[ Page 6889 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing on your behalf the Speaker of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, Mr. Charanjit Singh Atwal, who is on the floor. He's accompanied by his spouse, Inderjit Kaur Atwal, who happens to be in the gallery. Here as well is Mr. Sewa Singh Sekhwan, the Minister for Revenue for the state of Punjab, India. He is accompanied by his spouse, Amarjit Kaur Sekhwan, who happens to be in the gallery as well. I will make some other introductions later.

The Speaker: Thank you, and welcome.

F. Gingell: Seated in the gallery today is Commissioner Raoul Flores of Metro Manila in the Philippines. Commissioner Flores is with the Philippine Commission on Audit and is visiting Canada under a CIDA program. He is in Victoria for a few days, meeting with senior government officials, before proceeding to Ottawa. I ask the House to please make Commissioner Flores welcome.

S. Hawkins: It was a great honour and a privilege this morning to meet with Mr. Atwal and Mr. Sekhwan. On behalf of the official opposition, we also wish to welcome them to this House.

Hon. H. Lali: I too would like to join the hon. member from the Okanagan, as well as the Attorney General, in welcoming our distinguished guests. Accompanying them are four other gentlemen. Their names are Baldev Sandhu, Autar Singh Randhawa, Paul Sidhu and Dalvir Randhawa. Would the House please give all of these folks a warm British Columbia welcome.

W. Hartley: Today I'd like the House to welcome 15 grade 12 students from Brethren Heritage School in Modesto, California. They're here along with 15 adults and also with their teacher, Ms. J. Kinzie. They're here to study comparative government and local history. Please welcome them.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery I see a very good friend of mine from Whistler who has just moved permanently to Victoria. I can say that Whistler's loss is definitely Victoria's gain. I'd like to welcome Scott Clark.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Nanaimo is Reinhard Mueller, a 25-year public servant with the Ministries of Highways and Forests. I'd like to introduce Reinhard on behalf of his son Brent, who is a worker with our caucus. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Barisoff: I get to make two introductions today. On behalf of the member for Okanagan-Penticton and myself, I'd like to introduce Don Selby, the president of the South Okanagan Real Estate Board. On behalf of myself, for the second week in a row, I'd like to re-introduce Bill Freding, who is back down here in Victoria for a second week.

G. Wilson: I would like to welcome to the House two members of the real estate board, one of whom who hails from Powell River: J. P. Rouillard and Calvin Lindberg. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: At the risk of sounding like the hon. member for Peace River North, I can honestly say that this is one of those very rare occasions when I do get to introduce someone in the House. Today we have Gloria Moore from Princeton, who has travelled down here to study the workings of government and prepare a paper for a political science course. I ask that the House make her welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce a number of visitors today: Angela Clayton; Terry McSpadden; Alex Gilbert; and Ross and Barbara Wightman and their daughter Rosslyn Delmonico and her daughter Courtenay and her son Andrew. I should say that Andrew has aspirations to be Premier. Last night at the reception he took the Premier's name tag home. I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to introduce today a constituent from Dawson Creek. Mr. Rawlin Brooks is a good friend and an outstanding realtor in that city. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: I would like to introduce two very special guests sitting in the gallery today: Mr. Douglas Chan and Mee Shun Chan. They are the parents of Kim Chan, one of our staff people. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

I was remiss earlier, hon. Speaker, because I forgot to mention the names of those accompanying the delegation from Punjab. They are Mr. Arvinder Randhawa, Gurback Sangera, Baldev Sandhu and Dalvir Randhawa. I know there are many others, and I join this side of the House in also making them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yesterday I mistakenly introduced a constituent who was not in the precincts. But he is really here today: Willy Berger from Williams Lake. Please welcome him.

I. Chong: I too would like to introduce to the House two members of the B.C. Real Estate Association. Unfortunately, neither of them are my constituents, but I did meet with them this morning. They are Ms. Alexis Beddoe and Mr. John Smith. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two very good friends in the gallery: Lamber Rao and Darshan Gill. Accompanying them are Shinder Kurrha, Sant Inder Dass Ji, Kewal Singh Sidhu and Mr. Bal Mukand. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: Amongst the realtors that are here is Dennis Dorrie, who probably travelled farther than most of them to get here. He came from Smithers. He's also a fine old-timer hockey player. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I have another set of guests here. I'd like to introduce Tony Toth, James Poole and John Kewley from the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today is a distinguished delegation led by Ms. Inna Zavona, from the Ministry of Justice of the Ukraine, and Mykola Hrabytchenko, a representative of the cabinet ministers of the Ukraine. This delegation is seeking British Columbia's expertise as they work to develop a personal property registry in their country. They

[ Page 6890 ]

The Speaker: And to all the rest of you who weren't introduced, welcome.

Oral Questions

CROWN LAND PURCHASE OPTIONS

Hon. C. McGregor: I will reiterate what I said yesterday. We will fulfil our legal obligations with respect to Crown land. We will live up to our legal and contractual obligations to allow the transfer of this land. We will fulfil that obligation.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on the first supplementary.

G. Campbell: The government has not met its legal obligations. We should be clear about that. The question to the minister is: will those obligations be met today so that Mr. Freding can go back and carry out his obligations today?

Yesterday the minister told us that this had something to do with Delgamuukw. The fact of the matter is that the Osoyoos band is being paid $10 million to settle their claim. They signed a release on the land that's in question. Again to the minister: will the government meet its legal obligations today so that Mr. Freding can go back home and get on with the job?

Hon. C. McGregor: The agreement has been executed today.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on the second supplementary.

G. Campbell: My question to the minister is: how many other people are going to have to travel to Victoria to get the opposition to raise their case? How many other people are going to have to hire a lawyer? How many other people are going to have to continue to go after this minister simply to get the government to meet its legal obligations? Yesterday we asked the minister how many people were in exactly the same position as Mr. Freding. We do not want citizens to have to put up with the same kind of abuse that Mr. Freding has.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question.

G. Campbell: The question to the minister is: how many others are in the same position as Mr. Freding, and will the government immediately meet its legal obligations to those people as well?

[2:15]

I've made it clear in this House that this government is interested in doing business in a different way. We've acknowledged what the Leader of the Opposition says about a backlog. We are taking the steps necessary to address that concern by putting forward, as I've explained on numerous occasions, a strategy through which we put economic and job creation agenda items to the top of our approval process as an interim strategy. We are working on a long-term strategy as well. I've asked the members opposite to stay tuned. An announcement will be made within the next few weeks.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY FISH HABITAT ORDERS
AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Will the minister tell us how she can justify expropriating Mr. Shield's land without compensation?

Hon. C. Evans: Recently the Minister of Environment and I had a meeting with the B.C. Ag Council. The Ag Council put forward their problems with DFO and ditches as issue No. 1. Within 14 days this government negotiated a ten-point agreement with the Ag Council dealing with the issues the member raises. Congratulations to the member for standing up and asking questions on behalf of farmers, and congratulations to the Minister of Environment for addressing it first.

An Hon. Member: You're not answering.

Hon. C. Evans: An agreement will be signed, member. Before you even realize the complexity of the issue, it will be done.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for a supplementary.

R. Coleman: We're well aware of those portions of the negotiation. It's unfortunate relative to this piece of property that if there were a boat in this ditch, neither one of these two ministers would be on it -- they both missed it.

Mr. Shiell is not alone. He is facing the totally unfair expropriation of his property. There are 11 other properties that we know of -- farmland and non-farmland alike -- in the Langley township alone that are facing the same expropriation. To the Minister of Environment: will the minister tell us

[ Page 6891 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I think the member opposite is a bit confused about some of the practices that our ministry engages in around the management of fish and in particular around habitat protection and setbacks. I just want him to be clear that it is not this ministry that has put policies in place that deal with agricultural land. In the last session of this House we passed a bill called the Fish Protection Act, which does indeed make it clear that there will be streamside directives developed with local municipal governments. But we've been clear from the outset, hon. member, that it will affect urban developments that come in the future, and it will not have application on agricultural land.

