[ Page 6793 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: We have two distinguished visitors in the gallery today. They are here as guests of our very capable librarian, Joan Barton. I'd like the House to welcome Jennifer Tanfield, the chief librarian for the House of Commons in Westminster in the United Kingdom, and Nick Bannenburg, the parliamentary librarian of the Queensland, Australia, parliamentary library. On behalf of the House, I would welcome these two distinguished librarians.

G. Bowbrick: In the gallery today we have Prof. Don Balmer and nine students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who are with a third-year Canadian political studies class. They are up here on an annual trip to see how we do politics in British Columbia. I understand they met with a member of the press gallery this morning. They'll be meeting with a member of the opposition this afternoon, as well as a member of the government caucus. I ask all members to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have guests here today who didn't wish to be introduced, because they're shy. But I do have a guest who does wish to be introduced: Harvey Arcand, the fourth vice-president of IWA-Canada. Please make him and my other guests welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are three distinguished visitors. They are Arne Mykle, chair of the Council of Marketing Boards and chair of the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board; Margaret Speidelbach, vice-chair of the Council of Marketing Boards; and Daryl Arnold, the director of the Chicken Marketing Board. Will the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased today to introduce 45 students from Lord Tweedsmuir Senior Secondary School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Along with them are four teachers: Mrs. Dorota Peacock, Mrs. Chris Randa, Mrs. Sonja Buchanan and Mr. Ian McGinnis. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I have a couple of guests here who don't know they're being introduced and probably wish they weren't being introduced, because they're also quite shy. Anyway, I'd like to introduce to the House Terry Bajwa and Dave Somul from Classic Doormart, situated in Richmond, as a matter of fact, in the riding of the member for Richmond Centre. In a couple of months these fellows will be opening a brand-new value-added facility in Richmond, creating 24 new jobs. They are here talking to government about the possibility of creating more jobs. Would the House please make Terry and Dave welcome.

J. Dalton: The school bus left the Handsworth parking lot at 5:30 this morning, and I was on it with a group of grade 11 students. The Leader of the Opposition very kindly spoke to them this morning. They are accompanied by their teacher, Jim Adams, and Handsworth grad Dr. Len Hendrickson. I'm particularly proud this year that for the first time since I was elected, one of my family members was on the tour, my daughter Candace. Please welcome them all.

Hon. D. Streifel: Although it's not always acceptable to repeat introductions, I couldn't let the day go by without recognizing Brother Harvey Arcand, one of my constituents, and thanking him for the work he has done in helping us put together a regional health strategy in our area. Thank you very much.

Oral Questions

LANDS MINISTRY APPLICATION BACKLOG

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Minister of Lands told this House what a wonderful job her ministry was doing in cutting red tape. That, unfortunately, is not the impression that Mr. and Mrs. Ross out of Tumbler Ridge have, having been told that it would take three years to process a simple application for a water licence. There is bureaucratic gridlock in that ministry, and it's costing jobs in British Columbia. My question for the minister is: can she give us her honest assessment as to how many jobs in British Columbia have been lost because her ministry can't process, in a timely way, straightforward applications?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm glad the member raises the question, because we on this side of the House stand for a government that wants to put jobs on the agenda with the environment, not at the expense of the environment.

This ministry and other ministries across government have taken the steps necessary to protect the valuable resources that we enjoy in British Columbia. That includes one of the most comprehensive land use planning processes that exists in North America. It sets aside protected areas, protects ecosystems and wildlife values, and takes steps to make sure that water quality isn't affected. As the member well knows, his own constituents are concerned with the measures we take as a government to protect water quality.

So I urge that member. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . .that if he would like to have more information. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . .about how this ministry manages water quality issues, I'd be happy to meet with him.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on supplemental No. 1.

M. de Jong: I guess I'll tell Mr. and Mrs. Ross that when it comes to water licences, it's more a function of whose riding you live in than anything else, with respect to this minister.

Every time an entrepreneur abandons a project in British Columbia, it costs jobs. I'll try again, because I didn't hear an answer. Will the minister tell us in clear, unequivocal terms -- and I'll urge her to be honest and forthright in this House -- how many jobs we have lost in British Columbia because her ministry can't process applications in a timely manner?

[ Page 6794 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: This ministry has developed a strategy, within the Lands branch in particular, to ensure that we put at the top of our agenda those matters which have economic impacts, so we can be sure that job creation is taken into account in terms of how quickly we process applications that come before us.

On the issue of the individual constituent that the member opposite raises, I'd be very happy to address the specifics of their case and ensure that it is handled in a very timely way.

G. Campbell: The official opposition has obtained a confidential Treasury Board draft submission dated December 1997 and submitted by the Crown Lands branch, for which that minister is responsible. The backlog of Crown land applications, according to the minister's own documentation, is costing British Columbians 20,000 jobs. Madam Minister, how can you or any of your colleagues sit there and claim to have a job strategy when you know for a fact that your Crown land policies are costing 20,000 jobs for British Columbians?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've indicated in my other answers to the previous questions, this ministry has adopted a strategy to ensure that we will indeed put economic interests first, so that we can handle those applications in a timely way.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on supplemental No. 1.

[2:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'll try once again for the members opposite, so that they can understand very clearly the very specific steps this ministry is taking to address the issue of the backlog. There is no doubt that there has been a backlog in the past and that we're working on strategies to ensure that economic development applications move forward first.

Let me remind the members opposite of the message I sent to them yesterday, when they asked a question about Lands issues as well. This government is undertaking a very comprehensive strategy for the reduction of red tape and the multiple application processes that development may have to go through. This minister and this ministry will be working with the Minister of Small Business and other resource management ministries to ensure that we deliver in a timely way an application process that does put economic values first.

G. Campbell: Again, the minister simply has to read her own document, which her staff submitted. This document points out that not only are we losing $1.3 billion in economic opportunities and 20,000 jobs, but that this ministry's actions are "particularly detrimental to small communities." Small communities are starving for jobs. My question to the minister is: why did the government sit there for years, when they knew for a fact that this was taking place, and do nothing while we lost 20,000 jobs in the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I believe I've answered the member's questions.

G. Plant: Well, we've heard the minister talk about putting jobs on the agenda. We heard her talk about her strategy; we heard her talk about cutting red tape. Let me read from the document, which tells the truth about this government's strategy. Her offices, Crown Lands offices, are "actively discouraging clients" from applying for Crown land. How can the minister defend a job-destroying policy which actively discourages people from making applications for Crown land?

Hon. C. McGregor: You know, it was this opposition that suggested that we need to reduce costs across government and to reduce the size of government. In fact, this side of the House actually took the necessary steps. Let me describe for the member some of the initiatives we took at the Crown Lands branch in order to increase the level of efficiency and to reduce overall costs to government, so that we could in fact deliver on priorities for health care and education spending in this province.

The Crown Lands branch, as I've explained repeatedly to the members opposite, does believe that economic development initiatives are extremely important. In fact, our policy is to ensure that we put those applications first in the queue so that we don't lose the investment and the job opportunities.

Finally, the red tape which I've referred to repeatedly in the House. . . . Our commitment is to ensure that we have a one-window approach to having economic development applications go forward.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston, on his first supplemental.

G. Plant: Well, we on this side of the House know that it is possible to reduce costs and build prosperity for British Columbians, not cripple it.

In the 1980s a Crown land application could be processed in three months -- three months for ordinary British Columbians across this province to wait while their lifetime dreams were on hold. Today, as a result of the implementation of this government's strategy, it takes as long as two years. What is this minister's explanation for this outrageous destruction of economic hope and opportunity for British Columbians?

M. Coell: I would remind the minister that her government has had seven years to create this mess. Can the minister tell us how many Crown land applications are currently waiting to be processed in this mess?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll take that question on notice.

PROMOTION OF ALASKA HIGHWAY TOURISM

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: That would be you, yes.

Travel to Alaska through British Columbia represents an important source of tourism revenue for British Columbia. The Ministry of Tourism and the Northern B.C. Tourism Association are currently promoting B.C. Ferries, the port of Prince 

[ Page 6795 ]

Rupert and the Alaska marine ferry system to re-establish American confidence in that route. Can the minister tell us what steps his ministry is taking to promote the Alaska Highway as an equally important and scenic part of any trip to Alaska?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: That's me.

I thank the member for his question. It's an important question and an important initiative. The government just gave, in the budget, $2.5 million more to Tourism B.C. We will be needing that. I'm committed, and I hope Tourism B.C. is committed, to using some of that money outside of the normal places -- the lower mainland, Whistler and Victoria -- and in places leading to Alaska. The hon. member and I discussed the possibility of a centre to showcase the Alaska Highway. I'm interested in that, and I'll push Tourism B.C. on that. We'll continue to advertise in the States. We've got a new advertising program to bring in American tourists. In short, I'm committed to helping the Alaska Highway project, and we will look into a tourism facility up there, as the member suggested.

The Speaker: Peace River South on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: In September of 1996 the Alaska Highway was designated as the sixteenth international historic civil engineering landmark by the American and Canadian societies of civil engineers. The Eiffel Tower and the Panama Canal, among others, share this international recognition. Mile zero, in Dawson Creek, marks the start of this world-famous highway, pushed through the wilderness to Alaska in only nine months, back in 1942. Will the minister commit today that funding equal to that being used to promote the Alaska marine ferry system be available to promote the Alaska Highway?

Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the hon. member's question, I can't commit outright to that. However, I can recommend to Tourism B.C. that this is a useful initiative; I've already said that. We have many people in the States whose relatives built that highway, and that is a great source of people who want to come back and see what their forefathers and foremothers did on that highway. So I think there's a great opportunity for us to do that.

I also want to suggest to the member, because I thought he was going to ask the Minister of Highways this question. . . . We're going to soon announce -- my colleague is -- a northern roads strategy that would help the roads in the member's area and help to attract tourists, so that they could get up to the Alaska Highway to see it.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's nice to know that your colleagues will defend the Minister of Environment whenever she needs it. Unfortunately, her own documents don't do the same thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing that the Minister Responsible for Northern Development would find this subject matter hilarious today. Has he been to his riding lately?

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

LANDS MINISTRY APPLICATION BACKLOG

Hon. C. McGregor: It is the work of our Lands branch to ensure that we do adequately protect the resources of this province. In fact, as the members -- and staff -- raise in the document they're quoting from, that's a very necessary function for this ministry to undertake, and it is part of our consideration whenever an application comes before the Lands branch that we consider the impacts on resources in communities.

As I've made clear on several occasions in this House today, this government is committed to taking an approach with business and industry to create more opportunity for a one-window approach to approve applications in a timely way, and we will be working with other ministries across government to ensure that that happens.

Reports from Committees

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

P. Calendino: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

P. Calendino: I'd like to give a brief history of the committee and then go into the process of the committee.

As you know, in the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament the assembly passed an amendment to the Police Act. Section 47 of the act permits the establishment of a special committee of the Legislature to unanimously recommend the appointment of a police complaint commissioner, and I might say that this is the first time that a police complaint commissioner has been appointed in this way.

The commissioner is a statutory officer of the Legislature, and as such is independent of government. He or she will report directly to the Legislative Assembly through the Speaker. The main function of the commissioner is to oversee the new process by which complaints against municipal police forces will be resolved. I wish to stress that it is complaints against municipal police forces, not the RCMP. I believe that a separate process exists for that.

As for the work of the committee, I can safely say that it worked hard under time constraints during its selection process. On behalf of the committee members, I wish to thank the 

[ Page 6796 ]

committee Clerk, who did a great job of keeping us on task, but most of all I'd like to thank him for his procedural and administrative assistance throughout the committee deliberations.

[2:30]

I think it is safe to say that all six had varying degrees of experience and expertise in many, many areas. Indeed, the committee had a very difficult time in singling out one and would have been very comfortable in assigning a position to each of them. Unfortunately, we had to select only one. Hon. Speaker, I'm honoured and pleased to advise the House that the committee unanimously recommends Mr. Don Morrison of Victoria as the new police complaint commissioner.

Mr. Morrison is in the gallery watching the proceedings today. Since I'm already standing, I wish to ask leave to introduce him.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: I will say a few words about Mr. Morrison -- he is sitting in the gallery -- to show what kind of an individual he is. I think that the province today is a winner, because we've got ourselves a very, very fine individual to be the new police complaint commissioner. I will give a few attributes, but that will not do justice to this individual.

Mr. Morrison has a long, varied and quite distinguished career. He has an impeccable reputation among his peers and his community and is highly respected by all. Mr. Morrison holds several degrees, and in the past he has tried his hand at social work, counselling native students in B.C. universities, teaching ESL, being a parole officer and consulting for the Solicitor General of Canada on native affairs. He has also been a policy advisor and an administrator on aboriginal government and health services for the Department of Indian Affairs. He has even tried his luck at municipal politics. I understand that he served a term as a school trustee for the district of Victoria and that there he gained the reputation as a very progressive trustee. Since 1982, Mr. Morrison has had a private law practice, but in the last few years he has acted as a highly respected Crown counsel in the Ministry of Attorney General. Besides his own professional work, Mr. Morrison is also very active in community causes, supporting the arts and multiculturalism.

To conclude, I believe the committee made the right choice. On behalf of all its members, and all members of the House, I wish Mr. Morrison well in his new and challenging position.

G. Plant: I want to first compliment the member for his thorough exposition of the history of our duties as a committee and the qualifications of Mr. Morrison. The appointment that we are being asked to recommend here today marks, potentially, a significant change in direction in the way that police complaints are dealt with by municipal police forces in British Columbia. Mr. Morrison is about to embark on what will be a difficult and challenging job, I'm sure. On behalf of the caucus of which I am a member, we wish Mr. Morrison the best of luck, and we will be joining happily in the recommendation to appoint him.

G. Wilson: I would simply like to add my words of support and welcome to Mr. Morrison, and I hope that his time in office is fruitful for all people of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: As a member of the committee, I too want to join in wishing Mr. Morrison well. As the first modern-day police complaint commissioner, this is a tremendously important job. I believe, in addition to all of the other attributes that we've recognized Mr. Morrison as having, his experience with young aboriginal people will be of particular importance. We know that that community has a substantial interface with the law. It's an area where there needs to be the degree of sensitivity, which I'm absolutely convinced Mr. Morrison will bring to the job, along with his outstanding judgment. So I too want to wish him well.

The Speaker: The member for Burnaby North closes debate.

P. Calendino: I think that the members have said what I had left out in my previous comments, so I will simply make the motion.

I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Mr. Don Morrison as the police complaint commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: I move that this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Mr. Don Morrison as a statutory officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the police complaint commissioner for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to the Police Amendment Act, 1997.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Congratulations to Mr. Morrison.

Petitions

[ Page 6797 ]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

Let me begin, hon. Speaker, by congratulating you on your election. This is the first opportunity that I've had to pass on my congratulations. I look forward to your judicious review of the matters before this House. You will do a very good job, I'm sure.

