Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 17 -- Thursday, April 10, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature the B.C. Medical Association members who are here to learn how to deal with politicians, and to work well with us. I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Derryck Smith, the president of the BCMA, and his cohort Dr. Granger Avery, who is the incoming president of the B.C. Medical Association. There are 70 thoughtful, practising physicians. We had an excellent meeting with them at lunch, and I understand the members of the opposition met with them this morning. We'll be working with them throughout the day, and I really am very pleased that they could all join us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to introduce members of a church leaders' delegation on gaming, which is travelling to Victoria today to speak to various MLAs and to the minister: the Most Reverend David Crawley, archbishop, Metropolitan of the Anglican Provincial Synod of B.C. and Yukon; Rev. Dianne Cardin, president of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada; Mr. Ed Janzen, executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee of B.C.; Rev. Gerald Mitchinson of the B.C. Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; Rev. Sydney Amara Morris of the Unitarian Church of Canada; Dr. Len Henriksson, with the task force on gambling issues of the B.C. Conference of the United Church; Ms. Kathleen Wallace-Deering, consultant on church and society programs for the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster -- I should say that Ms. Deering has been in my office several times advising me on this issue -- and my very good friend, my very dear friend, colleague, adviser and supporter over a great many years, Rev. Peter Rolston, a former MLA in the time of the Dave Barrett government.

V. Anderson: I'd like to add my greetings to Rev. Peter Rolston. I just wish he was back in the House with his insight and his opinions.

I'd like to introduce again today three classes of grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill high school in the Vancouver-Langara riding. They're here with their teachers Ms. Choe, Ms. Pacheco and Mr. Williams. I would again welcome these bright, intelligent, energetic -- and they only had two questions to ask me, so -- very understanding students.

G. Robertson: With us this afternoon, it's my pleasure to have Elizabeth van der Kamp here, legislative intern, and her sister Anna van der Kamp. Anna was a member of the Canadian Olympic women's rowing team that won a silver medal in Atlanta last summer. Last weekend she was also named Female Athlete of the Year by the Greater Victoria Sports Council. Anna is currently taking a break from rowing to complete her bachelor of science degree at the University of Victoria. Elizabeth and Anna are both from the North Island -- from Port Hardy. These young women are examples of how hard work, determination and skill can lead to great achievements. They are both great role models for all British Columbians. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming these two women here this afternoon.

S. Hawkins: I would also like to extend a welcome to the BCMA group on behalf of the official opposition here today. We had a good meeting with them this morning. They raised some very serious issues and concerns, which I'm sure will be raised in the House in the upcoming weeks. I'd like to make a personal welcome to two constituents of mine, Michael and Gloria Golbey, who are partly responsible for me being here.

Hon. A. Petter: Joining us in the galleries today are members of the British Columbia Real Estate Association, including Doug Perry, provincial president, and Rosemary Barnes, past president, as well as many other representatives from its 13 member associations and boards. They're in Victoria to meet with members of the Legislature, and also to undertake what I'm told is referred to as "government liaison training." So I would ask the House to please assist me in making them very welcome.

G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure -- and I know other members of the House will want to do this as well -- to welcome to our precincts for today and tomorrow, for meetings, the Ontario 1996-97 legislative interns. I know they're going to have quite a wonderful time and offer the comparison of what goes on in our Legislature with what goes on in Ontario's Legislature. I'd like us all then to welcome Christine Czapnik, Andrew Hastings, Anthony Jonker, Rina Li, David MacDuff, Christopher McDermott, Annamie Paul and Charles Vincent. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

S. Orcherton: It's indeed a pleasure to advise the House today that in the precinct is an individual who has devoted his entire life -- in fact, I believe, his entire energy and purpose -- to the care and welfare of children in our community. It was a pleasure to have lunch with him, along with some other local MLAs from this side of the House. I'd ask the House to welcome Dr. Basil Boulton.

W. Hartley: In the House today we have three of my constituents, two of them from the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Association, Harvey Exner and Willard Dunn. We also have Dr. Lorne Walton, who I look forward to having dinner with tonight, as a member of the BCMA.

F. Gingell: I would like to welcome back -- and ask all members to join me -- members of the Delta farming community who are back here on another trek to Victoria to try and get justice concerning the Roberts Bank backup lands. I ask you to welcome Roy Cuthbert, Peter Guichon, Jack Bates and their adviser Karl Freidmann.

J. Sawicki: I would like the House to help me welcome some guests who are here from the People's Republic of China. They are visiting here to learn about our land use planning processes and some of the initiatives our government has taken on urban sustainability. With us today is Professor Xu, who is the vice-president of Zhongshan University and commissioner for higher education in Guangdong province; also, Professor Yan, deputy director and professor at the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, and Professor Wei, a professor with the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Accompanying them is Sandra Ng. She's the research assistant at the UBC Centre for Human Settlements. Would the House please make our guests welcome.

B. Barisoff: I'd like to welcome a good friend of mine who is here in Victoria today, Dr. John Dimma. Would the House please make him welcome.

E. Walsh: I would like the House to join me in welcoming two of my constituents and another one of whom we just heard mention. First off, Doug Perry, who is here from the real estate association. Being as how we are so far away from Victoria, it's always a great pleasure for me to be able to stand here and recognize constituents. Two other ones are Chris Christianson and Zella MacDonald. Chris Christianson has been a journeyman carpenter with the Carpenters and Joiners Union for many years, and Zella MacDonald, who is retired, was a social worker for many years. So I wish the House would join me in a great welcome to my constituents here today.

M. Coell: It's with great pride that I introduce, for the first time to the Legislature, my goddaughter Dian Marie Ross. She's accompanied by her mother Jan. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I do not wish to set a precedent where everybody stands up and introduces the physician who is here from their community, but as the Minister for Children and Families, I would like to recognize that one of the physicians visiting today is Dr. Sally Barrio, who is very involved in our community in working with sexually exploited youth, which is, as we know, both an important and challenging job, and I do want to recognize that work.

K. Whittred: Seated in the gallery today is Mr. Mike Robson, president of the Canadian Plywood Association, whose head offices are in my riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Will the House join me in making him welcome.

R. Neufeld: On behalf of my legislative assistant Claire Vessey, I'd like to welcome Sarah Corry to the Legislature. She's a student and here for the first time. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I felt as though I was in aerobics class here, hopping up and down. Visiting us from the Okanagan is the president of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, Mr. Steve Nicoll. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce two guests from my riding. First of all, Leslie Tannen is visiting here. She's with the real estate board and is a very, very hard-working realtor in the Penticton area. Welcome, Leslie.

Also in the gallery is a hard-working doctor from Penticton, Dr. Steve Hardwicke. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove would also like me to acknowledge Dr. Hardwicke, who delivered his son Adam. Welcome these guests, please.

J. Wilson: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a good friend and constituent who has travelled all the way from the Cariboo to join us in the House today, Ms. Susan Maile, and I'd ask that the House make her welcome.

E. Conroy: This doesn't happen very often, because of the geographic distance of my constituency from Victoria, but I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Dr. Jon Van Vliet to the Legislature. Not only has he been active as a doctor in my community for a number of years, but he also does a lot of very excellent community work. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act provides for the periodic appointment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission and presently provides that "the first commission shall be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this [provision came] into force"; that is, the first session of this thirty-sixth parliament. However, as the first commission has not yet been appointed, this bill shall enable the appointment of the first Electoral Boundaries Commission by providing that it shall be appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

The act allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a judge or a retired judge to the commission. However, the act presently makes no provision for remuneration in the event that a retired judge is appointed. Therefore this bill will also allow a retired judge appointed to the commission to be paid remuneration for her or his services.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. C. Evans: This bill to amend the Milk Industry Act will clarify the roles of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Ministry of Health in milk inspection on the farm and in processing plants. The amendments are aimed at ensuring that government and the dairy industry continue to provide customers with safe and wholesome milk and a better use of government resources and government efficiency, and at making provision for the dairy industry to increase its involvement in the delivery of services.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, this bill is also supported by the member for Richmond Centre. He is a very strong supporter of it, I might add.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent the tobacco companies from adding flavouring to snuff or to smokeless tobacco. The product is manufactured in the U.S. by a U.S. tobacco company, and it's called Skoal Cherry Long Cut. Like

all other tobacco products, Skoal Cherry Long Cut is a form of nicotine delivery. This product differs from other forms of nicotine delivery in one critical aspect: it is also designed to be especially attractive to teenagers and children.

Skoal Cherry Long Cut smells and tastes like candy. The cherry flavour lasts for a couple of minutes. It wears off gradually, giving the user the opportunity to adjust to the bitter taste of tobacco. The pH level has been adjusted to reduce nicotine absorption, and this has the effect of gradually addicting a novice user.

From the tobacco industry's point of view, Skoal Cherry Long Cut and similar products are ideal for introducing children and teenagers to tobacco. Skoal billboard signs can be seen in the 1500 block of Kingsway, the 1900 block of Powell Street and the 300 block of Terminal Avenue, all in Vancouver.

The member from Richmond and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds are looking for all members to support this bill.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Campbell: Two years ago we in this House all agreed that there should be criminal-record checks on people working with children. In Delta the youth hockey league and the Cub packs have now been told that the fee for those record checks will increase by 150 percent. There is a reason for this. It is due to the recent cancellation of their provincial policing grant.

My question is to the Attorney General. How can the Attorney General explain a 150 percent increase in the cost of criminal-record checks, and how does that enhance the quality of protection of our children?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have perhaps the best criminal-record check program in the entire country, and we're proud of that.

Policing costs, of course, is sometimes an issue that is to be determined between the police and the constituents they serve. All of the fees that are charged by police are not regulated by the Attorney General. In fact, they are now sending bills to the Attorney General on another matter. . .which are facing an increase of 400 percent. My ministry is discussing that matter with them.

I am certain that the police would take cognizance of the Leader of the Opposition's remarks in the House today. Perhaps all of us could work together to find a better way to ensure that these checks can be done for the safety of children at the most affordable cost.

G. Campbell: The Attorney General and his ministry have reduced the policing grant to Delta. They have reduced revenue-sharing grants across the board. They certainly have to know that up to 20 and 25 percent of municipal costs are for policing.

We said two years ago that we want to protect our kids. Today what we face is a 150 percent increase in the cost of doing just that in Delta. Against the backdrop of the headlines about the problems we've seen in minor hockey, against the pain and suffering that these families have felt and that these communities feel, fees for criminal-record checks are up 150 percent.

G. Campbell: My question to the Attorney General is simple: has this government learned nothing yet?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I just said a moment ago that this is a very important issue for the safety of our children in British Columbia. I said -- and I repeat myself -- that the police, I am sure, will take cognizance of the remarks made by my hon. colleague from the Legislature. We will work with the police to make sure that these checks are done at an affordable cost across British Columbia so the children of British Columbia are safe. This is not an issue where I set the cost or the fee for these checks. Policing is a municipal responsibility; Delta has municipal policing. We provide grants to them. All of us have had to make difficult decisions. Policing is also an area where we have had to make difficult decisions. But I can assure the Legislature that we'll all work together to make sure this issue is resolved.

J. Weisbeck: It seems that this government is not content with the cuts they are making to our children's education inside the classroom. Now these cuts are hitting community groups like Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and Brownies. These groups are now facing rates of up to $32 per hour to use school gyms which were previously used for free. These are non-profit groups that say they will have to fold if these fees are imposed.

Can the minister tell us if he thinks the children in these groups are better off receiving positive leadership training or spending their free time at the local 7-Eleven?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Rates for extra-school use of school facilities are set by school districts, as the member opposite well knows. There is a variety of rates around the province.

The Speaker: I had assumed, members, that given a 15-minute question period, we would be more concerned about the passage of time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: To conclude briefly, I know that school districts are concerned about making schools available to community groups. They seek to keep the charges they levy on those groups within the actual cost of providing additional services required by community use of school facilities.

J. Weisbeck: It is not only Girl Guides and Brownies who will be charged to use school facilities. Children playing soccer, Little League and other sports are facing a fee for every hour that they use their local school playing field. Districts feel forced to charge these fees because they are desperate to recover the funds this minister has taken away from them.

Can the minister explain why he's so intent on making our children pay for his government's fiscal incompetence?

Hon. Speaker, the government that this opposition admires -- admires -- in Ontario has reduced funding for public education by 19 percent over the last five years. The government that this opposition admires in Alberta has slashed public school funding by nearly 6 percent over the last five years. In this province, on the contrary, funding is up for the sixth straight year -- nearly 21 percent. That's the record we're delivering on.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week northerners were offended by Colleen McCrory's statement that environmentalists cheered the closure of the Fort Nelson chopstick factory. It was galling to see her celebrate that sad event, which will cost northerners 200 jobs in small communities, on the grounds that the aspen harvest was an environmental and ecological disaster. Absolute nonsense!

This week forest workers were again offended to see five environmental groups sponsoring and participating in a course for ecoterrorism, led by a bunch of American tree-spikers. Will the minister assure this House that not one penny of taxpayers' money is going or will go to these organizations to keep forest workers away from their jobs?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. With respect to the first issue raised, I want to agree 100 percent. I think all British Columbians were offended. Whenever people lose their jobs, it's a traumatic experience, and for people to express some joy in that really is unfathomable, in my view. And I think the comments speak volumes about the author of the comments.

Secondly, with respect to the plant itself, I have had a brief discussion with a representative from the region, as well as with someone from a major sector in the forest industry. We will work with the community and the industry to see what can be done with respect to that licence. The member is aware that we did take steps in the past to try to stabilize that operation, and in fact saw in the last several years $100 million invested in Fort Nelson in a new oriented strand board plant.

Hon. D. Miller: Just on the final point, hon. Speaker -- and I want to make this because I think this is a fundamental point -- the degree to which we can maintain civility, the degree to which we can maintain the ability to work out land use issues and forest practice issues in this province goes far beyond this Legislature. I would suggest that all British Columbians are proud of the record. . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .we've achieved here in British Columbia, and would decry those who would come from outside. . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .to try to disrupt the kind of peaceful process that we've put in place here.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental. During the Clayoquot Sound protests in 1993, this government sat on its hands while welfare recipients blocked logging roads to keep forest workers away from their jobs. It was an outrage for me to see those people leave jail in Nanaimo and go directly to the welfare office to pick up their cheques -- in some cases by cab. To the Minister of Human Resources: what steps has the minister taken to determine whether or not any of these ecoterrorist hoodlums are on welfare as well, and will the minister ensure that they will be required to repay any welfare received while they attended those courses?

