Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 12 -- Monday, April 7, 1997

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery today we have three guests, including the mayor of Pemberton, a small community in the northern part of my riding. We also have the chair of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, Susan Gimse. To make sure that she does the right thing, she has the administrator of the regional district here, as well, Rick Beauchamp. Could the House please make them very welcome.

A. Sanders: It's my pleasure to introduce today the mayor of my municipality, Mr. Gyula Kiss, as well as the administrator for Coldstream council, Mr. Greg Betts. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Waddell: I'd like to point out to the House and welcome in the gallery my former constituency assistant for nine years when I was a federal MP for Vancouver-Kingsway, Sharon Olsen. Together with the Leader of the Opposition and myself and some other people, she was very active in fighting to get Vancouver-Kingsway back. It is back, and she helped get it back and served the people of that area for many years in doing a lot of cases and casework for them. Would the House please welcome Sharon Olsen.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today behind the Hansard booth are two of my younger constituents from Qualicum Beach, Bob and Christine Kerr; they were just passing by. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure today to introduce three members of Citizens for Choice in Health Care. In the gallery today are Sylvia Springer, Felix Reuben and Judy Kubrak. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: The parents of our assistant David Keto are in the gallery today: Raimo and Donna Keto. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a wonderful visitor from my hometown -- actually, from the same house that I live in -- my wife Mary Etta, who is just back in Canada from a wonderful ten days in Oahu. I ask the House to make her welcome.

C. Hansen: We know this is a government that has a habit of making promises that it can't and won't keep. One of the more recent promises that we've had from this government is a promise to create 40,000 new jobs for British Columbians this year. According to the latest StatsCan numbers that have come out, we find that so far this year British Columbia has lost 24,000 jobs. Can the Minister of Employment and Investment do the math for us and confirm that the province will now have to generate a total of 64,000 new jobs in order for them to keep the promise that they've made?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I can confirm some of the numbers with respect to job creation in British Columbia, and indeed they are very bright relative to the rest of Canada. For example, the number of persons unemployed was down in the first quarter, compared to the same period a year ago. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: We've noticed in the past two weeks that this opposition likes to ask questions; but they have a terrible habit of not listening, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. D. Miller: One suspects that they're less interested in the answer than in simply making noise.

C. Hansen: We have a lot of questions to ask on behalf of the people of British Columbia and on behalf of the unemployed, but one of the things we've found is that rarely do we ever get answers from that side.

B.C. is falling behind the rest of the country when it comes to creating new jobs. While the rest of Canada created 60,000 jobs last month, in British Columbia we lost 9,200 jobs. And what's worse, there are 15,000 people who gave up looking for work in this province. Will the Minister of Employment and Investment admit that more and more British Columbians are giving up looking for work because of this government's high-tax and high-cost policies that are driving jobs out of this province?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could cite some statistics. These are from StatsCan, so perhaps the members would listen when I recite them. The B.C. employment level in March 1997 was higher by 27,000 persons than 12 months ago. I attempted this figure in the previous answer: the number of persons unemployed was down in the first quarter compared to the same period a year ago. That's a movement opposite to that recorded in the rest of Canada. Unemployment decreased by 3,000 persons in B.C., while it increased by 25,000 persons in the rest of Canada. B.C. accounted for 17.5 percent of the employment expansion in Canada, when it had only 13.1 percent of Canada's employment base in March 1996. B.C. continues to outperform the rest of Canada when it comes to job creation. Comparing the first. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they asked a detailed question on job creation. Again, they should listen to the answers. These, by the way, are publicly available.

Hon. D. Miller: Just a final one. B.C. continues to outperform the rest of Canada when it comes to job creation. Comparing the first quarter of '97 to the same period in '96, employment was up by an average of 43,000 persons, or 2.4 percent, in B.C., compared with an increase of 84,000 jobs, or 0.7 percent, elsewhere.

The job creation record, the investment record, in British Columbia speaks for itself, and the naysayers on the Liberal side. . .

G. Abbott: Since 1984, B.C. governments have understood that in order to promote forest industry investment, machinery and equipment should be exempt from tax under the Assessment Act. Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell this House why he and his government are flip-flopping on the NDP's position by introducing a new sawmill manual that will kill forest jobs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No such flip-flop is taking place. My ministry is currently reviewing all manuals involved. No decisions have been made, so there is no flip-flop taking place.

G. Abbott: Back in 1990 the Socreds brought in amendments to the property tax legislation which kept machinery and equipment exempt from assessment. The current Premier stood in this House to support this legislation, saying: "I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, because it's trying to deal with a serious problem, particularly to single-industry towns." Why is the Minister of Municipal Affairs willing to risk single-industry forest community jobs by breaking the NDP's commitment to exempting machinery from tax?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Clearly the hon. member did not hear my previous answer. Currently, my ministry is reviewing all manuals, and no decisions have been made. What really would hurt forest industries would be the opposition's continued fighting of things like the Forest Practices Code which would protect forests and this industry. That would be the real travesty in this province: the continued willingness of that opposition not to stand up for forest communities in this province. This ministry is doing its job.

T. Nebbeling: We do know this government is planning to bring in a new assessment manual, and it will impose more taxes on sawmills. Sawmills will be looking at an average assessment increase of up to 30 percent and, in some cases, up to 107 percent. For example, the Canadian Forest Products assessment will increase by 42 percent, which represents $21.7 million. I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: can he explain how he expects sawmills to create jobs when their property taxes are going up by millions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I will repeat the answer. This ministry is doing a review of all policy manuals and has not made any decisions on this particular issue.

T. Nebbeling: We have heard denial before, and see where we're living today. However. . . .

The Speaker: Order, please, members. I'm having difficulty hearing the question. I'm sorry, member. Please proceed.

T. Nebbeling: This new assessment manual will cause an increase of $180 million to the taxable value of sawmills. The forest industry is already so burdened with taxes and regulations that 5,500 workers lost their jobs last year alone. Can I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs once more: has he estimated how many jobs will be lost as a result of yet another planned NDP tax grab?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it really strange that this opposition think a decision has been made when none has been made, so their question is completely irrelevant.

A. Sanders: This NDP government promised British Columbia students that tuition fees would be frozen. Well, tuition fees may be frozen, but everything else is going up. Application fees, transcript fees, technology fees are all going up. Will the Minister of Education please tell students why they are paying more when they were promised a tuition freeze?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Tuition for post-secondary students at British Columbia's colleges and universities is frozen this year. That's what this government did. Tuition in British Columbia's colleges and universities is frozen next year for the second year in a row. That's what this government has done. Unlike the critic for post-secondary education, who said in this House that this was a strictly political issue that would only benefit a very few students, we believe tuition fees are vital for all British Columbia students.

A. Sanders: I'd like to quote from the press release of the Langara Students Union. . . .

A. Sanders: The student union of Langara said: "The NDP won the last provincial election on the backs of students. We're not about to turn a blind eye as they turned one on us."

Langara students are on strike to protest the NDP raising fees through the back door. . . .

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, please -- I cannot hear the question, and we can't function if I can't do that. Okanagan-Vernon, please proceed.

A. Sanders: The minister has responded to this strike by calling the protest frivolous and unnecessary. Can the Minister of Education tell the students of B.C. why he and his government are promising a tuition freeze and then clubbing students with fee increases to make up the difference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Students in this province deserve to have access to post-secondary education. That's why we have frozen tuition fees for two years in a row. That's why I've written to every board chair and every president of every college and university in the province, saying: "No fee increase will be done which just goes into general revenue. No or zero ancillary fees."

There is no strike, hon Speaker. It's a figment in the mind of the member opposite. A few students at Langara are indeed looking to protest an imposition of $1.50 a day in parking fees. . .

The Speaker: Order, members. Just as I said a moment ago to that side that I couldn't hear, I must do the same to this side.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .which the student association at Langara was consulted on in 1996 when it was introduced. It's a fee which no student at Langara is required to pay if they wish to park elsewhere or to take public transit to work, which is what that fee is being used for.

Keeping tuition low is a priority of this government. Making sure that students have access to our colleges and universities -- as a right of all, not the privilege of the elite few that the Liberal opposition represents -- is this government's highest priority.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's been a long time since that minister went to post-secondary institutions as a student and had to pay his way.

A tuition freeze was promised by the Premier and by this government. Now, through the back door, the government is hitting them with technology fees, application fees, transcript fees. The post-secondary students are starting to feel like small business people. Taxes are frozen, and then they get clubbed with fee increases. Can the minister tell us that not one penny of these fee increases will go to offset the tuition and put money back into the schools in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: I am pleased to answer the question, hon. Speaker, because this Liberal opposition campaigned on a 14 percent cut in funding for post-secondary institutions in this province.

Since 1993 our government has increased funding for post-secondary institutions by 18.5 percent, while it's been decreased by 9.4 percent in the rest of the country. We campaigned on a tuition fee freeze this year, and we're doing it again next year. We're keeping every single commitment we made to the students of British Columbia, in spite of the opposition over there. They stand up here and cry crocodile tears for students, when they campaigned for cuts in education -- when their critic said we should allow tuition fees to rise when they are rising in every province in Canada except British Columbia.

Tuition fees are frozen. They will not rise this year or next year under this administration.

The Speaker: For those who are wondering, the answer was finished long before the red light came on. Therefore another question is allowed.

G. Farrell-Collins: People who were paying attention may have noticed that through all the bluster, the Premier refused to answer the question. The question is: will the students of British Columbia be treated like small businesses in this province, and get a promise for no tax increase on the one hand and then be clubbed to death by fee increases?

The people of British Columbia would like to get the straight goods from the Premier. The Guarantee for Youth, the guarantee that a fee increase. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Is that guarantee and promise being broken, like just about every other one he's made to the people of British Columbia, with additional fees and additional increases?

Hon. G. Clark: Listen to this, hon. members. There are 5 percent more people in post-secondary institutions this year than there were. There's an increase in enrolment, hon. Speaker -- the only place in the country. Our participation rate is up, and it's directly attributable to the fact that we have protected health care and education from cuts. We've increased funding to education. . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and we've frozen tuition fees. And I can give the members opposite, if they want any more assurance that tuition fees are frozen. . . . Any ancillary fees, like a $1.50 parking fee for Langara -- the only increase, hon. Speaker. . . . Every college and every university in the lower mainland has parking fees, and Langara has now done so. Every penny is going for maintenance at Langara, and none of it is coming to general revenue. We're committed, unlike the other side, to protecting education and enhancing access for British Columbians to those institutions.

B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce a group of high school students from my riding. The school is Relevant High School, and we have 13 grade 11 students here, along with their teacher, Ms. Beaulieu. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Barisoff: I'd like to introduce 45 students from Kings Langley School in England. Can the House please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of over 900 voters and students of Northwest Community College in Terrace. The petition states as follows:

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 residents of the constituency of Peace River North. They ask of the Ministry of Health:

That is signed by 3,000-plus residents of the city of Fort St. John. We hope that the Minister of Health takes it seriously.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. For edification of the members of the House, may I recommend to one and all the presentation and petition we just heard from Peace River North. That's the way it's supposed to be done, for future reference.

G. Bowbrick: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in support of this budget. I've taken my responsibilities as an MLA very seriously since I was elected last May, and I believe that it's absolutely critical as an MLA that I listen to what my constituents have to say. Since the last session, I've made a point of trying to get out onto the doorsteps of my community every week, to knock on doors and to hear what my constituents have to say about where government should be going in British Columbia. And I'm pleased to say that I believe this budget is very much in accord with where the majority of my constituents would like to see government going.

This budget has been exhaustively canvassed at this point for several weeks now, and I don't intend to cover in exhaustive detail the ground covered by so many other members. However, I will touch upon the positive points in this budget. But I'm also going to be speaking a little bit about our parliamentary system and the role that the opposition plays in our system, and I intend to shine a little bit of light on the position that the opposition has taken on this budget.

To touch briefly on key aspects of this budget, this budget protects health care. This budget provides $300 million more this year for our health care system. In New Westminster, aside from the operating budget I've just spoken of, on capital alone in the last year -- since the last election -- we have opened Buchanan Memorial Sunset Lodge, a new extended-care facility, at about $15 million. We've opened a new MRI and what I understand to be the largest medical laboratory in British Columbia at the Royal Columbian Hospital. Those are critical investments. I know the people of New Westminster appreciate them very much, and we're moving in the right direction.

In the education system, we've increased funding by $34 million in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system. Hon. Speaker, that is a record unprecedented in this country, as I'll touch upon in a moment. A key point to note here is that this fiscal year, this government will be funding more per student than any other province in this country. As well, in the area of post-secondary education -- we've just heard something about this in question period -- the fact of the matter remains that we have increased the number of spaces that are available to students. Last year we increased the number of spaces by 7,000. This year we will be increasing the number of spaces by another 2,900. In two years, almost 10,000 more young British Columbians will be able to get post-secondary education because of the direct actions of this government.

Furthermore, as we've heard just recently in question period, we have had a tuition freeze in place for the last year, and it will be in place for the next year, as well. And I know that students, particularly those who understand what's going on in other parts of this country, understand what a fundamental commitment that is on the part of this government.

This budget also addresses a major concern of British Columbians, and that's jobs and job creation. The record of this government in terms of job creation is unparalleled once again throughout this country, but we recognize that this isn't good enough. We have to do more. That's why we've provided $23 million for the Guarantee for Youth initiative this year, to make sure that young people have access to training and jobs, that they can get back to school and pay their tuition fees, and that they can get into the labour force for good.

This government has done and continues to do a great deal of work to make sure that progress is made on the jobs and timber accord and that British Columbia lives up to other jurisdictions that get more jobs per cubic metre of wood harvested, like California and Oregon and Washington. And we're determined to make sure that by the turn of the century, by 2001, we have 21,000 more jobs in the forest industry.

Now, on top of this, we have tax cuts and rate freezes for British Columbians. In the last election, we said that we would introduce modest cuts in income tax, and we've delivered on that promise: a 2 percent tax cut last year and 2 percent provided for in this budget. I know that British Columbians appreciate that kind of tax cut, and they appreciate the realism of it. They're not the unrealistic, enormous tax cuts that were promised by the official opposition in the last election, but realistic tax cuts, taking into account our fiscal picture and the need to protect health care and education.

Furthermore, we have frozen hydro rates and ICBC rates and tuition fees, as I've already mentioned. These are all things that benefit average working families in British Columbia, and I know, from my discussions with my constituents on the doorsteps, that they appreciate those things. They appreciate a government that is willing to stand up and be on their side.

Also, this year we will be spending $1.1 billion more on capital investment in this province -- that means on highways and bridges, on schools, on hospitals and health care facilities. We're proud of that, and when the opposition criticize the level of debt in this province, they very conveniently forget to mention the importance of capital investment in a growing province like British Columbia. It's very, very convenient.

On the issue of our fiscal record, this budget is forecasting a deficit of $185 million. That is the lowest deficit this decade. Furthermore, spending this year will be down for the first time year-over-year since 1958, and we're working as well to make sure that the debt is kept down to 20 percent of GDP -- that's a sustainable level. That ensures that British Columbians have the services and the investment and infrastructure that they need, the schools that so many opposition members continually demand, and the hospital and health- care facilities that British Columbians need.

When speaking about a budget, context is all-important. I've heard some opposition members in this House object to

comparisons with other provinces. They say: "Well, this is British Columbia. We don't want to hear about other provinces." Well, quite frankly, hon. Speaker, my constituents understand that we're all Canadians and that it does make a difference in this country what province you live in. In some provinces, you get better services and better government than others, and this is the province with the best government of all.

Let's just compare for a moment health care spending. Per capita, British Columbia funds health care at a level 11.4 percent higher than any other province in this country. Once again, it's a record unmatched; it's unparalleled. Furthermore, on a per capita basis we spend. . . . Often the opposition wants to compare British Columbia to Alberta, and that's fine; but I say compare on all counts. Compare us on per capita funding of health care, and we spend $400 more per year in this province than Alberta does when it comes to per capita funding for health care. So I ask the hon. members opposite to make sure that they raise all of those comparisons and contribute to a completely open and honest debate. The people of this province expect no less.

In education, hon. Speaker, I've already mentioned the record of this government and where we're going this year, but once again it's important to have context to make some comparisons. We will spend more in this upcoming fiscal year per student than any other province in this country. Furthermore, we have increased the education budget for the K-to- 12 system in each of the last five years, and the cumulative increase is higher than any other province in this country. We're the only one to have increases in each of those years. Once again, it's a record that's unmatched across this country.

Furthermore, in the area of post-secondary education, in the past five years this government has increased the budget in that area by 18.5 percent, at the same time as other provinces are decreasing funding -- in some cases by as much as 20 percent. It's absolutely shameful in this day and age that other provinces would do that. This government doesn't, and this government is by far and away the best funder of post-secondary education in Canada.

There's another element to context that has to be referred to here, and that is the issue of federal off-loading. Historically in this country, there was a compact -- an understanding -- that the federal government, which has a greater ability to raise revenue, would enter into cost-sharing arrangements with provincial governments. Historically, in the post-war period, funding was at the 50-50 level: the federal government paid for 50 percent of post-secondary education, health care, income assistance and social services. Ten years ago that had declined to a federal contribution of about 33 percent. Do you know where that's going to be in just a few more years? By early in the next century, the federal government will be paying for only 13 percent of the cost of health care and post-secondary education and social services. Hon. Speaker, that is entirely unacceptable and, of course, as we've become entirely accustomed to, the official opposition in this province hasn't said boo about it. In fact, when the cuts started, the Leader of the Opposition said: "No, that isn't enough. Go further."

In spite of that context, we have delivered a good budget, a prudent budget that takes into account the concerns of British Columbians. It makes sure that we have their priorities right: that's job creation; that we fund health care and education adequately; and that we have a prudent approach to the province's finances.

Now, in a budget debate, it's also necessary to look at the alternatives, and the alternative is on the other side of this House, for the most part in the form of the official opposition Liberals. What do they have to say? One of the things I've noticed is that in between elections when you're in government, you get judged according to a standard of perfection that's hard to meet. But that's entirely appropriate. It's lucky for us that at election time we're only judged relative to the official opposition Liberals.

In the past few weeks I have listened to many opposition speeches around this budget in this House, and I have been looking for a couple of things. I've been looking for some sense of whether they have, on the other side of the House, a vision of where this province should be going. Is there any vision -- some sense of how the Liberal opposition would govern if they were fortunate enough to form a government? After all, that is the role of the official opposition: to provide an alternative to government. Sadly, they haven't done that.

Hon. Speaker, in the late 1980s, when the NDP was in opposition, they had a habit of bringing in something called shadow budgets. They actually said not only do we think this is wrong -- in this case, the Social Credit government's budget -- but we will spell out for the people of British Columbia what the alternatives should be. As a government, we have about an inch and a half here -- I'm holding it in my hand -- of estimates for the province this year, the estimates under this budget. We have a throne speech that approaches 30 pages. Hon. Speaker, we haven't seen a single piece of paper from the other side. The people of this province have no idea if there is any comprehensive vision whatsoever -- none. No shadow budget, nothing. That's a dereliction of duty, absolutely a dereliction of duty, on the part of the official opposition in this province.

What have we seen in this budget debate from the opposition, then? I suggest, first of all, that we've seen total and utter hypocrisy. We have seen great concern raised about the debt and the deficit. That's fine; there's no problem with debating that. On the other hand, we've heard members opposite continually asking for new spending. The two just don't. . . . There's no vision on the other side; there's no comprehensive view. You cannot have both; you can't have it both ways. I suggest there's a calculation being made by the official opposition that people really don't care about consistency in debate and about rationality. I suggest that's an insult to the intelligence of the people of this province. It's certainly an insult to the intelligence of my constituents, and that's what they tell me on a regular basis.

What happens when we as government members criticize the members opposite for this hypocrisy? What I hear them say is: "We're just trying to make you keep your promises." On spending, they say they're opposed to a capital spending freeze because, even though they raised all kinds of concern about the debt in the last election, they want to make sure we keep our promises. This is an absolutely disingenuous response. If we had been unfortunate enough to find ourselves on the opposition side after the last election, I can assure the members opposite, I can assure the people of British Columbia and my constituents of something very important, and that is consistency.

If those members had been in government and had decided not to cut the minimum wage, I wouldn't be up on my feet criticizing them for not cutting the minimum wage. I would be congratulating them on that because that's the right thing to do in this province. When it comes to corporate taxation, the corporate capital tax, if the members on this side

had decided that, in fact, it was wrong to give a billion-dollar corporate tax break in this province, if I was in opposition I would have been saying: "Congratulations. The Liberals have finally seen some sense." I would not be criticizing them for not keeping their promise. That's consistent opposition, hon. Speaker, of which this opposition knows nothing.

The other thing I've heard is unbelievably sanctimonious speeches by some of the members opposite. I have even heard members of this opposition invoke the names of J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas. J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas! Imagine it. That takes an awful lot of gall. J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas never fought against decent wages for working people. They never would have stood up and said that the minimum wage should be cut. They never would have campaigned in favour of cutting corporate taxes. It takes an awful lot of gall, and I would suggest that the official opposition spend a little more time looking at their own history as a party -- albeit that would entail looking at the history of the Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party and who knows how many others.

And I've heard speeches from the members opposite that border on the offensive. How many times have we heard, when it comes to capital spending and debt in this province, members on the other side saying: "You're doing this at the expense of our children. You're hurting our children." Quite frankly, I'm young enough to be the child of a number of those members opposite, and I have a 17-month-old son of my own. Most members on this side have children, and it's an insult to us and to every other British Columbian who believes in good investment in this province for those members to get up and suggest that we don't care about our children, to suggest that we would mortgage the future of our children. In fact, we believe in investing in our children. Those members are absolutely shameful when they engage in that kind of debate.

Finally, I've heard speeches from the other side that are simply silly -- just silly. I'm glad that the hon. member for Chilliwack is here today, because I heard that member actually get up and make a comparison in his speech between this government and a communist regime in Vietnam. You know, this is stuff that was abandoned long ago. I want to inform the hon. member for Chilliwack: the Cold War is over. You can drop the nonsense now. It's an absolutely ridiculous and silly style of debate. What we need in this province is good, substantive debate on both sides of the House, where clear alternatives are offered by the opposition, where a comprehensive vision is offered by the opposition. I challenge the opposition to give us a shadow budget, to show us what they would do, not to cherry pick here and there through our budget. It's not about any little part; it's about the sum of the parts of a budget. The official opposition, I suggest, if they're going to be a good opposition, have an obligation to do that, just as we did when we were in opposition.

In spite of the inability or unwillingness of this opposition to put forth an alternative budget, we can discern something of what this opposition stands for by looking at past statements of members on the other side of the House and looking at what they stood for in the last election. For the sake of brevity, I'll look at only two areas. First, the minimum wage. This opposition made it abundantly clear that they felt a $7-an-hour minimum wage was too high. Well, just a few weeks ago I was with students at New Westminster Secondary School. I didn't hear one of them suggest that our minimum wage is too high and, furthermore, that it shouldn't be increased with the rate of inflation or the cost of living. None of them said that to me.

We know where the official opposition stands on corporate tax breaks. They've said consistently and I understand their position still to be that the corporation capital tax should be eliminated in this province -- amounting to a billion-dollar windfall for corporations.

Now, I understand the theory behind those policies. The theory is trickle-down economics. We have an official opposition in British Columbia today that wants to preach the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. A little out of date, I would suggest, and there is no evidence that those policies have actually worked. Now, these are remarkably neoconservative policies. They are remarkably neoconservative in their form. There is nothing "liberal" about those policies, unless we go to a classical liberal definition of liberalism, in which case Adam Smith would be proud of this opposition, Ayn Rand would be delighted with this opposition -- and the Fraser Institute is both. I don't hear my constituents demanding these policies, and I would challenge this opposition. I would suggest to them that they haven't had nearly the contact with their constituents that I've probably had on the doorstep in recent months.

I also think it's telling, you know. . . . Am I just reading things wrong? Am I in the heat of debate here too much? Is this not really a neoconservative opposition? Well, the fact is that last week we had a group of political science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, up here. They came up here and they spoke with me for an hour about where this government is going, and then they spoke with the hon. member for Matsqui for an hour about the official opposition. Now, I respect the member for Matsqui; he's an able member of this House. But that evening I was out and I happened to bump into these students on the streets of Victoria, and I said: "How was your session with the hon. member for Matsqui? What did you think of where the official opposition Liberals would take British Columbia?" And what they said was this: "He was just like Newt." He was just like Newt Gingrich. It confirms my view that we've got a neoconservative and radical opposition in this province that has nothing to do with the traditional values associated with the Liberal Party of Canada -- nothing whatsoever to do with those things.

In conclusion, the people of British Columbia want a reasoned debate in this province, and they want a reasoned debate in this House. People want clearly defined positions. They want to know where the government stands, and, as I say, we have the estimates of this budget. We still don't know where the official opposition stands. They still haven't shown us a single piece of paper that would outline in any consistent form where they stand. They're naysayers. They're a negative opposition. They have nothing positive to contribute to political discourse in this province. And I say that in all sincerity. . . .

G. Bowbrick: Yes, with the utmost of respect, as the hon. member opposite says.

I take my role here very seriously, hon. Speaker, and I truly believe that British Columbians want that. They want to see a government that has a clear agenda, and they want to see an opposition that presents a clear alternative vision -- and we haven't seen that.

Our throne speech and budget set out very clearly the direction we believe this government should go when it comes to job creation, when it comes to protecting health care

and education, when it comes to tax cuts and rate freezes for British Columbians and when it comes to prudent financial management of our province's finances. Now we need to know where the opposition stands. It is their duty. The budget debate isn't over yet. They still have time for some of the members opposite to stand up and offer us a comprehensive vision of where they think the province should go, where it would go under them.

In conclusion, I want to quote very briefly from a letter from one of my constituents. He says: "As a young voter planning to settle down and start a family, what I ask from my government is that it will protect health and education while working towards financial stability and planning for the future livability of the region in which I live." That isn't too much to ask. This government, in this budget and in our throne speech, is delivering on that. Regrettably, we haven't heard any response to that kind of sentiment by the official opposition in this province.

P. Calendino: It's going to be a very tough act for me to follow, given the eloquence of the member for New Westminster, but I will begin by saying that I am very proud to rise in this beautiful House today in support of our government's budget for '97-98. It gives me a lot of pleasure to be in this wonderful example of neoclassical architecture, because it awakens in me memories of the splendour of medieval and Renaissance cathedrals and castles of my country and of other countries in Europe.

Of course, the fact that this particular style of architecture was developed in Italy, my country of origin, evokes warm feelings of pride that not many years ago immigrants like me had to hide. We have come a long way in becoming a tolerant and accepting society, and I commend the NDP government for having brought in a Multiculturalism Act and anti-hate legislation, as well. Everyone can now feel safe from discrimination and lift his or her head up and be proud of his or her origin.

I would like to point out that in Burnaby North, the residents come from more than 60 linguistic backgrounds, and the largest contingents of those are of Chinese and Italian origin. As the tradition of the House allows, at the end of my speech I will say a few words in Italian. I want to assure the members opposite that I will tell them what I will say in Italian.

Today I want to start talking about my constituency and some of the good things that have taken place in my constituency, and some of the benefits of investing in infrastructures that this government has made a priority in its budget.

In Burnaby North, we've had an HOV lane constructed through Hastings Street and the Barnet Highway. This type of infrastructure spending is a necessity in urban B.C. today. Of course, there have been skeptics all through the planning and the construction, but the result is undeniably positive. Even the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has given thumbs up to it -- and I thank her for that -- because she recognizes that traffic is moving much faster and much smoother, and that by reducing congestion and bottlenecks, the project has also managed to reduce air pollution. I'm happy to see that the second HOV project has already started on the 401 highway between Boundary Road and the Port Mann bridge. This is good news for Burnaby citizens and for the lower mainland as a whole because it will improve even further the quality of air that we breathe, and will reduce stress on commuters even further. And if there is something that the people of Burnaby North are concerned about, it is the quality of air.

They are thankful to this government for having a plan to deal not only with the growth in population but with public transportation. They are thankful that in the next few years the light rail transit system on the Lougheed Highway will remove more cars from our streets and will encourage a new town centre in the Brentwood Mall area.

P. Calendino: We are doing that. This government is encouraging people to use public transit.

My constituents, hon. Speaker, are thankful that this government has introduced tough environmental standards for industry and tough auto emission standards. They don't want us to relax these standards.

In fact, talking of air pollution and air quality, the other day I attended the Automobile Dealers Association reception -- which was attended by many members of the other side of the House, as well -- and I started speaking to one of the members of that association. Once he noticed that I was the MLA for Burnaby North, he started complimenting this government and other levels of government for the fantastic job that we have done along Hastings Street, and how beautiful it looked, especially around Christmas with all the new trees lit up with Christmas lights. I was almost embarrassed by the effusion of this person, and, of course, he's not a supporter of this government.

I had no choice but to agree with him, and modestly pointed out to him that the Hastings HOV project in North Burnaby has been the first one to install bicycle racks at regular intervals on the sidewalks on both sides of the street. It installed covered bus shelters and benches all along for people to rest when they go for a walk. On days like we had on the weekend, one can really see the benefits of having such facilities put in.

Another good element of the HOV project has been the building of a whole series of small parking lots on every corner on the streets adjacent to Hastings Street. This was to encourage shoppers to return to the main commercial centre of Burnaby North. The concept of parking areas has worked wonders for the Hastings Heights area. The idea, of course, was simply to preserve a village concept and to encourage people to do shopping in their own neighbourhood and to avoid using the car. It has worked beyond expectations. More people than ever are now using the shops and services along Hastings. The economic benefits have been just unbelievable. Many, many new businesses are opening up. Sidewalk caf�s are now so numerous that they seem to be the flavour of the month in Burnaby. Even Starbucks has come to Burnaby North. Therefore, Commercial Drive and Robson Street, you'd better beware. Burnaby North is becoming the centre of Vancouver, and -- with respect to my colleague -- even storefront lawyers and accountants are opening up shop there. It's a miracle in the making, and everybody is pleased about the outcome.

The residents of Burnaby like what this government has put in the budget. They are happy with the priorities of this government. They are happy because it reflects their priorities: job creation, funding health, funding education, having good environmental standards. They are priorities that all citizens of this province can be proud of.

Certainly there are those who raise the issue of debt and deficits like they do on the other side of the House. But when

one takes the time to sit down with them and talk and explain to them that the deficit and the debt are a result of having made investments in school and hospital construction and improvements, and of investing in infrastructure such as roads and transportation and bridges, they understand, and they accept the debt and the deficit. They know that to cut the deficit further would mean severe cuts in health and education, and they don't want that.

The only people I've heard saying that we must cut spending, that we must reduce our deficit, that we must reduce our debt, that we must cut even in health and education are the members opposite. But they are not being honest. Here in the House they criticize the government for not putting enough money into health and education, yet their own election plan called for a $3 billion cut in government services. Well, I ask the members opposite: where would they have made those cuts? Which schools would they have not built? Which hospitals would they have not built? Which roads would they have eliminated? Which bridges would they have left out? Why don't they come out and present their plan and let us know where they would have made the cuts?

They go out and try to score political cheap points out of school construction announcements, but they won't come out and say that this government opened 27 new schools last September alone and that this government is putting $300 million more in the capital budget for education, to renovate and to build up to 100 more schools. They don't like admitting that this government has increased funding in education by over 20 percent in the last five years, in spite of the billions of dollars cut in transfer payments from Ottawa. More than any other province in Canada, British Columbia has continued to fund health and education year after year. As we see what's happening in Ontario and Alberta, I am happy that I am a resident of British Columbia, and I am happy that I am with this government, and I am happy that I was elected and am a part of this caucus.

The members opposite, if they compared what we do in B.C. to what's happening in Alberta and in Ontario, if they were sincere, would stand up and say: "Well done, Mr. Premier. Well done, ministers. Well done, NDP." But they are not honest.

My constituents say so. My constituents say that this government has done has a good job. They are happy with what is being taught in the schools. I heard members on the opposite side of the House criticize the government for not developing programs for the 60 percent of students who are not going to go on with post-secondary education. I heard them suggesting that there should be programs that teach practical skills that could easily be transferable to the world of work. Well, it may be a surprise to them, but there are hundreds of practical skills courses and many pilot apprenticeship programs in the schools today. The member for Delta North, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and the new critic for Education -- who supposedly has gone around the province and visited a number of schools -- should be aware of that. And when they don't tell the truth in the House, they should be ashamed of themselves. My colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon pointed out the other day that 1,500 businesses are collaborating with the schools to give practical skills to thousands of secondary school students in Burnaby, through the CAPP program and through the work experience program.

Children in school today are learning a lot of skills, but the two most important skills that they are learning -- and the ones that the business community looks for -- are the skills of communication and collaboration. The opposite side of the House doesn't mention those things, but those are the two fundamental skills that will open doors for the young children of today and the children of the future.

Let me give you an example from a Burnaby weekly newspaper of what happens in Burnaby schools. If you allow me, I will have to read and put my glasses on, hon. Speaker. This refers to the technology programs in our schools. The headline on this article says, "The Leaders in High Tech," referring to the Burnaby schools. It says:

Cariboo Hill, by the way, was given a grant by the Nortel corporation, I believe. At Alpha school:

Now I say to you: are students learning skills, or are they not? The answer is yes, they are. They are learning all sorts of skills.

Moving to health care, hon. Speaker, I can't believe that the members opposite have the gall to stand up and criticize a government that increases health care funding by $300 million, plus $6.5 million targeted directly to shortening waiting lists for heart surgery and for kidney dialysis. This is the biggest amount allotted to health care of any province in Canada, and it is the sixth consecutive substantial increase in six years. I think this is a record that one can be proud of, and everyone should be pleased about it. But not the members opposite. They claim it's not enough. How hypocritical! Here is a group of people who were going to cap health funding at $6 billion before the election by applying draconian measures like Klein in Alberta and Harris in Ontario, and they have the gall to say that $300 million-plus is not enough.

What would have happened to our hospitals if there had been $1.2 billion less at this time? What would have happened to health care? What would have happened to medical services? The members opposite are not giving us any idea of

which services they would have cut. I fail to see how the Harris or Klein style of cuts would have improved the delivery of health care in B.C. But then I say to myself: perhaps they would have allowed a two-tier system of health care. That might have allowed them to cap the spending at $6 billion and let their wealthy friends go and buy the services they want, if they can pay. Well, in B.C. we say that health care should not be open depending on the size of the wallet you have.

Going to job creation strategy, I am proud of the visionary approach of this government in terms of the jobs and timber accord, and in terms of keeping fishing communities alive with all our efforts to settle the Pacific Salmon Treaty and to wrest management of the fishing industry from Ottawa. I like our commitment to the job creation strategy, which will again see B.C. lead the country in the numbers of jobs that will be created: 40,000 jobs in one year. And that's on top of 44,000 that were created last year and the 220,000 created over the last five years. That's a record that's unmatched by any other province -- not even by the federal government.

P. Calendino: The members opposite are arguing, but they must have heard the figures that the Minister of Employment gave them. They should have taken note. I was shocked when the Leader of the Opposition and some of the members opposite ridiculed Jeremy Rifkin's concept of the reduced workweek as a means of alleviating the high unemployment rate. But then, I think they are more used to Martin Armstrong's theories of the planetary harmonics of speculative markets. I think Mr. Armstrong will probably give them ideas about how to cut more jobs. The economic dinosaurs on the other side should know by this time that Volkswagen in Germany, Hewlett-Packard in France, Chrysler in Canada and many other progressive corporations have successfully implemented a shorter and more flexible workweek. Workers and management are very happy about the workloads. The productivity has not suffered in those corporations, and the profits have gone up. Given these facts, I think that the members opposite should not be worried that their corporate friends will not finance their elections in the future. Corporations will still make their profits.

Let it be said that the working week has not been altered in 50 years. The 40-hour workweek has been with us for 50 years. When technology advancements were made in the past, industry and governments usually worked together with the labour movement to reduce the workweek so that people would be employed, so that people could earn a decent living. But the hungry corporations of today and their supportive Liberal members on the other side are not willing to do anything about the reduction of the workweek today. I say that the government has a role to play in the equitable distribution of work. We can't leave it to the marketplace. The marketplace has not created jobs. We have lost millions of jobs in the last 15 or 20 years. We have to find alternatives to high unemployment.

P. Calendino: The members opposite should then ask: "How many jobs have the banks created with their huge profits? How many jobs have their friendly corporate sponsors created in the last few years?" Well, the answer is zero. In fact, there have been negative numbers.

I ask myself: "Where is the Liberal job creation strategy? Do they have one?" Oh yeah, I think I remember it. I think their strategy was to sell B.C. Rail, privatize Crown corporations, cut $3 billion from government services and give more than a billion-dollar tax break to banks and corporations. No wonder they lost the election. Working people are not their priority, and working people are the ones that vote in elections. Howe Street and big business is their priority.

Sir Winston Churchill, listening to one of the opponents on the other side of the House, once said about that opposition: "Before they get up, they don't know what they're going to say; when they are speaking, they don't know what they are saying; and when they sit down, they don't know what they have said."

The members on the other side keep saying they were elected to serve the people of British Columbia, but if they were honest, they would admit that the government delivered a good budget -- a prudent budget, a conservative one, and one that even the business community seems to accept. If the members opposite were honest, they would find that this government's priorities of job creation, protecting health care, protecting education, providing tax cuts to working families and providing environmental protection are a positive step.

To stand on the opposite side of the House, day after day, member after member, sounding like a legion of doom -- if I can use that hockey phraseology -- is totally absurd and destructive. There has not been anything constructive coming from the other side of the House. Where is their alternative plan to reduce the deficit? Where is their alternative plan to cut the debt? Where is their alternative plan for job creation? We haven't heard one and we haven't seen one. The only thing we've heard has been negative comments about the good work of this government. They are creating a negative mind-set in the population and in the business community, and they've even encouraged the rating agencies to lower the credit rating for this government. That's absurd! The good thing about all this is that nobody's listening to them anymore -- not their own colleagues, not the members on this side, not the press gallery and not the public.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words in Italian on the budget. Just to ease the concerns of the members on the other side, I have with me a translation of what I'm going to say, if they wish to avail themselves of it. Are you interested?

P. Calendino: All I can say is that I will only give a synthesis of this budget brochure which has been presented by the Minister of Finance and has been available to all members, and that's all I will be doing. But just to ease their lives, perhaps the Clerk can distribute this.

Vorrei cominciare col dare un saluto a tutta la comunità italiana della British Columbia. Oggi sto per darvi i punti piú salienti del budget provinciale, o della finanziaria presentata il

25 Marzo scorso dal Ministro delle Finanze. É una finanziaria molto cauta e prudente, basata su pronostici economici relativamente conservatori. É una finanziaria che si propone strategie per creare 40,000 posti di lavoro per il '97-98. Circa 13,000 saranno creati nel settore dell'edilizia con un investimento di piú di un miliardo di dollari per la costruzione di scuole, ospedali ed infrastrutture stradali.

La spesa pubblica diminuir� di $100 milioni per la prima volta in quasi 50 anni mentre il deficit sar� solo di $185 milioni, la met� dell'anno precedente ed una cifra raccomandata dall'associazione degli imprenditori.

I punti salienti della finanziaria sono appunto la creazione di posti di lavoro e l'aumento di fondi per la Sanit� e per la Publica Istruzione: $300 milioni in piu saranno stanziati per il Ministero dela Sanit� per mantenere il massimo dei servizi medici e ospedalieri e per ridurre l'attesa per interventi chirurgici e per dialisi renale; $63 milioni sono stanziati per la Publica Istruzione e $300 milioni per rinnovare e costruire nuove scoule.

Faccio presente che la B.C. � l'unica provincia che continua ad aumentare i fondi per la Sanit� e l'Istruzione, anche se Ottawa ci ha tagliato pi� di un miliardo di dollari negli ultimi due anni in questo settore. Per andare sullo specifico, $23 milioni saranno investiti per creare 12,000 posti di lavoro per giovani con il programma Garanzia per i Giovani; $20 milioni saranno investiti nel programma Youth Works per assistere circa 40,000 giovani a lasciara l'assistenze sociale e trovare un lavoro. Migliaia di altri posti di lavoro saranno incoraggiati nell'industria cinematografica, nel settore del turismo, e nella pesca.

La finanziaria prevede vantaggi per le famiglie. Per esempio: il tagio del 2 per cento dalle imposte sul reddito personale a cominciare dal primo luglio; zero imposte per nuovi piccoli imprenditori; blocco delle rette per studenti universitari; blocco della bolletta dell'elettricit�; blocco dell'assicurazione auto; blocco di tutte le tasse fino all'anno 2000 -- I see the light; I will conclude in less than a minute -- buoni familiarie per famiglie a basso reddito: con $103 per ogni figlio se il reddito � meno di $18,000; circa $235 milioni sono stanziati per i buoni familiari che arrivano automaticamente se avete completato il modulo delle imposte, o la income tax form.

Spero di avervi dato un'idea dela direzione del governo provinciale. Se no, prego di mettervi in contatto col mio ufficio.

Hon. Speaker, I can see the red light. I thank you very much for the time to have spoken in favour of the budget. I hope that the members opposite will see the light, and that they will start saying something positive about the direction of this government.

The Speaker: Member, I note that you have provided a translation of your remarks, given that your remarks were not a summary of something you've already said. I would ask you, then, to please make a point of forwarding that translation to Hansard, so that they will have that for the record.

M. Coell: I take this opportunity to rise and to offer some comments on the budget that was presented last week.

I would like to firstly say how honoured I am to be here and how thankful I am for having been elected to the Legislature by the people of Saanich North and the Islands, and I'm sure that all members feel the same way about their communities and their homes. It's indeed a pleasure to be here and to offer some comments on the budget.

Mr. Speaker, over the last six years we've seen six deficits in a row, and we've seen this government bring the total debt of the province to over $30 billion. It's going up by $1.4 billion this year alone. So when you say that we have a deficit of some other number than that, the true deficit for this year is $1.4 billion.

The government quite often comments that they're investing in the future. Many of the projects they inherited were paid for by cash. I know that when this government came to power in 1991 it inherited roads, schools, hospitals, bridges and a debt of $19 billion. The government seems to have been able to bring that up to $30 billion in a very short period of time, when you consider it took 100 years to get to $19 billion and five years to get to $30 billion. I don't think that bodes well for the future, and I think that six years of deficits in a row and a $30 billion debt is a government that is out of touch with reality.

What we're seeing now is all of the provinces balancing their books and paying down their debt, while still keeping the services that people want. What we have is a government that's turned the corner, where we're starting to lose jobs -- jobs are starting to go elsewhere in the country -- and where the bond-rating agencies are seriously downgrading us once again. All this adds to the cost of government.

This year the government said that it intends to help produce 40,000 jobs. I commend them for that. But the fact is that we've already lost 21,000 jobs. I think it's necessary for the government to start looking at itself and asking: "Why are people leaving? Why are businesses leaving? Why are jobs not being created?" The best intentions in the world don't necessarily make the best outcomes. I don't think for one minute that members across the other side are doing that intentionally. I think it's just how they're operating government, and they need to revisit many of the practices that they are now embarked upon.

I want to talk about health care. Some years ago I had the pleasure to chair the capital regional district and be part of the Victoria Health Project, which was part of the innovation in health care that Canada was looking for. It was a small pilot project that took money out of acute care hospitals and put it into community development and services directly for people. It was tremendously successful.

We then had the election of the present government, and a view that the whole province had to change health care. The Victoria Health Project and the Royal Commission on Health Care, which that was based on, told us that British Columbia had the best health care system in Canada and that Canada had the best health care system in the world.

We've embarked on six years of social experiments in health care in this province, costing the residents of this province hundreds of millions of dollars. We've just recently had another change in direction -- another new direction for the province. We're now finding that fewer and fewer hospital boards are functioning. The minister has cut most of the hospital boards -- if not all of them in the province by the end of this month -- and replaced them with a very bureaucratic system.

Now, I'll give you an example in my riding. My riding has two hospitals in it: the Lady Minto on Saltspring and the Saanich Peninsula in Central Saanich. Both had functioning

boards accountable to societies, and both had a huge amount of volunteers. I think that's a good representation of the community. Both of those boards have been dissolved, and there is now one person from the outer Gulf Islands represented on the new capital regional board. How can that be more community-based hospitals and health care? It just isn't. The budget for the capital health board hasn't gone down; the salaries for the bureaucrats haven't gone down. But we have people waiting in lineups to get on planes to go to Bellingham for cancer treatment. We have people in my office weekly who have been waiting for heart surgery for three, four and five months.

So while the government has tinkered with the bureaucracy, the patients haven't come first. I think what I want to say to the government is that you can't change health care unless you change the front end that helps patients and people who need health care services. The bureaucracy in this province and the names of the ministries have changed so often that I'm sure people realize what's happening.

I want to talk about the new Ministry for Children and Families. The Liberal opposition supports the development of this ministry. One of our platforms in the election was a ministry for children. In the present setup for the ministry, they are spending a lot of time again looking at the bureaucracy. Their own employees -- the health care workers, the social workers, the financial aid workers, the home care workers -- are all telling this government that they are overworked and that they are not able to do their jobs properly. And this government isn't listening to them. It's playing with the bureaucracy again: moving people around, changing letterhead, changing offices, closing offices. The front-line support for children and families in this province isn't there. The platform of the Liberal Party during the election was that we would hire 700 child protection workers. Now, I'll give the government some credit. They have hired 325, but they stopped there and haven't gone any further. They should address that.

Now, I know members across will say: "You're saying to spend some more money. You're spending more money, but you're complaining that we have a deficit." Well, I think the government needs to look at its priorities. I'll give you an example. A week ago the government announced that the fixed-wage policy would now be part of all highway projects. Well, that's $50 million a year. You could hire those child protection workers and you could clean up your cancer and heart waiting lists without doing that. Now, it's up to the government to do that. For their reasons -- whether they're honest and forthright reasons and they believe that the province would be better for that -- they have to live with that.

I want to talk about gambling. I'm sure the antics of this government on gambling are probably driving organized crime out of the province, through frustration. Gambling is a creeping sickness in society. I don't think a government should decide to balance its books on the backs of gamblers because of the problems it pays for. I don't think that any government in Canada or the United States that has opened up gambling -- as I suspect this government is about to do -- has found it to be satisfying, to make its province or its state a better place. Indeed it hasn't.

I want to talk about no-fault insurance. I guess it should be no surprise that this government is considering no-fault insurance, because they've been practising no-fault politics in the six years I've been watching. You blame someone else for your problems, and you keep saying that you're protecting health care and education, even if the money going into health care and education is going down every year. But no-fault insurance is something that robs the citizens of their right to justice. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and community groups all over this province are against no-fault insurance. But the government is pushing this, again looking for money to balance their books.

In tourism, I congratulate the government on their business deal with the tourist industry, but don't use it for a cash grab. Don't use it as a way to increase taxes on the tourism industry.

One of the things in the budget that deeply disturbs me -- and a lot of British Columbians, I'm sure -- is the sell-off of $170 million worth of taxpayers' assets to pay down the deficit. You can only do that once or twice before you run out of assets. I think that anyone in financial management who suggests that would be giving you very bad advice.

The other area I want to cover more extensively is the downloading to municipal government by the provincial government. There isn't anyone in British Columbia that doesn't realize that the provincial government has had downloading from the federal government, but the federal government gave you three years' notice and told you how much would be downloaded every year. As a percentage, it's about half of what you've asked the municipal governments to accept as downloading. What's worse is that you gave them two weeks' notice. To me, two weeks' notice is a sign of disrespect for another level of government. I have no doubt that most municipal governments in this province will meet the challenge, but I also have no doubt who ends up paying the bill. It will be the property tax payer, the renter and the senior citizen in social housing, because all of the rents and all of the taxes will go up to pay for those downloading expenses.

With the cutting of policing grants, a longstanding agreement is broken. With the closure of courthouses, there's a longstanding obligation of provincial government and a respect for community policing closed with no consultation, no discussion. The provincial government just decided: "We don't want to pay for those services for the taxpayers in 14 jurisdictions."

What's more important than that is that if it works and you get away with it, then next year look out, Vancouver and Victoria, because they'll be paying for their courthouses as well, as you find another way of sloughing off your responsibility onto local government. I don't blame you for sloughing off your responsibility, because local government has proven that they are better managers than provincial government.

This government also has a huge gamble in new catamarans. Very little research went into the development of these catamarans. The potential deficit of over $1 billion. . . . There's no work done to show that they'll be cost-effective and environmentally friendly and, indeed, if they'll even have a shelf life of longer than four or five years.

This government seems to go from issue to issue as if it were still in an election mode. It's not. It's time to govern for all the people of the province. When you're elected, you have to govern for all the people. You can't govern for individual special groups, no matter who you are. Whether you're NDP or Social Credit, your job is the same.

The Liberal Party stands for government for all people. The Liberal opposition will bring forward suggestions, ideas and criticisms of the government. Yes, I say criticisms, because that is the most important job of an opposition. When a government breaks promises on a regular basis, it's more

There's one issue I want to address because it's important to Saltspring Island and to a transition house in my riding on Saltspring Island that has just had its funding cut. That transition house was the only transition house in the province. . .

. . .to lose its funding. It was receiving $30,000 a year, staffed by many volunteers for years. It serves the outer Gulf Islands and Saltspring Island very effectively. This week they were told that at the end of the month that they would have no further funding. I see the minister here, and I hope this government can reconsider an issue so vital to women, children and families in my riding.

The government has brought in a budget and wonders why no one believes it. One of the most important things I believe a government can have is the trust of people. You earn that trust. You can't buy it through TV and radio ads just telling the people you have a balanced budget. You have to actually have a balanced budget. You can't earn that trust with six years of deficits. When you go into an election, you say, "We have a balanced budget," and you spend a million dollars promoting that you have a balanced budget when you really don't. In the second year, there's another deficit and another million dollars spent on PR to tell people you have a balanced budget.

There's a reason why people have lost trust in this government. They're not coming to the table, they're not putting the books on the table, and they're not keeping the promises that they made during elections. This government has become very predictable, unfortunately. If an issue hits the front pages of the paper and is politically damaging, they'll deal with it. If it doesn't, it means they can get away with it, and they'll carry on.

I don't think that's what we want out of a budget. I don't think that's what we want out of a government. And I can assure you that the opposition is ready, willing and able to present to the people of British Columbia any time this government feels they've lost the confidence of the people. If this government is so convinced that its budgets and its direction are being accepted, well, I think it's time to call an election. Prove it to yourselves.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I'm thankful for the opportunity to present some views on the budget, and I look forward to speaking on the throne speech. But I would say to the Finance minister over there that it's never too early to call an election.

B. McKinnon: It's a pleasure to be here to reply to the budget speech and to speak against it. I find it rather interesting to listen to some of the members opposite in their replies to this budget. They seem to imply that it is the fault of the Liberal Party that the province is on the brink of financial disaster. We haven't had the privilege of forming government, hon. Speaker, but I can assure you that we could do a much better job than this government's feeble attempt at governing this province. I call this budget the budget of optical illusion. It's a budget that's pulling the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. This is a government that says one thing and does another over and over again.

Hon. Speaker, it's important that government business is seen to be done, but not done the way this government rammed through the throne speech, the budget speech and the interim supply bill just before the most important religious holiday of the year. The hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings suggested in the Province newspaper that it might be in retaliation for last year when the Liberals broke the scandal involving B.C. Hydro. How petty! They had plenty of time to call the House back so that the business of government could be done. We had to ask them to do it many times. Their response was amazing: "We couldn't sit the week before because it was spring break." Gee, I wonder what was wrong with January or February. This is a government that say they can do anything they want, so why should they bother to follow anything that comes close to parliamentary procedure?

One thing that is sadly lacking with this government is that they cannot seem to take responsibility for any of their actions. This government are continually trying to blame someone else for their inability, their lack of credibility and their complete disregard for the people of this province. It is this government that has allowed our provincial debt to jump from $1.44 billion to $30.9 billion. This government is trying to create an optical illusion by moving its debt, programs and costs off the balance sheet.

Let's just take a look at some of the things this government is doing to create a budget that it says will restore their credibility and maintain funds for social programs. This government has failed to achieve the promised surpluses in its last two budgets. Now, with this budget -- to make it look good to the people of this province -- they're off-loading onto corporations and agencies and demanding higher dividends from them. They didn't even bother to inform them. This off-loading takes the costs of these corporations and agencies off the balance books, and we have an optical illusion for a budget.

They are demanding greater dividends from moneymaking operations, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail. It's interesting that these corporations and agencies account for two- thirds of the $1.44 billion debt. I imagine this is the reason the government is off-loading them. Crown corporation debt will increase by $1 billion in the coming year, pushing the total owed by Crown corporations to just under $18.7 billion -- $4 billion more than four years ago.

The Fraser Institute added up the number of all public sector employees in each province. The total number of public sector workers in British Columbia rose from 288,016 in 1991 to 303,293 workers in 1995. Guess what: the payroll went up also, from $11 billion in 1995 to $12 billion. B.C. was the only province in Canada that showed such growth.

Another great accomplishment by this government is the shoddy management of the photo radar program. This will cost the taxpayer twice as much as planned. This was stated in a newly released audit. We are talking about a multimillion-dollar cost overrun. Standards required for good business practice were not followed, and many government policies and procedures were ignored. This is the kind of government we have in this province. They are so inept at business and so completely lacking in common sense that one questions how they manage their own affairs. I guess we only have to look to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to find the answer to that question.

We are going to see user fees go up and the cost of fishing licences and ferry charges. Ambulance service fees are going

up. There was the raising of the propane tax by 2.2 percent and then a freeze on that tax. Now we have a death tax, exclusive in Canada to British Columbia, that is a whopping 133 percent increase. This government has put a 15 percent surcharge on impaired-driving and speeding-ticket violations for the noble cause of spinal cord research. But what they failed to tell us is that the extra $9 million they would get would go to general revenue. I don't think this government really know what restraint is, when they have to take $100 million from the taxpayer for ministry overruns.

We saw many members opposite vote against the gambling amendment late Wednesday afternoon. Not one of the NDP members had the courage to be honest with themselves and to stand by their statements against gambling. Each one of those members opposite knows what increased gambling will do to this province.

This government adventure promises to take $270 million, or as much as $440 million, from our economy per year in a rake-off of new forms of gambling. Does this government not realize that every dollar that they pull from the economy is another dollar that the consumer won't be spending here in British Columbia? The government will take their share from gambling, and we'll have another $270 million that won't be going into our economy. This is money that won't be going to your local grocery store, clothing store or gas station, etc. If we multiply that by every tax this government gave since taking office, it shouldn't be too long before we go broke.

In the run-up to the budget last month, the NDP moved to expand the fair-wage policy already in place for the Island Highway project, a policy that compels all workers to join a union and receive high union pay. From now on, all government road and bridge projects worth more than $50 million will fall under the fair-wage plan. What they again failed to say was that the fair-wage policy also pads construction union pension funds with payments from thousands of new members who must join or look for work elsewhere. A consultant's report concludes that thousands of workers on the Island Highway project stand to lose a total of $9.6 million in pension contributions when they leave the project and go back to their non-union jobs. The major beneficiaries of the scheme are pension plans run by the major building trade unions. I will quote Mr. Neil Roos, who is the provincial director of the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which is not affiliated with the B.C. Federation of Labour. He said in the latest British Columbia Report magazine that a rip-off is still a rip-off, no matter who benefits: "These are wonderful gifts and will make the unions look like winners to their memberships."

The city of Surrey is experiencing a tremendous growth in population, and my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale is taking a large chunk of that growth. This growth is happening in the Fraser Heights area, the Fleetwood area and the Cloverdale area. My region, as well as many regions in this province, has not heard anything in this budget speech to offer any hope of this government helping with the things that are of the utmost importance to the different regions. This government has told us over and over again that it is a government for all of the people in this province. This is the same government that say they have made the protection of medicare and education a key priority. This is the same government that picked their own ridings for schools when the freeze was first lifted.

If this government really believed in education, we would not see the children of this province getting a second-class education. We would not see the children in my riding putting up with such overcrowding that it has become detrimental to their health. When I speak of health, I am talking about mental health. These students are under a tremendous strain, trying to get an education that will take them out into the job markets of this country. The parents of these students are under a tremendous amount of stress, fighting this government and the bureaucracy to see that their children are given an education that is rightfully theirs, an education that this government is preventing them from getting.

This is a government that is pitting parents against the school board. I think their motto is divide and conquer. How can a school board give the students anything close to a decent education when this government will not give them the funding they so desperately need? The government has cut back funds so much that school boards cannot function. This is probably the government's way of finding an excuse to fire the school boards, so they can put in one of their own patronage appointments as a trustee.

I am sure that we all received a letter from Carole James, president of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. The school trustees felt that it was of the utmost importance that we as legislators understand the concerns of school boards in our ridings across this province. I quote from the letter: "School boards have cut and trimmed their district operations for many years, and in fact administration costs have been reduced by 40 percent since 1990. Overall, administration costs are about 3 percent of the education budget, the lowest in North America."

I should also point out that the funding per student for 1997-98 is $43 less than it was in 1996-97. It is not true that efficiencies can be found without affecting students; that just isn't true. The fat has been trimmed in every possible way, and we cannot ask school boards to make any more cuts. I shake my head when I see the damage this government is doing to education in British Columbia. It is our children who are now suffering and feeling the brunt of this government's lack of funding to the schools, which is so desperately needed.

My riding of Surrey-Cloverdale is in a crisis situation in the field of education, something this government looks upon as a joke, not a real life situation. Yes, we had two senior secondary schools lifted from the freeze in my riding. We finally thought we were going to get Clayton secondary and Fraser Heights secondary, two desperately needed schools. I must let you know that Clayton secondary was promised to us in 1995 and was ready to go to construction when the freeze hit us. We were extremely elated when these schools were released. Our elation did not last long. Clayton secondary had to be sent back to planning to be made smaller, putting the time of construction back. Money had already been spent on planning, but now we have to waste more of the taxpayers' money to reduce the size of the school in a fast-growing area -- to save money. On opening day, if it ever happens, the school grounds will be full of portables. Something is wrong with this equation.

I am really at a loss as to why the students in my riding are so shabbily treated. All they want is the opportunity to get an education that will help them find decent jobs when they have completed their studies. Is this government listening? I don't think so. All they can shout back at us is: "What are you willing to give up in your riding to get schools?" There is nothing in my riding. The only thing we had was taken away when this government first came to office -- that was the Transportation Museum in Cloverdale -- to save $50,000 a year. I guess they didn't want tourists to stop in Surrey. We have over 300 portables in Surrey and over 2,000 students coming into Surrey each year.

Guess who are the ones to get hurt. It's the children with special needs who are at risk because of the costs associated with them. Does this government care? I don't think so. The minister continues to say that the cuts won't hurt the students in the classroom. It is time that he took his head out of the clouds. These are real people whose lives are being affected. These are children who the Minister for Children and Families is supposed to be protecting. I don't hear any support coming from that ministry. As I said before, they just don't care.

This is the same government that is downloading far more on municipal governments than the federal government ever downloaded on the province. The municipalities in this province were dumped on by this government and given no chance to give input as to how the cuts could be made. This government is a government that can do anything it wants to; they told us so themselves. They're slashing funds to municipalities in defiance of the two- year-old Local Government Grants Act. If they don't like what the bill says, they just change it. It's a breach of trust. Who is going to suffer? We only have one taxpayer. Do they care? I don't think so.

I read in the paper that the Premier has promised the people of the north that he will visit them to see what needs to be offered to promote jobs in the area. He says that there are some big issues in the north. I find it interesting that this government doesn't have any creativity or vision of their own. They watch what the opposition is doing and then copy it. This government has shown the people of the north how much it cares. Even if the riding is NDP, they don't get any help. Their MLAs couldn't be found when they were needed. Throughout the north the message was loud and clear that this government took all of their resources but gave nothing back to them.

Hon. Speaker, one could go on and on about the incompetence of this government and what they are doing to our magnificent province. I know time is running out, and I hope this government will look to the many qualified people that they have in the civil service rather than to the many political hacks that are hired to toe the party line.

R. Kasper: I sit here in amazement listening to what the opposition says in the House. They accuse the government of saying one thing and doing another, but it's the opposition that says one thing and does another. Hundreds of requests from the opposition to spend more money, not only in their ridings but in other parts of the province, in all areas. . . . They want new highways; they want new schools; they want more money spent. Spend, spend, spend. But then when a budget is prepared and brought forward to this Legislature that earmarks expenditures throughout the province, they criticize loudly. They say one thing and do another. Shame on you!

What they don't talk about is the government's priorities for B.C. families. I have here a list, and I beg the indulgence of the House just to go through my list, because there are so many opportunities in this budget to protect families in British Columbia -- major investments in jobs, health care and education -- to demonstrate this government's resolve to work for the people of this province, responding to their priorities and meeting their needs. That's why we're also supporting B.C. families with tax cuts and rate freezes to help make ends meet.

That's important. But we don't hear that from the opposition. You'll hear it from this side of the House, but not from that side of the House. It's a classic example of where they're speaking and not demonstrating loud and clear. . . . I dare say that they're strangers to the truth -- total strangers -- because of their actions: what they say in this building and what they go and lobby each individual minister for. They come and talk to the MLAs to garner support to see more money spent in their ridings and in their communities, at the same time lambasting the government on why it shouldn't be spending money in other areas. It's okay for them and their little pet projects to have the money spent where they like to see it happen, but not for the rest of British Columbians and not for the ordinary families in this province.

This budget clearly demonstrates that we are going to see a cut in income taxes for B.C. families of a further 2 percent. We don't hear them talking about that. This budget will make sure that, combined with last year's cut, it lowers income taxes by more than $142 million annually for B.C. families. We don't hear them talking about or advocating that. No, they want tax cuts for the big corporations, the giants who can well afford to pay their fair share. Shame on them!

The budget also supports income tax reduction and freezes on other taxes for individuals and families until the year 2000. That was said last year. It's repeated this year: maintaining the freeze to the year 2000. That's good news. We don't hear them talking about that, but then they're out there advocating to spend more money in their ridings. You know, I think there was a challenge brought forward last week by the member for Alberni, saying: "Listen, bring forward your project. Put it on the back burner and have the money that's allocated used to retire the debt, to get rid of the deficit." I didn't hear any offers forthcoming. Did anybody here?

R. Kasper: No, we didn't hear a thing. There was silence on that side of the House. But when it's their pet project, they're out there hammering like heck. But they don't give support where money is earmarked and spent for families in British Columbia.

Hydro rates have been frozen for three years. Again, that's a continuation of what was announced last year. I think that's good news for working families in this province. ICBC premiums, again, frozen; more importantly, though, university and college tuition fees are frozen for two years. We've heard all kinds of questions about how the government isn't acting fairly with the students, but again, they don't even acknowledge the fact that tuition fees are frozen again for the second year. These cuts and rate freezes will save the average B.C. family over $500 a year. That's a lot of money and very important. And some 200,000 lower- and middle-income families will get further help through the B.C. family bonus program. They're dead silent on that one. Look at them sitting there like bumps on a log in dead silence. That should be good news. They should be speaking on behalf of their constituents who fit into that category. But we don't hear them advocating on behalf of those people. Who are they advocating for? They're talking about big business, the large corporations, who can well afford to pay their fair share.

We have a total of $235 million to help with the cost of raising children, through the B.C. family bonus program. That's good news. It's in this budget. It's a continuation of where we're coming from on this side of the House. It clearly shows the difference between what we believe in and what that side of the House believes in. Quite frankly, I'd sooner be

on this side of the House, believe me. The family bonus program is a groundbreaking program which I hope will pave the way to a truly national program. Perhaps the Liberals on that side of the House could talk to their cousins, even though they say they're a totally separate party. But a Liberal is a Liberal, let's face it. Liberals should talk to their cousins to make sure that they get progressive and with it, and get on with what we've done in British Columbia, because it addresses the needs of working families and lower-income families to make sure that their children are going to be looked after and protected, so that they have a higher quality of life. That's important.

Again, I cannot help but stress that that side of the House hammers and advocates that the government is misguided and says one thing and does another. But that bunch over there -- you hear them every day in their riding, saying: "The government's not spending enough; they're not doing enough in schools." They're critical of where the money's spent. They're whining, bellyaching. It's on and on. Look at them, sitting there silent. But when you talk about good news, when it's stuff that's going to affect their riding, they bite their tongue. They don't like that.

Not only does this budget deal with families and support for families, the budget deals with job strategy in British Columbia. That's very important to the community that I represent: working families in the western regions of Victoria. Job creation is very important for the people out there. Local councils subscribe to that. They want to make sure that growth and development are taking place in their areas. That's why this government recognized the need to construct the Vancouver Island Highway project -- to move goods and services and people freely between Victoria and the rest of the Island and to help promote business and economic development in other regions, not only in the western region of Victoria but elsewhere on Vancouver Island. That costs money.

You have to make those investments. This budget recognizes that those investments have to be made in order to help clear the way for businesses to get on with job creation -- what they do well. Give the business community credit. Small business is the engine of this economy in British Columbia. They're creating jobs. I recognize that; I support that. My 35- year, small family business. . . . I ran a small business. I know what it takes to collect the bills, to do the work, to do all the things associated with small business. It's not an easy place to be. But they get out there and do it. They don't whine and bellyache like this bunch over here. They get on with the job of creating those jobs. I think that's important.

Government recognizes that. That's why we're doing the Vancouver Island Highway project. That's why sewers are being constructed out in the western region of Victoria: to help promote economic development -- to make sure that businesses have an opportunity to expand, so they aren't restricted by the antiquated sewage systems that have been a plague out there for many years. That's why there's an opportunity to see the growth of that community over the next 15 years double from its current size. That's good for business.

But you don't hear anybody from that side of the House applauding the government to address those issues and to promote growth and development and economic opportunities. No, all you hear is: "You've done it wrong, and we'll do it right." That's all we hear. "You've done it wrong, and we'll do it right." Well, guess what: they've got it wrong, and this side has got it right.

You know, I think it's important that we just can't rest on our laurels. We have to find a better way of doing business in this province. I agree that you can't just sort of sit back and say: "Look at what's happened over the past five years." Yes, we've had some tremendous improvements and changes in this province over the last five years, but we can do a better job. I think all of us agree that there are opportunities out there for changes to be made.

Last year I got up in the House, and one thing I really had a bone to pick with was this corporate structure -- whatever you want to call it -- the Motor Carrier Commission. I'll tell you something. I advocated that we should be getting rid of the Motor Carrier Commission. What do they stand for? Red tape, bureaucracy, time delays, frustration to the trucking industry. It's a nightmare. [Applause.] It's nice to see you applaud on that side of the House.

But one thing I have to recognize. . . . With my colleague from Kootenay and the Transportation critic from Okanagan-Boundary. . . . In the past two and a half months, the three of us have been around the province -- 11 different communities. We're in the process of finalizing a report to the minister dealing with this whole question of regulatory authority of the trucking industry.

I don't think it's a secret, but if people want to follow the newspaper clippings and the news reports throughout the province, what we heard loud and clear is that this system, the Motor Carrier Commission, is not working. It's restricting business opportunities in this province. It's restricting growth in job creation in this province. It's totally out of touch with reality in the marketplaces in this province. There's where we have to make some changes.

So it's my hope that my two colleagues and myself, when we get our report finalized -- and I think we've got some work to do, but we're almost there -- we'll hopefully have a report to the minister that will give the minister direction as to what should happen with eliminating red tape, bureaucracy, time delays and useless, worthless bureaucracy that does not reflect the values of job creation in this province. I think that's an important thing to do. I said last year in this House that it was something I wanted to see addressed.

I have to applaud the Minister of Transportation and Highways for asking myself and my two colleagues in the House to get on with dealing with that issue. This all comes in light of the fact that the federal government is basically deregulating the trucking industry anyway. So we have to be mindful of that, because the federal government is making substantial changes that will change the whole focus of the trucking industry in this province.

R. Kasper: My colleague on the opposite side has a lot to say. Hopefully, he'll get his time.

I think it's important, though, that when we take a look at how we can do a better job. . . . It's not only in providing services, care and attention for our families, to make sure that our young people have the best education, the best health care. That's important; we've got to do that. But we also have to make sure that government can make changes that will help the business community get on with their job.

I talk about red tape and bureaucracy because that's one of my favourites. It has been one of my favourites for probably the 15 years that I've had any involvement in any elected position. I hate bureaucracy and crap. There's a lot of stuff that

goes on that just. . . . I just can't believe it. You know, that may sound like a surprise for members on that side of the House, but there are a lot of people here on this side of the House who agree 100 percent. You get bogged down in paper, just because the system has operated a certain way for 25 or 30 years. It's no disrespect to the good workers and the people who do the job -- no disrespect to those people -- but the system can be its own worst enemy. I don't think anybody here, even the ministers, would deny that or even say that isn't true, because they are making changes, in the way they can, to actually make things better for all of us in this province. That's important.

Hon. Speaker, last week we saw the announcement of a new agency to promote tourism, a partnership with the tourism industry, with business. That may come as a surprise for members on that side, but this was applauded by the business community -- a partnership with guaranteed funding to promote tourism. That's good news for southern Vancouver Island, good news for the riding I represent. I've got five wineries in the riding I represent. That might come as a surprise for those from the Okanagan.

R. Kasper: Yeah, whiners over there! No, we're talking wineries, because going on the wine tours is a very nouveau thing to do in British Columbia -- to get the message out to the tourists who come into the southern Vancouver Island region, the greater Victoria area, to make sure they can sort of hustle on up to the wineries or other activities in my riding, like the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail. It's expected that there will be 100,000 visitors a year before the end of this millennium -- on an annual basis, 100,000 visitors -- to a trail that was constructed by youth. Very important -- youth were employed to build a trail 47 kilometres long, with spectacular views. Now, those types of investments and promotions are good for business, for the business community, for the greater Victoria area, for communities like Sooke, where I hail from.

That is what this partnership is all about: partnership in tourism with business, to make sure that we maintain our high status in the world for tourism. There are measures in this budget, which have been identified, to ensure that people keep coming -- to make sure that the airline industry is not caught up with all the tax increases, so they're protected with reductions, and to make sure that the international jet fuel tax rate drops from 4 cents per litre today to 2 cents per litre by 1999. Now, that's a decrease in the taxes. The government recognizes that in order to get more people to visit this province, there should be reductions in that tax rate. That's important, because that's part of the partnership -- to recognize that those things happen. Hon. Speaker, I think we have to do more along those lines. That's important. We've got to do more things along those lines: work with the business community and work with labour to make sure that we do have a true partnership.

We're encouraging small business job creation by continuing -- again a big surprise for that bunch, because they don't talk about it -- the income tax cut and the income tax holiday for eligible new small businesses. That amounts to $29 million for small businesses, to help them get on with the job of creating jobs. That's important. That bunch don't recognize it. We have to talk about it, but again, they all want to talk about spending more money.

Another area I think is important will have a tremendous opportunity for Vancouver Island. It has in the lower mainland, because they've reached capacity: that's the film industry. It's important that we make sure there are opportunities in the film industry, because Vancouver and the studios there have basically maxed out. There's no more room there, so there has to be an approach where we take the film industry out of the downtown area, out of the lower mainland, and get it to happen elsewhere. I think it's important that we identify places like Victoria. I know the hon. Deputy Speaker represents the Victoria area -- and the Deputy Speaker's capacity was as mayor in past years -- and knows full well that this is important. The film industry in southern Vancouver Island is very important for people, small business and suppliers for that area, because we have some incredible vistas, views and opportunities for doing quality work, which has been in the past -- and I hope will be in the future -- recognized around the world and promoted for this community.

So in not only the film industry but the tourism industry, a tax-free holiday, basically some reductions and changes to what the small businesses pay in their corporate tax rate -- British Columbia's corporate tax rate -- will create jobs. That's a priority. But we don't hear that from that side of the House. They're more interested in large corporations and those people who earn over $125,000 a year. They're concerned about those people -- that they're getting taxed too much. They say that loud and clear.

Another area that I think is important, especially in my community, is the opportunity we have before us to deal with fisheries renewal, because fisheries renewal. . . . Again, one of the things I just don't like is the bureaucracy in Ottawa that's out of touch dealing with. . . .

R. Kasper: Yes, it's a Liberal bureaucracy -- their cousins over there, a Liberal bureaucracy in Ottawa. And the mismanagement of our fisheries resource. . . . This government has done more to push for and to promote British Columbia's interest in our fishing resource. That's good for the communities that I represent, Sooke and Cowichan Bay, because there is a substantially large fishing fleet, a lot of fishers from that area who have been affected by the Mifflin plan and by the downturn in the ability for those people to get out and do the job.

So changes have to be made. We've got to keep the pressure on. Hopefully, the members over there can join with this side to put the pressure on Ottawa to make the changes to ensure that we have job creation in that resource, so we can enhance the resource and so the resource has a good strong future. We have to do that; we have to aim high. Really, we should all feel proud of the fact that we push for a goal that's similar. Hopefully, that side of the House will support the government in its initiatives to get greater control of that resource, because it has been more than abundantly clear that the bureaucracy from back east is not interested in what happens on the west coast of British Columbia, the west coast of Canada. Really, I think that's important.

Not only are we concerned about job creation and enhancing that resource, we want to make sure that our forest industry creates more jobs, that we get more job opportunities from the resource. You know, that has happened to a certain degree. I'll just give you an example. In part of the area I represent, in the Port Renfrew community, there's a Port Renfrew division; TimberWest is the holder of a licence, and they also have private land. They're actually now, because of

the changes in the forest procedures and policies and just the whole attitude of the industry. . . . And I've got to give the industry credit, because they have caught on. They want to do a better job, and that's important. The people want to see them do a better job. All of us, I think, want to see them do a better job.

They actually have more employees working in the woods now than they did in 1990 and '91. That's good. That's good news for workers in my riding, because it shows that there is a better way -- and that better way works. It's not handouts by government to the companies to make them work better and to hire more people. The corporate interests have decided to do a better job so that they do less damage to the resource. In doing so, they're going back to the older methods.

They can still turn a profit from what they harvest by actually employing more people. I think that's good. They recognize that. I have to applaud them for taking those initiatives and those measures, because that's good for my constituents. It's good for the economy. Quite frankly, I think that for the business community that takes those positions, it's good for them in their annual report, in their public relations exercise, to demonstrate loud and clear that they have a partnership with labour, with government. More importantly, they have a partnership with the environment, because that's what this is all about: making better use of the resource. It's a fragile resource.

In the future, and right now, we're going through. . . . There's a commission being struck on the Workers Compensation Board, and I know that it's going to be fairly lengthy. I've been encouraging some of my constituents who have been affected by Workers Compensation, when the hearings come through the region, to actually attend. But, you know, that is not going to solve the problem. Whatever they find out, I think you're going to hear a repeat of what all of us have heard over the years.

That operation is a disaster. That operation is so mired in its paper trail that it does nothing for injured workers. Its total disrespect for injured workers, even to the point where, through my office, we found out. . . . This is how sad it is; it's just one example of where something is broken down. I had a constituent who went through a medical review hearing. There's a list of 20 physicians who are appointed to sit on this medical review hearing. Well, I found out that two of the three members that dealt with this one constituent's hearing weren't even practising members. They were retired life members. They didn't even have the authority to practise medicine. Can you believe it? When it was raised, people turned a blind eye. What did the Medical Association people do, or the College of Physicians and Surgeons? For weeks they chose to ignore the issue. It clearly states: "Lifetime members shall not practise medicine for gain." So the net result of that was that the finding -- their certificate that was issued -- was overturned. That was good news for my constituent, because my constituent got some justice. My constituent finally got some justice.

It was because people didn't do their homework. Those names were supplied through the college. WCB just went merrily on their way and appointed these people. Some of them had been there for years, but they were retired life members who did not have the right to practise medicine for gain. That's a sad comment on the system. It's not just that; there are others. I'm sure all of us know of other horror stories that do nothing for injured workers in this province. So this commission is long overdue.

But the commission is not going to be the be-all and end-all. It's going to take guts and will by the minister responsible to bring in new legislation, to make the changes necessary to get the wrongs righted, to make sure that those injured workers have fairness and justice, to make sure that those who pay the bills -- and that is the companies -- are also fairly treated, because they're not happy with the system either.

So we have to make sure that this commission can recognize that there's a lot to be done on both sides of the equation, because over the past five years we've seen a huge increase in appeals by employers whenever someone has an injury or an accident. They challenge. We've got to make sure that injured workers are going to be looked after -- that there's a guarantee for injured workers, when they are deemed to be physically injured to the point where they cannot go back to their original job, that they have a right to the retraining that put them into the job they were previously in.

I'll give you an example. I'm a bricklayer. So, you know, after four years of an apprenticeship. . . . I went to school, and I had to accomplish so many hours in the trade over a four-year period. That takes time, energy and money. Former employers basically backed me and made sure I got the training.

But when an injured worker suffers damages, there seems to be an imbalance. The scales are tilted the wrong way. They're tilted in favour of WCB. So, hon. Speaker, I want to make sure that those things are addressed. Again, thank you very much for the opportunity. I look forward to working with all the members in this House.

W. Hartley: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the provincial budget, a budget that responds to the genuine concerns of the people of my constituency. I'm proud to be a member of a government that is committed to priorities that build on the great strengths of our province: job opportunities, educational opportunities, a sound medicare system and world-class environmental protection.

In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we welcome these important commitments. We welcome the increased spending in medicare and education, despite federal cuts of billions of dollars in transfer payments. The federal Liberals have cut health care nationally by 40 percent, while British Columbia adds $300 million this year to health care. Our government has increased spending on health and education for the sixth year in a row. In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we welcome the reduced income taxes for middle-income earners and the new support for working families with low and modest incomes, the family bonus. We welcome the freeze in Hydro rates and ICBC premiums and tuition fees.

In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we have a wonderful diversity of people: blueberry and cranberry and dairy farmers, horse and hobby farmers, rural and hillside residents, a commercial and an aboriginal fishing community, millworkers, construction workers. We have longtime senior residents, and as a growing urban community, we have many commuters and many young families. We have all the pressures that come with growth.

But we also have a strong sense of community involvement and pride. The volunteer spirit is alive and well in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. There are many successful examples of a community that works together. In the sports area alone, we had the 1983 B.C. Summer Games; we had the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability in 1992; and next year, the 1998 B.C.

Summer Games are being held in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. I know that some 4,000 volunteers will be recruited, trained and given specific tasks leading up to the games, and approximately 4,100 participants will compete. Local businesses will contribute through the Friends of the Games program, to provide a legacy to the games. The Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, through the B.C. Games Society, will provide $600,000 to fund the games. The 1998 Summer Games will generate approximately $3.5 million in financial impact on the community of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

We are a growing community. The last ten years have seen phenomenal growth in residential, small business and industrial development. We are a community that is building in a province that is building. I am proud that we have a Premier and a government that are getting on with building this province, building the needed transportation projects, redeveloping the hospital services, building the schools that we need.

I am pleased that the government capital review, which recognized some $200 million in savings, also recognized the efficiencies achieved in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows school district 42, where the school board worked with the Ministry of Education and committed to finding the required savings that would have been realized in school district amalgamation. Thereby, school district 42 remains a stand-alone school district today, where Kanaka Creek Elementary School is now funded to carry out a year-round schooling pilot project, saving millions of dollars to the education system, and where Somerset elementary is now funded to build an elementary school municipal park project, again saving on park acquisition and development costs that would have been a major cost to the municipality.

Health regionalization is a meaningful and effective remedy to ever-increasing demands to our health care system. Our government's investment in increased health funding at Ridge Meadows Hospital is a historic improvement at a time when it was most needed to meet the needs of growth. Ridge Meadows Hospital was recently awarded an unconditional three-year accreditation. I commend the staff of Ridge Meadows Hospital, and I congratulate all the volunteers who have been part of the community consultation process through the community health council and the regional health board.

The education and health infrastructure and new building projects employ many people in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, as do forestry, fishing and agriculture. The budget speech speaks strongly to preserving and creating jobs in our forests, jobs that are sustainable for future generations. Forest Renewal B.C. ensures that a substantial share of the profits of forest production are invested in our forests and the communities and workers that rely on them. In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, there are millions of dollars of excellent Forest Renewal B.C. projects underway -- and more coming. In the Pitt River valley, J.S. Jones Timber Ltd., the International Woodworkers Association, the Katzie Indian band and environmentalists are working together to protect that watershed. I have nominated J.S. Jones Timber Ltd. for a Forest Renewal B.C. forest excellence award for environmental forestry practices. Theirs is a model forestry operation in the Pitt River valley, known for high utilization of fibre.

In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, under Forest Renewal B.C., we have training in helilogging in the UBC research forest, and we're developing the Golden Ears Provincial Park trail system. Under Forest Renewal B.C., we have training programs in local mills to add value to wood. Forest Renewal B.C. is creating jobs and contributing to sustainable forest management.

Fishing is, historically, a major component of the economy in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. The provincial budget speech states that our single most important priority must be the conservation of this resource. That is why our provincial government is in negotiation with Ottawa, seeking an agreement that would expand provincial leadership and responsibility in fish conservation and management.

My constituents welcome the news in the throne speech of legislation this session that will protect fish habitat -- new legislation that continues to build on the great successes of the urban salmon habitat program, a program that has enabled students of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows schools to clean up fish-bearing creeks in my constituency and has provided the municipality of Maple Ridge the opportunity to hire an environmental coordinator to enhance and protect fish habitat from encroaching development.

I have enjoyed being part of the tremendous success story that has occurred on the Alouette River in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, and I have recently nominated the Alouette Stakeholders Committee for a Minister's Environmental Award. For 70 years, the community has fought for increased waterflows on the Alouette River below the B.C. Hydro dam on Alouette Lake. I'm very proud that our Premier listened to me and my community, and took action to enable B.C. Hydro to work with the community to define and recognize all the values of the Alouette River and to open the tap and provide a full flow of water, to bring life back to our river.

After 75 years of extinction, 50,000 chinook salmon will be released next month into the Alouette River, a proud and historic moment in time for our community and a great day for fish in B.C. History was made last year on the Alouette, and all British Columbians will benefit, as the water agreement reached with B.C. Hydro on the Alouette River will be the model agreement for many other B.C. rivers. The Alouette River Management Society, chaired by Geoff Clayton, has set a magnificent example for B.C. rivers.

There is a new Alouette River interpretive centre being built at the fish hatchery on the Alouette River, at the corrections site in Maple Ridge. The driving force behind that project has been Tom Cadieux, now the director at Stave Lake camp. Tom Cadieux is a visionary who has inspired others to understand the full value of the Alouette River and the value of working together as an empowered community. B.C. Hydro has contributed funding toward the construction of the interpretive centre, and the Pacific Salmon Foundation has taken a major funding role along with help from local contractors. The Attorney General has provided inmate labour to construct the interpretive centre. B.C. Rivers Day 1997 on the Alouette River will be a major provincial event, and I invite all members to attend on September 28 this year.

Our government outlines a commitment to tourism. Tourism is a major economic development strategy in the communities of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, with the abundance of natural amenities found there, from the Golden Ears mountains to the Pitt Polder dikes, through the wetlands and wildlife management areas, home of the sandhill cranes and the great blue herons. This area is the most popular bird-watching area of the lower mainland.

In the budget speech, our economic strategy relating to film production is emphasized. This industry creates jobs in

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and pumps big dollars into the local economy. In many major films, people across the world enjoy the backdrop of the mountains and wetlands of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. It's a growing industry with great potential locally and provincially.

The 1997 provincial budget makes specific job creation commitments. We're investing $1 billion in schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure -- creating jobs. We're investing $23 million in A Guarantee for Youth. This initiative will generate 12,000 new jobs for youth in the coming year. We're providing work experience and training opportunities. Tuition fees are frozen. Access to education is guaranteed, with increased post-secondary spaces this year. Last week one of my young constituents called me up just after the budget was tabled. He asked me if tuition fees are frozen again next year. It was good to hear the high degree of optimism and the outpouring of energy reflected in his comments. It was very refreshing, compared to the outflow of negative babble we receive from the opposition benches.

As I said earlier, I come from a region of this province that has a great diversity of population. We don't all agree with one another on everything, and we get into squabbles over some matters, but we know that our major issues will be hammered out and resolved. Our community is a model for the members of this Legislature to note. In Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, while we may work against one another on an issue to be decided, we often find ourselves working together once the decision is taken. We have great potential to be a complete community east of the Pitt River, and I've made that argument on several occasions.

On school district amalgamation, I argued alongside the school board chairperson that Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows could be a stand-alone school district. The community worked together and agreed that we could achieve the required savings that amalgamation would bring. We all agreed last year that those savings could be found in the school district 42 budget. It was a home-grown solution. The minister and cabinet and Premier listened, and we saved our school district.

On courthouse regionalization, I made the case that it was possible for the municipalities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to take more responsibility for our justice issues, to work with the Ministry of Attorney General in providing new justice services to our communities and to save taxpayers money at the same time. I believe it is possible to have our own regional justice centre in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, serving the north side of the Fraser River east of the Pitt River. The Attorney General recognized the sense of ownership around issues of justice reform and recognized the degree of the Corrections branch presence in Maple Ridge and our ability to build on that presence. The Attorney General listened, the cabinet and Premier listened, and we saved our courthouse.

On local job creation, I have argued for a regional job strategy for many years on municipal council as mayor of Maple Ridge and as the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Small business, commercial and industrial growth has been very strong over the past few years in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Our Maple Meadows industrial park has recently expanded into another phase. Multi Energy doubled production and employees last summer. More and more high-technology companies are moving into our region. State-of-the-art technology companies are choosing to create jobs in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, creating new domestic and international markets.

Our region is in a position to provide a framework for the assembly, manufacture and distribution of unique technologies in North America, South America and the Pacific Rim. Our government has a role to play in fostering a whole new knowledge-based sector here in British Columbia. I'm working with local business in my constituency, pursuing partnerships with government to create family-supporting jobs there. Again, the Premier and the government have listened.

I believe we can make a great difference by representing our constituents, making our arguments count, moving forward on our local issues and standing up for the people of our constituencies in the best way we can. Let us all, as hon. members, do the best we can for our constituents. If that means working more closely together in a less partisan but more effective way, then let us do that. I believe that the 1997 provincial budget and the throne speech give us all that opportunity.

C. Clark: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak, after my colleague from Maple Ridge has spoken so eloquently and sincerely about working in a non-partisan manner in the Legislature, because I think there are some issues where we should be non-partisan. There are some issues where British Columbians will certainly benefit from a non-partisan approach, and I will focus on a couple of those today.

One of them is the expansion of gambling in British Columbia. I think that's a place where we could stand to be non-partisan. Some of the members on the other side of the House have stood up in the past and stated their principles clearly, and stated clearly that they are opposed to expanded gambling in this province because they believe that it will have negative social impacts for many, many people, particularly in the lower-income strata in our society. Those people should stand up and say: "We are prepared to be non-partisan. We are prepared to stand up and take the hit and maybe the punishment that will go with that." But let's be non-partisan about expanded gambling. Let's get up, and let's all say we want to do what's good for British Columbians, not just what the Premier wants us to do. I'll speak a little more about expanded gambling later, if I may, hon. Speaker.

When we think about the budget, what it is really is a road map for British Columbia. It's a road map that the government draws out to tell British Columbians where it's going but also to tell the international money markets and the federal government where it's going.

It is essential that that process have integrity. It is essential that the budget process, in any jurisdiction, has integrity. It's essential that that process can be trusted. It's essential that British Columbians and Canadians and everyone in the international markets know that the numbers contained in that budget are true. That integrity is essential to our economic health in British Columbia. I suggest, respectfully, that this budget has not met that standard, and neither have previous budgets.

What has happened previously is that it appears that the numbers the government presented. . . . Well, we know that the numbers the government presented turned out to be quite different from the numbers in reality. That undermines people's sense of confidence in this government. It undermines their belief and their ability to be able to control where this government is going. After all, if it's the public's money, shouldn't the public know how much of it is there and how much of it is not there? If it's the public's money, how can they control where that money goes if they don't even know the

basic facts about how much is there? To me, that's an essential part of the democratic process. I'd suggest to this House that we've gone astray from that goal.

Let's look at the priorities we do see in this budget. We can question the underlying numbers, and I know that many people far less partisan than I have put forward some excellent arguments about why we should question the underlying numbers in this budget. I know it's certainly something that 75 percent of British Columbians in recent polls say they would also question about this government.

But let's look at the priorities of the budget. It appears, for example, that in this budget the Ministry of Environment has been singled out for cuts. It hasn't been an across-the-board equal cut. The Ministry of Environment has been singled out for cuts.

On the other hand, we have the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which is actually getting more money. They are doing better this year than they did last year -- this for a ministry that has presided over a hemorrhaging of jobs in this province like we haven't seen for many years. Now, you've got to wonder. Why do they need more money when all they're doing is shrinking jobs? Maybe losing all those jobs in British Columbia is too much work for just the minister by himself, so he needs a few more staff to do it.

I suggest, on the other hand, that if we are going to be looking at cuts, we shouldn't be singling out the Ministry of Environment first, because that's an important ministry to British Columbians. I suggest, though, that when we are looking for cuts, maybe we shouldn't be adding numbers to the ministry that is doing the worst job of almost any ministry in government.

Where is the Minister of Environment intending to get some money? Well, one of the places the ministry has gone to look is into the pockets of the guides and anglers in British Columbia. That's a huge industry in northern B.C., and it's really at its beginning. It is an ecotourism industry worldwide, something they say is probably one of the fastest-growing industries on earth. So what has the Minister of Environment decided to do with that industry? Well, not grow it, not invest in it, not help it, not lighten the regulatory burden and not lighten the tax burden. The minister has decided to introduce so many new taxes and fees to that industry that, in just one case, there's a lodge that's intending to lay off all its employees so it can pay the new taxes.

I don't think that's a good way of growing an industry. Perhaps the minister wants to follow in the footsteps of the Minister of Forests, who has done a pretty good job of trying to shut down the forest industry in British Columbia. Or maybe the minister wants to follow in the footsteps of whoever is taking care of mines over there, who's done a pretty good job of shutting down the mining industry. Maybe shutting down the industry. . . . Maybe what the Ministry of Employment and Investment is really looking toward is an end to work in British Columbia, and I suggest that the minister is well on her way to seeing that dream become a reality.

Interestingly, I'll quote from a news article in the Terrace Standard with regard to this particular tax increase:

This is despite probably hundreds of letters to her office. This is despite the issue being raised in question period and, even better, on TV and in the newspaper regularly.

Then she went on to say that most of the money -- I take it that means a majority of the money -- is going to go to habitat conservation. Well, that's simply not true. Half of the money is going straight into general revenue. That doesn't leave most of the money to go to habitat conservation. Half of the money is going to go into general revenue.

But then you've got the habitat conservation fund, which the minister has set up. Now, if the minister does to the habitat conservation fund what her colleague did to the forest renewal fund, there's going to be a lot of vegetarians in British Columbia, because there isn't any guarantee that they won't dip into that fund. The minister has refused to offer a guarantee that they won't dip into that fund.

Maybe it is true that no greedy minister will ever get his hands on that fund. We know what those words are worth because we heard it from another NDP member already, and we know what it ended up meaning. It ended up meaning that half of the forest renewal fund is going to pay for services that are already supposed to be provided by government. It's not going back into the communities. It's not going back to pay for the land that it came from.

What is the government's reaction, though? I want to quote from one individual up there in Terrace. He says he tried to contact his MLA when the increases were announced in March, but the MLA doesn't believe that cost is a concern. This individual says: "You know, I voted for Helmut Giesbrecht. I walked the streets for him. But if he doesn't get off his butt and stand by the anglers, I will be walking the streets to make sure he's the first MLA to be recalled." He goes on to suggest that he will no longer continue to support this government if it doesn't start to listen, and I think a good place for government to start is by listening to people.

Now, would the Minister of Education like to listen to people? One of the things that has concerned the folks in my riding a great deal is the impact that this budget is going to have on education. When the ministry cuts per-student funding, I don't know how the minister can claim that it's not going to have an impact on education in the classroom. When an institution is asked to deal with more people with less money, there doesn't seem to be any question that they won't be able to do it well.

We haven't heard yet how the government intends to ensure some magic solution to stop less money from meaning fewer services. It really is an insult to the parents and to the students who go to those schools to suggest otherwise. The folks at William Davidson Elementary School in Surrey know that when there's wind whistling through the windows because they don't fit in the frames or there are mushrooms growing in the corners of the classroom, that's not a quality place for their kids to go to school.

But they know that when the government does offer money for education -- and we have to say the minister has offered some money for schools -- the money will only go to schools in ridings where the parents had the good sense to vote properly. That money won't go to those ridings where the parents of those kids didn't vote for the New Democrats, and it won't go to those ridings where the New Democrats who did get elected didn't make it into cabinet.

Of those schools that have been chosen to be funded, some are at the bottom of the list that was prepared by the ministry's own non-partisan civil service. What does that tell us

about the government's priorities, because afterward the government did decide that they would provide money for schools in non-NDP ridings? But, of course, the conditions that will be attached to the funding for those schools will be so difficult to meet that the chances of that funding ever coming through are slim, if not impossible. The parents who have children in those schools know that.

Today we saw the students at Langara College protesting the dearth of government interest in quality education in British Columbia. The government belittles their actions. They say that it's about parking fee increases. The fact is that it's not about parking fee increases. What it's about is all those many, many fees that have been increased through the back door again and again. The government sits there and says they haven't raised tuition fees. But they do need to be very specific about which fees they haven't increased, because those other fees affect students almost as much.

Then, of course, if a student can afford all the fees in a post-secondary institution but they're in an institution like Northwest Community College up in the northwest, they can't get second-year courses. So kids who want to go to school up in Terrace can only get their first year of college. They have to transfer down south or down to Prince George -- which is south to the people in Terrace -- to get the education they require, because there isn't enough money there to pay for those programs.

The government says in this budget that it will not raise taxes. Fees have gone up on almost everything they can find. Fees are increasing at colleges and universities. They're increasing on probate. They're increasing on anglers. They're increasing almost everywhere we look, but the government says they haven't raised taxes in this budget.

The fact is that by decimating the budgets that they pass on to municipalities, they are raising taxes. They're raising taxes on homeowners, because that's where that money comes from. It's not just on homeowners but also on renters, because that increase gets passed directly on to the person who signs the rent cheque at the end of the day. The UBCM, we understand, is now considering joining the legions of people who are apparently suing this government to try and get them to abide by their own laws. They don't believe that this unilateral action is acceptable on the part of a government, because it is not true, as the Minister of Forests says, that government can do anything it wants.

What do we end up with at the end of the budget? We end up with higher taxes, more fees, crumbling schools and hospitals, a disregard for protecting health care and education, and according to statistics, a huge loss of jobs in the province. What do we end up with after all that? We still have a record debt. We have a debt that is at historic levels in British Columbia. The debt has never been this high before, despite all the government's apparent efforts. We still have this albatross around our neck.

Where do they look to raise money? They look to expand gambling, which I've already touched on a bit. I don't think that expanding gambling has its roots in an idea for a good social policy. That's not what the many municipalities that have come out against it have said. That's not what even the people at the NDP convention said when they shuffled them off into the back room to discuss it. We know that there are members of this government who do not support expanded gambling and who do not believe that it is the right place to look for money. So what is it that has motivated this government to look at expanded gambling for money?

C. Clark: Desperation, an absolute desperation to fill that budget sinkhole they created, which they told British Columbians did not exist -- that's why they're going after expanded gambling.

And why are they considering no-fault insurance? When Ralph Nader travelled the United States fighting no-fault insurance in every jurisdiction, was he wrong? Do the members of the government believe that he was wrong, that maybe he was some crackpot or some crazy, left-wing lunatic travelling around the United States? Was he wrong about no- fault insurance all those years? Now, I know that there are lots of people in the government who used to think that Ralph Nader was someone who should be believed, someone who should be listened to. A lot of them have probably taken the time to read his articles when they run across them in a magazine, because they find him interesting. They find him stimulating. They find him right. Well, you know, either Ralph Nader was wrong or maybe this government is wrong.

Maybe it's wrong to take away people's right to sue. Maybe it is wrong for the government to decide, all on its own, what an injury might be worth to someone. Maybe it is wrong for the government to turn our insurance system into something like the WCB, on which they finally have been forced to have a travelling commission figure out what those problems are. I think every member of this House knows what the problems are with the WCB, because every single member of this House spends a great deal of time dealing with injured workers who don't get what they deserve from the agency, who spend the rest of their lives fighting for a meagre pittance from the WCB -- which they might or might not give. Of course, the WCB is the judge and jury in every case, so how can individuals force it to give them their just due? That's our concern with no-fault insurance. I tell you respectfully, hon. Speaker, that I think that's Ralph Nader's concern with it as well.

I talked a bit about a road map at the beginning and about where we're going. During the election, the Premier laid out for British Columbians a road map of where he'd like British Columbia to go. He laid it out for us, and he drew all the roads on it and even some sidewalks, a few detours here and there, a few left turns and even a couple of right turns. He had a bridge on it, and that bridge on his map led to a better British Columbia. It led to balanced budgets. It led to protecting health care and education. It led to taking care of people's rights. It led to making sure that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society got taken care of.

During the election, British Columbians decided to buy the road map. The Premier cruised along, and they got in the car with the Premier and said: "Okay, let's go down the road." What they found out is that the road they were going down, which the Premier was taking them down, bore almost no resemblance to what the road map said. It was completely different. Then, when they got to that bridge at the end of the road, there was no bridge there. The bridge had been completely invented; the bridge had never existed. There was never a place that the Premier had to get to which included balanced budgets or protecting health care and education or taking care of the really poor and vulnerable in our society. That bridge was never there. What they found instead, as they were racing down the road with the Premier, is a cliff.

You know, I sit here, and I feel like I'm reliving the last scene from Thelma and Louise sometimes, because the Premier doesn't seem prepared to put on the brakes. That's what he needs to do, and that's what this budget desperately fails to do. We need to put on the brakes. This government would not

find itself in anywhere near this position, and they wouldn't find themselves having to stop and make desperate moves if in fact they had been straight up in the first place, if in fact we had known what the real facts were in the first place, if in fact British Columbians had known what the budget really was during the election.

I think it's time that we do what the budget really was during the election. I think it's time that we do put on the brakes, and it's time to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs in British Columbia. It is time to start protecting health care and education. It is time to start working towards a balanced budget, because an unbalanced budget leads to higher debt-servicing costs.

Higher debt-servicing costs slowly eat away at our ability to pay for everything else. It's time the government made the tough choices that are necessary to protect our vital services. We do not need a government that cares more about politics than it does about governance. We need a government that indeed wants to make this a better province for British Columbians -- one that's prepared to carry us into the next century in a position where we can compete, where British Columbians can have a place to work and place where British Columbians know that their government will be able to take care of them when they are least able to take care of themselves.

B. Penner: It is my privilege, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a newly elected representative for the electoral area of Chilliwack, to rise today to give my comments about the budget introduced in the Legislature last week -- or perhaps that was two weeks ago. Time flies here.

I was impressed by the comments of my colleague from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, and I thought that she gave a very apt description, comparing the budget to a faulty road map that bore very little, if any, resemblance to reality. I'm going to go through it in more technical detail than my colleague did, in terms of just where the inconsistencies are in the budget that was presented to this House.

Going through the budget documents, one theme became very clear to me. The theme, it seemed to me, was deception. There's a history to this. It started back in the fiscal year of 1995-96. It all began with something called the debt management plan, which was touted with much pride by the members opposite and by the NDP government of that day. The promise, as contained in the debt management plan introduced in 1995-96, was that by today the provincial direct debt would be $9.503 billion. However, the reality of the situation is that the direct debt is $11.6 billion. That's more than $2 billion higher than was promised in the debt management plan introduced two years ago by this government. In fact, that is 22 percent higher than they promised.

What is the result, then, of the debt management plan? The debt is up, no payments on our debt were made as promised by the plan, and British Columbians are all paying more interest on an annual basis than we would otherwise have been doing. The government has recognized that the debt management plan, which they bragged about two years ago, has been a complete failure because of their failure to live up to the plan, so they've abandoned it. They've abandoned any pretext in this budget of making any payments on the debt.

Again just to put things in context, in 1991 the total direct and guaranteed debt of our province was $17.2 billion. The forecast debt in the budget introduced in this Legislature this year is $30.67 billion. That's an increase of over $13 billion, or 78 percent, in six years. Clearly, that rate of debt growth is unsustainable in the long term.

The history of deception moves forward to a year ago. The NDP's 1996 election budget stated that total government debt would decline by $99 million. That was the promise and the statement offered to the voters of British Columbia: that the actual debt would decline by $99 million. What is the truth? The truth is that actual government debt has increased by $837 million. Between what they promised and what they delivered, that's a difference of almost a billion dollars. Instead of paying the debt down by $99 million, the debt has gone up by $837 million.

But it doesn't stop there. The NDP's 1996 election budget also stated that taxpayer-supported debt would decline this year to 18.4 percent of the provincial gross domestic product. In fact, as related to the provincial GDP, our debt is now 20.3 percent. The impact of all that is more interest payments to international money markets, more interest payments to banks. With more interest payments going to banks and money markets, there's less money available for the social programs that all of us in this House agree are important to our constituents.

There was a further claim in the NDP's 1996 election budget. At that time, they were boasting that British Columbia's credit rating was the best of any province in Canada. Well, guess what happened. It's just not true anymore. It's as a result of the NDP's 1996 election budget, and the obvious untruths contained in that document, that bond-rating agencies across North America have warned of a possible upcoming credit downgrade for British Columbia. In fact, even the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that and has now omitted any references in his budget to B.C. having Canada's best credit rating. The budget speech no longer mentions that, Mr. Speaker.

There was another claim in the 1996 pre-election budget tabled by the NDP government. They claimed that in British Columbia, not only would our debt go down by $99 million, but we would have a surplus of $87 million. I always thought that a surplus meant that you had more money coming in than you had going out. However, the truth is that the promised surplus of $87 million turned into a deficit of $395 million -- or at least that's what the Minister of Finance now says. He admits that what they said during the election wasn't true.

Again, the Minister of Finance understates the real financial situation. The fact is that the real deficit for 1996-97 was $605 million, and I will elaborate on where I get those figures from in a moment. Again there's deception, and it continues this year, because the government is not coming clean with what the real deficit was for 1996-97.

There are some further deceptions. During the election campaign we heard that there was going to be a program created by this government called Opportunities '96, which we were told would create 3,500 jobs for youth last summer. The Premier of this province has made himself the Minister Responsible for Youth. Well, what happened with that program and the promise of 3,500 jobs? The result was that 264 young people actually found jobs through that initiative. They missed their target by about 3,200 jobs.

There's more truth, and more truth indicates that in fact there were 8,000 fewer jobs overall last summer for young people in British Columbia, rather than an increase in jobs as was promised during the election campaign by this government. More deplorable is that unemployment rates for people aged 15 to 19 years skyrocketed from 13.5 percent in 1995 to 22.7 percent in 1996. That's in one year -- a huge increase in youth unemployment.

Now I'm getting to some more of the current deception in this year's budget. Right off the top, on page 2 of his budget speech, the Minister of Finance boasts that for the first time since 1958, actual provincial government spending will decrease by $100 million. But you know what? That is not true; it simply isn't true. In fact, to add insult to injury, this government has been advertising in the newspapers, at taxpayers' expense, putting ads in the paper claiming that they have reduced spending by $100 million. And that is not true. So not only are they insulting the voters' intelligence, but they are insulting the voters by making them pay taxes to pay for this untruth in the newspapers.

I'll now explain why I say that in fact spending is not down by $100 million, as claimed by the Minister of Finance. There was $70 million in rehabilitation expenditures previously budgeted and spent by the Ministry of Highways, which has been shifted sideways -- to use the Minister of Forests' term -- to the Transportation Financing Authority. However, the taxpayers of British Columbia still foot the bill. I think we can all agree that the Transportation Financing Authority is an arm of government. That should therefore be included as government spending. That's $70 million of the $100 million I just mentioned.

There is $20 million that was previously an expenditure of the Tourism ministry, which is now being allocated to Tourism B.C. However, that is still being spent for a government purpose and is certainly not a decrease in spending. Then there is $100 million -- this is the one the Minister of Forests will like -- in forest renewal silviculture expenses allocated to Forest Renewal B.C., whose programs were previously delivered by the Ministry of Forests. I thought the whole purpose of forest renewal programs was that they were to be incremental -- that is, in addition to existing programs and expenditure levels in the Ministry of Forests for rehabilitating the forest lands of British Columbia.

B. Penner: That is what we were told: that any forest renewal expenditures would be on top of and in addition to existing Forest Service programs in the Ministry of Forests. That has not happened in this year's budget. The government has slipped off $100 million in forestry spending into Forest Renewal B.C., and then turns around and says: "Well, now that expenditure isn't on our books, and we can go out there and tell the taxpayers that spending is down." Well, the spending is still happening; it's just coming out of Forest Renewal funds. It's a shell game.

There's another sideways shift in expenditures as this government tries to deceive the voters about where the money is going: $35 million in renewal and renovation expenditures for schools is no longer funded as part of the Ministry of Education grants. Instead, they're showing up on the books through the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority. It's still a government expenditure. We can all agree that the money spent by the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority is for a governmental purpose. For this government to turn around and pretend that the $35 million in spending is no longer government spending -- I don't think that fools many people who take time to consider it.

Then, of course, there's $60 million in claimed savings by cutting municipal grants. But we all know that's a shell game, too, because the municipalities will have to recover those cuts in grants by taxing local taxpayers. At the end of the day there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. It doesn't matter much to the individual taxpayer if their taxes are going to the municipal government, the provincial government or the federal government, because at the end of the day they know that their wallet is lighter because they were paying taxes.

Altogether, this adds up to $285 million in government expenditures which this government pretends is not on its books for this fiscal year. That transforms the claimed $100 million reduction in expenditures to an increase in spending of $185 million over last year's budget. That is not a reduction in government spending, and I think the taxpayers of British Columbia can understand that.

There are also some dubious projections for revenue contained in the 1997-98 budget tabled in this Legislature two weeks ago. One of the areas of projected revenue comes from the selling of government assets. We have been told that one of the plans is for the government to sell its vehicle fleet and lease back vehicles for government use. From this, the government expects to receive $170 million in revenue. Now, I presume it's not all from selling the government vehicle fleet, but at least a large portion of it is. I get that from page 21 of "Budget '97 Reports." Of course, the problem with leasing vehicles is that whether it will make financial sense depends on the purpose of leasing the vehicles.

I wonder if the government has bothered to read any of the newspapers today. There's an interesting article that appears in the Vancouver Sun under "Managing Your Business." The headline is: "Benefits of Leasing Vehicles for Business are Diminishing." The article goes on to declare: "The automobile industry has been aggressively promoting the option of leasing cars instead of purchasing them outright. . .leasing options are often presented by dealers as having significantly lower monthly payments." Obviously that's probably what caught the government's attention and made them consider this option. However, the article goes on to note that in many circumstances it is not cheaper to lease, but that you're better off in the long term to purchase a vehicle. My concern is that this government is once again engaging in a sleight of hand and a shell game, attempting to show some short-term improvement in its financial position, and then down the road taxpayers will be on the hook for greater expenses.

Moving quickly to wrap up -- I see the white light is on -- the point to all of my concern with the increase in debt, which I pointed out at the outset of my speech, is that the cost of servicing our debt in British Columbia in 1996-97 was $1.778 billion. That represents a 70 percent increase from 1992. That is $700 million that could be spent on an annual basis for schools, hospitals, road construction or our justice system. I also point out that every 1 percent increase in interest rates will subject the taxpayers of British Columbia to an extra expense of $200 million annually. We are being held hostage to interest rates by this government.

In conclusion, as I review the budget documents and the apparent deception contained therein, I find that I cannot support this budget and will have to vote against it.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 45A, I must now put the question on the amendment to the budget.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Oral Questions

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

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