[ Page 6757 ]

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: In the precincts today we have a grade 11 law class from New Westminster Secondary School, with their teacher Ms. Martens and several parents. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of introducing 71 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper, one of my favourite schools in my constituency. They're with their teacher Mr. Stassinopoulos and perhaps others. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two old friends to the Legislature: Norm and Blanche Richards. Norm can be characterized as a mentor of mine from way back. He was the president of the B.C. Government Employees Union -- I think he was president when it was still an association -- from 1969 to 1985. He has truly contributed a great deal to the province of British Columbia, and his wife has played a major role. It was always characterized as a supporting role, but it was really a major role. Welcome to the House.

S. Orcherton: In the gallery and also touring the precincts is a representative from the B.C. Teachers Federation, who is actually the president of the Greater Victoria Teachers Association, Mr. Rob Chapple. Accompanying him is the vice-president of the South African Democratic Teachers Union, Ms. Jean September. Both of them are here today on an exchange program, talking about different issues facing teachers and facing the education systems and about facing the challenges ahead in our respective countries in dealing with their education systems. They are learning a lot about British Columbia, and soon teachers from British Columbia will be going to South Africa to learn about the South African education system. Please join me in making them welcome here.

Hon. L. Boone: In the members' gallery today is a very important woman, Jill Shannan. She's very important to me because she's the mother of my ministerial assistant, Blair Fryer. Without her, I wouldn't have Blair. I would be in a desperate state without Blair, let me tell you. Please welcome Jill, who's here from Perth, Ontario. She escaped the soggy country to come here to our wonderful west coast weather.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us in the gallery are three friends of mine who are all elected folks from the state of Alaska. We have Senator Randy Phillips, Representative Fred Dyson and Representative Alan Austerman. Alan is the chair of the fisheries committee. Randy has been elected every year since most of us were teenagers. Would the House please make them welcome, as they made us welcome in Alaska.

I. Chong: It is my pleasure today to introduce some British exchange students visiting Glenlyon-Norfolk School. These students are from the Downs School in England. Their names are Andrew Benson, James Burn and Henrietta Worthington. Joining them are their four host students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School, who spent a month earlier this year on exchange at the Downs School in England. They are Patrick Hunter, Tristan McLean, Elizabeth Simeoni and Emily Lapper. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: On behalf of the opposition benches, I would like to join the government in welcoming our guests from Alaska: Senator Phillips, Representative Dyson and Representative Austerman. I look forward to further discussions over the next day or two.

J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have visitors from Golden in the gallery. I'd like to introduce Len Pettman, who is the president of Evans Forest Products, with operations in Golden and Malakwa; Manson Galligan, the vice-president of Evans Forest Products; Norman Macdonald, the mayor of Golden; and Red Scott, a councillor in the town of Golden. Please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: I'm most invigorated in the House today, after an outstanding weekend convention of the PDA. I'd like to welcome a delegation from Powell River, which is here to let the people of British Columbia know that Powell River is still one of the finest places to live and the most secure place to invest, especially if it is aluminum you're looking to invest in. Here today is Mayor Arnold Carlson; Councillor Gerry Gray and Councillor Bob Astrope; and the director of engineering services, Mr. Jim Greenwood. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: Visiting us in the precincts today we have 40 more challenged students from school district 71, from the Comox Valley. These students from Courtenay Elementary and Village Park Elementary have been around and about this morning. If you see them, please add your greetings to mine.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, today is Tartan Day. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, and some of us are dressed appropriately.

I'd like the House to welcome my friends Gerry and Katie Dunn, and we have a group of about 20 people here from the Victoria Joint Scottish Council. They're sitting up there behind the press gallery, and I want the House to make them very welcome.

While I'm on my feet. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: One of the members just asked me: "What's worn under the kilt?" I can tell him that nothing is worn; it's all in perfect working order.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to point out to the House that today is Tartan Day. April 6 has historical significance for all Scots. It is the anniversary date of the signing of the declaration of Arbroath monastery in the year 1320 in support of Robert the Bruce. I'd like to table this. It's signed by my friend and honorary Scot, the Attorney General.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Shall leave be granted to table the document?

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, escorted by a constituent of mine, Sheila Haegedorn, is a visitor from Alberta, Ada 

[ Page 6758 ]

Jacobs. Ms. Jacobs is a teacher, so she has come here to see what excellent work we're doing in protecting education in British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

1998-99 BUDGET AND B.C.'s CREDIT RATING

G. Campbell: On Friday the Canadian Bond Rating Service downgraded B.C.'s credit rating, citing the runaway debt and excessive taxes that are reflected in the NDP's seventh consecutive deficit budget. The Canadian Bond Rating Service's report is a scathing indictment of this government's budget, and it's a damning assessment of the NDP's fiscal policies. Yet, incredibly, the Minister of Finance said she was not surprised by the downgrade, and she said it was "not unexpected." Can the minister explain why on earth she would introduce a budget that would frighten away investment, that would cost taxpayers more and that would eventually kill job creation in the province of British Columbia?

[2:15]

The budget was but one part of a long-term economic plan, about which more announcements are to come and about which another announcement subsequent to the budget occurred last week as well. Stay tuned, hon. Speaker. This budget is the first step in bringing long-term economic security to British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplemental.

G. Campbell: You know, there is not one person that called for the massive expansion of debt in British Columbia's economy or in our budget. For four successive budgets the NDP have said they wanted to maintain the highest credit rating in Canada. In this year's modified financial plan, there was a conscious decision to remove that goal from our financial goals. This budget in fact created a problem.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: was there a deliberate decision made, was there a conscious decision made, to watch as we had our credit rating downgraded in British Columbia? Did her staff inform her that there would be a credit-rating downgrading as a result of this budget?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, on budget day this opposition said: "Cut, cut, cut. Don't increase debt." But let's look at what the Liberal big spender of the day actually says when it's not budget day. Let's look at what the member for Saanich North and the Islands says about the budget. He brags about fighting against the closure of the Sidney and Saltspring Island courthouses, a fiscal measure brought in by the Attorney General. He says: ". . .I think that some of the cuts that have taken place. . .will inadvertently hurt many British Columbians." On B.C. Ferries, what does he say? He says: "And now the thought is that ferries should pay for themselves. I disagree with that. . . ." On child protection, he says: ". . .I'll give the government some credit. They have hired 325, but they stopped there and haven't gone any further. They should address that. The other area that I would offer some opinion on is the need for a temporary or permanent emergency room in downtown Vancouver that maybe isn't part of a hospital."

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It goes on and on and on. Who says that we should increase the debt? The opposition does, every single day except budget day.

G. Campbell: What the opposition has said consistently is that we should balance our budget and we should have truth in budgets in the province of British Columbia.

On the weekend, there was a program on BCTV which pointed out that there's a new product on the market called smart gum. I think the minister should probably buy some of that so that she understands what's taking place in her budget. I'm asking the minister again, and this is a question that I would like an answer to: is the minister saying that at no time did her staff advise her that this budget would likely result in a downgrade of British Columbia's credit rating?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, our government takes into account all the pressures when putting together a budget. We take into account the pressures for building hospitals and schools and transportation -- something that the northern members on the opposite side have joined our colleagues. . .to increase spending on. We've taken into account the needs of the business community in terms of stimulating the economy; we've taken into account all of these factors and how they would affect the view of our budget.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister didn't answer the question. She was asked it three times. Can the minister tell us whether or not her staff advised her that tabling this budget would likely result in a credit downgrade for the province of British Columbia, with resulting additional costs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I did answer it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the question again: was the minister specifically advised by her staff that introducing this budget, which has resulted in a credit downgrade, would in fact do so? Did she knowingly introduce a budget in this Legislature that would result in a downgrade of the credit rating of British Columbia, an additional cost to the taxpayers? Did she or did she not receive that advice?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I suspect that the Liberal opposition is going somewhere with this, as is their usual negative naysaying. . . . I did answer the question for the opposition.

The fact of the matter is that they don't like the fact that we received balanced information from many sectors that have a direct impact on the economy. We took all of that information into account as we made our budget. We took into account the fact that the public asked us to increase spending on hospitals and schools and transportation 

[ Page 6759 ]

infrastructure. That is a direct request from the public day in and day out, as well as from the Liberal opposition. We took all of these factors into account in our budget.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui, who can't ask questions apropos of the last ones. They've been asked and answered several times now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It is at the discretion of the Speaker -- repeating questions -- and the members know that. In another direction, the hon. member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The rules are very clear about repetitive questions, and I think we've heard those questions.

M. de Jong: A couple of weeks ago we heard from the Premier, who said: "Hey, Asian flu? I saw it coming." Then we heard from the Finance minister: "Credit downgrade? I expected it." She obviously had advice. All we're asking today in this chamber is for her to be honest enough to stand up and say she'll table the advice she got which says she knowingly tabled a budget that precipitated a downgrade of our credit rating. Will she do that? Will she table the documents?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I am a little troubled by where the opposition is going, and I'll tell you why. Everybody else is moving on with stimulating our economy -- business, working people. This government has agreed to get on with having a new way of doing business. You know what? By small steps, it's working; and by ever-increasing bigger steps, it will work.

The only people offside are the opposition. I don't know why they're working on this negative naysaying, with crass political thinking that they're going to be seen as a viable alternative. I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that I'm out there talking to people, and the last group that would be seen as a viable alternative in stimulating the economy is the official opposition.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, a supplemental.

M. de Jong: While she's out there talking to people, we're out there listening to people. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that when the Minister of Finance says she's troubled, she's not nearly as troubled as the families in this province that don't know where their next paycheque is coming from. She's not nearly as troubled as the companies that are leaving British Columbia to go to Alberta because they've been chased away by her government. Let's give her one more chance. Did she get advice from Finance officials that said there is going to be a downgrade of B.C.'s credit rating? Did she table a budget knowing that and refuse to disclose that to this House?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course we knew that we were on a watch by this particular rating agency. They were out of line with the other three rating agencies. We knew they had given us a credit watch on that, and that information was taken into consideration as we made a budget that is actually good news for British Columbians, is encouraging and is hopeful for stimulating the economy. It really is time for the Liberals to give it up and get on board.

B.C. HYDRO BURGLAR ALARM CONTRACT

C. Clark: I also have a question that requires a yes-or-no answer. I understand that B.C. Hydro has entered into a joint-venture agreement to supply burglar alarms to all of its customers. That means that 1.5 million B.C. Hydro customers will get a free burglar alarm and installation if they sign on to a month-long monitoring contract. But wait for it: the contract is being held by a company that's in Alberta. Surprise, surprise! My question to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is: why couldn't he find a single company in British Columbia that was qualified to supply it and to enter into what must be a once-in-a-lifetime agreement with B.C.'s largest monopoly?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY PROCESSING
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSALS

M. Coell: B.C.'s small business job creators are suffering with this NDP government. Last week a major development just outside of Powell River shut down after waiting 14 months for a response from the Ministry of Environment. When asked why there was a 14-month delay in processing this proposal, the B.C. Parks director for the region credited the delay to "the financial capabilities of the government." My question to the minister responsible for this delay is: does she agree with her parks director that B.C. workers are sitting at home unemployed as a direct result of this government's incompetence?

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't know of the specific development which the member is making reference to, but it's clear that this government has taken the information that the business community is providing us on the need to reduce red tape. This ministry takes that direction very seriously. We will be working with my colleague the Minister of Small Business and Tourism in developing new initiatives that will take on the issue of reducing red tape and getting on with the investments we need in this province.

FOREST REVENUE PROJECTIONS

G. Abbott: Forest industry experts forecast a 12 percent decline in the 1998 timber harvest. However, this year's budget states that the revenue from the harvested Crown lands will decline by 6.5 percent. Too often in recent years we've seen forest revenue shortfalls turn supposed surpluses into real deficits. To the Minister of Forests: why should we believe this year's projections?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, questions with respect to revenue forecasts are appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Abbott: In a briefing note prepared for the Deputy Minister of Forests by the director of the revenue branch, he states: "Historically, our forecasts have on average underestimated revenue. However, we appear to overestimate revenues when markets are weak or weakening. . . ." Based on the ministry's own briefing note, can the Minister of Finance assure us that her revenue projections are accurate?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[ Page 6760 ]

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

Budget Debate
(continued)

A. Sanders: I rise today to address the budget.

On March 30 we had our budget day, and for people in British Columbia this always brings a mix of hope and interest and excitement. The budget is, in fact, government's report card to the people, and everyone's hopes were riding this time on a decent report on the year past as well as a good-news projection for next year. The preamble to the budget speech was injected with talks of tax breaks for hard-hit British Columbians. Our Premier had assured us that he was listening to taxpayers and would be the author of some bold steps to kick-start the economy. For those in the know, this had to translate into immediate and significant tax cuts in order to stimulate consumer spending and investor confidence.

On March 30, hopes were quickly deflated. The new budget offered tidbits of tax cuts and buckets of borrowing in an economy already in free fall. The budget was quickly panned by the pundits and cited as too little, too late -- a MacFailure. Tax breaks were rationed and stingy.

For a snapshot of your own personal income tax savings, here's how much you'll save. These come from the annual income figures in "Budget '98 Reports." For a single parent with two children and a $30,000 income, a full year's savings was touted to be $1,200. Yet let's look at how that was arrived at. When it was broken down, instead of honestly illustrating the tax savings to be what they actually were -- in fact, $29 on an income of $30,000 -- the government offered up a souped-up, cosmetically enhanced version of the message and distorted the final picture so that it does not really reflect reality at all. The government's spin on that $29 for a $30,000 income went something like this. If you have $30,000 and two children, do you save $1,200? Well, you do if you include basic deductions of $68 and the federal low-income supplement of $13. Also included in this budget was $856 from the family bonus for the two children, $173 from the Medical Services Plan premium, $70 from the ICBC rate freeze and $20 from the B.C. Hydro freeze, totalling $1,200.