I would like to speak to the main themes, as I see them as the member responsible for the Kamloops constituency and of course as Minister of Environment for the province. I think the first theme that I'd like to touch on in my remarks on the budget is the fact that this budget sets a direction where we're planning for B.C.'s future. We're clearly building on the strengths of British Columbia as a province by capitalizing on the resources we already have, including one of the best health care systems in North America, a wonderful public school system and, probably first and foremost -- one I should have mentioned first -- the strength of the people of British Columbia, their entrepreneurial strength in particular, and the advantage that gives us as a result of their efforts on behalf of themselves and their families.

Another fabulous resource that we have in British Columbia is our youth, because it's through our youth that we can indeed build for a better future.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention our fabulously rich natural environment and resource base, which, of course, is a key strength of our province and one which we build upon in the budget tabled in this House. The budget builds on these strengths and provides new opportunities for all British Columbians. It puts in place a sound and balanced plan for the next three years.

The members opposite have not had much good to say about the budget. I must say that I didn't find that particularly unusual. They don't seem to ever have anything constructive to say. But I thought it would be helpful to make reference to a little bit of the news coverage that. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. member. I'll join you shortly, once I've had a chance to finish my speech on the budget.

In fact, there has been some good news -- and some good reporting, I might add -- in the Vancouver Sun and other regional newspapers. I would like to make reference to one particular article that came out shortly after the budget, in which there was a quote from Mr. Richard Bennett, who is a senior tax manager with Deloitte and Touche, chartered accountants in Vancouver. He said that the move to lower the basic personal rate -- and he's making reference to the tax reductions that this budget contains -- is a positive sign that the current government is willing to listen to all sectors of the community. I think that's a good theme, because this government has indeed listened carefully to the business sector and has addressed those issues in this budget.

He goes on to say that this budget goes some way towards repairing the damage that's been done over the last several years and that there's been a perception that B.C. is a highly taxed jurisdiction and may be unfavourable to investors and entrepreneurs. The theme in his remarks -- and the remarks I heard reiterated when I had the opportunity to speak with business leaders at a breakfast following the announcement of the budget -- was that opportunity to both listen and respond to the clear directions that we've heard from the business and investment community about how to make British Columbia the best place in North America in which to invest.

The budget clearly gives financial planning direction for the next three years. As we approach the year 2000, it's important that this budget really set the tone for the upcoming millennium and for the strong future it represents for both ourselves and our children. In that context, I'd like to address the priorities of British Columbians -- outline what they are and why the budget reflects those priorities.

Jobs are probably the number one priority of all British Columbians, as is ensuring our quality education system and a good health care system. But I'd like to speak first to our level of environmental protection, because this is a priority of all British Columbians. In the work that I've done within this ministry and in my visits with communities around the province, I've had reiterated to me the importance of taking appropriate measures to ensure that we protect our natural environment.

[2:45]

We've also been a leader in stewardship initiatives for both industry and communities, where we've asked industry to really take the lead on a variety of measures to ensure that a product is captured from the beginning of its production until it's finally used and then recycled. That's an initiative we've taken a lot of effort around in this ministry, and it really shows us, again, as a leader in the way in which we are creating stewardship for our products.

We've taken a variety of air quality initiatives around cleaner vehicles and cleaner motor fuels, as well as ozone depletion. The work we've done around greenhouse gas management and the greenhouse gas forum -- which involves multi-stakeholders from around the province in decision-making on how to protect for greenhouse gas emissions -- and our trading pilot all show the efforts we're making in this province to deal with air quality issues.

Finally, there's the effort this ministry makes, through Parks in particular, for the number of parks that have been created in our province, including many trails and wildlife management areas as well.

Since the last sitting of this House, hon. Speaker, we have created the largest park in North America, the Northern Rockies wilderness, which is an area the size of Nova Scotia. We've also added to our acquisitions under the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy program, with three additional properties 

[ Page 6798 ]

recently announced when the Prince was in town not long ago. It preserves some of the best Gulf Islands ecosystems and includes representation of some of the best samples of those ecosystems in the Gulf Islands.

I want to speak for a few moments, if I could, about the specific initiatives related to the environment as a part of this budget. First and foremost, one of the most exciting opportunities, I believe, is the new Campgrounds B.C. initiative, which will give us the opportunity to create greater access to B.C. parks for all British Columbians. We've announced through the budget that there will be 1,500 new campgrounds created over the next two years. That in itself is an important part of the campground initiative announcement, but I think just as importantly, that it's really a tool through which we are delivering on another key goal of this government: youth employment. I know that the Premier -- just yesterday, I think -- made an announcement around youth employment initiatives. Clearly this is one of the programs through which we will be able to offer youth a first employment experience -- in many cases, as a result of this initiative.

This budget also provides an additional $26 million in funding for youth employment and training programs, with a total target of about 17,000 jobs for young people. Some of these jobs will be delivered through this ministry. I've spoken already to the Campgrounds B.C. initiative, but I want to speak as well to our environment youth teams, which, again, is a youth employment program delivered through this ministry. It successfully created 1,500 positions just this last year.

For the interest of the members opposite, if they're not certain about the E-team program, I thought it would be helpful to talk a little bit about this as an employment initiative related to youth who have not had the opportunity to be employed and, in fact, are not attending an educational institution at this time and are between the ages of 16 and 24. It's an opportunity to create an environmental legacy in their community through their employment, but it also gives them those first skills in an employment situation and some very important training opportunities as well. A good part of the E-team program is a minimum requirement of 20 percent training to help these young people use those skills and apply them to future job opportunities.

The E-team is a partnership, really, with non-profit societies, local governments and aboriginal governments. These community groups or agencies apply, through the ministry, for the opportunity to employ youth in local environmental projects. There are three categories of employment: the work crews, which actually work, by and large, in parks and on trails; what we call interns, which is really much more of a focus towards office-type environmental work, where someone might be working with an agency in a community on an environmental goal or product; and in fact, the eco-educators, which is, again, another category of employment designed to give young people the opportunity to talk about environmental issues in their own communities. Through these three categories, we will deliver additional jobs in this upcoming year for young people, as part of Youth Options B.C.

I want to speak specifically of some of the benefits and of an individual example of an E-team project that has been going on in our province to really illustrate the benefits to the community. The one that I have with me here today is called the Myert E-team, which includes 30 youths and six supervisors who were working on the construction of wheelchair-accessible wilderness sites.

To date, the crew has constructed over one kilometre of wheelchair-accessible trails, and as the trail progresses, the E-team members are also transporting natural vegetation from the trails to other locations around the site in order to preserve the natural environment, the natural vegetation, that exists there. It also provides new skills in horticultural development with these young people as well. Again, that speaks, as well, to how the E-teams provide a training opportunity, so that those skills can be applied to a new job situation.

As I indicated earlier, we will be making an announcement later in the month that gives the details of how the E-teams will continue to be delivered through this ministry. It's also a great opportunity for us to build B.C.'s economy. Our parks and campgrounds attract not only B.C. residents but people from around the world. People from European countries, from America and from other parts of the world come to British Columbia to enjoy our breathtaking parks, the special features that are in these protected areas, the great facilities we offer and the skills of our local operators.

It's certainly clear that the new economy in B.C. will need to focus on B.C.'s strengths. That means looking at our existing infrastructure, through our parks and protected areas, and our campground infrastructure.

As we know, eco-tourism opportunities through commercial back-country recreation, through trails, through wildlife viewing, through wilderness experiences and hunting and fishing -- all of these -- are strengths we have as a province, and it is important that we continue on the path we are on in setting aside protected areas so we can really build that new economy and expand our opportunities for employment across the province.

Other environmental priorities were in the budget, too. In my ministry there will be resources allocated to implement the new Fish Protection Act. This is a very important tool that was debated in this House last session. It will help us to ensure the protection of our rivers and streams for fish and, in particular, will address issues of urban impacts.

Our ministry will be consulting widely and working with municipal governments in particular on portions of this act, in particular the streamside directives. We will be also working with the agricultural community to ensure that we develop a good code of practice on agricultural land.

Water use planning is also part of the new budget allocations in this ministry. Water use planning is really a tool through which we can provide communities the opportunity to work with us in areas where there are water-use conflicts. Some hon. members opposite will know that from time to time there really are conflicts in the use of our water supply. We need to have a mechanism through which these matters can be resolved, and the water use planning process is a good tool with which to engage communities and, in fact, in many cases, B.C. Hydro. We have a plan to work with B.C. Hydro over the next five years to do a water use planning process and to implement the provisions of effective water use planning, but also the historic B.C.-Alcan agreement.

However, we must admit in this ministry -- and I do -- that we will be taking a budget reduction in the order of 2.9 percent overall. We are doing this, as are other ministries across government, as our part in ensuring that our province spends in a fiscally prudent way while still protecting the priority areas of education, health and services to children and families. We certainly are prepared to do our part to ensure that we find efficiencies and streamline government operations so that taxpayers get best value for their dollar and to ensure that we maintain the key services British Columbians have come to depend on.

[ Page 6799 ]

I'd like to turn now, if I could, to a second theme in the budget, and that's building a strong B.C. economy. I think it's fair to say that there is no issue more important to all British Columbians. Jobs and job creation initiatives are key also to the residents of my Kamloops constituency and to other constituencies across the province. I would like to take the time to highlight some parts of the budget that I believe are especially significant to Kamloops residents and their families.

First, I'd like to acknowledge and thank my colleague for her efforts to remove taxation for business. The first example was the cut to the PST for call centres. This was very important to the Kamloops area, because the Kamloops economic development corporation had really identified call centres as an opportunity for regional economic growth and diversification. This is because in the Kamloops area we've come to depend on the University College of the Cariboo, in particular, which really gives us the highly skilled workforce and great training opportunities so that we can make sure that we have individuals who are able to deliver this important service on behalf of businesses and industries across North America. So cutting the tax for call centres was a very key priority and was very welcomed by our Kamloops economic development corporation members.

The second point I'll make, which I think the Kamloops business community really supported in this budget, was the increase of $2 million in marketing support for Tourism B.C. In our part of the province we recognize that tourism is a key economic and growth strategy. In our region we've come to depend very much on the natural resource and the beautiful natural environment that we enjoy, with the thousands of lakes that we have in the region. We depend very much on the tourism sector, including the fishing resort sector, the many parks and lakes, the campground opportunities, the wilderness viewing opportunities and, of course, Sun Peaks, which is a very large tourism draw for our international community, as well, because it is one of the finest ski facilities in British Columbia.

There was no doubt that in my meetings with small business tourism operators recently, when the former Minister of Tourism and Culture was in Kamloops, one of the priority areas for the tourist sector was to really build our European markets, and the U.S. market in particular. At a time when the Canadian dollar is a bit low, this is really a good value for U.S. tourists, to come into the central interior. This tool of adding marketing dollars for Tourism B.C. is an important way to address that economic development strategy.

Third, hon. Speaker, I'd like to touch on the tax cuts for small business. Again, these are very welcome to the small business sector of the Kamloops area, with a reduction of 11 percent in taxation over two years. I think all members of this House recognize the importance of local business, and small business in particular, as a job creator. This, again, will be an incentive for them to be able to hire more individuals to work in their businesses.

Fourth, I'd mentioned the film incentive. It was a brief mention in the budget, but I think it was particularly important because it had tax credits of $15 million aimed at film producers that are home-grown from the B.C. sector but who will use locations outside of the lower mainland. In Kamloops we have the Thompson-Nicola Film Commission, which is one of the largest and most active film commissions outside of the lower mainland. Again, this is an incentive that will really bring the film industry into the central interior and take advantage of the great location shoots that we have and the work that we've done in attracting film to our region.

[3:00]

Let me say that that's also reflected in the local youth network that I've created in the constituency, with youth voices that are from. . . . In fact, there are some youth entrepreneurs from the small business sector as well as some university students and high school students. We talk about the issues that are important to youth and issues that government should address. Again, job creation is often the first issue they raise, and the efforts that this budget puts in place towards youth employment clearly fits with those priorities.

The sixth part of the budget that I think Kamloops residents support very much is the effort to really support our struggling forest sector. The announced improvements in stumpage reduction are very good news, as is the reduction of paperwork, from changes to the Forest Practices Code. The value-added sector is really very much a growing part of our regional economy. The jobs and timber accord, which made more wood available and improvements in the small business program, as well as the stumpage and code changes I previously referenced, are all tools through which we can better support the value-added and forestry sectors of the southern interior and the Kamloops area.

Seventh, I would like to talk a little bit about the continued priority in this budget for economic development strategies and, in particular, for regional economic development strategies. Members opposite may not know that in Kamloops, at the end of May, we are going to be having a southern interior economic summit. This was really part of the regional economic development strategy that was first announced in the 1996 election. We started in the north, and I think it was a fairly successful summit through which recommendations have come forward to government and are now being considered in terms of planning, actions and outcomes for the north. I'm excited about the opportunities that such a regional conference will really bring to our region of the province as well.

There is a steering committee in place. It is very representative of the region and different sectors of our economy. I'm really pleased that Robert Fine, from the Kamloops economic development corporation, was appointed co-chair, along with my colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet. They are now working with the members of the steering committee and planning for this upcoming summit. Recently we put out a call for public submissions, and that's really the opportunity for the broad public to provide ideas for us to consider as a part of the summit.

Finally, just this last weekend we actually had a logo contest sponsored by the local UCC graphic design class. Julie Hall was the successful student who created a logo which really captured the image and the goals of the upcoming regional economic summit. Her vision makes clear that the geographical features of the area -- talking about the water and the rounded hills and the great sunshine. . . . Of course, that's our part of the province; we have lots of sunshine. In the 

[ Page 6800 ]

centre of her design were images of people. That's the strongest symbol in her logo design, because the economic development opportunities are linked to the people in our communities. It's important that we really recognize that and enhance that through the image around the logo, which is attached and will be a great part of the feature around the economic summit.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the way the budget increases spending for education. This is a high priority for our community, and I believe very strongly in a strong public education sector. We have a great public education system, if I could say so, in Kamloops. We have great teachers and administrators and a very responsible school board. The Kamloops school board has really acknowledged the good news that's in this education budget. The $105 million increase translates into a 2.8 percent growth in the Kamloops budget, for a total of $109,220,606, which is a growth of about $3 million overall. Those increases mean there will be greater support for classrooms, including more teachers, more teacher aides and more dollars spent on aboriginal education and special education.

While Kamloops-North Thompson district doesn't have the same kind of rapid growth and the need for portable replacement, we have nearly completed the substantial renovations and additions to Lloyd George Elementary School, my old alma mater. I am certainly proud and pleased that we will have a facility that is safe and functional for the future of downtown Kamloops residents and their families.

Related to education spending is how the budget addresses and continues the tuition freeze. Students from all parts of the campus were very pleased with this important action, which shows our government's commitment to post-secondary education and to ensuring continued access for young people. The provincial average for tuition fees across Canada is $2,780, and B.C.'s are 20 percent lower. They're the second-lowest in Canada. In fact, at UCC those fees are significantly below the provincial average because of the efforts we've made to ensure equality of access and the opportunity for access by students in the central interior.

Historically, in the Kamloops and surrounding area we haven't had as much access to post-secondary attendance, because we haven't had the same opportunities. But UCC, the university college, has really provided new opportunities for individuals in the central interior to participate in post-secondary training opportunities at a much lower cost.

The tenth point in this budget that I think my constituents would be thrilled about -- and in fact are thrilled about -- is the continued growth in our health care budget. The $228 million more for B.C. means more dollars for our regional health board and for the regional health services that are offered in our community. Health care remains a key priority for Kamloops residents, and they are looking forward in particular to the completion of the psychiatric facility. The previous Minister of Health came to Kamloops and announced that in the fall of 1997. It means a better level of mental health services for our area, in keeping with government's new mental health plan.

I'd also like to acknowledge, if I could, the efforts of the Ministry of Health in increasing AIDS funding for the Kamloops AIDS Society and the $125,000 in new dollars to provide for good regional services for patients who suffer from AIDS and HIV.

There is no doubt that our province faces many challenges as we make adjustments to the need for and response to economic change. But this budget provides a blueprint for stimulating the economy, increasing our competitiveness and creating new jobs. We've listened to the many interests of the business community, the resource sector and ordinary British Columbians. This budget balances all the needs of these groups while ensuring that we spend in a way that is affordable. We are moving towards a balanced budget while continuing to protect key priorities such as health care, education and a high-quality environment. This budget is good news for all British Columbians, and it's a budget that I'm proud to support.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a class of 44 grade 5 students from Chartwell Elementary in West Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Fairburn. I understand there are also ten adults; it is a very impressive show for ten parents from Chartwell to attend. So please welcome them all.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Speaker. I have every confidence that you will do an outstanding job, just as you did when you were Deputy Speaker. I know you will add significantly to the rich and proud parliamentary tradition that we enjoy in British Columbia.

I stand in this grand House this afternoon, and I'm honoured to speak to the budget. This is a budget that British Columbians can be proud of and a budget that is appropriate for this time in British Columbia's history. It's not a perfect budget, but I haven't heard of a budget that is, nor do I think I ever will. It is a budget that recognizes the needs and priorities of British Columbians and businesses today. It has a small deficit, which equates to the tax cuts that were incorporated in this budget for businesses and taxpayers, of approximately $95 million. To put this in perspective, that equates to the revenue that the province takes in in one working day. That's one working day of revenue. This is certainly a significant reduction in comparison to the $2.5 billion deficit our government inherited from the Socred government in 1991.

Let's take a look at what this budget means for business: tax cuts for 40,000 small businesses and an 11 percent reduction in the next two years. The corporate capital tax exemption threshold will be raised from $1.5 million in paid-up capital assets to $2.5 million on January 1, 1999, to $3.5 million on January 1, 2000, and to $5 million on January 1, 2001. That means that 90 percent of British Columbia's businesses will pay no corporate capital tax. Small businesses in my riding have asked specifically for these tax changes, and we delivered.

Thirty-five percent of British Columbia's exports go to the Asia-Pacific countries, and that economy has been particularly hard hit in the last few months. British Columbia's economy is not in a bubble, and the Asian economy is having a negative impact on lumber and pulp exports from British Columbia. There was an article today in the Vancouver Sun from the federal Export Development Corporation. Jim Olts recognized this and spoke extensively to it and to the impacts it would have on the British Columbia economy.

We are working with industry to reduce red tape in the Forest Practices Code without eroding environmental standards in our forests. Yesterday, coming down on the plane from the North Island, I sat with Kenny Dyson, president of 

[ Page 6801 ]

the Truck Loggers Association of British Columbia. I have to tell you that Ken was very pleased with the changes we're making to the code. When asked to sum up in one word what he thought of these changes, he said: "Awesome." Instead of pushing mounds of paper, Forest Service personnel will now be able to go out into the forest to work with industry to cooperatively realize responsible, sustainable resource management. And that's good news.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that are said in regard to forestry and the forestry economy. Doug Whitehead recently stated -- I believe it was to the Vancouver Board of Trade. . . . I'm not going to quote him, but this is basically what he said. Doug can correct me if it's not where he was directing it. Basically what he said, as I understand it, is that industry in British Columbia has become complacent and uncompetitive. In the forest industry, this has been due in large part to the fact that over the last 20 years industry has had easy access to cheap high-grade timber. Timber is now harder to access -- and these are my words -- and more expensive. This is due, in large part, to the chronology of the logging history in this province; that has a part to play.

Peter Bentley made a statement on November 27, 1997, in the Vancouver Sun that adds a little to Mr. Whitehead's comments. Peter says: "Overcutting on the coast, not government policy, is the reason the mill must close. I believe there were areas of the coast that were overcut, so I'm not going to pass the buck to the government at all on this." The opposition has said that we should listen to business; I suggest that we should all do that.

[3:15]

Another important part of our economy is energy and mines, and the minister is working with business leaders throughout the province to improve competitiveness and provide incentives in these sectors. The mineral exploration code will ensure responsible environmental practices while cutting red tape. This is positive news for the resource sector.

The Premier's oil and gas initiative was launched in February, with the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the province and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. I believe there are great opportunities in the oil and gas sector, and there will be further announcements on new incentives to help the industries in the near future.

Our government will also be helping B.C. farmers by eliminating the tax on coloured fuel that they use on the farms. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture's budget has been increased to help farmers throughout this province, and that has got to be good news for the grass-roots rural people of this province.

In regard to new fisheries initiatives, I'm really pleased that we have a new Ministry of Fisheries in British Columbia. I'd like to start off by complimenting everyone who worked to keep the keepers in the lighthouses in British Columbia. Jim Abram worked very hard on this, as did Eric Tamm from the Coastal Community Network and all the coastal mayors and the coastal MLAs. Corky Evans did a lot of work. Finally, I want to thank David Anderson, because he did listen to us, and the lighthouses provide an invaluable service. Thank you, David Anderson.

I think some of the really important stuff that the new Fisheries minister is going to be doing is, obviously, working on a Pacific salmon treaty -- fisheries renewal. We met with the Alaskan legislators and Senators today, and that was good news. We had a little chat with them.

Fisheries renewal. I know that Russ Hellberg, as mayor of Port Hardy, as a coastal mayor, is going to do outstanding work on that board.

The steelhead gene bank program is really important for a lot of our streams -- and the streamkeeper program. I will be asking David Anderson to please reconsider funding this program. This is an important program that will help communities like Port Hardy, Alert Bay, Sointula, Campbell River, Kyuquot, Gold River and many, many others in my riding and in the ridings of other MLAs. All of this will benefit the fisheries on our coast, which is really an important initiative for British Columbia.

There have also been some great successes in the new sectors of B.C.'s economy. These include software development, high-technology manufacturing, knowledge-based services, tourism, and film and television production. As in any other industry in British Columbia, the greatest assets of these industries are their people, who compete in a global market for technical and management expertise. To help British Columbia attract these highly qualified people, effective January 1, 1999, we will lower income surtaxes. This means that our government will reduce the top marginal income tax rate from 54.2 percent to 52.7 percent. We will further reduce the rate to 51.3 percent on January 1, 2000, and to 49.9 percent on January 1, 2001. These changes to surtaxes will help create high-tech jobs in British Columbia.

B.C.'s film industry is now one of the largest in North America. The industry employs over 25,000 British Columbians, and the value of film and television production totalled over $600 million in 1997. We are very pleased to have had a Disney movie made in Campbell River last year. It injected a tremendous amount of capital throughout northern Vancouver Island and was very, very good for our economy. This is the second film that we've made up in the Campbell River area, and it is becoming known as a world-class area for film-making. In October our government announced Film Incentive B.C. -- a $15-million-per-year tax credit which assists homegrown production and encourages film locations outside the lower mainland.

Tourism is one of our strongest and more important sectors of the economy, and it's really growing. The North Island has seen increased visits from people from all over the world. There's a great range of tourist developments -- from bed-and-breakfasts to resorts and full lodge facilities, great fishing, great whale-watching and many, many other opportunities.

Last weekend I visited Alert Bay and talked to the Vancouver Island North Visitors Association. Tourism operators from all over Vancouver Island were there, and it was an absolutely outstanding conference. More and more, people are beginning to recognize the many opportunities they can 

[ Page 6802 ]

package on northern Vancouver Island. As I mentioned last Saturday in Alert Bay, what other place can you get up in the morning, ski in powder up to your neck, then go golfing, kayaking and saltwater or freshwater fishing in the afternoon? There is no other place in the world like northern Vancouver Island. For a number of years Alert Bay also had the Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, which is now becoming world-famous, attracting many great research scientists from all over the world to study fish biology, ocean habitat and other resource issues associated with the oceans.

Tourism in British Columbia will benefit from greatly expanded campground systems. Last year Tourism B.C. was established with stable funding from the provincial hotel room tax and a bigger marketing budget to promote British Columbia internationally. This is working really well. We have started to see some of the benefits on northern Vancouver Island from Tourism B.C.'s endeavours. Thousands of people flock to Cape Scott every year, as well as to San Josef Bay and Raft Cove, with their 20-foot rollers. People are going up there surfing, camping and trekking, and it's absolutely great. And, of course, we've got our great killer whales and famous tyee fishing, which was just excellent last year on both the Johnstone Strait and the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Our government will be working hard to cut red tape in British Columbia. We want to make it easier to do business, and we recognize that with red tape and bureaucracy it's becoming onerous. This has to change. As the minister said, the relationship between individual companies and government agencies has become complex and often inefficient, and we're going to have to work with business to fix it.

Our government introduced a freeze on B.C. Hydro rates two years ago, and that freeze will continue to be in effect until March 31, 2000. As well as the freeze, residential and small commercial customers will receive a 2 percent rebate on last year's bill, and a 1 percent rebate will go to large commercial industrial customers.

Let's talk a little bit about tax breaks and the incentives for individuals and families -- ordinary British Columbians. On January 1, 1999, personal income tax will be reduced by a further 2 percent. That means that personal income taxes in British Columbia have been reduced 6 percent over the last three years and marks the fourth year that our government has cut the tax rates for middle- and low-income families. All other taxes for individuals and families remain frozen until the year 2000. This includes rural taxes, non-residential school taxes and others. ICBC premiums and university tuition fees all remain frozen this year, and the B.C. family bonus, introduced by our government in 1996, will continue to provide financial relief to 230,000 British Columbia families. The B.C. family bonus plan that we introduced is now becoming a model for all Canadians and is something that we should be very proud of. It helps a lot of families and a lot of kids in this province, and I think it's a really good plan.

Our government is going to extend assistance, under the Medical Services Plan, and cut the cost of premiums for 80,000 British Columbians and families with lower incomes. This should help out some of the people in this province that aren't as privileged, and I'm very, very supportive of this.

Under these initiatives that we have introduced this year, the disposable income of a single parent earning $30,000 a year with two children will be $1,200 higher than it was in 1995. So I think that we've done some good work here in the last three years. For a two-income family with two children earning $55,000 a year, it will be $1,050 higher than 1995 -- more disposable income in their pockets and more opportunities for families in British Columbia.

This year we're going to increase spending by $275 million, to $1.25 billion for new schools, hospitals, roads and transportation projects. Some of the capital projects we've had around Campbell River have been outstanding, including some $50 million for the Campbell River bypass that we opened up this past summer -- a new bridge that is going over the Campbell River, which is part of the Vancouver Island inland highway. About $17 million in sewers and waterworks has been done in Campbell River over the last four or five years. Road upgrades in Campbell River and on the Island Highway have been in the millions and millions of dollars. The Dogwood extension that was just completed this past summer was an $8.5 million project. Right now the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are doing the engineering and the geotech work on the Campbell River - Courtenay connector on the new Vancouver Island inland highway. We are really looking forward to that. It's going to be a fantastic piece of highway.

This is all part of British Columbia's commitment to capital spending on roads and transportation links throughout our province. These investments in capital projects are really badly needed and very well supported. These investments also help counter the impacts of an economic downturn.

While other provinces like Alberta and Ontario have made drastic cuts to education and health care, British Columbia has stood up for the people of B.C. and protected and approved funding for schools and hospitals, and we're going to continue to do just that.

This year provincial health care spending will be increased by $228 million. We have increased health care spending by almost $2 billion since 1991. No other government in this nation comes close to matching that record. B.C. continues to allocate more money per person for health care than any other province in this nation. Since 1991 our government has increased health care spending by 15 percent per person, and the rest of the country has actually reduced it by 2 percent. So I'm really proud of British Columbia's record in health care. In B.C. we're standing up for health and we're standing up for the people of B.C.

This year new funding will add $63 million to hospital budgets -- $10 million for the new mental health plan and $66 million more for Pharmacare. On the North Island we've seen the results of those increases in spending on health. One of the examples is Yuculta Lodge, which is now in the final stages of design development. That's a $13 million project for continuing care. Port Hardy has another continuing-care project, $1.5 million that will help to care for some of the older people on the North Island. At Alert Bay they're doing the design work now for a new hospital clinic on Cormorant Island. The Depew wing in the Campbell River Hospital was funded, and that's nearing fruition. A CT scan was installed in Campbell River Hospital, with a good operating budget. There has also been new equipment, and diagnostic equipment as well, in the Campbell River Hospital, that has been paid for by the province. All this is important for the people of the North Island and their health care.

I'm proud of our health care record, and when I look at a province like Alberta, I am really proud. I was reading in the papers a few weeks ago that when you go for health care in Alberta, you have to pay for it with plastic and then bill the Ministry of Health. That's the way things happen in Alberta. It sort of reminds me of the former B.C. Liberal Health critic -- I think his name was Gur Singh -- who said: "Get ready with Visa and MasterCard." Maybe he's moved to Alberta now, and his dreams have come to fruition.

[ Page 6803 ]

[3:30]

In education, funding for kindergarten-to-grade-12 education is being increased by over $100 million this year. That's going to provide for 400 new teachers and 300 additional librarians, counsellors and classroom aides. In British Columbia we owe our kids a good setting in which to learn. Over the last seven years in British Columbia, we've built spaces for 80,000 new students but the demand is still growing. Over the next five years, our government is committed to investing $1.5 billion in new capital school construction, with the first $339 million in this particular budget. British Columbians' priorities are health care and education, and we're delivering on both these fronts. I believe that every young person who wants to get a post-secondary education should have that opportunity. Last year we committed to an additional 2,900 new spaces, and this budget will provide $40 million to fulfil that commitment. There's a continuing freeze on college and university fees. This is the third year in a row that we have frozen fees for 150,000 college and university students in British Columbia.

Let's take a look at what our government has done for my particular riding of North Island over the course of the last four or five years in regard to capital spending on new schools. They've done Ray Watkins in Gold River, which is an absolutely beautiful school -- I opened that up -- and North Island College in Campbell River, where all our rural kids go, so they have an opportunity for an education. I know that's something that our opposition MLAs have talked about -- rural kids having opportunities for accessing education. This is the case in North Island, and I'm really proud of that. But I think we have to do more work. We have Georgia Park school. We built a new school, as well, in Port Hardy. Port McNeill did a major upgrade a few years ago, and we're going to be doing more work, and in Alert Bay there was a new school built.

I'm really pleased that the budget provides an extra $26 million this year in funding for youth employment and training programs. That illustrates our commitment to the youth of British Columbia. Last year 11,500 young people benefited from these opportunities, and this year the figure is 17,000 young people. I'm really proud of British Columbia's Youth Options program; I think it's a great opportunity for young people. Some of the programs that we have are Bladerunners, the Crown youth employment initiative, E-teams, First Job in Science and Technology, Job Start, Student Summer Works, Visions for the Future, You-BET, Youth Mentorship -- I was involved in that with some of the young people from North Island and the business community, and I think the business community, in particular, did a really good job with that -- Youth B.C. and Youth Works. These are all great programs. A lot of young people in North Island participated, and I've had an opportunity to speak with them over the course of the last year. They're very, very supportive, and they are pleased with these provincial initiatives.

I would like to talk a little bit more about B.C. support for children and families in need. One program that I'm really pleased about is the B.C. family bonus program, which has been instrumental in providing support for working families with low and modest incomes, and it has invested $400 million in each of the past two years. This is a great program -- made in British Columbia -- and it is now a model for a national program being extended right across this country. So it's a tremendous initiative, and we all should be very proud of that.

We're also increasing funding this year to the Ministry for Children and Families by $64 million to help kids who are at risk. I've got to tell you that I'm proud of our record of caring for and committing to the children in this province. I think it's really important to help those who can't help themselves. They're generally pretty defenceless, and they need all the help we can give them in any way that we can.

In summation, hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that I am proud of this budget. We've come a long way since taking over a $2.5 billion deficit in 1991 when we formed government. We did a lot of good things in last year's budget. For the first time in 40 years, in last year's budget, our government reduced spending. The reduction was almost $100 million less than the year before, and I am quite pleased with that. It's the first time in 40 years. As a result, we ended the year with a deficit of $169 million -- well below our target of $185 million. Our taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio is the second-lowest in Canada, and our per capita debt and debt-servicing charges remain the lowest in this country. I am very proud of that initiative.

This year a decision was made to have a deficit in order to stimulate our economy. It was very clear that in order to keep B.C. competitive, our tax structure had to be changed. The tax cuts for British Columbians and business have been set at a level that is reasonable and one that we can afford. These cuts total $75 million, and another $20 million will be made available to fund items that will be coming under discussion in the mining, energy and film sectors. Next year there will be about $280 million of savings in taxes, and the tax cuts will grow to more than $400 million when this plan is fully implemented. This is a great help for investment, jobs and competitiveness. In summation, I believe that this budget sends a good signal to the businesses in British Columbia that we want to cut taxes, costs and red tape and still maintain high-quality services for British Columbians in education, health care and services for kids.

I'd like to read you a quote, hon. Speaker, from the hon. member for Cariboo North: "We have just ended, in the past year, the best economic times that resource industries in this province have ever experienced. Lumber prices have never been higher; gas and oil were booming in 1995 and 1996. We live in the richest province in Canada. . . ." We do, and things will get better, and we'll work hard to make sure that happens.

British Columbians want our economy to be competitive, not just in its productive capacity but in its ability to provide opportunity for all its citizens to contribute and to realize their 

[ Page 6804 ]

own potential. This budget certainly has something in it for everybody in the province, and I'm convinced that by working together, we can respond to some of the challenges and demands that we as a province face today.

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, this being my first opportunity since your election, I wish to congratulate you on your election as our Speaker. I look forward to working with you and trust that it will be a long and happy relationship for you and for us.

I obviously rise to respond to the government's budget. It's a budget that there was a tremendous buildup for. I think the expectations of the people of British Columbia were raised a lot higher than they had been before that process started. Even myself. . . . Reluctantly and in spite of past experience, I began to feel a certain rising sense of expectation. The Premier was out talking to people; he was recognizing that we've got problems, and he was talking about solutions -- things that he used to make fun of us for talking about, such as doing away with the corporate capital tax and the tax on machinery and equipment, and lowering people's income tax. I was really pleased to hear those things -- indeed, even a little hopeful. Just as the federal government has bitten the bullet over the last number of years and has managed to eliminate deficits and has begun to cut down debt and has seen a tremendous response from the investment community as employment opportunities are building in Canada -- 363,000 new jobs created in 1997 alone -- I began to be hopeful, and I think a lot of people did, that things were about to perhaps begin to turn around in British Columbia.

But it was obvious to most of us -- perhaps not to the people on the government side of the House -- that that would really require a sea change in how things are done in British Columbia. There's a great big dike around our beloved province. It's a dike that keeps investment walled out, and it's a dike that's made of interlocking bricks of overregulation, overtaxation, incompetent management, tremendous interference in the relationships between employers and the people who work for them, patronage, fear -- actual outright fear of the government -- incompetence in general, and an overemphasis on swinging the labour-management relations pendulum too far in one direction.

The government -- and indeed the New Democratic Party -- appears to suffer from a fundamental confusion between its goals and aspirations. I believe -- and I think that most people believe -- that this government doesn't want to bankrupt its citizens, doesn't want to run deficits and doesn't want to run huge debts. It has similar goals, really, to what we have, in that we want to have a vibrant economy in British Columbia so that we can protect health care and education and deliver on the social programs that are important to British Columbians. But this government cannot deliver, because it still doesn't understand what's causing the problem.

It's false to blame the problem on the collapse of Asian economies. Certainly that's been an exacerbation of the difficulties British Columbia has been experiencing, but it's not a totally unpredictable one. Indeed, the Finance minister and the Premier have indicated that they saw a number of these things coming. A lot of the economy, especially when you're reliant on resource-based industries, as British Columbia is, is a cyclical thing, so we expect these downturns. And frankly, up until recently we've had seven years of pretty good times as far as provincial revenue. We should have been salting money away and preparing for potential downturns. But, of course, we weren't.

The people were hopeful. Indeed, the Premier was sounding kind of like the lead doctor on "E.R." He was talking to the ambulance attendants who were bringing in a sick patient -- the British Columbia economy. They were bringing it into the Legislature, and we knew that things were going to happen. A budget was going to be tabled which was going to be the medical treatment that that sick patient would receive.

The Premier certainly has his attributes. He's a bright guy with tremendous political savoir-faire that everybody comments about, and certainly we've commented about that many times. Yet we've never really seen him actually perform the necessary services for this particular patient. He's never been able to deliver on making the economy well again. But he was certainly suggesting that all was going to be well. He was consulting with the experts -- the senior people in labour and business, even pastors. He seemed to be casting his net really wide, and he was getting ready to meet that ambulance.

So we convened. The Legislature came into session, and who met the ambulance? Well, it was Dr. Joy -- or Dr. Vancouver-Hastings, pardon me. She was wearing a zoot suit and cute boots, and she had bandages and they weren't even opened. She was chucking those bandages on the patient as it came in, and they were marked: "Do not open until 1999" -- tax cut bandages, but not very effective. Of course, the ambulance attendants are saying: "Well, Dr. Vancouver-Hastings, your patient needs attention right now." And Drs. Delta South and Vancouver-Little Mountain are beating away on the inside of the broom closet they're locked into: "We have answers over here, and we're not allowed to participate, it seems, in solving the problem." Meanwhile, the patient is convulsing on the gurney.

[3:45]

I have a constituent in Barri�re who is a Human Resources client. He lives up in the bush, out of the reach of telephone lines, so he gets his messages through a neighbour who has the last phone on the line before it peters out. He checks with that neighbour faithfully to see what word there has been from the Ministry of Human Resources. He's a very sick man; he has decaying teeth. They all need to be extracted, and he needs dentures. Of course, Human Resources doesn't necessarily pay for dentures, and it's quite an ordeal to get your dentures paid for. In the meantime, he's got these rotten teeth, and they're making him very, very sick. He needs medication; he needs to go to doctors. A tremendous amount of money has been spent on those doctors, but he can't get the dental treatment he needs.

That's a terrible thing; that's something that nobody in British Columbia should suffer from, especially a person who has been accepted as a ward of Human Resources. He just can't get the treatment he needs. Last week I had a toothache -- one tooth -- and I was amazed at how badly it affects one's ability to get around and do the things that are important, especially for a person like him who wants to have work and provide for his family.

[ Page 6805 ]

The government is out of money; that's very clear. We've seen the effect of that in the Children and Families ministry, in the wait-lists, in the health care problems in that ministry and in the cutbacks to education. Our colleagues across the way talk constantly about protecting health care and education, as they should. We should all work to protect those, but we don't protect them by financial mismanagement, running deficits and piling up debt.

I have another constituent, and his name is Al Bush. He has given me permission to use his name. I met him just before Christmas. He had written me during the last session because the Ministry of Forests wasn't paying its bill to him. He built a road for them in the Fraser Canyon, and they weren't paying the bill. So I wrote the Forests minister and asked why not. The Forests minister's response reads in part: "Mr. Bush's bid was about one-third of the next lowest bidder's and the ministry's estimate for the project that he bid on." That, frankly, seems to me to have been the source of Mr. Bush's problems. He embarrassed the good old boys in the area where he bid on this road by bidding substantially lower -- one-third according to the minister -- than what the other people they were accustomed to dealing with in that forest district had bid.

So he got a little way into his job, and people came jumping out of the trees ahead of him and said he had to stop work because there were CMTs ahead. He had never heard of CMTs, and neither had I; they are culturally modified trees. There were nine trees with some scratches on them, and it was necessary that they be handled as archaeological items. That could have been done quickly, but the ministry seemed to be embarrassed because it hadn't known about these trees. It had marked out the right-of-way, and it had put the matter up for public tender. So the ministry shut him down for several weeks. During that time all kinds of other things happened. His logging contractor quit because he couldn't sit around for several weeks. Then he couldn't find another logging contractor, and he had to bring in his own small selective logging equipment to try to do the job. The whole thing set him back enough that he couldn't get the job done before the snow flew; this was in 1996.

The ministry actually threatened to fine him $1,000 a day until he got that road done, which was ridiculous because another government ministry had caused him to be set back in the first place. The litany goes on and on and on. As I said, I first met these people -- and they're wonderful people -- the week before Christmas. They desperately needed somebody from government to talk to, somebody who cared about them. I went to their home in Barri�re, and it took Mr. Bush over three hours to tell me the story. He had documentation like I couldn't believe. He's a tremendous businessman. He's made a successful living for four decades doing this kind of work. He worked for the Ministry of Forests over those decades and built all kinds of roads. He's known as an expert assessor of timber values. Other people use him when they put in their bids, because he knows what he's talking about. One of the reasons he'd been able to underbid the other people so well on this job was that he had recognized that the value of the timber that would be harvested on this right-of-way was a lot more than what the ministry thought it was, so that would subsidize his roadwork.

But the ministry seemed to have it in for him, frankly -- that's the way it looks to me. So they beat him; they ground him down. They put him in a fighting-city-hall situation, and the result is he's very close to being bankrupt. This is a mom-and-pop operation. They raised a family doing that kind of work. They had nine employees, who are all laid off now. In his long fight with the ministry, which still isn't over, he lost his business and all his employees lost their jobs. He's heartbroken, and so is his wife. When he was finished talking to me -- I had been listening carefully for how I could help -- I asked him: "What is it that you think I can do?" He said, "There's nothing you can do," and his wife put her head down on the table and cried. That really makes me angry -- that a government would treat its people that way, that a government doesn't do business fair and square.

There will be litigation. Dozens of other British Columbians have resorted to litigation. I don't know if there's ever been a government in British Columbia that has been sued by so many of its citizens as this one, and I don't understand why a government is doing business this way and why it's placing such hardship on the people who look up to it for leadership. I don't understand it.

I have constituents who are on wait-lists for very, very serious health problems -- treatment that they need. I write to the Health minister on their behalf, and I get back these corny letters that say: "Well, Mr. MLA, you know that these are doctors' decisions." That's so false that it's just wicked. They are not doctors' decisions. It's not up to doctors to determine how much is available in operating funds.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The Minister for Children and Families is sitting there ridiculing me for saying that. She should know -- she does know -- that there are people waiting for cancer treatment, there are people waiting for heart surgery and there are people waiting for MRIs. We've got the operating rooms; we've got the experts; we've got the medical people; we've got the hospitals. These things are mothballed because this government is too stupid to deliver the services that are needed, when we put all that money into training and infrastructure.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: I don't understand how someone like the Minister for Children and Families can sit there grinning and yapping and heckling me when I'm talking about issues like this. I'm talking about people's health, people's life and death. People die on wait-lists. People have died sitting in emergency rooms in British Columbia waiting for treatment, and all this minister can do is sit there and bark at me. She should be ashamed of herself.

We have a need for a hospital. . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The Minister for Children and Families says: "Get out of here." That's what this minister would like; that's how this government thinks. If you raise the issues and you raise the needs of the people of British Columbia who are being hurt by the policies of this government, you get told, "Get out of here" -- which is what the public gets told.

Mr. Bush actually came down here to the legislative buildings to see the Minister of Forests, and when he got here he was told he would only get to see an assistant. The assistant kept him waiting 45 minutes. When he finally deigned to come in and sit with him, he looked at his watch and said: "You have 15 minutes." That's the kind of disrespect people get from this government. They get told, essentially: "Get out of here. We're too busy with our patronage appointments and all our little schemes and our government advertising."

[ Page 6806 ]

They're running these expensive ads in the newspapers. A single one of those ads would pay for my constituent's entire course of dental treatment. Every time I see this government blowing public funds advertising for itself, blowing its own horn, I'm offended, and so are my constituents. I hear that from them all the time. There's a day of reckoning coming for the Minister for Children and Families, who had better look to her ministry and try to do something about the disastrous state it's in. There's a day of reckoning coming for this government.

There's a hospital in Clearwater that has been identified as inadequate for the past 12 years. This government promised the people of Clearwater a new hospital eight months before the last election.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Now the Minister for Children and Families is harping on the familiar government beat that they don't want to incur further expenses because of the. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. minister. . . .

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It would be nice if you could control that person.

But the government doesn't want to have to meet its promises or its commitments, and it continually throws up our reminders of their promises as some sort of evidence that we're asking them to run deficits. We are not, Madam Speaker. And, through you to the Minister for Children and Families, we say to this government that it has to choose its priorities and spend on the appropriate programs, on those things that are really important to British Columbians -- health care and education -- and that it's got to stop throwing money away on things like the fixed-wage policy, on its rash appointments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, Kamloops-North Thompson has the floor here.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just as an aside here, I have noticed how you are really attempting to correct the behaviour on that side of the House, and I really appreciate it. I've never really understood how government ministers can carry on the way that they do.

This hospital has, as I say, been in the works for 12 years; it was promised by this government eight months before the last election. It wasn't one of those vote-buying, run-around-the-province, 60-days-of-decision promises just before the election. It was promised as a matter of business, of identifying a need and promising to fill it. We still haven't seen a spade in the ground; not a thing has been done. The people of Clearwater write me frequently -- and I've seen hundreds of letters coming into the Ministry of Health -- calling upon this government to keep its promises, keep its commitments, show some fiscal responsibility and pay for the things that really matter. We're waiting for that.

Employment is a big issue in my constituency as well. I have silviculture contractors all up and down the North Thompson Valley who are experts and who have trained expert crews. They have been idle now for many months, while the government seems to be trying to work out a way to give those contracts to the IWA. That's wrong; it's fundamentally wrong. Money is being raised day by day, week by week in my constituency. One licensee alone pays $6.6 million in superstumpage every year and only gets to administer how $1.6 million is spent. My silviculture contractors look for work and there's work to be done, but the government won't put the pieces together and allow them to do it.

In Barri�re we were reduced to one doctor recently, and that was before the northern doctors' strike. Do you know how that happened? There were two doctors in Barri�re who quit. The straw that broke that camel's back was a 5 percent cutback in their salary, a portion of their northern living allowance, which was done arbitrarily with no right of appeal -- two doctors who had been facing all of the same on-call problems that doctors in the north have been facing. They realized that they'd have to do the same work, keep the same outrageous hours, be ready any of the time of the day or night for a knock on the door or a telephone call, and they'd get 5 percent less. They were so offended that they quit, and they've gone away. They don't think they're ever coming back. I went out to talk with them, to see if I could help them change their minds. They said to me: "We're not sure we even want to be doctors anymore." That's how fed up they are with this system, and they said so.

I have many constituents who have terrible problems with the Workers Compensation Board. If ever I, as an MLA, get a chance in government to shake up an organization, that's going to be the one. They have a terrible lack of conscience, a terrible lack of caring for the people who have to entrust their lives to them when something bad happens to them at work.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Youth employment is a tremendous issue up and down the North Thompson Valley as well. I have one constituent who got 800 applications, unsolicited. She used to have to advertise for workers in years gone by, as she has seasonal jobs in the forest. Just before Christmas I visited the employment services in Clearwater and Barri�re, and I was told that they were handling 600 clients a month looking for work, and they had three jobs on the board. That's the desperate state that this government has brought our economy to.

The problem with our youth is a serious one. What is going to happen to them, growing up in this environment of hopelessness? It's as if we have some perverse political parody of the Pied Piper parable. We didn't have rats in British Columbia like they had in Hamelin town, but the rats have been piped in. The rats are unemployment and deficit and debt and patronage. The children have been piped away, but the piper didn't go with them. He continues to pipe his tune, and we have to pay that piper, even though we never called the tune.

[4:00]

[ Page 6807 ]

One of the things that this government has done in my constituency is a school district amalgamation. It was done in an over-hasty way. Input was invited from my constituents, but even before the deadline for the input was reached, they went ahead with the amalgamation. We protested that at the time in this House, and the Education minister of the day assured me that those communities up in the North Thompson would be safeguarded and respected and would have their interests watched over. They haven't.

There are absurdities. There was a melding of the CUPE contracts, whereby CUPE members from Kamloops are driving an hour and a half to Clearwater to do simple functions that were always done by people who live and work in Clearwater. The work's been taken away from that little community. Instead, money is being wasted on travel expenses to and from Clearwater. That's a huge issue in that constituency.

My colleague from Kamloops spoke with pride earlier about the replacement of Lloyd George school in Kamloops. That was a good thing, because it was a dangerous old school. None of us could believe how easily the walls came tumbling down when the backhoe knocked it down. It was a stone structure. But that replacement was delayed by the government's capital freeze in 1996. While it was delayed, they had to do things to keep that school livable. They spent over $40,000 on the old building just before it was knocked down, once again because of an incompetence issue.

Members opposite keep speaking with pride about the tuition freeze. Students are smarter than to think that that tuition freeze is a good deal for them. They're telling us that they can't get the courses they need to complete their degrees. It's taking them six months or a year longer to get a degree than it ought to take, because the courses aren't available. The universities have to cut back somewhere, and they cut back in the options they offer. So this government hasn't been protecting education; it's been hurting education. It hasn't been protecting health care; it's been destroying health care. And young people are leaving us because they're just not going to take it.

You know, it used to be said that if you didn't have a bit of socialism in you in your twenties, you didn't have a heart, and if you still had it in you in your thirties and forties, you didn't have a brain. Now not many young people in their twenties and thirties are fooled by the message of socialism. It doesn't work. It's the recipe for the bankruptcy and ruin of an economy. And we've seen that played out here: poverty in the midst of plenty in British Columbia, of all places -- from first to worst in terms of economies in Canada. That's wrong. This government has been failing young people at every step.

We on this side of the House really want to help. For example, we've offered repeatedly to help the Ministry for Children and Families do whatever it takes to provide the resources to protect those little ones that are in the care of that ministry. And the government has spurned and ridiculed those offers and continues to go on and make a mess of people's lives.

This government has unaccountably declared war on charities and is well on its way to bankrupting 80 percent of the charities in this province. It's long been understood that somehow this government sees volunteers as enemies, believes that volunteers take work away. It's some perverse ideology by which these sorts of action flow and where charities come under attack. We've seen a government that, to its embarrassment, had to be stopped by the courts from muscling in on charitable gaming. It had to be told by Mr. Justice Owen-Flood that it was engaging in criminal activity in its incursions, under the skirts of charities, to try and get its hands on those gaming proceeds. That is a shameful thing. I expected that someone would resign when Mr. Justice Owen-Flood had to tell this government that. I thought that surely someone would have the honour to say: "I'd better step down, because we're really messed up here." But nothing happened. They just soldier on, carry on with the status quo, do things the same way.

So why in the world would the public think anything of the Finance minister's promises of a new economy? Nothing has changed. Nothing's been delivered. It's all just talk, and they've seen so many promises broken before.

The aboriginal claims issues are hanging over British Columbia like a dark cloud, because this government hasn't been doing the things it needs to do to bring them to a resolution. The Delgamuukw decision, which came down in December, made it very clear that it's long past the time for this government to get serious about bringing these matters to resolution. And we're talking about permanent resolution. We're talking about no longer facing the issue of aboriginal title after treaties are concluded. We're talking about the cede, release and surrender of aboriginal title claims in exchange for the rights and benefits that are received in treaty negotiation. The public needs to know that. The public needs to know that private property rights will be protected.

And now the new Minister of Labour and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is heckling me. Once again, I would rather do business. . . . I would rather see things settled than have this silly heckling from government ministers. The minister is talking about me being on committees. And I am -- I'm on two select standing committees of the Legislature, and they've never met. We've never had a meeting. People ask me: "What committees are you on?" And I sort of tell them, with my hand over my mouth, because I'm embarrassed; they've never met. "Well, what do you do?" "We don't do anything." "Well, why not?" "Because this government will not assign any work to us and allow us to meet."

We want to work. We would like to see legislation tabled in this House and then an adjournment, so we could go out and discuss it in the select standing committees of the Legislature, discuss it with the public, seek input and have meaningful debate -- a real debate, where ideas are exchanged and the government has a willingness to amend where necessary. We'd like to be productive in this House. Somehow it's become a place that doesn't create anything. It's mostly theatre; it's mostly baloney and heckling and foolish behaviour from across the way -- from the very people who ought to be delivering good government to British Columbians.

This government's gambling policy is a smoking ruin. And yet the government's going ahead and installing slot machines in charitable casinos around the province, when Justice Owen-Flood made it very clear that it's wrong for government to suck money out of the taxpayer under the guise of charitable gaming. And if there's a technicality whereby they can do that with slot machines, they shouldn't use it. This government should have the honour to say: "We understand the moral direction the judge gave us; we should have understood it before he had to do it." This government should not be installing slot machines all around the province that are going to further addict British Columbians to gaming and lead to a whole host of social ills that have been thoroughly discussed in this House -- including by the members opposite when they were in opposition and they saw things through a much clearer moral lens than they're able to see through while in government.

[ Page 6808 ]

I was happy to see the perpetrator of that whole gambling expansion booted out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. He's been given another chance somewhere else. I don't really think he should have had that, but it's a fresh start. I thought the Premier was making a mistake in doing such a massive cabinet shuffle just before the House had to reconvene, because whatever organization this government might have been putting together -- whatever it might have started to have on the ball by then -- was probably lost in the transition, as new ministers try to take over new portfolios. But it is, nevertheless, an opportunity for a fresh start, and I think that's what British Columbians were hoping for in this budget: a genuine fresh start. But alas, it has not been seen.

It is a chance to start over, and we have to start over. This budget should be withdrawn. This budget is not going to do the trick for British Columbia. It's a terrible mistake, because people's expectations have been raised so much higher that they've now been dashed so much lower, and that's destructive. The economy is all about confidence and whether people believe that it makes sense to invest their money and to try to create jobs and make a profit in British Columbia. Profit's not a dirty word, regardless of the opinions of some of the members opposite. It's urgent to address these issues. There are real emergencies in people's lives. We need a budget that deals with those -- that cuts taxes, cuts regulations, and does it now.

R. Neufeld: I was going to take the opportunity to congratulate our new Speaker, but obviously she's had to go out for a meeting. You're filling in for her very ably, hon. Speaker.

I wish to take my time and speak to the budget -- a budget that actually has more to do with the years ahead, with respect to any kind of action, than it does with the year 1998. In fact, some of the statements about tax cuts and reduction of red tape are in direct contradiction of the earlier philosophy of this government, when the now Premier, who was Minister of Finance at the time, began the tax attack and regulation drive on individuals, small businesses and large corporations.

I clearly remember listening in this House -- and there are quite a number of members here that will also remember -- in 1992 to our new Minister of Finance, the present Premier, who stood in this House and got thunderous, roaring applause from all members of government. In fact, their numbers stretched over to this side of the House, and there was thunderous applause when he would levy tax after tax after tax. He would levy new tax after new tax after new tax. It was something that British Columbians had never experienced before.

In fact, the Speaker that we have now will remember how enthusiastically the NDP backbenchers -- some that are in cabinet today -- thunderously applauded all the regulation and the legislation that went along with it. They brought in hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation. I can remember clearly some sessions with 80 pieces of legislation and some legislation of over 300 pages. To stand here today and tell me and British Columbians that they're concerned about red tape is just a little bit hard to take for a guy from the north, I tell you.

In the earlier years of their administration, British Columbia had economic booms like it had never seen. Prices were up for everything. This government should have been balancing its budgets at that time. It should have been looking forward. It should have been putting a bit away for a rainy day. As a person from the north who has worked all his life according to the price of oil and gas, knowing full well that some years I may not work, I knew what it was like to put away for a rainy day, and I had to. I think most British Columbians -- the average British Columbian -- know how to do that. But this group of financial wizards across the way just don't get it. They didn't get it then and they don't get it now.

Nothing of the sort for the NDP. Money grew on trees; they would spend it. In fact, when the socialists took over in 1992 the operative words were: "There is room to move." Those were the operative words of this NDP government, meaning that the low per-capita debt they inherited would allow massive borrowing and spending. This, along with the lowest taxes, was the cornerstone of British Columbia's economic activity before these folks came along.

Hon. Speaker, as I said before, every time the now Premier, then the Minister of Finance, stood up, he had a new revenue for government, a new tax and a new regulation. Each one of those individuals as well the ones that didn't get elected again in 1996 pounded the table in glee and smiled and said: "We tax more because there's more money out there." It didn't work.

Make no mistake, past actions by this government initiated this made-in-B.C. recession. The Asian flu -- I'll give you a little leeway on the Asian flu -- has had a bit of an effect, but when you look at neighbouring jurisdictions with their buoyant economies, one must wonder what's wrong in B.C.

An Hon. Member: What about New Zealand and Australia?

R. Neufeld: One member over there said New Zealand and Australia. That's where their minds are most of the time. They're in some other part of the world rather than in British Columbia, where they should be.

[4:15]

As I said earlier in my remarks, this budget relates more to future years than it does to the present year. In fact, very little takes place in this present year. It makes one wonder why the Finance minister stood up and tabled a budget -- why she didn't just table last year's. It really makes one wonder.

Because this budget today reflects so much on future years, I would like to take a bit of time and go back to 1992, when our illustrious Premier was the Minister of Finance, and just try to figure out who this imposter is today that stands up and says he wants to reduce red tape and reduce taxation. I just want to take a little bit of time. I'm going to go back to 1992 and read a little bit from the budget. They are words from this NDP government, not mine. They are quotes from the then Minister of Finance, who is now our Premier.

"Goals of a Sound Economic Policy." This was the heading of the first budget presented by the NDP government. The first thing it talks about is open government. "First, we are 

[ Page 6809 ]

committed to openness and honesty." Where has this government gone? How many times have local citizens had to take this government to court to get them to live by the statutes that British Columbia has? How many times? Talk about open and honest policy.

They talk about fairness. Here's a direct quote: "That means pursuing policies that don't play favourites -- policies that are in the interests of all British Columbians." You go out there and ask all British Columbians if they think they've been dealt with fairly. I doubt it very much. There'll be a few NDP hacks that will, but generally speaking, the average 60 percent of the people that don't vote for these folks will never agree.

They talk about sound financial management: ". . .this government is committed to a sound and prudent management of the province's finances." Is that what we have come to expect out of this government today -- a debt that's blossomed from $20 billion to $32 billion? Is that what we're to expect -- seven consecutive deficit budgets? This is prudent management?

It goes on from there. This is the new Minister of Finance on revenue measures. Of course, that's the biggest part of the 1992 budget. But there was a bit of enlightenment, I thought, when I first listened to this. And when I read it again, it reminded me of some of it. It says: "We also must recognize that our tax rates must be competitive with other jurisdictions." Can you imagine? What's happened to that person? When we look at tax rates across Canada, deficits across Canada, regulations across Canada, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. . . . Where did that statement go to? It went out the window.

"Personal income tax measures." They're up. "First, the basic personal income tax rate will be increased by 1 percentage point. . . ." The personal income tax surtax was increased to become payable at income levels over $60,000 and this increase was in addition to the existing surtax on individuals making more than $80,000. Did I hear this government say they want to cut taxes? Did I really hear that from the Minister of Finance and from all these members that have stood up and talked? This was their first budget.

"Ensuring corporations pay their fair share." Isn't that interesting? If you go to any documents, you will find that British Columbia has priced our corporations and small businesses right out of the market. And what are these people across the way saying now? "We want to cut it." What happened to this philosophy? I don't think it has left you folks for one minute. "Effective January 1, 1992, the general corporation income tax rate will increase by one percentage point." The small business rate tax will be increased. "The corporation capital tax, currently paid only by large financial institutions, will be re-introduced for all corporations with paid-up capital in excess of $1 million. . . The current capital tax for large banks will be increased to 3 percent from 2 percent."

A new levy to preserve legal aid. That was the levy on legal services. . . . This is a government that talks about reducing red tape and taxation but introduced that in 1992.

They say: "Fifth, we are introducing a number of commodity-specific revenue measures, including an increase in the jet fuel tax and higher liquor mark-ups." How many times have we heard this government, since the House opened, talk about reducing jet fuel tax? Who increased it in the first place? Who was it? Was it this bunch of financial wizards across the way?

Let's go on to 1993. Let's just take 1993, because this was the second budget of our illustrious now Premier when he was Minister of Finance. Let's just look at it a little bit. Revenue measures, personal income tax surcharge -- another increase. Income tax on large corporations -- up; another increase. Three percent surtax on luxury vehicles -- another increase. Luxury vehicles are those over 30,000 bucks. Now, I think there are a few in this House that have government vehicles that are worth over $30,000. I'm not going to point them out. But I'll tell you that in my neck of the woods, where people go back and forth to work in four-wheel drives, they don't buy a vehicle for $30,000 as a luxury. It's mandatory; it's a necessity for getting back and forth to work.

It's difficult to believe when I sit hear and listen to some of those same members talk about how they're going to get the economy going again. They were told time and time again that this would drive investment away. "A balanced approach," they say. "Some would like us to increase spending significantly and allow the deficit to rise. But allowing the deficit to rise unchecked during the upturn in the business cycle" -- they admit they had an upturn -- "is not sound economic policy. More and more British Columbians' tax dollars would go to banks to pay interest on debt instead of providing services to people."

We should look at what the debt charges are for the province of British Columbia after seven years of these folks. It's now at $2.4 billion. When these folks took over, it was at $800 million. Can you imagine? This is the fiscal approach that these folks have taken. And today they stand here and try to tell me and British Columbians that they're concerned and that they're going to reduce taxes because they want to get the economy going again. I don't know how anyone could be fooled into believing that kind of malarkey. It's absolutely unacceptable.

We go on to a lady by the name of Elizabeth Cull, who was the minister in 1994, talking about how important the forest industry is -- you know, ensuring the long-term future for British Columbia's forest workers and their communities. What happened to the 15,000 or 18,000 people that are now not working in the forest industry, which these people said was important? That's how important they thought jobs were in the province of British Columbia. They lost jobs.

Then they talked incessantly over the years about overcutting. They initiated "a provincewide timber supply review to address the legacy of overcutting and set harvest levels that are sustainable," and they're no different today than when these folks took over. We harvest about the same amount of timber. Was that an untruth, or was that just finance b.s.? I'm not sure.

The message doesn't get any better. The message doesn't get one bit better. In fact, in 1995, that same minister came in here and said: "With this 1995 budget we have balanced the budget a full year ahead of our promise to the people of British Columbia." They had balanced their budget a full year ahead. Can you imagine? This is the stuff that this government puts out to people in the province of British Columbia and expects them to believe. In fact, probably some of them do, and they wonder after a while: "Why in the world would these people not tell me the truth? Why wouldn't they tell me we were in that bad shape? Why would they let this go on and on?" In fact, she says: "No more borrowing to finance operating deficits." Well, we're still doing the same thing in 1998. In 1995 the minister said we weren't going to do it anymore.

A comprehensive debt management plan. Well, I'll tell you, as you go on and on through the budgets, you'll find a new plan every year, but a new plan is never followed. In 1996 -- still the same minister. . . . This is the real one, 1996, and I 

[ Page 6810 ]

quote: "Last year I had the pleasure of presenting a surplus budget to the people of British Columbia. This year I'm pleased to announce a second consecutive surplus budget."

That's you folks who said that. Is that a lie? Is that an untruth? Is that something that you shouldn't have said? You're darned right you shouldn't have. You misled British Columbians terribly, and you're still misleading them today. What we see this government doing in this great province of ours is unconscionable. British Columbia was number one when this government took over, and we're now number ten. What a legacy!

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member says: "In what?" It's in economic growth. It has to do with investment, with jobs, with people working and with people being able to support their families.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I know that may be foreign to that member, but it is the truth.

Tax cuts for British Columbia. Listen to this.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, would you save me from this guy? Would you help me? He used to be a Speaker. Help me, please; he's slaying me. My goodness. Gee whiz, hon. Speaker, would you call this member to order, please, and add about five minutes to my time. I'm going to need it.

Anyhow, here we go to the budget speech of 1996: tax cuts for B.C. families -- not banks and large corporations. This was in 1996. What did we just see this government do? Rearrange the corporate capital tax so we give the Hongkong Bank of Canada an $8 million-a-year tax break. Who did that? These folks across the way? You're darned right. When you talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth, these folks know best how to do that. In fact, they go on to say that in B.C. there are 15,000 more forest jobs than there were five years ago. Well, what's happened today? There are probably 15,000 to 20,000 fewer. What a legacy!

These people try to make us think that they really care about the economy -- or that they actually understand it. It's a sad legacy. There was a quote in the Times Colonist on Saturday, April 4, from the present Finance minister: "Lying is among the worst crimes the public would judge a politician by." Guess what. Who lied? Who didn't tell the truth? Budget speech 1997 is really not that much different, other than it did prove the lie. Another minister had to come in and clean up. It's unfortunate for that minister; he's not the Minister of Finance anymore. He got the boot. But what he does say is: "The resulting deficit for 1996-97 is now forecast at $395 million." You're only out $400 million, and that's even with cooking the books.

[4:30]

The other issue that really gets scary in 1997. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, would you save me from the Minister of Transportation and Highways also? I don't know what's with him, but it's obvious that he will have his time. I think he speaks a little later on, and he can tell us about all the wonderful things he's going to do.

Here is the scary part in 1997: "A program to review asset disposition has begun, looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars of assets owned by the government to see if they still serve a useful purpose. This year we expect to receive $170 million by disposing of some assets which are no longer needed." When you get to the bottom of the cookie jar financially, you start selling your assets. These are the assets of British Columbians, and you folks are starting to sell them to buoy up your false budget. That's absolutely unacceptable to most British Columbians. They should read. . . . I'm going to run out of time, unfortunately. You never know; I may get in a few more quotes.

It doesn't matter whether it's the CBRS talking about a credit downgrade or Michael Campbell, who has some really good advice. Let's read this into the record; it would bode well for these folks to listen to this. "Generating jobs in the private sector is a simple procedure. Make it attractive by creating a competitive tax environment and reduce the risk by creating a positive regulatory environment. When that's accomplished, the jobs will follow."

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat for a moment. I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: Madam Speaker, I have been very patient trying to hear and understand what the member is saying. I just do not get the points he's trying to make, and I think they're very important points. I urge you to take action right now to stop the nonsense on the other side, trying to prevent the people of this province from hearing what the true facts are about the budget of this government.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North may continue.

R. Neufeld: Another issue that the Fraser Institute. . . . This was dated March 26.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: They laugh. Can you imagine, hon. Speaker? They sit there and they laugh.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it's really difficult to hear this speech. I'll ask all the members for order, please.

R. Neufeld: This is a quote: " 'Mr. Premier, the right thing to do today is the same as it was when we wrote our report 

[ Page 6811 ]

two years ago,' advises Walker. 'All you require is the humility to admit that you have been mistaken and the courage to set a new course.' " That's exactly what this government should be doing. They should be thinking about a new course.

Never, from 1985 to 1995, did B.C. ever experience a negative quarter in economic growth -- until the legacy of this government started to take hold. Today the province is reaping what the NDP has sown. We have a capital strike. You're darned right; someone else mentioned it earlier. We have a capital strike in B.C. like we've never had before.

For instance, the member for North Coast talked about Alberta. Probably the closest that that member has been to Alberta is here in Victoria. He should go over to Alberta and see a little bit first before he talks about it. Alberta experienced $2,000 per capita more in investment than B.C. did in 1997 -- for every person that lives in Alberta. Can you imagine?

Hon. D. Lovick: How about those young guys that earn the $5 minimum wage? Why don't you justify that? Let's go to Alberta.

R. Neufeld: This member still doesn't get it. In Alberta they have 5 percent employment. In Alberta they have balanced budgets. In Alberta they have good health care; in Alberta they have good education. This member here hasn't caught on. He should travel over there.

Hon. Speaker, I live close to Alberta, like you do. I don't know what happens in your community. You may not admit it. When patients out of Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or Fort Nelson need some care, guess where we send them. To slash-and-burn Alberta. They go straight to those hospitals that you say are being closed down. You don't have a clue how many hospitals are being closed down in Alberta. We send them on a daily basis, and you should check it out before you say things like that.

From every corner that you quote, the public, the groups and the organizations are telling this government that it has taken the wrong course. The budget presented by the socialists will not encourage investment, and we badly need to create employment.

Let's go to the 1998 budget. I don't have time to read much of it, but there are all kinds of issues. In fact, on page 1 it talks about the hundreds of parks. You know, they can't even count the parks they've created; that's how bad it is. Page 1 tells us that the rest of it is garbage, because they can't count the number of parks that have been created.

They say it's the best place in Canada to live, but no one will invest here. They constantly go through here and talk about corporation capital tax cuts and income tax cuts, but they all happen in 1999 and 2000 and 2001. The Forest Practices Code was introduced by this group of wizards. There are over 1,000 pages of regulation, and today they try to tell me that they're concerned about red tape. I don't believe it for a minute. In fact, I think it said that it has cost the industry over $300 million a year. Just think what that could have done for jobs. You could have jobs on Vancouver Island. Instead of grocery stores closing in Port Alberni, maybe some would be opening. But after the actions of this government, that's what we see: grocery stores closing, people leaving British Columbia faster than they come in. They migrate from my part of the province to Alberta on a daily basis; that's where they go to shop, because it's cheaper.

The B.C. Hydro rate rebate and freezes for all customers. . . . They're taking $373 million from Hydro this year. It's absolutely unbelievable.

There's $1.25 billion for roads. I'm going to be interested to hear what the Minister of Transportation and Highways has to say about northern infrastructure, because up until now they've absolutely ignored it. It doesn't matter where you look in this budget, it just doesn't cut it. The Mining Association of B.C. says it doesn't cut it. Any institution that you go to has negative things. . . . The Certified General Accountants of British Columbia. . . . It just doesn't cut it. It doesn't matter who you go to, all the financial people tell you that. You're in denial; you haven't taken the real step. But I don't think the step will ever be there, because I can tell you, hon. Speaker, from experience.

At one time I drank a little bit too much alcohol, and I haven't touched a drop of alcohol in 16 years. But I had to want in my heart and I had to desire to not drink in order to make that happen. It had to be a part of my soul to make it not happen.

When I see this group over here, when I lay out the things that have taken place from 1992 until now, when I hear the hollow response from over there about cutting taxes and cutting regulations, I can only tell you that this group is in denial. They're in denial of what really has to be done. In their heart of hearts, all of them -- and I include you -- do not want to cut taxes and do not want to cut regulation, because that's the heart and soul of the socialist regime.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I rise in the Legislature today to speak on the budget presentation of the Minister of Finance. In doing so, I would speak through you to the citizens of British Columbia, as well as to the members of this Legislature. I would speak to the members of Vancouver-Langara, my own constituency, because I'm mindful as their MLA of what government actions have done to them and their families. I'm aware of the people who live with many kinds of disadvantages and the hardships that government actions have brought upon them. Every day we have persons coming into our constituency office. By fax, by phone, by mail and in person, people tell us their problems and ask us if we can help them. Since 1991, when I was first elected, I have been aware of the worsening conditions. As critic for Social Services, as critic for Multiculturalism and now as deputy critic for Human Resources, I'm increasingly involved with people who are hurting around this province. The increase in the number of unemployed, the increasing poverty of persons of all ages, the increase in the food lines, the threats to the support of those with disabilities and the growing anxiety and fear of those people who are working with them are known to us wherever we travel.

Thus I stand sadly to speak to a budget presented, once again, by this government. In the seven and a half years that I have listened to these budgets and that I have represented the citizens of Vancouver, it is sad to know that the situation continues to deteriorate and the services continue to be lacking.

This morning, or earlier today, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon presented the rosy condition of the province, the healthy condition of the province, the wealthy condition of the province, as she understood it. She asked how it is that the members of the opposition seem to be presenting doom and gloom.

There's a simple response to that comment on her part. The government is presenting the assets of the province as they would want us to understand them and to believe them. That's the asset part of the ledger. But our task as opposition is to look not just at the assets but at the liabilities that are also a 

[ Page 6812 ]

part of the budget -- to look at that, to compare the assets against the liabilities and to see on which side of the equation we are now to be found within this province. And that's exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do: present to the people of this province the realities, on their behalf, that they would want the government to hear. Perhaps the government is not aware that in the majority of cases of which we're speaking, we're simply representing the constituents across the province, bringing their concerns and their issues and asking for a response for them.

I've been interested, ever since this last election of '96. . . . At least in '91 the government was saying that they were following forth in the tradition of the CCF heritage of responding to the needs of the people in greatest difficulty. But in this last election of '96, their promises were almost entirely -- if not entirely -- to the people of medium income. And more recently, as we prepared for this present budget, who did they talk to? They talked to the big unions and they talked to the big financial representatives -- abandoning once again their historic CCF roots of responding to the people within the province who had the greatest need.

[4:45]

This budget has once again ignored the 20 percent of the population they would normally speak for. I'll let the citizens of the province be the judge when they look at the assets and the liabilities of this government and when they look at the difficulty of receiving services. I'll let them be the judge because, after all, they are the judge. The citizens of the province are the ones who have the final judgment, both today and tomorrow and whenever an election may come.

Across this province all persons -- children, women, youth, men, seniors -- who live in poverty have swelled the numbers of the disadvantaged. Hardly a day goes by that the local press across the province, in reporting the concerns of the people, is not highlighting the needs of the people of this province that go unmet. The loss of jobs is in the paper on a regular basis, the increase in consumer taxes is a threat upon them and the expansion of regulations has strangled more and more families and more and more small businesses. Not one mention was made in the budget of the needs of these persons, nor were any proposals put forward to improve their circumstances. A number of years ago, their budget would almost totally have been about their concerns. What a reversal, which is sad for them and for all of us.

The food lines, already too long, are getting longer, and unfortunately will continue to do so. The minister claims that social assistance caseloads have dropped over 8 percent, representing about 27,000 fewer people on welfare. But where are these people, hon. Speaker? The majority of them are not in jobs. Most of them have even more difficult lifestyles than they had when they were on welfare. Most of them have been restructured out of even the meagre resources that were available to them through the system.

Having grown up with a CCF heritage in Saskatchewan, it's always sad for me to see this government move farther and farther from its CCF heritage. Concern that at one time was given to those in difficult circumstances is now reserved for those in big unions and for big business consultants.

B.C., which was once the land of opportunity for the pioneers who came and built this province, has now become a land of neglect and disregard for many of our proudest citizens. Indeed, the residents with the longest history in this province -- the aboriginal people -- still live here in next year's country, unfortunately, for their lives were not greatly improved over the past seven and a half years of this government. There has been a great deal of lip service and countless meetings intended to lead to new futures, with little in results. Indeed, for many aboriginal people, their situation has become more difficult. And perhaps most of all, those who live in urban centres, where ineffective government policies have increased their burdens again and again. . . .

Indeed, many of the aboriginal initiatives, good and excellent initiatives that they have undertaken, have been hampered -- if not stonewalled -- by both government actions and inactions. I have met with some organizations in Vancouver. I have heard from them personally of their struggle and their frustration with the bureaucracy and the red tape and the change of government and the change of ministers and the change that prevents them from going ahead with their well-thought-out plans for their improvement.

What we seem to have is almost, either by design or by circumstance, a plan to keep people on edge, disrupted and disorganized, in order to enable the government to maintain its own programs.

Likewise, youth seem to get left out in the cold because of the divisions of concerns between the Premier's Office and all other ministries of government -- again, a lot of noble talk, but little effective action. So youth unemployment is 17 percent on average and much, much higher in many parts of the province. As well, good programs which had been established by government are victimized by the same government when another new idea comes along.

As an illustration, I will refer to Peak House, a youth and family addiction program. It was an excellent program with an excellent history of service and a reputation built up over the years -- funded, originally asked for, and coached along in its initial stages by government. But when this government came into power, it cut the program in half. It moved it from the facilities which had been built and prepared and modified exactly for its program. Why? Because, they said, they wanted to cut it in Vancouver so that they could take funds and disperse them around the province.

But not one iota of a program across the province has replaced the program they cut so drastically here in Vancouver. The lives of these young people whose needs are crucial today -- not tomorrow or next week or next year -- are being downgraded, and many of them have been lost to unfortunate circumstances. Indeed, we are in danger of having a major block of young people being disfranchised from the opportunity of an orderly transition from childhood to adulthood, from an opportunity to have secure, lasting and honest jobs -- not only so that they can succeed in their own potential but also so that they have the possibility to develop families of their own. It's not an easy time for young people to grow up in this province.

I also have to speak with sadness about the growing challenge that this government has undertaken -- consciously or not; I'm not sure -- to destroy the volunteer, non-profit sector of our community. Everywhere in this province there is 

[ Page 6813 ]

frustration and anger at the government challenge of and confrontation with established volunteer community operations. In case after case, in its restructuring programs in Health, in Education and later in Children and Families, this government has undertaken to restructure the volunteer process and to drive them out of business and even -- without compensation -- to demand that their assets which they have worked for and sacrificed for over many years, be turned over to the government. Some, fortunately, have fought back, and they have refused to comply. Others have complied under protest; others have taken the government to court, and they have won their cases.

Whatever the response, it's the spirit of our communities. The volunteer spirit, which is the lifeblood of community action, is fast disappearing. It is an unheralded social change, but in consequence it destroys the quality of community living. This might not be the intention of the restructuring process of this government -- I would hope and trust that it is not -- but it is nevertheless the consequence. The government does not seem to be aware of what is happening to the communities around this province as the volunteers are taken out of their functions, as the caring that people have automatically had for their neighbours is being hung up in red tape. They are being effectively told: you cannot love your neighbour, because it's not the commandment of our government.

It's a cruel and disheartening situation that we see in our province at the moment. One of the realities that brought this home to me as I travelled across the province was discovering the fear that was there. And it's not new. It was three years ago that an executive director of a volunteer community agency phoned me about a concern that she felt was coming. I asked her if she wanted to go public with it, and she said: "I'd like to, but I have to go back and talk to my board and see if they'll give me permission to do so." She phoned back and said sadly: "No, my board is afraid to speak up, because they're afraid that if they speak up their contracts will be cut, and the people who will suffer are not the board members but the people that they serve within the community."

Just this last spring as we travelled in the province, the same thing was true. People who wanted to talk about what was happening to them would meet only in private so that others would not know. People of the province have to be able to stand up, and I implore them and urge them to speak up and speak clearly, because unless we speak up, not only in the Legislature but also in every community across the province, the changes that we need will not take place. In the final analysis, the direction in which this province goes is up to the people of the province.

We have talked for years about healthy communities, about how we could work together in communities, organization with organization, to plan our communities so they are relevant to us. One of the processes that governments have supported over the years is the Healthy Communities process, which is used by the United Nations. It was adopted in Canada and it was adopted in British Columbia. Up until a year and a half ago, it was funded by this government, but they have cut off the funding for this process. They have said that if you want a healthy community, you'll have to go about it on your own; you cannot depend upon this government. It's shortsightedness on behalf of the government that I think will have long-term negative effects.

[5:00]

Another part of this instability is the continuous change of government programs. Every time the government speaks, they have a new program. It would be interesting to add up the number of programs that they have announced in the last seven and a half years. I'm sure there are hundreds of them, but I'm also sure that most of those programs either never got off the ground or, if they got off the ground, were very short-lived and are no longer in progress.

Even B.C. 21, one of their biggest programs, is in that state now. It was a program that offered promise to a lot of community groups for new constructive, innovative programs that would solve the problems of their community, along with their concern and their interest. For a time when you made an application, there was a positive response. But now application after application is being turned down and simply being told: "You do not meet the criteria." They're not saying how they do not meet the criteria but simply: "You do not meet the criteria." It's discouraging, because every time we feel that there's some hope, that hope is dashed.

For years the municipalities of British Columbia have tried to become part of a planning process to change municipal government in this province in relation to the provincial government. They've asked for constructive changes in the municipal code. Then they got a minister -- a couple of ministers, actually -- who were working with them, and progress looked like it might begin to happen. But each time it almost got to the stage where it might come to fruition, the minister was changed, and they had to start from scratch again and again.

That seems to be the kind of pattern here. Every time a minister seems to be getting on top of their agenda, understanding the situation and working with their people, the minister is changed. As a result, we have confusion and disappointment. That's the pattern, and it's one that we need to highlight.

It's no more true anywhere else than in health care. Before this government came in, we had the Seaton report by the previous government, which gave guidelines and hope and a sense of direction. This government took that Seaton report and developed a plan -- with many weaknesses, I might add -- into which they put time and effort and a considerable amount of money.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Sure we objected to it; I agree with the minister. Because partway through the plan, what did they do? They scrapped the plan, and then they put a revised plan in place, with a new theme title for it. They get it partway through. I'm not sure if they're on the third or fourth version of that plan at the moment. The pattern is the same -- so far and no further. It dismantles the system in every sense.

[ Page 6814 ]

Our health care has become a travesty. It is no longer something that we can rely upon. It is no longer something in which anyone in the medical, nursing or health profession can have comfort. They're overstressed, they're overtaxed and they're overjudged. The Seaton report said that we had one of the best medical systems in the world. We had enough money to make it better; all we had to do was revise it. The attempt at revision has been a disaster.

It's the same pattern in education. There was a growing problem in education, not because we did not have a good system. But like any system, it has to be updated with the changing times. Also, the system in B.C. had to grow because our population was growing; our demographics were changing. The number of people coming into our province was increasing, and they brought new characteristics, new cultural foundations and new opportunities for us, so there needed to be change. Instead of letting a natural progression of change take place and supporting it, they decided to restructure the number of school boards across the province, to restructure the process within the school boards, to restructure the curriculum, to restructure everything in sight. In the changes, they brought more confusion and uncertainty. So what should have been a good and vital and active process became the disaster that we have at the moment -- a disaster for preschool children, the needs of whom organizations and non-profit societies had been developing to meet. Those organizations have almost been driven out of existence at this point. It has been a disaster for children with special needs coming into school. We welcomed children with disabilities into the school to become regular members of the classroom experience, and so did their teachers. But they were not supported with the financial, educational or planning resources from the government that needed to go with that.

The government system has failed us again and again in the community, and I'm particularly concerned that it has failed the people who have the least resources and opportunities to speak out on their own behalf. But they are speaking out; they are making themselves known. They are coming together in their own organizations and are becoming stronger. Perhaps that's the only saving grace of what this government has done. The adversity of it has enabled the people of our community to realize that they, the government -- we, the government -- are not going to do it for them. They must take the lead; they must do the planning; they must make the effort and do the work; and they must direct and tell us and make sure that we follow their direction.

I'm sad to say that this government has tried three times now in this province -- once in the seventies and twice in this period -- to put forth a program that would strengthen our province. Three times they have tried and have been found wanting. We return to the citizens of the province. They must speak out; they must stand up; they must be counted; and they must find a government and direct them in the way they would have to go.

Hon. H. Lali: It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to stand here in support of the budget that was brought down a week ago by the Minister of Finance. I must also say that I'm going to speak a little bit about some of the items that were mentioned in the throne speech before I get into the nuts and bolts of the budget.

As you recall, hon. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, when the throne speech was presented, the whole idea behind it was to strengthen British Columbia's economy and build on the successes and strengths that we have. We are renewing B.C.'s economy to encourage further investment in this province, to create quality good-paying jobs and also to ensure opportunities not only for the people who are living here today but also for youth and for the future and for generations to come.

Shortly before the throne speech the Premier announced a new cabinet, and I was one of the people who were appointed as ministers. He also created three ministries. There is the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- to give mining a separate ministry -- and there's Northern Development, a separate ministry to look after the affairs of the northern half of British Columbia. He also created a separate ministry by dividing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The whole emphasis will be on job creation in the future.

Certainly when you look at the opposition, there is a stark difference between what we on this side of the House represent and what those people across the way represent.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: The member over there says: "That's for sure." Let me talk about that right now. We're building on B.C.'s strengths. We're building on the universal medicare system that we have here; we're building on the quality public services that are available in this province. We're also building on the high environmental standards that we have -- certainly the highest environmental standards in all of North America. This is where the separation comes, because the people across the way, who like to call themselves Liberals -- I don't know what party they are now or what philosophy they represent; they certainly seem to be right of even the Reform Party -- believe in a two-tiered, user-fee medicare system. They want to cut it up and give it away to their friends. They also believe in gutting the social safety net by making huge cuts. Indeed, in 1996 they fought the election on making $3 billion worth of cuts -- massive cuts all across the board that would have put tens of thousands of workers out of work -- and at the same time gutting every single ministry program. That's what they wanted to do, and they wanted to do it on the backs of the working people.

Well, it's no wonder that they're sitting on that side of the House and not on this side of the House. The electorate of the province defeated them specifically because of that.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: They talk about telling the truth. I guess the member, Warren Betanko, must have something else to say about that.

They also wanted to gut every environmental standard we had set. That's what they wanted to do. They wanted to have a race to the bottom. They didn't want to have quality air to breathe; they didn't want to have parks and wilderness areas stretching from the south of the province to the north, which we are going to leave as a legacy for generations to come. They wanted to gut all of that, and that's what makes us different from those folks over there. That's why they're sitting on that side of the House.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I want to talk about other aspects of the budget before I get into the Highways budget. In this budget that was tabled a little over a week ago, we are making cuts in taxes to stimulate investment, as per our throne speech, and to support small business. Specifically, small business corporate income tax will 

[ Page 6815 ]

be cut by 11 percent over two years, and that will benefit 40,000 businesses. There's the reduction and elimination of the corporation capital tax for 10,000 small businesses. There are also going to be cuts in the marginal income tax rate, and financial incentives will be provided for domestic and foreign film production, as well as a 50 percent reduction in the international jet fuel tax over two years.

[5:15]

As B.C.'s personal income tax will be reduced by 2 percent, every taxpayer will benefit. Medical Services Plan premiums will be lowered for 80,000 British Columbians. Of course, those people across the way don't applaud that. They don't want to applaud the fact that we're helping people on the low-income side of things. ICBC premiums and tuition fees will remain frozen. The Hydro rebate of 2 percent has already taken place for last year's billing, and the freeze on hydro rates will continue for another year.

I talked a little bit about health care and the social safety net. It is indeed an honour to be sitting here on this side of the House, as a member of the New Democratic Party who can stand up and proudly say that we are the only province in the entire country that has, for the last seven years in a row, increased funding for our social safety net -- in the face of massive cuts from the federal Liberals that these people across the way supported. Indeed, their leader said that the cuts did not go deep enough. I think that's a shame. It is an absolute abrogation of the responsibilities that they were elected to uphold on that side of the House, and they are not speaking on behalf of the people they represent.

In health care the budget has gone up $228 million. We are also increasing the education budget by $100 million for 400 new teachers, 300 librarians and counsellors and aides -- an increase that these people undoubtedly will vote against. We have also increased funding for the Ministry for Children and Families to the tune of $64 million, to help children most at risk. Again, for all the breast-beating that they do on that side of the House about children and families, and how they supposedly care about children in need, they will vote against this budget and against the $64 million increase that is going to help those who are most at risk in this society. Again, they should hang their heads in shame.

An Hon. Member: Just on general principle.

Hon. H. Lali: Just on general principle they should hang their heads in shame.

I also want to talk about youth for a minute. In this budget we're also providing new opportunities for the youth of this province. The Premier has gone around this province several times and has met not only with teachers and college instructors but also with youth and students in the high schools, universities and colleges. He has listened, and this cabinet and this government have listened. We have responded. I have already mentioned that the tuition fee freeze is continuing, and that will benefit 150,000 students in British Columbia. We're the only province in the entire country that has frozen tuition fees. You look across the country; you look at every province. Every education minister across the country has continued to raise tuition fees, and we're the only ones to freeze them. We're also adding $40 million to the budget to create 2,900 new spaces at colleges and universities and to boost student financial assistance, and $36 million to provide employment opportunities for 17,000 young people.

In terms of boosting the economy. . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm getting to that, hon. member.

. . .this government is increasing funding for capital projects by $275 million this year. That means there will be $1.25 billion this year for building new schools, building new hospitals and fixing up our roads and bridges in this province, in terms of transportation infrastructure.

I hope those people across the way, those Liberals, will support this budget. I hear the member for Peace River North continually harping over there: "What are you doing for transportation?" Well, hon. member, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways budget has gone up $52 million this year from the year before.

We're also cutting industry costs. We're cutting industry costs in forestry, in the oil and gas industry, in the mining industry. Also, the farm fuel tax will be eliminated. I hope those folks will support it. We're doing all of these good things, and we're going to cut the deficit in half from the year before -- down to $95 million.

I want to talk a little bit about my ministry. I've already mentioned that my budget in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has gone up. I'm also responsible for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Between the two of them, the budget in the past was $820 million, and it's gone up to $871 million. So it's actually a $51 million increase, not $52 million. But they don't want any of it, because they want to see cuts.

Shortly after I was given this post, I decided to go on a tour of the northern half of the province. I started out in Terrace and Kitimat, and I drove most of the roads in my tour. I went through New Hazelton, Houston and Smithers, and I flew from there to Prince George. Of course, I also toured the Dawson Creek area and the Fort St. John area, and I was able to take a firsthand look at some of the roads and bridges that need to be fixed and new sections that need to be built outright. Some of the worst roads in the province are obviously in the north. People told me -- they weren't blaming any one particular government -- that for the last 20 years there has been a shortage of funding coming into the north in terms of looking after the infrastructure. Indeed, our highways and bridges are the lifeblood of the economy in the rural areas.

In the urban areas you have traffic congestion and safety issues related to transportation. Obviously there are competing demands from across the province, and it's my goal and my job to balance all of those competing demands in a fair and equitable way. That's not to say that some parts of the province that are in more need of funding won't be getting it. The north of this province is one of those areas. I hear the member for Prince George-Omineca beating his desk over there in agreement with my statement, and I thank the member for that. The throne speech and the budget have both included a northern roads strategy, which the Minister Responsible for Northern Development and I will be doing shortly. So I would tell members from the north on both sides of the House to just stay tuned.

I also want to point out that one of the things that was really made clear in my tour of the north is the issue of the 

[ Page 6816 ]

national highways system and how the federal government has completely abrogated its responsibility in terms of looking after the west coast of Canada when it comes to not only highways and transportation needs but all needs. They've been off-loading and pulling out from their responsibilities for the social safety net and also for what they usually consider their turf, which is the national highways system. I want to give you an example. The federal government, for the last seven or eight years, has been taking out between $700 million and $750 million a year in fuel tax revenues. That's about the same amount -- give or take $40 million to $50 million -- that the province gets in fuel revenues as well.

Here's where the big contrast is. The federal government, while they've been taking out roughly $750 million a year in fuel tax revenues, over the last three years has been putting back only $6 million a year into this province. I think that's a real tragedy. This is an area where the members across the way should be lobbying; they should be joining this side of the House to lobby their federal cousins to put more money into our highways system. But they won't do that. Their leader stood up in the House two years ago, when they were off-loading onto the provinces, and said that the federal government wasn't cutting enough in the way of transfer payments to the provinces. By contrast, the British Columbia government, which collects about $750 million in fuel tax revenues, put in over $800 million a year towards our transportation and highway needs in this province. So obviously we're putting a dollar in for a dollar out.

I want to talk about Yale-Lillooet. Over the past couple of years when I was on the back bench, I was able to work with ministers in this cabinet and in the cabinet of Premier Harcourt at that time and look at some of the issues that were in my riding to make sure some of the funds would start rolling back that way. Obviously the cabinet listened, the government listened and the ministers listened, and they delivered on those commitments that were made to myself and my constituents. They delivered in a nice, big way, actually. I want to point out some of those items that I was able to see come to fruition in the last couple of years.

There were moneys given for planning and engineering the Lytton Bridge, which is going to be anywhere from a $10 million to an $11 million project, and also for the hospital in Lytton, which was about $6 million. I must also say that the federal government, in terms of the hospital that is going to be built in Lillooet. . . . It's being done in conjunction with a healing centre with the Lytton first nation. The feds committed to their share of funding, and then they pulled out. They pulled out $2.5 million worth of funding because, they said, they don't fund anything off reserve. So they used a technicality to pull out their share of the funding.

In the southern part of my riding we have the Sterling Creek Bridge on Highway 3, which borders my constituency and the constituency of the member for Okanagan-Boundary. That has now been completed. It was a $2.5 million project. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to drive over the new structure yet, but I will be doing that this summer.

In Hope we had an announcement a little over a year ago for $2.2 million worth of funding for the Hope Intercare Society -- another project that we delivered that this government had promised.

This is not a money item of sorts, but we had a timber supply review of the Merritt TSA. As a result of that review, it was one of two or three timber supply areas in the province that had an increase in the annual allowable cut. We had almost a 20 percent increase. As a result of that, there were six small wood licences that were handed out to various proponents within my constituency of Yale-Lillooet. There were three in Merritt and three in Princeton, and that will create a total of 216 jobs. They're well on their way to bringing that to fruition as well.

I also want to say that I had the opportunity to cut some ribbons on some past projects. I'll start with the Hope library-pool complex, which was a $3.8 million project. It was recently completed, and I had the honour to go there and cut the ribbon. I worked fairly hard on that particular project. That was on the books for 20 years before this government came along and actually funded it as part of the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program.

There's also the $8.5 million rebuild of the Merritt secondary school. A little over a year ago I had the pleasure of going to the opening ceremonies. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that the teachers, the faculty, the parents and the students who attend that school were so happy and so proud of that facility and the fact that the government again was delivering on commitments.

In Princeton, the Princeton Sheltered Housing Society had 18 units -- $1.8 million for that project. It was a project that Joyce Fraser, who was the chairperson of that society, had been working on for eight years, until this government delivered on that project.

[5:30]

I also want to point out to the Liberals opposite that their cousins pulled out of that joint housing program that B.C. and the feds had been in together for at least a decade before that. But the good news was that the funding that they pulled out of -- their commitment. . . . The British Columbia government was able to come in and fill that vacuum that had been left behind, to make sure that people in the lowest ranks of society who needed housing were not going to be left out in the cold. But we didn't hear the members across the way supporting us, and we also didn't hear them condemning their cousins in Ottawa pulling out of that funding. Yet you hear them here all the time trying to criticize us on particular programs and issues.

Also, hon. Speaker, before I became minister I had the honour and the pleasure of going into parts of my riding to hold public meetings on various issues -- and, obviously, in the northern part of my riding. I'll say that some of the worst roads in my riding are in that northern part -- in Lillooet, Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Seton Portage, the Shalalth area of Lytton, etc. I held some town hall meetings in Gold Bridge and Lillooet, where people were able to speak freely and tell me about the issues that were on their minds, specifically related to transportation and highways. Certainly Highway 40, the Lillooet slide on Highway 12, the Duffey Lake Road and also the road between Lillooet and Clinton were some of the issues they raised that needed to be fixed in the area. I can certainly sympathize with the people who depend upon using those roads to get to work, to take their children to school and also to be able to access medicare facilities located in Lillooet, Lytton and Ashcroft -- that particular part of the riding.

I also want to say that I've heard from people in Merritt on the issue of Collettville Elementary School, which was one 

[ Page 6817 ]

of those items that had gone under the freeze a couple of years ago to be reviewed. Certainly my constituents in that part of the riding are looking forward to this government perhaps making an announcement in this year's budget to make sure that some of the portables in Collettville will be eliminated.

There's also an ongoing issue -- it was there even before I got elected -- of campus facilities for the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology and the University College of the Cariboo. They've had separate facilities. Just to give you an example, Cariboo College, or UCC, had two or three different buildings within which they've had a facility, and for the last three or four years they've actually been leasing under one roof. Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, or NVIT, as it's called, was looking at seven different buildings within which they were holding classroom spaces. So, obviously they've been working together -- NVIT and UCC -- for the last couple of years to make sure that they can perhaps put forward to the government a plan for a joint campus. Again, I've been able to meet with the players from both of these organizations, and they're well on their way towards developing a plan to make sure that they're able to access some funding for a campus there.

I just want to end with that, in terms of my own constituency. I want to reiterate to you that this budget is a budget that British Columbians can be proud of. The government went out, listened to folks in the business community, listened to people in the labour community and people within the rural communities and the urban communities throughout the province, and we came back with this budget that responds to the needs of the people to stimulate the economy and create more jobs.

Thank you very much, and I support this budget.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased that you've returned to the chamber and are presiding over it and keeping order and decorum in the House at this time in the afternoon, which is always an interesting time in the House, it seems -- late in the afternoon. I don't know if people need a caffeine fix or just what it is. Anyway, I'm very pleased to congratulate you, hon. Speaker, and to wish you all the best.

I just want to say that I have a message for the member for Peace River North. It was just handed to me -- knowing that he's one of those that really get into the heckling at this time in the afternoon. He has an urgent phone call in his office. . . . [Laughter.]

Also, the member for Prince George-Omineca, who is kind of frisky this afternoon, has left the lights on in his car out in the parking lot.

I just want to say congratulations to the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and of Labour. I'm very pleased that he is taking over these portfolios. As I pledged to him privately, he has my full support and my best wishes in dealing with two files that are very, very important in the life of the province at this time. I also want to congratulate the member who just spoke, the new Minister of Transportation and Highways; the new Minister of Municipal Affairs; and the new Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

As you know, hon. Speaker, this budget brings in a three-year plan to stimulate the economy. We're going to hear lots of comment from the opposition, based on a very negative diatribe that we've come to expect year in and year out -- not really constructive criticism. Therefore that's one of the reasons that the official opposition lacks credibility in the eyes of the public.

The fact is that it is a three-year plan, and over the next two and a half or three years there'll be ample opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of this three-year plan. The voters of the province don't go by what they're told by the official opposition; they've learned not to trust that. They go by the fact that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They'll make their judgment at the appropriate time.

This is a plan that will stimulate the economy, attract investment and create jobs. It's good to know that there are tax cuts in this budget: 40,000 small businesses will benefit from an 11 percent cut in the corporate income tax over two years; 10,000 small businesses will see the corporate capital tax eliminated. Over three years the marginal income tax cut goes from 54.2 percent to 49.9 percent, which certainly should be effective in attracting business investment to the province.

One of the not often heralded success stories in the province is the growth of the film industry, which a very few years ago -- just over a decade ago -- was a $30 million business and is now over half a billion dollars. There are incentives for domestic and foreign films, which are two areas within that industry where we can continue to see some growth. Again, it's been the very effective labour relations that have been stimulated by this government that have enabled the number of unions in that industry to go from scores of unions down to about six throughout the province. That makes it a very manageable approach that benefits the workers within that industry and also the industry itself, which brings so many dollars into this province.

Such an initiative is the 50 percent reduction in jet fuel tax over two years, which enhances the ability of the Vancouver airport, which is doing such a good job of continuous growth toward becoming the major airport on the west coast of North America. . . . That speaks for itself. Add to that the B.C. personal income tax being reduced by 2 percent and other initiatives such as the Medical Services Plan premiums down for 80,000 British Columbians, ICBC premiums frozen, tuition fees frozen again for the third year, the B.C. family bonus ongoing for 230,000 families, and the initiative toward cutting the red tape, which will come from a task force which will be leading to legislation that will be very beneficial. Again, we are the only province in all of Canada to increase health care and education funding -- $228 million for health care, and in education $100 million for 400 new teachers and 300 new librarians, counsellors and aides.

Children and families -- $64 million to help children at risk. The initiatives for youth are absolutely significant -- $40 million, adding 2,900 new spaces at colleges and universities, and student financial assistance is raised. Then there is $36 million in the employment opportunities for youth that has been announced, including Youth Options, which my constituency shares with the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and with the Minister of Employment and Investment; 263 jobs will be created in that area alone.

It's interesting that when the official opposition comments on projects such as this that are so obviously valuable, they go into a knee-jerk approach of criticize, criticize, criticize, instead of pointing out where they find those programs that they can support, just on the basis of the information that is there. The approach that they take, which is so constantly negative, really does not lend itself to them building up their credibility.

Finally, ever since an NDP government was elected in 1991 we have been catching up within the province as a result of the neglect that took place with previous governments with regard to infrastructure -- be it roads, transit planning, new 

[ Page 6818 ]

schools, hospitals and various other ways in which it is very important that we keep the infrastructure in good shape in this province. Bear in mind that it had been allowed to deteriorate over many years before we became government, and we have been diligently addressing those issues and will continue to do so in this budget. Let's not lose sight of the fact that to do that, there has to be a cost-cutting, there has to be very careful planning, and $278 million has been cut from other ministries in order to achieve this.

I want to say that I have had the privilege of being an MLA for several years, and continue to have that privilege. I'm in my twelfth year. I started off in the seat that's two to the right of the seat of the new member for Surrey-White Rock, whom I also congratulate on coming into this House. It's interesting that now that I've left cabinet, I'm over almost to the opposite corner of the House from the one in which I started. But in my 12 years as an MLA -- it's going on 12 years; it will probably end up being close to 15 years -- it's been a great privilege to serve, and it's been a great privilege to spend seven years in cabinet, serving in three portfolios.

If I had time to reflect on that now, I would like to talk about some of the things that I consider to be major events and accomplishments in the life of the province in that venue, but time is short and I'm not going to do that. I do want to say that it's interesting. We have different solitudes in this House. There's the solitude of the official opposition, there's the solitude of government, and there's the solitude of the media. In some ways there may be love-hate relationships there, but we all depend on each other in order to make our democracy function and work. I just want to say that I very much value the fact that we do have a democracy that is functioning and is exemplary throughout the world.

[5:45]

I want to say that in my role as a minister I have come to have a very deep respect and high regard for the civil service, and I want to refer to one member of the civil service, Matt Underwood, an aboriginal man of the Tsawout first nation. I believe Matt is about 25 years old. He was recently married, and he and his wife Dawn have a young child, Bridget. Matt is in the cancer clinic right now. He has been a very effective and much-loved employee of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Matt's role for much of that time has been to be the face that people would first meet when they came in the door. It was always a very welcoming way in which he greeted people. As I said, he is very highly regarded. Matt is in need of a bone marrow transplant.

It's interesting that this young man is a superb athlete -- a class A lacrosse player, a lacrosse coach, and a very effective role model among first nations people. He had a birthday party a year ago February in which a number of people came forward, along with officials from the Red Cross, to talk about the need for bone marrow donations. Then again last summer, when the member for Richmond-Steveston brought a constituent over to the House, that constituent -- who also needed a bone marrow transplant -- met Matt Underwood at that time. They did a lot to raise the profile of this need.

During the North American Indigenous Games that took place in Victoria last summer, Matt was instrumental in working with the Ministry of Health, the Red Cross, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and others of first nations in setting up a booth at those games, because in his case he probably needed a donor who was aboriginal. As a result of the work that he did to raise the profile of that issue, he succeeded in bringing hope to the lives of over 200 people who needed bone marrow donations.

Unfortunately, a donation has not come forward yet that meets Matt's needs, and he's in the cancer clinic right now. I know that members of the House will join me in wishing Matt all the best. We know that his courage is exemplary. He's an inspiration to all. I just wanted to take this moment to mention Matt and to show the kind of a role model and the kind of a person who is often very active within the various ministries of government, serving the people of the province.

I also want to say, hon. Speaker, that having been released from cabinet, I'm sometimes more at liberty to speak out on issues that I want to speak out on. I have complete respect for the oaths that we take when we become members of cabinet. I want to say that I have some concerns about the recent federal-provincial hepatitis C decision. While I commend both the federal and all the provincial governments for coming forward with this program, which will presumably compensate innocent victims who have become infected between 1986 and 1990, it is my understanding that there are still a great many innocent people who have become infected outside of that window. I was delighted when the Premier actually expressed some concern about this last week, which resulted in quite a furore in question period in the House of Commons.

Given that I have a little more time on my hands, this is one issue that I want to spend some time on. I'll declare my bias. I have two nephews, and both of them have contracted hepatitis C. Both of them are hemophiliacs. In the case of people in the province who are hemophiliacs, it's my understanding that estimates are that approximately 70 hemophiliacs contracted hep C between '86 and '90. There could be a lot more than 100 who did so prior to that date. I think that some of the details about how this new policy is going to be applied remain to be seen, but I for one am going to be monitoring this very closely, because I believe there's a justice issue here. We all know the imperatives that we are under to save costs, but there are times when we have to say that those costs cannot be saved on the basis of impacting those who are victims.

I just want to mention a very exemplary woman, Yvonne Cunliffe, who in 1974 took a brief to the then Minister of Health, Dennis Cocke, with regard to those hemophiliacs who lacked factor 9. At that time, as a result of her efforts, the government agreed to provide home care, using factor 9 concentrate for that category of people with hemophilia. I just want to say that as an MLA, it's wonderful to meet people in our constituencies who raise issues, do research and bring them to us so that we can then consider the benefit of their knowledge and their experience at the grass roots.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that it was a great privilege, as I said before, to have been in cabinet, and it's a 

[ Page 6819 ]

great privilege for me to be able to return to those activities in the constituency that I had a lot of help with when I had an executive assistant and which I'll now have to do myself. That in itself is an ennobling experience.

Hon. D. Lovick: First I want to simply advise all members that we will indeed sit tomorrow. I don't know whether the previous speaker moved adjournment of the debate. If he didn't, perhaps I could do that.

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I wish everybody a pleasant evening. See you tomorrow. I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

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