The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to introduce to the House today some people in the gallery who are visiting from the tourism industry. With us is Mr. Pat Corbett, the chair of the Council of Tourism Associations, which is having its convention in Victoria, and also Mr. John Williams, who is the chair of the present Tourism B.C. board. With them are a number of members from COTA and from the tourism industry. These people have helped and worked with me over the last few months in developing legislation I'm going to introduce today. I would ask members of the House to help me make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today are three people I would like to introduce -- from Surrey-Newton, actually. Sukhwinder Singh and Hardinder Bains are the owners and operators of Revy Video, which does very fine work in the Surrey area and other areas as well. With them is Barinder Rasode, who is a staff person with our caucus communications, as well as being a good friend. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Brewin: In the gallery today are two friends of mine, two people who work in my constituency office. One is Lynda Jordan, who is a third-year practicum student in the school of social work at the University of Victoria. She finishes up her practicum in my office today, and we're pleased to have her here. With her is Bruce Fogg, my ever-valiant and hard-working constituency assistant. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I know all of us in this House depend on numerous volunteers to keep us active, busy and in touch with our communities. I'd like to introduce to the House Jo MacDonald, who is a strong supporter of our party and a member of our party's executive. She lives in Courtenay, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today are a few people I'd like to introduce. First is Michael Harding, who is a director of the Pacific Space Centre in Vancouver, and also John Nightingale, who is the head director of the Vancouver Aquarium in Stanley Park. He's brought his wife Elizabeth and their two children McKenzie and Christian. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House today 68 delightful grade 11 students from North Surrey Secondary and their teachers: Mr. D'Alfonso, Mr. Hainsworth and Mrs. Depedrina. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Chong: In addition to welcoming the members from COTA here today, I would like to make a special welcome to Mr. Kevin Walker. He manages the Oak Bay Beach Hotel, which is in my riding. It's a fine hotel and offers a wonderful Sunday brunch. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a constituent of mine from Hazelton, Mr. Jim Fowler. Would the House please make him welcome.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is a Mr. David Chiang, CA. He's a constituent in Burnaby-Edmonds, and he is with Datawest Ltd. Accompanying him this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Pang from Australia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tourism British Columbia Act.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 9 be introduced and read for a first time now.

I am very pleased to present the Tourism British Columbia Act today. This is a historic moment in the partnership between government and industry. The legislation that I'm tabling today is, in fact, a model for the rest of Canada. This new legislation will create an independent agency called Tourism British Columbia, whose purpose is to promote development and growth in B.C.'s tourism industry.

Since 1991 the tourism industry of British Columbia has grown from a $4-billion-a-year industry to over $7 billion a year. Over 200,000 people around the province work in tourism -- approximately 23,000 new jobs since 1991. As a new legislative agency, Tourism B.C. will operate closer to the private sector. This will allow the corporation greater flexibility to create and benefit from new opportunities and, of course, to create more jobs.

This legislation is something the tourism industry has wanted for some time. They have welcomed its introduction and are eager to move forward in this new partnership with government. The introduction of this legislation recognizes the importance of tourism to communities in every region of the province, and it embodies our government's commitment to creating jobs in this dynamic sector of our economy.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, when the Children and Families ministry was created, the Premier promised both more resources and that the government would be putting our children at the top of their priority list. The words sounded good, but unfortunately the facts are quite different.

Yesterday we came into a memo written by a ministry staff person who said -- and I quote directly from the memo: "We are in an absolutely critical position now. We have placed over 30 [children in care] in the past ten days. We have exhausted all our resources, and then some. We will be resorting to desperate measures shortly."

Hon. Speaker, the question to the minister is: can the Minister for Children and Families tell us why, after just five months, we have exhausted our resources and desperate measures are required?

[ Page 2250 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I, too, have read the memo -- and the attachment to it. The Leader of the Opposition has actually used them both together.

I spoke to the author of the memo, because I needed to understand exactly what resources he was speaking of in his memo. In his memo he is talking about the need for foster care homes and for other kinds of residential homes in Vancouver, and particularly in the downtown east side of Vancouver. So this is not a funding issue; this is actually a recruitment issue, hon. Speaker. It's in an area that traditionally has had a very high demand for foster homes, and also for foster homes that are culturally competent, that have the same language. We have always, always a need for aboriginal foster homes -- and we are very clear about that.

There are 1,200 children in care in Vancouver. So because we're concerned about the recruitment of those, some of the things we have already done to date are: we have signed an agreement with the Vancouver aboriginal children society, whereby they are helping us to recruit aboriginal foster homes; we have a housing capital plan for 125 new beds -- 25 houses in Vancouver -- and 35 additional housing beds that have already opened. So we are concerned and we are working very hard.

G. Campbell: The memo is very clear, hon. Speaker. It is recommending that children be returned home as quickly as possible because of the crisis in resources. We know that Chabasco Flanders was returned home. We know that the ministry was doing very little to check up on the situation that the child was found in. We know that the situation that child was found in was unfit for any child anywhere in the province of British Columbia to be found in. And we believe that children in our care, children that are known to the ministry, should be supervised and should be watched carefully.

The question I have to ask the minister is: when will the government start providing the resources that are necessary to make sure that tragedies like what took place with Chabasco Flanders never take place again in this province?

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to be very sure that we are not linking this memo -- which was written, by the way, at the end of February, talking about a lack of resources to foster homes -- and the fact that this child was returned to his mother as a result of a court order and a supervision order, ending the end of December, having had her meet all the requirements of that order. So this has not got to do with whether there were enough foster homes.

Also, just for the record, the memo -- if the Leader of the Opposition would read it correctly -- is talking about children brought into care on agreement. The little guy that we're talking about, as the opposition knows, was a little boy who was actually apprehended. The memo by this author, as he reassures me, is talking about children brought into care on agreement, and he is suggesting children be returned as soon as it is safe.

G. Abbott: My 47-year-old constituent, Bob Goodgame, has now suffered 52 weeks waiting for life-saving cardiac surgery -- 40 weeks longer than is considered safe. Goodgame's doctor describes him as "a ticking time bomb." Will the minister tell the family of Bob Goodgame why he has had to wait 52 weeks for cardiac surgery, putting both his life and his livelihood at risk?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the order in which people are prioritized on cardiac surgery waiting lists is determined by medical professionals. It's not a decision of the ministry at all; it is a group of doctors, a cardiac care panel of experts. They determine the order in which people appear on the wait-list. Of course, a person whose life is at risk. . . . I am reassured by the doctors that emergency care is done immediately, and after that, the doctors prioritize the list available.

In recent weeks the Premier and I announced that there is an additional $6.5 million being added to the base budget for cardiac surgery and kidney dialysis. Over the course of the last five years our government has invested almost $100 million in dealing with surgical wait-lists.

G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Goodgame's surgery has been booked and cancelled five times in the past year -- five times -- and three times since this minister promised extra money to alleviate the problem. Enough is enough. Will the minister guarantee that Mr. Goodgame will get his heart surgery before the end of this week?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it really is only the Liberals that think heart surgery is a political decision in this province. Our government says this is a medical decision. It's a decision determined by doctors in this province, and in no way would our government ever interfere in that.

What we can do is properly fund the health care system. Our government has done that. Our government has done that in the areas of heart surgery and cancer treatment, in the area of home care services, in the areas of acute care beds and intensive care beds. We are doing our job in this province to meet the ever-increasing pressures on our health care system. But in no way would our government ever, ever make a political decision over and above what the doctors determine.

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Forests. As the minister knows, people in my constituency are shocked and saddened by the announced closure of a chopstick factory in Fort Nelson. One hundred and seventy-five employees will lose their jobs -- the loss of a payroll of $5 million a year -- and hundreds more will be hurt by the spinoff effects of this devastating announcement.

What concrete steps has the minister decided to take to protect workers in the north -- and specifically in Fort Nelson -- in light of this brutal blow to their livelihoods?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a sad day when a company wants to shut its doors and doesn't give us the courtesy of some warning. There has been a troubled history to the. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said, it is a regrettable day when there is no notice given to workers, to the government, to the communities. Having said that, as soon as I heard about it, I asked FRBC to step in to see what they could do to assist the transition of those workers, I asked my ministry to look at what could happen to the licence, and I asked the job protection commissioner to see what he could do.

[ Page 2251 ]

But the company, it appears, has closed its doors. They have unsuccessfully ventured an operation there, which, by their own admission, had 70 percent of the wood available for chopsticks. It turned out it's only 30 percent -- by their own studies.

I'd like to remind the member that it is a difficult resource, but we will see that the licence will get into the hands of somebody who can make a lasting business of it.

R. Neufeld: I guess the government still hasn't cottoned on. You know, the rules and regulations and all the things that go along with trying to get a business going and keeping it running in this province are getting larger and larger every day. We cannot continually blame it on someone else.

All northerners and, indeed, forest workers understand that the Fort Nelson chopstick factory was one of the most significant value-added enterprises ever launched in British Columbia. That's what your government constantly talks about -- value-added. This is one of the most significant.

This government has ensured that workers in Golden, Clayoquot Sound and other resource-based communities have received assistance through FRBC and other programs aimed at minimizing their economic hardship.

The Speaker: Hon. member, we must have a question.

R. Neufeld: Will the minister give the assurance that each and every one of those workers and their families will be properly protected by the funds available to this government through FRBC? Will the minister give us that assurance if he can't do anything else to reverse the plant closure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't give you assurance that we'll turn around a business decision by a foreign company. But I can give the member the assurance that the workers in that community will get equitable treatment -- like the workers in Golden and any other community where we can bring in a program that will assist those people.

B. McKinnon: Four years ago, Joyce Rigaux, a senior civil servant, doctored a report into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil to absolve the ministry of blame. Last year the ministry released a faulty report on the death of Elijah Thomas to deflect blame. And now the Minister for Children and Families has told us that her ministry will be conducting an internal review into the death of young Chabasco Flanders's mother.

Will the minister commit today to a full and independent review of that ministry's actions and procedures?

Hon. P. Priddy: I recall when this ministry. . . . By the way, we should obviously do an internal review, which we will. It will be done by the deputy director of child protection. However, I do recall, when this ministry was established, the support for the child protection commissioner, and that is why I have asked the Attorney General to appoint Cynthia Morton -- and he has done so -- to do a review of the circumstances around this case. There are six conditions or six parameters for the review. I believe the children's commissioner expects that she will be able to have this work done -- I would hope -- in a month or just shortly after a month. It will look at all of the circumstances around the case, including things such as the kinds of communication that happen between community service providers and medical practitioners, the police and so on, so we have the whole scope of the collective responsibility we have for children.

B. McKinnon: This release of an internal memo was no accident. Ministry staff have lost confidence in the ability of this government to protect children in danger. Why should British Columbians have any faith in the ability of the NDP to protect children when it's obvious that the staff in the ministry do not?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are talking about the safety and protection of children. As a result of that, I would think the British Columbians I speak with see that this government has acted on the largest percentage of the Gove recommendations, it has established the Ministry for Children and Families, it is much more open in the way it does its work, and it has done evaluations that have been much more open to the public.

Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, I believe that those conditions, along with many of the other resources that are moving this ministry forward, give more control to regions. Everybody says you make better decisions for children and families closer to where they live. We're doing that, and I'm hearing from people in the regions that that's what they want to see.

So can they trust this government to do a report that is accountable? Yes, they can, and they can trust the government to ask Cynthia Morton, the children's commissioner, to do it, as well. Our own staff have raised the issue of resources. We do not deny that there are issues of resources, and I have listed for you the actions we have taken on that particular memo.

M. Coell: The memo sent to the East Vancouver child and family services office shows the ministry dealing with a financial crisis. The memo states that due to budgetary pressures, ministry staff should start to return apprehended children to their parents. The NDP has the ability to call the Barnet Highway upgrade a fixed-wage policy project, giving millions to their union friends, but cannot come up with enough money to protect children. Can the minister tell the House and the families of B.C. children how many children have been returned to their parents prematurely as a result of this government's misguided policies?

[2:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: Because we are dealing with children, I think that. . . . At least, I always work very hard not to engage in political rhetoric about the issues that affect children's lives. I do not intend to do so now.

The memo that the member is referring to does not refer to financial resources; it refers to a resource network, which is about the issue of the difficulty of recruiting, for instance, aboriginal foster families in the downtown east side. I have laid out for people the things we are doing to rectify that, and I have done that in a very short period of time. It's very clear. . . . And I spoke to the author to make sure I was understanding that well enough. It does not speak to financial resources; it talks about the network of foster homes and residential-home placements, which we are working to alleviate.

So let's be sure we can argue about the issues of children and how we should approach that, but particularly on the day of this mom's funeral, let's not play politics with this.

[ Page 2252 ]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, that this House authorize and instruct the Speaker to have the Standing Orders of the House reprinted in gender-neutral language.

Hon. Speaker, you may be familiar with this. It's work that you began as a member of the House back in June of 1993. Never say that we take these things and act on them too quickly and without a great deal of deliberation. I'm proud today to join with all my colleagues to move this issue to reality.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. If I might, I'd just like to point out that we now have, as you probably know, the latest issue of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, by the learned MacMinn, our Clerk-at-the-Table. With the gift of foresight that he is known for, the book is written in gender-inclusive language.

On the amendment (continued).

E. Gillespie: It's my pleasure to rise today in support of our government's 1997-98 budget. The budget outlines the major directions and goals of this government for the coming year. Our government's direction continues to protect and support health care; to protect education and ensure that our young people have the best opportunities to learn and to succeed into their adulthoods; to maximize employment opportunities while achieving the greatest value from our resources and our technologies; to continue to extend our environmental protections and be responsible stewards of our great province; to support children and their families with medical, dental and financial aid; to continue to implement the recommendations of the Gove commission, striving to make this a safer world for children; and to meet all of these commitments in a fiscally responsible manner, protecting the financial well-being of our province. These are challenging goals; these are the goals British Columbians desire; these are the goals our government commits to.

I'd like to turn now to the effects of the direction of this government on the people of my constituency, Comox Valley. Our commitment to health care services is shown by the addition of $300 million to health care funding. It can be witnessed daily as the latest expansion to St. Joseph's General Hospital in Comox nears completion. The Comox Valley Nursing Centre, begun as a pilot project to demonstrate a community-based preventive approach to health care, is beginning to be seen as a community institution.

This government has made a commitment to fund a CT scanner for the North Island and, through the community health councils, has funded a process for determining its siting. The installation of this important diagnostic equipment has been held up for years because of political jockeying among the communities. But despite this, community health councils have agreed to the process that will identify the preferred location according to medical, technical and social criteria.

The regionalization assessment carried out last summer has resulted in better teamwork, better care and a more streamlined approach to health care delivery through community health councils and regional health boards. The community health councils in the Comox Valley and Campbell River are comprised of individuals who have demonstrated their commitment to their communities and to the principles of medicare and who are eager to get on with the task of developing their community health plan.

Hon. Speaker, at this time I'd like to tip my hat to these individuals, to commend them for taking on this important responsibility in their communities and to offer them my support as they do so. I'd just like to take a moment to read the list of names of the members of these two community health councils. I'd like to list these names into the record as a commendation to these people for taking on this responsibility.

The Comox Valley community health council has recently been named. The chair is Al Whiteford, and its members are: Fran Martin, Michael Parrish, Katherine Cook, Debbie Tutt, Norris Elder, Laurel Hodgins, Dennis McMahon, Shannon Brown, Leslie Baird, Leona Stefiuk and Jill Lane. These are all people who have demonstrated their commitment to health care over the years in the community of Comox Valley.

The Campbell River-Nootka community health council is chaired by Garth Sheane, and its members are: Ed Dahl, Margaret Anne Fiddick, past mayor of Gold River, Rebecca Read, Louis Van Solkema, Heather Sprout, Ronald Croda, France Bendickson, Francis Jones, Catherine Shaw, Richard Leo, Alfred Nelson and Audrey Wilson. Again, these are people who have led their communities in health care in the Campbell River area.

School district 71 is one of the fastest-growing school districts in British Columbia. The Willow Point area, at the south end of Campbell River in school district 72, has also experienced tremendous growth. This September, I was pleased to welcome students to a brand-new elementary facility, Georgia Park elementary school, and to witness the delight of both the teachers and the students in their new facility.

To look at this school, surrounded as it is by a completely new residential subdivision, one can clearly see the argument for Bill 43, the bill requiring developers to set aside either land or money for school site acquisition. Municipal governments have generally balked at proclaiming this bill, yet the need for new schools continues unabated. I was pleased, however, to hear the opposition critic for Education, the member for Okanagan-Vernon, express support for this measure to our school board.

Recent school construction announcements clearly recognize the demands presented both by population growth and by aging facilities in the Comox Valley. School district 71 has made an excellent case for its projects, has incorporated cost-saving measures and is moving ahead with its planning

[ Page 2253 ]

for extended days at the secondary level. Beginning immediately, an elementary school based on a design developed in this district -- and lent out, now, to two other districts -- is set for construction a fourth time.

Perhaps our greatest challenge, hon. Speaker, is to maximize employment opportunities in this province. We do not stand alone in this constituency -- the Comox Valley -- on Vancouver Island or as a province, but we stand as part of a worldwide economic system. I admit that there are effects outside the influence of our government, but there are areas where we can -- and we will -- ensure that British Columbians derive the benefits of good, family-supporting jobs from our industries and from our resources.

My constituents, many of them workers in the forestry industry, are looking forward to the successful completion of our jobs and timber accord. My constituents continue to look forward to the results of a study funded by Forest Renewal B.C. to determine the viability of a community forest initiative on Denman Island. This initiative will allow them to buy back the nearly one-third of the island currently held as private land by American interests.

Fishing -- commercial, sport and recreational -- is an industry and an activity that has drawn people to the Comox Valley for making a living and for lifestyle reasons. Consequences of the Mifflin plan are being felt in our community by fishing families, by businesses which support the commercial fishery and by the community at large, which is seeing a significant loss of income. Our government is continuing its negotiations with the federal government to mitigate these effects. Because of our government's tenacity, we have achieved an agreement for transition funding for displaced fishermen. But that's not enough. We're developing Fisheries Renewal B.C. to re-invest profits, conserve the fish resource and protect jobs.

For this government, creating jobs for all British Columbians is a central objective. For my constituents, our job strategy will mean the difference between underemployment and good, family-supporting jobs. Over the past five years, British Columbia's job performance has far surpassed the rest of Canada -- over 220,000 new jobs. But we're determined to do even better. One billion dollars in investment in schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure will create more than 130,000 jobs across the province each year. I've mentioned the jobs and timber accord and fisheries renewal. We are continuing the 10 percent income tax cut for small businesses -- encouraging job creation by small business -- and the Premier's $23 million Guarantee for Youth program, which will create 12,000 new jobs. Our job strategy ensures that we will continue to lead the way in creating new jobs for the people of this province.

I'd like to turn my attention for a moment to the effect of this budget on families in my constituency and across British Columbia. In addition to support for job creation, to increased funding for health care, to an increase in funding for education, this budget provides support for working families with a further 2 percent income tax cut on top of last year's 2 percent cut.

And 200,000 low- and middle-income families receive further help through the B.C. family bonus, a total of $235 million to help with the cost of raising their children. A preliminary study by Michael Mendelson points out that the B.C. family bonus can be expected to reduce the poverty gap among working-poor families by about 19 percent. Among single-parent working-poor families it reduces poverty by almost 26 percent. About 28 percent of working families will be removed from the extremes of poverty as a result of receiving the family bonus.

[2:45]

Using StatsCan's low-income cutoff, about one in five children in Canada and B.C. live in poverty. In British Columbia, 200,000 families with 380,000 children are receiving B.C. benefits. Of these, 70,000 families with 115,000 children are receiving income assistance, and 135,000 families with 265,000 children are low- to modest-income. The B.C. family bonus has two main priorities: to remove children from poverty and to support people entering, re-entering and remaining in the workforce. Need I remind you that British Columbia's family bonus is now seen as a potential model for a similar federal program -- promised, mind you, before the last federal election -- to address child poverty?

This government has made tough choices throughout the budget process, but there can be no doubt where our priorities lie. Our priorities lie with our greatest resource, our people -- assisting families, ensuring opportunities for good health, a full education, and focusing on well-paying, family-supporting jobs.

As a result of the questions raised in question period today, I'd like to spend a moment talking about the work of the Gove committee and the Ministry for Children and Families. Last summer in this Legislature we heard a lot of distress about particular situations for children in British Columbia. The legislative committee met over the period intervening between sessions, and it was the determination of all members of the committee to reach solutions -- not partisan, but together.

We commend the tremendous reorganization to create the new Ministry for Children and Families. I have spoken with staff in the Comox Valley who are coming together under this new ministry, and they have great enthusiasm for this new opportunity to work together. They see that this is a very sensible and sensitive step towards taking better care of our children. Government has a central role to play to ensure the safety and security of children. But for those of us who have listened to the witnesses in the Gove committee, it is clear to us that part of that responsibility must be to educate the public about the responsibility all of us share in ensuring the safety and security of our children.

I have five points in conclusion. In 1997-98 the province will spend $100 million less than last year. This is the first decline on a year-to-year basis since 1958. We have cut the size of government, cut costs in administration and overhead, eliminated positions and enforced tough restrictions on contracts and travel. Subsidies to business and other levels of government have been reduced or eliminated, as have services and grants to many worthy groups and individuals. These decisions have not been, and are not, taken lightly. But let me be very clear: making decisions is about setting priorities. This government's priorities are to create jobs and to protect health care and education for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 2254 ]

ful job. I was talking to a gas station owner in my hometown. He called me up; he had some minor concern over specific issues in the budget. This person is not a friend of the NDP; he's certainly not a voter of mine. But he commented that this was a good budget. This was the first time he had said that.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Just hang on for a minute. There's lots of good stuff coming.

In any case, this specific individual is not a New Democrat, but he made the positive comment that he agreed with the budget and that he was quite pleased to see what was in the budget.

I want to get into some of the specifics, but before I do that I want to reiterate what my colleague said just a few minutes ago -- that this is the smallest deficit in nine years. It's $185 million. I know the Liberals would like to say that the sky is falling and that the deficit is going to be a billion dollars. But I also want to comment that it's the first time since 1958 that spending will actually drop on a year-to-year basis. We're spending $100 million less this year than we did last year.

This came about as a result of the last eight or nine months, when we were successful in making almost $750 million worth of cuts -- cuts in government, cuts to administration. Almost 2,500 positions have already been eliminated.

This budget is about jobs. We have a jobs strategy which will create 40,000 new jobs in 1997-98. As you know, over the last five years we have had the best job creation record in Canada. Over the last five years, this province was able to create 40 percent of all jobs in this country. That's a record we can be proud of.

Specifically in the budget document, we're setting aside a billion dollars for infrastructure investment to build schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure in all parts of the province, including in ridings opposite. In my constituency in particular, Collettville Elementary School in Merritt and Silver Creek Elementary School in Hope will be financed. As well, last year we were able to complete Merritt Secondary School, an $8 million project in Merritt. Also in this year's budget is the funding for 20 units for the Hope Intercare Society in the community of Hope.

Through our infrastructure investments, we'll be creating 13,000 new jobs in this province. The Guarantee for Youth program, which has funding of $23 million, will create 12,000 jobs for students and youth in this province in the year ahead. The jobs and timber accord will create 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry by the year 2001, in agreement with the forest industry.

This government was also able to strike a tourism partnership. In partnership with the tourism industry, we will be creating a new agency to promote tourism in this province. As has happened in the past, the Premier was able to intervene directly in helping to save 15,000 jobs in this country for Canadian Airlines, half of which were right here in British Columbia. We're continuing on that trend by helping the airline industry. The international jet fuel tax rate will be cut from 4 cents to 2 cents a litre by the year 1999.

We are also assisting small business in this province by continuing the income tax cut which was announced last year and also the income tax holiday for eligible new small businesses, thereby reducing costs to business by $29 million in the coming year.

You are well aware that British Columbia is known as Hollywood North. We'll be continuing to promote that in the coming years by promoting Canadian production in British Columbia, and we'll be working closely with the film industry of this province.

Fisheries Renewal B.C. will also be created to reinvest some of the profits back into the industry, to conserve and enhance the resources in the fishing industry of this province as well as to protect jobs -- not like Ottawa Liberals, cousins of my friends opposite, who on the eve of an election threw in this Mifflin plan, which was basically to do nothing and continue on with the Liberal ways.

We will also be protecting health care. Actually, we will be continuing to protect health care. There will be a $300 million increase in the health care budget for funding hospitals, for physician services and to reduce surgery waiting lists. We are the only province in the entire country which has increased the funding for health care six years in a row.

We are also protecting education. This is right here in the budget document: K to 12 will receive an increase of $63 million in spending. In this upcoming 1997-98 budget, $300 million will be set aside to build new schools. We will also be creating 2,900 new spaces for students at universities and colleges, and the tuition freeze will be maintained to help British Columbia students.

I just want to show you a comparison. Over the last six years, British Columbia is the only province that has increased funding for education, year-to-year, every year for the last six years. I want to give you an example of what goes on across the country. I know my Liberal friends here try to look at some of the other provinces across the country to say this is a model we should be following. Well, my honourable friends across the way, I want to talk to you about what is available in the other provinces.

I see that the former member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- I keep forgetting his new constituency -- has just joined us for the debate. But in any case. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: Yeah, run in Yale-Lillooet. I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to beating you.

Anyway, in Alberta there's been a decrease of 5.5 percent over the last six years in the education funding. This is a model that my friends opposite like to look at. In Saskatchewan it's a decrease of 5 percent for education funding over the last six years; Manitoba, a 3.7 percent decrease; Ontario, a 19.3 percent decrease; Quebec, a 4.1 percent decrease; Nova Scotia, a 1.8 percent decrease. The average of all the other provinces is a 6.6 percent decrease. Every province in this country has had a decrease in education funding for the last six years, with the sole exception of British Columbia. Over the last six years there has been a remarkable increase in education funding, to the tune of 20.6 percent, right here in British Columbia.

I want to point out one more detail in the budget document. This budget will be supporting B.C. families, with tax cuts and rate freezes. I would like to just read a little bit here:

"Working British Columbians can get help to make ends meet. Provincial income tax rate will be another 2 percent this year, building on the 2 percent cut last year -- more than $142 million annually for B.C. families. The B.C. family bonus program will provide $235 million in support for more than 200,000 lower- and modest-income families. ICBC premiums, B.C. Hydro rates and post-secondary tuition fees will remain frozen. Tax cuts and rate freezes mean the average B.C. family saves up to $700."

[ Page 2255 ]

I want to go on to talk about my Liberal friends here. They're always negative. I've been here for.... This is my sixth year in a row, and every time Liberals have gotten up in this House they've been negative. They always speak in negative terms. They never have a positive thing to say. Had they had their way -- had they been elected as government -- we would not have seen any building of the infrastructure that has taken place in British Columbia for the last five years.

I want to point out some of the things I've been doing in my riding over the last year, since the last time these folks were here. I was at the opening of the new Merritt Secondary School, which was an $8 million venture. I participated in the opening in the fall, and also in the groundbreaking ceremonies for the Sheltered Housing for Seniors program in Princeton, where we're building 18 units. That's a $1.8 million investment.

I was at the groundbreaking for the Hope and District recreation centre and library complex. It's an indoor pool complex in Hope. It was under the federal-provincial infrastructure program, where both levels of government were able to contribute $2.4 million, and Hope and area was able to contribute $1.2 million, for a total of $3.6 million. That building is well underway. I also opened the newly renovated hockey arena in Merritt, which was a $2.4 million investment.

I also participated in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new water reservoir in Cache Creek, which was an $800,000 project under the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program. I also participated in some social housing projects: 32 units in Merritt, which was $3.2 million in funding, as well as other numerous projects all across Yale-Lillooet. All were in towns and municipalities, whether they were downtown revitalization programs or other municipal infrastructure programs in Yale-Lillooet, including building water lines, sewer lines, roads and sidewalks, community halls and community centres, playgrounds and all sorts of other projects that we were able to build.

Had the Liberals had their way, none of that would have been built. We know that, because we've heard individuals from across the way. Each and every one of them gets up and says that we should have balanced the budget right now, that we shouldn't have had the $185 million deficit. Meanwhile, their friends, the B.C. Business Council, are saying: "No. We're happy with the budget. We didn't want you to cut any further." They felt that if provincial funding was pulled out of the provincial economy, it would mean a reduction in jobs and a reduction in the economic growth of this province. That's what they were telling us. But my Liberal friends across the way won't even listen to their own pals in the business community, because they're saying it should be balanced right away, right now.

[3:00]

My answer to my friends, whenever they talk about wanting more cuts. . . . You've heard them for the last six years: "You should cut this program. You should cut that. You should be balancing the books every year. You should not be increasing the funding." They keep talking about cuts. On the other hand, we hear them one by one get up in this House and say: "Yes, you should be making those cuts, but don't make the cut in my backyard. I want that hospital; I want that school; I need that bridge or highway in my particular riding. But cut it somewhere else" -- the old NIMBY idea, the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. That's what my hon. friends across the way say. That seems a bit hypocritical. On the one side, they want an increase in the funding. On the other side, they say: "No, make these cuts, but don't make the cuts in my backyard; not in my riding." When they know that their political life is going to be on the line come the next election, they want all the funding possible for their own particular area.

But my answer to the Liberals is: okay, fine, if you want to see the budgets balanced year to year, tell me which projects you would like to see cut. Tell me which one of these projects in my riding that I have outlined -- and there are numerous others -- you would have liked to have seen not go through in the past or even in the '97-98 budget. Tell me. Just stand up and say it. Or go into my communities or even into your own communities and say: "We want the government to balance the budget, but we want them to make a cut in this project." Whether it's the community of Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Merritt, Cache Creek, Vancouver or Victoria that has a particular project on the go, which one of those projects would you like to see cut? If you can tell us that, then we'll balance the budget.

But obviously they won't say that, because they want the votes. They say everything and anything to every voter they see and any group they talk to, just so they can try to get some votes in the next election. I ask the Liberals across the way: which side are they on? Whose side are they really on? We've had Liberals. . . . The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson stood up here the other night and talked about the government going into the gambling area. I want to say to that member over there: tell your party to send back the donation that the gambling communities sent to your party in the last election. If you're able to do that, then you can stand up here in this House and talk against gambling. Otherwise, quit the hypocritical talk.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I say to my Liberal friends opposite there. . . . They stand up one by one -- whether it's in this House, outside in the communities or in their own particular ridings, or at whatever events they happen to go to and accuse this side of the House, the New Democratic Party, of instituting some form of class warfare. We've heard this kind of language in some of their speeches throughout the province. They talk about some class warfare that's going on.

Well, let's look at the Liberals. Let's see what they're all about. Let's see whose side they're really on, hon. Speaker. We'll tell you first what the Liberals support. We know that they support big banks: huge banks, not just little ones; not credit unions -- the bigger the better. They support them. They support those large multinational corporations and big business. They support huge, greedy developers in Vancouver and Victoria and all across the province. These are the people that the Liberals support; these are their friends. They support the forestry giants in this province, the MacMillan Bloedels of this world. After all, they voted to a person against the FRBC plan when they were here in 1994.

We know that they are friends with the rich and the well-to-do. They support the well-to-do. They said for years -- and they repeated all their lines throughout the election -- that they would eliminate the corporation capital tax for big banks and corporations and for the Leader of the Opposition's favourite friends, the developers in Vancouver. They said they would get rid of the school property tax on business. That was a total tax break of $1.1 billion for their rich and wealthy big-business friends.

But what were they against? One only has to look at their record, the statements that they make to the media and on the r

[ Page 2256 ]

ecord here in the House. Time and time again they have spoken against workers of this province. They have spoken against workers' rights. They have voted against each one of the pieces of legislation introduced in this House that favoured workers.

They voted against basic employment standards in this province. "Workers shouldn't have any minimum standards; workers shouldn't have any rights," these people across the way were telling us. They also spoke against WCB coverage for farmworkers, the lowest-paid on the wage scale in the entire country. They were going to get extension of compensation coverage for them, and they spoke against them. Well, who are these workers? We've already. . . .

D. Symons: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: We have to consider the relevancy of the remarks made by the member. I believe we're discussing Budget '97, this government's budget, not his fanciful ideas of what Liberal policies or practices may be. Indeed, they're figments of his imagination. Let's get back to the budget of this government.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Relevance is always a tricky issue, but I appreciate you making the point, and I'm sure the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet does as well.

H. Lali: I've seen members across the way get up and ramble on about something totally unrelated to the budget or the throne speech. He's asking me: "What's this got to do with the budget?" Well, every time a budget is introduced in the House, every time we talk about some of these issues that I'm talking about, these folks get up, to a person, and vote against it. It's totally relevant in this debate, and I say that to the hon. member across the way. Just listen up.

These people who work at these minimum-wage farming community jobs are usually new immigrants to this country, people from the multicultural groups. And they want to keep from expending just the basic compensation coverage to these workers. They've done that in the past.

The opposition also voted against fair labour laws right here in this House in 1992. They voted against basic rights. I mean, they were supporting Bill 19, which Bill Vander Zalm brought in a long time ago, which was totally lopsided in favour of big business. This is what they voted against.

They were also against rural British Columbia, because it was this party across the way -- and I must say, the hon. member from Peace River voted in favour of this -- that voted against FRBC, which was going to invest $2 billion back into rural British Columbia over a five-year period. They voted against it because they could not understand the implications of the forest renewal plan, because they couldn't understand rural British Columbia. They couldn't understand the needs of the forestry workers or the environmental community in this province, so they voted against it.

They voted against almost every social safety net act that we have brought in, in this province, over the last five years. During the 1995 federal budget, when the federal government off-loaded billions of dollars onto the provinces -- especially British Columbia -- the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Liberals agreed, that the feds did not do enough in the way of cuts. They were telling us that they should have cut more in health, education and social services. They said those cuts were not enough.

As I mentioned, they are against health and education, because after all, to a person, during the election, the Liberals said they would cut $3 billion out of the budget. Everybody knows that 66 percent of the budget is health, education and social services. You can't cut $3 billion without cutting health, education and social services. But that's exactly what the opposition would have done had they formed government.

They've spoken time and time again against infrastructure investment in schools, in hospitals, in community centres throughout the province -- throughout the small communities like Merritt, Hope, Princeton and every other community in the province.

All of these things that they're against is exactly what the middle-class workers stand for. So these Liberals across the way are against working, middle-class people. They accuse us of class warfare, when these people themselves are the ones who are responsible for creating that class warfare in this province. That's a real shame.

We know what side we're on. We're on the side of the little people. We're on the side of working people. We're on the side of multicultural communities in this province. We're on the side of aboriginal communities in this province. Yes, we are on the side of organized labour, because organized labour represents 2.5 million workers in this province, whether they are represented by a union or not.

Time and time again, these people have spoken against working-class people in this province, because they're in the pockets of big business. They're in the pockets of the multinational corporations and the big banks. For decades, and in the 1990s, they have continued that class warfare. They accuse us; meanwhile, they are the ones that are doing this.

Before I close, I would also like to point out how the Liberals have always talked about patronage -- that the NDP is always giving these things to their friends and insiders. Let's talk about their million-dollar mailer, the million dollars that they spent out of their communications allowance, the million dollars that they wasted. It was an untendered contract that went to a Liberal friend and insider, my friends. That's what happened. And they talk to us about patronage? I say to them: just look in the mirror. Look underneath your own bed to see what kinds of ghosts are hiding there, before you get the courage to stand up in this House and outside of this House to try to accuse us of that.

Then we've had the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi get up in the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- it's a long, convoluted name. He's trying to get the committee to go out into the communities on a road show. They wanted to spend $10,000 a day, minimum. They wanted to visit 31 communities, because he said all these letters came in, which some

[ Page 2257 ]

how was an overwhelming groundswell all throughout the province. They got all these letters that said: "We want you to come to our community, and we want you to talk about the FRBC plan."

You know what, hon. Speaker? Do you know why they were sending those letters? Do you know why the Liberals wanted to go out into those communities? Because the Liberals had wasted a million dollars out of their communications allowance on that good-for-nothing mailer, which was a political document. They had no more money to go out there and communicate with the people. They wanted to politicize this committee. They wanted to take it out to the province and to be able to go and do their partisan bidding, because they had wasted a million dollars of the taxpayers' money on an untendered contract that went to a Liberal friend and insider. That's what the Liberals are all about.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the budget that the hon. Finance minister has tabled. It is a prudent budget. We have used some very conservative numbers in this budget. People in my riding and across the province are all telling me that it's a good budget, that they're looking forward to the next year and the years after of good NDP government. They're telling me that they're glad the Liberals didn't get in, because they would have made massive cuts and eliminated a lot of the health care programs.

In closing, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you for being so patient and listening to my speech. I'm looking forward to the throne speech debate later on.

[3:15]

R. Neufeld: I rise today to speak in response to the budget. This is a sad day in British Columbia because of the bleak future this province holds for our younger generations: no jobs and a high debt load. We just had the member for Yale-Lillooet rail on about how they were the only party that cares about working people, how the Liberals were so terrible because they only care for one part of society. They care for all the rest, or the majority, they think. I guess it is a sad day in British Columbia. I don't care whether you're a Liberal or NDPer; I don't care what you are. We should be thinking about the people of British Columbia. We should be thinking about the younger generation: the jobs they need, the debt load they shouldn't have to pay. That's what we should be thinking about.

Get rid of that kind of malarkey, because what happens is exactly what the member railed on about: how much money was spent in his constituency. Isn't that interesting? "I'm an NDPer, and that's where all the money is spent." That does not serve the people of British Columbia well, because it leaves some out in the cold. Is that what we're doing? I tell you, it's time we started looking at this province as a whole instead of as just my little back yard, because this province is going to be in dire trouble if we continue down that road.

This so-called budget is a shameful disgrace. It is a document of deception, chicanery and just plain deceiving in the way it is presented. This is a politically expedient budget rather than a realistic budget, a budget meant to confuse rather than to rectify a huge and growing problem in British Columbia. That problem, Mr. -- hon. Speaker. . . . Sorry, I just about made a mistake and called you Mr. Speaker. I better not do that too many times, or I'll be in all kinds of trouble. The problem, hon. Speaker, is debt: total debt is up by $1.4 billion this coming year, to an estimated $31 billion. It takes a while to sink in: $31 billion in debt.

J. Weisgerber: What was it in '91?

R. Neufeld: One member asks what it was in '91. It was $17 billion. In '92-93, after these folks had a full year in office, it was under $20 million; it was $19 billion. These folks have racked up the credit card by $12 billion in five short years. It's absolutely disgraceful. These are the financial wizards from across the way that we're supposed to believe -- that British Columbians are supposed to listen to. A year ago, British Columbians heard a minister from that government say that they had two balanced budgets. There was a group of people, and every one of them campaigned on two balanced budgets. It's so far from the truth that it isn't funny.

J. Weisgerber: Shame! Shame!

R. Neufeld: It's absolutely shameful. Every one of the members across the way that campaigned last year to get re-elected and that said the NDP posted two budgets in surplus should resign -- should absolutely walk out of the House. It's unacceptable. They all have their heads hung, and they ought to. It's a sad day in British Columbia.

I have often commented that while under a different government, B.C. could boast of having the lowest per capita debt, the lowest debt-servicing costs, the best economy of any province in Canada and the best credit rating.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I hear from across the way. . . . They say: "We still do." You know, it just takes so long for these folks to catch on to anything that I guess they never will, because no longer can we boast of that. It was pretty evident in the Finance minister's speech. He never boasted about any of those. That's because it has taken this group of financial wizards about six years to put us so far in the glue that we can't talk about those things anymore. That's what's really sad about the coming generations that are going to have to pay for this.

The socialists have had room to move, and move they did.

J. Weisgerber: Wriggle room.

R. Neufeld: Wriggle room. They took British Columbia and moved it to the absolute bottom of the list -- unfortunate for those that are coming up.

[ Page 2258 ]

The Minister of Finance has also claimed a deficit of $185 million for this year and a $385 million deficit for the previous year. Isn't it interesting? These are the two years for which the minister said he was going to have balanced budgets. Well, he didn't. I'd be a bit embarrassed. In fact, I'd be really embarrassed if I were the minister and had to get up in the House and say: "It really wasn't that. We really didn't have two balanced budgets in a row. We really had two huge deficits."

Well, folks, this is NDP-socialist balanced budgets. This is how these folks count. They can't -- not one of them. Batteries are dead in the calculators. Hundreds of millions of dollars of deficits -- this is what the NDP calls balanced budgets.

The auditor general states that the actual deficit last year was closer to $750 million -- using correct accounting, closer to $750 million. Now, remember that this was one of the years when the NDP claimed they had a balanced budget. The auditor general, who I tend to believe more, I think. . . .

J. Weisgerber: I don't know why.

R. Neufeld: Some say: "I don't know why." I know why. Yeah, I believe him. It was closer to $750 million. If you use the same type of accounting for this year, the projected deficit is not $185 million, it's $886 million.

I heard members from across the way ask: "What hospital wouldn't you like built? What school wouldn't you like built? Look at all the infrastructure, at all the great things that we're doing, at all these things. What would you not like to have?" I looked at that for a number of years, and I thought: well, what are we doing? So we went back and looked to see where all the money was being spent on all this infrastructure.

What has taken place is that taxpayer-supported debt has risen by 130 percent since the group of financial wizards took over. Taxpayer-supported debt is the credit card. It's got nothing to do with infrastructure; it's got to do with overspending on the operations side of government for friends and insiders -- all those kind of things. Certainly they have spent some money; certainly they have built some schools; certainly they have built some hospitals. But when we see the $12 billion in debt that this government has racked up since coming into office and see that most of it belongs on the credit card side of the ledger, it's absolutely frightening.

It's the same as the $170 million that they project to receive on the sale of assets. They're not going to put this against the debt -- not a socialist. I mean, a socialist wouldn't think you'd sell hard assets, take that money and put it against the debt. A socialist would think that you sell those assets, and you spend that money and have a good time. In the real world, that doesn't work. That just won't work. You tell me of one family in British Columbia. . . . If they go to sell their house with a mortgage on it, and they say to the banker, "By the way, I'm not going to pay the mortgage off; I'm just going to continue to make those payments because I want to have a good time on this $150,000," you know very well what the banker will tell them.

An Hon. Member: That's budgeting built in Moscow.

R. Neufeld: Exactly: budgeting built in Moscow. That's about the size of it. Socialist budgeting, socialist thinking about money just doesn't work. It hasn't worked in those countries, and it won't work here.

The Premier stated that during the election, British Columbians convinced him that the debt was their major concern. In turn, he froze all capital projects. Since then, lo and behold, he has relented. He has thawed some. Specifically, the ones he thawed first were in the Education budget.

J. Weisgerber: Where were those?

R. Neufeld: Where were those? Lo and behold, projects that were 100th on a list all of a sudden got approved. You know, there were 11 projects approved, some of them way up the list. They weren't the ones that were the most needy. But guess what. It was just like the member for Yale-Lillooet talked about. They went into NDP ridings.

It's absolutely shameful. It's an absolute, blatant misuse of power that British Columbians will not forget easily. They will not forget the fact that you campaigned on two balanced budgets, and that was not true. They will not forget that you've just pork-barrelled as much money as you could into every one of your constituencies. I'll tell you that next time around there's going to be a change. And there'd better be a change. People are disgruntled.

The member for Yale-Lillooet said the letters that were mailed to the committee were all from Liberal mayors. I don't know how many mayors across the province belong to that party over there, the NDP. Maybe there aren't any mayors that belong to the NDP, so I guess they can say every one is from the Liberal Party. I don't know.

This government is downloading costs onto municipalities at an alarming rate: 30 to 40 percent in one year, something they promised they'd never do. I have a letter that was written by the mayor of Fort St. John to the Premier -- actually, to the whole NDP caucus. I'm going to steal a few lines out of his letter: "In 1994, the following members of your caucus voted in favour of the Local Government Grants Act to provide, as stated by the now Premier, certainty, stability and guarantees. . . ." I remember full well when that bill was brought forward. Almost every one of you stood up and spoke of how great a bill it was. What have you done? Is a promise a promise to an NDPer? Yeah, a promise is a promise to break for an NDPer, because that's exactly what happened.

I quote a little further from the letter. It says:

"With introduction of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, you are now being challenged to abandon your principles and ethics and vote in favour of a piece of legislation that imposes, with what was initially only 30 days' notice, a 40 percent cut in revenue-sharing with local government. Your government complains that when the federal government gave two years' notice of cuts or of downloading, that would amount to 28 percent over two years. The feds were being unfair and unreasonable."

Isn't it interesting, how it turns?

J. Weisgerber: Different standards.

R. Neufeld: Different standards. It's not fair for the feds to give you two years' notice, but you folks think 30 days is plenty. From a promise you made in 1994, another promise is broken. Open and honest government, my foot.

[3:30]

The budget brings a number of huge issues forward. I spoke about runaway debt earlier; it is runaway debt. We've watched the federal government run away with debt for far too long. They're at that wall over there where they can't go anywhere, where they just have to cut it down; they just have to cut. But these are still in their running shoes, every one of them -- still in their running shoes with spending money.

[ Page 2259 ]

Higher interest payments on debt, with less money for services. . . . Higher interest payments -- over double. . . . Do you ever think about when you folks took over? You know, British Columbia can't stand you any longer. One of what's supposed to be the most prosperous provinces in Canada can't handle the socialists any longer. These guys think money grows on a tree back here, right out in the back yard somewhere by the pond.

Higher taxes and user fees. Boy, you want to talk about user fees. These folks know how to charge you for darned near everything. I'm afraid to mention all the things they've found they could charge people user fees for.

J. Weisgerber: Get a fishing licence.

R. Neufeld: Yeah, ask the anglers if they like the 30 percent increase on a fishing licence. See what that does for tourism. Higher spending, more spending -- the result is less bang for each buck.

I want to use a quote from 1992-93 from the then Minister of Finance, who is now our Premier.

J. Weisgerber: Oh, what did he have to say?

R. Neufeld: He said: "The challenge we face in this budget is to implement this mandate. Given the unfavourable fiscal situation left to British Columbians by the previous government, our task is to get our spending priorities right while bringing British Columbia's finances under control."

J. Weisgerber: I wonder when that will happen.

R. Neufeld: This was in '92-93. We wonder when that will happen. We thought maybe they were there when they gave us the big story about two balanced budgets. We thought maybe they were getting there. They didn't get there.

J. Weisgerber: The cheque's in the mail.

R. Neufeld: Yeah, the cheque's in the mail. It's a sad day in British Columbia when we have the Premier of the day being quoted as trying to get the finances of British Columbia on track. The mess that he is now trying to get on track was left by his last government. I'm sure Tom Gunton and Doug McArthur and a few of the inside group over there sit around every once in a while and say: "How in the world did we get elected last time, because this mess was for someone else to clean up?" I think that's exactly what's taken place.

Another quote, and it's interesting. The Minister of Transportation and Highways is here listening and has heckled me a bit.

J. Weisgerber: But softly.

R. Neufeld: But softly, because she knows that there are some things in the Transportation and Highways budget that need to be brought out a little bit. It's a good time to do it. So I want to read from the now Premier, who was also the Minister of Finance in 1992-93: ". . .will strengthen and expand the role of Treasury Board to deal more effectively with cost control and program evaluation."

Well, lo and behold, what did we see? To implement photo radar, everybody was tripping over everyone so fast to get this cash cow implemented that they spent over $62 million to get it implemented, when the budget was only $32 million. Is this what the Premier was talking about to deal more effectively with cost control and program evaluation? That's the problem with these financial wizards from across the way: they can't handle money -- can't run a popcorn stand. To implement photo radar they doubled the budget.

When the Minister of Transportation and Highways tells me that she does not have any money in her budget to fix the roads in the north, I can tell her that $30 million would have gone a long way. We could have paved quite a bit of road; we could have fixed up quite a bit of road. So no longer do I believe that you don't have the money. You have the money. You've just got to spend it in the right place. You've got to manage it better. That's one thing you folks have a problem with.

A really sad thing has happened in my constituency, as I related in question period. That was the closure of the chopstick plant in Fort Nelson; 175 people lost their jobs. These were well-paying jobs. In fact, they were IWA union jobs. Maybe that will cut the heckling, eh, folks? They were IWA members -- you know, the one the member for Yale-Lillooet said he was the only friend to and nobody over here was, so maybe he ought to quit heckling about the 175. And maybe the Minister of Transportation and Highways should be reminded that most of these 175 were women. Hon. Speaker, maybe the heckling ought to stop. Maybe they ought to look into this a little bit before they talk about something they know nothing about.

It's darned sad when a member gets up in this House and talks about something that's as devastating to a community of 5,000 people. Think about it. Of 5,000 people, 200 jobs were lost -- a $5 million payroll. And we get heckles from the government. It's absolutely hard to believe we would see that in this day and age. Do they not. . .? They're in the north. They don't care, hon. Speaker; they just don't care.

J. Weisgerber: It was a little different story with Canadian Airlines, wasn't it?

R. Neufeld: Exactly. We had the Premier there day after day. Then he bragged about cutting the jet fuel tax rate -- when it was that government that increased it.

But just to give you an idea of how much they care about the north, on page 50 of the 1997 draft of the budget it talks about user fees, resource fees and royalties: "Use of the province's natural resources or public infrastructure, such as forestry, mining and commercial water usage, often provide economic benefits to users well in excess of government's service costs." That says a whole bunch about why I stand here and why people in my constituency aren't happy about being part of British Columbia. There's not one mention about the $500 million to $600 million in straight user fees that come out of the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry spends over $2 billion a year in northeastern British Columbia. In the budget document, this group of wizards over here can't even relate to it.

Should I be surprised that they would heckle me about 175 jobs being lost in northeastern B.C.? Should I be surprised that they don't care? I guess not, because all they want to do is use it as a cash cow. In fact, a member of that cabinet who is not there now, who was defeated in the last election, talked about the north-

[ Page 2260 ]

east being a cash cow. He came to the northeast, got on the radio and talked about it being a cash cow. All the government wanted to do was suck the money out of the north and take it down south.

We have so much overregulation in British Columbia that these folks are having a hard time competing in a global market. This is the kind of stuff that the Premier talks about in the jobs for wood accord: value-added. Let me tell you that it's going to be a darned poor example across the investment community when they start reading about a plant that cost millions of dollars being closed. People are gone; no jobs. It's too bad.

But I think the Premier. . . . I spoke to the Premier this morning. To his credit, he's going to take a close look at the issue in the north. I've spoken to the Minister of Forests. He has given me his assurance that he's going to take a close look at it. I appreciate that. I can tell you, and I'm saying it publicly, that the people of Peace River North and Fort Nelson appreciate whatever effort can be made to alleviate the problems that they're going to have.

I want to wrap up, because I think my time is just about up. But I have to say thank you to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, even though I gave her a little hard time here a while ago about the issue of 16-wides. I will do that right now. The northeast has been asking for 16-wides for quite a number of years -- a lot longer than six. I want to publicly say thank you to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and for the diligent work done by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, in arranging for us to be able to move 16-wide loads in the northeast. That will be a benefit to people in the north. It will be a benefit to young people that want to get into manufactured homes -- 16-wide homes -- and to the oil and gas industry. So to you, Madam Minister, thank you on behalf of the people of Peace River North.

To wrap it up briefly, this budget leaves a shameful legacy of debt, higher taxes and squandered opportunities. Every member opposite should be ashamed, first of all, for the untruth about the two balanced budgets which never materialized, and secondly, for saddling future generations with an ever-mounting debt that they must pay for so the socialists can continue to shovel money off the back of the truck.

V. Anderson: I rise with a sad heart once again to respond to the budget speech and to speak to the amendment to that budget now before us. I have a sad heart, hon. Speaker, because as I travel among my people and talk to people across the province, I find a growing malaise, particularly in some sectors of our economy. That malaise is becoming greater and greater all the time, and it leads to despair and discouragement, and beyond that, to actions that are unworthy of the communities in which we live.

The dictionary definition of "malaise," when I looked it up, was that it is a sense of physical ill-being. More and more, I hear of persons throughout our province finding that they are having a feeling of physical ill-being, and with it, a loss of confidence, a loss of assurance about the future and a great deal of increased uncertainty about their lives.

Hon. Speaker, it is a sad thing in a province recognized for its resources, its beauty and its opportunities that some of the people within our communities -- and a growing number all the time -- are finding that the opportunities and the greatness of our province are being denied them on a daily basis. In part, I speak about the people with the lowest income in our province, the people of lowest income who are beginning to get -- as they have for many years but even more so now -- less and less recognition of their needs, of their hopes and of the promises that have been made to them.

[3:45]

I know that we hear more from the opposition, or rather from the government over there -- which in a way is an opposition to the people themselves that I'm talking about -- about the working poor. That's a step in the right direction, but whereas they used to talk about the poor who are economically poor -- those whose income is below even that of the working poor -- those persons have almost totally gone from their vocabulary and from their concern, apparently, from their conversation and from their speeches.

Many of these are children. Many are young people or persons with disabilities. Many of these have had unfortunate circumstances come upon them that were not of their own making. Hon. Speaker, these people were hit hard in the depression of the eighties, and they are being hit even harder still in their lives by the government-induced depression of the nineties. It's greatly disturbing to me when I talk to teachers who tell me that the persons with whom they must spend the most time in counselling and support, more so than at any other time they can remember, are the children in kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3. These are the children whose lives have been disrupted and disturbed. These are the children who are being neglected and left behind in our wonderful province.

On the other hand, there are young people who have worked hard. They have completed their high school education and prepared themselves to go on further and to get a job in the working world, and it's sad that they are among the greatest number of unemployed in our province. They're the highest number of unemployed, and they are being deprived of the opportunities to get ahead. The opportunity is not there for them as it was for former generations.

At the same time, we discover that the credibility of politicians and of government in general is going down, day by day and year by year, because people hear the government saying one thing and doing another. They hear the government making a promise and breaking that promise almost before it is spoken.

It's a sad day for me. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it in this House until it changes. I grew up in Saskatchewan under a CCF government and understood the principles and the concern they had for the people of the community and particularly for those who were in the lower economic range of society. It's a sad day for me to discover that the same concern and those same principles are not operative in this NDP government we see before us.

There is just one illustration I would put before you this day about the change in policy and principle. I could never in my life see T.C. Douglas in his leadership of the CCF movement undertaking to finance the government of the province through gambling revenue. I just can't believe that that would be possible out of his political or religious background, or out of the values he believed in: hard work and fair treatment for all people. I could not see him undertaking this to exploit

[ Page 2261 ]

those who are economically disadvantaged, more so than any others in our province in this day. Hon. Speaker, it's a concern of many throughout this province, many whom our NDP government apparently is not able to hear. They are not even able to hear it from many within their own constituency, which is a sad day.

I would be surprised if even the members of the government have had the opportunity to see, hear or reflect upon the open letter that was sent to the Premier. I think it's important that we put this into the record:

"We are speaking out on behalf of members of our churches who for the past three years have been part of the growing public movement opposed to the expansion of gambling in our province. Along with thousands of other citizens, many of our members have become educated and deeply concerned about the devastating social and economic costs of gambling. We view with dismay the rapid transformation of Canadian society, whereby governments no longer act in the best interests of the public but instead prey upon people's weaknesses to produce revenue.

"While we are relieved that your government's new gaming policy, announced March 13, 1997, rejects VLTs in bars and pubs -- options widely opposed by citizens and municipalities for the past three years -- we are deeply disappointed with other aspects of the new gaming policy which represents a significant expansion of gambling in our province. We list here some of our specific concerns:

"1. We challenge the assertion that this policy represents only a moderate expansion of gambling. Mr. Miller has stated the expectation that the government gaming revenue will increase by as much as $270 million -- a staggering increase.

"2. We view with deep concern the increasing government reliance on gaming revenue for education and health care. As the gaming market becomes saturated and global competition increases, the financial risks are very serious.

"3. We are disturbed that your government has opened the door to for-profit casinos. What is the difference between Las Vegas-style casinos and for-profit destination casinos? Both have negative social impact.

"4. We are alarmed at the proposal to 'enhance' charity casinos with unspecified higher betting limits, new games and the introduction of slot machines. Research and experience both suggest that this is very likely to increase the number of problem gamblers and associated human consequences. We oppose the introduction of slot machines. It is highly misleading to justify slot machines on the questionable assumption that they are not as harmful as VLTs.

"5. We find the makeup of the lotteries advisory commission to be inadequate. It will be unable to provide effective oversight because it includes only government and gambling industry officials. We ask that consideration be given to including community representatives with no vested interest in gaming.

"6. We are concerned that the policy fails to address the need for advertising standards. By any measure, the volume of gaming advertising in B.C. today is immense. Advertising is known to be a factor in causing problem and pathological gambling. We ask that the lotteries advisory commission be instructed to develop and enforce an appropriate set of advertising standards.

"7. We are puzzled that the news release states that the 'video lottery terminals will not be allowed in bars and pubs.' It implies that they might be allowed somewhere else. Mr. Miller's aides have informed us that the new gaming policy prohibits VLTs anywhere in B.C. We ask you for a clear and unequivocal public statement that there will be no VLTs allowed anywhere in B.C.

"8. We cautiously endorse your government's plan to establish a gambling addiction treatment program. However, we must remind you that such programs have a limited success rate. Furthermore, by expanding gambling, your government is increasing the need for such programs.

"On the whole, we deplore the one-sided presentation contained in many of the gaming review report's findings. The authors omit or misstate the conclusions that can be drawn from available research in many areas. These include but are not limited to problem and pathological gambling, crime and the effects of expanded gambling upon existing businesses.

"No attempt is made to evaluate the growing body of peer-reviewed research documenting the negative impact of gambling on communities and families. Many findings are essentially industry propaganda and very little else. We encourage the government to conduct a more balanced assessment of the benefits and costs of gambling expansion.

"We regret that neither you nor Mr. Miller could find the time to meet with us before finalizing your new gaming policy, despite repeated requests. Nonetheless, we respectfully repeat our request for a meeting where we could discuss our questions and concerns about recent developments.

"Yours sincerely,
David Crawley"

This is just one of the many reasons the malaise has come upon our province, and it's one of the reasons I would move the amendment that is on the order paper. I move this amendment, hon. Speaker, and I will read it, moved by myself and seconded by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson:

"That the amendment moved by Mr. Abbott and seconded by Ms. Hawkins be amended by deleting all words after 'but the House regrets' and adding the following: 'That the government has included in its forecasts and its public statements an intention to dramatically worsen the gambling situation in British Columbia, to strive for revenue which will likely be substantially exceeded by attendant social costs, including gambling addiction, crime, abuse, poverty, family breakdown, bankruptcies, destruction to small business and drains on the health care, social services, public safety and education systems by expanding the venues of gambling to include slot machines, destination resort casinos and many others, and to override the will of the electorate as frequently documented by this same government.'"

On the subamendment.

As we reflect upon the significance of this, I would just highlight what's being reported about what has happened on gambling in other provinces. From the Clarenville community paper, the heading is: "Slots Sucking Corner Brook Dry." "Recently, some bar owners have begun to revolt against the machines, pulling them out of their establishments and advertising that they are 'video lottery-free.' After disputes with the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and seeing one too many children looking for their addicted parents, Griffin has followed suit."

[4:00]

In the Thompson Citizen, the headline is: "Manitoba Spent More on Gambling Than on Groceries, Say Federal Statistics." It goes on to report that last year, Manitobans lost about $330 million to government-run lotteries, casinos and video lottery terminals. That's $300 for every man, woman and child living in Manitoba.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

From Scarborough, the community paper reports: "VLTs Like a Drug." The report says:

[ Page 2262 ]

"Be prepared for people with problems related to VLTs sooner rather than later. Very likely, people will start showing up soon after the introduction of the machines, especially in pubs. More than 80 percent of those who have called for help in Manitoba are users of VLTs, what one observer has called 'the crack cocaine of gambling.' The amounts that are lost are as small as $300. 'One exception is a casino player who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars,' says Colliser."

"When the glitzy Casino Windsor first opened its doors, Paula plunked $100 into a slot machine. Within months, she was lying to her husband, sneaking from the house and losing thousands in coins. 'I would say I was going grocery shopping, but I would go to the casino all day. It was a euphoria I could not get anywhere else. I love the sounds of a slot machine. The lights were like stars. I would just go into a daydream.' She lost $30,000, so Paula ordered casino security to ban her."

Finally, hon. Speaker, Alberta's 30,000 compulsive gamblers do whatever it takes to support their habit, as reported in the Alberta paper. The staff writer, Kerry Skidnick, reports:

"Gambling has always been a part of Franklin's life. Even as a kid Franklin (not his real name) would wager with his friends. 'We would bet on hockey games or who would hit the next home run,' he says, 'anything we could think of.' But never did Franklin, 45, imagine that his gambling would become so out of control that he would eventually steal from his own wife and kids. Things got so bad that he wished he was dead. 'I couldn't do it myself, but if somebody else would have run a red light and I was in the way, I wouldn't have cared.' Franklin's story is not uncommon, says Ralph McNab, director of the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling in Alberta."

Hon. Speaker, there is a growing malaise in British Columbia, brought on in large part by the actions of this government. On their head and on their decisions, those who are in low economic status must take the brunt of that attack. With an action like the introduction and expansion of gambling, the government of B.C. -- being the biggest operator of gambling in any sense that we look at it in British Columbia -- has contributed to that malaise and continues to do so. For that, my heart is sad, and I just hope and pray that sense will come and right will prevail.

K. Krueger: I do rise, of course, to second and support the subamendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara. We are called honourable members, and we are honourable members. We want to remain honourable members, I'm sure, all of us.

It has been a bumpy road this past week and a half here in the Legislature, with the definition of parliamentary language continuing to unfold. The Premier has used a term frequently that personally affronts me. I was brought up in a home that believed you didn't use the term lightly, and the term is "hypocrisy." He has used it quite a bit lately. Well, the Oxford dictionary defines hypocrisy this way: "Simulation of virtue or goodness; dissimulation; pretence, acting of a part." And it says that a hypocrite is a person guilty of hypocrisy, "a dissembler, a pretender" -- in other words, someone who says one thing and does another.

Hypocrisy is incompatible with being an honourable member. The Premier used that term in question period just the other day with regard to donations he said were received by the official opposition from a casino company. I didn't know about those, so I checked afterward, and sure enough, there was a casino company that donated $1,000 to the official opposition, later $4,000, and somewhere along the way, smaller donations totalling $750.

I don't believe that a single person made donations to the official opposition in its election campaign based on an expectation that, as a result of those moneys being donated, we would deliver what they wanted, other than good government. I think that the reason the Premier thinks that we regard donations in that way is that there's some justification to the commonly held view in this province that Mr. Georgetti and the large unions own the NDP. Certainly the program that's delivered by the NDP is substantially more to the benefit of the big unions, the friends and insiders of the NDP, than to the public at large we all represent.

There is no hypocrisy on this side of the House. We are all against gambling expansion. The entire official opposition -- and the members for Peace River South and Peace River North, and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- have all expressed our flat opposition to gambling expansion.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: One of the members opposite says: "Don't bet on it." It's appalling to me and to all of us over here that a subject that is of such deep concern to the population of British Columbia is one that these members of the government side would jest about. It is no laughing matter.

When the Premier asks this side of the House if we've repaid donations to our campaign, I think the Premier ought to look into his own soul and into his own bank account and determine whether the amounts that were stolen from nuns and charities in Nanaimo have been paid back and whether the results of the NCHS scandal have ever been rectified. There were public commitments made that the money would be paid back, and I don't think it has been.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: One of the government members across the way just shouted out, and a member from the Kootenays said yesterday in the House, that the position of the official opposition has changed somewhat on the issue of gambling expansion. That is true, because for quite some time, believing that British Columbia is still a democracy, we advocated a dual-referendum approach to the issue of gambling expansion. We felt that it's such an important issue, and the views on it are so strongly and desperately held by many people in British Columbia, many of whom are outright frightened of gambling expansion, that there ought to be full and open public consultation. Then there ought to be a provincewide referendum, after the people of B.C. had had the chance to hear experts on both sides of the questions -- although very few experts come forward on the pro-gambling side of the question; mainly people who expect to make money off the programs.

But we felt that if due consultation took place, with the opportunity for people to voice their concerns and hear those experts, and if that was followed by a provincewide referendum, we would at least see if British Columbians were willing to allow these activities within our province. If they were -- but we doubt it -- we felt that communities should still retain the right to go through a similar process of their own and have a local referendum, similar to the process that neighbourhood pubs have to undergo presently.

As it became obvious to us that the Deputy Premier was on a freight train to implement gambling expansion, our position did harden. We believe that the NDP told the truth in 1994 and 1995 when they said in their press releases, very clearly, that they had heard from the people of British Colum-

[ Page 2263 ]

bia that these activities aren't welcome here, aren't wanted, that they're not compatible with the lifestyle of our beautiful province, that we don't need them in our magnificent province and that a robust economy such as ours, a flagship in Canada, really didn't need to dabble in this kind of reprehensible activity.

There are many people in this chamber, Mr. Speaker -- including yourself, obviously -- who are much more experienced here than I. And there are many people here and throughout British Columbia who have a whole lot more knowledge of gambling than I do and a whole lot more experience with it, as well. Up until the Leader of the Opposition designated me as the official opposition critic for B.C. Lottery Corporation and gambling, I knew very little about it. I'd buy the occasional raffle ticket. I can't seem to walk through a shopping mall without buying them from Boy Scouts, Kinsmen -- from whomever is selling raffle tickets of whatever type. I'd buy the occasional lottery ticket. That's been the extent of my experience. But there are, of course, a whole lot of people who are tremendously experienced with gambling in British Columbia and elsewhere and tremendously well-researched in the downsides of gambling expansion, and I have been hearing from them by the hundreds -- and, I think, so have the members opposite.

These members opposite have made a number of statements -- many of them -- about gambling expansion, and I'm now going to hold up to a number of these members the mirror of their own words. I'd like them to think about the things that they've had to say about gambling expansion in the past. I'm pretty new, but they aren't, and they've had lots of input, the same kind of input that I've been getting since I was designated gaming critic. This is the sort of thing that they said in the past.

One of the NDP MLAs said. . . . And perhaps they can recognize these comments. Perhaps we should play a little game and see if they can pick out which of them said these things. They can find them in Hansard:

"We promote this province not only in British Columbia: our history, our mountains, our beauty, our people and our cities. And what do we do now? We're going to start promoting the very thing that millions of people escape from to British Columbia, to my community and to many of the other communities. They come to this province to avoid that kind of activity."

He was talking about casinos. He went on to say, the very same day: "I say there's a sickness in British Columbia. We're saying: halt today; no more; we've had enough. . . . All the evidence is there, Madam Chairman, and this government is going the wrong course." What's happened to those convictions? We need to know that.

[4:15]

Here's one from an hon. member who was here until a couple of minutes ago and has departed the chamber, strangely enough. What bad timing for me, because this member is a man who stood up for himself, for the kind of person he is. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Pardon me for interrupting, but I neglected to mention the other day that one of the other conventions of parliament -- and I have been remiss in not reminding members -- is that it is not permissible to draw attention to the absence of members from the chamber. I notice a number of people have been falling into that nasty habit, and I hope you'll allow me this opportunity to tell you and everybody else that we should not do that -- on both sides of the House, quite appropriately. I would ask all members to please observe that other parliamentary convention. Thank you, member, for your patience.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Please excuse me for that. I'd never heard that before. It's not a nasty habit with me; it's something that I didn't know was not permitted.

In any event, I refer to the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- noted for his forthrightness -- who said very recently: "We haven't had a formal discussion. . . ." He was talking about gaming and about the NDP caucus. He was obviously expecting one, because he went on to say that he doesn't approve of gambling expansion and that the government is "trying to make money off people's weakness." And he's right, Mr. Speaker; that's what gambling expansion is all about.

There's a tremendously substantial portion of the gambling revenue that already flows into the coffers of this province. It's $300 million a year net out of $1.5 billion a year in gambling activity. That's a pretty small percentage of return for all the harm it causes. In any event, a very substantial percentage of that comes from people who are psychologically sick. All the experts will confirm that for us. They have confirmed it for me.

I have another quote here; this one is from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, presently the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and of Labour, presumably a person who would be involved in the construction of casinos, if they are overseen by government. One of the arguments, of course, that the NDP supporters -- particularly Mr. Georgetti and the union goons -- put forward is that they'll get union jobs out of this proposal. This member said: "I don't think there's any percentage in us trying to create tourism through enabling people to go into some kind of a concrete bunker with all sorts of neon." And he's right. Gambling expansion in British Columbia isn't about tourism. It won't draw tourists to B.C. These venues already exist in jurisdictions all around British Columbia. People aren't going to come to B.C. to gamble; they could do it at home. That's not what they come to B.C. for, and the NDP have said so themselves many times.

It won't work. We're not going to draw tourists to British Columbia through gambling expansion. All we're going to do is siphon money away from our existing economy -- which is in enough trouble already, thank you very much.

Here's another quote. This one again is from a member who presently sits opposite, and she said this:

"There is a situation that is happening in this province that is disturbing many of us, and that is that we are encouraging and promoting gambling, the playing of bingo and casinos in order to support our organizations."

[ Page 2264 ]

She went on to say:

"My question to you is: why are we not providing some funding for these organizations so that they are not out there promoting bingo, which is causing problems that you then have to turn around and deal with?"

Here's a lovely quote, again from a person who sits in this House, who sits opposite and who has held many different portfolios in the cabinet of the NDP government since 1991. This is what he said -- and this again is in Hansard:

"Look, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to introduce any form of legalized gambling into this province, whether it's on boats or on land. What the government is doing here is simply inviting crime."

This is an NDP member talking here, Mr. Speaker.

"Let me share a few statistics with the members opposite. In Atlantic City, in the first four years they had legalized gambling in that jurisdiction, crime rates increased by 191 percent. Think about that for a second. Do you know what type of crime it was? It was street crime, purse-snatching, holding up local grocery stores. Do we want that type of crime in this area? I say no. . . ."

That's what he said, and I say no as well.

He went on to say:

"Las Vegas has the highest per capita crime rate in the United States. Do we want to invite those types of statistics here to the west coast?

"You know, it's easy to spend $400,000 on roulette wheels and rooms in ships, but what about the social costs? What about the policing costs? Who is going to pay that?"

And he said: "The taxpayer is." He was right, and he's still right.

He finished up saying this:

"A recent study done by the University of Florida, which I will recommend to the Provincial Secretary, talks in rather lengthy terms about legalized casino operations. It reviews every study ever done on the matter in the United States. It concludes that all you do at the end of the day is invite more crime, and when you start looking at the costs associated with legalized gambling, the infrastructure costs, the airports, the roads and all that kind of stuff that you build, it loses money for the jurisdictions."

That quote is from none other than the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

There are people of principle sitting on that side of the House. We know that. One of them said very recently: "I'm worried about the people living in Gastown, the downtown east side, Victory Square and Chinatown. . . . This is going to impact greatly." That was spoken by the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. And she was right; it will impact greatly. Many call gambling expansion a tax on the poor, because that's often what it works out to be.

On May 6, 1996, the Premier of this province said this:

"The NDP government conducted a full review of gaming in our province, and after listening to British Columbians, we said no to Las Vegas-style gaming and video lottery terminals. Instead of using gaming to attract tourists, we're building a larger Vancouver convention centre, in partnership with the private sector, which will mean more tourism business for B.C."

That's the way the election was conducted by the NDP: with a strong indication to the public -- outright statements -- that gambling expansion was no longer in the cards. That had been very clearly stated in the press releases over the previous two years. Obviously, that's what the Premier of the province intended people to understand just before the 1996 election. Was he saying one thing then and doing another now? And if so, doesn't that fit the definition of hypocrisy?

Here's another quote. Let's see if we can guess who this one is by. This was spoken -- oh! -- this month, apparently. At least, it was in a magazine that came out dated December 26, 1996-January 1 -- so it would have been last month's: "The allegation that it could drain resources from charities and community-based charitable gaming casinos worries me and, as I say, I don't see it doing a whole lot for the north." Does anyone opposite recognize that quote, I wonder? That quote was from the member for Prince George North, the current Minister of Education, Skills and Training.

Education, the NDP believes -- and we do as well -- is one of the highest responsibilities and priorities of any provincial government. Education, health care and public safety: those are the three that we hold to be the dearest and nearest responsibilities of government. All will be dramatically impacted by gambling expansion, if it goes ahead -- heaven forbid. Once again, that member was correct in what he said. There will be a negative effect.

There will be a dramatic negative effect on the horse-racing industry, which currently employs somewhere close to 8,000 people in this province and makes use of 50,000 acres of agricultural land in the raising of thoroughbred horses. Many of those people will not readily be able to transfer to other types of employment should they lose their employment by the destruction of horse racing in this province. The industry tells us that wherever casinos are introduced in competition with their industry, they suffer between 24 and 73 percent of their income, and it may well cause that industry to crash in British Columbia. Charitable gaming will also be damaged. It will be a mistake to introduce gambling expansion in this province at the expense of these viable operations that are already in place. It will cause dislocation; it will cause tremendous harm.

The Deputy Premier, in his March 13, 1997, announcement of his intent to expand gambling, tried to placate those industries by throwing them a bone: allowing them to have slot machines in their facilities. Here's another quote, Mr. Speaker, one from somebody I really respect, a member who is in the Legislative Assembly right now. I hope it's okay to identify the ones who are here. This member said:

"Let me again make it clear to the hon. member that there will be no major casinos in British Columbia -- Las Vegas-style or otherwise. There will be no major casinos in British Columbia for entry, for gaming, with or without foreign or domestic passports. That's very clear to me. I'm very clear and firm on it.

"The answer is still no. . .let me answer it once and for all so that we can move on to the next issue. There will be no major casinos in British Columbia, only B.C.-style casinos with charitable gaming."

That's very different from what the Minister of Employment and Investment, the current Deputy Premier, had to say on March 13, '97.

That same member went on to say, that very day:

"It gives me great delight in setting the record straight for the third time in the last 24 hours" -- obviously taking some umbrage at the repetition of the question. "I don't usually thank BCTV, but that was the only station that carried the message that there will be no major casinos, Las Vegas-style or otherwise, in British Columbia for entry for gaming, with or without foreign or domestic passports."

That was in 1995, spoken by the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the current Attorney General. I hope, Mr.

[ Page 2265 ]

Speaker, that he has some sway in the debate that's going to happen, I'm convinced, in the NDP caucus, but it apparently hasn't happened thus far -- in spite of the Deputy Premier having made his announcement, apparently to the consternation of many of his caucus colleagues.

An Hon. Member: What member?

K. Krueger: My colleagues are asking which member. I don't actually know which constituency he represented at the time, but, if I may be permitted, Tom Perry is the member I was quoting.

Here's another quote from an NDP MLA who's no longer with us. This was Anne Edwards, on March 24, 1987:

"Whether or not the government thinks they have a mandate to put gambling into British Columbia, they have not yet spoken to the people across this province and listened to what they have to say about it. . . . So, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the harm that this could do to the tourist industry and the fact that the people of British Columbia have not yet said that they approve of this kind of action, I would certainly support the amendment" -- obviously contrary to gambling expansion.

We still haven't had that public consultation, have we? As far as we know, the truth is still the way the Premier -- the Premier then and the Premier now -- reported it over the last three years, and that is that the majority of British Columbians are opposed -- deadly opposed, frightened, don't want it.

I'll wrap up these quotes, because I think the point has probably been made. I'll just give you a couple more, Mr. Speaker.

This is another former NDP MLA. This was 1987, mind you, before the NDP were in government. He said: "I am amazed that the chief law enforcement officer of this province is the one who is promoting gambling casinos and their expansion and all the seedier sides of life that come automatically with that profession, if you can call it that."

The same NDP MLA also said, in the same year: "Mr. Chairman, it seems that the only job creation we're going to have in this province is rows of slot machines." That sounds a lot like 1997. "Is that economic development? Is that your kind of prosperity? The new start for the province of British Columbia? Is that your new start?"

He went on to say:

"Atlantic City, when established, told the world they had the strongest rules in the world to protect against organized crime; yet in those first four years, 1978-82, crime went up 171 percent. They thought they had the toughest rules and regulations in the world. Every study, every piece of evidence put forth, shows that when you pursue this course, organized crime gets involved."

[4:30]

With the sorry history of gaming in Nanaimo and the inability of the NDP to keep gambling honest....

An Hon. Member: And that was only bingo.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: As the members are saying, Mr. Speaker, that was only bingo, and look how far it went -- down the hill. Look at the tragic consequences, the disrepute that it brought to a once-great party and the terrible negative effects on the credibility of government. Just look at that and think about how badly this could all go if organized crime does get involved, as it is very likely to, with these gambling expansions in British Columbia.

That member went on to say:

"Mr. Chairman, when you pursue this casino kind of operation, despite what the minister says about it being under the guise of charity or the non-profit sector, these elements get involved; they are there; they start and they work. . . . I can't believe that the chief crime-fighter in the province is glibly dismissing this kind of organized crime.... It's insidious, it's dramatic, it's organized, it's big, it's clever, and it gets in. Every jurisdiction started just like British Columbia today, just like this -- amateur hour in British Columbia; a little bit here, a little casino in the hotel here on the corner. Then it gets bigger and bigger. . . . No mechanisms can control this kind of thing -- organized crime. In every jurisdiction in the United States, there's no control. It can't be done.

"Well, we believe in super, natural British Columbia. We don't believe in this kind of industry that has the potential to radically alter this province. The whole social environment has the potential to be affected for a long, long time."

And I'll finish up with his quotes: "We have clearly articulated a policy of no more gambling casinos in the province. We don't need that kind of event, that kind of institution."

But I've saved as my final quote. . . .

An Hon. Member: Who said it?

K. Krueger: I'll respond to the member opposite that that can be one of the ones she looks up. I'd like the government to research this issue a bit, because there are a lot of other things they've said, on the record and off, and they need to remind themselves of that. That's the point of my discourse: I want the people with integrity on the government side of the House to have a look at themselves in the mirror of their own words and decide for themselves whether or not they can support gambling expansion. And if not, I invite them to support our subamendment.

But this is the mother of all summations, and this one should be listened to carefully. I'll see if you can guess, Mr. Speaker and everyone else here, who this quote is from. He's a key figure. He said:

"I'm concerned about the proliferation. You know, the government says: 'We're starting small. . . . We'll just keep it small.' But let me tell you, like everything else that starts small, it grows. And if it's a source of cash, you'll tap it over and over again, regardless of the moral position."

He goes on. This next one has an exclamation mark after it, which you don't see that often in Hansard, so I'll try to do it right. He said:

"Talk about morally offensive! I ride around and I see ads on the buses for the mortgage-burner lottery, when I know the working people in the province are struggling to make ends meet paying their mortgage, and they're lined up gambling in hopes they can get out of that burden of debt."

And today we see the advertisement saying, "Hey, you never know!" to the hurting people of this province, encouraging them to buy more tickets and to get more involved in gambling. We see the advertisements ridiculing those who didn't buy the bonus. "I'm sorry, so sorry," they chant at them. That is wrong.

[ Page 2266 ]

Do you know who said these things, Mr. Speaker? The member for North Coast, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the very same Deputy Premier who made the announcement on March 13, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I see the red light's on, but I'm not done. Our House Leader assured me that as key speaker to this subamendment, I was entitled to more time. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: Please proceed.

K. Krueger: Thank you very much.

I've quoted from a whole lot of NDP MLAs, and I think I've made my point. But I call upon the members for Victoria-Beacon Hill, Burnaby-Willingdon, Surrey-Whalley -- to search their record, search their memory, search their hearts and not allow themselves to be railroaded. I think that the railroad of the Premier and the Deputy Premier in this matter has been shameful.

To my understanding, none of these government MLAs opposite were told during the election campaign that they would have to support gambling expansion. None of them had an opportunity to debate it at the convention, where it was artfully slid off the floor. Apparently they've never had the opportunity to discuss it in caucus, even though they had the humiliation of meeting the media on the way into their caucus meeting the very day that the Deputy Premier made his expansion announcement, and expressing their understanding at the time that they were going to be discussing gambling expansion. And then they had the humiliation of coming out of that caucus meeting, knowing that the man had made his announcement and that they were not going to get to discuss it at all.

They haven't had the opportunity to discuss gambling expansion here in the Legislature. This government has failed to introduce comprehensive gaming legislation, despite the fact that there have been pleas for that for years, and the debacle in Nanaimo made it very obvious that it was sorely needed. I say -- we say -- that the government of the day must not put its members in this compromising situation. It must not put these hon. members in a position of hypocrisy. It must let them stand for their principles and for their constituents. It must not humiliate them in this way.

To those members -- through you, Mr. Speaker -- I say: stand up for your principles. Stand up for your integrity. Let the hammer of your words strike the anvil of your integrity, and may it ring out truth. May we have genuine representation of the people of this great province, protection from the things that are harmful to them. Those government MLAs opposite have not been respected. They have not been allowed to speak, let alone been listened to. But now they have a vote; they have an opportunity and an obligation to vote on this subamendment. And this subamendment gives their constituents a voice on this important issue.

I don't think anyone denies that it's an important issue. I think the Premier and the Deputy Premier have been trying to put on the blinders and skate their caucus past this important question. But it is an important question, and this is an opportunity that we present with this subamendment. We plead with the members opposite not to squander it, not to be found guilty of having said one thing and done another. I believe they know full well what their constituents think.

I believe that many of them have seen the letter that my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara read out. I draw particular attention to the sentence where these people who have some of the largest churches operating in British Columbia, very respected people, say: "We view with dismay the rapid transformation of Canadian society, whereby governments no longer act in the best interests of the public, but instead prey upon people's weaknesses to produce revenue." That is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

The chief provincial health officer was asked by a constituent for his views on this subject, this thorny subject of gambling expansion, and he wrote this in reply -- he is a brave man:

"The Hon. Joy K. MacPhail, Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors, has asked me to respond to your letter of December 9, 1996, regarding the impact of legalized gambling in British Columbia." He wrote this on January 30, 1997. "From a public health perspective, I do not know of any social or health benefit that would occur as the result of increasing the availability of gambling to the people of British Columbia."

By what perversion does this government hold out the hope that they are protecting health care and education by bringing in gambling expansion? How does that work? It doesn't work. He goes on: "There may be economic benefits that could stimulate certain types of industry as a result of increased availability of legalized gambling, and the province may obtain increased revenues from these industries." I'll digress from his text again and say that that's far from certain. A lot of these expansions fail. A number of ventures in Washington State just below us haven't done very well at all. There's no assurance that there won't be failures in these venues and more misery as a result of that. Even if there are financial successes, they're at the expense of British Columbians -- all of us -- because those casinos will only make money if British Columbians lose.

I'll go on with the chief provincial health officer's statement. Dr. John Millar says:

"However, the evidence is that those who participate in gambling, whether it be video slot machines or casinos, initially are those who can least afford it. The result is that family income may not be available for education, food, clothing, transportation and housing. In addition, with the increase of legislated gambling in a population, there is an increased number of problem gamblers. For example, a 1993 survey showed that 3.5 percent of the population of British Columbia suffered from problem gambling."

I'll just digress for a moment. He obviously didn't know, and I had to find out through a circuitous route myself, that indeed this government has paid for a subsequent study of problem gamblers and has found that there are more.

I'll go on. He says: "In Alberta, where there is widespread legalization of gambling, it was estimated in 1996 that 8.6 percent of the population were problem gamblers" -- 8.6 percent, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't that alarm the government? It should. Why would we be so stupid as to follow the negative experience of practically every other jurisdiction in North America by doing the same stupid, irresponsible thing ourselves? Why would we do that for short-term, possible gain?

Interjection.

K. Krueger: And my colleague says "because the government doesn't have any smarts."

An Hon. Member: Conscience is the word.

K. Krueger: Well, my other colleague says the government doesn't have any conscience. And I think they're both right, unfortunately.

[ Page 2267 ]

Dr. Millar goes on to say that "problem gambling is defined as behaviour patterns which compromise or disrupt personal, family or vocational pursuits, and includes pathological gambling at the extreme end of the spectrum of gambling involvement." This is a real indictment, Mr. Speaker.

[4:45]

I talked about this all through last session -- all through the summer. Something was supposed to be done in this province, where we've been throwing $300 million, net, into the coffers every year from gambling revenues. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance assured me of that. The Minister of Social Services couldn't understand why it was even an issue affecting his ministry, but he's had a lot of that kind of trouble. The others assured me something was going to be done on this issue, and it hasn't been, because he goes on to say:

"British Columbia has no treatment program for problem gambling, unlike most other Canadian provinces. If the government does permit an increase in the amount of legalized gambling, I hope that with the revenues received there will be a commitment to develop a program for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling.

"I have spoken with Mr. Peter Clark, who is carrying out the review for the government on the issue of increased legalization of gambling in the province. I am pleased to report that he has been made aware of the negative social and health impacts of increasing the availability of legal gambling."

And Mr. Clark was, as it turns out. In his report, which the Deputy Premier introduced to the world on March 13, 1997 -- but apparently didn't read -- on page 17, Peter Clark makes some recommendations. He clearly felt that this was foundational stuff that ought to be done before any expansion in this province. What he said was: "Additionally, it is important that future expansion recognizes legitimate social concerns and provides programs, policies and structures which effectively deal with the following issues: the development and availability of programs to assist problem gamblers. . . ." We haven't got those.

Mr. Deputy Premier made a very token gesture on the issue on the day of his announcement. He had a lot of things to say that day, but on that tremendously important issue of gambling addiction he tossed off a line, throwing the problem into the lap of the overworked Ministry for Children and Families. For shame! It doesn't belong there. They're too busy already. The social workers have been pounding the pavement, protesting that they're in charge of young lives and they can't handle it all. There's too much there for them. We heard about that in question period yesterday and again today: the tragic deaths of children. There aren't enough people to look after them. How are they going to look after gambling addiction? They'll have to, Mr. Speaker, because more children will die because of gambling addiction. And I'll get into some terrible statistics about that shortly.

Mr. Clark also recommended measures for the protection of youth. Well, I suppose the Deputy Premier thinks that he addressed that, with his proviso that gambling under the age of 19 would not be allowed. May we have more success than we have with booze in that regard; may we have more success than we have with drugs. But why would we expect that? We won't. Indeed, the jurisdictions that have expanded gambling previous to us have found that they can't keep young people from gambling. There's a tremendous proclivity for addiction problems in the youth of every population where these venues are introduced.

Mr. Clark also called for minimizing the potential for crime. Well, we certainly haven't done that, between him handing this report to the Deputy Premier and the Deputy Premier gleefully announcing the results and essentially embracing almost every type of expansion that was discussed in the report.

The protection of existing forms of gaming. Apparently, as I said, the gesture there was throwing some slot machines around, but it's questionable whether many of those venues can introduce those, because they would be in violation of municipal bylaws. But, again, we've seen some precedent there, because this provincial government doesn't care about municipal bylaws. It doesn't care about agreements with municipalities, and it will even go to such lengths as to waste the taxpayers' dollars on both sides of the legal argument, to go to court and prove that the provincial government is a higher authority than municipal government. What a boondoggle that was, Mr. Speaker, but that's what they did with the city of Vancouver over the keno machines.

Mr. Clark went on to recommend further that the Deputy Premier consider the level to which municipalities and police agencies experience increased costs. I attended the anti-casino coalition rally in January of this year in Vancouver, and the chief constable for Vancouver, representing the chiefs of police for all of British Columbia, read out part of a report, which he wrote, anticipating the extra staffing that he would need if casinos went ahead in Vancouver, and it was horrendous. It wasn't just talking about the kind of street crime that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin referred to in the quote that I gave you earlier. No, it was talking about really nasty things, right on up through money-laundering, prostitution and murder. This is bad stuff, and we're not equipped to deal with it.

Gambling addiction affects youth at almost double the rate that it affects the adult population. So how are we going to deal with the increased number of young offenders seeking to procure money with which to gamble? How are we going to do that, when we have such a poor handle on some of these situations right now?

Mr. Clark also talked about minimizing the impact on low-income earners, but he is very short on ideas as to how that could be done.

An Hon. Member: Are you talking about the Premier?

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, I will explain for the benefit of the member opposite, who apparently wasn't listening earlier, that this is Peter Clark I'm quoting, not the Premier.

Peter Clark also recommended the introduction of comprehensive gaming legislation before we went ahead with this gambling expansion -- if we ever do, and obviously I don't think we should. There we have it again. And he recommended careful consideration of first nations involvement, and that wasn't done, either. Instead, we have first nations people pitted against municipalities, and municipalities pitted against one another in the scramble to make sure that a neighbouring jurisdiction won't develop a casino that puts tremendous pressure on the infrastructure of its neighbour, while drawing away the disposable income of the inhabitants of that neighbour.

So I was pretty embarrassed to be at that press conference and see the total inability of the Deputy Premier to answer questions. He essentially was very quickly backed into a corner where he demonstrated that he hadn't read the report. He didn't know -- and I don't think he cared -- because he made it clear from the very day he got this portfolio last fall that he was hell-bent on introducing casinos to British Columbia.

[ Page 2268 ]

That's what he wanted; that's what he said. He denied that he was getting negative input -- and I was getting carbon copies. There was a ton of it. So I phoned his office and pleaded for an appointment, so I could make sure he had the material that I had carbon copies of. And I have never been able to get an appointment with him. That's because he doesn't want to hear what I or the public has to say. He just wants casinos. That's what it comes down to.

Mr. Speaker, I get a lot of expert input on this issue of gambling expansion and gambling addiction. The experts tell me that it takes between six and eight years for a person developing a gambling addiction to hit rock bottom. Along the way, they hurt themselves terribly, and they often hurt the people they love the most and a whole lot of people they don't even know. Six to eight years squandering their RRSP savings, their family assets, every penny of credit they can possibly drum up, everything they can get hold of, and lying, cheating, stealing, turning to crime -- the kind of stories that my colleague from Vancouver-Langara related a little bit earlier. Those are common stories that flow from gambling expansion.

I think we have an irresponsible government. I think this was an irresponsible report. It says, for example, that "increases in problem gambling can be substantially mitigated by preventive measures." That's a crock; that's hogwash. That's not true at all, but it's there on page 3.

The fact is that there is zero evidence in gambling literature to support this cruel and fallacious claim. It's very difficult to turn a gambling addict's life around. Only half of pathological gamblers seek help and then only after they've bottomed right out. And treatments are uncertain. I have that from experts, including British Columbian experts. As Rachel Volberg, a U.S. authority and a consultant to the B.C. Lottery Corporation, said in a study for the National Institute of Mental Health:

"In states where legal gambling has been available for less than ten years, less than 0.5 percent of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers. In states where legal gambling has been available for more than 20 years, approximately 1.5 percent of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers."

When it's pathological, it is really, really bad.

Peter Clark's report goes on to say that expanded gaming will create 5,800 direct and indirect jobs. Well, that's a lofty statement. We don't know that. But we do know that the horse-racing industry in B.C. will be terribly imperilled by this expansion, and it already has close to 8,000 direct and indirect jobs.

And where will the $270 million, which the Deputy Premier so gleefully reported expecting to receive per annum, come from? I don't see a lot of people in my constituency or the ones next to it -- or even in this constituency down here where the money of the province pours in and very little of it seems to pour back out -- with a whole lot of disposal income to come up with $270 million more in profit for these gambling expansions. At the current rate, that would mean an additional $1.5 billion being bet in this province. The Deputy Premier had the gall to refer to this as a moderate expansion of gambling and then predict that he would double the current intake. How can we have these weasel words from our Deputy Premier? How can we have this sort of misleading presentation of government policies and decisions?

As I say, I get a whole lot of input from people -- really good people, very frightened people -- who say things like this: "That governments should allow themselves to become dependent on human weakness and should -- inevitably -- find themselves pandering to that weakness in order to enhance revenues is, in my judgment, bordering on irresponsibility." That's from the Very Reverend Robert F. Smith of the First United Church congregation.

The British Columbia Conference of the United Church feels that the only involvement the government should have in gambling is oversight or regulation. How can a government, on the one hand, promote gambling and, on the other hand, regulate it? How can government put the money in its jeans and still purport to be the organization that's going to make sure everything is on the up and up? There's a conflict here, and it's a conflict we're going to have to address as we face this prospect of gambling expansion.

The conference went on to say: "We are not against entertainment or fun. Our position stems from the conviction that expansion of gambling does not promote either strong government or strong communities. We are not alone in this and believe the concerns voiced by many police forces and municipalities within B.C. stem from the same basic concern for the nurturing of strong and healthy communities."

Let's get this right down to where we live, Mr. Speaker. Let's have a real-life example. This is a letter from a constituent of mine, and he gave me permission to use his name:

"My name is Arthur Meunier, and I have a story about VLT machines and my father that I would love to share with the NDP government and the people of British Columbia. I moved to B.C. back in '88 from New Brunswick. Before I moved, New Brunswick had VLT machines, but they were in pubs and clubs, and they were also illegal."

Before I go on, let me make it clear that VLTs are just electronic slot machines. It's just a weasel word to refer to what's being introduced here in B.C. as something different, because a VLT is a slot machine, and vice versa. It takes a microchip to make the change. It takes 15 minutes by somebody who knows what he's doing -- if that.

Arthur Meunier goes on:

"I think they were a problem back then, but since the government in New Brunswick has made them legal, the problem has multiplied greatly. The reason is: only people who go to bars played the machines. Now that they're legal and easily accessible, everybody -- from old to under age -- is playing the government-approved cancer."

And it is a cancer, Mr. Speaker.

"A few years after I arrived in B.C., they, the government, legalized VLT machines in New Brunswick. I did not hear much about them until my father started playing them. It started about five years ago. And how I found out: I'd talk on the phone with my father; he'd tell me about playing the machines. He'd never go into detail about it at first. From time to time I'd talk to other members of my family, and they would try to play down his addiction by telling me he wasn't spending much money, or that he played very little.

"In February of '93 I travelled back to New Brunswick for a three-week visit. All I had for cash was $125 when I got there; it was supposed to last for three weeks. Considering I was staying with family, it should have been enough. Well, the same day I arrived I received a crash course on the day-to-day operations of VLT machines from my father.

"We went from store to store trying out our so-called luck. It started to feel great. You know why? I was winning. Some kind of beginner's luck, I guess. At the end of the day, I was ahead a hundred bucks, but my father had lost $300. Unknown to me, which I learned during the next few days, my father was

[ Page 2269 ]

spending anywhere from $100 to $1,000 a day on the VLT machines. I also learned that from time to time he would stop playing, but it never did last. One month or maybe two months would pass, and he'd be right back at it."

[5:00]

The headlines that we see from other jurisdictions where these expansions have occurred should give us a warning, if we're not stupid: "Video Gambler Stole From Boss." And it goes on to talk about white-collar crime: "Compulsive Gambling Has Become a National Epidemic."

Our own auditor general writes a report warning us about alcohol, tobacco and gaming. Has anyone on the government side read it? You have to wonder. Here we are talking about suing the tobacco industry for their dangerous and addictive product, and look what we're flirting with. It's so stupid, it's unbelievable.

The American Insurance Institute estimates that 40 percent of all white-collar crime has its roots in gambling. These statistics go on and on and on, as I have, Mr. Speaker, and probably everybody is getting tired of it.

But I want to read a little bit from the University of British Columbia. These are experts, homegrown experts. This letter came from Dr. Tony Phillips, the head of psychology at UBC. I went to see him, and he was surprised that someone from government would actually show up and ask what he thought. Why would that be? We've got these tremendous institutions with tremendously qualified people, and nobody asks them what they think, except for the opposition. Why isn't the government interested in what our experts have learned in all the studies that they and their students have done?

One of the things that Dr. Tony Phillips says is:

"The effects of gambling are not limited to the individual who places a wager. A number of studies estimated that each problem gambler adversely affects numerous individuals, including family members, friends, employers, co-workers and others. The spouses of severe problem gamblers experience very high rates of stress-related illness, including hypertension, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and backache, which are eight times more common than in the general population."

Do we care about them, Mr. Speaker? How can we say that gambling expansion is going to protect health care, when the spouses of these people are going to have eight times the number of visits to hospitals, the number of draws on the health care system, as the normal population? What hypocrisy is that?

Pathological gamblers provoke a reactive form of violence in their spouses, 37 percent of whom have physically abused their children. Compared with females in the general population, spouses of male pathological gamblers are three times more likely to commit suicide. Do the members opposite care? I think they do. A number of them have indicated that they do, and I believe them.

We have big issues already here in British Columbia. The Ministry for Children and Families is overwhelmed. Youth crime is a problem. We have that embarrassing history in Nanaimo. We have gambling addiction already. The Alberta experience should warn us. They have a horrible problem, even though they have a good program. There is a tremendous threat to local economies, to health care, education and public safety and to the status quo here in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, we over here are opposed to gambling expansion. Every Liberal and the members for Peace River North, Peace River South and Powell River-Sunshine Coast have expressed their opposition. And I believe that many of the members opposite are genuinely opposed. They haven't sold out their social conscience to Mr. Georgetti and his associates. And I want to say to them: here is your opportunity. You didn't get one in your party, but you've got one with the subamendment. So I say to them: stand up and be counted. Don't give in to the dictators. Don't allow yourselves to be prostituted.

Prostitution is a word that very often comes along with gambling expansion. In fact, it comes along all the time. People call me on radio open lines, and they ask: "Is our government going to be into pimping next?" And they're serious. Not long ago it would have been unthinkable that the government of British Columbia would have considered this type of gambling expansion. It would have shocked people. They wouldn't have been able to believe it. They would have thought it was a nasty April Fools' joke.

This is those members' chance to prove that they still have integrity, that they have courage and that they refuse to say one thing and then do another. It's their opportunity to preserve their reputations, their credibility and their future and to show that they deserve respect. I ask them to look into the mirror of their own words -- those that I have quoted and all the others they have spoken. I urge them to do the right thing and to be honourable members.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: It's not often I get an opportunity to introduce someone in the House, but the mayor and chair of the Fort Nelson-Liard regional district is in the precinct to meet with the Minister of Forests over the closure of the chopstick factory in Fort Nelson. I would like everyone to make him welcome. It's unfortunate he has to come only when things have got this bad, but please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: I came prepared to debate the main motion of the budget today, but I stand in support of the subamendment. I certainly believe, and have consistently believed since entering into public life, that dependency upon gambling revenue for the provision of moneys for services that are essential -- health, education and social services -- is bad public policy indeed. I am delighted to hear from the member for Vancouver-Langara and from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that they are prepared to move this amendment forward.

I certainly don't wish at any time to suggest that the integrity of this motion is motivated by anything other than sound and sensible public policy. I do think that what is proposed in this subamendment.... And I don't intend to speak very long on it, because I think that the sooner we move to a division and get people on record on this vote, the better British Columbians will feel. But this subamendment serves notice that any who oppose it are in favour of government dependency on gaming revenue and are in favour of expanding gaming revenue to meet those financial demands. That's what it means.

[ Page 2270 ]

I think it's clear to British Columbians -- and it had better be clear to members opposite -- that if this motion does not pass, the government opposite and its members, all those elected to sit and represent their constituents, are prepared to say to British Columbians that we are now prepared to become addicted to revenue from gambling in British Columbia in order to provide health, education and social service funding. And that, hon. Speaker, I think is going to run counter to what I know to be the personal philosophy of members opposite -- some of them, anyway. It is certainly going to run counter to what has been a longstanding tradition in that political party.

Earlier this year, I wrote a letter to every single member opposite, and they'll remember it. In that letter I urged them to stand on conviction, to stand up and to personally oppose the move toward dependency on gambling revenue to provide essential services in the province. I suggested something that we all know in this Legislative Assembly -- that is, that this government does not have a large majority, and that even if some of them do not believe they can stand on conviction, actually stand in opposition to their government's position and the stated position of members of cabinet on this issue, a sheer absence from the vote would be a symbol to British Columbians that they are at least prepared to allow this amendment to pass.

I think it is important that members opposite and people in British Columbia are aware that the money is on the line right now -- and no pun is intended. Now is the turkey time, the time where you come forward and say: "All right, I am now going to stand on conviction."

When we move to a division vote in this House on this issue, the government will not rise or fall on this vote. But certainly principle will, certainly one's moral conviction as to how government should be funding its programs will -- and certainly one's ability to stand up, hold one's head up high and say: "I believe in this set of principles; I stand firm on this set of principles, and I do not believe that government policy should addict every single British Columbian to gambling revenue." Because that's what we are doing.

That is exactly what we are doing, hon. Speaker. By allowing for expanded revenue to become an essential part of government financing, this budget addicts every British Columbian to gambling revenue. This is the vote, in this chamber at this time, that allows those members opposite to stand up and say to their constituents and to all British Columbians: "I will stand on principle on this question, and I will not support expanded gambling in order to provide essential services, which I demand the government make sure of. . . ."

I would say that this is somewhat of a two-edged sword, and I mean no disrespect whatever to the mover and the seconder of this motion. But I think a certain amount of self-examination needs to take place within the ranks of the Liberal opposition, who seem to find no difficulty in taking money from gambling interests to fund their election campaign, yet now stand in strong opposition to it -- as we see them all rise in support of this subamendment, I hope. But during the time of election, when they needed the money, then it was okay to take revenue. I think there's an inherent contradiction here, one that they had better come to grips with.

Similarly, when we fought a downtown casino development on the waterfront of Vancouver, which was proposed by Vancouver Land Corp. in conjunction with other investors -- the very people who were supportive of and, in fact, were financing and helping to organize the leadership bid of the current Leader of the Official Opposition -- we didn't hear strong opposition from that party at that time. There were those of us who fought against that gambling casino and that waterfront development, who stood up with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association in support, who said that this was not a fitting thing to do and we should not have that kind of provision, who chastised the government because they were having secret meetings with casino interests from the United States of America, who called on the official opposition to stand with us. They did not do that. It wasn't financially expedient at that point for them to do so, because there was a change in direction and leadership. The people who were financing that leadership had interests in that potential casino.

So I applaud the member from North Thompson for the words that he spoke to us, because I think his research is good. I think that what he has put before us is sound. I think he has articulated clearly what the concerns are of those of us who see gambling expanding. I would hope that those sentiments are held and felt not just because it happens to be a politically expedient move at this point in our political history. I would hope that it is felt strongly by every member of the Liberal opposition, that they will stand in support of it and that their opposition to this kind of expansion will not waver in the future.

British Columbians are tired of politicians who say: "These are my principles, and I stand by these. If you don't like these, well, jeez, I've got all these over here." They don't like it when politicians -- whether it's the Leader of the Opposition or others -- go to the Kootenays and tell the people of the Kootenays one thing and then come in and tell the people of Vancouver something else. It's all documented.

T. Nebbeling: Show us.

G. Wilson: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi says: "Show us." I'd be happy to. Not only is that documented, but voting track records in this House are documented.

I believe that we have provision within the standing rules to put this question to a standing vote. We need waste no further time than to go on the record -- each one of us -- and tell the people of British Columbia whether we do support expanded gaming, and if we will allow this relationship that we have with gambling to become a functional part of funding public programs -- health, education, social services. Or do we think that this is the time to send a message to whoever it is in cabinet who is driving this issue that British Columbians do not support it, that we will not support it and that we are proud enough in our convictions to stand up and vote against it? It's time to put this motion to a vote. I hope we will do so without delay.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize now the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: Before I really get into my position on the budget, I would like to spend some time emphasizing the uniqueness of West Vancouver-Garibaldi as a riding, and how the budget will. . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. It's my fault. I should have emphasized that we're on the subamendment to the budget.

T. Nebbeling: I wanted to speak. . . . I thought the member didn't rise for the budget.

[ Page 2271 ]

The Speaker: Fine. Understood. Are there any other speakers on the subamendment? Otherwise, the question would be in order on the subamendment. I'm calling, then, the question on the subamendment.

[5:15]

The member for Comox Valley is standing, and I believe she wants to make an introduction. Is that correct?

E. Gillespie: Yes, hon. Speaker. I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: In the gallery today I am very pleased to welcome my daughter Kate Curtis and her friend Lisa Fry, who are here as part of a grade 7 excursion to the great capital of Victoria.

The Speaker: I call the House to order. The question before us, members, is the motion on the order paper: subamendment to the budget, item 50 in Orders of the Day.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just ask that the motion be read.

The Speaker: All right, I can do that. The motion reads as follows:

[The member for Vancouver-Langara] to move in amendment, seconded by [the member for Kamloops-North Thompson], that the amendment moved by [the member for Shuswap] and seconded by [the member for Okanagan West] -- "I hope you all appreciate that demonstration of how you do not use members' given names in the House" -- be amended by deleting all the words after `But the House regrets' and adding the following:

'That the government has included in its forecasts and its public statements an intention to dramatically worsen the gambling situation in British Columbia, to strive for revenue which will likely be substantially exceeded by attendant social costs, including gambling addiction, crime, abuse, poverty, family breakdown, bankruptcies, destruction to small business, and drains on the health care, social services, public safety and education systems by expanding the venues of gambling to include slot machines, destination resort casinos and many others, and to override the will of the electorate, as frequently documented by this same government.']

The member for Alberni on a point of order.

G. Janssen: I ask that the House extend the normal time to allow the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to attend the vote.

The Speaker: I don't think that is a legitimate point of order, frankly, member. I think. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: I am sure you would, member. The question is before us, however; it has been called.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

              YEAS -- 34    
 Dalton       Gingell     Reid     Farrell-Collins  Plant      Sanders     Hurd        Stephens     de Jong     Coell       Anderson     Nebbeling   Whittred van Dongen       Thorpe     Penner      Weisgerber  G. Wilson    J. Wilson   Reitsm
 C. Clark     Symons      Hawkins  Abbott           Jarvis     Weisbeck    Chong       Coleman      Nettleton   Mas
 McKinnon     Krueger     Barisoff Neufeld

             NAYS -- 37 
Evans        Zirnhelt    McGregor Boone            Hammell    Streifel    Pullinger   Farnworth    Kwan        Waddell
Calendino    Stevenson   Bowbrick Goodacre         Giesbrecht Walsh       Kasper      Orcherton    Hartley     Priddy
Petter       G. Clark    Dosanjh  MacPhail         Cashore    Ramsey      Brewin      Sihota       Randall     Sawicki
Lali         Doyle       Gillespie Robertson       Smallwood  Conroy      Janssen

The Speaker: The amendment is defeated. We are now back to the main motion on the budget.

G. Wilson: I rise in response to the budget, and I've listened carefully to those who have participated to date in this debate. I think it is important for us as elected members of this assembly, when dealing with something as important as the well-being of the people of British Columbia, to try to focus in on several themes with respect to budgetary debate. I know that it's tempting to get into the nitty-gritty detail of what it is that constitutes this budget, and it is also tempting. . . .

Hon. Speaker, I sense you want to communicate with me.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, if you will allow me the interruption. I have just realized that we are still on an amendment -- namely, amendment 47 in Orders of the Day. So the member may want to rethink his approach accordingly. I'm not sure whether he wanted to address the amendment or the main motion. My apologies. I should have caught that before. The floor is yours, member.

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: I can certainly encompass my remarks within the amendment as prescribed in 47. And I will, if not so much rethink my remarks, certainly direct a good portion of my comments specifically to the matter of local government grants.

I think there are several themes that we need to deal with when we deal with budgetary issues. I know it is tempting to get into the detail of all of the expenditures and each of the line ministries and how those ministries are to commit their dollars. I think British Columbians, generally, when they par-

[ Page 2272 ]

ticipate -- if they do -- in listening to these debates and trying to communicate back to us, to their MLAs, to members of various parties. . . . From what I've been able to glean, they have several comments that run fairly consistently. They are: what really is the issue with respect to the long-term debt and the opportunity that we have to commit public moneys for services? How does that affect us with respect to the various levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal? And what exactly constitutes the off-loading that we hear about all the time, and how does that affect our lives?

So it's toward that, in my comments on this amendment, that I want to focus a couple of thoughts. As was just witnessed in this last vote -- and I think the fact that this last vote is now on record is an important one -- I have been for a long time opposed to public policy that depends on gambling revenue. I made my comments earlier and I don't intend to repeat them. We have found now that every single elected member opposite in the NDP believes that it's okay to expand gambling, to become dependent on it, and they don't have a problem with that. I think some of their members are going to have a problem with that, and there may be fewer of them as a result.

But when the test was there -- and that vote that we just had was the test -- what happened was that we had members opposite stand up and say that they have carefully assessed and analyzed the situation, that they have carefully reviewed their own moral stand and they now no longer have a problem with addicting British Columbians to gambling revenue in order to provide moneys for the various things that we deem necessary. That's what they've told us in that vote. That's exactly what they told us in that vote, and they are going to have a hard time explaining that to people who have been long-term members of that party, who have many times at conventions -- and I've been there to observe them on occasion -- stood up and said: "No, that is not the direction we want to take."

[5:30]

Having said that, that's a part of public policy, and it's a part of public debate that I think we can have a reasonably civil discourse on. I think there are strongly held views, to be sure, but in the final analysis, we have to recognize that on the matter of the gaming question, the moneys that we get from gambling -- the revenues to government -- come from losses, from people who lose. It is not a growth industry. It's not an industry that creates wealth. It isn't an industry that does anything with respect to expanding investment opportunities. What it does is basically take money away from people who lose.

It's essentially a tax on losers -- and I don't mean that from a personal perspective. I'm not saying they're all losers who gamble. I know many people who have played the track, for example, who are fine, upstanding people, and they lose. And they lose because they become compulsive and addicted to it.

But my point is that it's a decision that's taken with respect to public policy, and that's an important consideration. When we get down to the issue of this particular amendment to the main motion -- to the question of the municipal grants -- one of the areas in which we have public policy debate, and in which we have to have a discussion about how we commit and expend our money, is how much money we determine this government should take and put back to the municipalities in order for the municipalities to provide the services they deem are necessary, or the people within their constituency deem are necessary.

In my response to the Speech from the Throne, I read from the Local Government Grants Act, and I read the specific section that dealt with the law in the province. I outlined very clearly what this government is legally obliged to do. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others who have more legal training and background than I do, the government is in violation of its own statutes on this issue in this budget. What they have done is they have abandoned a long-established point in public policy that says the senior government should not off-load or discard to a less senior level of government the obligations of provision of service, unless the dollars go along with it -- unless they're prepared to provide a proportional amount of taxes that we collect from British Columbians and put it down to the municipalities.

What does it mean to British Columbians? The fact that we have now abandoned what this government said was going to be a provision for stability. . . . They talked about guarantees; they talked about providing to municipalities enough revenue to have stabilized budgeting processes. What this means is that the municipalities cannot now with any certainty -- and we're right back to where we were several years ago -- determine how they are going to pay for the services that are demanded by the public.

I want to come back to this notion of what the public demands, because I think it's a critical point. We have to understand how angry councillors, mayors and others are around this change of heart -- in fact, I would say "violation of the statutes" -- that this government has embarked on. Because the people on the front line. . . . As somebody who has been elected municipally, who has served for a little over six years on that level of government, who served on the executive of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities and who understands fully how that level of government works, let me tell you that they are on the front line, finding that they are being told to provide more and more and more services. And there is an expectation, if not a demand, from their constituents to have those services provided.

The government is saying: "You're now going to have to get into aspects of social planning; you're going to have to get into aspects of larger regional planning. We're going to need to start to build new and various ways in which the municipal government has to act. But we're not going to give you any more money for it. In fact, we're going to cut what we said we were going to give you in the first place."

[ Page 2273 ]

The only people who suffer at the hands of this government are the very taxpayers that this government stands up and says are not going to be affected by new taxes. They are affected by new taxes, because through the loss of that transfer, the municipality, which by law must have a balanced budget. . . . Hear this, those who believe in balanced budget legislation: by law, they must balance their budget. They have no recourse -- none whatever -- except to go to the people in their constituency and to tax them more to get more money.

British Columbians -- and it's almost now become a cliché -- are overtaxed. We are overtaxed to the point that we no longer can afford it. So not only has the government violated the letter of the law, in my judgment, not only has the government violated the spirit of the law, not only has it violated the very words and terms that each member that spoke to that bill -- and we have them on record in Hansard, and I'm not going to read them out here, because people who are interested can certainly contact me or get it off the Internet. . . . But the words of the then Minister of Finance, who now finds herself in a far more lucrative job than being an MLA -- at a thousand bucks a day. . . . That minister stood up and said: "This will deliver certainty." Those were the words, and that clearly has not been the case, and it is not true.

Now, the dilemma that we run into here, and the reason that I'm sure the members opposite are going to give in defence of this budget, is: "Well, you know, there are all kinds of problems predicting revenue to government. We couldn't really understand whether or not we were going to get the levels of revenue that we anticipated, and we've made projections that were out of line. And sure, we said we'd have a balanced budget, and we didn't have a balanced budget, but we're going to pick up the amount of loss by simply transferring that off to the various levels of government and in the municipal case, by reducing their grants."

That speaks to a much larger and much broader question -- that is, what the government is doing to amend, to change, the manner by which budgets are prepared. Let me say this, and it may be controversial to the ears of some over there, and it might even be to some who may be listening to me now or who may at some future date read my words. But let me say that government cannot be all things to all people. It cannot be there to provide all the services that everybody wants. Government cannot afford to provide everybody with everything they want. It can't do it, and it shouldn't even try to do it.

It is not the role of government to administer the lives of British Columbians. It is the role of government to regulate the public trust for its protection, to protect the public trust for future generations of British Columbians who wish to enjoy the benefits that we take for granted today. It is not the role of government to become intrusive in our lives and to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Let me tell you that we will at some point be discussing in this Legislative Assembly some of the impacts and effects of the Employment Standards Act: the four-hour minimum this government has put in place, the impact that has had on seasonal employment, the difficulty that employers have in being able to meet that, and the cost it has placed on companies that were doing marginal business -- perhaps 2 percent, 3 percent, 6 percent -- and that are now losing money, because the letter of the law -- that language in that law in that bill -- now costs those employers more than they can afford to pay for services that they had quite freely contracted before.

The reason is the government thinks it knows better than a person who sits down and freely signs a contract with an employer to do seasonal employment. And even if the employee doesn't want to charge and says, "No, no, no. I don't need a four-hour minimum. I only want an hour. I'll do an hour, two hours," you don't have the option. Because if anybody else in the shop becomes disgruntled because they're laid off or whatever and goes to this little tribunal that's set up -- that is not accountable to anybody but themselves, it would appear -- they can come in, arbitrarily take the books, do an audit and order that business to pay those back wages, which can be in the thousands and thousands of dollars. And there is no recourse. You can go to a court of law. The judge will say: "Hey, I don't think this is fair, but here is the legislation and that's what we have to do."

That speaks to the kind of direction we've seen in the way we put out our budgetary process here, and it's wrong. It's wrong, because what it says is that the government knows better than the people what the people wish to do in the maintenance and protection of their own economy. And that's quite wrong.

I think we can see that the same kind of situation that exists with respect to the cutting of municipal grants has been demonstrated with respect to FRBC funds. And I come to discuss this matter of FRBC, because I think it is important that we deal with it.

I want to, just by way of a digression, respond to the member from Little Mountain. When I had made my comments and remarks with respect to the Speech from the Throne, he stood up and said: "Well, this member here has some ideas about how to revise the funding of FRBC that would provide for the distribution of funds in a more appropriate way. This member said he had no problem at all with taking money from FRBC, given a surplus, and putting it against the deficit." That's right. I did say that and I would say it again today. Given that the government has a surplus of funds that have not been applied, you are better to borrow from yourself -- always you are better to borrow from yourself -- than you are to borrow from the U.S. market at a 30 percent exchange rate, or to borrow from funds that would have to be purchased in a foreign market.

But the key is "borrow." If we are in a deficit, we have to ask ourselves why. If those funds sit there in surplus -- $1.3 billion right now invested in New York that could and should be invested in our communities -- we have to ask ourselves what on earth we're doing here. We've got people out there who are unemployed, who can't get a job because it costs them $105 a cubic metre to harvest timber that they can only sell for $78 a cubic metre. And we're still putting them through a 10 percent surtax -- or 12 percent, if it's in the interior -- for FRBC that sits on a $1.3 billion profit which has been invested offshore. And we're told we don't have money for things here.

People don't understand this, and why should they? We've got people out on the street -- right here at the Legislative Assembly today they came down -- who worry about kids' education. They're worried that their children won't have band programs and art programs, programs that are generally considered ancillary to the general curriculum. Yet the government says: "Hey, we put $35 million more into education. They've got lots of money. This is a problem for the local school boards." You know what? The public don't care whose problem it is. They're not interested in pointing fingers. They want to have a solution to the problem, and that solution lies in getting a reasonable return for the taxes that we are collecting and making sure that we prioritize those expenditures to be able to deal with the people.

[ Page 2274 ]

Now, to come back to the FRBC question, because it relates in many ways to the kinds of issues that we have with respect to municipal grants. . . . The government must not believe it knows better than those people in the industry and on the ground in the communities that are affected, because the government doesn't know better. So the proposal I made is both a sensible and workable one -- that is, take those FRBC funds and deposit them directly within the credit unions and have locally-constituted boards apply those funds to the jobs that are being created at the local level. It would move millions of dollars into the communities throughout British Columbia quickly, expediently and effectively. And it would help us with some of the critical issues that we see, especially in the North Island area and the coastal regions of the province, where we're seeing significant layoffs as a result of job losses in the forest sector.

Once we see that growth, then we can start to look at tackling the debt situation and dealing with our internal borrowing program. We're required to do that: to make sure those funds are put back to where they belong and go to the people who will require them over the long term. It's a sensible program, because what it acknowledges is that if we continue to hook ourselves to foreign debt, which is what we are doing, we are going to continue to pay the price provincially. And the only recourse for us then is to pass on down to other levels of government -- in this case, the municipal level of government -- those service costs. That's something I just do not believe to be worthwhile.

Let me return to my comment I made a few minutes ago when I said that the government cannot provide all things to all people. We can't afford it. I hear members opposite in the government who like to chastise members of the opposition ranks and say: "Well, you know, you people over there, you cannot make up your minds. On the one hand, you want us to retire the debt; on the other hand, you want us to spend in your communities. You can't make up your minds. Is it cut? Is it spend? Is it cut? Is it spend?" This is the kind of retort we hear on the opposite side. It's politically cute, but it doesn't say a lot.

[5:45]

If the people are to take responsibility to do more for themselves, then the government has to give them the opportunity to do so and succeed at it. They can't do so if every time they turn around to make a dollar, the government is there to take it away. The key to the budgetary process that will alleviate the problems of municipal grants -- the key to what we're trying to do here -- lies in three primary areas: substantial provincial tax reform; a movement to recognize that the kind of off-loading we've had from the federal government -- the loss of federal transfers -- is a huge ticket item for this province, and has been for the last number of years and needs to be addressed; and thirdly, to put an investment back into the people of British Columbia so that we have an opportunity to become owners within our own economy, not simply tenants in our own province.

Now, let me speak very briefly on those three in relation to this amendment. Since 1952 we have not seen substantive change in the manner by which this legislative process works and the kinds of taxation demands that this legislative process makes. The analogy, which I have used before and I'll use again, is like putting somebody behind a 1965 Chevy V-8 engine with an automatic transmission. I say to my colleague from the south Okanagan -- and I know this would be a good choice, because I think we spent some time in high school together, and I remember those fast cars in those days -- "Okay, jump in. Get behind the wheel. I want you to make this car perform with the same fuel efficiency that you might get from a 1997 Toyota or whatever -- a four cylinder, standard transmission." Now, that member may be able to do magic with cars, but that member will never, ever be able to get that engine to perform at a capacity that a modern 1997 engine would, and the reason is that it wasn't designed to produce that level of efficiency.

The analogy, as it comes to this debate here today, is to simply say that we do not have within the halls of this institution efficiencies built into its design. I don't care if we have Liberals on that side, the PDA, Reform, New Democrats, Tories, Socreds or whoever may spring up between now and the next election and win the hearts of British Columbians to be government. It isn't really going to change, because the engine hasn't changed. The design of government hasn't changed. It's inefficient. It's ineffective, and it creates within itself a self-perpetuating and ever-expanding bureaucracy. That's what governments do.

Now, I'm not chastising anybody in government for it, because I think we have very hard-working, very dedicated civil servants who try to do well for the people of British Columbia. But what I didn't hear in this speech, and what I needed to hear in this budget to give me confidence that we're going to do something worthwhile for the people, is that we're now prepared to design a new engine. We're actually going to take on B.C.'s Constitution Act in the halls of this assembly and say: "Okay, we are now going to institute some very fundamental changes in the way that this institution operates so that we can be more cost-effective and more efficient in the way we deliver services." It might sound almost like blasphemy to those who are parliamentary purists when I say that maybe we ought to have some discussion and some debate around whether we should actually have a separation of the executive branch of government from the legislative branch of government and have it operate in a structurally different way.

If you look at the New Zealand example, you'll see that they are prepared to look at a whole variety of ways to make government more efficient and more cost-effective. Certainly the way that we're operating in this chamber at the moment is not more cost-effective. What was it that made New Zealand do that? They were flat broke. They had no choice. People were saying that it couldn't go on.

We're not that badly off yet, and hopefully we won't be. But tax reform can only happen if we're prepared to build a new engine of government and to put in place a new, more cost-effective, more efficient design. We shouldn't fear that challenge. We should embrace it -- all of us, regardless of our political stripe -- and say that we really want to build a more efficient and effective system of government that protects our democratic process and the democracy that we cherish, but that provides us with a more economic and more cost-effective way of delivering services to the public.

That brings me to my second point, and that's the matter of the loss of federal transfers. People who have taken the time to either read my book or listen to me speak, or somehow otherwise inform themselves of the policy position I've taken over the years, will know that I strongly believe that we need to move

[ Page 2275 ]

toward the collection of all taxes provincially and toward a simpler, single tax. A graduated single-tax proposition is the way to move. I think there is merit to that debate. We don't have it here, because people say you can't do that. Well, hon. Speaker, we can. I believe we should, and I believe we're starting to hear discussion from other Premiers -- western Premiers in particular -- on whether or not there is a more appropriate way of tax collection at the national level.

What we have to avoid, obviously, is the single-tax model that was proposed in the United States, which I think is grossly unfair to low-income earners and tends to be somewhat beneficial to high-income earners. So we need a graduated system, but a single tax in the sense that it is collected by a single entity. We also have to avoid duplication of collection services, which, of course, are simply more bureaucratic expenditures on systems.

But there is a way to do it, if we're prepared to take on the challenge for change and if we're really prepared to look at the building of a new engine. Until we do that, I don't think we are going to deal with the millions and millions of dollars we lose in lost transfers to this province -- something that this government, and any government that follows, is going to have to deal with -- as the federal government continues to take more and more revenue from British Columbia and give less and less of it back.

The disgraceful record of this current federal government needs to be brought to account. And it will be brought to account, hopefully, as they try to justify to the electorate why they should be sent back to Ottawa. Regrettably, it seems that since there is limited opposition on the national stage, it appears more likely to take place.

British Columbians have a right to be angry, because those lost transfers affect us. It severely affects this government's ability to fund programs for British Columbians. One of the reasons we have to dump down to the municipalities, and one of the reasons this amendment even sits on the order paper right now -- and they are in violation of their own statutes -- is because of the lost revenues coming from Ottawa. We need to deal with that, and the sooner we deal with it, the better.

That brings me to the third aspect, and it's one that I think is exciting for us to look at and to challenge. We have to change the system of budgeting so as to be able to provide four-year-based budgets. Anybody that has ever heard me respond to a budget since I've been elected will hear me say this over and over again, and I only wish the government would hear it: four-year-based budgeting to give you long-range planning so that you can do long-term economic projections. You don't worry about whether or not the projections fall short in one year or another, because you can carry over a surplus or deal with a deficit over a long-term period.

With four-year-based financing, the reason the kids were out on the steps of the Legislative Assembly today could be avoided. If those school boards were to have four-year-based financing, they would be able to deliver to the kids the programs that are needed, because they would have an opportunity to do long-range planning, which they currently do not have.

The heart of this budget is a borrowing program of $1.5 billion. My answer to the government is this: we cannot do all things for all people in this province, and they don't expect it. What they do expect is an opportunity to be able to do for themselves that which they are better able to do than this government is. They want less intrusive government. They want government to get off their backs, to give them honest tax relief so that they can keep more money from the money that they earn, and so that those investments can be made sensibly in the communities in which they live.

Over the next weeks and months as we see the legislative program of this government unfold, I hope they will take to heart the words that I offer today. Without the kind of change in the engine -- the building of a new engine and a new design -- I'm not confident that we will not stand here next year and the year after debating a similar budget with a similar deficit, as we have done in years past.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. Could I ask the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to perhaps adjourn the debate, given the lateness of the hour.

G. Wilson: Noting the time and recognizing that it would be fun to adjourn it, I will, hon. Speaker, move to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

G. Wilson moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

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