This does not show the transparency in the usual way in which budgets are reported. This offers a very confusing message to the taxpayer. For someone earning $50,000 the actual tax saving is $89, in the government's own documents; for someone earning $80,000, it's $284 -- a far cry from the confusing message offered to the average taxpayer if you do not recognize the Finance minister's creative manipulation of the figures.

In this same document, on page 49 again, it gives us another example of how the figures are distorted in the government's projections. This time, let's look at an example of a two-parent family with two children on a combined income of $55,000. The government stated in their press releases and their documentation that this family would save $1,049 of tax. Yet in their own documents, if one cares to look it up, you will find that there is quite a different story to those figures.

How did they arrive at the figure? Well, in this case, a basic reduction of $190 has been included, a reduction for tuition and education credits of $216 has been included, and again, the ICBC and Hydro rate freezes. So what we're finding is that for this family with a $55,000 income, if their children do not go to school or to college, they will not get many of the tax breaks that are afforded them in this budget. Hence the figure of savings in this budget for that same family is more like $89. I hope they don't spend it all in one place.

Further to this bloated view of what the tax savings are, let's look at other areas. Let's be clear, first of all, that there are no tax breaks at all for the calendar year 1998. Instead, the measly cuts will start in 1999 and extend into 2001. The deterioration in economic well-being is now, and this requires action now, not after a nine-month gestation.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The personal tax cuts are so small and insignificant that they will never increase consumers' real disposable income. They will not increase personal consumption or consumer confidence. Further to that, these tiny savings will be extinguished by higher mortgage refinancing costs and rising unemployment in all sectors. No one is better off at the end of day. No one has more money in their pocket as a result of this budget, and B.C.'s economic picture continues its free fall.

Let's look at the lucky small business owner. The budget gives them a 0.5 percent decrease in their income tax rate, not in 1998, even though it's the budget for 1998, but in January 1999. Then again in January 2000, another 0.5 percent reduction occurs. For 40,000 small businesses this amounts to a savings of $300 over two years. Big deal, hon. Chair. This does not mean anything of any consequence to anyone in this province who's trying to run a small business and keep their head above water.

What about the municipalities in my riding? Is there anything in the budget for them? You bet there is, and it's the only real expenditure cut by government in this entire budget, and it comes at the expense of Municipal Affairs. There, another $36 million is off-loaded, and municipal governments will reduce transfer payments as a result. Municipalities will either increase taxes or drop services yet again.

Meanwhile, starting this week, tens of millions of dollars in new fees and licences are ticking away, collecting new, hidden tax dollars from those same people who don't get a tax break, even if it's only $29, until the year 1999.

This budget can be summarized into three parts: minuscule tax reliefs that only commence in the future; B.C.'s seventh deficit budget, with a cumulative debt of $949 million in 1998 -- and my children will be required to pay that back; and total debt increases of $1.25 billion by the end of March 1999. At that point, our total debt will be $31.24 billion. This increases the per capita debt load for every man, woman and child to $7,811. This is our province, hon. Chair, and welcome to it. I never thought I would live in the place I love and have it seen as a have-not province.

This government has stated that the NDP's spiralling debt has been necessary to preserve health care and education. This statement is erroneous and positively misleading. Debt drains the lifeblood from health care and education, as every taxpayer pays $7,811 per year for debt servicing in place of health care and education. The NDP have eroded education with chronic underfunding.

Let's look at the facts in education -- from a government which claims such support for the education system. Since the NDP took power, funding to education has taken a nosedive. Since these so-called guardians of public education took the reins, funding for education has dropped from pre-NDP lev-

[ Page 6761 ]

els by $300 per student. At the 1990 level of funding to education, if we had not had an NDP government and funding had continued along the same lines as pre-NDP, there would be an additional $200 million to educate kids in British Columbia. That's a huge figure; it's a huge amount of money that is not going to classrooms.

The government boasts in both the throne and budget speeches that this year they've put $105 million back into education. First of all, let's recognize that they were the ones who took it out of education in the first place. Now they are claiming that they are putting it back. First of all, this is borrowed money and it's erroneous to say that it's an injection. The addition does bring the deep, deep cuts of NDP slaughtering of the education process down from $393 per student to a better level of $300. But we're still $300 less per student with the benefit of having seven years of NDP than we were without them.

Let's look at this real money as well. If we're looking at the $105 million, the very first thing you'll notice in the figures is that we have 8,000 new children in British Columbia who are going to school. New enrolment alone -- without anything else -- would have put $50 million into the education system directly. A certain amount of money follows each child, and for that increase in enrolment alone $50 million would go into education. That means that we're down to half of the amount claimed by government to be an increase to the education system.

The other half of the $50 million sum doesn't even touch the services lost due to the previous NDP cuts. No school district will be adding resources. They will maintain the status quo or cut services to pay the additional costs of inflation: new WCB regulations, electricity, water, paper, books or the moneys that have been lost or claimed through forced amalgamation of school districts.

This doesn't even include the fact that now we have our B.C. teachers at the end of their contract. This doesn't even include the fact that the teachers are looking for a 0-0-2 wage increase and that the BCTF expects this and has already taken a strike vote in order to achieve that. Watch this $105 million disappear without a single additional teacher, student or parent benefiting beyond the status quo. In fact, at least 30 out of 59 school districts are expected to have funding shortfalls in this year's budget.

The Coalition to Save Public Education has studied the impact of the NDP government on British Columbia schools. This independent evaluation of 109 schools, 113 teachers and 137 staff assistants rates the condition of education in Vancouver as grave. What did they find? Here's a sample to illustrate the serious nature of NDP cuts to education. The Coalition to Save Public Education has brought forward their report with 23 recommendations, and I'll just read one or two of those recommendations into the record. The first recommendation brought about by the Coalition to Save Public Education -- and even the title says it all -- states: "Schools at both elementary and secondary levels reported losses of programs in the following areas which impact directly on students: music, ESL, physical education. . .computer science, learning assistance, library, special needs, counselling and psychological services and secondary school electives." There isn't much left.

[2:45]

ESL is very important in Vancouver, and ESL and multicultural education are severely limited. The Vancouver school system, once nationally respected for its ESL services, finds that any of the professional development activities for teachers on ESL are strongly eroded, to the point that they are nonexistent.

There's not an adequate supply of basic teaching materials, and what we're talking about here is books and paper. I could go on and on. Basically, the summary of what the teachers, the workers and the parents have said in a very large number of schools in Vancouver is that school morale is at the lowest level ever, with 63 percent of elementary and 70 percent of secondary schools rating their morale at school to be poor or very poor. This would certainly impact on the motivation and productivity of anyone who works in a school, let alone our children.

If so much good is being done by the government in education, I would anticipate and expect that many people would write me letters to concur with that. These are the letters I have got from one school district concerning the deplorable state of education in their school district. These are 500-some letters from Sooke -- school district 62. What they say when they write these letters is basically that they do not feel their schools are places where their children can learn. I'm happy to share these letters, which have all been written to myself or to the Premier, to show that from just one school district, this is the kind of mail I get to say that something's wrong in the system. If this is one district, we probably don't have enough paper in this building to fill up with all the comments that would come from each of the districts.

These facts underlie the NDP's lack of support for education over the past seven years, and there is no way that the parents, school trustees, children and teachers that I see are pleased and happy with the last seven years in public education. The truth is that the education system is an emaciated version of what it was formerly.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: The member across the way makes comments. He should know; he has worked in the system. I say shame on him. Shame on every one of the NDP caucus who stood in this House and said that their government supports public education. It's just not true.

The other so-called target that the government said they are preserving is health care. What falsehoods did the Minister of Finance present to support the claim that the NDP are the supporters of health care? Well, let's look at a direct quote to see if we can find something to support this claim. Here's a direct quote from the Finance minister in the Vancouver Sun, March 31: "NDP governments have increased capital spending in B.C. by 15 percent since 1991. In the same period, health spending in the rest of the country has dropped by 2 percent." It's a good spin on the statistics; it kind of says we must be doing okay.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance needs to get her facts straight. The Canadian Institute for Health Information states that B.C.'s total health care expenditure per capita is 2 percent less than Manitoba and 0.3 percent less than Ontario -- hence we're third, not first. And this does not take into consideration that B.C. has one of the oldest populations in Canada. It also does not mention that our labour costs are among the highest in Canada. The per capita expenditures in hospitals are 80 percent on labour -- not beds, not services to patients, not CT scans; it's labour. So if we're talking about 

[ Page 6762 ]

how good the health care system is here in B.C., I'd like to refer some documents to the Minister of Health so she could actually take a bird's-eye view of some of the realities.

In the last two years the NDP has not added a single penny to provide medical care for a growing and aging population. This is something called "utilization," and there's not been one penny from that side of the House to support the aging population. B.C. is among the lowest in acute-care beds per thousand in the population of 26 OECD countries, at 2.5 per thousand. If hospital costs are high due to labour, this shows in numbers how many fewer beds we have. Per capita funding since 1991 has increased by 3 percent, but adjusting that for inflation, the actual decline in moneys going directly to health care is minus 8 percent. This translates into reduced care, longer wait-lists and bed closures. Government has failed to fund heart surgeries, joint replacements and cancer procedures and has put my patients and the patients of every MLA in this room to unnecessary risk and suffering.

If the health care were so great -- I mean, that's what the Minister of Health tells us -- then we should be able to go out in the communities and find that. We should be able to go to every community and find a story from every person who's been to the hospital about what a great experience they had there. I'd just like to offer some vignettes of what people have told me.

I'd like to start with a letter from a Dr. Smylie, who's a cardiologist in Vernon.

"Dear Ms. Sanders:

"I would just like to inform you that yet another patient on our wait-list has passed away pending surgery in Vancouver. I think with your background in medicine, you would agree that substantial wait times when people have significant mortality based on their illness are clearly unacceptable. We must ask the question: how many more people must die before we get it right?

"I am very displeased with our current level of management for patients in the Vernon area. Although I recognize your influence may have some limitations, I think the government should be made aware of these circumstances."

Let's look at a letter that's come to me from a woman who lives in Lumby, Mrs. Beda Blain. Again, with our wonderful Okanagan health care services, we have an x-ray facility that's been operating for ten years and providing x-rays for people all the way from the Arrow Lakes, through to Enderby, Lumby and many other places. Sometimes it's an hour and a half or two hour's drive to Vernon or Kelowna from these places. Mrs. Blain says:

"My concern today is the threatened closure of the x-ray clinic in Lumby, B.C. This would seem to be the thin edge of the wedge. . . . Great hurrahs were made by the government not long ago about bringing medical treatment closer to home. This would seem a contradiction" -- with the closure of the clinic.

This is a huge logging community. Anyone who has lived in a logging community knows that some of the most common injuries that occur to people in logging communities are orthopedic injuries; hence an x-ray for diagnosis is absolutely critical. These people will not have services in this province where they've had them for the past ten years. I think that's absolutely unconscionable.

Along with Mrs. Blain's letter I received a petition with 78 names from people in the Lumby area stating what a crummy system they have in Lumby with respect to health care.

A third letter talks about the ICU in Vernon. It says, basically, that since 1997 they have been utilizing four ventilators. These four ventilators don't work very well. What has happened is that patients are being transferred to other facilities, such as those in Kamloops and Kelowna, and the transfer puts their lives at serious risk. Right now, with the status of the ICU in Vernon, the doctors who work in this facility do not feel they can provide safe care to people who need ICU care in the Okanagan -- in my area.

The family doctor of another patient, Mr. Sam Lidster, writes to say that he died on the waiting list for a valve replacement and an aortic aneurysm resection -- again, sitting around on the waiting list and dying long before he got up to his turn for surgery.

A couple more stories, because these are the things that we in MLA offices face every day of the week. One I was given this morning, from yesterday in Vernon. A 70-year-old woman was admitted on Saturday for care. She had been suffering from severe asthma and almost required ventilation. Unfortunately there were no beds, so she sat in the emergency department for 24 hours. Then a bed became available on the third floor. She was put up on the third floor, but by the time the family doctor got to see her, she was gone again. She had been sent back down to emergency because they needed the bed on the third floor. She was sitting in emergency, and while she was sitting there the ambulance was outside with three people in it waiting to get into emergency, but they couldn't get in yet because the beds were all full. The doctor found this woman, with all her drips and IVs and medications and oxygen, sitting in the cast room with a makeshift curtain around her -- with two men, who were also patients in the hospital. Cast rooms are very notorious for dust, and for a woman who has terrible asthma this is the worst place you could put her. This was the only choice other than the suture room where this woman could be put.

In our hospital we have 68 acute medical beds, and half of those are filled with extended-care patients. Half of them are filled with people who shouldn't be in acute facilities, but we don't have any extended care, and therefore they sit there.

Let's look at Saanich. How about on the weekend? A three- to four-hour wait in emergency, and a person who had flesh-eating disease waited four hours. Or how about the new onset-stroke patient who left emergency after four hours because they hadn't been seen yet and therefore went to a neurologist's office to see if they could get help? In the Saanich emergency department, there's now oxygen in the waiting room. I never thought I'd live to see the day when people sitting in the waiting room would be provided with an oxygen mask.

Let's look at Sooke. It's very interesting to look at the places around the capital district, because they usually have better services than the rest of the province. In Sooke, a 35-year-old was admitted to emergency with a headache, and the physician who examined him said they thought this person had an intercranial bleed -- some bleeding on his brain. He was admitted, but there were no beds, of course, so he was admitted to what's called a swing bed. When the doctor went to see this gentleman, this swing bed was actually a broom closet on the upstairs ward. The doctor had to remove the 

[ Page 6763 ]

patient from the broom closet because he could not get to the patient, as the patient was surrounded by cleaning equipment. The patient was examined in the hallway and then returned to the broom closet. Orders were put out for a CT scan. . . . Hon. Speaker, if I ever have a bleed on the brain, I would certainly hope that I could have my CT scan within an hour so that I might actually not suffer from a permanent disfiguring stroke of some kind or perhaps death. In this gentleman's case, his CT scan came 24 hours later.

These are the kinds of people we are looking after in our system. This is the kind of unconscionable care we give to patients who get sick in our system. This is the government that says that everything is great in health care; they're doing such a fine job and are increasing money to health care, and everything is rosy. "Closer to home" -- the government likes to talk about that. That's how we'll solve all the perils and problems of the world in health care.

Well, in Victoria -- again, one of the areas of the province with the best home care -- home care doesn't exist. A 70-year-old woman was seen by a doctor in Victoria and had her bowel removed. She was given a bag that sat on her side. When she came out of the hospital, she was told to go and see the colostomy nurse, who would teach her, at age 70, how to clean herself and how to do her dressings. Unfortunately, it was going to be a three-week wait for that nurse to have the opportunity to see this woman, so arrangements were made for her to go to the colostomy technician -- someone with no RN experience, but they could at least tell her how to fit the bag on and help her to empty the bag when it was necessary. Unfortunately, the wait for the colostomy technician was two weeks. The final suggestion by so-called home care was that the doctor change it, and so for two weeks every day the family doctor, who did not have the skills of the colostomy nurse, was the one who changed the bag for this woman, increasing utilization and increasing the problem.

[3:00]

Hon. Chair, we haven't even talked about Vanderhoof and the walkathon. We haven't talked about any of these things. And all of these things indicate the very serious problem in health care, in education and in this province generally in terms of the economic instability brought about by this government.

This budget is a disgrace. It does not deliver for the individual, the family or the small business person. It jeopardizes fragile health and education services. And it makes no one happier, whatsoever.

Yeats described this NDP Premier and this government when he wrote: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time has elapsed, so you need to wrap up immediately.

A. Sanders: Thank you. I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

[Be it resolved that the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply, be amended by adding the following: "but the House regrets that the Government has failed to take any immediate action to cure B.C.'s economic crisis and record job loss and further that the Government has failed to lay out any credible long term strategy to create a prosperous economy and a better future for our young people."]

L. Reid: I rise to speak to the amendment, which speaks, I believe, directly to the budget for 1999, because this is not a budget for 1998. There is very little, if anything, in this budget that responds to the needs of British Columbians today or, frankly, for the next ten or 11 months. That's an enormous concern.

I want to begin my remarks by quoting from an editorial in the Vancouver Province of just a few short weeks ago. It's entitled "Wing and a Prayer," and that would be reasonable language with which to describe this budget. Reference is to the Premier of the province, and it suggests that this government "cheerfully talks up its. . .resource-based economy policy as if it actually works." The article points to a growing gap between the government's version of economic reality and everybody else's.

"For years there have been grumblings that the NDP government's megaproject style of economic development is out of date -- a reflection of the 1950s instead of the 1990s. Jobs these days are created mainly by small, usually high-tech businesses, not huge resource projects that may never come to fruition."

It's not a good-news budget, hon. Speaker. It's not something that's going to stand British Columbians in good stead -- a series of commitments that are about taking more dollars out of the pockets of more British Columbians. This is not about putting this province on a competitive standing with our neighbours to the south and to the east. This province can be competitive with the rest of Canada. It does not warm my heart that this province is in the tenth spot out of ten. It's a terrible, despicable situation for a province that has such enormous potential.

In the Saturday, March 21, Globe and Mail: "The Premier's approach to economic management certainly adds to the risk of more red ink. Indeed, the trademark of his administration has been to try to prop up failing enterprises using some sort of state interventionism that went out of vogue everywhere else years ago." The dilemma for this province today is that there isn't a sense of a vision; there isn't a clear-cut direction for this province. These individuals on the opposite benches, I 

[ Page 6764 ]

believe, muddle through sound economic policy. I don't believe that there's a strong grasp of what is required in this province, and that troubles me.

So again, speaking to the amendment, the subtitle to this speech, truly is "On a Wing and a Prayer" when it comes to this government's grasp of sound economic policy and principle. I'm not convinced that this government has been guided by principle when it comes to delivering a budget that makes sense for British Columbians. In the words of my hon. colleague for Okanagan-Vernon: "We are indeed debating this amendment because this House needs to understand the enormity of the problem which faces all British Columbians." It's not a situation that I'm particularly proud of, and I will reference a little bit of history, if you will. It's an amazing book, Retooling the Welfare State, December 1997 -- a very new document -- written by John Richards. One of the chapters is entitled: "The Irresponsibility of Canada's Traditional Left." What it talks about is the historical chronology of where this New Democrat government has been for the last number of years while they've held office here in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: In the basement.

L. Reid: Well, you'll be impressed with this article, then, hon. member.

"In British Columbia, the NDP came to office in late 1991. It was fortunate inasmuch as the provincial economy experienced no recession during the early 1990s -- real growth slowed but never turned negative -- and then entered a classic resource boom in mid-decade. The previous Social Credit government had used flush revenues in the late 1980s boom to raise provincial per capita spending well above the national average. Behaving like their Ontario counterparts, the British Columbia NDP cabinet juggled priorities but continued to increase spending at an unsustainable rate until 1995, when it held spending roughly constant in an unsuccessful attempt to balance the budget prior to seeking re-election the next year.

"The party was so desperate to appear fiscally responsible that it hampered public debate over appropriate levels of public spending by exploiting to the full the longstanding B.C. tradition of 'cooking the books'. In April, just before the May 1996 provincial election, the government tabled its fiscal year 1996-97 budget; after winning the election, it passed, unamended, the same budget in June. The document claimed a small surplus in 1995-96 and projected another small surplus for '96-97. Yet, simultaneously, the detailed accounting material contained an estimated increase of $1.5 billion in taxpayer-supported debt over the two fiscal years. The explanation for the contradiction between the above-the-line surpluses and rising debt was the extensive funding of expenditures via off-line . . . agencies.

"Beyond this accounting sleight of hand, the cabinet decided to inflate revenue estimates for fiscal year 1996-97 above the levels estimated by B.C. Ministry of Finance officials. The rationale for doing so was flimsy, but the cabinet feigned belief in its numbers until the budget was passed -- even when it was obvious to knowledgable observers that the lower Finance forecast was more accurate."

"The NDP's claim to have balanced the provincial budget was a prominent reason that the party eked out a narrow re-election victory in mid-1996, condemning its opponents' call for fiscal restraint as an unwarranted attack on social programs. After the election, the deceptive exercise in revenue projection became public and escalated into a political scandal" -- issues still before us today.

"The underlying reality here was the same as in Ontario. Once again an NDP government was caught in the conflict between the majority of the electorate, who were insistent on fiscal restraint, and the expectations of allied interest groups, particularly public sector unions. By deceptive bookkeeping the NDP avoided accountability before the 1996 election. Once the fiscal reality was revealed, the B.C. cabinet entered into a local variant of Ontario's 'social contract.' It stabilized program spending and attempted to negotiate acquiescence from the provincial public sector unions. Fortunately for the government, it had inherited a favourable net debt position. So despite having incurred continuous deficits and having increased the provincial debt-to-GDP ratio during years of economic prosperity, British Columbia remains the province whose ratio of taxpayer-supported debt" needs to be evaluated constantly.

"Orchestrating an election campaign based on the theme of a fictitious balanced budget and vilifying the opposition for advocating what the NDP, once re-elected, proceeded to do was an extraordinary display of political hubris. It provided dramatic confirmation of the first two-thirds of Abraham Lincoln's maxim: you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time -- at least 39 percent of them, the NDP's popular vote in 1996. The post-election political scandal confirmed the final third of the maxim: you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

"One can admire the skill of the British Columbia NDP in pulling off the deception, but its record offers little to anyone searching for a stable basis of political support from which to conduct social policy."

They take great delight in indicating that they are indeed going to fund health care and education. I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that this is almost a theme of destroy and renew. What is taken away, taken away, taken away. . . . And a little crumb is thrown back, as if they're coming into the fray as heroes somehow returning to a reasonable level of service in this province. This government is on record as forever taking more than it has ever given back to the taxpayers of British Columbia -- in tax cuts, service levels or health care or education. They have taken more than they've ever given back.

In the throne speech, one of the comments was that this government is going to craft some legislation around eliminating red tape. What an enormous oxymoron. If this is indeed about reducing the level of regulation and the level of bylaw in this province, it will cost British Columbia business people enormous sums of money. Why craft yet another piece of legislation that will have enforceability costs around it and will probably result in the hiring of yet more individuals to be mired down in delivering to British Columbians only additional cost? There will be no other benefit -- again, an enormous problem in this province.

When you look at where this province has been over the last number of years, and now we're in tenth spot. . . . We have had sluggish economic growth, and this government has not seen fit to put in place the appropriate steps that would indeed have made the difference -- and not for lack of advice. Some of the best advice of the day has been offered to this government, and they haven't chosen to be receptive. They have simply said: "We've met. I met with that person." But there was not a lot of information exchanged. They frankly didn't listen, and that's an enormous problem for British Columbians as well.

[ Page 6765 ]

[3:15]

So again, where I began my remarks, this isn't a budget for 1998; it's barely a budget for 1999. We will see a billion-dollar cost to this province, ten times more than this Minister of Finance was prepared to tell this House. There are numerous programs in this province where service has deteriorated and will continue to deteriorate. I believe that it rests solely at the feet of this government, in terms of a fiscal policy that is all about bad money management. It's not about a vision; it's not about a direction; it's not about building the confidence of British Columbians. I frankly think it's about throwing out little bits of crumbs and saying: "Wait three years and perhaps something may improve."

I've recently been in receipt of something I requested from the Bellingham-Whatcom County Economic Development Council. They are providing me with documentation on the number of companies in British Columbia that have relocated to Washington State, to Whatcom County. It's an enormous list of British Columbia companies that in the last year and a bit have chosen to do business in the United States, because they don't believe that this government understands what small business needs in order to do business. They don't believe that this government understands how to foster a decent economic climate.

Their issues are the same as businesses that stay in British Columbia. They want to meet a payroll, they want to provide employment; they're actually good at providing employment. Yet the opportunities they have had for consultation with this government have been almost useless. They have met. There has been a series of meetings, and the decisions that truly would have kept these businesses here were not taken. So we now see many, many British Columbians who have lost their jobs. There has to be the relationship between economic prosperity and employment; there has to be some understanding that this government has a great deal of power.. . .

An Hon. Member: To learn.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. member. It has a great deal to learn about this relationship but has a great deal of power over how that relationship unfolds. Those are enormous issues for where we as British Columbians sit today.

We look at these government benches, and we see a group of individuals who don't take fiscal management seriously. I don't believe they do. The budget speech and the throne speech should be times of optimism in the province and should be times when people believe that the government is setting out a plan, that somehow, as a result of government intervention, their lives are going to be better, that somehow something is going to happen that is going to have a positive return for them.

Not very much happened around the budget in British Columbia -- and won't happen for a year. Not very much happened around the throne speech; frankly, most of it was reannouncement and reannouncement. Most of that information was 1997, 1996 and 1995. I believe that this government has lost touch with what British Columbia as a province is looking for, with what its citizens are looking for in terms of being taxpayers.

People are prepared to pay for service. They're prepared to continue to build a province that makes good sense to them. But they're not prepared to be continually deceived around the issues of fiscal management. That is the issue today.

"B.C.'s Boom Goes Bust," is a headline from Saturday, March 21, in the Globe and Mail. It says: "[The Premier] himself often dreams about getting a piece of the new regional economy. While he still lobbies for new aluminum smelters and steel plants, in interviews he waxes poetical about the high-tech sector carrying the province into the next century."

Talk is cheap, hon. Speaker. There has to be some commitment, and the commitment will only be evidenced in a decent economic climate. It's time for the action. We've been subjected to the rhetoric, the talk, for close to seven years. It's time to deliver on the commitment. The article is absolutely clear that this government is not comprehending what is required and is failing to act. So there are two issues on the table.

This week the Toronto-Dominion Bank surprised a lot of British Columbians by declaring that the province is essentially in recession, weakened by the impact in Asia and by low consumer and business confidence. This Minister of Finance takes to her feet and suggests that everyone in the province is excited about the future of this province. Well, not consumers and not business. So who else is left? Who else might it be if it's not people purchasing product to flow some dollars back into the economy and it's not people in business who are prepared to employ other British Columbians? Those are the two significant groups in this province that need to be excited about the economy, and they're not.

So the minister simply cannot continue to rise to her feet and say there are one or two naysayers in the province. Those two groups account for about 90 percent of the province of British Columbia, and it's a travesty that that kind of rhetoric continues to be seen as something that's a useful contribution to the debate.

The individuals in this province need some action; they need to see what this government is prepared to do. They look at the only document that's before them today, which is the budget. It makes some promises for 1999. It makes a few more for the year 2000. It makes some promises for the year 2001. It says very little about what British Columbians do for the next nine months, for the remainder of 1998.

A number of individuals around this province are engaged in science and technology and are doing some good things. What they have to be confounded by on a regular basis are the negative features of B.C.'s economic investment climate -- and there are significant negative features that don't allow people to invest in this province in good faith. They cannot be assured that their investment will be valued, that their investment will be taken seriously, that a myriad of obstacles will not be thrown up in their path to ensure that they do not succeed. That is not a message that speaks to business from the province of British Columbia.

I indicated earlier the number of individuals who are leaving this province to do business in Washington State and in Alberta. They are getting the message loud and clear around the negative features of B.C.'s economic climate. It's a significant concern, and none of these things should be a surprise to this government. Forestry is in serious economic trouble, with lots of indicators along the way. I don't believe that this province has met a deficit target. That speaks again to 

[ Page 6766 ]

the irresponsibility of their fiscal management plans. It's important to have targets, but it's doubly important to meet them -- vitally important.

Frankly, we do have an interventionist government, in terms of doing the wrong things at the wrong time to create the wrong outcome. All of us who represent communities around this province know that to be a fact. The communities are not in better shape today as a result of this government. They're not in better shape as a result of this budget, and they're not in better shape as a result of the throne speech, which should be a document vibrant with ideas for the future of this province. They're woefully inadequate, hon. Speaker. Both documents are woefully inadequate.

So there are some issues this province must come to grips with. Frankly, I don't think there is any time left. I think this government has taken every opportunity and squandered it. I think the past seven years have been seven years too many for my constituents in Richmond East and for constituents around this province. They're not better off today as a result of this government. They don't have more dollars in their pockets. They don't have disposable income that they might invest in something they would choose. They don't have opportunities that residents living in other provinces enjoy today. Those opportunities have been denied them -- and wilfully denied them. I don't believe that this government ever set out to craft a reasonable fiscal policy. I don't believe they have the skill set to do that. If indeed they did, I think we might have seen it some time over the previous seven years. That's a huge concern.

I look at all the other issues and all the other groups that are coming forward today and who have given advice to this government over the last number of years. The Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia is just one of the many groups that deal with fiscal reality on a daily basis and whose job it is to deliver fiscal reality to individuals, to families, to businesses, to people who seek their advice. They gave great advice to this province over the years. It simply wasn't followed -- no excuse, no rationale, other than: "Well, we met with them." It doesn't deliver more dollars into the pockets of your average British Columbian. Frankly, it doesn't look out for anyone in the province of British Columbia. I'll put their opening quote on the record: ". . .overregulation, overtaxation and the provincial government's continued inability to control expenditure growth are all forcing British Columbia's economy toward the brink of a recession," warned Vincent Poon, president of the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia.

There aren't many individuals in this province providing a different message. The message is clear; the action is lacking. This government has not made decent decisions around crafting a reasonable economic climate for this province. That's all that's required. There are sufficient numbers of business people, of entrepreneurs, of risk-takers, of thinkers who would provide new opportunities in businesses they would create but who are today being beaten about the head and ears by this government's policies.

I'll put on the record three examples of some businesses that are staying in this province in spite of this government. One is ALI Technologies, a very, very fine business in my riding. It's a medical-information technology company that develops and markets filmless diagnostic-image and clinical-report management systems for use in hospitals and clinics. It's a new technology. It's delivering a superb product, and it's battling to do business in British Columbia. It employs significant numbers of British Columbians. It's a world-class technology; it's a brand-new application. It's something they do exceedingly well, and they are battling to stay in British Columbia.

AnorMED is a business in Langley: "British Columbia's newest pharmaceutical company celebrates its opening in a still-unfinished lobby." It's come to British Columbia to battle the economic climate. There are lots of other things a brand-new business could be doing -- many, many other things that are about returning a better bottom line, employing more British Columbians, advancing the skill set of their existing employee base. There are lots of very positive, vibrant things that this business could be doing today. They indeed are going to be battling the government around the corporate capital tax, overregulation and all the things that are not about putting some dollars back into the economy or employing future British Columbians. Michael Abrams is the president and chief executive officer, and his job, frankly, is to battle what happens in this province.

Certainly there are other provinces that have been far more welcoming. I applaud the individuals coming to this province, because we need more like them. But we need them to be received and thanked and acknowledged for coming to this province to do business.

B.C. Research is spinning off some companies and doing some things in spite of this government -- some very, very fine technologies that are world-class. These individuals are world leaders, and they are deciding to stay in British Columbia in spite of this government -- not that they feel particularly rewarded or acknowledged for having made some enormous contributions to this province, some things that are not found anywhere else in the province.

[3:30]

In my view, this government is not sending the correct message. It is indeed missing some opportunities around the kinds of things it could be doing to improve the province of British Columbia and to return this province to the number one spot. I'm not happy being number ten. My colleagues on the opposition benches aren't happy with the tenth spot. The province of British Columbia doesn't need to come in dead last. We've got entrepreneurs, fine thinkers, investors -- people who believe in the province. They need to be acknowledged for the services they can provide. Frankly, this government needs to step aside and let some individuals who believe in the future of this province carry those messages forward.

Hon. A. Petter: It's with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to enter into this debate and speak against the amendment proposed by the opposition members. Listening to members of the opposition, a fellow could get confused. In fact, I dare say that people who come here and sit in the galleries and listen to the opposition members talk about their views on the budget and on government policy do get con-

[ Page 6767 ]

fused. We have those downsizing Liberals, who constantly seem to talk about government doing less, and then we have those upsizing Liberals, who keep talking about the government doing more. What's really confusing is that very often they're the same Liberals: downsize, upsize, pay down the deficit, build more schools, pay down the debt, spend more on education. It's a very, very confusing picture.

Thank goodness we don't have to rely on those views and that picture to guide us. Thank goodness that rather than that and the very confused and contradictory set of messages, which is what -- and I use the word advisedly -- informs the amendment proposed, we have a much clearer picture and a much clearer sense of direction and vision presented by the Minister of Finance in this year's budget.

This year's budget is about meeting the challenges of today and creating opportunities for tomorrow. The budget does that in a number of ways. It sets forward a three-year plan to stimulate the economy. It sets forward priorities in terms of social spending. It talks in particular, for example, about something I want to discuss today and something that I'm certainly going to be very involved in in my new portfolio -- that is investing in education for the future of our province and for the youth of our province. In that regard, it also speaks about support for youth. It obviously talks about the protection of health care and how this government needs to protect health care services for an aging population.

I want to focus today on just a few of those elements of the budget -- very important elements -- which I think deserve particular attention. I was very pleased to recently be given by the Premier the responsibility to take over the reins of a new ministry: the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. By doing that, this government is bringing together the resources that are required to ensure that we have an outstanding advanced education system and a training system with opportunities that lie in the new knowledge-based economy. I want to talk a little bit about that knowledge-based economy and what this budget does in terms of sending a positive message and in terms of providing positive partnership to those who are involved in building the knowledge-based economy. This budget is very responsive to those who have been working to promote the knowledge-based economy and what it means for British Columbia. This is not an insignificant part of our economy today, and it's certainly going to be a very substantial part of our economy in the years ahead.

The knowledge-based economy right now constitutes about 3 percent of the gross provincial product. That may not sound like a lot, but a 3 percent direct contribution to the gross provincial product is more than one-third of the direct contribution of the forest industry, which is clearly seen as -- and will remain -- a very substantial part of our economy.

In addition, notwithstanding some of the difficulties in Asia and the difficulties we face as a province in terms of commodity prices, this part of the economy has continued to grow by some 20 to 30 percent in the past year. The outlook for continued growth in the years ahead is very, very positive. Infotech, biotech and electronics are areas in which we can diversify, grow and apply new technologies to our existing strengths in resources. We can take these knowledge-based technological skills and apply them to better processing of wood products, and then market the skills to process wood products and get a double benefit from being more competitive in our wood-product processing, as well as from marketing the technology that we develop.

Not only the future of the knowledge-based economy but the future of our resource-based economy is very much tied to the growth and opportunity that exist within sectors like information technology, biotechnology and electronics. Those are areas in which British Columbia is already showing tremendous strength but in which we can show even greater strength in the years ahead. In my previous portfolio and more recently in my current portfolio, I had the opportunity to speak a great deal with those in the information- and knowledge-based sectors about how government can better work with them to grow this part of our economy and make it a part of our future and a part of our economy that will create those thousands of new jobs that young people are looking for in the years ahead.

What they said to me and to government and, I suspect, to members of the opposition is that the way in which government can support them is certainly through a strong education system. It's a part of the economy that depends on skills that locate in this province, because we do have a highly skilled workforce. But it's also a part of the economy that needs even more in the way of skills. They said in addition: "If you want to do something, help us bring human capital to this province. Remove disincentives to bring in human capital, and help small businesses" -- because 90 percent of these businesses are small businesses. They are businesses with fewer than 20 employees. About 90 percent have fewer than 20 employees, and 97 percent have fewer than 50 employees. So this tends to be a small business part of our economy, one that's very dependent on human capital and human skills and education.

This budget is hugely responsive to their interests and concerns. I'm very happy to say that in discussions with members of this sector, they are very, very encouraged by the direction the Minister of Finance has taken with respect to this budget. What we see in this budget is targeted relief that will specifically be of benefit to this sector. First of all, the commitment to reduce the high marginal tax rate over three years to a sector that wants to attract highly skilled technicians and managers is good news, and that will ensure that we stay competitive in the years ahead, in terms of attracting some of those highly skilled people and retaining them here in the province. The benefits for business -- which are very much targeted at small business, in terms of the elimination of the corporate capital tax for some 10,000 small businesses and in terms of the reduction in the small business corporate income tax by some 11 percent over two years, to benefit 40,000 businesses -- are measures which will be of particular benefit to knowledge-based businesses and those who wish to form knowledge-based businesses and take advantage of the opportunities that exist in our knowledge-based economy.

There are tremendous benefits in this budget in terms of the direction that has been taken to provide relief in terms of tax reductions, both in terms of attracting the talent that we require in this province to grow our knowledge-based sector and encouraging the small business sector that forms the bulk of that sector to continue to invest and grow in the years ahead.

In addition, of course, the budget makes commitments about our future in terms of education. That is something which is critical, as I say, to the knowledge-based economy. In fact, the knowledge-based economy and education are two solutions working together to create a common vision for the future. We have a knowledge-based sector that is looking for more skilled workers, and we have students who are looking for jobs. If we can put those two needs together, we then create a solution -- a vision -- for this province in which the jobs will be there, and those jobs will be filled by British Columbia students who have the advantage of skills training here in the province. Because of those skills, the knowledge-

[ Page 6768 ]

based economy will grow, and those who look for places to invest will tend to invest here because we have that basis of skills. Indeed, that's why many of these knowledge-based industries are locating here in British Columbia -- because of the investment we have made in education.

So if you look at the commitment to education made in this budget, it is both a social and an economic commitment. It is a social commitment to parents, who want better opportunities for their kids, and to children, who wonder whether there is a place for them in the future B.C. economy -- and who know through education that that place can and will be there. But it's also a commitment to our economic future, because that skills training is what will establish us as a world leader in terms of knowledge-based industries and knowledge-based economies.

Look at the investment in education that's been made in this budget. Up $39 million, the investment in advanced education. . . . Post-secondary institutions are going to receive $26 million more, including $17.5 million to create 2,900 new spaces. That's on top of the 10,000 spaces that have been created in the last few years in British Columbia under this government. I invite members opposite to put down some of their negativity and think back to just a few years -- five or six years ago, even four and five years -- when students were having to line up to get into post-secondary education institutions and were told time and again: "Yes, you're qualified. But I'm sorry, you'll have to wait a year or maybe two to get into a college or a university." That's not the situation today. Because of the investment in education, those places are there for students, and because of the continued investment in this budget, those places will continue to be there.

Of course, other governments have chosen to exclude students in different ways, by increasing tuition fees. That way, the students may not line up because they know that even if they get a place, they can't afford to take advantage of it. That, unfortunately, is the pattern that we see in other provinces -- other provinces that are unfortunately touted by the opposition: provinces like Alberta, in which students have to pay $1,000 more to get into a post-secondary institution, or whose debt load is $10,000 more than it is here in this province. I know the members of the opposition don't consider that a burden, because for some reason, they exclude it from their thinking when they talk about tax loads that face British Columbians. For ordinary British Columbians, for working people, for students, for people who want something better for their kids and their future, that's an important consideration. This year's budget provides funds for institutions that have allowed us to announce a third straight year of a tuition freeze, so students in this province don't face the prospects they face in other provinces of ever-increasing tuition fees that act as a barrier to those opportunities.

We've also increased the budget for student financial assistance by over $13 million, because if you're going to expand spaces and you want those spaces to be available to students so they can take advantage of them, you've got to make sure the support is there. British Columbia has among the most generous student financial assistance program in the country. We now have the second-lowest tuition fees in the country. When we became government we had the second-highest, I think, but we brought them down to the second-lowest. The student financial assistance program ensures that students, while they do incur debt -- unfortunately still an unacceptably high level of debt, in my view, even as students in this province. . . . As I say, that average debt load in this province is about $10,000 less than the average debt load of students elsewhere in the country. That's the kind of commitment that this government and this budget have made to education, to our future, to youth and to our economy.

In terms of youth initiatives in particular, and making the link between education and the employed workforce, it is one thing -- and a very important thing -- to provide students with the opportunity to get into post-secondary education. To be sure, that is extremely important; to make sure that the program dollars are there once they get there is extremely important too. But the next step is to make sure that they can then make the transition from the educational institution into the workforce and stand a chance of getting the good jobs that might otherwise go to students from other parts of the world or other parts of the country. Otherwise, they might have to leave the province.

[3:45]

Today I was very pleased to be part of an announcement with the Premier to increase funding for Student Summer Works by 50 percent over last year, so that university students, college students and students in our secondary schools will get assistance. Small business will get assistance, in partnership with government, in creating thousands of more positions for those students in summer jobs -- 5,000 positions to be created in small business and the non-profit sector. It's up 50 percent from last year as a result of that initiative to hire students, which assists business -- small businesses, larger companies, the non-profit sector -- by providing them with up to $4 per hour in assistance toward providing those students with training opportunities through work opportunities. I think that's another very important indication of the commitment that this government has made. This is all about the hopes and dreams of British Columbians -- for themselves, for their kids and for their future. That's what this is all about.

When I talk to kids today, I hear a sense of frustration about whether or not there is going to be a job for them in the future. I know that when I was a student in this province, if you graduated from high school, you had a pretty good chance of getting a job -- even from high school. Going on to university or college was something that was certainly encouraged but not seen as necessary for many. That's clearly no longer the case today. Anyone who wants to find a job today in an increasingly competitive workforce has to attain additional skills by taking advantage of post-secondary education opportunities. But that means that we have an obligation to make sure that the doors to those post-secondary institutions, which other governments are slamming shut or are making more difficult to enter through increased tuition, are opened wider and that students are encouraged to come into those institutions so they gain the opportunities that many of us enjoyed years ago but are now only available to those with additional skills in this increasingly competitive marketplace. That's our responsibility. This budget makes a commitment and this government has made a commitment to that opportunity.

[ Page 6769 ]

In addition, hon. Speaker, when you talk to students today, it's clear that the ability to get summer jobs is not the same as it used to be, certainly back in the sixties and seventies when I was going to high school and into university. We as a government have a responsibility to make sure that those students gain a foothold in the workforce. Again, that commitment is reflected here today.

As I listen to what the alternative is -- because the amendment being proposed by the opposition is supposedly based on some alternative vision -- I am at a loss. As I said at the outset, when you listen to the opposition members, they seem to constantly contradict themselves. We have the big-spending Liberals talking about spending more in these areas, and then we have the slash-and-burn Liberals talking about cutting deficits and cutting debt.

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're the same people.

Hon. A. Petter: And very often they are the same people. They're confused. Although I must say that when you penetrate through all the fog and contradictions, I think I know who the true Liberals really are based on their position.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Who?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, listen to what Financial Post editor Diane Francis said when she recently interviewed the Leader of the Opposition. She said -- and I won't use his name, because that's unparliamentary -- that the Leader of the Opposition is "quite frankly a Reformer disguised as a Liberal." Well, the disguise explains why we sometimes hear all these crocodile tears and outbursts about more spending. But I think Diane Francis probably has the right bead on the disguise, because if you consider the positions that the Liberal Party has taken on these selfsame issues and you add them up, certainly they are positions that provide no comfort and no support for our future.

When I hear the Opposition House Leader refer to Alberta as a model -- a jurisdiction that has cut spending for health care and education, a jurisdiction in which students have to pay $1,000 more to get into university and college -- then I despair. We know, from the last election campaign, what the true Liberal position is on advanced education, because when all the dust cleared and when all the contradictory statements were exposed, it turns out that they were proposing a 5 percent cut in advanced education spending -- a $72 million cut -- and now they stand up and they spew crocodile tears about there not being more spending on education. We know that when the question of tuition freezes came up -- we'll have a chance to test this again this year, and we'll see where they really stand when they're forced to vote -- they spoke against tuition freezes. They don't like tuition freezes. They say tuition freezes are bad ideas, for whatever reasons.

An Hon. Member: No!

Hon. A. Petter: Yes indeed. And I suspect that if they were in government, should that unfortunate day come to pass, they would do away with the tuition freeze, and we would see in this province exactly the same pattern that people in Alberta and Ontario have seen, in which governments talk about the burden of taxation for citizens but have no trouble adding an extra thousand dollars in tuition each year for students, or another $10,000 in debt for students, and allow that to be done in the name of fiscal restraint.

This is the same opposition, hon. Speaker, that last year attacked programs to create jobs for youth, like the Destinations program -- an outrageous attack on the Destinations program, to create jobs for youth. When the federal government announced huge cuts in funding for the provinces -- we get $100 million less for post-secondary education in this province than we got in 1995 -- what did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said it didn't go far enough. This is the same opposition that says that they're opposed to increases in the minimum wage for young people. That's what they think of our young people; that's what they think of building an economy that encourages people to better themselves. Their strategy is to lower the wage rates, to lower employment standards, and that's how we'll create more jobs.

So I hope British Columbians don't get fooled by the fuzzification, by the contradiction. Perhaps there are a few real Liberals still in that caucus, fighting to get out. As the Reformers come in, the true Liberals are fighting to get out. Maybe there are a few. There's one who got out, who still takes a progressive voice on a progressive issue. He had to form his own party to do it, in order to take a consistently progressive position. He knows that if he stayed with that group over there, every time he took a progressive position his leader would undercut it the next day and he'd be forced to take a regressive position in order to restore credibility.

But this whole debate is not really about numbers; it's not about all of this noise. It's about the future for our kids and the dreams that those kids have. Are we prepared to say to our kids that they're entitled not only to those dreams but to support from government to realize those dreams? To parents who say to me, and I'm sure to members of the opposition, that all they want is an opportunity for their kids to do as well as, or preferably better than, they did, in a much more competitive economy. . . . Are we prepared to make that commitment when the time comes?

What this budget says is that this government is prepared to make that commitment, that we are prepared to create those opportunities. We'll do it in partnership with those in the private sector, with those in the knowledge-based economy who want to create more jobs and will create more jobs as a result of this budget. We'll do it by swinging the doors of education institutions open wider, not as that group over there would have it -- by slamming them shut for students. And we'll do it by working to ensure that young people have a chance to enter the workforce and have the government be there, not walking away saying, "We'll cut your wages; that's our answer"; rather: "We will lift up the standards. We will work with you to create better opportunities. We will make you part of the solution to make this economy grow and make British Columbia a better place in which to live, not a worse place." We'll have no part of that group's race for the bottom. We're on a race for the top.

G. Plant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Plant: I just had the pleasure of meeting with a class of grade 10 social studies students from Steveston Secondary in my riding, their teacher, Ms. Lin, and their resource teacher, Mr. Pagliacci. I know they're enjoying their trip to our wonderful Legislative Assembly, and I ask that members please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, to begin, I'd first like to congratulate you on your new position. Clearly, you earned 

[ Page 6770 ]

your gavel as Deputy Speaker. I know you will serve us well and keep us mindful of the rules, and that will help to uphold the dignity of this House.

I am delighted to speak on the recent budget tabled in the House. I will be supporting the budget and am pleased to do so. This budget is a shift and a response to our community's input. It is a good-news budget for our small business community, as well as for ordinary citizens.

First, I'd like to acknowledge the support of my constituents in Surrey-Green Timbers. They continue to support me and this government in the work that I do. It is a great place to live because of the diverse and vibrant people in our community. Surrey-Green Timbers is actually a remarkable part of Surrey, because it takes its name from an urban forest that housed the original nursery that sends trees throughout this province to keep our forests green and renewed. Hon. Speaker, I'm sure you know that this is a very fast-growing part of our province, and to keep up with that growth is certainly a challenge. As we talk about spending and cutting, my community is one of those places where to keep our world fair and to serve the communities in a very fair and even way, we have to do things in our community and add to our infrastructure and to the services.

Last year we announced an addition to Surrey Memorial Hospital. That will take place -- it's a capital project -- throughout this year. Over $60 million was announced for an addition to the hospital that is in the fastest-growing region of British Columbia and in the region south of the Fraser, which includes Langley, South Surrey, White Rock, Delta and the main part of Surrey. We also just heard that we have received $14 million of the $81 million that has been released in terms of new operating money for our schools. This is 17 percent of the money available, and it's directly due to the growth in this community.

We have 9 percent of the students, but we have significant growth each year. We are adding close to 2,000 students a year, and this year should eclipse Vancouver as the largest school district in the province. We have more children between the ages of six and 19 than anywhere else in the province. It takes a tremendous amount of infrastructure -- through schools, through hospitals, through post-secondary -- to maintain and serve the growth in students. It requires that we do spend money on capital projects that serve this community.

[4:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Also, again due to the government's commitment to spend capital on education, Kwantlen phase 2 will begin, and a significant addition will be added to Kwantlen College in Surrey. That is after an addition in Richmond and an addition in Langley. This government is listening and responding to the needs of my community around post-secondary education. As we look at that piece of the pie, we also know that the technical university is in the planning stages, and will be built south of the Fraser at some point soon.

This budget is good for ordinary working people and their families. Our government continues to protect our core values. We continue to work on universal health care. We are working with the public education system. In particular, we're looking at those students who are learning the skills of reading and writing, and we're adding significant numbers of teachers to the system to assist those young early learners and make sure they get a strong foundation.

Underpinning all this is the push toward job creation. As one of the members said earlier, we need to look at aluminum smelters as well as a number of significant other job generators that are coming in the near future.

As well as being the MLA for Surrey-Green Timbers, which obviously I am very proud of, I have the responsibility and honour to be the Minister of Women's Equality. This position enables me to continue to celebrate many of the successes that women in my community and all over B.C. have had. Our government recognizes these successes, and it is the only government in Canada that continues to support a stand-alone ministry for women. That is a significant and important show of support.

I would like to highlight just a bit of the important work my ministry is undertaking this year. We continue to fund 61 community-based transition houses and seven second-stage houses, which help women and their children who are making long-term plans for independent living. We support 16 safe home programs, which provide temporary accommodation to women in rural communities. We are there with 80 counselling programs to assist women in dealing with the trauma that accompanies leaving an abusive relationship.

In this budget, despite how tight and concerned we are overall and how committed we are to maintaining the budget and not increasing it, we were able to increase and announce two new transition houses, which this government will be supporting. Both of the communities where these new transition houses are going in have been working with the government to establish the houses, and we thank those people for their tireless work.

In Saltspring Island women were committed and worked hard for over two years after a house was donated to continue to keep it open and active until the government could come in with new money for core funding for the project. The women fundraised; they opened a thrift shop. They worked with the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands to secure their funding -- a Liberal MLA who is against increased funding on budget day but not against increased funding to support the transition house on Saltspring Island. I've toured that transition house, which was donated by a woman who cared about women who were leaving abusive situations. It is a beautiful and very warm place to welcome those women and children who are fleeing a traumatic experience.

The other transition house that will be opened this year is in New Westminster. This is actually another remarkable community that has shown tremendous support and has a long history of caring for its citizens. The whole community has gotten behind the project of a transition house, because they want to help those women and children who are leaving an abusive situation. This community also has one of the most remarkable domestic violence teams in the province, which respond quickly in a very holistic way when there is a call to the police to attend a family violence situation in New Westminster. I'm pleased and very, very proud that one of the priorities in this year's budget is to provide transition houses for women and children, serving the communities of Saltspring Island and New Westminster.

Surrey is the fastest-growing community across Canada; only Mississauga could come close to the rate of growth that 

[ Page 6771 ]

we have experienced south of the Fraser. I've been working hard with the Ministry of Education to ensure that they understand that more and more families are making their homes in Surrey. As Surrey grows, we need more increases in per-pupil funding, and this year's budget has responded. We now have per-pupil funding that has increased significantly over last year, and it represents an increase for the seventh year in a row, to provide quality education for the young people in my community.

There are also new schools being built in Surrey. Currently there is an addition to Queen Elizabeth, an addition to Princess Margaret and three new elementary schools: William Davidson, Simon Cunningham and Boundary Park. There is another new high school being built not only in Cloverdale but in Fraser Heights, which is north of the freeway.

As long as Surrey is a growing community, there will always be a demand for more funding. We have fought hard for money for our community, and we can see the results in this year's budget. I believe we are taking more steps to ensure that the funding for Surrey is good, fair and equitable.

The budget is particularly good news for low-income families. We are continuing to fund the B.C. family bonus and will provide up to $856 more a year to low- and middle-income families. This family bonus enables parents to provide basic needs for their children, so that the financial pressures in their homes are eased.

We have also delivered our commitment to increase the minimum wage. It now stands at $7.15 an hour, and this particularly impacts on women and students, who make up a large majority of minimum-wage earners. Our government has continued to fund programs that help welfare recipients get back to work, and we continue to reach out to those people who work in the low-income area to ensure that when they go to work, it is a satisfactory position for them to be in.

As the last topic I'd like to take a minute on, I'd like to take a look at small business and the impact that women are having in that particular area. One of the most significant areas of our budget is the assistance to small business, and women are a significant portion of that community and are becoming a stronger portion as each year passes.

It is a fact that women-led firms are a powerful economic force in Canada. There are more than 700,000 women-led firms in Canada, providing jobs for 1.7 million Canadians. Women own and operate over 30 percent of all the firms in Canada. Nearly one-third of all the firms in Canada are led by women, ranging from a low of 23.5 percent in Newfoundland to a high of 33 percent in Alberta. The number of women-led firms is increasing at twice the national average; the number of women-led firms has increased by 19.7 percent, compared to 8.7 percent for all firms.

Women-led firms lead in new business growth in every single province. Growth in the number of firms owned and operated by women exceeds the average in every province, ranging from a low of 2.7 in Manitoba to a high of 31.7 in Alberta. Women-led firms are creating jobs at four times the average rate. Employment in women-led firms has increased by 13 percent, compared to 3.1 percent for all other firms. Women-led firms provide more jobs than the Canadian Business top 100 companies. Women-led firms in Canada employ considerably more people than the largest 100 companies combined -- 1.7 million compared to 1.5 million.

Women-led firms are as tenacious as the average firm. Women-led firms have about the same survival rate as the average Canadian firm -- 76 percent compared to 78 percent. Women-led firms are younger than the average Canadian firm. Women-led firms are creating jobs in both big and small business. Women-led firms are having an impact throughout the country. Women-led firms are starting to shatter the stereotypes. Women are beginning to move out of retail and personal service and into non-traditional lines of business.

We may question why this means anything in the context of the budget, but the centrepiece of the budget is cutting taxes to stimulate investment and to support the small business community. Small business corporate income tax has been cut 11 percent over two years for 40,000 businesses. The corporate capital tax has been eliminated for 10,000 small businesses. The marginal income tax rate has been cut from 54.2 percent to 49.9 percent over the next three years. Financial incentives for domestic and foreign film productions are there. There is a 50 percent elimination in the international jet fuel tax over the next two years. We are cutting red tape and putting in place a small business task force to explore where we can go to cut that red tape. The legislation will eliminate duplication and simplify approvals. We will streamline regulations in the resource industries, as has been announced in the forest industry, and there will be a business advocate to streamline regulations.

Ordinary people spend money in small businesses. We have reduced the personal income tax by 2 percent, to 49.5 percent in 1999, effective January 1.

One thing that I would just like to say in closing is that we have to ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in. What are the values that we share? How does our budget reflect our priorities and build on our successes? And who gets to succeed? I believe that ordinary people and working people will succeed as a result of this budget. We live in a province where we are building and growing and creating opportunities for all British Columbians. We live in a province where no one is left behind and everyone can look to a brighter future. We are watching the future for our children; we are watching the future in our post-secondary education.

[4:15]

Hon. Speaker, if you listen to the people in Ontario and you see the increase in post-secondary fees in this country, you will clearly understand how significant the third year of a tuition freeze is for our young people and for our future. We as a province need educated, creative and dynamic people who can face this future.

We have done, for the immediate future, an income tax cut. We have frozen Hydro rates. We have kept ICBC premiums frozen. Low- and modest-income families receive a monthly bonus cheque to help with the cost of raising children. Our task is to renew our economy in the interests of all, not just a few. We need a strong investment climate to ensure new employment opportunities and a confident job market for our children. We are ensuring that more than $1 billion will be invested this year to build schools, hospitals and highways throughout the province. These investments will provide much needed services for my community.

In closing, I do appreciate the chance to speak today and outline to you why I continue to support the work of our government and why I will be proud to support our budget for the coming year.

G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to stand up on such a beautiful British Columbia day and speak on the amendment. We are indeed fortunate to live in a province such as British Columbia. This budget that has been presented in 1998 is a positive 

[ Page 6772 ]

response to British Columbia. After much consultation with people, with business, with small business and large corporations, this province has taken action to deliver on a budget that will see British Columbia regain its position in Canada. Since we took office and before that, British Columbia has led Canada in economic performance, wage levels and delivery of services. This budget will see tax cuts and reduction of red tape, or the elimination of taxes and the elimination of red tape. It does what the opposition has been calling for: it increases spending on capital projects -- many of those capital projects in Liberal ridings. But I'll get to that in a moment.

Last year they said: "Reduce taxes." Well, corporation taxes have been reduced, and corporate capital taxes have been reduced or eliminated for many businesses. They said: "Small business taxes should be reduced." Again, they have been reduced. "Personal taxes should be reduced." Again, as last year, they have been reduced and they're getting lower and lower. They complain that taxes are too high on high-income earners. I suggest that perhaps that's because MLAs got a wage increase, and they might not like paying the taxes on those new wage increases. This government brought forward an initiative that saw and listened to the Citizens' Panel that said: "Take away the tax-free allowance for politicians." Have we heard them talking about that? Not a word. "Make them pay taxes like the rest of British Columbians." That's what's happening. Now they're saying that those taxes are too high, especially on the upper-income earners -- and that is, of course, what we politicians are viewed as and are.

They said: "Increase spending. Besides bringing down taxes, you have to spend more money to stimulate the economy." This budget includes $1.25 billion in capital projects, many of which they said we needed to reduce class sizes, to eliminate portables -- we used to know them as annexes when I went to school -- and to build, build, build. That's exactly what we're doing. We're spending a tremendous amount of money. In fact, over 16,000 jobs will be created by spending $1.25 billion on capital projects. Roads, schools, hospitals, colleges and universities across B.C. will see expansions. We'll see new additions; we'll see new projects. Do we hear them mention any of those?

Just the other day the cancer clinic was opened in Kelowna. I have not heard one speaker from the opposition -- it was in one of their ridings -- get up and say: "You spent a lot of money on that cancer clinic. It was a good investment for British Columbia; it was a good investment in health care, and that is what's needed in British Columbia." Why not? Because that's positive news, and this opposition is negative, negative, negative.

Will they acknowledge any positive news? No, they will not. They complain. They hurl insults and send a message to the public and to investors that B.C. is a bad place to do business, that it is a negative place to do business and that nobody here should invest in British Columbia. In fact, they advocate that investment should go to Alberta, should go to other provinces, should go to Washington State. Those are the areas where investment is welcome, and that is where you should take your money. That is not the message that this government is sending -- certainly not with this budget.

There are over 25,000 full- and part-time jobs in B.C.'s film industry. We're known as the Hollywood of the North; $1.5 billion in revenue is generated by that one industry alone -- a tremendous growth industry.

One in eight British Columbians is employed in tourism; 223,700 people are working in that industry. They're working at -- get this, members of the opposition -- 15,700 businesses, many of them new businesses. Those people have confidence in British Columbia. They like British Columbia, and they think this is a good place to invest in and to raise a family.

In agriculture, $21 million in this budget goes directly to farmers for farm safety net programs. In addition, there's $1 million for the sterile insect release program; $1 million for the grazing enhancement fund; $3 million to increase farmers' net income, resulting from the elimination of tax on farm fuel. Farmers have confidence in this budget, because they like British Columbia, and they know it's a good place to live, to do business and to raise a family.

We have aluminum companies touring British Columbia because they want to invest; they want to build aluminum plants in British Columbia. I predict that over the next few years you will see two or three new aluminum plants in British Columbia employing workers. And guess what.

Interjection.

G. Janssen: The opposition doesn't like this. Why? Is it positive? No, it's because aluminum plants tend to be union plants. And we all know what this opposition feels about union workers. "They make too much; there's too much organization; the bosses dictate to industry for decent wages, family-supporting wages and benefits."

Over the last few years we've seen Hong Kong ship owners move here in great numbers. Tung Chee-hwa, the chief executive of Hong Kong. . . . I met his brother in Vancouver. C.C. Tung moved here and made investments totalling in the millions of dollars, because he isn't concerned about high taxes. He knows that British Columbia is a good place to invest and that there is a return to be made in British Columbia, and he doesn't mind paying fair wages, my friends.

IBM is coming here. Through negotiations, they will be locating in British Columbia, because we have a growing software industry that this government has invested in over the last four or five years. That is being recognized, and they are saying that B.C. is a good place to invest.

The Vancouver airport authority have just built a third runway, and -- guess what, folks -- it's already so busy that they have to expand once again. It's too crowded, because airlines are coming here. It's going to get better, guys; it's going to get a lot better, because this budget lowers jet fuel tax so that we can again increase the number of jobs, the amount of investment and the activity at the Vancouver airport.

On and on it goes. B.C. is one of the most desirable places in the world to live. You wouldn't know that from the opposition. They're telling everybody to go everywhere else. "Leave British Columbia; invest elsewhere," they say. It's not good. It's negative, negative, negative. Rather than singing the praises of British Columbia, they are downgrading British Columbia. They're saying it's not good, that you have to give the rich bigger breaks in order to get them to come here.

Has anybody looked at what's happening lately? The stock market is going through the roof. More and more investors are making more and more money, yet fewer and fewer people are working at decent, family-supporting wages. CEOs are making more and more money; mergers are happening among corporations like never before. And what does all this do? It reduces jobs. When we try to create jobs, when we try to put forward a budget that says, "Have confidence; here is a good climate to invest in," this opposition says: "No, no. That's not true. You should go to those other provinces where 

[ Page 6773 ]

wages are lower, where welfare is lower, where the minimum wage is lower, where they don't have a Ministry of Women's Equality to support women in need. Go invest there, because that's a good place to invest. British Columbia provides too many services, and that's why it's an expensive place to invest." That's the message we hear from them.

I want to talk about my own constituency for a moment. In Port Alberni we had the first interim measures agreement signed in British Columbia, and then we signed an extension agreement. Over 6,200 Nuu-chah-nulth members live in Port Alberni, and since 1991, when this government took office, they have, through our help, through our incentives, through things like an interim measures agreement. . . . There is a new motel at Hot Springs Cove. There is the new Tin Wis hotel, a Best Western, located at Long Beach. There is a Thrifty store at Ahousat, a Bank of Montreal on the Tseshaht reserve, a sawmill at Toquaht, a new sawmill going in at the Nitinat reserve of the Ditidaht. They are investing in Alberni and in British Columbia, because native leaders see a future in British Columbia -- and a future for their people here.

Ma-Mook Development Corporation is developing a new method of logging in Clayoquot Sound -- an area of so much controversy and international attention -- because we have given them the tools to do that. Pacific Coast Processors and Ucluelet Seafood Processors in Ucluelet. . . . Many of you here are not aware -- probably not many people in Canada are aware -- that more tonnage of fish was landed in Ucluelet last year than anywhere else in Canada. We know what has happened to the fishing industry in Canada. We're fighting with the Americans. Their cousins in Ottawa, that Liberal Party in Ottawa, are the ones that are supporting the Alaskans and the Americans in the salmon wars.

Their cousins in Ottawa won't support British Columbia fishers. In Ucluelet, because of the agreements made on hake and the infrastructure money that was put there, with the help of this government, 335 people worked six months last year, processing hake. It's a good place to invest, my friends. Those people worked at -- are you ready? -- union wages, guys, and get union benefits. Those companies made money, and this year they're expanding. They're putting about $300,000 into those plants so they can process even more, and even more extensively -- and another 60 people will be hired.

Naagard sawmill in Port Alberni: 23 people work there, and 12 more will be hired this year. Rebco Wood Products: 27 work there; there will be another dozen this year, because they have another timber sale in conjunction with a native band. Franklin Forest Products employs 14 people. An industry that was started on a shoestring by Pat McKay a number of years ago is now doing well, and he has hired 14 people.

Coulson Forest Products has 188 people working there. As a first in British Columbia, they service helicopters that are involved in helicopter logging, and they have a value-added plant there that overhauls helicopter engines right in Port Alberni. Why? Because this government invested in an airport facility in Alberni and put in the infrastructure so Coulson could put in that facility. They had confidence, my friends. They weren't negative, like members on the opposite side of the House.

MacMillan Bloedel employs 1,340 people in Alberni today, as we speak, even though there are some layoffs. With the changes in the Forest Practices Code and with the changes in stumpage, those people will be given an opportunity to return to work.

Alberni Engineering is part of the fast ferry project -- not just building in the lower mainland, not just building in Scandinavia, but building right here in British Columbia. People in Alberni and Victoria and Vancouver are working on those ferries.

[4:30]

What does the opposition do? They criticize that program. Space-age technology is at work building aluminum catamaran ferries, and they say: "They won't work. Don't build them here. You'll have to pay union wages. You'd better go to some Third World nation" -- that is their suggestion -- "where you can get them built cheaper and they have the knowledge and they have the technology." They're negative, and they don't have any confidence in British Columbia workers; they don't have any confidence in British Columbia industry. But this government took the initiative. This government said: "Let's build them here. We have trust in British Columbia; we have trust in our business leaders and our contractors; we have trust in our workforce."

In Port Alberni there's a new General Motors dealership going in. Despite the fact that BCTV, CTV and the opposition say that there's no hope in British Columbia, there's a larger, new General Motors dealership. This is high-end stuff -- expensive cars. It's being built as we speak. It'll open in May.

Two cogeneration plants are being built. Does Fletcher Challenge say: "No, don't invest in British Columbia"? Does CU Power say: "No, don't invest in British Columbia"? They have confidence. They know what the business climate is. They know how to make money, and they're doing it in British Columbia, not in Alberta, my friends. Again, they have confidence in British Columbia -- business confidence.

A trade and convention centre in Vancouver. A new PNE and amusement park, the first in the northwest, is in Vancouver -- not in Seattle, not in Portland, not in Calgary or Edmonton, but in British Columbia, my friends, in Vancouver. Business is saying yes to British Columbia, because they're saying yes to this budget.

We have Hydro freezes, tuition freezes, ICBC freezes and tax reductions, not for one year, but for the last two years and again this year. This budget provides for British Columbians to have confidence and to invest.

As it was in 1996, while B.C. was saying yes and showing confidence in themselves and in their province, the opposition said no; their leader said no. Guess what the public said. They said no to the Liberals, they said no to the Liberal negatives, and they said yes to the Premier and to the government of this province. I predict that in two or three years' time, when again the issue comes forward of who is negative and who is positive and who is on British Columbia's side and who is on the side of Washington or Alberta or whatever they dream up in those days, they will say that it is those guys on the other side of the House. It is the Liberal negativism that will not bring British Columbia into the new millennium. It is this government that will. It is this government they will show confidence in. It is this government that will lead British Columbia into the new millennium.

I. Chong: I too am grateful for the opportunity to rise today and offer my comments on the budget introduced just one week ago and on today's amendment.

But before I begin, hon. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. When I have the opportunity to address the Speaker, I will offer her my personal congratulations as well.

I'd now like to talk about the budget and the amendment. Never before has it been so important for a Finance minister to 

[ Page 6774 ]

send a strong, clear and positive message to all British Columbians. Budget 1998 was supposed to "chart some new directions," as indicated in the budget speech. It was supposed to inspire economic activity and growth. I think we all know that a provincial budget should reflect financial vision for the province in the ensuing year, and it should encourage hope for all British Columbians. This budget does none of this. It will come as little surprise that I cannot support it.

This budget has failed my constituents and indeed all the people of British Columbia, as it is mired in half-truths and smoke-and-mirrors rhetoric. If any of the members opposite would take the time to review the budget report that accompanied the budget speech, they would readily see just what real financial direction this government intends. That is not towards a balanced budget, that is not toward debt reduction, and that is not towards controlling government spending. This government clearly does not intend to live within its means. That is a statement that a former Finance minister once made, which all the members applauded.

Regardless of the modest tax measures that were announced -- which, incidentally, don't take place for another nine months, on January 1, 1999 -- and regardless of the promise to deal with government red tape, which again was caused by this NDP government, what was noticeably absent was comment about the provincial debt. It was incredibly important to let British Columbians and the business and investment communities know that it is this government that must balance and manage our debt. But they failed to do that, and it's no secret that the B.C. economic outlook for 1998 is bleak. There are many people -- not just members on this side of the House -- out in the communities who believe we are heading towards a recession. If the Finance minister truly consulted with and listened to all the business and investment communities that she said she did, she would not have introduced such a lacklustre and disappointing budget.

Instead, what she should have done is offer real tax cuts, real debt reduction targets and, most importantly, a real balanced budget. But we know that this was not really her budget; it was the Premier's budget. We all know that it is he who has consistently sent out one clear message, and that is that B.C. is not open for business. We have heard the members opposite speak about priorities such as health care, education and children and families. There is no question that on this side of the House we too are committed to those same priorities. In fact, our economic plan would have allowed for the hiring of more teachers, the building of more schools and the hiring of more nurses. Of course, we would have set up an effective child and family ministry without having to be shamed into it.

What this NDP government does not understand is that these priorities are not independent or mutually exclusive of the provincial debt problem. The provincial debt is a problem, along with the seven consecutive deficit budgets that this government has brought in. So for the benefit of the members opposite, I would like to elaborate more. They appear to be in denial about the state of our finances.

I know that the members opposite are in denial, because one after another, as they have got up to speak about the budget and offered their comments, they have refused to acknowledge that we are the number ten economy in Canada today. We have gone from the number one spot to last place. I ask the members to open their eyes and to see how they have been responsible for devastating our wonderful province. I am proud of this province, because this is my homeland.

The minister stated that her government, since 1991, set out to restore the province's financial position. Yet in this seventh consecutive deficit budget, we see more being added to our provincial debt load. Last week, on Friday -- four days after the budget was introduced -- B.C. received a second downgrade in its credit rating. That is the second downgrade within one short year. I have to ask the members opposite: are you restoring our financial position, or are you neglecting our financial position? That is what I believe this government is doing. It hasn't got a clue about how to restore finances, so instead it ignores them and neglects them.

B.C. has had two consecutive years where our growth rate has fallen below the national average, and 1998 is headed in the same direction. The slower economic growth is attributed in part to reduced consumer spending, and that is a measure of how ordinary British Columbians view our provincial economy. When they are not spending as much, they too are concerned.

So where are we headed? Perhaps we should look at where we have been, as an indicator. Allow me to deal first with taxpayer-supported debt, because I'm not sure that the members opposite understand what that is. Taxpayer-supported debt is debt which requires interest and principal repayments made at least in part with taxpayers' dollars. Taxpayer-supported debt has two parts: debt to fund annual operating deficits and debt to fund capital projects.

When debt is incurred to fund operating deficits, it is very much similar to racking up your credit card and clearing it off by adding it on to your mortgage. I am not disputing that there must be some debt incurred for capital projects. That is why tax-supported debt comprises two components. However, whatever that increase in debt load, it must be sustainable. We have to remember that bond-rating agencies assess and compare government debt on that basis. If they understood that, they might have been able to ward off the downgrade.

In 1992-93 -- so I am giving the members opposite the benefit of a full year rather than when they came into power in the fall of 1991 -- the total taxpayer-supported debt stood at $15.896 billion. As of the end of the fiscal year just ended, and that is 1997-98, it is estimated to be at $21.85 billion, and it is forecast to be $22.908 billion by this time next year. Not all of this has been for capital projects. About one-third of the $7 billion increase is directly due to the annual successive budget deficits comprising government ministries, agencies and programs. This is where the credit card comes into play. Those annual successive budget deficits have increased our debt, and it's only because of the fiscal ineptitude of the NDP government.

Also back in 1995, governments across Canada were getting the message that budgets had to be balanced. Even at that time the NDP government alluded to the fact that they knew it was a serious problem and a serious issue. So the then Finance minister introduced a 20-year debt management plan, and she promised balanced budgets. In fact, in March 1995 she said: "There will be no budget deficit for the government of British Columbia this year." Back in 1995 she also introduced a new benchmark. She established a new benchmark, and it was called debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The objective, which was a good one, was to try to force it down from the then 19 percent to 15 percent within ten years and to 10 percent within 20 years. They had another target that was relative to this as well, and that was a target for debt reduction. For 1995-96, $414 million was to be applied to our direct debt; in 1996-97, a further $225 million was to be available. The only problem was that these were merely targets, and they were not binding.

[ Page 6775 ]

[4:45]

So if this government were truly serious, they should have no hesitation in legislating this. In other words, if they were prepared to be accountable for their actions, they would have passed -- or will still pass; I'm being hopeful -- the balanced-budget and debt-reduction legislation that the Leader of the Official Opposition puts forth year after year -- and as recently as last Monday. But we all know that this government doesn't want to be accountable and has no intention of being accountable. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan, which is run by an NDP government. . . . Those two provinces which are immediately east of us have recorded three consecutive years of budget surpluses. I'm even adding in Saskatchewan -- run by your cousins, as you like to call them. The Premier said -- and this was not even so very long ago -- that he didn't think it was difficult to balance the budget. Why, then, can none of his Finance ministers do their job? Six provinces have legislation requiring balanced budgets, two of which have legislation requiring debt repayments. It's not a new concept, and I know B.C. could surely benefit from it.

Well, hon. Speaker, the plans of 1995 have disappeared. Even last year another Finance minister offered no signs of a balanced budget. Instead, he introduced major revisions to our debt management plan, hereafter renamed the financial management plan. I guess both he and the Premier had difficulty with the words "debt" and "debt reduction," so they just removed those words to simply deflect attention. They called it "financial management" because they could not deal with debt management.

An Hon. Member: They should have called it mismanagement.

I. Chong: Absolutely. The hon. member says mismanagement. We should have called it "the NDP mismanagement plan," because then everybody would have believed it. Whatever happened to the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio? I'll tell you. It was supposed to have dropped from 19 percent in 1995 to roughly 18.3 percent now, but in fact it's gone up. It's gone up to 20.5 percent, and it is anticipated that it will rise again to 21.2 percent next year. So what this government does -- what this Finance minister does -- is continually shift those targets because they cannot meet any of the targets that they originally present. In case the members opposite haven't been paying attention, I'll just summarize it: everything is headed in the wrong direction, and the public is sick of this NDP's sorry fiscal record.

Another target the debt management plan highlighted was the goal to keep our strong credit rating intact. This really is ironic. Last May, when B.C. received its first credit downgrade, we cautioned this government that it needed to put its financial house in order, because we were headed towards a very potentially damaging effect -- one that would cost the future taxpayers of this province dearly. But once again, the minister and the members opposite were in denial. They continued to praise their financial track record of last year, and now they're glowing about this year's disastrous budget. Well, it's more of the same. All the while they're ignoring the independent watchers, and they're picking and choosing those they wish to listen to.

Last Friday, as I stated earlier, we received another credit downgrade. That is not a laughing matter; it's very serious, because it is just the first of four bond-rating agencies that B.C. is subject to for approval. As a comparison, Alberta and Saskatchewan -- again Saskatchewan, an NDP-run province -- had long-term credit rating upgrades in 1996. They must be doing something right.

Another difficulty I have with the 1998 budget is its credibility. I have to say that it has none. The Finance minister offers a $95 million budget deficit, whereas the auditor general has suggested that it's closer to $949 million. That is about ten times greater than what the Finance minister has offered. This difference is not immaterial; it is significant. For the Finance minister to offer some lame excuse that the auditor general and her disagree on accounting principles is, I think, offensive. If I had to rely on someone's figures, it wouldn't be the Finance minister's; it would be the auditor general's, who is an independent officer of this Legislature.

I realize that the Finance minister doesn't expect us to believe her, but that is typical. After all, her predecessor, the member for Saanich South, said the same thing last year. He told taxpayers: "I don't expect you to believe me." That seems to be the only qualification these days for an NDP member to be appointed Finance minister. Who is the one government member that taxpayers are least likely to believe? Whoever that person is, they get to be the next Minister of Finance.

S. Hawkins: They all could.

I. Chong: That is true. The hon. member says that they all could, and that's probably true.

The budget spoke of a plan to encourage investment and jobs. Once again, this government has failed. In order to stimulate the economy, the government intends to cut the cost of doing business and make B.C. competitive. So contained within the budget speech, the minister outlined some key initiatives. I've looked at those initiatives, and it is just too little, too late. The tax cuts proposed don't take effect until January 1, 1999. That will save small business an average of $500 for a full-year term. That is hardly enough to create a new job or to stimulate the economy.

But what she failed to highlight were all those extra fee and licence increases that come into effect immediately, on April 1, 1998 -- not nine months later, but right now. So when you add the delayed nine-month savings with the immediate nine-month costs, there's nothing there for the small business person.

What I've also heard members speak of recently was how wonderful these personal income tax cuts are. I wish the members opposite would just turn to page 54 of, I believe, schedule D3 of the budget reports. I have looked at that over and over and over again. Just for the members' recollection, I will let them know that somebody who's making $20,000, a single individual claiming basic tax credits -- and there are a lot of people in that category, hon. Speaker, as we know -- will save a total of $21 next year. How much more has that cost them, though, by waiting nine months?

Let's move a little bit higher; let's see if there's a bigger impact. For a single person claiming basic tax credits -- again, if they're making $30,000 in employment income -- they'll see $38. Well, that's a little bit better. Now they can maybe take one of their friends out for dinner. If we move it higher to $35,000, they'll see $50, and if we move it to $50,000, it'll be $89. That is not a lot of money in terms of a tax saving. Part of the problem is that this government doesn't seem to understand that there needs to be a substantial and an immediate tax break in order to stimulate the economy. This has added no consumer confidence. I don't see people running out, wondering where they're going to spend these extra tax savings that they've got.

[ Page 6776 ]

In 1999 our marginal rate will still be one of the highest in Canada. The only province that will be higher is Newfoundland. What I find outrageous and appalling is how this government expects us to pat them on the back for this kind of activity. They also expect us to pat them on the back for their so-called controlled government spending.

But what we're talking about here is not the government spending and the government programs; what we're talking about are their promises. In 1996 they promised what they were going to do, and what we have been doing for the last two years is holding their feet to the fire. They said they would spend it, and instead they are trying to throw this back at us as if they were our problems. Well, they're the ones who went to the electorate and promised that there would be all this money. They're not even taking over from another administration; they're taking over from their own administration. I would expect that if there had been a change in administration, but it's their own government.

All we've been doing for two years is reminding this government that they agreed they would spend in these areas. If they agreed on that, we expected that they had the money for it. We expected that they told us the truth, that they knew where the money was. I guess that's just not so. So why should I or my colleagues want to support the NDP just for keeping their promises? That's something they should be doing.

The government has not heard the concerns of business; it has not heard the concerns of the investment community. If it had, it would have done more with the corporation capital tax. By increasing the threshold -- again, which is deferred until January 1, 1999; it's still nine months away -- few firms will benefit immediately. What we have learned, strangely enough, is that one bank stands to gain about an $8 million tax break. Wasn't it this government that was supposed to help small business? Wasn't it this government that was against banks? I wonder why their tune has changed all of a sudden. I'll be curious about whether any of them cares to give me an answer.

As I stated, this budget offers too little, too late. I heard just recently that the member for Alberni talked about the Women's Equality ministry -- after the Minister of Women's Equality got up and spoke -- and how her ministry supports his community. I think that's wonderful. I don't dispute that at all. But let me share with you what the true story is; let me share with you a bit of the reality. When I was in Port Alberni in January of this year, I did go to the women's crisis centre. They were so stressed out due to the contract reform that this NDP government was putting in place. . . . They were so concerned that they were about to close, until the minister -- and I'll give her credit -- or some of her officials went up there and realized what was happening. They made sure that they were able to put that funding in place. But why does that have to happen? Why does a crisis centre have to deal with those kinds of situations? I spoke with those people, I was in their location, so I do know what their problem was.

Hon. Speaker, this government speaks about how they are protecting the social safety net. So I need to ask the members opposite: why is it that there is such an attack on the non-profit volunteer groups around this province? On this island alone, why are they attacking Arrowsmith Lodge, Glacier View Lodge, Travellers Lodge and the Queen Alexandra Centre here in my riding? Why is it that money is being paid and wasted to grab those assets that belong to the community, not to the government? Why don't members opposite go out to these places. . . ?

Interjection.

I. Chong: Thank you, hon. member for Comox, for reminding me that Glacier View Lodge has spent legal fees dealing with this. Why is it that we have to waste those precious volunteer dollars they raise on legal fees? This government should recognize that the volunteer sector of this province has a vital role to play in the development of all of our communities.

[5:00]

I don't understand, hon. Speaker, why the members opposite can sit there and think that they are protecting the social safety net. If that were so, those communities would not be coming to us asking for help and wondering what this government is up to. I do have to ask: when is this government going to be paying back those Nanaimo bingo dollars? Everybody has been waiting. When they do that, maybe that will be a show of good faith.

This budget can't be supported. All it is is a lot of tinkering, and it doesn't fool the investment community at all. Their reaction is very evident. Investor confidence hasn't been restored. We have not seen a flood of investment money coming back here. Consumer confidence hasn't been restored. We haven't seen the tills ringing up crazily. Jobs will still be lost, because our high tax rates continue to drive away investment. Ordinary taxpayers are looking for alternatives to increase their disposable incomes, and it may be that they have to go to another province to do that. That's a shame. I would hate to see my family split up, moving to another province so that they could have more money in their pockets. This government has promised it would do that, but it has failed to do so.

So I, along with my constituents and many others, are still waiting for a balanced budget. We're still waiting for a real plan for debt reduction. We're still waiting for truth in budgeting. If this Premier and his government refuse to deliver on these promises they once made, I suggest that they move over and let someone else govern.

R. Thorpe: Today I will comment on the March 30 budget, as well as on the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon. I will be making these comments today on behalf of my constituents, the people of Okanagan-Penticton.

The Finance minister has attempted to say that this budget will welcome investment to British Columbia and that her government is going to operate differently. Do we finally have an admission that their disastrous socialistic policies are not working? Quite frankly, there's a need for this amendment to be approved by this House. The minister says that British Columbia is open for business. Who is the minister trying to fool -- her caucus? British Columbians aren't buying it. This year's budget attempts to show a deficit of $95 million, but the truth is that it's $949 million, the seventh deficit in a row. It's a budget that forecasts our debt to be $31.246 billion at the end of the year, up $1.25 billion this year alone. It's a budget that contains manipulation and creative accounting, and this government says that spending is down. The truth is that spending is not down. This government continues to be fiscally irresponsible.

This NDP government must stop deceiving the hard-working people of British Columbia. It's time for this government to tell people the truth and the facts in a timely manner. Why should the working families of this province give that 

[ Page 6777 ]

incompetent government more money to spend? This is a government that is fiscally irresponsible, has no vision and has no plan. Most alarming of all, the minister responsible has already shown us and shown this House that she is lacking in management skill and commitment to getting the job done.

Only three years ago this government announced, with great fanfare, two debt management plans. This NDP government has failed miserably to achieve their own goals from their own plans, and now they say this new budget is a positive and new way of doing business. British Columbians from all corners of the province are saying no, louder and louder, to this MacFailure of a budget. What did we get? We got a whole bunch of nothing -- no bold plan, no bold actions and, once again, more promises. We all know what happens to NDP promises: they're always broken.

Thus there truly is a need for the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon, because this government has taken our economy from number one to number ten, and we continue to fall. As the Minister of Small Business said only last Thursday in this House: "Just the facts -- that's what I ask, that the members opposite deal with in this budget." Well, I agree. Let's deal just with the facts.

An Hon. Member: What are those?

R. Thorpe: Perhaps if you listen you might learn something new. These are the facts. Our economy has gone from number one to number ten; that's a fact. Our unemployment rate is 9.7, the highest west of Quebec; that's a fact. Youth unemployment is almost 18 percent, the highest west of Quebec; that's a fact. The forest industry is in the tank, and it's not because of Asia, it's because of the NDP socialistic policies; that's a fact. Mining is almost non-existent because of NDP policy; that's a fact. Small business is hurting throughout the province of British Columbia because of NDP overregulation, extreme levels of taxation and inflexible employment labour standards. These are the facts; these are but a few of the facts.

But the biggest mistake this socialist NDP government has made is that it's being run from one office -- an office that spends millions of dollars saying they listen. But British Columbians now know they don't, and that office is lost in its own propaganda.

If the NDP government were really listening, they would have heard the following. From the tourism industry they would have heard: eliminate the capital tax now; keep your promise on funding for marketing; cut tax rates; we must be competitive in the global marketplace. From the chartered accountants they would have heard: we need an action plan; we need to balance the budget; no window-dressing; eliminate the capital tax; keep your promise to balance the budget, and keep your books like we have to keep our books. From the certified management accountants, of which I am proud to be a member, they said: "Balance the budget; reduce the debt; place a moratorium on new labour laws."

What did the NDP's friends at the Fraser Institute say? "Balance the budget, reduce government spending and cut personal and business taxes." And from the mining industry, what did they say? "We need tax changes now; we need to eliminate the capital tax now." They also said: "We have to cut and streamline the permitting process, a commitment that government made over a year ago, and they still haven't lived up to that promise." The certified general accountants said: "British Columbians need a clear signal; they need a clear plan of action. Balance the budget; eliminate the capital tax. Keep your books like everybody else in British Columbia has to keep their books." What did the Federation of Independent Business say? They said: "Reduce the debt; cut government spending; balance the budget; produce a credible debt management plan." And from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. . . . What did they say? They said: "Business is the engine that drives our economy. Business is not a special interest group, but the lifeblood of our economy." They also said that debt and deficit reduction must be given the highest level of priority.

These are the facts, and I trust that the Minister of Small Business and Tourism is hearing these today. This is not political rhetoric. This is what the people of British Columbia are saying. Listen to the facts. Band-aid solutions are not working in British Columbia, tinkering does not work; thus the need for the amendment brought forward by my B.C. Liberal colleague.

So what did we get out of the minister's we're-open-for-business budget? We got a $949 million deficit, not $95 million. We got $1.25 billion of additional debt. Our debt now stands at $31.2 billion. Interest costs in British Columbia now amount to $2.5 billion a year. A headline in the Province newspaper recently stated: "NDP Fails to Dupe Experts" -- bond rating downgraded. The minister smiles. It's only $6 million to $9 million. How can we joke about these things when families are being put out of their homes, are losing their vehicles and don't have jobs? These are not joking matters, and the minister should not be joking about it. We have a serious problem here in British Columbia.

British Columbians who are listening today must always remember: it's not the government's money they're spending; it's your money, and your voices have to become louder in British Columbia. Those are the facts. The tax-spend-and-debt policy of the NDP government is putting our critical and vital services of health care and education and those who truly need our help in society, in our communities, at severe risk.

The residents of Peachland, Naramata, Penticton and Summerland tell me they want a fiscally responsible government. They want a government that lives within its means while protecting health care and education. The B.C. Liberal Party has recently introduced legislation to do this: (1) truth in budgeting, and (2) balanced-budget legislation. Surely all members of this House can support truth-in-budgeting legislation. I ask the members of the government side of this House to show courage, stand up for their constituents and vote yes for truth in budgeting. In addition, vote for the amendment before this House today.

On April 20, 1990, as recorded on page 9068 of Hansard, the now Premier then stated about the government of the day's budget that it was "a dishonest budget". Based on that comment, I would like to conclude that our Premier would in fact support the Leader of the Official Opposition's bill for truth in budgeting. Today I challenge the Premier of British Columbia to support our leader's truth-in-budgeting bill. People are very upset, and the Premier should want to have truth in budgeting.

This budget is a sham. The NDP government will spend millions of dollars telling everyone that this is a great budget, but if it was so great or even fair, they wouldn't have to spend a cent. It would sell itself. But this government will hide or attempt to hide behind the backs of the working people and use scare tactics about health care and education.

Well, these tactics are not working anymore, hon. Speaker. Let me just share two recent examples in the last four days that have happened in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton. 

[ Page 6778 ]

Last weekend a working couple tried to go and buy a new vehicle. They were buying a new truck so that they could go to work and make a living and look after their family. But what does this government do? It has a sales tax on vehicles over $30,000, and so many of them affect working families. . . . This family would have to pay 10 percent -- $3,600. Their decision was to not buy that vehicle. That is wrong. This government must stop penalizing working families and people who are trying to buy vehicles to go to work in British Columbia today.

A health care worker -- a registered nurse -- called me on Friday, very concerned. She said: "Rick, what is this nonsense in the paper that health care funding will be increased by $228 million in B.C. this year. Rick, that is not the truth. Let me tell you, I am a registered nurse working in a hospital. Nurses are losing their jobs today in British Columbia because of this government." She had just come from a meeting where 20 nurses were going to be laid off and 27 beds were going to be closed. Patients are being stacked in the hallways. This is wrong.

[5:15]

Again I call on the members on that side of the House to vote for this amendment to the budget. The sham has been seen through by the experts, by members of this House and, most importantly, by hard-working British Columbians. NDP, the jig is up; British Columbians have had enough. British Columbians want an alternative; they deserve it. The B.C. Liberals have it. They have that alternative. In addition to the amendment before the House, the B.C. Liberals have a nine-point action plan for economic recovery. Let me quickly share those points with you. I would ask that the members on the other side listen carefully, because no doubt they'll learn something here today.

We need meaningful cuts to personal income tax and small business tax. Heavy taxation discourages investment and hampers job creation. The more disposable income people have, the more jobs that are created. Remember, consumer spending creates jobs. Eliminate red tape and costly government regulation, and soon we'll have members over there standing up and saying that they've cut all this red tape. But who put it in? They did! It cost billions, and they're happy that they may be able to save $300 million. Again they tinker. We must make B.C. businesses competitive again. I know that the NDP government over there does not believe in free trade and tries to pretend that we don't live in a global community, but we do and we must be competitive in that global community. Therefore we must cut red tape now, not talk about it. We need to deliver truth in budgeting. We have to have open and honest accounting practices. Government financial statements must be truthful and easily understood. Remember, people of British Columbia, that it's your money, not their money. Stand up and be counted.

Number four is that we need balanced budgets and we need to reduce the debt of this province. Individuals and households and businesses balance their budgets. Why shouldn't this government have to do that, especially when they promised it and promised it and broke those promises? As I said earlier, the B.C. Liberals, under the leadership of the Leader of the Official Opposition, have introduced legislation in this House for this session, and we hope that members over there have the courage to approve it.

What we must also do is enact fair and balanced labour laws. Employees all over the province and businesses all over the province are not against unionized workers. That is their choice; it's all about choice.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: People must have their rights, and they must have the right to choose. B.C. must also fight for its fair share from the federal government. Number seven in our nine-point economic recovery plan is to protect private property rights. No more government expropriations without compensation. Private citizens, charities and resource companies must know that the government will protect their property under the law and in treaty negotiations.

Point eight is that we must negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements -- treaties that provide certainty, finality and equality of opportunity for everyone that lives in British Columbia. Point nine is that we must provide better education and job training. We must make sure that we make the most effective use of educational dollars to ensure that B.C.'s students have the skills, training and education required to compete in today's global economy.

The B.C. Liberal plan will happen because we have a vision. We have a plan. We have a leader who believes that results do the speaking. We have a team of very competent individuals. We have a team with real business experience, which has had to stay awake Thursday nights trying to figure out how to make the payroll on Friday. You know, experience is a wonderful thing. And we have a leader committed to telling the truth.

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture just wanted the facts last week. Well, let me give him a couple more facts. Why can Alberta balance its budget? Why can Manitoba balance its budget? Why can Nova Scotia balance its budget? Why can New Brunswick balance its budget? Why can your cousins in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories balance their budgets? All have balanced budgets. Yet what do we have in British Columbia? Broken promises about balancing the budget. It's always tomorrow, maybe. It's like going to Disneyland.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Our deficit is $949 million this year; new debt is up $1.25 billion; the debt will stand at $31.2 billion. These are the facts from the government's own budget book. This is not political rhetoric; these are facts.

More facts. Tax cuts in January 1999, but still we will not be competitive -- small business taxes will be 33 percent higher than in Alberta -- and they will be more than offset by the fee increases that have already taken place. Fees go up $55 million, effective immediately.

We also note on page 96 something the government didn't tell us. There's something that's going to happen to liquor pricing in British Columbia. It looks like that's up $35 million, but they didn't tell us about that. We already have the highest-taxed liquor prices in North America. When it comes to wines, we have the highest-taxed wines of all wine-producing regions of the world.

Tourism signage. The costs go up to small business people by $1 million, effective April 1. Didn't hear that in the budget.

Power rates remain inflated. B.C. Hydro is giving us back $12. People deserve a lot more than that. We didn't hear too much about that in the budget.

[ Page 6779 ]

Tax cuts to banks. We have to say this quietly, but this is a fact. Oh, but they didn't tell us that. Remember the rhetoric from the last election? The NDP were slamming big banks, and now they're their best friend. Well, they are their best customer -- $2.5 billion a year in interest. They probably get invited to their golf tournaments.

Another fact in the budget is a $36 million cut to municipal grants. We didn't hear that. They didn't talk about that. These are some of the facts that the government did not share on March 30 with British Columbians.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, I must vote a loud no to this budget. This budget is a sham. Socialism is not working in British Columbia, nor is it working for British Columbians, and I will vote no based on the facts. But I will vote yes on the amendment brought forward by a B.C. Liberal caucus member, the member for Okanagan-Vernon. I will be proudly voting for that amendment.

Finally, I must close by using a quote from Hansard from May 22, 1991, page 12125, a quote made by today's Premier, which I believe best describes his own government's budget on March 30. "This budget is a big-lie budget, Mr. Speaker. It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general. . . ." But today I say that British Columbians deserve better than this budget. Above all, they deserve a budget based on the complete truth and on sound, acceptable accounting practices.

I will and I must vote no on this budget, which clearly shows a deficit of $949 million. That is a fact -- not $95 million. But we'll vote yes to the amendment, which calls for a credible long-term strategy to create a prosperous economy and a better future for all our young people.

I move that we vote on the amendment to the budget that has been tabled.

The Speaker: I don't think you need to move that as a motion, but we can do that. We are three or four minutes ahead of our usual schedule for doing this, but I think we can probably put the question.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 33
Weisgerber Penner Nettleton Anderson Jarvis Whittred Chong Coell Neufeld Reid Abbott	Plant de Jong Farrell-Collins C. Clark Gingell Sanders Weisbeck Nebbeling Hogg Hawkins Coleman	Stephens Hansen Thorpe Symons van Dongen Barisoff Dalton Masi Krueger McKinnon J. Wilson
NAYS -- 38
Conroy Cashore Robertson Gillespie Randall Walsh Goodacre Calendino Stevenson Orcherton Lali Pullinger Streifel	Boone Hammell Kwan McGregor Zirnhelt Evans Janssen Giesbrecht Doyle Kasper Bowbrick Sawicki Smallwood	Sihota Hartley Waddell Farnworth Ramsey Lovick MacPhail Dosanjh G. Clark Miller Petter Priddy

[5:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:32 p.m.

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada