celebrate the culture of the five member bands, who all visit it.

Chief Sophie Pierre has worked tirelessly to promote and create understanding within our region and through the province as a whole. As this initiative nears fruition, our first nations people will see economic benefits and the realization of a long-held dream.

In the next week, the Columbia Basin Trust will hold its third regional symposium in Revelstoke. Hundreds of people from throughout the basin will attend to provide input to the trust and to learn of the activities of the trust in the past year. Our government is living up to the commitment made to the people of the Kootenays to address some of the longstanding issues surrounding the development of the Columbia River dams in the sixties and the seventies. At this time, the trust is looking to mitigate some of the economic, environmental and social impacts which these developments have had on our region. The trust will be a living legacy for the people of the Kootenays. Long-term and short-term investments shall yield a benefit for generations to come. I believe that the opportunity to partner further electrical capacity with the province will yield employment and further revenue for the trust.

Within the Kootenay region, FRBC has invested more than $40 million in forestry-related projects. With the regional office located in Cranbrook, FRBC has been able to address many longstanding and emergent proposals, all the way from reforestation to worker training. As our government moves forward with a number of forestry and land use initiatives, the role FRBC plays within the Kootenay region will expand and become ever more vital to my constituency and that area of the province.

In the past ten months, our government has made health care, education and job creation its top three priorities. Having raised a family, I realize the importance and the necessity of these commitments. In recent weeks the Minister of Health has announced funding to reduce cardiac and joint-replacement surgery wait-lists. In addition, she has announced $83 million to increase hospital funding throughout the province. This reflects about a 3 percent increase in the current provincial hospital budget of $2.97 billion.

These commitments, although modest, reflect the priorities of our government. The preservation and enhancement of health care is an easy statement to make, but one which is becoming ever harder to maintain. In the past six years only British Columbia has increased funding to health care each and every year. As our federal government has reduced much-needed health care funds by more than $1.8 billion, provinces across this country have scrambled to close hospitals, care facilities and community health centres. Ontario set the all-time North American record on March 5, 1997, by closing 37 hospitals in one day. Within British Columbia, in the past six years only one hospital has closed, that one due to exorbitant upgrade costs and the availability of vacant beds within less than a ten-minute drive.

[5:00]

As a federal election draws near, increases to health care funding are being announced by all federal parties. The Liberals have announced $300 million in one-time increases. Although needed, these funds do not replace the billions that have already been withdrawn. The federal Reform Party has announced increases to health care and education in billions

[ Page 2240 ]

of dollars, with these funds to come from the reduction or elimination of federal dollars to the provinces for welfare costs. In essence, they are robbing from Peter to pay Paul. The only problem is that Peter is dead broke and Paul is dying from undefended health care. I am very proud of the health services in British Columbia, and I have worked my entire working life in the health care field. As British Columbians we must all work to keep that field level for all who need it.

In this legislative chamber, budget announcements, percentages and dollar figures are in many cases only fodder for political debate. But in small communities within my constituency, these funding increases mean a lunch program in Sparwood and new computers for Fernie Elementary School and Elkford Secondary also, and much-needed special education space in Cranbrook classrooms.

As legislators, we need to walk more than a mile in the small shoes of our children. We need to slow our pace, so that we may walk with them very closely during their school years. This year our government will spend $300 million to build and improve public schools. I am very pleased that a long-awaited secondary school replacement has been announced by the Minister of Education for the community of Fernie. Fernie Secondary School was built in 1908, and it has served five generations of Elk Valley students. The building has changed over the years, as has its role. However, the demands of this facility have far outstretched its capacity to adapt. Community support, planning and participation have assisted in the development of what I believe will be one of the finest schools anywhere in the province. Construction of the $17 million facility will begin this spring, with completion scheduled for September of 1998.

Our government is maintaining its commitment to the youth of our province through increases in funding to post-secondary education. Averaging 4 percent, British Columbia has led our nation as we have acted to recognize technological change, workplace restructuring and an ever-increasing need for adult education in all its forms. Funding within our country has fallen by an average of 1.5 percent annually. I believe that British Columbians have chosen a far better path to our future. We have frozen tuition fees; we have increased student loans and built additional student spaces.

As the B.C. Benefits and the B.C. family bonus programs continue, our government is moving to address the needs of those people within our province who live at or below the poverty line. For many years I have heard people say many times that it would be better to be on welfare than to work at a minimum-wage job, and that people who are on income assistance have a better lifestyle than working people within our province. Well, while it may sometimes have appeared to be the case, the plight of those people on income assistance has never been, nor will it ever be, an easy one. The cycle of poverty is a very deep one, one that is increasingly difficult to break.

In parts of our country, the dependence on government to deliver the basics of life to households is measured in generations; it's not measured in months or days or years. Our government is working to assist families and individuals in the difficult task of moving from welfare rolls to payrolls. The past four years have seen the development of more than 35,000 new day care spaces within British Columbia. School-based, community-based and private care have all been enhanced to meet the needs of single parents, working families and those trying to break the cycle of poverty. It is one thing to talk about assisting single parents and low-income families with affordable, safe day care; it is quite another to really deliver it.

In the past 12 months a number of initiatives have been announced and implemented to support low-income, working households. More than 200,000 low-income families will receive the B.C. family bonus to aid in the cost of raising their children. Medical and basic dental benefits are now within reach of families who have struggled in the past to provide these services to the children. Our government is encouraging the federal government to develop a federal family bonus plan to meet the rising tide of child poverty in our country.

The focus for young adults is shifting to training and employment. Youth between 19 and 24 who do not receive training and employment assistance often fall through the cracks and never break the cycle of poverty. Our Guarantee for Youth program will provide 12,000 new jobs, and the Youth Works program will provide the training and work experience so badly needed by today's youth. These initiatives, combined with a strong minimum wage, can at long last provide a bit of light at the end of the tunnel for low-income families.

Within the budget and the throne speech, our government has outlined a broad array of initiatives which will help our province move towards the twenty-first century. We must meet the challenges ahead on a firm fiscal footing. I believe that our debt-reduction targets are realistic and that we can reduce our deficit and address our debt in a meaningful manner. To cut services that I feel are vital to the present and future of all British Columbians is not on. Tax relief for small businesses and working families will show the results which our provincial economy requires. Securing employment for British Columbians -- whether they are employed in forestry, mining, tourism or fisheries -- must be in balance with the long-term sustainability of those industries, and our footsteps of the present must not wipe out any footholds for the future.

In the course of sitting in the House during this session, I've heard many, many opinions from across the floor from the opposition. I've heard repeated calls for money to be spent. I've heard nothing but that they wish to see a balanced budget. How many times have I heard "balanced budget" ? They'd like to see more cuts. They don't think that the cuts were deep enough. By the same token, I've heard: "We want you to spend, spend and spend some more, but balance the budget while you're spending. Eliminate the deficit left to us by the Socreds." All this, while the federal Liberal government is now in fact reducing federal transfer payments to the province by $200 million this year.

They have condemned us for cuts to municipalities totalling $113 million, but they have forgotten the promise that was made to the people of British Columbia during their campaign -- that was a cut of $500 million. Well, that leaves an extra $387 million that would have to have been cut from somewhere else. So I wonder where that would have been taken from. Luckily, we don't have to wonder, and we don't have to try to make those ends meet.

Again, on gaming expansion, we've heard many different views from the opposition. Well, I really wonder what it is

[ Page 2241 ]

today. The Liberal opposition leader has apparently forgotten what the Liberal Party policy is. It was passed at the annual general meeting, and that was, I believe, on February 21 of this year. This policy clearly supports community and/or province referenda in deciding whether or not they want to operate for-profit casinos or video lottery terminals.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you and the House again for enabling me to give my support to the Speech from the Throne and the budget. I would hope that if there are any other questions the opposition have in the way of questions on the budget, that they will look to see exactly what is happening in British Columbia today and will see just exactly how many jobs have been created in the province today, compared with the rest of Canada. I believe that this budget will show that it is a good budget. It is a promising budget, and it's a budget that we can and will deliver on.

L. Reid: I would trust that before the two previous speakers -- the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke or the hon. member for Kootenay -- again take to their feet and discuss gambling issues with this side of the House, they have the guts and the gumption to stand up and tell us that they have repaid the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society the dollars that were fraudulently taken, stolen from nuns in this province.

Let me put on the record a number of definitions that I intend to refer to during the course of my remarks. The first one is "bogus." In fact, it's a machine for making counterfeit money. It also means not genuine and counterfeit. "Sham" also means not genuine, having such poor quality as to seem false, a trick that deludes, a hoax, a cheap faultiness. The verb "to sham" means to act intentionally so as to give a false impression.

These three terms will come up again and again in my remarks this afternoon, and in the remarks of my colleagues, because this government during this budget speech did attempt to mislead British Columbians. From our perspective, politics is a people business. People deserve better. British Columbians deserve some honesty and some integrity.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'll welcome you into the debate, hon. member.

They deserve some integrity on behalf of this government. They don't have it before them today. This is in excess of a $20 billion budget. This government is attempting to manage just under four million people. They don't have a decent budget plan in place, and they don't have a decent debt management plan in place, because the targets shift. This government is about shifting sands. And frankly, it is about dishonesty with those who have come before, and that needs to change because it's not fair.

Colleagues in this House have risen and said that this is indeed about an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. I would concur. The last budget and the budget previous to that were indeed deliberate attempts to mislead the public about how these dollars were expended. Frankly, that rhetoric must pass from this chamber, because these individuals were elected by people who believed in the integrity of the political process. That is gone, because this government has given it away -- it has freely given it away.

Six consecutive deficit budgets. They're bad money managers, and just not interested in delivering a reasonable product to the public, but interested in again expending in excess of $20 billion without some accountability. All members in this chamber have heard me speak many times about some reasonable measurement tools, some cost-benefit analyses. None of that issues forth from the government benches. And it's wrong for this government to continue not to provide all members of the public with reasonable information. The shell game no longer works. It's not about shifting the columns in the ledger. It is about being honest, full and frank with members of the public in terms of how those dollars are spent.

Again, hon. Speaker, I would reference the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and all its variations. That's an issue of integrity. The Premier in this province stood up today and said that those dollars would be repaid. That's obviously another example of saying one thing and doing another.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

L. Reid: It is a shame. It is a dramatic shame that the public can't trust the Premier to do what he said he would do. Again, I would invite those two colleagues -- Columbia River-Revelstoke and Kootenay -- to get to their feet and table the document that says those dollars have been repaid. That would be a really good place to start, before anyone on those benches dares to get to their feet and talk to me about credibility. Shame on you, hon. member! There are some issues that need to be addressed. You cannot escape your lack of accountability. You cannot escape your lack of credibility on this issue.

[5:15]

In the budget speech, there was talk of the Premier saying that the forests are the greatest public trust. Then we hear about a sideways shift. What happened to them being the greatest public asset that we have? What happened to that? I can tell this minister that. . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: . . .trust funds do not run surpluses, hon. minister. Hear this clearly: trust funds do not run surpluses. This minister is again misleading the public when he talks about having a commitment to the forest industry in this province. It is not evidenced by the comments this minister has made in the last number of days. Trust funds don't run surpluses. It needed to be an issue of honesty and integrity, and, again, it's an issue that this minister has very conveniently sidestepped. The public no longer buys it, Mr. Minister. They no longer believe that the information they receive is factual. I don't believe you any longer. I don't believe that the information that this government puts forward is factual. I can tell you that 75 percent of the public share my sentiments.

This government continues to mislead. Somebody on that side of the House has to have the gumption to stand up and state their convictions clearly. And their convictions have

[ Page 2242 ]

changed dramatically over the last number of months. This minister is only one example of someone who continues to sidestep the issues. A sideways shift of a hundred million dollars is not a trust issue with the public. It is nothing but a revenue grab, hon. minister -- nothing but a revenue grab.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Frankly, if you wish to engage in debate, get to your feet, hon. minister. In the meantime, in terms of your comment on forest renewal jobs being meaningful jobs, there won't be dollars left to put those dollars back into forest-dependent communities, because you will have stolen the money, hon. minister. Certainly, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, on what point?

M. Sihota: I'm sorry to interrupt the hon. member in full flight, but I'm sure she didn't intend to make the statement she just made. She indicated that the hon. member, the Minister of Forests, stole money. I believe that is unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

The Speaker: I am sure that if indeed the member said that, she will be happy to withdraw that comment. Member?

L. Reid: I will continue with my belief that those dollars have been taken from the forest renewal fund. I will not withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: That's not the issue, member. Rather, the issue on the point of order was simply whether you indeed said that a member on the other side had stolen money. If that's the case, I would ask you to withdraw that categorically, please, without any reservation. If that's not the case, obviously we'll review the record.

L. Reid: I would invite the Speaker to review the record. I will not withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: You've placed me in an awkward position. I'm asking if you in fact said what somebody else has alleged you have said. If indeed you did so, you know full well that that is unparliamentary under standing order 40 and ought to be withdrawn forthwith.

I need that clarification, member. If you said that, as I say, then clearly you can't say that, and I think you know that as well as I, and therefore you must withdraw. I would ask the member to please consider doing so.

L. Reid: I will withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I appreciate that. Please continue.

An Hon. Member: You sideways-stepped them.

L. Reid: Yes. The sideways shift is back in place on behalf of the government.

Some of you will recall that Mr. Kipling at some point in history wrote a poem called "If." It talks about. . . .

An Hon. Member: Virtue.

L. Reid: Yes, basically it talks about virtue. You're absolutely right. "If you can fill the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run. . . ." That poem has been recrafted and entirely fits the scenario we find ourselves in today. It was in Trevor Lautens's column. Trevor Lautens writes:

If you can tell a whopper and look honest
And tell another, and look more sincere;
If you can put a third one over on us
And praise the humble toiler, with a tear;
If you can vow "The misery of all mankind
Pains me," and take the public's hundred grand. . . .

The entire poem is here, and I'd be happy to put it into the record, because I think it speaks to my previous comment that dollars have been taken from the forest renewal fund in the province of British Columbia. That fund did not run a surplus. Trust funds do not run surpluses, and those dollars will not be returned to forest-dependent communities in this province, which is a breach of trust. Those dollars were promised. Those dollars needed to be delivered. Again, it's a credibility issue on behalf of this government.

Interjections.

L. Reid: I think I will continue with this fine bit of poetry. I'm going to put it into the record:

If you can swipe big dollars and look pious
While running bingo games that aid the poor,
And call it clean. "We don't know how that slipped by us,
But of our principles you can be sure.
We've naught to hide; a quick investigation
And -- well, another; these things all take time
And meanwhile there will be a new sensation:
-- What? Scurrilous to use the word 'a crime!'
We'll sue. . .
If on the gates called Bingo, Hydro, Budget
You can with nonchalance together swing (The latest? "Oh, we can quite easily fudge it;
Arithmetic can prove most anything"),
The next scam then will be a little easier
For those too moral or too faint of heart;
No need to fear defection of the queasier,
They know their own class interests, if they're smart.
And if you have bright eyes, a ready tongue,
A plan that's slick, paid by the public purse,
A memory that's weak when deeds are done,
And photo ops that will expunge the curse

This is a most amazing piece of poetry:

Of all past sins -- and even if the truck
You shovelled money from is stalled, tires flat,
There's still the public teat on which to suck;.
The private sector thins. . . .
The brain, however, must keep acrobatic
For flip-flops starting from election night,
When, brazened out, a shameless shift dramatic
Transmits white into black, black into white.
If, son, you master this and none escapes you,
assuredly the Premier's chair awaits you.

You can appreciate that it ends a little differently than Mr. Kipling would have allowed, but it truly fits where we are today in terms of examining in some detail this budget and the budget remarks by members opposite. The issue is credibility, my hon. colleague; the issue is virtue. The issue is whether British Columbians can continue to trust in anything that flows from the government benches in British Columbia.

[ Page 2243 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The Finance minister says: "Don't believe me."

L. Reid: Yes, my hon. colleague. The Finance minister says: "I don't expect you to believe me." I know I don't believe the missives that come from the government benches. My constituents don't believe the material they receive. They question it, and that is assuredly the wrong spirit from which to govern -- when everything is based on suspicion because they don't know when. . . . The trust has been eradicated. That's a significant issue.

Some of you will have read in the Economist, the November 18, 1996, issue: "Six months ago, they voted. Today British Columbians face a new choice: is the provincial government they elected a pack of incompetents or of plain liars? The question goes wider than British Columbia. Last winter. . . ." It goes on to talk about the New Democrats and how they promised every possible promise to the people of British Columbia in the lead-up to the election and indeed have delivered very little of what they promised following the election -- another example of talking a great line and delivering very little.

My constituents read the Economist. I'm sure many, many members in this House have constituents who read this article and were alarmed by the credibility gap facing this government -- certainly by the number of issues before us reflected in this article. My colleagues and I will touch on this as we go through this budget debate, but I very much want to put into the record some comments by Darcy Rezac.

Darcy Rezac is the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade. He wrote to this Minister of Finance prior to this budget, and he talked about representing 4,400 members, people who actually know something about creating jobs in the province. These are the people who are employers in the province, so, yes indeed, their remarks do carry some weight.

"We have mounting economic problems and diminishing job prospects in B.C. Let me illustrate with a specific example. On Saturday, January 25, the Vancouver Sun newspaper carried four pages of classified ads in 'Help Wanted': clerical, sales and public sector. The total was approximately 600 ads. On the same day, the Seattle Times carried 32 pages of classified 'Help Wanted' -- over 5,000 additional ads. There were eight pages alone of good quality jobs under high technology."

This government has done more to push away possible investments in the high technology sector than any other government in the history of this province.

"The business climate and investment confidence in B.C. is tragically out of tune with competing jurisdictions." Again, I am quoting from Darcy Rezac, the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade. I would ask this House to consider unemployment rates in B.C. compared to our neighbours: Washington is at 6 percent; Oregon, 5.2; Alberta, 6.5; and British Columbia, over 8 percent.

"On a per capita basis, our economy has been shrinking steadily since 1989. Real disposal income" -- take-home pay -- "has been falling since 1989. Non-residential capital investment, with the exception of 1994, has been flat since 1989. This trend is not sustainable. With the natural advantages that we have in B.C., this should simply not be the case."

This is factual information that needs to be brought forward, because this is the balance that the budget debate emanating from the government benches has not reflected to date. Again, Mr. Rezac is advising the hon. Finance minister: "You have an opportunity in your 1997 budget to start to reverse this trend. You have an opportunity in this budget to set out a new policy framework to re-establish investment and business confidence."

When I talk about integrity, that's what I'm talking about -- re-establishing consumer confidence and business confidence. This broader framework includes: competent fiscal management; tax policy in tune with competing jurisdictions; adoption of innovative practices and operation of government service; development of infrastructure with private-sector involvement; and changes in regulations that impede economic growth and job creation, including regulations to the important resource sectors. This information is the information that folks, day to day, are debating in this province. They are wondering why this Finance minister has not risen to the challenge and addressed these issues.

The budget speech missed the mark in more than its target. It missed the mark in terms of addressing all the issues that are before us, and I've just put them into the record. I don't think anyone in this House would disagree that achieving a balanced budget is very important in terms of re-establishing some credibility, and this is about re-establishing credibility. It has been lost as a result of this government's handling of our finances. There is a long way to go in terms of re-establishing that.

My colleagues will talk in greater detail about the costs of regulation and the cost of mismanagement in this province, and there are labour issues in this province that need to be addressed. The one you will hear this opposition speak of most often is whether British Columbians are entitled to a secret ballot in certification. The position of this Liberal caucus is that they certainly are. To deny them that fundamental right is unfair, is wrongheaded and, frankly, lacks any kind of decency. There needs to be some issue where British Columbians can believe that people should be trusted to make decisions that are in their best interest. That is the Liberal position. We believe in the fundamental rights of the individual. That belief system is not shared by the members opposite.

When I talk about science and technology and the fact that this government is doing more to turn away business opportunity in this province, that's a fact. In 1994, R and D spending in British Columbia was $888 million -- 0.9 percent or $240 per capita. This was well below the national average of $409 per capita, 1.6 percent of GDP. In other provinces, per capita spending on R and D ranges from $119 in Prince Edward Island to $497 in Ontario. The provincial government's total spending on science and technology -- R and D, plus related scientific activities -- in '94-95 was $199 million, or 0.4 percent of B.C.'s budget. Not a great deal of money when we talk about the belief system from this side of the Legislature which says that science and technology is the basis for new job growth, for new investment, for bringing new dollars, new ideas and new innovations to the marketplace in British Columbia.

[5:30]

Those ideas are vastly important to future health, future education and how to better deliver social programming in this province. All those issues need to be addressed more appropriately by this government. They're not willing to commit and make a permanent commitment, a longstanding commitment, to science, technology and research. It's vitally important to the future of this province.

I have taken the position in the past that this government is not one that understands good money management. I certainly continue to believe that. They've taken a very careless approach. I think that in lots of ways, they've created more slush funds, after decrying the previous administration for the debt they were left with. Well, I can assure this Speaker that indeed that is running a bit hollow after six years of decrying your predecessor. It's time this government took some respon-

[ Page 2244 ]

sibility for the financial actions that have put us in the place we are in today. It's frankly sanctimonious to continue to blame something that happened more than six years ago, when this government has had every opportunity to change course and to take some responsibility.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Exactly right, hon. member. He was the previous Minister of Finance.

One of the other tacks that this government traditionally takes is to create a huge problem, scare people to death and then wing in with some kind of novel solution. It's not right. It's truly not right, and, frankly, it's heartless. I can give many examples of those kinds of situations that have continued to rack the spirit of British Columbians, when they know they're already paying a sufficient level of taxation to cover the costs that are denied and then put back in place -- services denied, put back in place. The roller-coaster continues.

Frankly, British Columbians are tired of the trial balloons. They're looking for this government to do their solid homework, to do some study, to do some research, to measure something and report out accurately and honestly on that measurement -- not to continue to hold up the trial balloon, and if it doesn't get shot down, that's public policy. That's not the way to govern. That is not about decent public policy or making good public policy decisions.

In my view, most of what this government has done is play a huge shell game: move the dollars around, move them back and forth. Our Finance critic has talked about how to measure debt in this province, measuring it as a percentage of GDP -- it's not anything else. Don't measure interest costs against revenue costs -- he's dead to rights on that. There is sound financial advice coming from this side of the House. There are people who make their living in the financial industry, who understand what reasonable accounting practice is. That same understanding has to be communicated effectively to members on both sides of this House, hon. Speaker, because it's currently not the case.

I share my colleague's concerns -- the hon. member for Delta South -- when he talks about the Wall Street credit rate or Moody's Investors Service and how they're going to possibly downgrade this province. That's a huge credibility issue, and you will note that my comments today reflect almost solely on credibility issues on behalf of this government -- because it is all intertwined. There's no way to separate out the threads and to say at some point that they're going to start being more accurate in presentation of budget numbers, when the past history has not led us to accept that assertion.

And there are a number of issues which talk to Moody's Investors Service -- and I will quote: ". . .is also not pleased with the surprise changes to B.C.'s fiscal picture. This month it put B.C. bonds under review for a possible downgrade, highlighting the province's failure to meet its budget targets during the past two years and a lack of policies to tackle the deficit." This is a significant, tangible comment on behalf of the Finance ministry of this province, on behalf of the Finance minister, on behalf of the government. This is a significant criticism of this province. It doesn't just affect the government benches; it affects every single British Columbian -- and certainly every single member of this Legislature.

And again, there isn't an article that I've read, when it talks about this budget, which doesn't make mention that the skilled labour sector, the high-technology sector, is scurrying to Alberta and the United States. That is not a record that this government should be proud of. It's, frankly, a huge disappointment to me that somehow this government thinks that an appropriate way to attract business is to continually beat them off with all kinds of things that are not in the best interests of job creation.

This government has to come to the understanding that job creation is the role of business. They know how to do it best. Government has tinkered with it in the past and obviously plans to continue to tinker with it, but the best advice of the day has told this government and will continue to tell this government that this is about putting in place a reasonable job creation climate, so that others who know better how to create jobs can move ahead and do that. That is indeed something that this Liberal opposition will stand up for very, very strongly, because it is the only thing that makes sense.

I mentioned a moment ago the provincial debt management plan, and I certainly will quote from the CGA newsletter and their news release of March 25, the day the budget came out: "Provincial Budget Lacks Debt Management Plan." It "has failed to offer a financial management plan that can lift the province out of its spiral of debt." Spiral of debt -- which is downplayed amazingly well from the government benches. But it is a fact. It is something that every member of this House must come to grips with. You are not doing a favour to anyone who will come after you -- your children or your grandchildren -- when this province continues to have a spiralling debt problem.

"President Bruce Hryciuk says: 'The province's total accumulated debt will top the $30 billion mark this year, and Mr. Petter has still not introduced any credible strategy to rein it under control." -- not introduced any credible strategy -- While the minister says that he's holding the deficit line to $185 million for 1997-98, the reality is that our total provincial debt will increase by $1.4 billion this year alone.'"

That's a fact. That's a reality that this government must come to grips with.

"It is interesting to note that the government has departed from referring to a debt management plan, as it did in last year's budget documents. Today it's a financial management plan. . . . While the government admits that last year's debt management plan was not sustainable, this year's financial management plan is based on economic growth predictions 37 percent more optimistic than [the Finance minister's] prudent economic assumptions for the current year.'"

Again, the minister in the budget speech and in the following subsequent discussions was not able to convince these individuals that he was consistent in his outlook.

"If the government can't achieve the growth levels necessary to meet its debt reduction goals, then the Finance ministry's latest financial management plan will again be not sustainable." That's an issue that every single British Columbian will need to live with, and that's not an issue that we on the opposition benches are prepared to live with.

This is indeed an issue of credibility. On this issue, I wish every single member on the government benches to stand up and indicate when they knew the budget would not balance. When did you know it? When did this information come before you, and did you decide to ignore the best advice of the day and take the balanced-budget message to your constituents? Stand up and be counted on when you had that information in your possession.

[ Page 2245 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I spent the weekend reflecting on what this budget means to the people of the Cariboo, whom I am honoured to represent. We should all pause in this House and be thankful and mindful of the privilege it is to serve our constituents. It's difficult when some want one thing and others want another, but it's our task to balance the needs and wants of our constituents with our financial ability to provide those services and actions which people expect from our government.

Government is for providing security for its citizens -- social security and economic security. In the many meetings that I have held with people across the communities of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I was reminded by them about the fundamentals of education and health care and about the need of sustaining the environment that supports our economic activity.

When I stand here for the people of the Cariboo, I know that, with the exception of some obvious nuances and some extreme positions that have been taken by some people, the vast majority expect a balance between financial responsibility and adequate spending to meet the needs of people and the economy. They have told me that they reject the extremes of slashing of spending in areas of fundamental government responsibility.

As I drove to the airport the last time, I passed the sign that speaks to the heroic contribution that Rick Hansen has made as a Man in Motion. It sits outside the city of Williams Lake, and I think about the fact that we will create a fund that will dedicate part of traffic fines to spinal cord research and how proud I am, and the people of the Cariboo are, of this outstanding citizen, who tirelessly works to make life better for those who have been critically injured so that they might live in hope. That's the kind of inspiration that we need to take from our constituents and bring to this House.

We continue to be proud of the role that Rick Hansen plays, particularly in inspiring young people to achieve what they can achieve. And then we think of the dire straits that many families in the Cariboo and across the province find themselves in. People are faced with domestic violence; they are faced with being unable to feed and house their families. I think about the tax breaks that we have said. . .in order to keep a promise about making it more possible, more affordable, for our families to feed and clothe themselves. I think of B.C. Benefits, and how approximately 2,000 families in the Cariboo are now able to take home the child benefit each month -- the thousands of dollars that this means to them -- and the dental care that is now available to low-income families. But there is work to be done, a lot of work to be done.

I would like to pay tribute to work being done by groups in Williams Lake to improve housing. We have our share of poor housing and know that housing can breed its own problems. I know that there are people in two groups, the Social Planning Action Network and the Tsilhqot'in tribal council, making efforts to improve the housing stock in Williams Lake. I want to assure the people who I represent that I will do all I can to help with that great work that's being done by those community groups.

We protected our education system from deep cuts. We know that if that opposition had been elected, there would have been 15 percent cuts across the board in government spending. We do expect tightening on administrative costs. We expect to leave money for teachers and classrooms. And we must make sure that the rural areas get their share of funding.

When I met with the student council at the University College of the Cariboo in Williams Lake last week, they told me how important the freeze on tuition was, how important it is to have a guarantee of space for any student who wants to be prepared to meet the world of work, and how important it is that the student loan program is there, which allows a single parent to attend school. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we have never forgotten to count post-secondary education in our budget plans.

Skills training is another essential area to prepare people for the world of work and to compete in today's world -- further apprenticeships and forest worker training, which we're particularly proud of, funded by Forest Renewal at the skills centre in Williams Lake. They were to have targeted 250 forest workers in a first-time-ever upgrading; 413 people went through that centre. This year they're going to expand down into the 100 Mile area and train 120 workers there. I think a great job has been done by the IWA and by the licensees in that area. It is absolutely essential to prepare for the new forest industry.

Education capital, I'm glad to see, is sufficient to fund the replacement of Williams Lake Junior Secondary School. After an unhappy postponement, called the capital freeze, I'm pleased to say it was one of the first schools that was announced. As a matter of fact, the way it's working out, I'm pleased to tell the House Leader of the opposition that it probably won't be any later opening up. By being prepared to offer tenders, we know that this school will be replaced on time. It's been a long wait, but I'm really pleased that there's money in here and that the capital plan provides for that.

There are other schools, of course. Every student, no matter where they live, should expect to be educated in a safe and comfortable environment. I know that Alexis Creek Elementary-Junior Secondary School will be next on this list, as far as my riding is concerned, and I will be happy to fight for that. We're very pleased that this spring we will be turning sod on Williams Lake Junior Secondary School -- after many years of waiting, but I'm very proud of that fact. I want to remind the member for Cariboo North that about a third of that population comes from his riding. He should have been in there cheering when this school was announced, and he wasn't.

[5:45]

Health care -- we have recently heard a lot of complaints about adequacy of health care, in particular the hospital in Williams Lake. But I am pleased to say today's paper is full of letters from people who feel they have had first-class treatment. Before I speak more on that, I am pleased that local health councils are now poised to take over. There is one in 100 Mile House and one in Williams Lake. They will take charge of assigning difficult priorities to health care in the district. In Williams Lake we opened a new wing of a hospital, and it serves people very efficiently -- so efficiently that it creates pressures on the budget. They are doing more with the renovated wing than ever before.

Just to give you some flavour of what people feel, I would like to read into the record part of a short letter:

"Dear Editor:

"In defence of our local hospital, 'Failing to Meet Most Basic Needs,' I can vouch firsthand for the treatment I have been receiving since arriving by ambulance last night, March 21. I was wheeled into a lovely room with a private bedroom, put to bed with prewarmed blankets and given the option of a pain pill. All equipment needed for my condition, which was a hip replacement, was supplied: the walker, the toilet seat

[ Page 2246 ]

extender, the electric push-button bed. The nurses come immediately, day or night, and not a surly one among them. The meals have been tastefully presented and enjoyable; tonight it was turkey dinner with all the trimmings. To me, these are the basics of good, everyday round-the-clock health care.

"Gerry Bracewell"

I recently travelled to Quesnel to listen to the concerns of people there about having the most efficient hospital that they can, and I intend to take their concerns to the Minister of Health.

G. Farrell-Collins: Tell them your mom's getting a replacement, too.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Fortunately, my mother doesn't need a hip replacement.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it wasn't my mother. The member should have listened more carefully.

That's just one sample of many of the good services provided. In the 100 Mile House area, I believe that the capital program of the size we have set out will be there to fund, when its time comes, the health centre -- which will achieve efficiency between extended-care beds, the hospital and the public health services in one health centre. It is the new style of providing one-stop shopping, and I'm pleased that 100 Mile House has led the way in the design of such a facility.

I'm pleased that there have been new crisis stabilization beds opened up for mental health patients in all three hospitals in the Cariboo. But there does need to be more capital expended, and I am hopeful that the appropriate facilities to establish those beds so they're efficient and safe will be spent this year. In spite of the overall reduction in spending in this budget, we have maintained a high level of care for the rural areas. That must remain a priority for the Health ministry, especially in a region where the overall state of health is sometimes poor.

I would like to speak about jobs in the Cariboo. This spring will see the opening of the Mount Polley mine, which will create hundreds of jobs in the mining industry, and I'm hopeful that I can attend the opening of that. We are making tremendous progress in continuing good family-supporting jobs in the Cariboo. There's a mine planned by Taseko Mines that hopefully will now be finding its way through the environmental review -- as long as the federal government agrees to coordinate their review so that, if approved through assessment process, it can go ahead without going through a federal review as well.

Tourism is important, and I'm glad the Minister of Tourism is here. We need long-term, dependable financing for the industry, particularly on the marketing side. These are dollars that we treasure coming in; they're like export dollars. For the Cariboo, this is an important issue. I'm really pleased that some progress has been made on that, and I expect great announcements in the days to come.

The Cariboo has waited long for a ferry connection through Bella Coola, which benefits the whole of the Chilcotin plateau and Highway 97. I'm pleased to say that it is up and running and creating jobs for people in bed-and-breakfasts across the plateau, and everybody is pleased with that. Most people didn't believe it would ever happen. Fortunately, the capital plan of B.C. Ferries allowed that to happen.

It would be wrong for me not to mention agriculture and to pay tribute to the importance of primary agriculture into the creation of stable jobs. When times are tough, the farmers are still out there working. But they're not without their challenges. They have to live with the Forest Practices Code. They have to find ways to help improve that code if it isn't efficient. The number of jobs is virtually the same as primary forestry. Most people don't recognize that. There are perhaps more jobs in manufacturing in forestry, but nevertheless, agriculture remains very important to all the rural communities in terms of stability.

In forestry we have to continue the trend to support the movement of timber to remanufacturing and value-added. More and more timber in 16.1 sales -- value-added sales -- and even the beetle-kill special incentive licences in the Cariboo were directed as much as possible towards creating employment in value-added. The basis is there now -- with the land use plan, the code, the jobs and timber accord that we hope to strike in the weeks to come -- so that we will have more jobs out of every tree we cut. There will be a new kind of forest worker who will work on multiple phases of the forest industry, so that we can stretch out the season for forest workers. Forest work is becoming more specialized, and people have to be able to move between different phases of operations.

The small business program, which we used successfully in the Cariboo and across the province, has to be exemplary in its job creation. More work needs to be done on that. We have to put more resources into getting more sales out, particularly for some of the small salvage operators and some of the small business operators. I'm hopeful that it will be done. We have addressed that in discussions around the jobs and timber accord with a table of small business operators.

We believe that the stabilization of the cut because of the timber supply review. . . . In some cases, in some small areas, there will be reductions. And there will be increases. But by working together, this industry in transition -- based on the land use plans, the zones, the kind of incentives that are coming from industry themselves in terms of dedicating a land base and putting new investments in. . . . All kinds of ideas need to be nurtured. I'm pleased that this spring, from May 8 to 10, there will be a touchwood value-added conference, again sponsored in part by FRBC. The industry will be there to show people some of the tremendous products that we can produce out of wood.

I'm also particularly proud of the success of a new licence in the west Chilcotin, where we had sectors of the community fighting one another, and there was a lack of stability in employment. Based on a land use plan that's out there, a five-year licence was offered. Now the people there are successfully operating it in a full partnership with the first nations people, the contractors and community members working together, and it's a very happy community. Now what remains -- and it's something I'm working on -- is a long-term licence for that community, so they can make additional investments that they want to in value-added production, way out 200 miles west of Williams Lake. I'm particularly proud of that community.

First nations participation in the forest industry has increased. They have been successful in bidding on licences. Many licensees have been taking leadership in setting forth joint ventures where they can work and transfer skills, get the adequate investment necessary and start to reduce the unacceptably high unemployment in first nations communities.

[ Page 2247 ]

I'm pleased that in the weeks to come we should see some of the first innovative forest practices agreements that have been negotiated between some leading companies and the government. We anticipate many others will apply for that, where we can dedicate planning resources, invest further in silviculture and create more jobs in the stewardship of the land.

Talking about jobs, hundreds of jobs have been created in the fibreboard plant in Quesnel and the OSB plant in 100 Mile -- these all in the last year and a half. We're hopeful that there will be a fibreboard plant in Williams Lake. They have a pulpwood agreement there. They're looking at financing and at the future of the market, and I'm hopeful that something will come there.

I'm also hopeful that we can see a value-added sale in the Clinton area. There is very little industry in that small town in the southern end of my constituency. They need assistance. I'm pleased that the Ministry of Forests is actually looking at the possibility of offering a sale that would target employment down in that area.

The salvage program. . . . A lot of hard-working people have experimented and piloted six sales throughout the province. One of them was in the Likely-Horsefly district. Five other districts did it as well. I'm really pleased that we're wrapping that up. We're finding ways to get more of the salvage timber out there, a very high employment-generating factor.

Finally, in the forest field, I have to say that one of the unexpected effects of the quota in the U.S. -- which we got a fair share of for British Columbia companies -- is that we're shipping more value-added, because if you're going to ship in the United States, you might as well ship the highest value as far as products are concerned. I think that is driving more value-added in the province, and that's where the large amount of the jobs are going to be.

On fisheries renewal, I'm pleased to say that great efforts will be put into making sure it is a key to the revival of a lot of the small communities up and down the coast. I had a small role to play in the early stages of developing the idea and working on it when I was Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I think this offers considerable hope. Fortunately, there are sources of funding for it that won't result in taxes -- like landing fees, I think. Most fishers have agreed that, provided the money is spent on creating employment or fixing habitat, they are quite prepared to have landing fees. That idea did not come from the government; it came from the fishing communities themselves.

The people, particularly in the south end and the west end of the Cariboo, have been involved in land use planning. We have a land use plan in place, which sets the basic zones, and now are moving toward the next phase, which is subregional planning. I'm proud of the efforts of community groups and some of the watershed organizations that have sprung up in order to rise to the challenge of refining the land use plans so we can reach the targets that have been set out under the land use plans. I've met with four of these groups in the southern part of the area -- and they acknowledge that there is a tremendous role to be played -- in addition to the regional resource board, which is the global, Cariboo-wide resource board of citizens that is there to guide the implementation of the plan. They know that thousands of volunteer hours are necessary if we're going to protect the fish and the water quality and keep harvesting at an appropriate level. Those volunteers that put in thousands of hours need recognition.

In fact, to a large extent, our society depends on the work of volunteers. I would again like to acknowledge the role of more volunteers working in economic development planning, particularly the Cariboo Economic Action Forum, a group that was appointed under the Cariboo land use plan. They have seized on the issue of telecommunications. They understand that people living in the far reaches of the rural areas need to be able to tap into the electronic highway in order to be able to continue with their business, to confirm bookings and to get information. The government, having negotiated the electronic highway accord, must continue to push British Columbia Telephone Co. to get the single-line service, to make the investments and to provide Internet service to the rural areas.

The leadership being shown by local people is tremendous. They go to the small communities, and the small communities meet to keep pressure on the agencies. They know that through the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, the federal government has made it very difficult to cross-subsidize. But they know how important it is. They know that if we are to continue the pace of economic development in the Cariboo, which has led to a very low level of unemployment compared to some other regions, we will need telecommunications as an underpinning.

I'm sure that this same group is prepared to help us develop a bottom-up regional economic jobs strategy. They know that if they partner with the various agencies of the province, the private sector and the vast number of community groups they have under the umbrella, we could put some of the best ideas forward, and continue and deliver on the jobs' promises that this government has.

In summary, I want to pay tribute to the role of local people in building healthy communities. When the communities work together they can tackle poverty, they can deal with health care issues, they can deal with housing, they can deal with watershed protection, they can deal with the need to reinvest in forest renewal, they can handle retraining, they can sit on the boards of skills centres. Above all, they can make sure that the jobs are developed in the private sector, in the public sector and in partnerships between the sectors.

[6:00]

The people of the Cariboo have asked me to fight for our share of education and health care funding. They want to be sure that jobs are grown in the Cariboo, based on caring stewardship of our resources. I know that we will get our share of the jobs if we can conclude a jobs and timber accord. We'll have our share in the Cariboo through some of the projects I've mentioned here.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. Looking at the clock, I'd like to move adjournment of debate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to advise that the House will sit on Wednesday. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada