The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

V. Anderson: I ask the House to join me in welcoming one of our former members, Art Cowie. We used to travel a great deal, and he lives next door.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the House today, and during the course of deliberations this morning, are some members of my constituency, and I'm pleased to introduce them to the House this morning. Jamie Sarvie, John Perry, David Howe and David Jones are all members of the Garth Homer Centre in Victoria. Accompanying them today are some staff members from the Garth Homer Centre, Alison Galloway and Gerrard McClellan. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

M. de Jong: Terry McSpadden is a member of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. He hails from Abbotsford and is a constituent of mine. I'm pleased to have him here in the precincts today, and I hope the House will make him welcome.

The Speaker: Before calling the Clerk for orders of the day, I want to issue a very brief statement.

Yesterday, before third reading of the Job Protection Amendment Act, 1997, the House Leader of the official opposition rose on a point of order, requesting the Chair to rule the bill out of order on the grounds that section 4 made reference to the revised statutes of British Columbia, 1996, which would not come into effect until April 21. At the time, I indicated to the member that I was not prepared to rule the bill out of order and would proceed to third reading, pending provision of a legal opinion for the benefit of the members.

From time to time the statutes of British Columbia are revised so that amendments which have occurred from year to year are incorporated into the general body of statute law. Recent revisions have included 1948, 1968 and 1979. Revisions are governed by the Statute Revision Act, SBC, 1992, c. 54, and the revision of 1996 was prepared pursuant to the terms of that act.

In February of 1997 the chief legislative counsel deposited with the Clerk of the House the 15-volume set of revised statutes, which were then presented to a committee of this House for approval. The committee recommended approval of the revised statutes of 1996 to the Lieutenant-Governor on February 28, and the Lieutenant-Governor signified his approval on March 4, as appears by the certification in the volumes presented to the Clerk of the House. Subsequently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council passed an order bringing the revised statutes of 1996 into effect on April 21, 1997.

The revised statutes of 1996 are, in effect, a snapshot of the law as it existed on December 31, 1996. For the sake of certainty and in accordance with the act, the revision comes into effect on the date established in the order-in-council. All of the events leading up to the revision coming into effect have taken place. Accordingly, the appropriate method of drafting would be to refer to the revision rather than to the previous reference which, 11 days from now, will no longer be valid.

Section 1 of the bill enacts an amendment to the Job Protection Act, SBC, 1991, c. 4. Section 4 enacts the same amendment to the revised statutes of 1996 to bring them into step on April 21, 1997.

The form of the bill is not unusual, and a check of the House records will indicate that on previous occasions the House has entertained bills modifying acts or portions of acts not yet in effect, as, for administrative convenience, the effective date is often set by order-in-council. For the foregoing reason, it is my opinion that the bill is not out of order.

I thank the member, however, for raising the matter. I think it's a valid question.

What about the people? What about Mr. and Mrs. Rempel who reside in Abbotsford in the constituency of Matsqui? How will this budget affect their lives? As I engage in that thought process, I can't help but think that this is a government that believes that if you say something enough times, if you repeat it over and over again, it might be true.

Interjection.

[10:15]

M. de Jong: The member for Skeena, I'm sure, repeated over and over again: "It's a balanced budget in 1996. It's a balanced budget. It's balanced, it's balanced, it's balanced." I know that he repeated over and over again: "The government told the truth. The government told the truth." I know he repeated that over and over again, because he thinks that if he repeats it enough times, somehow it might be true. It's no more accurate than for the minister to say the sky is green. It just doesn't equate.

An Hon. Member: You were better when you were sleep-deprived.

M. de Jong: The member for Skeena, who we have already surmised -- based on his acute understanding of accounting principles -- is destined to become the next Finance minister, deigns to make light of a topic that I take very seriously.

We hear from minister after minister and from member after member about this government's commitment to educa-

[ Page 2418 ]

tion. This government rates education at the top of the order. That's what it's all about. The Education minister talks about the millions of dollars he's spending. But what we never hear about from the Minister of Education or from members on the government side is how those dollars are having an impact on students and families across the province. They justify that preoccupation with education spending. The more honest amongst members of the NDP will say: "Look, we can't balance the budget; we can't control the finances; patronage may be out of control. As NDPers we acknowledge all of that, but, by God, look at our commitment to education. It's all justified on that basis."

"Dear Mr. [Minister]:

"On behalf of public school students in the lower mainland, we urge you to stop telling the public that the provincial budget will protect classroom services. This statement simply is not true."

Those aren't my words. Those are 14 school districts in the Fraser Valley. They continue: "How can it be a true statement? Districts are being asked to absorb a cut of $27 million, and the per-pupil allocation is reduced." The funding that has been allocated "does not even cover the cost of the new students we expect in our schools next September, let alone a host of other cost increases that we cannot avoid." Then they really get to the crux of the matter: "There is nothing left to cut that does not affect the classroom."

We never hear that from that side of the House. "No, no. We are a government," they say, "that is committed, above all else, to education." And the people delivering that service -- the people responsible for ensuring that the children of British Columbia receive an education that will entitle them and allow them to compete effectively, not just with other students in Canada but with people around the world -- say: "It just ain't so." I thought that I would hear from at least one member of the NDP -- one member of the government caucus -- who would lift the veil, lift away the charade that this government has created around this issue. But they haven't.

In Abbotsford, the school district is facing a cut of $700,000 to $800,000. The actual per-student funding in Abbotsford will drop by $43 a student. You don't hear about that from members on the government side, and it escapes me how that can possibly be construed as being consistent with the notion of an ongoing commitment to education. It just isn't the case.

Members on the government side can hide their heads in the sand if they wish, but it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that students in Abbotsford and in many other communities around the province are going to be a lot worse off as a result of this budget, not better off. And there is no getting around that.

The Rempels have another child. That child graduated from. . . . Well, Mr. Speaker, I see you're red-lighting me just as I get to the really great part of my speech.

The Speaker: I'm sure every member will join me in extending our considerable sympathy to you for that; however, the fact remains, member, that your allotted time has expired. I will give you a sentence to wrap up, and I emphasize a sentence. Member, the clock is ticking.

M. de Jong: Grammar was never my strong suit, Mr. Speaker, but in one sentence, let me say this: a budget is about telling the facts to the people whose money this government is expending; that hasn't been done by this government and it should be, and they should be ashamed for not having done that.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I actually think you should have given the member as long as he wished, because the folks at home probably would need to see that if you'd given him an hour it actually would have come out the same; because nothing comes to nothing, no matter how many times you multiply it or how many minutes it is.

What you've got there is a guy who's talking about a little picture telling stories -- true stories, probably -- about real people in order to hide the fact that if the hon. member expands his mind and talks about the larger picture and what his party believes in and what his budget might have looked like, there'd have been nothing to say.

It's like if I took the hon. member for a walk in the woods where I live, he wouldn't see the forest for the trees, because you have to be able to see. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I know that we're all feeling enthusiastic this morning. It's early in the day, but I would ask a little more courtesy to be extended to the member, please. I believe that we had relative silence for the member for Matsqui. Could we do the same?

Hon. C. Evans: It's actually okay. I consider it an honour that they're still here listening at all.

I rise in my place to talk about the budget of 1997, because I think folks who have never visited or never worked here before probably think it's pretty dry -- it's about numbers. Actually, a budget is about what you believe in, who you are and where you think you're going. The debate is incredibly important. It's important to hear what the member for Matsqui has to say, because the criticism of the budget is about who they are. That's the way society works and grows: you criticize one another in order to find direction.

I had an opportunity last week to see the right-wing forest, to see what the Liberals believe in, in its totality, to get past the trees they're putting up in front of our faces here. I visited Ontario. As everybody knows, the B.C. Liberal Party supported the party that won: the Conservatives. In Ontario it's cold, and I'm not talking about the weather. In Ontario I got to see how a society runs when the ideological right actually takes control and can deliver their dream.

I went to a play, not put on by ideologues or politicians, but by high school kids, and in part of the play they talked about their future in Ontario. They mentioned that if you wanted a job and you were 19 years old in Ontario, the word on the street is "Move to British Columbia," because the same kind of race-to-the-bottom point of view that the Liberals campaigned on here in British Columbia won in Ontario: basically, the tax cut to the rich and the ending of Canada as we used to know it.

That Canada -- the Canada we all grew up in -- was a 50-50 deal. Fifty percent of your education, your health care and your social services was paid for by your province and 50 percent by the federal government. What happened to that? We all remember what happened to that. Mulroney won in Ottawa. Vander Zalm, who started out as a Liberal, was sitting in this building. Mulroney said: "In British Columbia, Ontario

[ Page 2419 ]

and Alberta, we'll cut the federal 50 percent." And Vander Zalm said: "Hallelujah! Cut us harder." It's exactly like the Ontario Conservatives of today.

Between '91 and '95, how did we deal with it? In those years, British Columbia was able to hedge against that loss by the fact that our commodity prices were high. We were experiencing rapid urban growth, and in the countryside the price of what we sell was at the peak of the market. I think pulp was $700 a tonne, lumber got to $500 a thousand, and we survived in spite of the abandonment of the federal government.

When this government was re-elected, it came into this House last year. . . .

R. Neufeld: Unfortunately for British Columbians.

Hon. C. Evans: Some of the urban members. . . . Maybe the member for Matsqui doesn't understand it, but actually the economy of British Columbia is fuelled by commodities. The price of pulp began to dive last year. We had the worst prices for salmon that we've had in decades.

The hon. member from the Peace knows that we put tens of millions of dollars. . . . We probably had the best crop of wheat, at the highest price we've had in years. That crop stayed in the fields because of the weather, and we lost millions of dollars in grain. Because of deregulation and the like, the value of electricity has plummeted to less than the cost of building new capacity. So what do you do in a capitalist society when the commodity prices are low and you're in the bottom of the cycle?

Keynes would say. . . . Remember Keynes? You all studied Keynes in college. Keynes and Galbraith -- and even my dad -- would say: "Prime the pump." That's what you do in the bottom of the cycle. But Keynes lived a long time ago. He lived before the invention of the computer and the ability of multinational capital to move its money around the world in a hundredth of a second, and the rules have changed. This government governs in a time when the entire U.S. debt of $1.5 trillion changes hands every eight days as the rich buy and sell one another and whole countries.

[10:30]

Keynes didn't have to deal with the NAFTA, with the other half of the right-wing dream, where it is now against the law for me as Fisheries minister. . . . It's against some kind of world law for us in British Columbia to respond to the times by passing a law that even says you have to process British Columbia fish in B.C. In modern times we can't even pass a law that says you have to process logs in British Columbia.

Never mind the member for Matsqui's stories about his community; I'm sure they're true. But the global picture is that times have changed, and require a creativity and responses that none of us -- and none of our elders or teachers or parents -- had thought of before.

What's the response from the other side? What is their response to the changing times? They see the pendulum move and the people in trouble, and they want to shove the pendulum. Their response you can read on the streets of Ontario. You can see what happens if the Liberal agenda takes place: cut the taxes on the rich; cut the services.

You know what? We could win the next election easily if we changed the postal rules so that we could just mail all the citizens to Ontario for a week before the election, so they could see for themselves the truth of what happens if your agenda -- the budgets you folks might like to see -- hit the ground in British Columbia.

So what's our response? The budget gives you a chance to look at our alternative. For sure, it's cuts and expenditures. Absolutely. In my constituency alone there is no hiding from the fact that the orchard industry was hit hard. Under my administration in our government, there's no hiding from the fact that there are layoffs.

But our budget -- the one we're debating here today -- holds the line on the entitlements of the citizenry. It says: it doesn't matter if you're the kid of a millionaire or a labourer; you will get the same education in British Columbia. It says: it doesn't matter if you're a rich person or a poor person; if you get sick, you can get well in British Columbia.

I would like to submit that this government's agenda will work, for the simple reason that it has always worked. When governments give up on people, people give up on society. But when governments support people and believe in people through the hard times, the people believe in the society and the economy, and the economy gets moving. It has been ever thus in Canada.

Let me give you an example.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Let me give you an example, if I can shout over the noise.

I was in Japan recently, and I met some folks who were looking to build a pet food factory to service the United States market, and we talked about their options. They told me that their hope was to move to Surrey to process pet food to ship into the United States. I asked them how they came to choose Surrey as opposed to a more southern destination -- because I work in this room, and in this room you hear the rhetoric all the time about capital flight: be afraid engage in the race to the bottom.

So why is it that these folks from the other side of the Earth would be coming to Canada -- to Surrey -- to process a product to sell into the United States? They said to me: "Because we actually love British Columbia and we believe in British Columbia. We believe that the future in British Columbia is excellent, and British Columbia and Canada have a humanity that we desire." I tell that story as a bit of a bridge to a discussion about how capitalism really works.

The guy who first described capitalism -- was that Adam Smith? Was that the guy? Yeah? That's right?

An Hon. Member: He more or less invented it, Corky.

Hon. C. Evans: Okay. So this guy who invented it. . . . I remember when I was going to school. They had me read this fellow's analysis, and I think he said that free enterprise was the most efficient way to organize an economy and led to the fastest growth. Would that be true? Is that sort of the gist of what he said?

[ Page 2420 ]

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: But he also cautioned against what he called "corporatism." He said that capitalism without a morality was indefensible. He cautioned against allowing the economy to be controlled by people who perceive their actions through the stocks. He defined a form of capitalism that would work as one that brought a morality to the job, and said that one that wouldn't work -- one that would in fact invoke chaos -- was one where the rate of return was the only analysis that the owner brought to the owner's actions.

Mr. Smith, you see, was a Christian, and he brought his Christianity, some morality, to the question of business, and I think that part has been forgotten by the modern promoters of the ethic. I want to point out that it wasn't just the Christians who used to talk that way. I've got a list of blunders that Mahatma Gandhi used to describe as seven blunders that the world engaged in. The blunders he described are: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principles.

Now, I've sat in here day after day, hon. Speaker. I've been sitting in this chair listening to this debate with a picture of Ontario in my head, because I can see what the alternative budget looks like by going and seeing the lives of the people upon whom it has been visited.

Then I've been listening to the politics without principles that's shouted from the other side -- by hecklers or speechifiers -- and I hear them talk about impoverished kids, and I hear them talk about sick people, and I hear them talk about cutbacks, and I know what they believe in. They believe in commerce without morality and in engaging in the race to the bottom. They believe in giving back the corporation capital tax to invoke some of that world capital without morality here at any cost. They don't say that after you give that back there are only two choices: that you tax the people to look after those impoverished kids, or you let them go.

At some point I want to hear them say what their principles are. For sure, there's politics. Politics without principles sounds to me like a blunder. So what are the principles behind the politics that are coming out of their mouths? They talk about not liking the forest policies of the government. So, which ones? Hey, everybody. Look up, you guys. Don't be staring at your papers. Tell me: which one should we get rid of? Is it the AOX standards you don't like? Is it the parks you don't like? You don't like trying to have the annual allowable cut meet the growth of the land? You have lots of politics, but they are politics without principles. You've got to go to a convention someday, move a motion and decide to vote on it, say what you believe in, and then run on that, because politics without principles leads us straight down the road to Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: They can't say what their principles are, because their criticism doesn't come from policy -- no rock-bottom faith in what they believe in; it comes in response to the polls. I would submit that the opposition's response to this budget is the political equivalent of commerce without morality; it is founded in nothing except what they think the people want to hear. It is just about power.

I don't know if we got this budget just right; I'd love to hear some constructive criticism. Frankly, I usually have a quota of six personal mistakes every day before lunch, and the reason for that is that I get up every day and go do stuff. I get up every day and go work at the things I believe in, and people who do stuff make mistakes. The way a democracy is supposed to work is that the government governs. It comes in with a budget, then there's constructive criticism, and between the criticism and the budget you begin to get it right. That's the way it used to work for the Socreds. They would govern, we would criticize, and the society would go forward. It's the way it used to work for the federal Liberals. They would govern, steal all the ideas from the NDP opposition, and the society would go forward. But in the absence of an opposition, in the absence of an alternative budget, in the absence of any principles from the other side, it gets real hard to steer the ship.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: I want to finish by talking for a minute about jobs. In 1981-82 the ideological right got hold of this province, and I spent the next ten years fighting them on two fronts. The first one was attacking them for smashing up the land. On the second front, I was angry about allowing the companies to eliminate workers while increasing production all the time. In 1991 we became the government, and I'd like to submit. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm going to interrupt the member. Look, members, as we all know, heckling is a valid and honourable tradition, and it certainly has its place. We're not witnessing that, though. What we're witnessing here is a constant shouting down of the member who is speaking. That's not allowed; it's not allowed on either side of this House. It doesn't do anything for parliament. It certainly doesn't do anything for the quality of debate in this chamber. I offer that caution to members. Please don't yell. Don't make loud noises that simply make it impossible for the member to be heard. That's not fair. It's not permissible.

Hon. C. Evans: I don't have any trouble with heckling. I would like to submit that the reason why this has turned into a barrage, rather than humour or something, is because it isn't very pleasant to sit over there and have somebody talk about the alternative from their side. Shouting back is a logical response, I guess. When we were eight years old some of us learned that it didn't go over very well. Other people have to come and work here before they figure it out.

I was saying that between 1991 and 1995-96, this government turned its attention to trying to bring some healing and some peace to the land. I believe that we brought some resolution to that issue through the Forest Practices Code, through the Premier's intervention in salmon, through bringing some sanity to the allowable cut and through the parks initiative.

Now it is time for this government to get on to our criticism number two: to get on to the issue of the need for the people's resources -- be they the oceans, the rivers, the timber or the ore -- to be used by those who come to work here to make jobs for the people. That is, after all, the deal. We are not all residents of West Vancouver. Lots of folks live out there where the rivers and the timber and the salmon are the point. They aren't an idea or an issue, something to talk about and read in the newspaper; they are the point.

Technological change has driven the agenda, and globalism -- the global economy -- and the NAFTA have been

[ Page 2421 ]

the responses of governments to technological change. Here in British Columbia we need to literally invent a different alternative, one that says: "We want you to work here and to invest here, but the price of coming to work on our beautiful and bountiful Earth is that you employ the people who live there. If you can't do that, take your money to the bottom somewhere else. Invest it in Ontario or Indonesia or Brazil or China, if all you want is to take the money out. Come to British Columbia if you want to work with us to employ the people, to support their families and to make this province strong." I believe that is what this budget is about: beginning. That is the objective to which I would like to devote the next four years of my life.

[10:45]

B. Goodacre: The budget that we brought down speaks to a regional job strategy. This brings me to my topic for this morning, which is the jobs and timber accord, and how the jobs and timber accord will work in the part of the province that I come from. Bulkley Valley-Stikine, as we all know, is located in the northwest corner of this province. Fully one-sixth of the province's land mass and four forestry district offices are located in my riding.

What I see with the jobs and timber accord is an opportunity for community vision to find fruition through the types of changes that we know are coming our way. The challenges and the global pressures that the previous speaker brought to our attention are being felt in my riding, just as they are throughout the entire world right now. The kinds of challenges this is bringing to us come in the area of resources, because, as we all know, resources are our bread and butter in the north. We know, in the forest industry in particular -- and this is what the jobs and timber accord is all about -- that we are looking at less cut. But we're also looking at an opportunity, through better stewardship, to create more jobs in that industry through better utilization of the product that we do have. I think we're all very well aware that for too long we have taken a great natural heritage in this province, which is our forests, far too much for granted.

Three of the key components of the jobs and timber accord, as it's going to play out in our particular part of the world, are land use planning, the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. It is going to be through these three agencies or processes, in particular, that we will see community creativity and local solutions come to play in addressing the very real challenges for the future -- a future that, for those who are looking at the full part of the glass rather than the empty part, holds great opportunity for community stability.

The Forest Practices Code was brought in for a very specific purpose, and that was to address one of the very real problems that we're faced with in the forests today: years and years of neglect in terms of forest practices that saw damage to so many fish-bearing streams. In Forest Renewal B.C. we have a thing called the watershed restoration program. We want to ask ourselves why we would call a program watershed restoration, unless we all recognize that, through these years of neglect, the need for remedial action in terms of watershed restoration programs is very, very high on the priority list of our society -- the recognition that the natural systems of the forest can only sustain so much damage before that damage begins to spill over and affect other resource values.

If we're going to talk in terms of sustainable development and in terms of sustainability in the long term -- into the next three or four generations -- we have to realize that sustainability refers to all values in the forest, not simply to the AAC. We've got to learn to realize, in terms of our attitude towards the natural systems out there, that we have a very strong responsibility to ensure that when we are using the products of the land, we leave the land in a state that future generations are not impeded in their efforts to look after themselves.

Which brings me to land use planning. We have, in the last five years in particular, seen much greater emphasis on involving local communities in the land use planning process. We have come to realize that the forest is not simply a fibre farm. The forest is the home of many, many different values. The forest is an ecosystem. We in Bulkley Valley-Stikine have been very fortunate in being leaders in the province, if you would, in terms of locally-driven land use planning processes, in three areas in particular right now: the Bulkley TSA, the Kispiox TSA and now in the Cassiar area -- which has been brought into the Bulkley TSA but is a different geographical region than the Bulkley TSA, which is located near Smithers.

Back in 1990 the process began, to put a resource board together in the Bulkley TSA. That resource board was drawn together not in terms of sectoral interests of people who were using the land base, but in terms of perspectives. They drew up what they called 16 perspectives, and ended up with 12 individuals sitting on a board -- all volunteers, who sat for four years to draw together a land use plan for the Bulkley TSA. There were perspectives: from the industry perspective of taking fibre out for processing, right to the perspective of people who have a sense of spiritual connection with the forest, if you would.

So you can understand that it was an incredibly wide range of perspectives that were sitting at that table. Yet very soon -- within the next three weeks -- in the Bulkley TSA we will be announcing the results of the deliberations of that group over the past few years. I have seen the maps that have come out of that consensus document, and it is truly incredible what local people can do -- given the resources and given the opportunity and the authority to act on their own behalf -- to come up with creative solutions to the concerns that face them in their day-to-day lives.

The Kispiox forest district, as well, had an incredibly controversial section of land within that district. Again, they brought local people together with industry and worked quite hard to come up with a consensus document that would deal with the concerns of that area.

In the Cassiar, which is the northernmost portion of my riding, we have a very, very special circumstance where there isn't, for all intents and purposes, a forestry industry. We're now in the process of having the local people come together and actually plan, from the ground up, exactly how that area is going to be used over the coming years. When a plan is finally put together, it's going to be a consensus document that comes from the people who live there and who have the best idea of how that land base can be put to use for the benefit of all who live there.

Which brings me to the issue in my riding, for example, of first nations. In my riding, first nations play a very crucial role in land use planning, because virtually all of the land in

[ Page 2422 ]

Bulkley Valley-Stikine is currently occupied and used by first nations as their traditional territories. Their hunting and fishing continues to take place, as it has since time immemorial: 5,000 to 10,000 years in the case of most of the people living in my region.

The prime vehicle that our government has brought to bear on dealing with the challenges facing our communities is Forest Renewal B.C. Forest Renewal B.C. is about community. It's about long-range job stability in our communities. It is forest renewal and the return of revenues from our resource industries -- in particular, obviously, from the forest industry -- that allows us the opportunity, as local people and local communities, to address the concerns that face us in terms of the changes we need to make and the changes we want to make in order to make our future secure and our communities secure in the long term.

We must realize that in our communities we have very diverse values, and we have very diverse attitudes about what ought to happen on the land base. It's the protection and recognition of these mutual concerns about the land base and about the forest ecosystems that makes it so important that communities have a very big say in what goes on in the future of our forest industry. Forest Renewal B.C. is about communities and their relationship with the land. It is through initiatives like Forest Renewal B.C. and the jobs and timber accord that we're going to see opportunities for places like Bulkley Valley-Stikine to actually have the opportunity to work within our communities and amongst ourselves to create the kind of world that we can pass on to our children, in full confidence that they're going to thrive and prosper in that part of the world.

G. Plant: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak today on the budget, to address remarks concerning the budget as I see it affecting my community of Richmond-Steveston, in part, and as I see it affecting all British Columbians. I listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture, who spoke earlier this morning about the importance of principles in politics. I subscribe entirely to the belief that principles are a fundamental part of how we should examine and propose government policy and legislation, and how we should look at a budget -- how we should make a budget.

I propose to examine this budget from the perspective of a couple of principles. I can't imagine a principle more important to the operation of government than the principle of integrity, so I'm going to spend a little bit of time looking at that. I also think that there are important principles of fiscal management and government's role in the economy which arise every time we look at a budget, as we are doing here in the House now.

[11:00]

I want to start with a consideration of that important principle of integrity. On March 13, 1997, just a bit less than a month ago, the government issued a press release announcing a youth jobs and training initiative. In that press release, the Premier is quoted as having said: "We cut the size and cost of government. . . ." This is something that the Premier said as part of a promotional strategy to have British Columbians excited about the youth jobs and training initiative that he was putting forward.

There are some things that the Premier could have said in that statement. He could have said: "We would like to cut the size and cost of government." But he didn't say that. He could have said: "We intend to cut the size and cost of government." He didn't say that, either. What he said was pretty plain and I think would be understood by most people who read the press release or heard him say it. He said: "We cut the size and cost of government" -- that is, that's something he and his government had done.

Well, when the Premier said these words, the fact is that neither the size nor the cost of government had been cut. The 1995 actual expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund were $20.148 billion. The 1996-97 revised forecast expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund are $20.6 billion. That's an increase of almost half a billion dollars in the cost of government. So when the Premier said on March 13, 1997, less than a month ago, "We cut the cost of government," he was wrong. Perhaps we could save the other half of his sentence, because he said: "We cut the size and cost of government." Maybe he was right about half of it. Maybe he cut the size of government.

I can't imagine a better way to measure the size of government, if we're distinguishing it from cost, than by counting the number of people who work for government. The 1996-97 budget forecast for the full-time-equivalent utilization -- that is, the number of people working for the government of British Columbia -- was 39,172 people. That's the number of people that we were told a year ago would be working for the government of British Columbia during the year that has just ended, at the end of which the Premier said: "We cut the size of government."

So you would think that on March 13, 1997, when the Premier said, "We cut the size of government," there would be fewer people working for the government of British Columbia than there were a year earlier. Well, unfortunately, the actual FTE utilization for 1996-97 was 40,521. That is an increase, not a decrease, of 1,400 government positions -- an increase in the size of government. So when the Premier said on March 13 that he and his government had cut the size and the cost of government, he was wrong. I would say that the Premier is someone who would be in a position to know whether or not he and his government had in fact cut the size and cost of government. So when the Premier says on March 13 that he has cut the size and cost of government but he has not, I say there's a problem with the integrity of government.

Let's turn to what we're promised for next year. What we get as an exposition of the government's forecast and its vision for next year begins with the budget speech. We heard that budget speech in this House a few weeks ago. The Minister of Finance made some statements in that budget speech that I intend to refer to and to quote, and then to examine to see whether or not they help restore the principle of integrity as I think it ought to apply in government. This is what the Minister of Finance said: "Hon. Speaker, the highlights of the 1997-98 budget are: for the first time in almost 40 years, overall government spending is down -- down by more than $100 million."

I paid attention to what the Minister of Finance said. Think about what he could have said, first of all. He could have said: "For the first time in almost 40 years, consolidated

[ Page 2423 ]

revenue fund expenditures in British Columbia are down." That would have been a slightly more sophisticated statement, but I think it may well, arguably, even have been a correct statement. But this government is not content with a conservative, cautious approach to stating the condition of the province's finances. No, no, no. When you have government by press release, government which calculates its statements on the basis of trying to encourage the people of British Columbia into thinking that it's doing the right thing, we get a government that says: "Overall government spending is down."

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

There's more: $20,000,000 worth of tourism expenditures are now allocated to an agency called Tourism B.C. It's a worthwhile endeavour, but the fact is that we've taken money out of one box and we've put it into another so the government can make a statement that the consolidated revenue fund has been balanced.

There's more of this. Some $100 million in silviculture expenses have been taken out of the Ministry of Forests, where they should belong, and allocated to Forest Renewal B.C., whose programs were never meant to cover the discharge of this kind of expenditure responsibility.

There's even more. If you were to say to the taxpayers of British Columbia, "Overall, spending is down," the taxpayers of British Columbia would be entitled to ask themselves a question: is the tax burden on me up or down? When this government engages in wide scale off-loading of responsibility for the delivery of services onto the municipal taxpayers of British Columbia, the effect is that overall spending is really not down at all.

Take the example of courthouses. What happens is that in communities like my community of Richmond, the cost of operating the provincial court system, which the government used to bear and pay for, has now been off-loaded from the provincial government onto city and municipal taxpayers. They have had the gun put to their heads by this government, which is much more interested in dressing up thin and inexcusably phony policy into press release statements that do little more than simply confuse. The problem is that there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer doesn't understand sideways shuffles. That taxpayer doesn't think that this chamber here ought to be a wriggle room. That taxpayer wants credibility and integrity in the management and the presentation of the province's finances.

I return to the statements made in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. Here's another quotation. He said: "The projected deficit is the smallest [of any year] this decade. . . ." Well, I was here a year ago. I sat in this chamber and listened with interest when the government wasn't projecting a deficit: they were projecting a surplus; they were promising a surplus. In fact, they did it twice. Well, hon. Speaker, I guess they forgot that when they told us two weeks ago that the projected deficit is the smallest of any year in this decade.

I suppose we could forgive their lack of memory if at least there were some validity to the statement they made that the projected deficit is going to be the smallest of any year in this decade. But even that statement is wrong. When I look at page 25 of "Budget '97 Reports," I see -- and other British Columbians who care to look will see -- that the real number for the projected deficit for the year that we're now in is $886 million. It's more than the deficit anticipated for this year. The statement that the projected deficit is the lowest of any year this decade is just plain wrong.

Madam Speaker, I've been thinking about this problem of integrity and principles. And I realize that I've been mistaken in my understanding of this government's political philosophy, because clearly this government's favourite political philosopher is Lewis Carroll. We all remember this famous passage from Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland:

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'

"'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'"

Well, this is a government that thinks it can play with the truth by changing the meaning of words. This is a government that thinks it is master of all. This is a government that thinks it can do anything. This is not a government which is interested in restoring credibility and integrity to the province's finances.

Let me turn now to another subject, about which much was made in the budget speech, where the Minister of Finance said: "Spending for health care and education is up. There's. . .$63 million in new resources for kindergarten to grade 12, and 2,900 new spaces at colleges and universities."

Well, now it's time to play the game we call "spot the truth." Much is made by this government of the promise of 2,900 new spaces at colleges and universities, but we never hear them announce the fact that there is not a single dollar more for post-secondary education funding. It was exactly the same amount last year as it will be this year, and we have a tuition freeze -- and much has been made of this by the members opposite. So there are 2,900 new places in colleges and universities, and not one dollar more to fund them. The real question is: will the quality of post-secondary education in British Columbia rise or fall as a result of the budget measures of this government? I have to say that I have a pretty good idea what the answer to that question is. I think it's going to fall.

When we're talking about the principle of integrity, it's good to read people outside the government, because people outside the government tend to be a little more honest about what the budget means to them. I've got the Simon Fraser News for April 3, 1997, and there's a very interesting article in this about how the operating grant for Simon Fraser University presents good news and bad news. Honesty in the presentation of the government's financial statements would show us that, yes, there hasn't been a cut in post-secondary education funding -- I acknowledge that -- but expenses are rising

[ Page 2424 ]

all the time with the result that sooner or later cuts in services, courses, programs, projects and initiatives in universities across this province are going to take place.

[11:15]

Let's turn to another part of education funding, and that's funding for the K-to-12 sector. The government says: "We're leading the country in providing funding." Well, it may be an interesting statement that there is increased spending for education in the K-to-12 sector. I got my calculator out; it's a 0.6 percent increase in funding. Now I know why we didn't hear that in the budget speech, because that's not a very impressive number. The truth is that it isn't a very impressive number. It's a pretty gosh-darn small number. And the way it works when you actually factor that number out into the school districts of British Columbia is that what looks at first glance like things are getting better, to those who read government press releases and budget speeches, that is not the case. Things are not getting better; they're getting worse.

I will read here from a letter, which I think has been referred to before. It's a letter from school trustees in the lower mainland, including school trustees in my school district in Richmond, addressed to the Minister of Education, in which the authors say this:

"On behalf of public school students in the lower mainland, we urge you to stop telling the public that the provincial budget will protect classroom services. This statement is simply not true. How can it be a true statement? Districts are being asked to absorb a cut of $27 million, and the per-pupil allocation is reduced.

"We recognize the commitment you made in adding $34 million to the budget. However, it does not even cover the cost of new students we expect in our schools next September, let alone a host of other cost increases that we cannot avoid."

So it looks like funding is up. And, yes, funding is up, but the truth is that across British Columbia services are going to decline. So why not be honest with British Columbians? Why not admit that the $62 million wasted on the mismanagement of the photo radar initiative could have been far better spent on health care and education?

It's time for another quote from the Finance minister's budget speech. It's a great speech; there's all kinds of interesting stuff in it. Here's something else he promised: "Additional tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families." A new tax cut. Great. All across British Columbia this government is spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars advertising a new tax cut. Well, I was in this House a year ago when Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1996, was passed. That act, which was passed a year ago, did introduce a modest reduction in personal income taxes. The act became law last summer. Is there a new tax cut? Is there an additional tax cut coming forward this year? No, there isn't. This is just the same tax cut.

This announcement in the budget speech -- a budget speech that should be about the vision this government has for the future -- is just another announcement of the tax relief which was enacted into law last year. Only the NDP would spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars advertising a tax cut which they enacted into law last year. But you know what? I am prepared to forgive the government for this one, because I think I should be grateful. I think we all should be grateful that on this occasion it looks like the government actually intends to obey its law, and that is a relief, I must say.

So let's talk about fiscal management and debt-servicing costs. It's technical stuff, but I think it's pretty important. The president of the Certified General Accountants Association says this about this budget: "The province's total accumulated debt will top the $30 billion mark this year, and [the Finance minister] has still not introduced any credible strategy to rein it under control."

What happens when governments run deficits is that governments have to pay interest on the money that they borrow to finance the accumulated debt and deficit. Last year this government paid $1 billion in debt-servicing costs. This year the government, relying on the goodwill and largesse of the taxpayers of British Columbia, will spend $900 million paying interest on the debt which is accumulating. Imagine what could be done with $900 million if you weren't using it for debt-servicing costs? You could pay the entire cost of the operation of the Ministry of Attorney General, and then some. You could build 200 schools in the province. You could pay for 13 or 14 failed photo radar initiatives with $900 million. Imagine what you could do with $900 million. But because of the way this government manages the finances of British Columbia, we'll just pay it on interest on the debt. That's shameful!

But the greatest shame of all, I think, is the shame of failing to recognize the government's proper role in the economy of the province. Here again I want to quote from the position taken by the CGA Association, where they say this:

"[We are] particularly alarmed about the dramatic decline of corporate and resource sector taxation revenues. On the corporate side, revenue will decline 24 percent. Yet there is nothing in today's budget that shows the government is interested in creating a more positive environment for business in British Columbia."

I didn't say that. That's the accountants speaking, the people who spend every day of their lives learning about how business is working and not working in British Columbia because of the interference of this government. This government thinks it can create jobs by executive fiat. That's wrong; that is the wrong approach toward the creation of jobs in the province.

I want to refer to another authority on budgets, the B.C. Business Council, that has analyzed this budget. In fact, I've heard a couple of members opposite say that the B.C. Business Council thinks this is a great budget. So I went and looked at what they actually said about the budget, and, in fact, they say something quite different:

"The new budget falls short in a number of. . .important areas. First, it fails to outline a coherent strategy to bolster investment and economic growth in the province. After outpacing Canada from 1990 to 1994, economic growth in B.C. has lagged the national average, and business investment has fallen at an alarming rate."

I pause for a moment. I enjoyed the anecdotal stories of the Minister of Agriculture earlier. But sooner or later the question of whether business investment is happening in British Columbia is, in fact, something that you can measure statistically. It's not a question of what people tell you over a glass of sake in a bar in Tokyo. It's a question of adding the numbers of actual business investment in British Columbia. And the actual numbers are expressed by the Business Council in these terms:

[ Page 2425 ]

". . .business investment has fallen at an alarming rate. In addition, population growth has significantly outstripped economic growth during the 1990s. . . .

"Second, there is no recognition in the budget that British Columbia's relative attractiveness as a location for new investment and business expansion continues to erode due to high personal and fixed business taxes, rising costs, a punitive and ever-growing regulatory burden, and an unresponsive and cumbersome provincial bureaucracy. . . .

"We believe" -- says the Business Council -- "the government's assessment of B.C.'s long-term economic position is wrong."

I want to refer to one more quote from this budget speech. This is a quote about someone who is a big favourite of the NDP: that person they call the average British Columbian. This is what the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech -- a speech that should have been about restoring integrity to the province's finances and to this government. He said that these tax cuts and rate freezes will save the average B.C. family more than $500 per year. Well, who is this average British Columbian? I wonder if this average British Columbian lives in my riding. Who would this average British Columbian be? I hope it's not a British Columbian who gets sick, because a British Columbian who gets sick now has to pay increased ambulance fees, increased patient-visit charges for chiropractic, physiotherapy, massage therapy. I don't think that's the average British Columbian this government had in mind.

I don't think this government had in mind the elderly when they talked about average British Columbians, because the elderly of British Columbia are not being made better off by this budget. There is a 133 percent increase in probate fees. What does that mean? That's a pretty nice technical phrase. What it means is that if a husband and wife have worked hard all their lives to build up equity of $200,000 in their family home -- hardly a large amount across British Columbia -- upon their death, if their family wishes to maintain the family home, they will have to pay an increase in probate fees of $1,600. If the equity in the home is $300,000 -- again, a number that is hardly unusual in British Columbia -- the increase in fees is, in fact, $2,400. That sounds to me like the average older British Columbian is a heck of a lot worse off under this budget than better off.

So who is that average British Columbian? Maybe the average British Columbian is someone who likes fishing. Maybe they're the ones who are better off by $500 a year. No. Wrong. The average British Columbian who likes to go fishing has to pay increased angling fees.

Well, I'm thinking maybe the average British Columbian that is better off by $500 a year is the British Columbian who depends on the B.C. Ferry service to get to and from the place that they work and live. Oh, no. You know what? There's an increase in B.C. Ferry fares. The average British Columbian who uses B.C. Ferries is not better off as a result of this budget.

What about the poor average British Columbian who occasionally gets caught by someone sitting in a photo radar van? Do you think that person's better off under this budget? I know we don't care much about those people. But you know what? There's a surcharge on provincial fines of 15 percent. Is that person better off as a result of this budget? No.

What about the taxpayers in Richmond, West Vancouver, Chilliwack and Maple Ridge who now have to pay directly and indirectly -- to pay twice -- for access to the province's court system in their communities? Is that the average British Columbian which this government has in mind when it makes a claim that we're better off? I don't think so.

Is it the average British Columbian who wants to change their name? No. There's an increase in fees for that. Is it the average British Columbian who may wish to adopt a child? No, Madam Speaker, that person will have to pay thousands of dollars more in adoption fees -- a long way off any kind of saving.

So I'm looking for this average British Columbian. I'm wondering whether that person exists anywhere. Frankly, I suspect that this person is a mythical or fictional creation of someone's imagination.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, excuse me. The red light is now on. And I'm sure your last sentence is just about to emerge.

G. Plant: I am just about to finish, Madam Speaker.

In conclusion, this budget does not restore credibility or integrity to the province's finances. It offers no promise of prudent fiscal management, and it maintains the wrong vision of government's role in the economy.

[11:30]

A. Sanders: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and address the House. I'd like to look at the title of our most recent Budget '97 document. It's called: "Creating Jobs; Protecting Health Care and Education; Cutting Spending." We've just had an excellent presentation by the member for Richmond-Steveston on why that title has some credibility gaps. I'd like to look at that title, Madam Speaker, and make the suggesting that crafting a title is often, if not always, not enough to make it happen. Behind the title there actually has to be planning. There has to be a financial plan. And that is why we are here.

Also behind that title there has to be a political vision. And that vision has to have the will to put the words into action. Unfortunately, the title of Budget '97 is what I would call "a word salad," or maybe terminological inexactitude, situational ethics, political relativism. There are many different ways to look at the word salad of creating jobs, protecting health care and education, and cutting spending, but that isn't the title that I read in the text that followed.

It was unfortunate to recognize that this was going to be the sixth consecutive deficit budget brought forward by this government presently in power. What had been told to us by the Minister of Finance in his budget address is that we would have a $185 million deficit this year. Now, that figure is open to some interpretation, and many before me -- and many who will follow -- have spent a great deal of time explaining what that number actually means in the real world. What it actually means is an increase of $1.4 billion in the total provincial debt. This small fact was not mentioned in the budget speech. It did not mention that British Columbia was in the midst of a credit downgrade. They're very important factors for those of us in British Columbia who invest in our province, who work here, who live here, whose families will grow up to take over from us.

So what is the actual status of British Columbia's bank account? When we look at the circumstances for 1997, we find British Columbia to be a province in debt. We are in a province that is in debt, that is out of control. For the first time in the history of the provincial debt, we'll top $30 billion. And that is

[ Page 2426 ]

thanks to this NDP government -- $30 billion. The Premier is responsible for a debt load on the average British Columbia family -- although we haven't been able to find exactly who that average British Columbian is this morning, despite searching. There is an increase of $1,500 for that family as a result of the financial incompetence of this government. Taxpayer-supported debt is often considered the best measure of debt. As a percentage of our GDP, with this budget it is 20.9 percent, up from 19.3 percent in 1995-96.

This government claims to have cut taxes to lower- and middle-income British Columbians. It's a very common practice in the short time that we've been with this new government to see, as the hon. member next to me pointed out, reannouncements of information that has already been announced. And the message to those unsuspecting taxpayers, who did not recognize that this had been a previous announcement from last year and is really nothing new, is that you'd better hold on to your wallets in B.C.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The NDP budget has simply changed the term "tax" to another name. Now it's called fee increase, probate increase, licences, and more. There are many new names for the terminology that we used to use, and that was "taxation." We are being taxed more, and the government hopes to get around $55 million in addition out of the pockets of taxpayers by changing the name to fee or licence. What is important for us all to remember is that there is only one taxpayer pocket, and all the money comes out of it no matter which hand goes in. What are we doing when we look at debt and deficit? We're basically looking at future taxation. This is the legacy this government will pass on to their children and to my children. It will be one of increased debt and deficit for British Columbia.

I'd like to look a bit at health. Health and education are the areas that this government claims to be very keen on, to be very interested in. It claims and boasts that the lifeblood of health and education comes from its policies. One of the statements made in the budget speech and the addresses that followed is that B.C. has one of the best health care systems in Canada and that the budget for '97 put forward by this government will keep it that way. To borrow a quote from my children, the answer is "not." That's not the way it is; that's not what we see. I have been in this health care system for many years now, and I can tell you that since 1991, when this NDP government took over the reins of health care, there has been a degradation year after year of basic services to basic British Columbians in basic communities. And each year brings forward stories that are more complicated and difficult for patients and families than the year before.

What we would find, if we're looking, is basically a free fall in the quality of health care. What we are finding is that there are areas in health care where British Columbia always has done and continues to do, very well in. For example, if you have a cold in British Columbia, there is no question that someone will take care of that expeditiously. There is no problem in finding the services for those areas that really don't require much in the way of medical therapy and intervention. If, however, you are one of those unfortunate British Columbians who happens to need cardiac surgery, you better not take on any stressful situations, because you may be waiting ten months, a year, or more for your surgery. You can be in a circumstance where six months later your urgent catheterization or angiography or bypass is still on hold. You may find that you've been cancelled four or five times and that you're on the urgent list.

Looking at the waiting lists, one of the ways that we really help is that often people in British Columbia die on our waiting lists, thereby shortening them. I don't know if that's something we would really want to boast about in terms of health care.

What if you need an orthopedic procedure? What if you're a person on WCB who has ended up with a cruciate ligament tear that requires to be fixed to get in and out of your truck? How often do we have these individuals in our community waiting a year to have a half-hour procedure? They are unable to work and are collecting less than they would if they were gainfully employed, are developing other problems and are on medications that irritate their stomach or cause addiction, because of pain or discomfort from an orthopedic problem that cannot be fixed. We see this all the time. It has become the norm; it has become the common way of doing things in British Columbia.

What if you're an old person and you need to have your hip replaced? What will happen quite often in very many communities is that this person will be on three or four medications so they can get up in the morning and get out of bed. They will be waiting and waiting for a surgical procedure that they may get a year later, or sometimes even up to 14 or 15 months later.

If you're from the north, you've got the nice added perspective of having nobody there to look after you. Emergency rooms are closing in communities just as we speak. There are no physicians to service the areas -- no ability to have proper operations and proper care. We are in a situation where we have people waiting daily for their hip surgery; waiting for their cataract surgery; waiting for their cardiac evaluation and, if they're lucky, surgery; waiting for orthopedic surgery to fix common or garden variety orthopedic problems that could have that person back to work in six weeks. Instead, they are on WCB for a year, because they cannot get into a hospital bed and an operating room to have the procedure done. This is unconscionable, and yet it is the way of life in British Columbia.

So I caution the government when they stand up to talk about health care and how wonderful health care is. They should go out into communities -- especially the north, the interior and the Kootenays -- and talk to people there about what it's like to have a lack of procedures for situations that could be fixed in a matter of half an hour.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: If you are in Quesnel, as the member across mentions, you will now be in a circumstance where if you take the ambulance -- if you're lucky enough to be in the ambulance -- you're going to have a 50-cent-per-kilometre surcharge on top of the $54 cost that it takes for every rural British Columbian to travel. When you are taking an ambulance in those areas, you are travelling 70, 80, 90 kilometres. You're travelling a considerable distance, and you are

[ Page 2427 ]

in a situation where 23 percent of what it used to cost you is now going to be increased above and beyond the high cost that it was then.

How about if you want to have the chiropractor look at you, because everybody else has and nothing can be done? You need to see the chiropractor; you've found that this helped you before. You're on WCB; you're sitting at home waiting for your cruciate ligament to be fixed, and now you've got a sore back because you've been limping for a year. If you want to go to the chiropractor, you're going to find a 33 percent increase in their fees.

What if the physiotherapist wants to see you, and you have to pay to go there? You better have ten bucks, because it used to be $7.50. What if you want to see the naturopath? There are many British Columbians who use these services. If you want to use these services, you now have to pay $3 more to do that. What if you have to have a hearing aid? Or what if your mother goes into long-term care and the long-term care facility has to increase your charges to look after your disabled family?

How about vital statistics? If you ever actually wanted to collect any statistics in this province, there is now a 10 percent increase for collecting those, too. More new fees and new licences have come in a budget that claims to be costing less money and to be protecting health care and education.

[11:45]

What about reference-based pricing? How about talking about taking patients off effective drugs that have helped control and maintain their problems, and substituting cheap, totally different drugs that don't control the disorder and result in an increase in illness and an increase in health care costs? Some studies have shown that reference-based pricing causes a 160 percent increase in the writing of prescriptions. They have shown that it causes an 83 percent increase in visits to doctors, because of complications from the new medications which don't work, and a 161 percent increase in emergency room visits. The Supreme Court has recently said that a physician's prime responsibility is to the patient, and not to government cost-cutting measures such as reference-based pricing.

The media has called this a government of sneaks. There are many examples of support along this particular line of reasoning from Mr. Vaughn Palmer. At 4 o'clock on Friday, we'll often find the bad news on health care announcements coming up, showing total contempt for the democratic process. Today we will have some announcements on education at 5 p.m., long after everyone has, hopefully, thought about leaving the House in order to do other things. The press will be here to find out the newest statistics on education.

How about looking at the hospital boards and seeing whether there's trust for the NDP there? How about asking Langley or the Royal Inland or Lillooet or Helmcken Memorial or Vernon Jubilee? All of these different hospital boards have found out from the newspaper that they have been fired.

There was a comment in the Vancouver Sun recently by our Health minister, talking about health boards and how much better it would be because these would be close to the community. It's really hard to imagine how these health boards could be more reflective of a community. When they make a decision that the minister doesn't like, they are fired. It's really hard to understand how they could be members of or close to the community when they have been appointed and not one single position has been elected. It's hard to understand how we expect these boards and these communities to have respect for the democratic process under this government, when they find out from newspapers that they have been fired and that their land has been expropriated.

Let's talk about education, hon. Speaker. This is an area very important to almost everyone in this House in one way or other. What I'd like to focus specifically on is the education of our kids in the preschool and kindergarten-to-grade-12 age groups. What we find in the budget speech of '97 is the statement that education has been protected, with an increase in funding to the K-to-12 age group. This, again, is a word salad that brings up the notion that there's more money per child somehow. This ministry has failed to mention that an increase in dollars -- in the absolute value -- is not going to cover children to the same extent that it did last year. In fact, that increase will be outstripped by enrolment, by inflation and by the actual amount of money that is being offered per student to school boards in every district in B.C.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Let's look at Victoria. There were 300 greater Victoria school board supporters who showed up here last week at the Legislature to demonstrate, in a very quiet way, their concerns over a $3 million cut in their budget. For a government that is protecting education and talking about more money in education, it's difficult for many who follow these stories in the press to figure out how $3 million would need to be cut from a budget. Nevertheless, that was the case for these individuals, and they were talking about cutting their band program and their strings program at their schools.

Other areas that they talked about needing to cut were learning assistance and special needs. If you can't read, you are more likely to end up on welfare or in crime. This is the sort of common thread of thought that goes through education -- or its lack. Segregation was one of the solutions they come up with in terms of fixing the problem. Segregation of kids in special needs classes is something that we've moved away from in this province over the years. It is a short-term solution, a short-term fix. It does not help the problems of children or help education within the classroom.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, it's important to recognize that this rally by the greater Victoria school board was the first-ever political rally held by this particular group. I think that says something, judging by the number of children I've seen on the streets of Vancouver, the interior and Victoria, holding placards with parents. This is not something that I have seen before in B.C., but it certainly seems to be the way things are going under the NDP.

If we look at Vancouver, this government says that the school board needs to find efficiencies without affecting students. Government forgets that every efficiency cut has to affect someone, and when we look at the way that the Vancouver and Victoria school boards have dealt with their governance systems and their administration, the government's bright idea was that we should be cutting more in administration.

[ Page 2428 ]

I thought I'd better look some of this up and see what the situation is and what kinds of administration cuts could be made. What I did find from the statistics was that in the Victoria school district, 40 percent cuts had been made in the administration budgets in terms of FTEs and dollars spent since 1990. I found also that government was not aware -- or chose not to be aware -- that administration was 3 percent of the school board's budget in the Victoria and Vancouver areas, and that this was among the lowest administrative cost of school boards anywhere in Canada. This did not appear to me to be a situation where we were going to have lots of fat to cut off the bone to get rid of administrators in Vancouver and Victoria, and thereby save money.

What Vancouver has suggested in their $16.1 million deficit budget for '97-98 is that it will have to look at getting rid of 167 support teachers and over 50 teachers. To me as a parent, that tells me that there's got to be ramifications through the school system, in the classroom. This government is the epicentre of the earthquake that's going to be felt in school districts around the province, and it's going to be felt in every classroom that there is.

There will be truly desperate districts, and those truly desperate districts have now been asking the minister whether they can run a deficit. This is the government that two years ago fired the North Vancouver school board for doing exactly that. Now the minister is saying that maybe it's okay for the school board to run a deficit -- maybe for just one year, if they don't have one from last year and if they have a plan on how to pay it back. Well, it's very difficult when the budgets of school districts have always been balanced, and now they can run a deficit if they have a plan to pay it back, when the government that is saying they can do so doesn't have one of its own.

We're in a situation where Vancouver is looking to decrease its number of special needs assistants by 50. They want to move 80 students into segregated classrooms. There are many people who feel that this is the beginning of reinstitutionalization of children.

Let's look at Surrey. The Surrey school board says that they have a $7.5 million debt, the worst since 1975. Their schools are overcrowded. I've been to these schools; I've seen what it is like to be a student in these schools, trying to change classes. There are 7,000 children in Surrey in 305 portables. Surrey is in the lowest dollars-per-pupil category for B.C. in terms of the funding formula, and this is primarily, it appears, because of the fast growth in the area. One of the trustees was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying: "This is the worst situation I've seen in Surrey since 1970." I think that is a considerable statement for someone who's been on a board for 27 years.

Let's look at Quesnel, which has a $619,000 deficit, down $200 per head. A lot of that money is coming out of the decrease in funding to adult basic education. This was done by the government, which was suggesting in the earlier part of '97 that maybe we should do away with adult basic education in the high schools. Maybe we should just have it at the universities or something like that; it would save money. Well, if you live in the interior of the province and want to get your grade 12 and you're 41, the only place you're going to get it is at your local high school. Because there is no college; there is no university.

Hon. L. Boone: UNBC.

A. Sanders: You couldn't go there if you wanted to, and if you could drive the 75 miles to Prince George from Quesnel, the roads wouldn't let you go every day of the winter in order to get your degree, anyway.

So what we're finding across B.C. is a 0.78 percent reduction in the amount of money that every school district has, and one of the areas that has been cut is adult basic education -- 5 percent, supposedly found through efficiencies, whatever that means. It's a common terminological inexactitude that I hear from this government on a regular basis. The board chair in Quesnel, Ms. Louise Scott, was quoted as saying: "This is so depressing. The sixth year in a row -- budget cuts. We're cut to the bone. There is no doubt the quality of education in Quesnel is in crisis."

An Hon. Member: Amputation next.

A. Sanders: Pre-death autopsy.

We're finding that the total increase in education is not enough to protect the kids. It's less money per child. It has increased costs to school boards for WCB, UIC, health benefits, inflation. There are cuts to education; there are cuts in the 1997-98 budget to education. They are being passed on to the school districts. They are being told: "Fund the same thing you had last year, but we're going to give you less money per kid. It's up to you to figure out how to do it."

Let's talk about communication, which is sadly lacking with this government, between school boards, parents, teachers, etc. Robert Pickering, the chair of the Surrey school board, says: "There is no communication with the Ministry of Education. We're talking to a government that won't listen." Mr. Walker from the New Westminster school board: "One of the worst years ever," he says. The Gulf Islands -- Charles Hingston says: "Restructuring efficiencies? There are not many efficiencies in the Gulf Islands to be had. Mr. Ramsey has turned down requests to meet with the board and discuss our crisis."

We have a government that protects education in a way I've never seen before. We've got a government that has 100 schools that are going to be so-called built -- when you look, only 30 are on the construction list. Eleven are going to be built, first of all, in NDP ridings. One is a maintenance depot, and 84 are only in the planning stage. Two-thirds of them are being planned. This also goes for post-secondary, where we've got a tuition freeze that is overcome, strangled and drowned by technical fee increases, application fee increases, transcript fee increases -- all coming out of the same taxpayer's pocket.

Hon. Speaker, I conclude by saying that creating jobs and protecting health care and education is not the case. It is not a realistic title for Budget '97.

At this time, I would like to move adjournment of debate for lunch.

A. Sanders moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

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