Hon. D. Miller: With reference to the answer to the original question, the member knows full well that when people violate the law, there are processes independent of the political process that kick into gear in terms of how those people are dealt with, whether they be environmental protesters, whether they be aboriginal protesters, or whether indeed they be loggers unhappy with a given situation. It is important to understand that the law has to deal with that, not the politicians, and I think the member, with respect to the way he phrased that question, was somewhat intemperate.

Hon. D. Miller: The laws of British Columbia will be applied. The police have the responsibility to carry those out. The policies of individual ministries will be maintained, regardless of which ministry.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier has said that gambling expansion will protect health care in British Columbia. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women married to gambling addicts are eight times as frequently struck by various serious health ailments, identified to us by UBC. Thirty-seven percent of them abuse their kids; their likelihood of committing suicide triples. With us today in the gallery we have community and church leaders from all over B.C. who will try to pick up the pieces when these things happen.

My question is to the Deputy Premier: what will he say to these leaders from all over British Columbia? Will you please tell them that you will stop the gambling expansion?

Hon. D. Miller: It's quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when I turn to the publication, Kamloops This Week, of March 2, 1994, I see the following quote from the Leader of the Opposition: "We have casinos in the province; we have gambling in the province. . . . For people to try and pretend this is the big issue of gambling, we've had gambling in this province for years." That was the Leader of the Opposition in 1994.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has recently been in my office, personally lobbying that we direct-award a contract worth $10-12 million to print lottery tickets, breakopen tickets, because it's in his constituency.

A. Sanders: Two weeks ago the Ministry of Health released a series of fee hikes -- at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, the day before the long weekend. The criticism was scathing, as the minister was called sneaky for trying to hide an embarrassing story. Today the Minister of Education is about to do the same thing and release a report late in the afternoon on K-to-12 accountability. My question to the Minister of Education is: we now know what the Minister of Health was hiding; what does the Minister of Education have to hide in this report?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not a thing. I invite you to the news conference at 4:30 this afternoon, where the report from the office of the comptroller general -- not the Ministry of Education -- will be released and discussed.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to present this petition today, signed by 3,623 citizens in my community, all opposed to any expansion of gambling in the province of B.C.

K. Krueger: I rise to present a petition. I have the honour to present a petition provided to me by community groups concerned about gambling expansion. I was told that approximately 50,000 signatures were on this petition yesterday, and more have come in since.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the 1996 report of the Assessment Appeal Board.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have the honour to present today the 1996 annual report of the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: I have the honour to present the report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the fiscal year -- early -- 1994-95.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I rise today to clarify a comment I made during question period yesterday in answer to a question from the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary with respect to photo radar. Yesterday I said that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia pays for the police officers who enforce photo radar in British Columbia. The funding for the photo radar officers was specifically designated by Treasury Board to our ministry for this purpose. Therefore I was misinformed and I was in error.

I want to make clear again that the photo radar funding is in addition to and not a subtraction from the ministry's funding for regular police officers throughout the province. In other words, policing for photo radar does not detract from other kinds of policing in British Columbia.

Hon. A Petter: I rise to inform the House of revisions to my ministry's estimate of B.C. Hydro's debt as of March 31, 1997, and March 31, 1998, which were tabled with the budget. Happily, Hydro's estimated debt is now projected to be $501 million lower by March 31, 1998, than previously indicated. As a result, B.C. Hydro's debt will actually decrease by $195 million in 1997-98. I've been advised by staff that the reason for this revision relates to a misunderstanding on the part of Ministry of Finance officials about B.C. Hydro's intention to use borrowing proceeds to retire some high-coupon callable debt in both fiscal years.

Following this statement, I am tabling revised budget tables and a revised page 2 of the estimates which are affected by the changes. They show total government debt will be $217 million lower than previously estimated as of March 31, 1997, and $501 million lower as of March 31, 1998. Ministry staff have briefed opposition parties concerning these changes, and the changes do not affect the government's financial management plan, which relates to taxpayer-supported debt.

The Speaker: Responding to the ministerial statement, the member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: Last year the budget was delivered on a Tuesday. On the Friday, the minister had a private discussion with a reporter from the Times Colonist to explain that their revenues from forestry were out by $250 million and that there would be a substantial deficit.

This year, instead of three days, we're up to 16 days. Of course, the minister did originally say -- and it was quoted on the front page of the Province: "I Don't Expect [Anybody] to Believe Me." But there you go. Anyway, 16 days later, he's admitting that those citizens who followed his advice were correct.

Mr. Speaker, when I was advised that the minister was going to make this statement, that there were some changes in this year's budget documents that were tabled, I was hopeful he would mention that he's been incorrect about the issues to do with taxpayer-supported debt and B.C.'s percentage being the lowest -- a submission he repeated on Monday to the Vancouver Board of Trade, when he knows that it's wrong. We are now in second position. I was hoping that perhaps he would deal with the issue of his statement in the budget that this year's expenditures are lower for the first time since 1958. He's wrong, Mr. Speaker; that's just bookkeeping shell games.

But in any case, I am pleased that B.C. Hydro's debt will be lower than previously anticipated.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting to see how quickly the minister is able to get back to this Legislature when an error is found that makes the government look a little bit better. It was interesting, the great deal of time it took for the bad news to leak out last year. I wonder, if the news had been that the

mistake, the miscommunication, was that the debt at Hydro was higher rather than lower, whether the minister would have come with such haste to the Legislature to correct his mistake. I think history shows that indeed that would not have been the case.

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy that the people of British Columbia, the users of B.C. Hydro's services, are $500 million less in debt than the minister thought they were only two weeks ago.

One has to wonder, as well, about a $500 million miscommunication. Here are books that have been pored over, great time taken. . . . The minister was very careful in his statements to suggest that this time he was being so conservative, so careful; he was understating the issues. But gee, in this prudent budget, they forgot to ask Hydro what they were going to do with half a billion dollars that they were borrowing. It calls into question the entire document.

So I welcome the fact that we're a little less in debt than we thought we were. But I believe the flip side of it is that we have even less confidence today in the figures of this government than we had yesterday.

G. Wilson: Picking up on the theme that my colleague from the Peace River has just mentioned, I think the critical point here is: why is it that half a billion dollars in expenditures to B.C. Hydro wasn't known, in terms of its direction? If this is good news -- and it perhaps is good news, and time will tell how this is going to translate into B.C. Hydro's operating plan -- then surely to goodness, when Hydro filed its requests, those people who were giving out the money to the corporation would have given a greater degree of scrutiny as to what B.C. Hydro intended to do with it.

I think this speaks volumes for the need, for those of us who have been pressing for a standing committee on Crown corporations to meet on a regular basis in this Legislative Assembly, so that if his ministry and his staff will not scrutinize B.C. Hydro, those of us that are elected here will at least have the opportunity to do so. So I would hope that the minister will learn a lesson here that what is necessary is a greater scrutiny of Crown corporations -- how they're applying those moneys, and not simply write out a cheque for half a billion dollars when you don't know where it's going.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to rise and speak on the budget. I intend to make my remarks in two parts. I want to address how I see the budget impacting on my constituency of Port Coquitlam. I want to look at what I think is a good, progressive budget, and then I want to address my remarks in terms of how I see the opposition. I hope at that time they will take my comments in the spirit and the good nature in which they're intended.

This budget means a great deal to the people of my constituency, because I represent a growing community of young families, working British Columbians who are in their first homes or in their first condos. It has a young population, so they're concerned about two particular issues: education and health care. This budget provides the highest level of spending on education of any province in this country, and I think that's something that this government and the people of this province can be proud of. Over the last five years we've seen education funding in this province rise by almost 20 percent, and you can contrast that with other provinces such as Alberta, where there's been a 5 percent cut, or Ontario, where there's been a 20 percent cut in education spending. So this government has kept its commitment to protecting education in this province -- something the opposition doesn't always want to acknowledge.

In terms of my own riding, this budget is going to provide for the construction of a new school. Terry Fox high school will bring the number of schools that this government has built over the last few years to around 12. It's an amazing record. Under this NDP administration we've built the first high school in my constituency in over 20 years. We've built three or four new middle schools. There are two high schools currently under construction: Glen Eagle and Pine Tree, both of which open in September this year, and the spring of 1999 will see the opening of the new Terry Fox high school.

So it's a great budget, one I think that we can all be proud of. But we get a lot of criticism from the other side of the House. They are constantly saying they don't like our budget; they're full of criticism. I often wonder what they would do if they were on this side of the House. What would be the priority of the Liberal opposition? What would the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition says: "Tell the truth." Well, that's actually an interesting segue into the next part of my speech.

In order to get an idea of what the Liberals would do, we've got to look at how they'd spend their own money -- the budget they currently have available to them. One example is that they spent close to $1 million on a biased political mailout -- partisan propaganda -- that was all show and no substance. But that's not an expenditure that I. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand an expenditure, but I think the best example of where the Liberal opposition is coming from is the $70,000 of taxpayers' money that was spent by this opposition to create a computer-generated, image-enhanced picture of the Leader of the Opposition's caucus. Is the Leader of the Opposition so concerned about how the public sees his caucus that he has to spend $70,000 to get it enhanced? Is the Leader of the Opposition so concerned that his caucus doesn't seem capable of performing that he has to spend $70,000 of taxpayers' money to create the image of the perfect caucus?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can picture it now: some computer techies brought into the Liberal caucus offices to explain the process of image enhancement -- or as some people call it, caucus enlargement -- to the Liberal leader and his caucus. I can see it now. We have the technology; just show me the money, and we can give you a caucus that looks bigger, it looks a little stronger, it performs better, and it can boldly go where no. . . . Well, you get the idea, hon. Speaker.

For those who think I'm making this all up, I'm not. Here's a picture in the paper. . . . I know I'm not supposed to use props, but $70,000 to generate this image. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm coming to you, hon. member, in a minute. Just imagine the reaction in the Liberal caucus as they discuss the choices before them: the agony and the ecstasy of the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain or the member for Matsqui over the realization that they could now get hair -- hey, I'm jealous -- fighting over who would get what hair style. [Laughter.] Which one would get the distinguished grey look of the Leader of the Opposition, or the carefully coiffed curls of the member for Saanich North and the Islands?

I can just imagine the computer techie, though, explaining this to the opposition, not realizing what he was getting himself into: the look of fear in that computer techie's face as he's moving body parts here and there, creating the perfect caucus, as the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Langley threaten him with instant death if he should dare to clone any of their one-of-a-kind designer outfits on somebody else's body in their caucus. [Laughter.]

It must have been a sight for sore eyes: the member for Richmond Centre proudly showing off his new physique and boasting how no longer would the Opposition House Leader be kicking sand in his face, or the member for Parksville-Qualicum asking if this new computer process could curb his appetite, only to be told by the member for Matsqui: "Look it's not our job to improve the red ink at B.C. Ferries."

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition expecting, hoping, to get his desire, to be made to look less mean and more user-friendly, and the poor computer techie having to tell him: "Look, for $70,000 I can give you new glasses and a bigger caucus, but I can't work miracles." [Laughter.]

If this opposition is so concerned about their image and how they look, they didn't need to spend $70,000 of taxpayers' money to make his caucus look effective or better. A few dollars on a Thighmaster and a "Buns of Steel" video would have done the job.

Our budget is based on substance: real problems like health care and schools. The Liberals only care about image and style. They talk about being up front, but when they've got the money to spend, they use it to hide reality and create a new image for themselves. That's the difference between our budget and their budget. Ours is based on hard realities; theirs is based on hiding the truth.

G. Wilson: I'm afraid that my comments are not likely to be kept in the same spirit and tone of the previous speaker.

I rise to speak in response to the budget, and notwithstanding how moneys may be committed by various caucuses within this precinct, I take the previous member's comments with the humour in which I think they were intended. But I think it is important for British Columbians to take a rather sober look at what we're doing here with respect to the expenditure of a budget that's a little in excess of $20 billion of tax money, with a debt that has now risen -- even in the forecast revised by the comments made by the Minister of Finance just a few minutes ago -- to a total of $30.367 billion, recognizing that in this budget this year we will be borrowing $1.1 billion on behalf of British Columbians.

Let's try to put into context what we're talking about here. We hear all kinds of talk about: is the budget balanced; is it not balanced; what is the operating deficit at this year? And we hear a lot of talk about revenue projections and all those sorts of things. It's my contention, and I believe it to be well-founded, that most British Columbians have a difficult time getting a grasp on all of these numbers. We're told by the minister that in this operating year we're likely to have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a $150 million deficit, or numbers around that -- and, of course, projections will vary.

The fact of the matter is that on behalf of the people of British Columbia, this government is going to go out this year and borrow another $1.1 billion. That's a fact. That's revised. It was $1.4 billion, and with the good news we hear about B.C. Hydro paying off portions of their debt, they're now talking about $1.1 billion. We know that that's a projection. There are a little over three million British Columbians for whom we are about to go and borrow an additional $1.1 billion. We know that that has allowed the debt to creep up yet again -- and that is the debt that all of us are obliged to carry and all of us are obliged to pay -- to a figure that is at $30.3 billion gross.

It's arguable, I suppose, that you have to take out the taxpayer-supported portion of that debt. That is to say, it's arguable, in terms of the total debt amount, that we might want to pull out that amount which is not secured through capital investment, through the building of capital structures such as our schools, hospitals, and so on. Not unlike our home mortgages, there is a certain level of equity in a property that we borrow money for. Banks, of course, are very conservative in the way they apply their lending, so they are only allowing us to borrow a certain percentage more than they believe we can afford, if there is equity in the property that provides them complete security with respect to the sale of the property. Unfortunately, what we're dealing with here is an unsecured portion of debt that's in the neighbourhood of $20 billion.

Let's get down to what I think are some of the critical issues here. This budget can arguably be suggested to be fiscally prudent if -- and only if -- the government can demonstrate, can prove without question, that it has a debt management plan that is secure, is sound, and has had some kind of history of success. Regrettably, that is not evidenced in any of the documentation that's tabled in this House now. It wasn't evidenced last year, the year before or the year before that. For those of us that are preoccupied with debt. . . . And there are a lot of us that are, because we recognize this has to be handed down to somebody. Somebody has to pay it. If you owe money, sooner or later somebody's going to come and collect it.

We have to ask ourselves why we are continuing to see that overall debt increase. When this government took office, it was at $18.7 billion. Now it's up to $30 billion. In the short six years they've been in office, they've clearly increased the debt by two-thirds of what we had from the date we started to count debt in this province. That's a staggering consideration for British Columbians to look at.

It's easy to try to lay the blame for all of the fiscal problems we have in this province at the feet of this government. In truth, we can't honestly do that. I know that politically we'd like to do that. When we get into the cut and thrust of debate it's good to do that, because if it's all your fault, then, goodness knows, the people should vote for me because I'll fix it. The point is -- given the continentalization of our economy and the globalization of our economy -- that even if the official opposition sat in those chairs tomorrow morning, it is doubtful that they would be able to deal with this issue

more effectively. If I took over government tomorrow, and the PDA all of a sudden became government, it is doubtful that we would be able to deal with this more effectively. The reason -- and I wish that we could focus for just some period of time in the Legislature on the real issue -- is because we are being driven by a globalized economy that works against us. It works against us because we are a primary resource-based economy that has not been able over the years since Confederation -- nationally or within our province -- to successfully diversify our economy effectively enough to secure an industrial manufacturing and processing base. We are heavily dependent on resources from our forest sector, from our mining sector, from our fisheries and from primary produced goods in this province.

We are now facing even greater problems with respect to our ability to deal with it, because as members of British Columbia or as citizens of Canada we provide to the federal government significant amounts of money collected from the resources of the people in British Columbia and send it to Ottawa, only to find that Ottawa -- which has a legally binding commitment to fund us -- chooses not to do so at the level that it has in the past.

The federal transfer into British Columbia continues to decline. I don't care whether it's NDP or Liberal or PDA or Reform, or whatever other party may come up between now and the next election, that sits in the chair of the Minister of Finance, British Columbians have to hear us when we say: "If the federal government continues to constrain transfers back to this province, then we will have no alternative but to seek to get the moneys we need for health and education -- and the very fundamental bases of our society that we wish to protect -- from British Columbians within the province."

That's what is going on, and we have to understand why that's going on. It's going on because Ottawa itself has no capacity to look toward fiscal reform. It's not because Paul Martin is an evil man. It's not because Jean Chr�tien's government doesn't have some sympathy for Canadians; I believe they do. I don't happen to agree with much of what they're doing right now, but I think they do. Canada's economy is constrained because we have bought into a continentalization of our economic opportunities through the free trade agreement, which is a negative to Canada; the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is a negative to Canada; and now, as I raised on Tuesday of this week in question period -- and that sits on a motion paper in this House -- through the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment.

I think all of us must understand the significance of what this will do to our ability to control and govern our domestic economy. If this multilateral agreement on investment comes into play, not only will we no longer have authority to control foreign ownership, foreign investment and flight of foreign capital, it will disallow our opportunity to maintain Crown corporations -- to put in place price regulations through the B.C. Utilities Commission. It will make it impossible for us to properly manage our economy domestically, because those who choose to access our resources, those who look to what the wealth of this province really is: our water, our timber, our mines, our mineralization, our fish -- all of those kinds of goods that we currently depend upon for our domestic well-being. . . . The issues of how those resources are extracted and where those profits go will be decided by international investors without our ability to constrain them. That's what's going on.

Through Mr. Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, as well as through the Minister of International Trade, we have had negotiators sitting over there in Paris since the middle of 1995, negotiating a deal which will not only totally undermine Canada's sovereignty -- which it will do on these areas and issues -- but will completely exempt British Columbia from exercising its fundamental right to be able to manage our resources, our employment, our training and jobs, as is guaranteed within the Canadian constitution.

That is what is going on, and it's going on as I stand here today. When I raise this matter. . . . This budget pales in terms of its problems when you read the text of this very weighty document, because when we start to examine what our abilities are to manage our economy, we have to understand that they are constrained by trade agreements. They are constrained by U.S. trade law. They are constrained by a softwood lumber agreement. They are constrained, as the Premier of this province will testify to today. . . . He is down in the United States, once again having to try to convince the Americans that a jobs and timber accord which protects jobs in British Columbia is not a violation of U.S. trade law. Our Premier is down there doing whatever he can and the best that he can with his staff, trying to convince the Americans that an agreement that has been worked out by lumber companies in British Columbia to protect British Columbia-based jobs in our communities: my community of Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, Gibsons, North Island, interior communities. . . .

I was just up in Smithers not long ago on the Repap question. Do you want to know why we have trouble in British Columbia? It isn't because there was a fudging of figures in the budget, as much as that might be an annoyance to all British Columbians.

G. Wilson: The members opposite are saying: "Come on, Gordon." They clearly have not read this document, and I would urge them to. Neither do they understand what the federal government is doing right now with respect to constraining our ability to look after our domestic economy. I urge you, hon. Speaker, and I urge this House -- and I have it on the order paper -- to consider that motion. Next week perhaps we can, because we need a full debate on this issue alone. What will happen to this budget, if such an agreement as I have just outlined comes into play, will be that we can no longer put in place a jobs and timber accord that was so passionately spoken to and put in place, because we will no longer have the capacity to make those protections. Why? Because it offends U.S. trade law.

Let's move to one other area, if the members in the chamber doubt what I'm saying. Let's talk about health care for a minute, because in this budget we had many speakers, especially speakers on that side of the House, stand up and say that they are passionately protecting health care and that they are going to put in place the necessary protections to maintain our access to health care. I have argued that we don't have health care in British Columbia; we have disease care. It was interesting for me to note that earlier on the members of the B.C. Medical Association were introduced in this House. I don't direct my remarks so much at them, but I hope that perhaps they're hearing them today. We have disease care because it's becoming more and more difficult to direct moneys away from institutionalized health systems such as hospitals towards preventative and alternative health care measures that can bring about prevention rather than treat the disease.

If you don't think that the international agreements are making it more difficult, I draw to the attention of the members of this House something that is called the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is a functional part of the World Health Organization and the world agricultural organization, and it meets regularly, usually in Rome. A meeting was recently brought about as a result of the GATT and the World Trade Organization agreements, and what are they recommending? A strong presentation was made by the German delegation, which submitted to this convention that international agreements with respect to herbal medicines be drawn upon, and that those international agreements would put in place that no dietary supplement could be sold for preventative or therapeutic uses, no dietary supplement sold as food could exceed potency levels set by the commission. They talk about RDA levels. For example, vitamin C would be 60 milligrams, 15 IU for vitamin E, and it goes on.

It says that those herbal medicines and those medicines traditionally used by alternative health providers have to come under a new health act that will provide them only through the pharmaceutical associations. That's what it says. And you know what? Canada is agreeing to this. In our own House of Commons we see the fact that we are now going to have to go through a pharmacist to get what conventionally and ordinarily would be found as preventative measures, vitamins and other kinds of herbal medicines, through a pharmaceutical association that wants to have a locking monopoly -- what I call the corporate drug pushers of the world -- in order for them to be able to make our health care costs go up.

Who's going to pay for it? Well, you know what? We are. And where's that going to be found? It's going to be found in this little budget that we're debating today, when we say: "Guess what, guys. Health care costs have risen by another 12 percent." Why? The pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune because we're no longer worried about preventative health care by allowing us access to adequate nutrition, vitamins and other kinds of useful herbal medicines. We're now sticking it all into the pharmaceutical industry. That's what's going on in the Commons. Where's that debate, hon. Speaker? That's what's driving budgetary measures in British Columbia. That's what's forcing up costs. Those are the issues we should be talking about.

I could get into the international food patenting industry that talks about seed patenting and hybridization in food, and I've got some really interesting documents on that. That's being driven by five major international food distribution companies. Why? Because they want to have a lock on seed distribution, and if you can't get the seeds, you can't grow the food. And you know what? Canada's in there going: "Oh, okay. If that's the name of the game, let's get on with it."

Somehow there is a national crisis afoot that nobody has yet caught on to, and our little provincial budget that we have to debate is so heavily influenced and biased by these continental and globalized economic issues that we cannot and must not ignore them in our debate on how we're spending our money in British Columbia, because we have limited ability to change it.

I can't tell you how angry I am -- and I think some people can maybe hear that -- at our federal government right now, about what they are doing with respect to this multilateral agreement on investment. I want to talk about two other areas that are affected by this. One is B.C. Hydro and our ability to regulate utility prices in the province. We will not be permitted to do so under this agreement, because this agreement will eliminate the opportunity for state-maintained monopolies -- B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, ICBC -- we can go on. . . . Why? Because international corporations want access to our resources -- namely, water. Water is the issue. It's the one thing that is coveted more than anything else by those living south. And guess what: most of it goes that way. Most of it runs that way.

If we are to be competitive in the world market in order to keep industry going in British Columbia, nothing could be more fundamental than our ability to control our utility prices. B.C. Hydro prices right now are the lowest anywhere in North America. And that's a good thing. That's a really good thing, because it means that we have a competitive edge -- one that angers our friends to the south, who are finding themselves constrained because they have to allow too much water flow. There is a very strong Environmental Protection Agency down there and a fisheries department that says they're upset at the fact that they're losing their fishery stock. So for those of us who live in the Kootenays, who live along the edges of our reservoirs, who wake up in the morning and see nothing but mud flats and ask ourselves why, that's why: because we've got to send it south.

I, for one, have to tell you that we've heard enough, I think, about whether or not the budget was or wasn't balanced. That's an important issue for British Columbians, to be sure. I don't diminish its importance. But it isn't as important as this stuff; it truly is not as important as this stuff. I lament, because, I tell you, we've become so narrowly focused on that which is affecting us provincially that we forget we are influenced nationally and internationally.

If our lumber prices fall, if our pulp prices decline, and if there is an international movement now with respect to our softwood lumber to try and break open Canadian forests for access to American companies. . . . Weldwood, always owned out of New York, has now just been sold to John Hancock; an insurance company picked up the private holdings of Weldwood -- all of that private forest land in British Columbia. Guess what, guys. Under this agreement, if they decide they want to log their private forest lands and ship their logs to their mills in Oregon, there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Because it says you cannot restrict the sale or movement of assets or repatriation of assets. That's what it says. It's a little like when GATT said to our fishers: "Sorry, guys, but there's no way that you can have a requirement or a regulation to land those fish in Canada. In fact, they can be landed in the States."

When are we going to stand up and fight for this province and this country? When are we collectively going to say: "Okay. Let's put our partisan stuff aside for the time being." It's fun when we get into those battles, and an election is a great time to do it. But the election's over, and we are threatened in terms of our economic sovereignty in this province -- our ability to maintain and control our economy -- and we are threatened nationally.

This great Liberal Party of which I have been a member for a long time -- federally, particularly, even longer. . . . I am ashamed of it, I've got to tell you. They fought against the free trade agreement. They fought against it; they fought for the national interest. They recognized that Canada was a nation that has been built by preventing the continentalization of our economy. And today they are its principal advocates. They are out there selling this thing so fast. I'll tell you, if the people of British Columbia, the people of Canada, want an election issue, here it is, guys -- although I'm not sure who's going to

pick up the mantle. I see that the New Democrats are changing their position on NAFTA, if I can believe the newspapers today. I don't know what the text of that is.

I want to close my remarks on this budget speech. If I have drifted into the larger issue, it's only because it hasn't come up in this debate yet, and it has to. We clearly must recognize that this country is under threat by globalization of an economy that is attacking 30 million Canadians, and three million British Columbians as a functional part of those 30 million Canadians. We are simply giving away the farm. We're handing it over. It doesn't matter which of us forms government. These international agreements, these agreements that are affecting our economy, these agreements that are going to be in place will provide multinational corporate enterprises to put in place the new corporate feudalism -- and that's what it is. Whether any one of the members in this House and the parties they represent sit in that government, it will not prevent the fact that we are becoming tenants in our own country and that we are eliminating our opportunity to own our own economy.

And when we put in a budget, we should fight tooth and nail to make sure that Canadians and British Columbians -- because that is who our constituency is here -- protect our right to own our own economy. If we believe in the concept of what we call free enterprise, as opposed to what some would argue is private enterprise -- and I'm a free enterpriser, not a private enterpriser -- then we must react against those who will constrain our ability to put in place the levels of consideration necessary for us to be able to protect and maintain ownership within our own economy.

There are many others who will speak to this budget and who will tell the people of British Columbia what it means in terms of the numbers. The member for Delta South put together what I thought was an outstanding presentation with respect to the manner by which we report figures and the manner by which we actually account for those figures. That is his profession. I think he put together an extremely good representation, and I wouldn't pretend to try to get into that level of discussion on the numbers. Certainly he is an expert in the field, and I think he delivered an expert speech. Others have talked to the overall reporting and the question of the balancing of the budget and whether it was or wasn't balanced, and I'm not going to repeat that.

For my contribution to this debate, I hope that I at least have served to flag an issue that British Columbians need to have flagged. It is time for us to realize that we are not alone in this great global economy. It is time for us to recognize that there are forces at work out there that are not necessarily working in our favour. And it's time for us to recognize also that we must put in place strategies that will provide us the opportunity to succeed.

I always like to try to end on a constructive and positive note, and I would suggest that there are three areas in which we can work together immediately to counter some of these measures. First, I think we must undertake -- as I have spoken to earlier on -- to take the Forest Renewal B.C. moneys and put those moneys on deposit in the communities of this province so that they can access those dollars and put them directly to work within the communities themselves. That will shelter that money. Otherwise, it will not be sheltered and it cannot be used for its intended purpose: to put back to work forest workers who are out of work and to expand local community economies.

I have put to this government -- I have put to the FRBC board -- a proposal that will do that. I hope that they take the proposal seriously. I understand they are giving serious consideration to it, and I appreciate that. Because that will take Forest Renewal moneys, the jobs and timber accord, and it will put it into the communities where it can do the most good for those forest-dependent communities and those workers that are out of work. Most importantly, it will shelter it from the kind of attack that's coming down under an agreement, as I've just pointed out.

The second area is that I think we have to get serious about tax reform. We must start to exercise our rights to be able to control our own taxation. It is time that British Columbia move toward a provincial collection of all taxes, and then we will remit our fair share federally. That will protect us from the loss of federal transfers into this province. We have the constitutional authority to do so; we only acquiesced that right by virtue of an agreement after the First World War. There is no reason for us not to take that back now, and be good Canadians by sharing that amount that we can then forward to Ottawa, rather than have Ottawa cut us off.

Lastly, we must move toward a limits-to-growth economic strategy that recognizes we do not have undefined limits by which we can take our renewable and non-renewable resources without tremendous ecological and environmental penalty. An economic strategy based on limits to growth is something that is both timely and modern. It will be the salvation of any free enterprise government, because it will provide in perpetuity the opportunity for us to be able to make sure that our children and their children and their children's children will inherit wealth, will inherit an opportunity to live a quality of life unparalleled anywhere, rather than simply inherit debt upon debt upon debt.

Those are three positive messages to this government. I hope that they've been heard, and I hope they will be followed. I appreciate the opportunity to have this time to speak, and I hope that British Columbians who have heard me today will unite in their cause to protect our province and our country, because nothing is more urgent today.

R. Thorpe: Today I will comment, on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, on the March 25 budget -- a budget that this Minister of Finance says he is proud of. That is an unbelievable statement, and I ask: how can this minister be proud of such a budget, a budget that shows a deficit of $185 million, the sixth deficit in a row; a budget that forecasts debt soon to be $31 billion, up $1.4 billion in this year alone; a budget that contains extreme manipulation, that says spending is down for the first time in 40 years. That is a statement based on smoke and mirrors and non-consistent accounting approaches. This NDP government must stop deceiving the hard-working people of British Columbia. This is not a budget this minister should be proud of. It's time for this government to please tell the people only the facts, in a timely and truthful manner.

Please let me quote the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia and their president, who made comments about this 1997 budget: "The province's total accumulated debt will top the $30 billion mark this year, and [the minister] has still not introduced any credible strategy to rein it under control." The certified general accountants also

state: "While the minister says that he's holding the deficit line to $185 million for 1997-98, the reality is that our total provincial debt will increase by $1.4 billion this year alone." This is a government that is fiscally irresponsible, has no vision, has no plan. Most alarming of all, the minister responsible has absolutely no management skill or commitment to getting the job done or to meeting his own measurable benchmarks.

Very shortly this NDP government will lead us into a financial crisis in British Columbia, as a direct result of six successive NDP deficits and the mountains and mountains of increasing debt. Only a few years ago this government announced with great fanfare a debt management plan. This NDP government has failed miserably to achieve its own goals from its own plan. This was their plan. It was not a plan from the opposition. It was not a plan from the banks, but their own plan. What happened? Why did they fail so miserably? Mr. Troy Lanigan of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation recently commented on the NDP debt management: "We have commitments that might as well have been scribbled in crayon in the budget documents, for all their validity."

Now we have this government, after they've cancelled their debt management plan, announcing a new NDP financial tool: a financial management plan. Please! British Columbians do deserve better. Who is this minister fooling? The minister is not fooling the residents of Naramata or Peachland or Summerland or Penticton. The answer is very clear: he's not fooling anyone except his own friends and his own insiders. It's all political rhetoric. When this government starts managing the province's finances for all British Columbians, we will all be better off.

This government must practise what individuals have to practise every day in their house, and that is fiscal responsibility. Only a short year ago we heard great claims of two balanced budgets. Well, we know the truth, and the truth was no balanced budgets. In fact, debt increased and deficits increased by over $600 million.

Missing from this year's budget, for some reason, is the continual reference to British Columbia having the best credit rating in Canada. Why would that happen? No reference to B.C.'s credit rating? What has happened? Does this minister know something he's not sharing with this House? What are we hiding from the citizens of British Columbia? Do we have a credit downrating coming? What is happening?

It's time for this minister to stand up, as he did today, and admit that we have problems. He must share with all citizens of British Columbia. What will this downgrading cost us? How many schools and hospitals will be lost because of this government's irresponsible, reckless approach to fiscal management and their lack of accountability? They spend and they spend, and they tax and they tax. And now we have new words: they fee and they fee. And yet we have more mountains of debt.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government will spend in total -- the total government. . . . And that's what British Columbians want to know: the total government, not just one little part. This year we will spend in excess of $2 billion in British Columbia to cover provincial debt -- over a 15 percent increase in four years. All the while, interest rates are at the lowest they've ever been.

Interest costs of over $2 billion rank only behind the spending on health care and education in this province. But how many schools and hospitals could we have built, and how many portables could we have eliminated if this government could manage in a responsible way? How many more educators and how many more health care workers could we hire to serve the needs of all British Columbians if this government had some fiscal responsibility? That's the question British Columbians want answered.

The tax and the spend and the debt policies of the NDP government are going to put our critical and vital services of health care, education and caring for those truly in need in our province in desperate positions and our communities at risk. British Columbians know that irresponsible spending leads to crisis, and under this NDP government it's crisis after crisis after crisis. And yet this government does not get it. They are not listening to British Columbians.

Then, of course, this NDP government attacks the federal government for downloading. Yet that NDP government negotiated those transfer payments with the feds, and they knew well in advance what they would be. When it comes to municipalities, this government makes a promise to consult. Does it consult? The answer is no. Only a few months later, they take out the bat and they whack municipalities for $113 million. Yet this Finance minister says he's proud of this budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, he should be ashamed.

This NDP government has not delivered. This is not a budget to be proud of, and, quite frankly, the minister's credibility has been stretched to the limit on this, his second budget. If this minister were truly proud and committed to this budget, and if he could walk the talk, the minister should put his job on the line. Furthermore, he should put his seat on the line, and if he doesn't achieve his own measurable benchmarks, he should resign -- show British Columbians he's serious.

British Columbians want results; they want the true facts. Above all, they want honest results and for the government to keep its word and not to keep breaking its promises. In a recent document I reviewed, which compares government taxes and government spending in an index form, British Columbia ranked thirty-first out of a list of 32 established provinces and states. Ranking ahead of British Columbia are Alberta, No. 1; Saskatchewan, No. 2; Manitoba, No. 27; and Newfoundland, No. 30. B.C. ranks thirty-first out of 32.

Mr. Speaker, B.C.'s fiscal performance is not acceptable. Given that we in British Columbia have all the natural resources one could ever dream of, given the influx of new residents, given the opportunity and the potential for new wealth, and given our location as a gateway to the new markets of the world, this government should be performing. It is not performing.

One can only conclude that the NDP. . .tax, tax, spend, spend, fee, fee, debt, debt -- and mountains of debt -- is not working: $31 billion in debt. And listen -- they have failed. This same approach has failed in every other part of the world. It is not going to work in British Columbia. Stop the tax-fee-spend-debt program. It's not working. You are picking the pockets of the people of British Columbia, and it must stop.

This government tries to tell us that they're looking after health care and education and seniors, and yet they put up ambulance fees. Quite frankly, that's inexcusable, especially in the northern parts of this province. In the North Island and in the other rural parts of this province, that is inexcusable. That member should not be proud of that.

Then, of course, it even costs more to die in British Columbia now. Probate fees are up 133 percent. And they said they would not introduce a wealth tax -- another broken promise.

My constituents continually tell me that they're concerned about the delays and the deterioration of health care for our children and seniors -- very, very concerned.

Let's shift gears here for a second. Let's pause for a moment. Let's look to the future of our great province. What have this government's short-term actions done to our future economy, the future of our children and our grandchildren? Reviewing the Business Council of B.C.'s commentary on this budget, it says:

In addition, the business community also expresses very serious concerns about the outflow of capital, of corporate activity and of very, very skilled workers.

When will this government truly start to listen to all British Columbians? This government apparently does not understand a very simplistic approach -- that private investment creates jobs in British Columbia. When British Columbians are working, they're providing for their families, they're enjoying themselves, they're healthier, and life is much better. People working creates a very strong education system and a health care system. They're based on a strong economy. We need the private investment. But private investment needs stability and certainty; fair, not excessive, taxation; and an action- and results-based government, not layers and layers of bureaucracy that create more and more red tape every day. This government is a master of red tape. This red tape continues to strangle all sizes of businesses in this province. Most importantly, the engine of our future -- small business -- is being strangled and killed by this government. This social engineering must stop.

Let's take a moment and look at the real truth: the facts, nothing but the facts. The minister says his deficit is $185 million. His own document -- his own document, Mr. Speaker -- shows, on page 25, a true deficit of $886 million. Those are the facts presented by the government. Yet the minister says he's proud of this budget? The minister says this is the lowest deficit of this decade. Again, this is not true; the facts are right here. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. It shows right here, on page 25, that the deficit has increased by $138 million. What happened to the minister's decrease? I wish the minister could just give us the facts and stop deceiving British Columbians.

In addition, in this budget this government has off-loaded. They've become masters of off-loading: municipalities, $113 million; highway maintenance, $70 million; tourism costs, $20 million; silviculture, $100 million; school renovations, $35 million. That's a total of $338 million in off-loading. I'm sure we haven't found it all yet -- but estimates are coming.

And there's more. What about the costs for the Kemano project? Where are they budgeted? Aboriginal land claims -- where are they budgeted? What about the costs related to the smokescreen freezes in ICBC and Hydro? Where are those costs hidden? We will dig them up one day. We will dig them up. People will know the truth. The true deficit in British Columbia, the best we can estimate on the facts that we have now -- and they come a little slower and slower from this government -- is at least $1.4 billion.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Okanagan-Penticton are not and will not buy into this sham of a budget. Quite frankly, my constituents are offended by the government's propaganda, by the NDP party and all this advertising. This money should be going into health care and education. The citizens of Naramata, Peachland, Summerland and Penticton want their money spent on health care and education; they don't want it wasted on government propaganda advertising. That masquerade must stop.

R. Thorpe: Your mismanagement is hurting the families and children of British Columbia, and you have to stand up and be accounted in your community.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. Could the member take his seat, please. I just want to remind members that all debate in this chamber is through the Chair, and the words "you" and "member" are not permitted.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and this NDP government have been using the word "prudent." I decided to look it up, and I checked Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Prudent is defined. . . . I wanted to be sure. It's defined as "marked by wisdom" -- Mr. Speaker, make your own conclusion -- and "shrewd in the management of practical affairs." Draw your own conclusion.

This budget is not prudent. But I suppose that this NDP government has its own dictionary, and no doubt the word prudent will be redefined to be whatever they want it to be. Not that long ago, the Minister of Forests said that this government can do whatever it wants. I suppose this would be just yet another example.

This budget does not serve all British Columbians. It does not protect health care and education, it puts those vital services in jeopardy -- no doubt, with this government, double jeopardy.

It is not possible for the minister to be proud of a tax-tax, fee-fee, debt-debt budget. It's not possible. The citizens of Peachland, Naramata, Penticton and Summerland tell me they want fiscal responsibility. They want a government that lives within its means, while protecting health care and education. A B.C. Liberal government will introduce truth in budgeting, and we will introduce balanced-budget legislation, so the people of British Columbia will know.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, there is only one thing I can agree with the minister on in this budget. I'm sorry there's only one thing I can agree on. And in the minister's own words: "I don't expect you to believe me." Well, the minister is correct.

Therefore, on behalf of the citizens of the riding of Okanagan-Penticton who work so very hard to look after their families, I must and will vote no to this very deceptive budget. This is not a prudent budget. The minister should not be proud of this budget.

V. Anderson: In replying to the budget speech, I've been listening fairly carefully, either in the House or to the televisi-

on in the office, and I've been finding two very consistent views of our past, our present and our future. Speaker after speaker has got up and expounded one or other of these views, all with great eloquence. If you accept the presupposition of each view, then they both sound equally plausible and even convincing, although they come from different presuppositions.

One view starts with the presupposition that the present government is doing everything right, and therefore everything has turned out rosy. The other starts with the presupposition, from their experience, that the present government has been making a number of mistakes, a number of misjudgments -- whether consciously or unconsciously is unimportant. But because of them, the difficulty of people in this province to live and to accept what is happening to our province has grown considerably.

In the last election, just about a year ago now, all the main parties promised essentially the same three things: better health care, better education and better financing. The public had to choose the winner. In making that choice, they really had two things to consider: (1) who would do the best job, and (2) who would cause the most chaos and the most havoc?

Of course I have a biased view, and I acknowledge that. But in trying to be fair about it, it must seem to anyone in the community as they read the daily press that though one group got the higher percentage of votes, the other group won because they got the highest number of seats. Ever since that election, this government has found itself continually on the front pages of the newspapers, in trouble and in uncertainty, and the public has been coming to them in unprecedented numbers to ask: "What is going on? How can you do so much wrong in such a short time?"

Now, I want to try and be fair, and I do acknowledge that some of the things the NDP government has attempted to do are fair and just. One thing I would particularly commend them on is giving support of $103 a month to low-income families, so that our children could have the opportunity -- at least to a limited extent -- that is rightfully theirs and to which we have all committed ourselves.

But when I get the letters that come into the office, and when I listen to the phone calls, there are many other things that have gone astray. They have taken the good principles of the B.C. Benefits program, which I promoted along with them and voted for, and turned them into a nightmare so that the low-income people of this province believe, unfortunately, that they were brought in for the purpose of dividing one group against another -- and that's their statement, not mine.

They have taken the opportunity in our health care. . . . And they have taken the good concept of Closer to Home and downgraded it. So constituent after constituent is telling me that in practice they have never had such poor health care in their lives.

They have taken what we all agreed was one of the best educational systems in the world, and they have pitted the children and the parents and the teachers one against the other, so much so that the young people say: "We were promised, and the promise was broken. We were promised a new school, and we have the letter to prove it from the present Minister of Education." They have yet to see it come. They've been promised that again, but we'll wait and see.

V. Anderson: No. For this year. It can't be done overnight. It can be done over years and years, and that's not. . . . These children will be grown up and out of school by then, and that's unfortunate.

It's no accident that our people are feeling less secure and more frightened. A focal point of this growing unrest is, of course, the budget and all the items related to it. Behind the budget someplace is that plan: p-l-a-n, in black capital letters. And the scary part is that this plan exists, we presume, somewhere in the back room, known only to a few. I believe it's not even known to all the members of the cabinet itself, and it's certainly not known to many of the backbenchers. Yet the plan is reorganizing the province little by little, and if it is allowed to continue, we'll wake up one of these mornings and find that we are a controlled society, and then there will be no place to turn.

Many in the province -- in fact, thousands -- have already felt the dreadful effects of the plan. Their jobs have been lost. They have become unemployed, a category that doesn't exist anymore within the services of this government. Even that has been done away with. Their futures and their families have been destroyed. They bought the idea that they would have ice cream, and now they find that all they've got is an empty cone.

Just this week I had a perfect example. As I listened to the radio, either a teacher or students at the University of Northern British Columbia -- I'm not sure, because I came a little late on it -- said that they had been taken, to paraphrase their words. They were pleased that tuition fees had been frozen, so the opportunity to go to college would be that much easier. But when they got to college, they found that because of the cutbacks in educational support and because of lack of funding to the college, the number of courses that they wanted to take were not available. The government says: "We've created that many more seats." But seats are no good if there are no teachers and no adequate courses that the students can get when they sit in those seats. That's the reality of their experience: receive on the one hand and take away on the other.

The residents in downtown Vancouver had a great dream that in the revitalization of downtown, there would be government partnerships with the private sector. One of these was a landmark in our community that everyone knows as the Woodward's building. The people in the downtown worked together with each other, and they worked at it for years. They were sparked by the dream of the former Premier of this province, the leader of the NDP government who went on television and said: "We've arranged a partnership with the Woodward's redevelopment, and there will be 200 low-income, comfortable, excellent living accommodations for the people downtown." All they had to do was to work at this. We know that dream has vanished and become a nightmare.

So far we've heard nothing from this government to deal with that dream or to respond to the crushed hopes of those people. The agents of the plan say each time: "Well, be patient. It's just going to take a little more time. Be patient enough, and tomorrow it will be better. We made a mistake this time, but tomorrow it will be better. The plan will look after you." For a time people believed this, or at least they wanted to believe it.

So they gave the government another chance, but they were misled once again. What they're hearing now for their future is: "All you've got to do is buy a ticket. You don't listen to the government. You don't wait for a program that will

serve you. You don't wait for the money you paid in taxes to come back in services. What you do is take your money and go out and buy a ticket. That ticket will be your dream and your future." Of course, if the first ticket doesn't work, you go out and buy another ticket. Or they'll have another plan for you and another opportunity for you to put your money in a ticket.

It wasn't too long ago that the people of this province bought a ticket. They bought the super-ticket of the forest renewal plan. It promised them jobs and opportunities and recovery and reforestation, and a whole host of things. But the people got nothing out of this. The plan was the only one that got something out of this, for they had a big bank account that they could use to offer goodies to those who bowed down and accepted the demands of the plan. Oh yes, we notice that the plan is like an octopus, and it has its tentacles in all directions: in the Crown corporations, in every appointed board and committee of the province, in health councils, in education councils, and wherever. Now each of these must kowtow to the plan, or else they will be removed and replaced by someone else who will.

Hon. Speaker, it's a concern. What we've discovered in the legislation, which is unique to what this Legislature has been doing over the last six years I've been here. . . . I wondered about it a few years ago, but being new, I assumed that's the way it was done. Unfortunately, I learned too late, and I hope others will learn sooner. At the bottom of each piece of legislation is a phrase saying that the regulations will be written, developed, changed, altered by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In essence, this means that the members of the cabinet, without any say to the province, without any way to control it, without any real way to know what they are until it's too late. . . . There was a time when the power was given, but there was a list of things that the power was given for. Now, as one of our own members has said, it's a blank cheque, and the government writes it for the plan again and again.

We found that in the gaming regulations that have come forth. Those regulations are not coming to the Legislature. They're dictated by the agents of the plan. The people of the province bring their petitions and come to visit, and the agents of the plan say: "Sorry, it will be the way it will be, and there's nothing you can do about it." So the agents of the plan change the regulations, and these become more cumbersome, more demanding and more costly every day.

As I looked at the theme of what is happening within our province, I tried to find a word that would describe it in my own mind. I stepped back from the word that came to mind, until at last I decided that it was the most effective word. That word is "insidious." The plan is exercising an insidious control upon the whole of our province and the whole of our lives. First a definition and then an illustration. The definition of insidious is: sly, treacherous, seductive, having a gradual and cumulative effect, subtle. That's what the control of the plan is doing to this province. It's having a gradual and subtle cumulative effect in controlling and regulating our lives and cutting off the means by which we can get them back. For me, it really triggered the extent to which this might be coming when I heard the rumour the other day -- and rumours of this kind seem to become fact again and again -- that the police boards, which were citizens' police boards, will now be done away with. They, like the health boards and others, will be controlled by the plan.

This has happened in other countries. We never thought it might happen in our own. To me, one of the subtle demonstrations of the plan happens here on the floor of our own Legislature. There is a kind of compulsion here -- contrary to what many of us felt before we joined the Legislature -- that one should not break ranks with one's caucus, and therefore in this Legislature one should not say publicly what one has said privately outside. It may be, and I'm not even sure it's true there anymore, that one can say, within the confines of the respective caucus chambers, what they see, in disagreement with each other. But what it's come to is that what happens in that private caucus discussion is not supposed to be said outside. And we say that we've got a free and open society where everyone can speak their mind openly and clearly -- except in the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, that's wrong, and that's the insidious thing that's coming down upon all of us in this Legislature. I'm not pointing to either the government or the opposition at this point, because it's an insidious influence that is coming down on all of us. It's a great concern, because that enables the plan to orchestrate every one of us, and I'm afraid that's exactly what has been happening.

Here in the Legislature, each side challenges the other to speak out and to be honest about their opinions on the issues that come before us. Each side points to the other and asks: "Why don't you speak up here publicly on what you've said privately?" And each side finds that they don't dare to, because they have to be unified to win. But to win what? And what are we losing in the process? Our freedom in our own abilities. This way, only the plan wins, and we lose respect for ourselves individually and collectively, and our community loses its heart and its soul.

The backbenchers are not part of the plan. Some of the caucus are not part of the plan. Some of the government -- I am convinced, knowing some of them -- are not really part of the plan, for they too are brought into line by that unseen force, by that unknown, unheard and unspoken group who are developing and controlling the daily plan, threatening us and bringing foreboding and disaster upon all of us.

We laugh about this when it's raised, and some may say that it's just the rantings of an old gentleman. But if we wait until it's too late, until the plan has exercised its full control and free speech is no longer allowed here or any place else, because it's politically incorrect, we, like other nations of the world, will find our calamity. They, too, said it wouldn't happen there, and when people began to say that it was happening and so let's be careful and be vigilant, people said: "Oh, no."

Just yesterday I was talking to a gentleman visiting us -- who, no doubt, was in the Legislature this morning and this afternoon -- who comes from a Mennonite background. I was discussing this very thing with him. I said to him that people of his background will know what I'm talking about, and he said: "Yes, some of our elders are saying that we need to be aware, and there's a warning that needs to come out." And our young people are saying: "No, it can't happen here." But we need to remember that it is happening here. If the plan destroys our trust in each other in this Legislature and destroys our credibility to work together on behalf our people. . . . If that credibility is destroyed -- and it certainly has been challenged by the plan -- then we're on the downslope very quickly, and our grandchildren will not have the privileges we have. They will not have the freedom we've had. They will not have the opportunities we take for granted.

Our phones have begun to ring, and I'm sure every MLA office across this province will have its phones ringing more

and more, by the dastardly deed of the plan which came into effect on April 1, 1997, when 27,000 people in this province who are of the lowest economic status -- not low in any other way except in economic status -- discovered that the category of unemployed had been eliminated and that their support system had been eliminated with it.

Every one of those 27,000 now has to go and make a new application. They have to go and get the forms; they have to take them to the medical doctor; and they have to go back to their financial assistance officer. They take them back, and they're shipped here to Victoria, the core of where the plan operates. Six weeks later, some of them will discover -- probably 5,000 out of the 27,000 is the estimate at the moment -- that they'll be recognized for special needs support for the next year or up to the next year, but only that far. There will be grave limitations, including that they have to declare if they have a warrant of any kind out against them -- the very thing that was questioned. That's in the law that went into effect the first of this month, brought together by this plan. Probably 5,000 of them -- and that's the estimate at the moment -- will continue with a disability classification. But that will take up to at least four months to decide, and those are the minimum. That's written right into the regulations.

That leaves 17,000 that aren't a part of that category. Those 17,000 will automatically lose 17 percent of their income at the end of June. They will go from $596 a month to $500 a month. They will go from $9 a day to $5.08 a day for everything in their lives, apart from rent. It's impossible. People are phoning in and crying and weeping already. The advocates are saying: "We can't help you. The only thing we can say is get your application in now." I say to the people of the province who received this notice in their last cheque: "Get your application in and send it in today, because you might be able to win the lottery and be one of those 5,000 or 10,000 out of the 17,000 who is saved."

This is a disastrous situation, and we've only begun to hear the consequences of it. Some might think I'm discouraged. I'm not, because I come from a tradition which says that we must first confess in order to renew ourselves, and out of the confession, to acknowledge the real state in which we find ourselves, and then renewal is possible.

I would read, finally, as we move forward -- because I think it gives us a base on which to be renewed -- a note that was found in the billfold of a missionary doctor after he had died. He had worked in India for a number of years some years ago. I find his words challenging:

E. Conroy: It's with pleasure that I rise to address our budget for this year. In this budget, our government has made a clear commitment to the priorities of British Columbians. It is on these priorities of protecting health care and education, enhancing our already strong job creation record and easing the burden on the middle- and lower-income British Columbians that we will concentrate.

This will be achieved in a fiscally responsible manner. The budget shows real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path. It is based on prudent economic assumptions, and is consistent with the priorities of British Columbians. For the first time in almost 40 years, overall spending is down by more than $100 million. The projected provincial deficit of $185 million is the smallest this decade. In addition, it provides $300 million more for health care and $63 million more for education. These initiatives, combined with job creation; tax cuts; freezes to Hydro and ICBC rates and college and university tuition fees; and more college and university spaces bode well for our future. In short, spending on health care and education is up, while total spending is down. Spending for middle- and lower-income British Columbians is up, while taxes for average British Columbians are down. Jobs for our citizens are up, while British Columbia's deficit is down.

This budget will be of great benefit to all the constituents of Rossland-Trail. The Columbia Basin Trust was formed under our government to assist our citizens in recouping lost economic opportunities as a result of the flooding of our river valleys. It is partly because of the trust that our government entered into negotiations with Cominco, which culminated in the opening of their new lead furnace last month in Trail, thus ensuring that 2,500 jobs in the Kootenays are protected. The trust itself will be the catalyst for hundreds of direct jobs in construction and for all the spinoffs that will occur for our small business community. As these investments begin to pay off, a window of opportunity will open for our youth which never would have been possible had our local MLAs not fought for the inception of the trust.

Our government is not just talking. In the Kootenays, it's taking action on education and youth employment initiatives. Our colleges now have the spaces to accommodate those who have the desire and qualifications for admission, and because of the financial initiatives of our government, students can do so in an atmosphere less complicated by concerns about oppressive debt.

The Allied Hydro agreement will allow for the development of three power projects in the Kootenays, free from strikes and lockouts, while at the same time providing hundreds of good-paying, local union jobs for our people. For every three tradespersons employed, one apprentice will also find employment. We will train our young people for a bright future, even though our major industrial employers resist providing these avenues of opportunity to our youth.

As a result of the initiatives of our government, we are adding value to our forest sector. Smaller mills are developing more products and employing more people as a result of the government's remanufacturing initiatives. The Premier's intention of tying jobs to resources is bearing fruit in my constituency. It's creating jobs and making for a better utilization of the resource. Our sustainable forests are being managed to create sustainable jobs for the people of the Kootenays.

The economy of the Kootenays is evolving, and being a part of a province with the lowest per capita debt and one of the highest credit ratings in the country certainly helps. Once again, current initiatives such as a two-year tax holiday for new small businesses, a freeze on ICBC rates, and a freeze for three years on taxes and two years on tuition give further opportunities to the Kootenays under this government.

This budget shows that this government cares about our people. The Kootenays have been on the forefront of calling for a royal commission into the Workers Compensation Board.

Since first being elected to this House, I've worked with my constituents to convince our government of the feelings of the people about the dysfunctionality of the WCB. Again, our government listened, and I'm proud to say that the royal commission is a reality, and an opportunity for injured and disabled workers throughout the province to once again have faith in a government that listens. The opposition said no to injured workers; it said no to a WCB royal commission.

Once again on the mining and smelting side of our Kootenay economy, it was a New Democrat government that led the way in striking the business deal with Cominco which protected 2,500 jobs and played a major role in making possible the $3.5 million investment in Cominco's Trail operations. While the opposition is saying, "Cut subsidies to business," our government is out doing business with business. Our government is creating opportunities and protecting jobs.

When Canadian Airlines was moving 400 jobs out of Alberta to British Columbia, Ralph Klein raised holy Cain over the fact that these 400 jobs were leaving Alberta. Our government protected 2,500 jobs in the community of Trail and Kimberley in the Kootenays, and there was hardly a word mentioned.

I'd like to move for a moment, if I could, to the subject of water. The hon. member from the PDA alluded to it in a slightly different manner, and that was around the situation of electricity and water. We in British Columbia have an organization called B.C. Hydro, and I'm sure the opposition, in its New Right agenda, is dripping to privatize B.C. Hydro.

All the economic prognosticators I've had an opportunity to read and look at here in the last couple of years have made it known that those who have control of food in the next ten to 20 years are truly going to be the economic giants of the world. All we have to do is look south of the border, and we can see that the western United States certainly has the technology and the land to be a true economic giant in the food area. What they don't have is water. Should B.C. Hydro ever be privatized, I have no doubt at all that the first bidders for B.C. Hydro will be major multinational corporations, mostly of the American persuasion, I would imagine. I would suggest that the reason that they would be after B.C. Hydro is not so much for the electrical value that B.C. Hydro has but for the water that B.C. Hydro controls. Our water is worth billions and billions and billions of dollars. Mideast oil will pale in comparison to the value of British Columbia's water. I think British Columbians have to wake up and have a look at the true value that we possess in our water and the true desire and plan that the Americans have to get their hands on it.

The preceding speaker talked about an organized plot. Well, I certainly didn't realize that we were quite as well organized as he's giving us credit for, and I'd like to thank him for that. Believe me, our friends south of the border are well organized when it comes to achieving the goal of attaining our water.

I just want to raise everybody's awareness about the fact that the New Right agenda and the privatization dreams of the opposition are playing into the hands of multinational corporations, and in conjunction with what the member from the PDA said, that can have some catastrophic implications for British Columbia. I only hope that before the opposition is prepared to sell the whole province out to the multinationals, they take a few things into consideration, like control of our own resources.

As indicated, we listened and learned. The Premier said he would listen to British Columbians and act on their priorities. We heard the people's concerns about provincial debt, and we're taking action to cut the costs of government and reduce the debt. We have a Premier who listens intently and acts decisively. This is what my constituents told me they expected from their leader and, once again, their leader has delivered.

As one of the most beautiful areas in the province, the Kootenay jealously guards its environment. We have been and will be experiencing firsthand results from our government's firm but fair environmental standards. The new regulations around pulp mills has miraculously changed Castlegar from a pulp mill town to a town that happens to have a pulp mill. Similarly, it's changed Trail from a smelter town to a town that happens to have a smelter. We've shown that, in fact, environment and large industry can truly co-exist in this province, if there is a will on the part of everybody to make that happen. Certainly our future really depends on all of us having the will to make that happen. In the Kootenays, I believe that we are leading the way to show that this truly can happen, but it doesn't happen by accident. As I've outlined, it took forward-thinking and comprehensive policies on the part of government to make things happen. In Rossland-Trail, our government has been good for people and good for the environment.

The budget demonstrates what our government hopes to achieve over the coming months. It speaks about a province ready to stand up to Ottawa, to drag them kicking and screaming into the reality that is British Columbia. I think that all we have to do is look at the work done by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food around the fisheries issues in British Columbia, and at how we hope to bring those to a successful conclusion, to benefit British Columbians -- as an example of that.

That obviously points to our federal government. While concentrating on one problem child -- namely, our neighbours in the far east. . . . British Columbia is determined not to be tainted by this abuse but, with our Premier's leadership and determination, to emerge as a strong, functioning member of the Canadian family, despite the lack of skills of our parent government.

British Columbia is recognized as having the best environmental record in the country. Over 200 new parks and wilderness areas ensure a legacy for our children. We can be extremely proud of achieving our conservation goals, while at the same time moving towards sustainability in what was heretofore described as a sunset industry.

Our citizens have spoken about crime, and again our government has responded by giving the police and justice systems the tools they need to fight crime. Our consistent approach of firmness and fairness runs throughout every sector of our executive council.

We are committed also to working to settle the land claims with B.C.'s first nations, paving the way for native opportunities and responsibilities, and the new investment that is poised and ready and anxious to have land claims settled.

The budget talks about a bright and prosperous future for our citizens, a future led by a government prepared to meet the challenges of that future and do what it takes to allow the power of British Columbia to remain in the hands of ordinary people. In the last election, the people of British Columbia spoke and we listened. British Columbia, under a New Democratic government, will clearly be the best province in the best country in the world in which to live.

J. Weisbeck: I rise today on behalf of my riding of Okanagan East to respond to the budget speech. I am astounded that the Finance minister would stand in this House and proclaim that he is proud of this budget. The Finance minister also claimed that it "shows real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path. . .and is consistent with the priorities of British Columbians."

I think it's difficult for me and all British Columbians to be proud of a budget that fails to offer a financial plan that can lift the province out of its spiral of debt. It is difficult to be proud of a budget that has a deficit of $185 million. It's particularly difficult to be proud when there are some questions about that number's validity.

It's also difficult to be proud of a budget which adds $1.4 billion to the accumulated debt, totalling close to $31 billion. Over $2 billion will be required to service that debt -- money we so desperately need to maintain our health care and education programs -- and the Finance minister has still not introduced any credible strategy to rein that debt under control.

This is a smoke-and-mirrors budget. It has only been accomplished by sleight of hand, or what the NDP so proudly calls a "sideways shift": a sideways shift in the transfer of funds to the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority, a sideways shift of $100 million from FRBC to cover the silviculture program, and a sideways shift to municipalities and tourism. All of this adds up to a probable deficit, in real accounting numbers, of over $800 million. These numbers are also based on an assumption that we will have growth based on prudent economic assumptions, and these assumptions are 30 percent higher and more optimistic than the previous year.

These prudent assumptions certainly wouldn't be supported by the forest industry, an industry that the government relies on very heavily for revenues. We receive a lot of government literature, annual reports, painting a very rosy picture. But what is the real world saying? I have the 1996 annual report of Noranda Forest Products. On the front page, it says: "Our earnings performance was not what we expected for 1996." And they go on to say:

While this government was dipping into the forbidden pocket of Forest Renewal, the forest industry was experiencing one of the worst market downturns in recent history. And the outlook for 1997, according to this document, offers no relief.

The Fraser Institute offers this, as well: "The increase in the cost of doing business in this province due to these cumbersome regulations and uncertainty about land use has led to a critical loss of earnings and new investment in the forest industry." This has been confirmed by a recent news release that shows that $250 million was lost in the forest industry in 1996.

Madam Speaker, the certified general accountants of B.C. are particularly concerned about the dramatic decline of corporate and resource sector taxation revenues. There is nothing in this budget to show that government is interested in creating an environment to attract business to this province. An environment free of encumbrances will, at the end of the day, allow business to prosper and make a profit. British Columbia's corporation capital tax, a marginal tax rate of 54 percent, and its miles of red tape have kept business out of this province. Ralph Klein and the province of Alberta are wearing big smiles with the transfer of business to their province.

It is time that this government stopped corporate-bashing and sat down with business and labour and had some serious discussions about the future of work in this province. There must be a consensus that jobs are the number one priority for the well-being of British Columbia. Governments cannot demand that jobs be created in the private sector; it must facilitate them. Government must show business that they want them and their workforce to succeed and prosper, and we want to show all British Columbians that we are committed to providing them with a high quality of life.

Hon. Speaker, what is our commitment to an economic engine that is a historical and a motherhood issue? The cut to the Ministry of Agriculture in this budget has been devastating. It's already underfunded. It is clear that the agricultural industry must undergo dramatic changes if it is to compete with the global agricultural industry. Because of the volatility of the market and the nature of the business, this industry is dependent upon the support, partnership and initiatives of government. Many initiatives that have occurred since this government has come into power have been entirely cosmetic.

The agricultural industry is facing many challenges, and it demands resolutions. What do farmers in my riding do when this government plays flip-flop with the replant program? What will the orchardists in my riding do in the interim, while the ministry plays around with their crop insurance program -- a program that would provide only minimum coverage in the event of a major environmental event such as a hailstorm? History has consistently shown that only those farmers who carry crop insurance have survived the potential financial difficulties of the unpredictable weather of the Okanagan Valley. This is an industry that has created thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly and by way of associated secondary industries.

This government has continually boasted about its commitment to health care and education. "Commitment" appears to be an empty word when we look at the track record of this government. The NDP has wasted precious dollars on New Directions and the health labour accord. How many heart surgeries, hip replacements and organ transplants could be done with the dollars now being used up on more bureaucracy?

While the government professes a renewed commitment to health care, with a promise of an additional $300 million slated for more comprehensive services, we in fact see the evolution of a two-tiered health care system, where the poor and those on fixed incomes are being denied access to services through increases in the most basic levels of health care services. We have seen the cost of health services rise without any real increase in patient services. What we have witnessed are increasing fees and wait lists for necessary medical services and surgical procedures, and the subsequent decrease

in accessibility for the patient. The NDP's plan punished the patient through unnecessary fee increases. Patients will be punished for any long-term care, because they require an ambulance or because they require physical therapy. This health care system is not acceptable to British Columbians.

Premier Clark announced in March of this year that he's committed to providing an array of support to keep the cost of education within reason for students. Yet it is precisely the educational initiatives produced by this government that have placed huge demands on universities, colleges and institutes -- and ultimately have impacted on students. Among these educational initiatives are student fee freezes. Given that tuition fees represent the second-largest source of revenue for institutes, colleges and universities, the repercussions are significant. Under normal circumstances, freezing tuition fees would be a wonderful thing. It would be possible to freeze these fees if everything else in the financing of post-secondary education were in place, if the economy of this province were in a surplus situation and if a true commitment to protecting education and health were a reality, not just empty words. We would see a very different response to current initiatives.

The fact of the matter is that we do not have a surplus; we don't even have a balanced budget. And every institution I have talked to is scrambling to maintain its existing programs. Educational facilities must make painful expenditure adjustments to balance their operating budgets for the coming year. Who does this ultimately affect? The student. Premier Clark announced that universities and colleges must provide 2,900 new student spaces for the current fiscal year without an increase in the per student institutional funding level. Without an increase in funding, with student fees being frozen and with the increase in student enrolment, educational institutions are expected to deliver on his announcement.

With a surplus budget, freezing tuition fees would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, you are not fooling the average British Columbian, who is fully aware that the state of the B.C. economy is far from rosy. Nor are you fooling the administration, the educators or even the students. Students want legitimate and competitive degrees, students want quality education and, ultimately, they want educations that translate into jobs.

Students are in trouble for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that they can no longer find summer employment to finance their education. A competitive education, balanced with a working population, translates into a healthier economy. And a healthy economy facilitates the education of those students who are truly in need of assistance by way of government grants and bursaries.

The current directives of the NDP have led to a crisis in education. What this crisis translates into is backdoor accounting practices for those institutes that are trying desperately to save what they believe are necessary programs. We see surcharging -- increases in parking fees -- to make up this difference. Or we find a decrease in the level of educational accessibility, because programs will have to be cut to meet current government squeezes. You cannot continue to ask these institutions to do more and more with less.

There are ways to reduce the cost of education while at the same time reducing the capital costs associated with building new schools and providing more programs. I believe that we must protect and secure funding for education and develop direction for curriculum enhancement, cooperative education and skills training. It is not good enough to grant degrees, such as the recent tourism degree granted from Malaspina University College, unless you can assure necessary funding and not impact on existing students and programs. The government must join with educators in a spirit of cooperation, to instigate healthy initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer new to this House. I have now had ten months of exposure to the workings of government. And despite experience, I am still astounded by the lack of straightforwardness that we receive from the opposing hon. members during question period, during documents received and during events such as this, the budget speech.

I think all British Columbians would like some straightforward answers. They would like to see truth in budgeting. They would like to see the government's books kept the same way, following the same ethical accounting standards that are practised by all other British Columbians. And they would like to see the true financial picture for B.C., rather than hiding all of the losses, the debts and the future prospects of Crown corporations.

In closing, I would like to say that if we are to meet the challenges of balancing our current budget and at the same time meet the needs of the people of British Columbia, we must resolve our current economic crisis -- not by downloading our debts onto municipalities, not by dipping into sacred funds, not by removing industry assurances and not by impacting on health and education programs. Rather, we must ensure the maintenance of our health and education programs. We must develop initiatives that facilitate the development of partnerships with the private sector. We must create incentives to industry, encourage business development, assure competitive educational degrees. And, above all, we must provide British Columbians with a positive plan for our future that includes answers about today which, no matter how painful, are direct and truthful.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address the budget of 1997-98 on behalf of the Cariboo North riding.

As an optimist, I believe it is important to look for the good in everything. Well, I have searched and searched and searched, and have been unable to find anything that is good about this budget.

Let's go back for a moment and examine the record of this government -- a record, Madam Speaker, that has never been equalled by any other government in the history of this province, a record that has been a total disaster, with six deficit budgets in a row and a doubling of the debt in just five years. Two promised balanced budgets, and what happened? They could not deliver and had no intention of delivering. Let's take a look at last year's financial fiasco: a balanced budget that was only off target by $0.75 billion. The record of this NDP government is one that the people of this province hope and pray will never be repeated in the years to come.

What do we have here? This is not a budget; it's a new joke book to replace last year's edition. There is one thing we have learned, and it is this: you cannot believe anything this government promises or predicts. Let's examine this joke book in a little more detail. A deficit of $185 million -- it sounds like restrained deficit spending. Let's look a little

closer. It would seem that some downloading has occurred. Add it all up and the actual deficit will be closer to $800 million. Oh yes -- incidentally, there will be an additional $1.4 billion in capital spending. This does not sound like good financial management.

The Minister of Finance no doubt expects this criticism. What he may not expect is that the people of British Columbia have finally wised up. They are no longer the gullible voters we saw in the last election. They do not believe anything this government says or promises. What can you say? This only translates into huge increases in debt. What will the goal be for this year in deficit spending? The sky is the limit, as was so well described by the Minister of Finance when he said he didn't really expect anyone to believe this budget.

Let's take a little closer look at some of the jokes we see here. "We are going to reduce government spending." How will this be done? We'll start by increasing the size of the civil service. An increase of 1,400 jobs should help. "We are going to hold the line on taxes." Well, there are several types of taxes, and some go by other names. Let's look at some examples. We are seeing huge increases in the cost of fishing licences, but it doesn't stop there. I have a constituent who is an elderly gentleman, and he has a lease lot on Quesnel Lake. In 1995 his lease fee was $500 for a lot which is boat-access only and has no services. What do you think it is in 1997? Take a guess. Would you believe $1,074? That's right.

When this government makes a ridiculous statement such as, "Taxes are frozen," what's the response from the people? Let me tell you, they reply with only two words: "Yeah, right." When they say, "We are promoting education," one can only say: "Yeah, right." The budget of school district 28 has had six consecutive cuts. This year it has been cut by a figure of $619,000 -- another cruel joke.

Health care. What they are actually saying is that we're going to dissect the health care system in British Columbia and flush it down the drain bit by bit. One has only to look at what is happening to realize this. It's now cheaper to take a taxi than an ambulance -- if you can find an ambulance, which many of us in the north don't have access to. There is no money in the budget this year for hospital equipment. That's understandable, because if you don't use equipment, you don't wear it out. Our acute care facilities have become a joke. Cutbacks in beds keep patients on waiting lists. It's very simple: less surgery saves on equipment.

"Promoting education" means funding cuts for education, as I have previously stated.

What about Forest Renewal? Are they shirking responsibility? Never. "No greedy minister will ever get their hands on this money," translates to: "Let's grab it and spend it on our friends." Is this how this statement translates: "We're going to create 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry. . ."? That means a net loss of 30,000 by the year 2002. We have seen a net-down of 5,500 jobs alone this year, and the numbers continue to escalate.

"We will create employment for our young people going to school in universities." It sounds good. What they meant was that we will eliminate student jobs. They promised 3,500 jobs, and there were 8,000 fewer jobs overall in British Columbia last year.

And revenues -- well, what exactly does that entail? What you can gather is that all revenues are projections or forecasts created by an NDP government that is broke. They must try and create a rosy income picture. Small business sales in forestry is a good example. Stumpages have been elevated to where people cannot afford to purchase them. The same applies to woodlots. It will cost you money today if you try and operate on a woodlot. Do you really believe that people are going to jump at the chance to work their hearts out for this government, with no chance for remuneration? Unfortunately, this government is void of hindsight. Revenues will continue to fall, as will jobs. Even the major licensees are being forced to a point where they are almost going out of business.

All the cutbacks by this government have done nothing to provide a better service. Instead, what has happened is that some services have been removed by the termination of field staff. The ministries have been put in neutral in many cases, and nothing will be accomplished in the next year.

We have seen more broken promises. Land use plans were developed which were crucial in proceeding with integrated resource management. They were worked out by stakeholders at the table who spent an enormous amount of time and energy -- plans that the NDP government were incapable of developing. Then, when all was said and done, the people, along with the government, agreed to these plans and signed on to them. Part of the agreement was for a subregional planning process, which, with the help of government, would be achieved. What did I hear the Minister of Forests say in his address to the budget? "Sorry, we don't have any money to help, but we would like you to proceed entirely at your own expense."

There was a grazing enhancement fund of $4.25 million, provided yearly, to be distributed across the province. It was to help soften the impact of the Forest Practices Code on the ranching industry. What happened? They weaselled out of a solid commitment made by the Harcourt government. What do we get instead? We get $1.5 million, spread over the province over a period of ten years. On top of that, they haven't got the guts to make a decision for distribution to the various regions.

It is a sad day indeed. We don't have a budget this year; we have this government's version of a joke book. This government has now gone into the garage-sale business. In an effort to prop up revenues, they're going to sell off assets of the people. It will be a garage sale. There isn't enough money left in this province to get more than 10 cents on the dollar. No doubt, there will be a lot of vehicles sold. Then what will they do? Lease them, of course, at an additional expense. And what do they lease? Nothing but the best, top of the line. Nothing's too good for their employees -- $800 to $1,000 a month on leases per vehicle.

Let's look at the dividends they are demanding from Crowns. Crowns will be forced to borrow heavily on their assets, just to meet the whim of an irresponsible government. How many times do you think they can do this? Well, once is one time too many. Even one time is going to create an enormous burden on the taxpayers in the near future.

Let's look at another dream they have: projected oil and gas revenues from the northeast corner of British Columbia. The Premier has said that there are some problems in the north. Unfortunately for him and his Finance minister, they haven't figured out what they are yet. Exploration work has all but ceased in this area for the past year. They haven't figured it out yet. No new wells will be brought in for a minimum of another two years.

I would like say I've risen in this House with pleasure, but it is with a heavy heart. The pied pipers opposite have lost their touch, and it's time they were replaced.

S. Orcherton: I rise in support of this budget. I think it's a visionary budget and one that the people of British Columbia can be proud of.

My history is one of coming from a working-class family. My father was in the navy, and my mother worked for a dockyard. My grandmother came from quite a poor family and actually, from time to time, to earn extra money for her family, worked at the Lieutenant-Governor's house waiting tables. I know what it's like to be a working person.

I am extremely proud and feel extremely privileged to be here in this House today representing my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, which is largely a working-class constituency. I'm really proud of my constituency. I'm proud of them because they have a vision, a sense of optimism and a sense of being able to meet the challenges and needs of their families in the future. I feel that that, in large part, is why they chose me to represent them in this House, in parliament.

There are many, many organizations that do valuable work in my constituency, and none of those organizations have succumbed to the pessimism I have seen exhibited by the members opposite in this House. We have the Burnside-Gorge Community Association in our community, which has embarked on numerous activities -- cleaning up the Selkirk waterway, operating garage sales and education seminars through the community -- rallying that neighbourhood and my constituency to become an extremely vibrant community organization, one that is making positive changes for the people that live in that neighbourhood.

The Oaklands Community Association has done tremendous work in our community in the Oaklands neighbourhood, rallying people in that community to put forward the notion of a community centre, to be built in tandem with the new Oaklands school, which will be starting construction in the spring of 1998. They haven't succumbed to the pessimistic views of the members opposite.

The Blanshard Court Community Association, in partnership with this provincial government, has a new community centre to serve the needs of the people in its neighbourhood. And what a centre it is! That's a very strong area of poverty in my constituency. There are areas there where drug abuse and crime have been ongoing for some time, and I'm pleased to say that the Blanshard Court Community Association, because of the steps and initiatives it has taken, has alleviated much those difficulties. In providing that centre, it has provided a focal place for many members of that community to come and share in a new vision for that particular neighbourhood.

The Fernwood Community Association -- sharing a constituency with your constituency, hon. Speaker -- has done tremendous work around motivating the neighbourhood on environmental issues and dealing with those issues on a community basis. They have a community garden there. They're active and concerned about tenants' rights and development issues in that community. They have not succumbed to the pessimism that's being exhibited by the members opposite. They're moving forward with a vision for the future, a vision that they want to see occur and that meets the needs and aspirations of their families, their neighbours, their friends and all the people in Victoria-Hillside.

There's a history, as well, I think, of this chamber. Whenever I have the opportunity to rise in this chamber or to sit and listen to the debate, I always think of the debate and discussions that have transpired in this chamber and other parliamentary chambers around the world, and of the debate and discussion that's moved forward. I'm really proud to be playing a role in that discussion and debate today, and I look forward to that opportunity in the future, because our history is something to be proud of. The debate, the discussion and the to-and-fro that generally occurs in the Legislative Assembly, in the House, is something for us all to be proud of.

There's other history that we should talk about today as well, I think. It's the seeming unwillingness of the opposition party, the members opposite, to move forward from 1996 and deal with issues that we're facing in the years 1997 and 1998. I have repeatedly heard the members opposite arguing and debating the budget of '96-97 in this House. That is history. It seems to me that the members opposite could be well defined as residing in The Land Where Time Stood Still; they seem reluctant to move forward into the future. I think that's a real tragedy.

I had a constituent in my office the other day who came in and said: "How are things going?" I said: "I think we're moving forward. We've got some big challenges, and we're working hard to meet the needs of all the people here in our community and around the province." That constituent asked me what I thought of the Liberal Party and the other members opposite in this House today, and I said: "Well, I think that to date their performance has been rather pathetic." You know what that constituent of mine said to me? He said: "It's not pathetic; it's beyond tragic." I said: "I think you may well have something there."

You know, it is beyond tragic what's occurring in this House in terms of the debate and the discussion. Not one ounce of constructive criticism has come forward from the members opposite in this debate -- not one ounce of it.

S. Orcherton: All I hear, and I'm hearing it now from the members opposite, is this negative naysaying -- nay, nay, nay -- on every issue, every discussion and every debate that's taking place in this House. I said it was tragic, and my constituent said it was beyond tragic, what's occurring from the members opposite. You know, it is tragic. It's not tragic for the members opposite; it's tragic that the members opposite don't understand that British Columbians have a vision for the future, a sense of optimism, and that they are not listening to the naysaying notions of the members sitting opposite. They want to build a future, just like those community associations in my constituency. They are building for the future. They know there are challenges ahead. They're not saying that it can't be done; they're not saying nay to everything we're discussing in this House.

You know, I've heard the Liberals and the other members opposite saying, in regard to some issues that face British Columbians: "They say one thing and then do another." Well, let me say that the members opposite, in terms of the discussion and debate on this budget motion, are saying nothing and are doing nothing but whining and complaining. They're not offering any constructive criticism or suggestion whatsoever in this debate. They've got to understand that 1996 is history. It is now 1997. We're in the budget year 1997-98. We have to move forward. It's time to leave The Land Where Time Stood Still.

I'm proud of my constituency. I really am proud of it, because it is a working-class neighbourhood, a neighbourhood where there

are not a lot of wealthy people, where there is some poverty. Community organizations are mobilizing to address those issues. They're going to address them with the support of the policies and legislation of this New Democratic government. They have a vision and optimism for their future and for their children's future. This session is about meeting the needs of all British Columbians as we head into a new century: jobs, quality health and education, and a clean environment for British Columbians. We are going to do that. Let me say to the members opposite and to all members of this House that that is a huge challenge, but we are ready to meet it, because we are not going to take a negative position on the future of British Columbians.

We're focusing on job creation so our kids have opportunities to work at decent, stable jobs. We're investing in our forests with the jobs and timber accord, to generate and protect communities while building on environmental gains of the past five years. Over the next few weeks, I believe this House will be seeing tremendous initiatives in that regard. I know that the Premier is currently in Washington, D.C., working out details on the international implications of these initiatives. There are senior business people and companies from the forest industry, from environmental sectors and from all sectors of British Columbia working on a deal that is going to tie jobs to the fibre industry in British Columbia. What a tremendous initiative and what a huge challenge! The people of British Columbia, I believe, are ready to meet that challenge. Certainly the members on this side of the House are ready to meet that challenge.

We're taking steps to conserve our fisheries, particularly our salmon, with a renewal program that protects fish habitat and supports jobs in fisheries and tourism. What an initiative! It's the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada that the provincial government is making negotiations happen -- and I believe we'll be successful -- in regard to our own industry in British Columbia around salmon fishing. What a tremendous initiative that's taking place here on behalf of British Columbians! What a vision for the future!

The tourism industry. We're working hard there. Last week, I believe it was, we had a major announcement around a partnership with the tourism industry and government. It was a very positive initiative. I was in attendance, and I talked to some of the people from the tourism industry in Victoria and some of the business leaders in Victoria. They had nothing but good news to say about that. They said that it is a wonderful initiative for the tourism industry, not only in Victoria but in British Columbia. They were positive about this event that was occurring, because they share the vision for the future of British Columbia.

We're developing and supporting energy policies to give B.C. a competitive edge. We're protecting and improving our health care system so British Columbians have the health services they need when they need them. We're shortening waiting lists, controlling costs and putting resources into the front lines of health care. I'm extremely proud of the new construction project going on in our community at the Royal Jubilee Hospital site, in respect to the cancer clinic. That's a very, very positive initiative that will go a long way in dealing with some of the issues that people face in terms of their health care needs in our community and, particularly, up and down this Island.

We're investing in our education system so our kids can get the education they need to find good, stable, competitive jobs. We've frozen tuition fees in British Columbia. The members opposite should know, I think, that the average tuition fee paid by a student attending a college or university in British Columbia is 18 percent of the total cost of that course. That means the taxpayers in British Columbia are picking up 82 percent of that cost, and that is the right thing to do for our young people in British Columbia and for others who want to attend post-secondary education.

I want to say that when I was a young person, in 1970, which may seem like a million years ago. . . .

What may seem like a long time ago, I had the opportunity to go to university for one year. I had to work for a year before I had saved the money. My family was a working-class family; we didn't have the money to send me to university. I completed that one year but was unable to carry on further, and I am proud to say that this government has put in place mechanisms so that my children, my relatives' children, my neighbours' children, the children in my community and the children around British Columbia will not have to go through what I went through in terms of not being able to get the education I wanted because my family couldn't afford to pay the tuition fee. That is a tremendous initiative for this government, and we hear naysaying from the other side.

New school construction. We're allocating $1 billion this year in terms of new school construction, and the members opposite say: "You know, we're running up a debt in British Columbia." I say to them that that's a debt we have to run up in British Columbia, because we cannot allow our children not to have proper facilities to have their education in. That's an investment in our future. It is an asset for the people of British Columbia that'll last us for decades and decades, and that is dollars well spent in British Columbia.

We're also delivering on our election commitments to meet the needs of middle-class working families in regard to tax cuts, hydro rates, freezing ICBC rates, and maintaining and enhancing the family bonus.

I've heard much talk from the other side about debt, budgeting. The lack of understanding they seem to have around assets in this province and the value of those assets for the citizens of this province. . . . I was fortunate to come across some information that may be of interest to the members opposite. This actually comes out of the Fraser Institute. I hope the members opposite listen up. That is not the Princeton Institute; that is the Fraser Institute, an organization that I understand you rely on heavily for your data.

Let me say that our provincial debt charges to provincial revenue stand at 11.69 percent, compared to Ontario at 19.77 percent and Manitoba at 23.65 percent. That is the lowest debt charge to provincial revenues of any province in Canada. That is something for all of us in this House to be proud of.

The same applies to the provincial debt charge to GDP. We stand at the lowest, at 2.64 percent, in comparison to Manitoba at 5.96 and Ontario at 3.17. We are doing very, very well in British Columbia, according to the Fraser Institute.

It's interesting to note as well that in Canada, in comparative analysis between all of the provinces, we also have the lowest interest charges in relation to revenue. We in British Columbia have the

lowest interest charges of any province in Canada. That's good news for British Columbia, and if that doesn't give the members opposite a sense of optimism, an understanding of why the people of British Columbia are feeling good about what's going on in this province, I don't know what will.

I said we're embarking on a job strategy in British Columbia, particularly around the forest industry but also elsewhere. I've taken a view for some time that there is an illness that faces all governments in this country, and British Columbia is not exempt from that. The illness that faces governments and people in provinces across this country is the lack of employment opportunities that are available. All the other issues we debate in this House -- whether we should have X number of dollars for education or health care, whether there's a debt or a deficit, how we can fund our human resources issues -- are symptoms of that greater illness: the inability to provide enough employment opportunities for our citizens. Let me say that the initiative around the forest industry to tie fibre to jobs is moving in a direction that will be able to supply employment opportunities to the people of British Columbia.

Let me say, as well, that over the coming months I look forward to discussion and debate ensuing around issues such as shorter hours of work. If we buy into the notion that there's not enough employment opportunities in British Columbia and we take the steps that are necessary to try and address that, I think we owe it to the people of British Columbia to allow a discussion and debate to ensue around issues such as shorter work hours, a shorter workweek, restricting overtime and those sorts of things. If we get into that debate, I know it will be an interesting debate for the people of British Columbia. But I think that at the end of the day, we will be able to put in place systems that will allow more employment opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

I had an opportunity a month or so ago to attend a provincial ministers' conference in Ottawa with the federal minister. I was representing our provincial Minister of Labour, the Hon. John Cashore. I presented a brief on this very issue. It was very interesting to see the level of interest that was displayed by those other legislative bodies and those other members of legislatures representing their ministries of labour. There was tremendous interest there. There's also tremendous interest around the Highway Constructors agreement that's been negotiated on Vancouver Island and how positively the rest of the country viewed that initiative. There was tremendous and very positive discussion from those other ministers around the skills-development-and-fair-wage policy and how that was working.

I raised the issue about our labour legislation in British Columbia that bans the use of replacement workers. I coupled that with statistical data showing that we have 50 percent less time lost due to labour disputes since that legislation was enacted. Those other ministers were astounded, and some of them are reviewing their position on replacement workers and legislation. That issue around replacement workers. . . .

It's no surprise that we have less time lost in British Columbia today due to labour disputes since we brought that in. It's no surprise whatsoever, because what that does is force both parties, the employers' side and the employees' side, to sit down at the negotiating table -- not to hire replacement workers to do the work of those that are trying to negotiate a deal but to hammer out a deal. And you know what, hon. Speaker and members opposite? That's in the best interests of British Columbia -- 50 percent less time lost to labour disputes since we brought in our new labour code as the NDP government in British Columbia.

There are some columns that have been written lately by some noted columnists in British Columbia, saying that what we've developed here in terms of this budget is a grown-up budget. They say that the NDP is actually reducing operating expenditures while the population grows by 100,000 a year. They go on to say that it is not a small thing. That is what I've been reading in the media around this province: there is a notion out there, a sense out there, that we are being very prudent in terms of our budgetary expectations this year and being conservative in that regard, as well.

We talk about 100,000 people coming into British Columbia every year. I heard on the radio today that it's anticipated that for the capital regional district, within the next decade or so, the population will grow by 110,000 people. That is precisely. . . .

S. Orcherton: For the members opposite -- and particularly the member for Matsqui, who seems more intent upon a Costco than dealing with issues facing increasing population, more intent on Costco than dealing with the needs of the people of British Columbia. . . . For his benefit and for the other members opposite, I think that is precisely the reason why this government has taken a position to continue to fund -- in fact, increase funding for -- education, health care and transportation in this province, to meet the needs of the people who'll be living in this province in the year 2000 and beyond. I'm not sure if the member for Matsqui is of the view that that requirement will be met by developing a Costco.

I think we have to have a more far-reaching policy than to talk simply about Costcos. I think we have to talk about new schools, about hospitals, about the facilities that the people of British Columbia need. While the member opposite may think that Costco is something that he relishes and needs and that members in his constituency would love to have, I think there are far more important issues before this House than that.

I'm pleased to see. . . . I got some correspondence recently from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, dealing quickly and forthrightly with the issue around the capital regional district increasing in population. Moneys have been forwarded, almost $200,000, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to the capital regional district to do a study on regional growth strategy and the implementation. Let me tell you, I am proud of this government for anticipating that kind of growth, for encouraging the capital regional district in this area -- to move in that regard.

I think I've probably spoken enough on this issue. I know that a lot of members on this side of the House have articulated the same opinions. It's unfortunate that the members on the opposite side of the House seem devoid of opinion but can bang their tables quite well.

I think the question here is. . . . We've got an NDP government here that is moving forward in terms of vision and opportunity for the people of British Columbia, that puts the needs of working-class people and their families before the needs of the business community, but understands the needs of the business community and supports that as well. We have taken steps as a government that I think are unprecedented and that will serve us very, very well in our term as government and into the next four or five years.

The question, I think, before us is that we've got a government here that's led by Glen Clark, with a vision of the future. . . .

S. Orcherton: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker -- by the Premier. We have the members opposite, who seem to be going in all directions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a sad thing, I think, for the people of British Columbia. I'd encourage the members opposite to start entering into constructive criticism, constructive debate. Stop the naysaying. Let's get on with the business of government.

You know, we can work together on these issues, and it's time for us to put the year 1996 away, to leave The Land Where Time Stood Still and to move into 1997-98 and beyond. I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to working with the members opposite when they display that sense of vision, that sense of opportunity, that sense of optimism that British Columbians have. Thank you for the opportunity to make some remarks, hon. Speaker.

Hon. P. Priddy: I must admit that this may be a momentous speech for me. It may be the first time I've had to do one wearing glasses, so I'm going to see how I manage with this. We'll see.

It is an honour for me to rise and support this government's budget for the '97-98 fiscal year, because for me this budget accomplishes several very important things for the people of British Columbia, for the children and families and adults with disabilities. One of the biggest changes that has been made this year and reflected in this budget is represented by the creation of the new Ministry for Children and Families. I'm very proud of our government's action in that respect. Our Premier has shown strong leadership by taking this important step. It is unprecedented. There is nowhere in North America that this size of organizational and cultural change in child welfare is occurring, so it is truly unprecedented.

We have brought together programs, services and personnel from all child- and family-serving areas: the Ministries of Health, Education, Women's Equality, the former Social Services, and the Attorney General as well -- that's to come. You know, Judge Gove talked in his executive summary about the fact that he thought it would take several years -- and I agree with him -- for this ministry to be up and running in a way that he envisioned it to be. But in several months we have brought these programs over; we have begun the work. We've begun the work of people working in multidisciplinary teams. We think it's ahead of schedule and are very pleased with the progress to date. There is lots more work to be done. But we are proud of what's happening so far, because we're ensuring that services and supports for our families and children in British Columbia are better coordinated. We're protecting services for children and families by streamlining management and administrative functions in Victoria.

I do want to say, about better coordination for families, that in the past what has happened is that children and families have had to go from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Attorney General to Women's Equality to Social Services in order to get some range of services that their families needed. Quite honestly, if you are a family that's in stress or distress, you won't get that far, because you'll be too tired. It takes too much to do that. So bringing those services together is the beginning of having families be able to access them in a more coordinated way.

We've also put decision-making -- radically enough -- closer to children and families in the 20 regions around the province. We've built this ministry from the child back to Victoria. We didn't say: "Gosh, look at what Victoria should look like. We should have a huge management structure, and then we'll figure out what it looks like out there close to kids and families." What we have done is build it from the child back to Victoria.

If you look at the management structure in Victoria -- and I think this is a very high percentage -- 91.2 percent of all of our staff are in the regions serving children and families; 8.8 percent of our staff are in Victoria. That is a very high percentage of staff in the field serving children and families, which is exactly where they should be.

By the way, I just want to comment that in the process of the reorganization in Victoria, there was not one single job that provides services to front-line workers that was affected by the restructuring, nor should there have been. So I think these principles are prudent and responsible, in keeping with the direction of this budget. As we change this system of services to children and families, we're ensuring that our present staff and resources are being utilized as effectively and efficiently as possible. We owe that, I guess, to taxpayers; but, more importantly, we owe it to children and families in British Columbia.

I want to comment for a minute on health, another area which is really vital to children and families in this province. Our government has increased spending in the field of health care for the sixth year in a row. I want to talk about what that means to Surrey, where I come from, and my riding of Surrey-Newton -- about what it means to everybody in Surrey. I mean, at a time when other provinces are moving in a radically different direction, our government is saying health care is too important to be sacrificed.

So in Surrey Memorial Hospital, the children's health care centre will benefit from this commitment to health care -- provincial dollars in partnership with the community. I hope we will soon see that project completed, because for all of us who have children or who have children in our families somewhere. . . .

Forty percent of the children in Surrey who needed surgery -- broken bones, appendixes, any kind of surgery -- had to leave Surrey and likely go to Vancouver to have that surgery. It's hard enough to have this really important little person in your life in hospital, but to have to travel from Surrey to Vancouver to see them is almost unconscionable. So what we will be able to do is have children in Surrey receive their health care at home close to their parents, which is what they deserve to have.

Yet, despite this success, I think we have to be alarmed by the federal off-loading and its effects on vital social programs. I mean, we know that Ottawa has cut transfer payments to B.C. that went towards health care, education, post-secondary and other kinds of social programs.

Other provinces have chosen a different view. They've chosen to say: "Okay, federal government, you off-loaded it all. We are going to slash the other services." In Ontario, that government has cut its provincial hospital budget by $400 million and has closed hospitals across that province. In Alberta, hospitals have been closed, and thousands of front-line health care workers have lost their jobs. Our government's commitment is to maintain the health care that we

have here in British Columbia, which is the very best in Canada. I also want to comment, as others have -- partly in terms of the federal government but partly in terms of our commitment -- around the B.C. family bonus and the up-to-$103 a month that families can receive. Almost 40 percent of British Columbia families receive the family bonus in some degree or another.

Now, the federal Liberal government has talked about a child tax credit, which would be about $60 million in the first year for British Columbia. We already spend almost 500 percent more than that, so we know that the commitment is here in British Columbia. And $60 million is a very small amount compared to what British Columbia -- as the only province in this country -- has done to work to address the issue of children who live in poverty.

There are 125,000 children who are eligible and many receiving dental care. Many of the families I have talked to have said: "Of all the things we want our children to have, dental care gets down to the bottom of the list because we can't afford it." It's expensive. And with things for school -- new clothes and sneakers and all those other things -- dental care goes to the bottom of the list. Now, under the family bonus, dental care is available for many children in our province.

I want to comment on the phrase "child poverty." It's very current these days; actually, it's sort of a catchphrase. I hear it lots from the federal government, that we're very concerned about child poverty. I quite frankly think child poverty is nonsense. We talk about child poverty as if children over here live in poverty, while their parents live over there, going to Mexico on winter holidays. It is not child poverty; it is family poverty. Children live in poverty because their parents live in poverty, hon. Speaker. We have to address the issues of family poverty, so we must be sure that this is where it is focused.

I want to comment on education, because I heard some very interesting comments from the folks across the way and from us here. So let's look at what this provincial budget has done for education. I'm going to use Surrey as an example. In the community of Surrey, in the last five years we have spent almost half a billion dollars on capital funding -- half a billion dollars, hon. Speaker.

I think I heard the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- I could be corrected. . . . She spoke about William F. Davidson school, where people were having to live, I think, with mushrooms or something -- in terrible conditions -- and why should they have to be in that kind of school? I would say, hon. Speaker, that the school board spent six years in a very acrimonious expropriation battle, but William Davidson, which is now Lionel Courchene, has a new school. Their school is being built. So I think people need to understand that there was a huge commitment, particularly on the part of my colleague from Surrey-Green Timbers, to say this is a school that should have been built a while ago. The school board didn't finish the expropriation, but as soon as it did, the money had been approved for it.

I also heard. . . . Perhaps I did not; I could, of course, have been mistaken in what I heard. I thought I heard people on the other side say that all the money had gone to NDP ridings. If it is the case that all of the money or the largest portion of money has gone to individual NDP ridings, then I guess I'd have to stand up in the Legislature and admit that I am a failure as an MLA, because there are five ridings in Surrey: Surrey-Whalley, Surrey-Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton, Surrey-Cloverdale and Surrey-White Rock. Three of those are NDP ridings: Surrey-Whalley, Surrey-Green Timbers and Surrey-Newton. But lo and behold, when you do the addition, the riding in Surrey that has had the most capital money is Surrey-Cloverdale. Last time I checked, which was five seconds ago, it was represented -- and was represented in the last government -- by a Liberal elected member. So in Surrey, a Liberal riding has gotten more money than any other riding in Surrey. Perhaps somehow we have failed as NDP MLAs in Surrey to get as much money as Surrey-Cloverdale has.

Hon. Speaker, I know that you'd like me to be finished by 5:45, so I am keeping that in mind -- so that the Finance minister may speak at that time.

But I want to speak about the colleges as well. Not only have we extended the freeze on tuition so that everybody can afford to get an education. . . . That has not been the case. . . . It certainly isn't the case in Ontario, where there's a shameful 25 percent increase in tuition, while here it is frozen. Yes, maybe there's parking; maybe somebody pays $1.50 a day to park or for late library books. But tuition is frozen.

In the communities of Surrey and Langley and Richmond -- some of those would be, I believe, Liberal ridings as well -- Kwantlen College has had more new FTEs than any college in British Columbia -- any college, bar none. Thirty percent. . . .

I'm just getting this little coaching from the side here, right? By 5:45 I will be finished, and we will be able to wrap up -- absolutely.

The largest percentage of new FTEs in this province has gone to Kwantlen College. I think that people who live in the ridings served by Kwantlen College, including many Liberal members as well, should be very pleased and proud of that.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, the adopted only child doesn't take a hook very well. Sorry.

In Alberta, too. . . . I mean, we know what has happened in other provinces. For us, funding in post-secondary has been up 18 percent. In other provinces it has been down.

Let me do two things in closing, then, hon. Speaker, if I might. The film industry, which is also coming to Surrey and which has had more new apprenticeship positions approved than any other industry, is a way for a family to make a family-supportive wage. If we're going to get children out of poverty, their families have to get out of poverty. Having things like the work in the Surrey film industry or the film industry in general allows that to happen.

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to comment on child care -- although it's getting more difficult to do so, but I know that many people will be interested to hear that. This government will continue the work on child care, and albeit we could always do more, that has happened since this government, the

NDP government, was elected in 1991-92. Teen parent programs are up 180 percent. College day care spaces are up 675 percent. There are 5,400 child care workers, who've always earned low wages, that now have a wage supplement that has allowed some of them to actually quit their second job. Day care subsidies, which are up 90 percent in this province. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: It's really interesting. Do I get as many notes as everybody else?

All right. I just want to close with a commitment. I also believe that everybody in this Legislature has a commitment to children. Everybody in this province, I believe, cares about their own children and their neighbours' children, and wants to reclaim their communities for children. So I just want to close by reading something quickly that I think will let me sit down by when the note says, which is 5:45.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'd actually like people to listen to this, because I think it is an important, powerful statement for all of us about the fact that children in this province will not be safe until we take a collective responsibility. Yes, government will do what we can. You will do what you can. But there is a collective, community responsibility for the safety of children. So let me do this quickly, hon. Speaker:

As I end my speech in support of the budget, I am just asking for a collective responsibility by all of us as British Columbians, to take that kind of responsibility for all children in our province.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Introduction of Bills

Oral Questions

Petitions

Tabling Documents

Ministerial Statement

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

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

Official Report of DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY