The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

J. Wilson: I would like to take this opportunity to ask the House to make welcome a friend of mine who is an executive director of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, Mr. Lorne Leach from Kamloops. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to take this opportunity to advise the House that we will sit tomorrow, and I call budget debate.

Hon. S. Hammell: I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate on the budget. The Minister of Finance has set out the government's key priorities for the coming fiscal year, and I'd like to comment on these priorities on behalf of the working families of Surrey-Green Timbers.

In the course of debate thus far, members have used a wide variety of techniques and epithets to evaluate the priorities that the Minister of Finance has put before us and to test their appropriateness. One hon. member on this side proposed the rather innovative notion that we use a scale based on the number of latt�s it takes to transform a lead into a loss. On the other hand, members opposite have chosen to apply a "What's in it for the banks and corporations?" test of relevance to the Minister of Finance's key priorities.

I'd like to suggest a more traditional approach. I'd like to ask members to cast their minds back just a few years to a period that will be known in history as the interregnum between NDP governments. Cast back to the late seventies and then forward through the long, tired years of the eighties. It was a time of rigid fiscal restraint, when two men named Bill, one after another, created the biggest deficit that this province has ever seen. Now, some members opposite will object that it was only in the nineties that the second Premier Bill ran up a $2.9 billion deficit in the last year of his mandate. But the people of Surrey-Green Timbers can read the dictionary, where a deficit is defined in the first instance as "a deficiency in amount or quality." A deficit is a deficiency in amount or quality, and that's what those two Premiers were building in our community: a deficit in schools, a deficit in health care services, a deficit in parks, a deficit in transit, a deficit in environmental protection and a deficit in college spaces.

All through those dry years, newcomers built houses and started their families in Surrey, and their children started school in Surrey. Of all the municipalities across Canada, only Mississauga came close to the rate of growth that we experienced south of the Fraser. The working people of Surrey wondered why their hospital was desperately short of beds, their schools were packed to bursting, and Kwantlen College was visited each September by a crew from BCTV, filming the lineup of disappointed students who were turned away because they couldn't even enrol in one single course.

It was so bad in those years that each September the Ministry of Education routinely asked the college to provide what they called the "turnaway figure." So when we look back, we can measure very precisely the deficit in post-secondary education at Kwantlen College in the year before an NDP government was able to reverse government priorities, to turn things around for the working families of Surrey. And what was that turnaway figure for Kwantlen College in those bad old days? We hear a lot in this chamber about what's credible and what's not. Well, it does seem incredible that Kwantlen College used to turn away between 1,200 and 1,600 students every year. Up to 1,600 students were turned away from their community college because there was no room for them.

The priorities of these two Premiers were so very clear and consistent, they were so very dedicated to the interests of the banks and the big corporations, that they made sure that not one single new high school was opened in the municipality of Surrey between 1975, when Dave Barrett's government built Frank Hurt and Earl Marriott senior secondary schools, and 1991, when Mike Harcourt's government turned priorities right side up again. For 16 long years, residents of Surrey watched in disbelief while the provincial government continued to increase government spending, year after year, without building one single new high school in the fastest-growing municipality in Canada.

The citizens of Surrey watched while the provincial government built up the biggest deficit in health and education services that this province has ever known -- until 1991, when the voters of British Columbia decided it was time for a change. And what happened then was indeed incredible. In a municipality that had not had a new high school for 16 years, the NDP government opened Johnston Heights, North Surrey, Lord Tweedsmuir, Semiahmoo, Elgin Park, Fleetwood, Tamanawis and Enver Creek. This year, Clayton and Fraser Heights will get underway. The renovations of Frank Hurt and Guildford Park are complete, and after renovations to Queen Elizabeth, Princess Margaret and Earl Marriott, there won't be a single high school in the whole of Surrey that has not received a major renovation or been rebuilt by this government. Count them up -- 15 high schools built, renovated, under renovation or under construction because NDP governments have their priorities right.

It is incredible. In just six years this government has wiped out that appalling deficit -- the deficiency in amount or quality that was created through the seventies and eighties by foolhardy governments with no vision, no conscience and no guts. This is the kind of deficit reduction that makes me proud to sit on this side. I'm confident that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is happy to tell her constituents that this NDP government has built Lord Tweedsmuir and Fleetwood and is building Clayton and Fraser Heights secondary schools in her constituency, I hope she will also remember to tell them that Cloverdale has got 25 percent of the new high schools, which is much more than its percentage, if we count the seats in this House.

And the member for Surrey-White Rock, who is a fair-minded man, will certainly be reminding his voters that the renovations to Earl Marriott will bring it up to the superb standard that was set by this government when we built Elgin Park and Semiahmoo in his constituency, giving him overall, as his share, one-fifth of the schools -- for one of the five constituencies in Surrey.

[10:15]

I know these hon. members will want to correct any misinformation that may be left in the minds of those who are

[ Page 2350 ]

foolish enough to believe what they read in the newspapers instead of trusting the evidence of their own eyes as they look at the remarkable achievement of this government in providing education to the young people of our province.

There was also a horrendous deficiency in quality and amount of health care services at Surrey Memorial Hospital when this government was first elected in 1991. Morale was so low that doctors were leaving, and patients didn't want to come. Housekeeping staff were in despair because they didn't have time to clean properly, and there was a desperate shortage of beds. Six years later, Surrey Memorial Hospital has completely turned around. South Fraser residents have access to their own cancer clinic, more babies are born in our hospital than anywhere else in B.C., and there is a special-care nursery and other special services designated for children. Expansion has continued without pause since the NDP government made it clear that we would pay down the deficit in health care services that had become almost pathological under previous governments.

During the election last year, when I went to the voters of Surrey-Green Timbers and told them that an NDP government would continue to protect health care and education, all they had to do was look around to know that we had delivered on our promises. Over 50 percent of voters gave me their vote of confidence, because the NDP record isn't in the account books or in the rhetoric of envy that wafts across the floor from the other side. Our record is out there in the community, in the schools, colleges and hospitals, and in the complex web of support services that government funds on behalf of the citizens of this province. Out there in the communities, this budget is deeply embedded in the everyday life of working families.

The Minister of Finance has put forward the key priorities that were articulated clearly by voters in last year's election. They saw what we had done on their behalf with their tax dollars, and they asked us to stay the course: to continue to build schools and to ensure that our health care system continues to rank with the best in the world. I share the minister's confidence that he has chosen the best possible course to ensure that our families continue to have a sufficiency of quality and amount in the years to come.

T. Stevenson: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the very crucial, progressive, yet fiscally prudent budget presented by the Minister of Finance. Over the last several days, many others have spoken about all of the issues surrounding the budget and have taken on the Liberals. Instead, I want to speak more directly to how this budget affects my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. This budget not only has far-reaching and extremely positive implications for my own riding of Vancouver-Burrard, but it will set the course for the province of British Columbia into the new millennium.

In Vancouver-Burrard there are a number of very key issues which this budget speaks to directly. Among them are, of course, job creation, health care and education. I wish to speak briefly to each of them, plus a number of other issues raised in the budget which will affect the lives of the majority of people in Vancouver-Burrard.

This budget contains a job strategy for British Columbia that will support the creation of 40,000 new jobs this year alone. British Columbia already has the best job creation record in Canada, and now we're continuing to build on that record. This is extremely good news for the people of Vancouver-Burrard. As I speak to my constituents -- both on a one-to-one basis and at town hall meetings that I've held, as well as in door-knocking -- unemployment is on the minds of many. Despite our enviable record on job creation, unemployment is still unacceptably high, and many in my riding cannot find work and are forced onto social assistance.

In Vancouver-Burrard the young people have been hit particularly hard, and we have a very large population of young people in Vancouver-Burrard. So our government's initiative to create 12,000 new jobs for young people through a $23 million Guarantee for Youth program will be a very welcome program indeed -- a $23 million initiative for job creation for young people in British Columbia, when almost all other provinces in Canada are cutting back. Maybe some other provinces should make their Premier their minister responsible for youth, and then they would realize how important these programs are to the future of their provinces. Young people are our future, and this Premier and this government recognize that not just in words but in concrete actions.

This government is replacing welfare with training for young people through the $20 million Youth Works initiative, which will help another 40,000 youth this year. In Vancouver-Burrard, too many young people have been on welfare for a long time. Many have seen little or no hope, and now this training program will help to get many into the workforce, where they will not only earn a living but regain self-esteem. These programs will have a great effect on Vancouver-Burrard and will give many young people opportunities they have not had for some time. Besides young people, for whom unemployment is disproportionately high, many others of all ages in Vancouver-Burrard are also seeking employment, and this government's job creation strategy speaks directly to them, as well.

We are creating a new agency to promote tourism, in partnership with the tourism industry. Tourism, as I am sure you are aware, is vital to Vancouver-Burrard. Large numbers of people from Vancouver-Burrard depend directly on this industry. We have a very large number of hotels and motels in the downtown area. Vancouver-Burrard is also the home of the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, and many restaurants, clubs and bars in Vancouver-Burrard depend directly on tourism. Many of the people working at the convention centre, the hotels, the restaurants and the bars live in Vancouver-Burrard. This announcement in the budget of a new agency to promote tourism is indeed welcome for us, as it will create many new, good-paying jobs.

As well, the brand-new trade and convention centre will also be located in Vancouver-Burrard. This public-private partnership will not only create many new jobs by building the trade and convention centre itself, but many residents of Vancouver-Burrard will find high-quality, high-paying, long-term jobs after the centre has been opened.

Likewise, 8,000 B.C. residents are employed in the film industry. Many of these are residents of Vancouver-Burrard and benefit immensely from the film industry. Many of the

[ Page 2351 ]

film shoots are done in Vancouver-Burrard in the downtown core, in the West End and at the beaches. Many small businesses and restaurants, etc., also have a great deal of spin-off business, hence more employment. So this government's initiative to work with the film industry, to expand opportunities and find ways to encourage Canadian production, will be welcome, as there is great potential for much, much more employment, particularly for Vancouver-Burrard residents.

Another industry of great importance to Vancouver-Burrard, of course, is the airline industry. Living in the riding is a very large number of airline employees, including in-flight attendants and reservations personnel, as well as some pilots and mechanics. For a time, we were quite concerned about the fate of Canadian Airlines, as its demise would have affected a good many people with jobs directly or indirectly attributed to Canadian Airlines. Thankfully, the Premier was able to negotiate an agreement to save those jobs, with some financial input from the province. Now in this budget comes an incentive to promote the airline industry's competitiveness, not only saving the jobs already in place but attracting new carriers and new jobs by a reduction to the international jet fuel tax rate -- again, more good news for Vancouver-Burrard; again, more good, well-paying jobs for our residents in all aspects of this vital industry. Jobs are a top priority to my constituents in Vancouver-Burrard and a top priority to this budget and to this government.

Of equal concern to the residents of Vancouver-Burrard -- indeed all residents of British Columbia -- is health care. Right across this country, governments, including the federal government, are making huge -- and I do mean huge -- cuts in health care, but not in British Columbia. In British Columbia this NDP government has made its top priority protecting health care and education rather than cutting, despite the fact that the federal government is massively cutting health care payments to British Columbia. Our government is increasing our health care budget by more than $300 million, to fund hospitals and physician services and to reduce surgery wait-lists. When you think of it, that's quite an accomplishment. Despite huge cuts from the federal government, despite the trends across the country, we are actually increasing our spending on health care by $300 million. That is because British Columbians, including those in Vancouver-Burrard, have told us -- have told me -- that health care is their top priority. So we have listened and acted.

[10:30]

There has, of course, been pressure to cut the budget, to bring down the deficit. We have listened to that, as well, and have acted, as is evident from this budget. With this year's deficit -- the smallest in this decade, at $185 million -- and with a projection to balance the budget in 1998-99, with a surplus in 1999-2000. . . . But we do not have to cut the health care budget to do it, even though, obviously, health care constitutes the largest budgetary item and is therefore a tempting target. Instead, we have increased health care and have cut in other areas of government. Again, this is good news for the people of Vancouver-Burrard.

We have a very large seniors' population in Vancouver-Burrard who, like the rest of us -- maybe more so -- are dependent on our health care system; a health care system, I might add, which is second to none in the world -- not just North America, but the world. Vancouver-Burrard residents rely on it. I rely on it. We all rely on it. This government is not only protecting health care but increasing its budget.

In Vancouver-Burrard we have St. Paul's Hospital, one of the finest hospitals not only in the province but in the entire country. We in Vancouver-Burrard like to think of St. Paul's as "our hospital" or "the West End's hospital," but we know it is far more, for it serves people from not only the city of Vancouver but the whole province. That is because of its very fine facilities and staff, as well as its innovative programs funded by this NDP government. Their programs are part of the reason for the $300 million health increase.

To begin with, one of the programs that I want to mention is a small one in comparison with others but a very important one in the hospital, and that is the dawn-to-dusk program, a drop-in centre for street youth -- a safe haven for youth away from the nighttime Granville Street mall area, away from drugs and sexual predators. This centre is open from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Drugs, alcohol, sex and violence are not permitted, and meals are served three times a night, from 8 p.m. till 6 a.m. About a month ago the Minister of Health and myself paid it a visit, and we were most impressed with what the staff was able to do to keep these young people off the streets for a period of time, at least, before they headed back out.

More directly related to the health budget, I'm thinking of the new heart centre recently opened by the Health minister. This new state-of-the-art heart and stroke facility at St. Paul's, under Dr. Lichtenstein, is a leader in heart and stroke treatment in North America, and this is made possible by the government's commitment to health care.

Also at St. Paul's is a new centre for excellence for AIDS. This centre is leading the way in the entire country with AIDS research. In conjunction with that, the centre administers the new, fantastic drugs -- the new protease inhibitors. These new drugs are radically affecting the lives of persons living with AIDS. Our government was the first in Canada to initially put up $5 million, and now that total is $28 million. Not only are people on these drugs out of hospitals and not taking up hospital rooms, but they're living longer, they're getting off social assistance, and many are returning to work and supporting themselves. So this outlay of money is returning huge dividends, with many individuals returning to normal life.

While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to point out that, again this year, the government has guaranteed a budget of $900,000 to AIDS Vancouver for their important work in fighting AIDS. There has been no decrease in our commitments whatsoever, and this, of course, has been a welcome announcement from the AIDS community.

Health care for all -- young and old, rich and poor -- has been protected -- increased, even -- so that all British Columbians might live with the security that should they ever need it, it will be there. We see this not as a privilege but as a right.

So, too, is education a right and not just a privilege. Here again, this budget not only protects education but increases

[ Page 2352 ]

the education budget. As announced in the budget, there will be a $63 million increase for the K-to-12 school system, and that's good news for schools throughout the province. I've visited the elementary and high schools in Vancouver-Burrard twice in this past year since the election. Lord Roberts Elementary School had a major renovation which was started in June of '95 and completed in August of '96, and the principal, Bob MacKay, has told me that these provincially funded renovations are not only superb but have made a huge, transformative difference to both students and faculty. Likewise, at King George Secondary School, the principal, Mike Gregory, showed me major renovations recently done to the lunchroom facilities, so that now 40 percent of the students have a proper meal in the school meal program. Obviously, young people who are eating well will be able to concentrate on school rather than on a hungry stomach, and this has also made a big difference in the grades of their students.

I already mentioned that a great many young people live in Vancouver-Burrard, and many of these young people are students. Obviously, all of this will be very significant for them. We know that education is the key for getting ahead, for securing meaningful and well-paying employment. Education is also key to our society as a whole in this ever-changing world economy, in this information and computer world. This government not only recognizes that, it recognizes the need for all young people to secure a good education no matter what their sex or background or financial status is. By this budget, this government is ensuring that all will have the opportunity; indeed, it is encouraging all to further their education.

This budget is indeed good news for Vancouver-Burrard. It goes a long way towards helping make ends meet for working British Columbians. The province's income tax rate will be reduced another 2 percent. This is on top of a 2 percent reduction last year, for a total of $142 annually for families. The B.C. family bonus of $103 a month for children totals $235 million in support for more than 200,000 lower- and modest-income families. Many families in my riding have spoken to me about how much this $103 per month per child means to their own budgets. And, of course, ICBC rates and B.C. Hydro rates remain frozen, as well as post-secondary university tuition fees, as I've already mentioned.

All of these tax cuts and rate freezes mean that an average family saves about $500 annually. Five hundred dollars for a family in Vancouver-Burrard is indeed good news. All of this is being done while not only reducing the deficit, it is being done while we are spending $100 million less than last year, the first decline in year-to-year spending since 1958.

In conclusion, the people of Vancouver-Burrard will welcome this budget in many, many different ways. It has been my pleasure to speak to this today.

K. Whittred: It is my pleasure today to rise and respond to this budget on behalf of the people who live in North Vancouver-Lonsdale. North Vancouver-Lonsdale is, I think, probably one of the most compact but also most complex of the urban ridings. Some of you who have flown into Vancouver harbour on the helijet may note the two bridges that cross Burrard Inlet as you come in. Those bridges, Mr. Speaker, form the bookends of my riding.

It is a riding of contrasts. We have affluent people, but 60 percent of the citizens of North Vancouver-Lonsdale are tenants. It has a food bank where people line up for many, many blocks every Wednesday morning. It also has one of the most innovative projects, known as the North Shore Harvest project, which is a private initiative to bridge the gap between welfare and work. It is a riding of many seniors and of changing ethnics. On the economic front, it is home to the offices of two Crown corporations: ICBC and B.C. Rail. It has one of the most interesting campuses of BCIT that one would want to see; it focuses on training for the marine industry and is extremely high-tech. It is the centre for nearly every institution on the North Shore, including Lions Gate Hospital, the North Shore health board and school district 44. It is home to two first nations: the Squamish nation and the Burrard nation. Also on the economic front, I would like to commend the government for its initiatives on the film industry, which is one of the fastest-growing industries in North Vancouver. I might point out that one of our own very prominent Liberals is frequently seen on "The X-Files" -- the dark presence of the elder.

So what is the impact of this budget on the citizens of North Vancouver-Lonsdale? I think the citizens of my riding are the very people that are spoken about in this budget, people that members opposite love to define as "working families." I must confess that I must have led a very sheltered life, because I have never met a family that didn't work. However, I assume by that that they mean moderate-income families. It is a riding that not only has small business as its backbone but also the exact opposite of that: the port. It has Capilano College, with the students, and, of course, those citizens that require health care. I am going to make the premise that this budget in fact hurts those that it promises to help.

[10:45]

Let's first of all look at the $55 million increase in fees. One of the most interesting ones, I think, is snowplowing; this, I think, could only fall into what I call tacky. It saves almost no money. It affects a few people in the extreme north of the province, and I cannot imagine that a government would go to all the trouble of cancelling this small service and putting on a fee for the few people who get their driveways plowed for safety reasons. I think the government is probably well aware that if one of those seniors were to fall and break a hip, the savings would be wiped out immediately.

Then we come to the increases in chiropractic services, physiotherapy services, massage therapy services, podiatrists, naturopaths, and so on. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that 70 percent of those services are used by women, and most of them by senior women? I repeat my premise that many things in this budget in fact hurt those it was intended to help, and I suggest that this budget is adding great additional stress, as well as cost, to many of our senior, moderate-income people. There is a yet unspecified increase in long term care fees, but only for those earning more than $30,000 a year. Again, the people who earn $100,000 a year are not hurt; however, those who earn $30,000, $35,000 or even $40,000, are going to be hurt significantly. Once again, this budget hurts that group of people it was claiming to help.

We go on to angling fees. Mr. Speaker, who goes fishing? Retired people. Think of all the people we know personally

[ Page 2353 ]

who have saved up a little bit. They've bought their camper or their fishing boat, and they're going to spend some of their retired years fishing in this beautiful province of ours. Who is hurt? Not only the retired people, but the very tourists we are expecting to attract. Ambulance fees are one more example -- again, hurting the very people this budget claims to help. And finally, the increase in B.C. Ferries fees and the pending B.C. Transit increases are a major hit in my riding, particularly as it pertains to that population that travels across the bridge and up the Sunshine Coast.

In addition, the budget assumes revenue projections based on increased dividends from Crown corporations. But the earnings of these Crown corporations have been steadily decreasing. It also assumes $170 million in revenue from the sale of assets. Now, this is very unclear, but speculation is that these assets include subsidiaries of B.C. Rail, including Vancouver Wharves -- which is, by the way, a business in my riding. Then there is that other Crown in my riding, ICBC. With all the discussion surrounding no-fault insurance, I think it is an understatement to say that morale at ICBC is very low. In general, the staff are greatly down. It is almost unprecedented for members on this side of the House to be getting letters from the union that represents the ICBC workers. That is what is happening to us right at this moment.

Moving on to that other area that this budget claims to define as a priority -- education -- every child from K to 12 will receive an average of $43 less this year than last year. At this very moment we are reading about the thousands of dollars in cutbacks in the Vancouver system. In my district, school district 44, there is a $700,000 shortfall. This has led to the school board being forced to go for a $2 million referendum. The taxpayers of North Vancouver are being asked to put out more money to pay for shortfalls that the ministry has simply not provided.

The ministry has introduced new courses -- for example, science and technology 11 -- but it hasn't introduced any resources. It has introduced a new technical English 12 course -- again, with no resources. In addition to these new courses that have no resources to go with them, there are additional expectations on the school system. Every year the pot seems to get bigger and bigger and bigger for what the school system is supposed to do. Last year or the year before, for example, the new CAPP course was introduced; then it was courses in behavioral modification -- and on it goes. So although it may be claimed that there are a few more dollars in the system, those dollars are being stretched to the limit.

In the area of post-secondary, the government has made the claim that tuition fees are frozen. That is true, but to any parent or student at a college or university, to suggest that fees are not increasing is absolutely ludicrous. At night school courses, for example, the fees have gone up in my community college $100 a course. It's one thing to freeze the tuition for the day program, but they're certainly getting it back in the night program. Printing costs, registration costs. . . . Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that you have to pay $100 just to get a book to read the courses at Simon Fraser? You don't even know if you can register, because you don't know if the courses are going to be offered. But it costs you $100 to find out if they might be offering the courses that you want. Then we saw the fiasco of the new schools that were to be built only in NDP ridings.

I have heard the Premier speak of innovative ideas to encourage cost savings in new construction. The innovative ideas he's talking about are things like extended days. I worked on extended days in the early 1960s; I do not think that is very innovative. Maybe it's one of those things that's simply going around for the second time.

Now, this collection of additional fees, the no resources for new courses that are introduced and the inability of students to get courses are undermining public education. Nothing will undermine public education quicker than the uncertainty and the frustration of parents who cannot get the programs they want for their child.

Finally, there is much in the budget about jobs being a priority. My children are roughly in that group in their twenties who I think the budget is addressed to. I wonder if the government is aware that amongst that group of people the words "full-time job" are considered pretty much an oxymoron. They use words like "real" job, and they think that basically there are no real jobs. There are McJobs, but there really aren't any real jobs.

When I was thinking about this report, I was thinking about some of the young people that had grown up in my neighbourhood, and I sort of did a little mental tally of what they are doing, now that they are into their mid-twenties. You know, out of about a dozen young people, all of them have some degree of post-secondary education. Only two of them are working in jobs that they were trained for. One is a teacher and one is a plumber. The rest of them are doing all sorts of things: everything from delivering pizza to driving a truck. I'm not saying that we should scoff at this; I am simply pointing out that jobs for people, even though they are well trained, are frequently not there.

The other feature of my particular riding I would like to comment on is that it is a riding of small businesses. I believe that 80 percent of the jobs are created by businesses with fewer than 15 employees, and that pretty much describes the kinds of businesses that exist in North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

However, the members opposite seem not to understand about the climate that is needed for business. I think the attitude about the corporation capital tax is a good example of that. They seem to believe that to tax the corporations is to punish them for being big corporations or to punish those big, bad banks. It never seems to occur to them that that tax does not punish the big corporation; it hurts the little small businessman, like the small businessman in my riding who is trying to get his business going but has to pay that tax through his triple-net rent. Big corporations pass on their expenses to the guy at the bottom, and so the very person that this government wishes to help -- the small business man -- is again being hurt by this government's policy.

[11:00]

[ Page 2354 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude with just a word about the gag law. Members opposite have a strange definition of free speech. It seems that free speech is afforded to those who support their position but that it is interference if the party disagrees with them. And this, of course, is of major concern to many people in North Vancouver. I would submit that when we read an article by a particular columnist in the North Shore News, we may vehemently disagree with that article, but the fact that it is there is the demonstrated proof that we enjoy free speech.

So I conclude by summing up what I started out to say. I believe this budget hurts those that it claims to help. It hurts those people that the government defines as "working families." They are the ones that are hit with the additional fees. It hurts patients who are trying to get various kinds of health care. It hurts students, and it hurts those who are trying to establish small businesses.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise this morning and to enter the debate on Budget '97, to put my comments on the record on behalf of my constituents and myself. People in Langley have had an opportunity to look at this budget, and they're shocked and appalled at the trickery of this government -- at the sad, sorry mismanagement record of incompetence and political expediency of this government. This is still a tax-borrow-and-spend government, and it has proven time after time that it cannot be trusted, cannot be believed. With this budget, the government has lost further credibility, if that were possible. Every government member opposite should hang their head in shame.

Let's start with the much-touted debt management plan -- as it turns out, a bogus management plan. After three years of debt management NDP-style, total government debt went up $648 million last year, and it will go up another $1.4 billion this year, for a grand total of $30.8 billion. Just six short years ago the total debt was $16 billion; now it's almost doubled. The government didn't make one payment on their debt management plan -- not one -- and now they have completely abandoned any pretence of a debt management plan. This proves the government cannot hit its targets, does not understand benchmarking, and is fiscally incompetent.

The Finance minister boasted that the projected deficit for '97-98 will be the smallest ever -- boasted of a deficit when most of the other provinces in Canada can legitimately boast of a surplus or a balanced budget. But not in British Columbia; never in six years of NDP rule in British Columbia. What's wrong with this picture? The government just doesn't get it. The numbers do not add up. So is this government incompetent or deceptive or both? A lot of people think both. My constituents certainly do, and I do as well. The theme song for this government should be "Looking for Money in All the Wrong Places."

Let's hear what some other people have to say about this government's performance in this budget. They're not just my thoughts or those of my constituents; they're from some of the other people around the province. I know the government loves to hate this particular organization, and it's the Vancouver Board of Trade.

An Hon. Member: Yep!

L. Stephens: I knew it. That's exactly the reaction from members opposite.

This is what the Vancouver Board of Trade had to say to the Finance minister in their prebudget submissions:

"Consider unemployment rates in B.C. compared to our neighbours: Washington, 6 percent; Oregon, 5.2 percent; Alberta, 6.5 percent; and British Columbia, over 8 percent. On a per capita basis, our economy has been shrinking steadily since 1989. Real disposable income, take-home pay, has been falling since 1989. Non-residential capital investment, with the exception of 1994, has been flat since 1989. This trend line is not sustainable. With the natural advantages that we have in B.C., this should simply not be the case."

They go on to say:

"You have an opportunity in this budget" -- and they're speaking to the Finance minister -- "to set out a new policy framework to re-establish investment and business confidence. This broader framework includes: competent fiscal management; tax policy in tune with competing jurisdictions; adoption of innovative practices in operation of government services; development of infrastructure with private sector involvement; and changes in regulations that impede economic growth and job creation, including regulations in the important resource sectors."

I don't think the government was listening. I don't think the Finance minister heard a word that was said.

These remarks are from the Mining Association of B.C. -- the non-existent mining industry in British Columbia -- on the provincial government's promise to create jobs:

"There are currently over nine potential mines being evaluated by mining companies and the province's Environmental Assessment Act.

". . .these. . .would create over 2,000 long-term, direct jobs and at least 5,000 indirect jobs. These are family-supporting jobs. . .because mining pays the highest wages and benefits in the province, currently averaging just under $70,000 per year" -- that's nothing to sneeze at.

"The government needs to support their job creation initiatives with tangible evidence of their commitment. A demonstrated positive attitude toward mining would include secure mineral title, land access certainty, and rationalized and streamlined regulations."

There is a lot of talk from government about wanting industry and family-supporting, good-paying jobs in this province. But that certainly isn't demonstrated in the mining community. Most members know -- certainly those that live or work in the interior or in the north -- that those areas of the province that are dependent on the forestry sector or the mining sector are hurting these days, and so are the small businesses that are on the periphery of those organizations: grocers, truckers, all of those individuals that help the resource-based industries in this province succeed.

The CGA organization of the province says: "Finance minister Petter's budget has failed to offer a financial management plan that can lift the province out of its spiral of debt. . . ."

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. For the record, if I might. I'm very reluctant to interrupt the member, but we are no longer -- any of us -- rookies in this chamber, and I must admonish all members that you can't use another person's given name in the chamber, even if you are reading from another document. If that hasn't been made clear, I apologize. I apologize to the member for interrupting, but I think we must recognize that rule and live by it. So thank you, member, and please proceed.

L. Stephens: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do know better, and I apologize for this infraction.

"The province's accumulated debt will top $30 billion this year and will still not produce any credible strategy to rein it under control. While the minister says that he's holding the

[ Page 2355 ]

deficit line to $185 million for '97-98, the reality is that our total provincial debt will increase by $1.4 billion." That's just another example of how different parts of the province and different industries in the province view this budget.

The budget talks about creating Fisheries Renewal B.C. This would create another Crown corporation for fisheries conservation. And they're saying that it would levy a landing fee on the catch, and the money would go to a fund to protect fisheries jobs and fish habitat. But this sounds like Forest Renewal B.C., and we've seen what's happened with Forest Renewal B.C. I have no confidence that this government is able to provide conservation and job protection with the new Crown corporation called Fisheries Renewal B.C.

Every year we've seen increased fees, and this year is no exception: health, ambulance, chiropractic, podiatry, massage therapy, naturopathy. My colleague from the North Shore talked about how this will affect women, particularly senior women, and she's absolutely correct. There are Vital Statistics name-change fees. Probate fees have more than doubled. Angling fees have more than doubled. There are B.C. Ferries fees, and there are others here: certain consumer service fee hikes, which include motor dealers; a surcharge on provincial fines; increasing fees to supply survey plans; increase in safety inspection fees for elevators, electrical and gas installation; increase in fees for motor vehicles; increased highways access fees; liquor price hikes of 2 percent; child adoption fees, and on and on and on. And there are more.

So what should British Columbians believe, hon. Speaker? Should the people of British Columbia believe government promises? This is the sixth straight NDP deficit budget, and page 25 of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations' "Budget '97 Reports" clearly sets out the state of financial affairs in this province. The consolidated revenue fund shows a deficit for '97-98 of $185 million. But the summary financial statements show a deficit of $886 million; this is the addition of the consolidated revenue fund and government organizations and enterprises total debt. So what they've managed to move off the books of the consolidated revenue fund is going to total $886 million in '97-98, up from $24 million in '96-97. The budget means higher taxes and higher debt, and a possible downgrade of our credit rating.

[11:15]

Let's look at what the government talks about in protecting health care and education. That's all we hear: "Government is going to protect health care and education." Well, in fact, are they doing this? The answer is no.

If we look at what is happening in education, the Minister of Education likes to say that he is increasing funding for education this year by 1 percent, or $34 million, and he is. He has given another $34 million to education. But is this protecting education? I suggest that it's not, because it means $43 less per student in public education today, and that's an average of all of the districts around the province. The reason is that 90 to 93 percent of costs in the public education system are wages and benefits, and every year there are contractual obligations in those contracts. There are also increases in WCB, freedom of information, unemployment insurance, and health benefits, in addition to inflation. The 1 percent that the Minister of Education has added to education funding simply isn't going to cover any of these additional costs.

The fact that the minister is also looking at clawing back $27 million from the boards further places the boards in an untenable position. So the fact that parents and teachers and students and trustees around the province are saying, in fact, that this government is not protecting education is absolutely correct.

Health care, hon. Speaker, is exactly the same. There are fewer acute care beds, long waiting lists for surgery, increased distances to travel for health services for the people in the north and shorter hospital stays in many of our hospitals, which can be extremely dangerous. I know all members have examples of constituents that have phoned their offices to tell them about a horror story that has happened to them or to one of their friends or to one of their family members in hospitals around the province today.

Those are just two issues, two areas where the government has said that protecting health care and education is their top priority, when in fact that is not happening around the province. And members opposite know that.

What are some of the other issues for this government and their track record in running this province? For photo radar, there's a $26 million overrun. And there's expanded gambling, where some government members said: "No way, we don't want it. We won't take it. We won't accept it. It shouldn't be in British Columbia." And now they're saying: "If you want a casino, here it is. It's yours; step right up. Just ask for it, you'll get it."

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The member opposite said it's not that easy. Well, before the House convened, and some time ago, government members did say it wasn't that easy. And a lot of government members said they wouldn't accept a casino. But that's not what they're saying now. Every single member opposite has agreed with this government that there will be casinos. Every single one of them voted for a casino -- every single one.

No-fault insurance hasn't passed the lips of one government member in this House since the session began, yet ICBC management says they are implementing this.

Hospital amalgamation. There have been hostile takeovers of local hospital boards. It's completely undemocratic and a complete loss of local autonomy.

Courthouse closures. It's the same thing: arbitrary decisions by government with no consultation in the affected communities -- absolutely none. Downloading at its finest, hon. Speaker.

We've lost our access to justice. We've increased the cost to municipalities. We've increased police costs, and not one policeman out of the 100 police officers that the Attorney General talked about hiring to protect citizens has come to

[ Page 2356 ]

pass -- not one. All the talk about changes to the justice system and making communities safer hasn't happened -- just the opposite, exactly the opposite.

B.C.'s increase in the unemployment rate was the largest in the country: 12,800 jobs lost in February alone. Fifteen percent of young people from 15 to 24 were unemployed in February, and 8,500 jobs were lost in the forest sector in 1996, 21,000 in the first three months of 1997 alone. B.C. exports have fallen in Asia and Western Europe. And Alberta attracts 27 percent more investment than British Columbia's 6.6 percent -- a huge difference, hon. Speaker.

The Premier's Youth Works program promised 3,500 jobs for youth. How many were found? There were 267 out of a promised 3,500. So much for jobs and small business.

The government says that it is the engine that creates jobs. What has happened? Since 1991, taxes on small business have increased in British Columbia by approximately $2 billion. Since 1991 there have been over 800 fee increases in licences and permits for business in British Columbia. Since 1991, the expansion of regulations has added an additional $2 billion to the cost of doing business in British Columbia.

This year the government cut all the funding to local chambers of commerce for business information centres. And they had cut the funding for downtown revitalization projects, until they realized that the biggest bang for their buck with downtown revitalization dollars was, in fact, desirable. A lot of the communities around this province benefit tremendously from that small amount of money that goes into downtown revitalization, and it is a worthwhile program. It's good that the government brought this back, and I applaud the government for bringing back downtown revitalization grants.

All of the Ministry of Small Business programs are gone, and the businesswomen's advocate is gone.

This government will not agree. . .and doesn't seem to be able to work out interprovincial trade barriers. There are a number of interprovincial trade barriers that limit work and economic development in this province. I know the government knows that, yet they seem to be incapable of coming to any agreements with other provinces on portability of workers able to work in other provinces and in British Columbia.

A typical manufacturing company in British Columbia that imports some components must file 34 different forms with nine different agencies and three levels of government. People talk about regulation. That's one of the issues that government needs to address: regulation and red tape. It affects all of the economic development in this province and all of the government services, as well.

Government policies and legislation are killing jobs and economic development in this province, and a fine example of that is the Forest Practices Code. All members of the House agree with and support environmental protection in this province -- all members do -- but there comes a time when you have to look at some of the rules and regulations that this government has put in place and ask yourself whether, in fact, we are improving or impeding the situation.

There has been a recent study that shows that the cost of B.C. logs has soared 75 percent in four years. They talk about the cost of log delivery to a B.C. sawmill, which has jumped this 75 percent, and they're saying that it is because of increased government-mandated costs. One of those costs they separate out is the Forest Practices Code. When a number of us from the opposition went around northern British Columbia and talked to communities, one of the issues that came through loud and clear from all of the communities was the difficulty that the forestry-dependent towns are having with getting their permits on time and making sure that the regulations and the red tape do not impede their ability to make sure that their projects proceed. This study simply verifies what all of those people were telling us. I hope the government is listening, because this has been a huge cost to industry in this province, particularly forestry and mining.

But the broader question is: why should we believe this budget? Why should we in the opposition, or the people of British Columbia, believe anything this government says? The numbers don't add up. This is an if-cum-maybe budget. If the Crown corporations' sale of assets and payment of dividends happens, maybe the budget will balance. If the photo radar mess is straightened out, maybe we'll get the increased revenue the government talks about. If fees, licences and permits increase, maybe that funding will be there. If expanded gambling raises $50 million, maybe they can balance the budget. If off-loading road and police costs to municipalities removes enough expense from the government's consolidated revenue fund, maybe. . . . If increased property taxes, through asset reassessment affecting forest industry and tourism, is implemented, maybe. . . .

But what all of this means is higher debt and higher taxes. This government says one thing and it does another. And this government has embarked on a massive tax grab by raising product taxes, permits, fees and licences, and the debt will still increase by $1.4 billion this year alone. I have no confidence in the budget or this government, and neither do my constituents or the rest of the people of British Columbia. I think as the days go by, more information will prove that this budget, the Minister of Finance and the government have no credibility whatsoever.

G. Brewin: I request permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature eight women from the Saanich Newcomers Club, many of whom live in Victoria-Beacon Hill, including the person who is the coordinator, Janet Komars. I would like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I rise today with a great deal of pride to take my place in the debate and support this budget, a budget brought about by this government and our Minister of Finance. I would maybe make a short comment to the last speaker who I think alluded to nothing changing. It really hasn't changed very much in the past six years, with the New Democratic government bringing about good social and financial policies, support for jobs, support for health care and education, support for local communities, and the Liberal opposition complaining about it.

[11:30]

If we listen to the speeches from the opposite side of the House, hon. Speaker, for the most part they are all crafted in

[ Page 2357 ]

the same way. The first half of the speech complains about expenditures; the second half of the speech complains about not spending enough, whether it be support for the business info centres -- you know, the bastions of free enterprise, the chambers of commerce, and how these info centres are funded. . . . I guess free enterprise only works in the Liberal mind if government funds it. I find it kind of interesting, when the main themes of our budget are support for health care and education, creating jobs and cutting spending. When we look at how that relates to my local community, I think it's a marvellous relationship that we have. I think I'll spend a few moments talking about the communities of Mission, Agassiz and East Maple Ridge, in the constituency of Mission-Kent.

When we look at the community of Mission, with approximately 30,000 residents, it's maybe a microcosm of the entire province and of how we have learned to get things done in Mission. Hon. members, I ask you to listen, because this is a model that you should take across the entire province. It began a number of years ago when this government brought down a budget that supported education; we were going to build schools and support post-secondary education when we opened up spaces. We had announced a project in Mission at that time known as the Joint Project, and some folks wanted to call it "Heritage High," but it cut too close to the quick for some of the cash crops that are grown in the East Maple Ridge area. So we stuck with Heritage Park Centre as the name for this project.

The reason it should be a model for the rest of the province to look at is because of the cooperative nature of the community and the support the community put behind this particular project, with the Education ministry, K to 12, funding our new high school and the ministry at that time -- Skills, Training and Labour -- funding a new campus for the University College of the Fraser Valley. As well, the community wanted a performing arts theatre, and it was having a difficult time raising funds for it. Some of the forestry families in Mission got together -- the Clarke family and the Braiches -- and then the Fraser Valley Credit Union. Between them, they came forward with close to $1 million in private funding to build the theatre, provided that K to 12 and post-secondary education would fund the outside and include this in their whole design structure.

I'm really pleased to note, hon. Speaker, that this past year Heritage Park Centre opened, and the Clarke Foundation Theatre has had performances playing to sold-out audiences in there -- everyone from our local, internationally known artists. . . . Francis Xavier, Paul Janz and Kenny Hess have all played in there. They're all performers from Mission, and we're very proud of our local communities.

We talk about support for education. I notice my colleague from Surrey-Green Timbers had quite a long list of schools that were built and constructed in and around her constituency and on the borders, and I guess in the opposition member's constituencies, as well. Prior to this budget being drafted, I met with the new superintendent and the chair of the school board to find out what capital projects they had up and what we'd be looking at within this new budget. They told me that they've got some planning stuff happening around a school and a bit of renovation. But, in fact, the community has been very well served -- like all communities in British Columbia -- by school construction. They recognize that that school construction is debt, but the way they put it to me is that debt has had our local school district, district 75, virtually portable-free. As a fast-growing district, I think that's wonderful to talk about, hon. members.

We look at some of the other initiatives that have happened around my community and why they should be a model for the rest of the province. The most recent announcement was an expanded highway project, a $4.5 million highway interchange to service the new shopping centre which will be built in Mission, which will create hundreds of new jobs -- not counting the hundreds of person-years of work in the construction of a $30 million shopping centre. But what makes it unique is that it's a three-way partnership that's funding this highway construction. You have the local government; I refer to them as the government of Mission. Nobody seems to quite understand that they are a government. Our local community government, under the direction of Mayor Hawes and the council, partnered up with the provincial government and Schroeder Properties to fund this $4.5 million highway interchange, in a similar manner to the way the highway improvement was funded in Abbotsford to service the new Costco store two years ago.

These are initiatives we speak about in our budget, where we find it's necessary to participate in infrastructure partnerships and to stride forward in a cooperative, innovative manner to create jobs and to support local communities and local economies. This happens in every corner of my community. I'm proud and pleased that it's reflected in the theme of this budget on how to cooperate and why we should cooperate.

One of the most significant adventures, I guess, that we embarked on in the last couple of years in our area is still the West Coast Express. There again, the West Coast Express came to Mission because our local community said they wanted it and were willing to pay for it. The downtown business community and the district of Mission funded the overpass that connects the parking lot with the train station. As a quid pro quo, the parking lot also services the downtown core of Mission, which is very tight for parking.

We look at the spinoff benefits of the West Coast Express. Construction in Mission was relatively stagnated for a number of years, except for home construction. Within a year of the train's opening, we had a brand-new motel under construction. We will have good-quality accommodation for folks who come to Mission as tourists, or for when they come on business or to participate at the racetrack or at many of the other sporting events that happen around Mission. We have the second shopping centre now under construction. A third brand-new shopping centre will be started as soon as the highway bypass which I just spoke about, the highway interchange work, carries on. We have new subdivisions in Mission that are sold out only for folks that want to commute on the train to Vancouver.

So a little bit of expenditure, a little bit of partnership and a little bit of foresight have really served my community very well. Again, I like to think that over that past six years we've

[ Page 2358 ]

led the way in cooperative relationships between different levels of government and private partnerships in order to fulfil our commitment to represent our communities. I like to think I do that very well.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: The Speaker is saying I can't call myself by my name. I'll accept that.

But, as a matter of fact, the headline in the local paper out of Chilliwack said that I had abandoned my constituents. It caused me a great deal of consternation. I was cut to the quick and hurt to the core. My soul bled and my heart wrenched from my body until I read it again. And I thought: "Heavens above, I don't represent Chilliwack. Have I done such a good job in the Fraser Valley over the past six years that this editorialist in Chilliwack thinks I have abandoned my constituents?" I had to phone the editor and check whether or not he was up on British Columbia geography and election boundaries. Then I had to inform him that, in fact, they had elected a Liberal member in Chilliwack in the last election. And he said: "Well, maybe that's where we went wrong. We wanted you to represent us so badly, and we're sorry we criticized you. We recognize you're not our MLA, but we knew if we wanted something done up here, we had to come to you."

The same thing has happened, hon. Speaker, whether it be Chilliwack or Abbotsford or Matsqui; or whether it was lobbying to build the Clearbrook technology centre a couple of years ago in Clearbrook, where the members opposite just forgot to bring to the minister's attention that this was important; or whether it was working with the university college to fund the first new permanent campus in Chilliwack, or the expansion in Abbotsford of the facilities and the building of the new library. That's work I'm proud to have done in that region, and I do it without fanfare, without threats of lawsuits and without protests on the street corners, because those facilities also serve my community.

In my presentation today, when we talked in the budget about infrastructure and cooperation and paying attention to our communities and how important that is, I ask the members opposite -- the member for Abbotsford and the member for Matsqui -- to work with me to find a way that we can serve their constituents with the very good service of the West Coast Express. We can do it in a number of ways. We could get cooperation from Abbotsford council to service the trains with the buses. They're very aggressive in bringing on community buses, but their scheduling doesn't fit the trains. Or we could work with the initiative and proposal from West Coast Express and explore the possibility of bringing a train across the river on the existing bridge with the existing tracks and begin a service in downtown Abbotsford.

So far there's nothing but silence from those members on this initiative, and no criticisms of council when they say they don't want Mission's train over there. I'd ask those folks to drop the party flag and do some actual work in a cooperative, sensible manner on behalf of their constituents. Let's see if we can take a run at the transportation shortfalls in the Fraser Valley. Let's get more folks on the train. Let's take another 6,000 cars out of the system. Let's cut down on the air pollution and improve the air quality for our whole region out there. This is one way we can do it, and I pledge in my address on the budget to work with those members to make this a reality.

You know, we have many themes. I've probably lost one of them here, but I'll find it in a minute.

The support for education is unprecedented. We talk about a tuition freeze. I think it's also important to note how that works in conjunction with the initiatives that this government brought forward in post-secondary education a couple of years ago, when we brought about six local university colleges with degree-granting status, and how important that is to students in British Columbia. They can get their degrees and further their education without the big trek to a distant region. It's a burden to try and travel from the Fraser Valley into UBC or SFU or UNBC. But it's not a burden to go to some of the new spaces at one of the new campuses of the University College of the Fraser Valley -- whether it be Mission, Abbotsford or Chilliwack -- and pursue your education there, get your basic degree and take your rightful place as a fully trained worker in our community. That's what's very, very important.

While I have a few short minutes left here, hon. Speaker, I'd like to talk about some of the other initiatives that are contained in this budget. One of them that I'm especially proud of. . . . At the same time, I'm extremely disappointed in the members opposite. I have heard no words of encouragement on this initiative, no words of support, no thank-yous, no "well dones," no "let's go get it and do it a little bit better." I'm talking about child poverty.

The members opposite should know -- I doubt that they do know, but they should -- that British Columbia leads the fight in Canada against child poverty. We began this in July of 1996 when, under the B.C. Benefits initiative, we established the B.C. family bonus structure, where we have passed up to $103 per child per month through to 200.000 low- and modest-income families in British Columbia. We've taken this initiative and approached the national table, and it is now accepted as the model in Canada to fight child poverty. This B.C. family bonus program, much like medicare in the 1960s, is a landmark social policy. We had our program looked at by an individual, Michael Mendelson. His study of our B.C. family bonus says that we have closed the poverty gap by close to 20 percent. We brought this forward to the federal stage. We thought we had a commitment from the federal Liberals for an ongoing, permanent funding formula to fight child poverty in Canada, and the federal Liberals -- as all Liberals do -- promised they might do something about this in 1998. But they didn't address it in this current budget, and I find that a disappointment. If time permits and leave is allowed, I will be attending the national stage again in a couple of weeks to address this issue.

[11:45]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: At the same time, the hon. member for Langley says I better read it again. The 1998 budget says that the Liberal promise for $600 million has to survive two more budgets: one post-election and one in the next fiscal year. The Liberal promise of the national child care benefit in this last budget, $130 million. . . . The HRDC minister, Pettigrew, proudly said that that's been referred back to general revenue, as it wasn't taken up by any province but British Columbia. So

[ Page 2359 ]

I did read it, hon. member; I read it very well. I understand it very well, because I was there. I led the negotiations on behalf of British Columbians to establish a national program, modelled and based on our British Columbia program that comes under B.C. Benefits.

As of January 1997 there were 7,000 fewer families on welfare, compared with July 1996. In those families, there were 13,500 children whose parents have now made the move from welfare to work. We know they made that move, because we supported those children when the families moved from income assistance to work. We supported them with up to $103 per month per child. If you do the simple arithmetic on that -- you have one child and you fit in that category -- it's $1,236 a year in support, plus eyeglasses, plus dental. That's significant. That's a milestone in this country, and it's the first movement we've had in this country to eradicate child poverty. We won't rest and we won't relax until we've accomplished those goals right across Canada in every province and territory, led by British Columbia, not supported by the opposition in British Columbia.

We look at some of the other initiatives under B.C. Benefits: Youth Works. Yes, this member actually met with the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. Don't tell my colleagues, but I did. I was out touring workplace training sites and sponsored worksites, and I met the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. During that meeting they had a little presentation from the skills training officer that's involved with Youth Works. He tells me that there's less than a hundred Youth Works cases left in the Richmond caseload. The program is working. Youth are going to work in record numbers in British Columbia. Youth are going into training in record numbers in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: I like it when the members opposite throw up a bit of a heckle that allows me to bat one back. I never played tennis at all, but I can sure return this one to the hon. member for Langley. She talks about hamburger flippers and McJobs at the same time as she supports a low-wage policy in this province. That opposition across from me would demean individuals, by saying they're not even worth $7 an hour and by opposing our minimum wage increases in British Columbia. They all say that a minimum wage. . . . Half of that caucus over there says that a minimum wage at any level, any prescribed minimum wage, is a deterrent to job creation. Then they stand up and cry alligator tears about McJobs.

I'll tell you what a beginning job is, hon. member. A beginning job is just that: you move into the workforce; you take your place in the workforce; you earn a bit of money; and then you move on and take another place in the workforce. The most important aspect of getting your second job is having the first one. And if it happens to be hamburger-flipping, what's wrong with that? Don't you go out to eat, hon. member? Don't the hon. members opposite go out to eat anywhere, and aren't you served by these folks? Well, I do.

Some of the other aids that we have within this B.C. Benefits package to help the transition to work is a $150-a-month transition-to-work benefit for up to one year for families with children and disabled recipients moving from income assistance into the workforce. This benefit helps cover the costs of additional transportation and child care. Single parents who move into a full-time job are eligible for the same medical and dental benefits which they received on income assistance for themselves and their children for one full year. In addition, income assistance recipients who must move their households to another city for a confirmed job are entitled to assistance with moving expenses. There is also a work clothing allowance for income assistance recipients with confirmed employment. There is also a $200-a-year, one-time-only work entry allowance which all income assistance recipients are entitled to. Those are some of the structures we've built into our system to support individuals that move into the workforce.

I'm very pleased and proud to be part of a ministry and part of a government that has taken this attitude towards supporting folks as they go into the workforce, as opposed to the attitudes of others. During the last election, the members opposite said that their answer to the welfare system was to cut the whole business by about $500 million, cut the benefits for anybody that's employable by about $30-plus per month. No protections for anybody, no incentives, no supports -- just cut, cut, cut.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's rather interesting, hon. Speaker. The member opposite keeps saying, "No, no, no," but I happen to have one of their documents. I think it was one of these secret documents that came to me called the Liberal election platform, which says: "We'll cut everything, because we helped Mike Harris, and we'd like to help Mike Harris out here."

Our B.C. Benefits program is working. Our B.C. Benefits program has seen our caseload drop by more than 28,000. It's the largest drop in caseload in 20 years, a 9.2 percent drop. And we've done that without wholesale cuts to rates, without slashing, without discrediting individuals. We've done it with respect.

I've spoken about my community and my ministry and how this budget supports my community, and about all the initiatives that are important to us -- whether they be education or supporting the integrity of health care funding with increases to reduce waiting lists -- and how they address the priorities of my constituents, whether it's the establishment of washrooms on the beach in Harrison Hot Springs. . . . As a matter of fact, it's a very important community initiative, given that Harrison is a home to the world sand sculpture championships. It was a burden to that community not to have sanitary facilities for the tens of thousands of tourists that come to that community every year. Well, we've provided for that, through a partnership structure of the B.C. 21 program.

[ Page 2360 ]

In Agassiz we look at the downtown revitalization that took place, the rebuilding of Pioneer Park. And I look at the next initiative that I'm working on in my community: the replacement of Whonnock Elementary School, not too far down far the road from me, a school that my children both went to.

So as I said earlier, hon. Speaker, I rise to support this budget. I rise with that support, recognizing that this budget addresses the priorities that are my priorities and those within my community.

With that, I move adjournment of debate.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

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