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Environment as well. One of my citizens in Langley, Mr. Rob Thiessen, has a similar problem with the ministry's stream-setback land grab.

Interjections.

L. Stephens: That's exactly what it is.

He's been told by the Ministry of Environment that because 90 percent of his property is within 15 metres of a stream, he cannot replace his shed and he cannot add onto his home -- he cannot even rebuild his home if it burns down. How can the minister stand there and defend her ministry's assault on private property rights and justify her actions to Mr. Thiessen and all citizens whose property is being devalued by her ministry? How can the minister defend her actions?

Hon. C. McGregor: I assure the member opposite that this government and this ministry are taking appropriate consultative steps to work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities as well as with her own local city council, Langley, to ensure that they have the opportunity to work with us on developing the streamside directive strategy.

Hon. member, I would also remind you, as I did the previous member, that this does not apply to agricultural land. We are working with the Ministry of Agriculture to develop a code of best practice for the agricultural community. This is something that I've given my assurances on to representatives of the agricultural community. We will continue to consult in such a way as to implement this strategy in a way which protects fish values but respects the rights of municipal governments to have a flexible standard around setbacks and other measures that might be taken to protect streams.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Langley for the first supplementary.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister wasn't listening. I am talking about urban development; I am talking about city lots. Mr. Thiessen and thousands -- thousands, hon. Speaker -- of citizens want to know that their homes will not be expropriated. Will the minister commit today to property owners on city lots, like Mr. Thiessen, that her ministry will not expropriate their land without compensation? Will the minister stand up for private property rights?

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me reassure the member that, as I indicated in my previous comments, we are prepared to work with the municipal government in her area as well as with every other municipal government across the province to develop a flexible standard. There have been concerns raised by those who are concerned that it may indeed have a standard. What we've said to municipal governments is that we will develop a flexible standard. We intend to follow through on that commitment, and we are working with municipal governments now and will continue to work over the next few months before we put in place the streamside directive with the agreement of municipal governments.

C. Clark: The minister will know that the Slesse Valley slide recently -- actually, last year -- dumped 50,000 tonnes of clay into the Chilliwack River. She will also know that that has potentially devastating impacts on the fish and fish habitat in that river. Her ministry said, in documents that we received under freedom of information, that the reason they don't want to clean it up is because if they fix one site, the precedent will be that they have to fix them all. How is it that she thinks it is acceptable for her ministry to do nothing to fix slides from Crown land, while at the same time she's prepared to threaten people like my colleague's constituent if they don't do what they're told by her ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about another topic related to fish, and that is the management of our conservation efforts and the enforcement of the DFO's. . . . In the case of slides, there are natural causes, and sometimes there are emergency actions that have been caused by weather and so on. In the case of the Slesse slide, it's my understanding from the reports that have been done that this is viewed to be a natural phenomenon and not one in which we should take measures to prevent the slide from continuing to occur. However, we are continuing to monitor the situation, and we will continue to investigate, for the reasons that the member opposite indicated, to ensure that we do take appropriate actions to protect fish and fish habitat.

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, according to the documents, the ministry officials don't even want to investigate what the problems might be as a result of the slide. If they find out, they might have to do something about it. At the same time, her ministry is prepared to put a one-size-fits-all solution on private property owners to govern waterways that may not even have fish in them -- watercourses that may not even be fish-bearing. How is it that the minister believes she can dictate to these private property owners what they should do to protect watercourses that may not be fish-bearing when her ministry isn't even prepared to go out and get information to find out what's going on as a result of things that are happening on Crown land, which her ministry manages?

Hon. C. McGregor: I am not sure I even heard a question from the member opposite, but let me say again that she wasn't listening to my answer. I made it clear that we were continuing to monitor the situation and that we are looking to find those reasons if indeed it's necessary for us to take appropriate actions to stop the slide from going into the river. As I indicated to you earlier, this has been investigated. We believe it to be from natural causes, but we will continue to monitor the situation. What the member called our lack of flexibility around solutions is indeed the opposite of what we have the intention of doing here. I've made it clear over and

[ Page 6892 ]

TREATY NEGOTIATIONS MANDATE

[2:30]

The second premise is that the meeting will take place tomorrow. Indeed, it took place last week. But alas, we have come to expect that better-late-than-never approach from the members opposite.

Motion on Notice

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the Official Opposition requires to be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply.

3. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates which shall be referred to Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60a. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.

4. Section A shall consist of 18 Members, being 10 Members of the New Democratic Party, 7 Members of the Liberal Party, and 1 other Member. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the third session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Conroy, Bowbrick, Goodacre, Kasper, Orcherton and Sihota, Mmes. Gillespie, Smallwood and Sawicki, Mmes. Reid, Clark and Hawkins and Messrs. Gingell, Nebbeling, Masi and Coell, and Mr. G.F. Wilson.

5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Official Opposition; and

(3) Government.

6. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

7. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

8. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.

9. Section B is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section B, and for all purposes Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

10. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rules No. 3 and 9.]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

[ Page 6893 ]

In the budget speech, the Minister of Finance said: "Our province cannot be immune to the economic turmoil in Asia or to cyclical downturns in the prices of minerals and forest products. . . ." That's what we're looking for in a government -- a government that looks ahead and plans for the worst while dealing with what comes day to day. This government hasn't. This government has continued to borrow, to tax, to spend without regard for the future, without regard for problems that may come up in the future. So when they hit a downturn or a problem in another part of the world, they're not prepared for it. That's simply not good enough from a government that manages a $20 billion business. You have to be prepared for the bad times; you have to be prepared for downturns in the economy. This government never prepares. It just wanders toward the future with very little care about the people and the people's business.

The other thing all through the seven budget speeches that I read is the government's wish to consult. Well, I think it's obvious to many British Columbians that this government consults with its friends and insiders and pays lip service to the community. Half the time a meeting is held more as a promotion or as a public relations stunt than to get information from the community. There is a big community out there that wants to be heard, that wants to be part of the decision-making process of government, but is never heard by this government. It's only friends and insiders.

In the budget, the minister says they intend to cut the cost of doing business and to make British Columbia more competitive. These are the people who over seven years have driven our province from number one to number ten in economic development. They're the same people who have put the red tape and government bureaucracy on the backs of business; they're the ones who have successively increased taxes on business every year. Then they wonder why the economy goes flat and business runs to Alberta, runs to Washington, runs to Saskatchewan -- basically, runs away from British Columbia. That's what the government, in saying that they're going to cut the cost of business. . . . They have to realize that they are the problem; they have created the problem for business. They have made B.C. uncompetitive. What do we get? We get a budget with lots of talk about next year, lots of talk about two years from now.

Madam Speaker, what we need is for something to happen now. We need concrete changes to the structure of the economy in this province. People are ready for that; they're asking for that. They don't need a promise of: "Maybe we'll do something next year." We've seen that year after year from this government: "Maybe we'll do something next year." We've had seven years of promises; we've had seven years of broken promises. This government, I would say, almost should be embarrassed by the fact that they're going to cut the cost of doing business in next year's budget, when the problems facing business and people and the creation of jobs are right now -- they're in this year's budget.

We look at the unemployment of youth. I think the government should be embarrassed to see almost 19 percent unemployment of youth in this province, but there are promises in the budget every year: job creation for youth, tuition freezes for youth. What do you say to the 19 percent of young people who are out there and can't get a job in this province because of red tape, because we're uncompetitive, because we're overtaxed?

I think the government should probably just say, "We're sorry; we failed," because that's exactly what they've done. They should say they're sorry: "We failed the youth of this province." The youth of this province deserve better, and they're not getting it from this government.

One of the main problems with B.C. not being competitive in the world market anymore is taxation. This government just doesn't get it. Taxes drive away business; they don't create jobs. Government bureaucracy doesn't create jobs. Private initiative -- entrepreneurs -- create jobs. I know this government doesn't like entrepreneurial spirit and individual spirit, but you know, that is what will create the jobs in this province: individuals taking a chance.

Today in question period we heard about this government holding up individuals that would create jobs and create wealth. They continue to hold up individuals, with red tape and excessive bureaucracy. But they also hold up that ability to create jobs by taxation. When you look at the high taxation we have on individuals -- the highest in the country, probably one of the highest in North America -- the corporate capital tax, which this government said they would do away with as soon as they could. . . . Now they're having to promise to cut little bits of it, not admitting they're wrong.

They should just have the guts and the gumption to say: "We were wrong and we're going to change it. We want to create jobs. We want to have people invest in this province."

This is a great province. It's not a province where we should have to back away from Alberta or Washington. We're far better than they are. We have far more to offer, but not in the way government has set things in motion: red tape, huge taxation -- taxation on individuals, taxation on businesses. I think the important thing is that this is taxation on small business. It's stopping people from creating jobs.

In the forest sector, government is reducing stumpage fees. Well, on one hand they reduce stumpage fees; on cedar they increase them. Basically, we've had seven years of mixed messages to the forest industry and mixed messages to the environmental movement as well. They've now had to make some changes that. . . . We'll wait and see whether they address environmental concerns and whether they address concerns of the forest industry. I know it's a difficult balancing act, but it's one that this government has failed miserably in.

Another one is mining, and oil and gas -- thriving industries in the eighties, and now many are held up for years and years with government red tape, with reports to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that take years and years. There are a couple of mines that have been underway in the approval process that have been going longer than the First World War. Certainly a government can move faster than that.

The government says it's going to help farmers, and I would like to say that the present Minister of Agriculture has had an open ear to farming interests. But farming is a delicate and fragile industry in this province. In my riding, I have a lot of dairy farms and nurseries, all of which need this government's attention a lot more than they're getting. I know the minister has stood up for disaster relief and a number of other programs, but I've got to tell you that he doesn't get the support that he needs from cabinet, because we've seen this

[ Page 6894 ]

[2:45]

We talk about freezes for Hydro, tuition and ICBC. I think that one of the things a Crown corporation has to do is choose its own way. Although I know there are a lot of people that are pleased with the freezes, the reality of the businesses is that they're Crown corporations and they're supposed to act like businesses. I would encourage the government to keep a very watchful eye on these freezes that they put on, so that they're not just for political uplifting -- the Speaker knows the government needs that at this point -- but they're actually doable and they're positive for the corporations and individuals that need their services.

I want to talk briefly about health care. In my constituency office the majority of calls I get are about wait-lists and about health care, about cancer clinics, about problems with heart surgery. I have to tell the Minister of Finance that it's not a matter of spending. It's a matter of priorities; it's a matter of management. The Minister of Finance, of course, makes light of that, but I would point out that the Minister of Environment found out that she caused 20,000 jobs to disappear because of mismanagement, and $1.2 billion of possible revenue. Well, I would say to the Minister of Finance that health is an area that needs her attention a lot more than she has given it. I only say that because of the residents who phone my constituency office on a regular basis. The lineups are not acceptable in this day and age.

When we had a royal commission and went into regionalization and into the health labour accord, I can remember members on the other side of the House saying: "The only real problem with health care is the lineups. The only real problem is that the services aren't available to people." Yet we've had a government reorganize two or three times -- have regionalization and have a health labour accord. I don't know whether very much of that has actually helped patients. I don't know whether the patients are the recipients of all the money spent by this ministry, and that's what I'm trying to stress to the minister. There needs to be more than money thrown at this problem. Management of the system is important, as we've seen with management of the environmental and Crown lands departments.

I want to talk briefly about the youth and about youth unemployment, as I mentioned earlier. One of the biggest assets we have in this province, and indeed in this country, is young people. To keep them in a positive light so that they know there's a future in British Columbia. . . . I don't see that in this budget. I see a lot of politics -- a lot of politicking towards the next three years -- but I don't see any concrete plan to create the jobs for these young people. We're going to be training people, and they're going to be leaving the province, and the government seems satisfied with that. We'll train, and the beneficiaries of that will be Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the States.

You have to do more than just train people. You have to train them, and you have to make sure there's a job at the other side of the door. Nowhere in this budget do I see encouragement for youth to say: "I'm going to take that training, because I think I can get a job when I'm finished." That's what young people want. They don't want just to go to university or just to go to trade school or just to finish grade 12. They want to know that if they work hard and they take a chance, there's a job on the other side. Nowhere in this budget are there jobs for that 19 percent.

Now, I don't believe that the government intends to do that; I just think that they don't have the know-how to do it. After I look at seven years of budgets, there's a lot of things that, quite simply, the government doesn't have the know-how for. They may have the desire to create jobs, but they don't know how to create jobs.

But I'll tell you, that 19 percent are looking very closely at this government, and they're saying: "Make sure I've got a job when I get out of school, when I get out of college or when I get out of university or trade school. Make sure there's a job there for me. Please don't just train me and then cut me loose so that I have to leave the province. Create those jobs." This budget isn't going to do it. This budget is probably going to chase jobs from this province.

Finally, I want to talk about a balanced budget. I remember when the former Minister of Finance said, "You won't believe me; I don't expect you to believe me," on a budget that was supposed to be balanced. And this particular minister says: "Well, I didn't balance it, because you probably wouldn't believe me anyways." What sort of message do those two comments send to the people of British Columbia? Simply that you can't trust government. That's a sad state of affairs. People want to trust government. People have a desire to trust the people that they entrust with their lives and their funds, their taxes, their health care. Why do we have to send them that message?

Why can't government be upfront and tell the people the true story of their finances? You know, the people of British Columbia are ready for that. They've been ready for that for many years. But again, they have to pick up a paper, and their Finance minister says: "You wouldn't believe me; you don't trust me." This province needs to keep its books the way British Columbians keep their books, the way businesses keep their books, the way municipalities keep their books -- hundreds of municipalities, hundreds of millions of dollars: upfront, aboveboard.

For years governments in British Columbia have used budgets and throne speeches for election opportunities. People are sick of it. People want to know how their budgets, their accounts, are kept. The only way you do that is with balanced-budget legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation. Maybe the government is getting tired of hearing the opposition mention these things, but I've got to tell you that they're central to good government, and good government is what the people of this province deserve. Good government is what isn't in this budget and isn't in the throne speech. It's more of the same -- it's more sleight of hand, mild deception. Mild deception is probably a kind way to describe this budget.

[ Page 6895 ]

T. Nebbeling: Madam Speaker, let me first of all say that I have had a benefit over my colleagues: this debate has now been going on for about three weeks, and during that three weeks, I have not only been able to listen to my colleagues and to the members opposite -- who, on a daily basis, when debating this budget, were obviously in the House to defend what is really not defendable. I've been able to go through my communities in West Vancouver-Garibaldi and listen to my constituents and to what their reactions were to the budget and what they felt this budget was going to do to their quality of life, to their desire for the future. In particular I focus on those words "desire for the future," because in my riding many people are depending on land-based industries: some mining but also, to a large extent, the forest industry. For that reason, I was really interested to hear from the people in Squamish and Pemberton, to see what they were getting out of this and if indeed they felt that the boost to the economy, the boost to opportunities for jobs, the boost to a new direction towards the way British Columbia should be going, was indeed being realized.

One of the things that was really telling was that many people I spoke to were actually expecting a lot. Often when we expect a lot the downer is felt heavier than when you don't expect much and take whatever comes your way. The reason that many people expected so much was that the government opposite has, for the last couple of months, been doing what I would consider a public relations exercise -- an exercise of telling the small business community, telling the people of this province, telling the unemployed, telling the people who no longer go to the unemployment agency because they know there is nothing there for them to sign up for. . . . These people had really been lured into believing that this government was seriously looking at how to deal with the problems that they have recognized that exist in this province. As a government, they made a big spiel about the fact that they started to consult with leading business people, big business people, leading labour people -- we've all been exposed to the many meetings that have been held over the last couple of months -- to come up with a new approach to how British Columbia can get out of the doldrums, how British Columbia can indeed turn around.

So, when this budget was presented by the Minister of Finance, I think most people were expecting some fairly -- I wouldn't call it radical -- substantial steps that would make everybody feel that, yes, this is a serious attempt to get things rolling again in British Columbia. One person in Squamish actually described to me the experience he had. He felt that the results of the budget for him must have been similar to people who had been buying Bre-X shares. There were a lot of promises made, and people really thought they were going to do big things with the Bre-X shares. Then, of course, they found out that all that was presented was salted and that at the end of the road there was nothing. Maybe it isn't an inappropriate description to call this a Bre-X budget. However, what is worse is the fact that there is nothing in this budget that gives all these people, who were looking for something substantial, the feeling that things will turn around.

Like I said, in Squamish and Pemberton, where I spent a couple of weekends, people in the forest sector expected some concrete facts. We have been told by the Minister of Forests recently that there are some changes made when it comes to the Forest Practices Code and that the restructuring of the enforcement of the Forest Practices Code would actually create some savings that would make the forest industry more viable, and people would immediately notice the results. Well, we all know that even if there are savings from the Forest Practices Code, nobody will notice anything until September or October, when the plans that have been looked at today are going to be approved. So there are no immediate savings there, and there are no immediate results that can be described as positive.

The other little carrot that the government has been dangling in front of forest workers has been the $300 million relief in stumpage. One very telling thing is that this weekend in particular a number of people have been shown to be very cynical about that $300 million. As one person in Pemberton described it, it is easy to make a promise when you know, as a minister, that before they can give back one penny in stumpage relief they have to get the American industries to agree to this reduction in stumpage. . .and that the American industries will not see this as an additional supplement and, for that reason, undo the whole softwood lumber deal.

[3:00]

Here are two elements that the forest industry was being shown as a handout to make things better. When people really look at what's there, it's nothing. Both of these so-called carrots are not enforceable right now, and it is right now that they need help, just like the people living in the cities and villages throughout British Columbia. When they were told, "Well, there are going to be some really serious breaks in the budget so that you as an individual will truly have some more spending power; the spending power will be used to entice more production of goods: when you spend, you buy goods and you create more goods, which will create jobs. . . ." Like Vaughn Palmer said in the Sun, another $35 a year in savings will not trigger an economic revival, especially considering that that so-called $35-per-year break for an ordinary citizen will not trigger until 1999. Again, it's something in the budget that may look okay, but it is just another promise that is not happening today. It's not helping today, and it is today that we really need the help.

I could go on mentioning a number of issues that have been presented in the budget as real breaks for British Columbia. But when you look a little beyond what has been presented, you know that it is doing nothing but creating some false hope in certain circles and a lot of cynicism in other areas, where people really value what has been put on paper. I'm not going to repeat each and every one of the items, because we have gone over them in this House in the last three weeks.

What I know now, and it is what British Columbians know, is that we do have a deficit of $949 million. We do know that this government willingly and knowingly kept out of the books hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures by putting them into a Crown corporation, thereby not making it

[ Page 6896 ]

We also know that the debt has gone up to $31.2 billion. My colleagues have explained how that happened, but it is just another signal to the business world and to the investment environment that we are not willing to hoist a flag and say that British Columbia is open for business. Any business that comes here will become another part of the milk cow called business in British Columbia, and nobody in their right mind is coming to British Columbia today to become part of that milk cow. People are going to Alberta. We know it, and more people will consider going to Alberta after seeing this budget.

This weekend I had dinner with six friends who are moving to Arizona. They are in the knowledge-based business, and it was kind of a farewell dinner. They're moving to Arizona to set up their business, and they're going to do a lot better. It's all based on the fact that the work climate here is impossible, taxes are too high and regulations are just directing them that this is not the place to be. I think it is a crying shame when even the knowledge-based industries are beginning to look at other areas to establish themselves. I not only see it as a tax drain and a business drain, but I also see it as a brain-power drain. People who have the ability to create opportunities for other people no longer feel that they can do that kind of thing in this province. Part of being in business is to expand, to make things bigger and better, and that would benefit many other British Columbians. We have not created a base where this can happen, and as a consequence we see people with that quality leaving. Again, I do not understand why a government that knows this is happening doesn't do anything to stop that brain power leaving the province.

We have talked a little bit about the income tax break that is not a break. We have talked about the small business tax break -- $250 a year starting next year. Honestly, how this government can believe that a break of $250 on average is going to make any businessman say: "Listen, this is such good news that I'm going to hire more people. . . ." It just will not happen. As far as the tax breaks are concerned, we may as well consider this a zero budget, because there are no tax breaks. I emphasize that there are no tax breaks, because at the same time that this government announces the so-called $95 million in breaks, they do some other things that take more money out of people's pockets.

I want to focus the rest of my speaking time on some of the issues where the government actually presents something that's good for the citizens of British Columbia. Then, when you look at the deal and the details, you quickly realize that they're actually really taking more money out of your pocket. One of the best examples is probably the so-called hydro rate freeze and the 2 percent rebate.

An Hon. Member: Freeze up.

T. Nebbeling: Freeze up -- and we should freeze up.

First of all, it's amazing that prior to this announcement of a freeze, there was no freeze on Hydro. We had a cap on Hydro. A cap means something different than a freeze. A cap is where it can go, and it cannot go higher. A freeze gets lifted, and the road is open for further increases. I think that is the first sneaky thing the ministry is doing with Bill 6; it is actually turning a cap into a freeze. Down the road, consumers will pay more because of that little trick.

What happened here is that the provincial government received $170 million more in Hydro revenue than they should have legally received because of the maximum return on investment that Hydro can make. That's $170 million in overcharges, in a sense. So consumer groups and commercial consumers went to the Utilities Commission and asked for a rebate. They didn't ask for a rebate; they asked for a rate reduction of 7.5 percent. That is approximately $151 million, close to the $170 million that B.C. Hydro has overcharged its consumers. Like I say, this is not just commercial; this is residential as well.

So the Utilities Commission, which has the right to immediately deal with the issue by looking at the argument about why the rate reduction should take place, clearly recognized that B.C. Hydro had indeed overcharged that amount and that the request of the consumers was justified. The government got hold of this information, and what did they do? They de-authorized the Utilities Commission from setting a new rate and at the same time authorized cabinet to deal with rate increases and decreases. What did cabinet do? They said: "Well, we are obviously not going to give all that money back." Cabinet decided to give a 2 percent rebate -- $12 on average to every household in British Columbia -- and a 1 percent rebate to the commercial sector, which is a fraction of what it should be. All of this added up to $31 million, and the rest of the $170 million disappeared into the coffers of the government. This is on top of the $369 million in dividends that they have already taken out of B.C. Hydro. So the taxpayers of this province this year are paying, through B.C. Hydro overcharges, another half a billion dollars: $369 million in dividends and $140 million of the $170 million that was excess surplus. That whole amount should have gone into the pockets of British Columbians. That is $140 million this year that would indeed have created some buying power, that would have created some jobs in the manufacturing sector. But this government talks with two tongues, and we know it. So they present a $31 million Hydro rebate as a big break for British Columbians, but they take the $140 million that they should have given and put it in their own pockets. That is just one example.

There is a lot of talk about tuition freezes. There is a lot of talk about jobs for students. Let's first of all recognize that many students in this province, up until last year -- and I'm talking about thousands of students -- had a great opportunity to work annually in the silviculture industry -- tree-planting, pruning, spacing -- and make enough money to get them through college or university the following year. None of these people needed to do what they have to do now: take out huge student loans of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000. What the hell is the tuition freeze doing for anybody when they have to now go to banks to borrow such enormous amounts of money and basically mortgage their future?

What is appalling is that at the same time, the government is saying: "Yeah, we know that we have taken these jobs from silviculture, because the IWA wanted them for displaced forest workers. We will create other job opportunities. Look at the budget; we are going to create 1,500 new parks." It's there; you've all seen it. At the same time, the pamphlets are coming out, promising students jobs: "We will have jobs. You will be involved in the creation of 1,500 new parks." It's in the brochure.

The sad thing is that these same jobs in the 1,500 parks are also the jobs that are being used to entice displaced forest workers to become part of the work agency. The work agency is also talking about new jobs in parks: building benches, clearing trails. Clearly what is happening here is that when the

[ Page 6897 ]

The Minister of Forests is having fun over there, but he is in part responsible for this malaise, because it is his ministry that, in cahoots with Forest Renewal B.C., decided to put $350 million annually in the hands of the IWA. The IWA uses it to fund an agency where displaced forest workers can find an opportunity to work. One of the programs that is being advertised throughout the province is: "We will be building parks; we will be building trails." These are the same jobs that are also being promised to the students.

So I don't think, at the end of the day, that anybody is going to get what this budget is promising. They are not going to get the money they should have from the Hydro overcharges; they are not going to get the jobs that the Premier is promising because of the new job programs that have been introduced.

We could talk about waste in health care. My time is running out, so I am not going to go into much detail. Let me tell you about one issue. A couple on Bowen Island buys a home in 1991. They go into the house and find out that (a) the water is not potable, which means it's not drinkable, and (b) the septic field has been wrongly installed. They go back and look at the permits and everything and see that all this work has been approved by the Ministry of Health. They go to the Minister of Health and say: "How can this be? Here is the waterline and here is the sewage treatment septic field. They are in the same area. This is a health risk." The health unit says: "No, this is not our problem. This is the engineer's problem."

They go to the engineer. The engineer comes back and says: "Now, wait a second. This was approved by the Ministry of Health." So we do some checking. Now we find out that the man who signed the papers, the permit -- and this is an employee of the Ministry of Health -- never went to inspect the septic field or the water source. The reason was that he went on holiday. He told the engineer that everything was fine, and he approved it over the phone. He never did a final inspection.

These people have not been able to live in that house. In a recent court case, after five years of working through the courts and fighting the Ministry of Health -- at a cost of almost $1 million, according to the newspapers -- these people got the judge's decision. The house is worth zero. Every claim made by these people is 100 percent validated. The guilty party. . . . The construction was wrong, but because of the role of the Ministry of Health. . .was 70 percent responsible that this incredible situation developed. That is $1 million in damages, in costs and in fighting people for five years which has been wasted out of the budget of the Ministry of Health. This million dollars could have kept a lot of beds open in hospitals; this million dollars could have done a lot of things for people; this million dollars could have done a lot of things for patients. My biggest fear -- and I know this for a fact -- is that this is not an isolated case. There are many other cases where the ministry is wasting money that would be a benefit if it went to the patients. Then this government would be able to work within its means to take care of patients, which should be the first priority.

[3:15]

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: From Everett High School, we have 28 grade 10 and 11 visitors and their teacher, along with several teachers from Germany, visiting the precincts: Ms. Harvey and her colleagues Messrs. Helmich and Held et al. Please welcome them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker.

I'm glad to be able to stand here and talk positively about the budget and to suggest that I will be supporting it. I would like to roll out a few of the initiatives that have been happening in my riding, and I'd like to talk about some of the positive changes in the business climate and in policy with respect to the forest industry.

First, the theme of my speech really deals with what can happen when people work with government to achieve positive change. When you stand in the House and speak about what your constituents have told you about what you are working on with them and you look back over the years, often you can prove that if you stick with items you can show significant progress. In preparing for this, I went back to the first speech I made in this House about the need for us to do land use planning, to bring in some regulation of forest practices, to begin negotiations with first nations and a number of other initiatives. I'm happy to report that we have made substantial progress on these, and we continue to do that.

Health care is really at the top of the list, because it has become a symbol for people of what they can expect government to do. Without health, we don't have the rest of the things we need: family and community stability and, of course, economic development. We have increased health spending in this budget, and we've increased spending every year for a total of almost $2 billion more than was spent in 1991. This year it's up $228 million, of which $63 million is for hospital funding. I believe there is enough money in this budget, then, to be able to give a lift to local hospital budgets, so that they can maintain the high level of services they have been providing.

But, you know, some of our programs have costs-drivers in them that are very difficult to get hold of. One of them, for example, is Pharmacare. There are new drugs, and an aging population puts an incredible demand. . . . We're putting $66 million more into the Pharmacare budget, and I think this province is not often recognized for this part of what is considered the medicare system. We've also cut the costs for people in what they contribute to the Pharmacare system, and MSP premiums are reduced for 80,000 low-income individuals and families. In the Cariboo South constituency, this means that many, many people will have more money in their pocket when this budget is implemented this year. I know the opposition dwells on some of the savings that will come from some of the policies and changes we have initiated, but we are seeing direct results in terms of more money in the pockets of individuals this year.

[ Page 6898 ]

The opposition members criticized the budget. They say it should have been balanced. The Liberal Health critic was in my constituency and was asked whether she would support this health unit. What did she say? She criticized the government for not funding a capital project and then specifically went about criticizing the debt. She then refused -- this is the opposition Health critic -- to support the health centre. She said that she would go back and see. Maybe it would be a high priority. . . . She would assess everything. She refused to do her homework before she came to town, and refused to stand up and support this. Well, hon. Speaker, this government supports this project, and I look forward to an early announcement on the project.

Rural doctors and their needs are of great concern to the people in Cariboo South, particularly in 100 Mile House. I pay tribute to the organizing work and information of Dr. Hutchison in the area, with whom I keep close contact, who is looking for solutions that will work for 100 Mile House as well as for the northern doctors. We have a problem with doctors working long and strenuous hours. We need them to be fresh, so they can conduct their business the following day. If they're on a midnight shift, they have to be able to conduct their work in a way that is safe. As a result, we need to find ways of placing more doctors in the rural areas.

One of the areas that got top billing in the Cariboo recently -- and I'm proud of the fact that we have a beautiful area that will attract filming. . . . In the last year we had two movies, Eaters of the Dead and Seven Years in Tibet, filmed, in part, in the Cariboo. We have reason to believe that there are other films that want to come to the area -- some of them to the very isolated regions -- which means that we have to continue to support the industry. This 12.5 percent rebate of eligible labour costs, which is a $15 million tax credit, will help filming outside the lower mainland. We can expect to see more of this. I know that we're on the shortlist for a number of movies, as long as we support the telecommunication infrastructure so that these kinds of businesses can get set up in the far-out areas of the Cariboo and Chilcotin.

The small business consultations that we expect to take place and that have been announced in order for us to actually make cutting red tape effective. . . . These took place as a result of consultations, in part, in the Williams Lake area. I attended the consultations to listen to small business firsthand. They said that there is much we can do. Some of it, unfortunately, is federal red tape. We urge the federal government to do what they can there. The benefit of the cut in the corporate capital tax to small business. . . . Some 10,000 small businesses across the province will be helped, and a number of those will be in the Cariboo South area. I anticipate some 100 small businesses will be affected by that. There will be a tax cut for a total of 40,000 small businesses. That is real money in their pockets that they can reinvest or that they can take home and spend as consumers. The two-year tax holiday for new businesses is very helpful. Reducing the top marginal income tax rate is also important for us in order to build knowledge-based industries, and we expect that these will continue to grow in the small centres.

Further on the subject of economic development, the area of Clinton has been waiting for some time to do an economic development plan. They will get funding this year from Forest Renewal in order to be able to carry out their own bottom-up economic development plan. I wish them well in that and pledge my support to see that we implement the results. As Minister of Forests, I suggested that they might wish to consider a value-added sale for fibre targeted to their area. So far, there isn't agreement in the community about what that might entail, but that offer still remains, and I'm happy to follow up on that when the community feels that it is ready.

We have advertised a licence, which really is a replacement licence, out in the west Chilcotin. There is a very successful experiment there with three sectors of the community -- an outside corporation, community members and the first nations community -- working together on a tripartite sawmilling business. It's very successful. It brought the community together -- a community that was divided in the past. That continues to be an excellent success.

At this point I would like to pay tribute to Doug Kerley, who unfortunately passed away this year and who provided some economic mediation services and was there for the people of the west Chilcotin. He loved to fish and he loved that country. He understood what people were doing in developing the sawmilling industry out there and took into account the need to protect this fantastic rainbow fishing country. Doug Kerley will be missed, and I think the work that he did in that community is a legacy of his whole career as job protection commissioner in British Columbia. [Applause.]

With respect to post-secondary education and youth training, we have made a priority of ensuring that there are more jobs to create this investment in our youth's skills, so they can go out and be citizens -- both economically and socially -- who can contribute inasmuch as they've been given some help by government and taxpayers to get their education. This tuition freeze is very important and is understood by all the students in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They know that it makes it more affordable for them to go to university. They know that their debt will be considerably less as a result of this tuition freeze. British Columbia is leading Canada in making education more affordable, in particular for those people with long distances to travel.

I've watched Cariboo College, now the University College of the Cariboo, grow. They are experimenting with some very innovative programs that reach out to communities. They are proposing a seven- and eight-year university program so that people from small or isolated communities who have major family responsibilities can get their education as close to home as possible. It's very innovative programming. When we announce the details of the 2,900 new spaces that we are funding this year -- $40 million -- I know that the University College of the Cariboo will get its fair share, and we will see some of those spaces in Williams Lake and 100 Mile House.

The $26 million for youth employment and training is also very positive -- Youth Works. I know that the University College of the Cariboo is the host agency. Between the south

[ Page 6899 ]

This year we are seeing the completion of Williams Lake Junior Secondary to become a full grades-8-to-12 school. It's a $16 million investment in education. Some of the funds will flow out of this year's budget. It's a commitment made last year. I am encouraging the government to continue to advance more capital spending. I know that we have a plan this year. Unfortunately, the plan doesn't include the Alexis Creek school, which is a fairly large elementary school. But fortunately, the portable-replacement program did announce this morning that there will be a replacement for the portable at Dog Creek. I know it's important to the home-school group out there, the whole community of Dog Creek and the school board. It remains for us now to work for the highest priority, which is the school in Alexis Creek. There are more dollars per student in this school district, but because of declining enrolment it will still be a struggle to maintain with a hundred and some fewer students. Of course, there's less money overall, but for the first time we have funded the cost of inflation and growth, and I believe that begins to bring stability back to public education funding in British Columbia.

[3:30]

This budget has initiatives which will mean that families with two income-earners of $55,000, with two children, will have over $1,000 more in disposable income. That's significant to them. They'll be able to make mortgage payments; they'll be able to purchase things that their family needs, including things that their children need to go to school. A single parent with two children, earning $30,000, will have $1,200 more in disposable income. For the fourth year in a row the tax rate has been cut for low- and middle-income families -- a 2 percent personal income tax cut.

There are projects that this budget will follow up on. I can look to the past, to the housing project at 100 Mile House that's now open: Cariboo Trails Terrace -- 25 units of family housing, including two wheelchair-adaptable units. That's a project that is complete and now open. Our government is committed to funding a housing project for the Williams Lake area, which would be for low-income people as well. It's been hard work by people like Rosanna Thomas, who's the chair of the Williams Lake Social Housing Society, and Basha Rahn, of the Social Planning Agency Network, and I thank them for their work. They have been focusing on single-parent housing -- very much a need in Williams Lake. We're looking at approximately 30 units, and I've given full support to that project from my office.

There is $64 million more in this budget for the Ministry for Children and Families to meet the needs of children at risk. For example, they will be hiring more child protection workers, which we know are needed. We have a delicate balancing act between taking care of children and leaving them with their families, but if they're at significant risk, they do have to be put into protective custody. I think that with this $64 million we'll be able to do much more there.

I'm pleased that finally, after many years of personally lobbying within government when I was Minister of Agriculture and now, the farm fuel tax has been eliminated. This means hundreds of dollars more in the bank accounts of small farm businesses to be spent on fertilizer, purchasing equipment, and so on -- or just for the family to use for its needs.

The increase to the Ministry of Agriculture budget for relief for crop failures. . . . Fortunately, we don't have the same kind of crop failures in the Cariboo, but it could happen. With the weather changes that are happening, we may see crop failures happen as they have further north. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture was able to come up to the Cariboo and announce that we have restored funding that had been cut back for the grazing enhancement fund in the Cariboo, which delivers on the major commitment that we made under the land use plan. I'd like to thank Grant Huffman, who chairs that committee and who represented the ranching community during the land use planning, and Wade Fisher, the Cariboo Communities Coalition's negotiator, for their persistence in lobbying for these funds.

I mentioned telecommunications when I was talking about the film industry, but I'm pleased about another initiative that I helped kick off, with urging from the people in the Cariboo -- that is, the hydro pole use agreement -- which makes it now possible for B.C. Hydro to give a beneficial rate to B.C. Tel in order to put telephone lines into those areas that are served by Hydro but not served by telephone. And so we have the go-ahead for the Nazko project, which I worked on a bit. It's out of my riding, but it was the highest-priority project by the Cariboo Economic Action Forum. I'm continuing to work for the West Branch area, which is in the Chilcotin area and is one of the areas where some of these films have been made.

Again I congratulate the hard work of the strong steering committee of the Cariboo Economic Action Forum, which keeps the Cariboo-Chilcotin Telecommunications Consortium up and running and providing a very effective lobby force. In the absence of federal government support for rural telecommunications, it's being taken on by citizens at the grassroots level.

Economic development needs improved telecommunications, and I will continue to urge the province to do what it can to pressure the federal government to continue to contribute there. I'm really pleased that the former Minister of Employment and Investment helped bring in this program of telecommunications as part of the infrastructure program. It's the first time ever, it's very successful, it's small amounts of money, and it's very much appreciated by the people in the rural areas.

Tourism and the environment are also areas that need careful management and support. In the Cariboo we're very proud of the fact that we have a made-in-Cariboo land use plan. For the first time that I've seen anywhere in government, we have local citizens representing the various sectors working very closely with officials at the regional level. They came together on integrating the various strategies that are there for watershed and fish protection, for mule deer and caribou protection, and for delivering timber -- a very careful balance between economic development, community stability and environmental protection.

We look to the communities. We need sustained communities; we need to help transition where transition needs to

[ Page 6900 ]

I am pleased to say that we have delivered on a commitment to purchase the Empire Valley Ranch, which is part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan -- very important. One of the breaks that made the land use plan a success was the agreement that some of the traditional uses -- hunting, gathering, grazing and some low-impact mining -- can take place in and around some of the protected areas. I'm pleased to say that the government is working again with local organizations like the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association, the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers, the local IWA and the Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society to come up with plans for the ongoing administration of this wonderful resource.

I'll just quote one member of the Conservation Society. In the Williams Lake Advocate, in a letter to the editor a few days ago, he said of the Empire Valley purchase and completion of that part of the Cariboo land use plan that protects the rare grass ecosystem. . . . I'm quoting Dave Neads: "It just shows what can be done when people sit down and work for the good of all."

We have found that when challenged to bring conservation interests and industry interests together, we can overcome the problems. We're making tremendous progress with respect to partial cutting systems in sensitive management areas which are prime caribou habitat. It's very difficult sometimes. Sometimes people disagree on the amount of risk that we take, but we are nevertheless prepared to move forward in the spirit of the land use plan.

Of course, like good news, you don't hear it celebrated, but in quiet moments the people in the Cariboo are very proud of their achievements and continuing achievements there, and it is great to work with them in making sure that those things are fulfilled.

I have been a constant lobbyist for more dollars for rehabilitation of roads. We have a large number of roads, and of course, a number of previous members -- not with this government -- were Highways ministers in our area, so there is a legacy that needs protection. I am pleased to say that with some of the changes in management that we've had in Highways in the south end, we were able to spend some million dollars on the Interlakes road network. I know that with this year's rehabilitation budget, we'll be able to see more gravel on the roads where it's disappeared over the years.

It was a magnificent achievement by citizens working together. Safety committees from Lignum and IWA Local 1-425 worked together with federal agencies, B.C. Rail, the city of Williams Lake, another company, Riverside, and the federal government through infrastructure funding, and they came up with major improvements to the Highway 20-South Lakeside intersection last year. Those people who worked together on that -- officials and companies -- deserve commendation for a very cost-effective and necessary project.

The passing lanes near Lac la Hache last year. . . . We hope to see more of them on Highway 97, making Highway 97 -- a major corridor -- safe for everybody who travels through the Cariboo and around the Cariboo.

We again delivered, for the third time, a commitment as government. . . . Successive Ministers of Municipal Affairs have recommitted to South Lakeside water and sewer. This is a project that goes back over 20 years, and it wasn't delivered under the previous government. We committed to it three times; the voters turned it down a couple of times. This time it looks like it's going ahead. I stand by my commitment to my constituents there to ensure that that $4.5 million for water and sewer will see them. . . . When they join the city of Williams Lake, they will get their services, and I'm hoping that we will see construction this year.

The mining industry is critical, and I welcome the new minister, the member for North Coast, in this portfolio. I know he takes the mining industry seriously. He personally knows the operators of the mines in my riding, and I'm pleased that he's working with the job protection commissioner. When copper prices are rock bottom, as they are, it's very difficult to keep operating under these conditions.

I know that Mount Polley issued a press release in the last few days, saying that they are going to keep trying to operate past July 31 with the help of the job protection commissioner. As for the Gibraltar mine, there's an offer that the job protection commissioner can assist them. But where that remains is with the company to actually make an application and decide that they want to keep the mine open. We have to continue to make progress with respect to the Prosperity project of Taseko Mines. We as the government of British Columbia have ensured that it is an open process. We'll look at all the options for development, so that when it comes time to make a decision, the work has taken place on the environmental and social impacts, so that we cannot duplicate the environmental assessment process. Recently we've heard that the federal government has decided to take a part of the project and do some kind of parallel process. It's my commitment that we will use all the power of the provincial government to ensure that there is no delay caused by federal government interference in the environmental assessment process.

Now I want to turn to some of the efforts we've been making through the Ministry of Forests, which this budget supports. This budget continues to support the work, which has been unparalleled in the history of British Columbia, of a government working with industry to address matters of import. When the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee asked me two years ago if we could deal with the economics of the industry in a fundamental way, I said yes. They presented us with a document backed up by Price Waterhouse information, suggesting that we need to have $1 billion in cost reductions in the industry to make us competitive. Bear in mind that we're at the bottom of the cycle and that if they are put towards a profitability situation in individual companies, they will then be poised for return on investment when markets improve.

Well, what did Price Waterhouse say? They reiterated it this year, and it was written in an industry brief to government over two years ago. They said: "Let's take $1 billion out, broken down this way: roughly a $295 million reduction in stumpage, a $350 million reduction in the cost of implementing the Forest Practices Code and a $355 million reduction in company-controlled costs." Well, the first two are government responsibilities, and we have brought in changes that will be very close to those figures. The rest, I suggest, is up to industry.

Let me get into a couple of details about what we've done. We said that on April 1 there was a reduction, which was in addition to the $293 million that we said we will take. We're aiming for May 1 for that reduction. That's an across-the-board reduction. Beyond that, on April 1 there was, under the old stumpage system, a market-driven reduction of about $2.50 a cubic metre across the province. That is an annualized reduction for industry of $150 million. So if you take the $293-$300 million reduction that is coming and the $150 million that was taken out, that gives us approximately $450

[ Page 6901 ]

[3:45]

We're doing more. Government and industry want to boost forest productivity and test innovative approaches to forest management. To achieve this, we said that we will sign six innovative forest practices agreements. We've signed seven since last June; some of them are subagreements. We've signed seven with companies such as Interfor, Lignum, Weyerhaeuser, Tolko, Aspen, Ardew and Riverside. We anticipate signing more, so people can get out and show new ways of creating fibre through innovative forest management that also pays attention to environmental values.

I want to quote from the chief forester of Interfor, upon signing the innovative forest practices agreement in Merritt: "Make no mistake; this is a good-news announcement." He said that that's why Interfor is expecting that it can "improve the yield of its timberlands by at least 50 percent."

Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is up. I would just like to end by saying that when government and the citizens of the province work together in a positive climate, there is a lot we can do. And there is a lot that we have done.

J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, I think this is my first opportunity to congratulate you not only on your election as Speaker but on the confidence and dignity that you bring to the chair.

I have had the opportunity over the last little while to listen to the opposition as well as the government members speak to the throne speech and to the budget. I have been reflecting on some of the speeches that have been given, and I need to make the point that I do so given a number of years of experience in this House, both as opposition and now with the privilege of being a government member for a second term.

In my response to the budget and in my support for this budget, I want to reference the different roles and in some way try to be kind to the opposition. Their speeches with respect to the budget mirror many speeches that have been given by other opposition members in the House over a long period of time. So I want to acknowledge that the negativity and the criticism are part of the role.

But in doing that, I also want to read a parable that was shared with me as I was preparing my speech. It's interesting, because I'll be the second person to use a parable in their speech. The new member for Surrey-White Rock actually referenced a parable in his first speech in this House. This is slightly different; this is a Hasidic parable. Once, times were tough. Two men, both poor farmers, were walking down a country lane and met their rabbi. "How is it with you?" the rabbi asked the first man. The first man grumbled, "Lousy," bemoaning his lot and luck. "Terrible, hard, awful, not worth getting out of bed for. Life is lousy." Now, God was eavesdropping on this conversation. "Lousy," the Almighty thought. "You think your life is lousy, you ungrateful lout. I'll show you what lousy is." Then the rabbi turned to the second man: "And you, my friend?" "Ah, rabbi, life is good," he said. "God is so gracious, so generous. Each morning when I awake, I'm so grateful for the gift of another day, for I know that rain or shine, it will unfold in wonderful blessings too bountiful to count. Life is so good." God smiled as the second man's thanksgivings soared upwards until he became one of a harmony in the Heavenly Host. Then the Almighty roared with delightful laughter. "Good. You think your life is good," he said. "I'll show you what good is."

It's very interesting, actually. I debated as to whether I was going to actually quote the parable, because many of us, whether we are religious or not, come to this House with the belief that it is our work and service to the community that is worthwhile, and that it is indeed our responsibility as citizens of this great province to try to make B.C. a better place for us all.

I recognize that in government. . . . The previous speaker, the Minister of Forests, ran out of time because he had so much he wanted to talk about -- the good works of government. There were so many things he wanted to give credit for and acknowledge in the work in his community, in his ministry and in the government as a whole. It's really important that all of us, whether in opposition or in government, acknowledge when there has been progress and give credit for that progress. I think most of us will recognize that it's not just simply us, whether in opposition or in government, that bring about that progress; it's the work of many, many people.

In my response to the throne speech, I want to talk a little bit about some of the progress on the education front in my constituency. It's timely because of some of the announcements that are unfolding now with respect to the capital envelope. But before I get to that, I want to talk about some other good works that directly affect the lives of people in my constituency. My constituency is a very working-class community. It's a community that is made up of predominantly young families and, interestingly enough, young families from around the world.

The face of Surrey-Whalley has changed a great deal during my years of service. I recall going to a school in Bridgeview and talking to elementary school pupils there, and noting that almost every single face in that audience represented a different nationality. It was an incredible gathering of young people with different ancestries and different expectations, but all representing hope. I think that's what this budget does, because it speaks to those young people and it speaks to those families. It provides hope.

When we look at the work that went into the budget and the high-profile debate with the business community -- both big business and small business -- I think most of us were set back on our heels in some way. Most of us understand that government is the great equalizer. It is my fundamental belief that government and democracy are about bringing equality and balance to decisions -- balancing off powerful interests. So when I say the consultation with big business and small business alike set me back on my heels, I want to tell you that it set me back because what I was hearing, almost exclusively, was business's agenda. I worried very much about what that balance of equality would mean to the constituents that I represent.

I have to congratulate the Finance minister and the Premier for ensuring that there is that balance, that they heard

[ Page 6902 ]

It's also important for us to acknowledge the work that has been done and the commitment that has been given to capital investments this year for building schools, hospitals and highways in regions throughout the province. When the opposition calls for a balanced budget at all costs and, at the same time, argued that there should be reductions and incentives for big business, they have somehow forgotten about that balance. They haven't represented the interests of those who need government to stand up for them, to be proactive and to commit to the future with positive enthusiasm which provides the kind of hope that's necessary for constituents like mine.

The commitment to construct a light rapid transit line will mean so much to the lower mainland with respect not only to traffic congestion and the impact on the environment but to the needs of individuals who rely on public transit and don't have the opportunity to have either a first or second car in their driveway. The commitment this province has made to the fast ferry and to the ongoing investment that is necessary to ensure that we continue to be on the cutting edge of naval construction and the investment that is needed for that industry. . . . It needs to be recognized and congratulated.

When we talk about the agenda laid out in the throne speech, it's not only the dollars and cents and the balance, but it's the individual lives that are impacted. My constituency is one of five in Surrey; it is a fast-growing city. Without exception, because of the age of the people who live there and the fact that people move to my community to raise a family, it represents unprecedented hope and expectation. When I see the kind of investment in the social infrastructure that we have seen in this budget, in spite of all the negativity and all the criticism, I think the government has to be congratulated.

I want to spend a little time on what that means to the schools in Surrey, school district 36. What we are seeing this year is a $41 million capital funding envelope. What that means is a 27 percent increase over last year. What it will mean for the school district of Surrey is that we can continue to deal with the number of portables. You see, even though we build schools in Surrey and have done so all along, the fact is that the growth in population every single year -- for members that aren't familiar with school district 36 -- is about the size of a small school district. We've got almost 2,000 brand-new students coming to the school district every year. What this is going to mean. . . . I want to challenge the Liberal members, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the member for Surrey-White Rock, to get up and say: "Bravo! The government, the Ministry of Education, heard what our students and teachers were telling them, they heard the parents, they heard about the work that has been done, and they have responded."

Earl Marriott in White Rock, a school that has needed attention, will now see an additional 400 spaces with their extended day program. A south Newton area secondary will be built with 1,250 new spaces, which will take the pressure off that broad catchment area. Senator Reid Elementary. Clayton South Elementary -- that's in the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's riding. I want to hear her get up and say, "Bravo, you've delivered," because this government has. East Whalley Elementary, Highland Creek Elementary, Cougar Creek Elementary, Erma Stephenson Elementary, Cindrich Elementary, Royal Heights Elementary, K.B. Woodward Elementary, Holly Elementary, Riverdale Elementary and additional funds for four new buses. . . . That's in this year's envelope alone.

[4:00]

That is about a government that is committed to the future, that is committed to our children and that has done it at the same time it delivered a balanced approach, hearing the interests of big business and small business alike but not prepared to sell the family jewels to deliver that very powerful agenda.

I know that many of the members who represent Liberal ridings haven't found their tongue when it comes to recognizing the good work of this government or indeed representing the interests of the families and children that count on this kind of investment. I think it's important to say that I recognize that the negativity and the criticism in some ways do come with the territory of being the official opposition. However, I think it's imperative and in the interests of their own constituents that they recognize the good work that is being done and the balance that our government has tried to bring to this budget in representing and balancing the powerful interests and needs of broad British Columbia communities.

I think I will sum up. It's important to not only recognize the good work and the agenda that are clear in this budget but also recognize the balance and to recognize the fact that our government has continued to provide support, through the B.C. family bonus, to many children in the families of the working poor in this province. It's important to recognize the extension of the Medical Services Plan that cut the cost of premiums for 80,000 British Columbians. Many members of this House may not have personally faced the reality of not being able to afford a medical insurance plan and at the same time have children or any other member of their family in need of medical services. They can only imagine how important this particular initiative is. Perhaps it's not sexy; perhaps it doesn't end up on the front page of the papers. But it's crucial to bringing equilibrium and ensuring that there continues to be a balance in our society in this province, where each citizen has an opportunity to stand side by side with even those that are the most powerful, ensuring that their health and their education opportunities are of the highest quality.

I think it's important to recognize other successes as well. It's important to recognize that in this past month there has been a great ballyhoo about the economy and some of the

[ Page 6903 ]

I have not been prone to quoting parables or from religious texts, but I think that this particular parable is perhaps a lesson to us all. It's a lesson because often, seeing the strengths and the wealth that we have in this province, in our citizens and in our resources. . . . The strength and the commitment that our government has brought are to try to ensure that there is a balance in the powerful interests that are often represented at government tables and to try to ensure that in balancing those interests, the future and the hope are kept uppermost in all of our minds for all of our constituents.

M. de Jong: There probably isn't a more appropriate day than the eighty-sixth anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic to speak to the budget that is before this chamber.

We've had almost six days of debate on this document. Like many other members, I have listened, at times with sadness and at times with some amusement, to some of the comments, particularly those that have emanated from the government side of this Legislature as they try to defend a document that has been overwhelmingly deemed indefensible.

I will say that I have detected, more than usual, a sense of frustration on the part of government members with the depth of the negative reaction that their budget has elicited almost universally across the province. I think that certain members on the government side are puzzled by that. Most, I think, are frustrated, and most, I am sure, are unhappy. Though it is not my purpose or interest to try to explain to them what may be at the root of that frustration and at the root of that negativity, let me for a moment suggest to them that perhaps if they look back upon their performance as a government over the past number of years, it will occur to them that at the time this budget was being tabled British Columbians were looking for a little bit of contrition, a little bit of acknowledgment on the part of members of cabinet and members of the government back bench that the economic difficulty this province finds itself in is largely a product of the policies that they as a government have been sponsoring. That is something that I think British Columbians were desperately seeking as the Finance minister rose several weeks ago and tabled a new set of mythical figures, mythical objectives and mythical goals that stand very little prospect of being realized, as all of those goals and objectives of the past have not been realized. They have waited patiently for a member of the government to stand in this chamber and acknowledge what is painfully obvious to all the people who see their neighbours packing up to leave this province, who see their employers packing up to leave this province -- that is, an admission that they haven't done a good job; that they were wrong; that the strategies, the tactics and the politics were wrong. They haven't heard it; I dare say that I suspect they will never hear it. Yet they deserve to hear that admission from this government, because it's so painfully obvious.

I know, and the member for Surrey-Whalley, who has just given a speech. . . . Perhaps I'm being too harsh on government members, because we learned right at the outset of this session just how difficult it is for them to write a speech. The resources available to them, of course, are very limited. We know that, and perhaps we on the opposition side should extend our sympathies and some understanding of the fact that the support just isn't there for them, apparently, to craft the kind of speeches that could address these issues head-on. I'm mindful of that as I engage in this debate. Left completely to their own devices, as we are told they apparently are, perhaps we're expecting too much from them. Perhaps we're expecting too much from members of the government, particularly the government back bench -- to come into this chamber and of their own accord craft an address that would accurately and honestly and appropriately reflect the present state of the provincial economy. But that is their lot in life as members on the government back bench. I say that with particular reference to what we just heard from the member for Surrey-Whalley.

I was thinking: how could you summarize this budget in a few short words? If I were trying to sell this budget, what would I call it? I think I would call it the Little Orphan Annie budget. When you look at what's in it, the words "tomorrow, tomorrow" come to mind over and over again. When I think of that $45 tax saving that may accrue one day in the future -- tomorrow -- I think to myself: what will British Columbians do with that pocket full of money that this government -- after raising their taxes beyond anything comparable in North America -- now deigns to offer them tomorrow? Maybe they'll go to one of the Deputy Premier's new casinos; maybe they'll plug it into one of the slot machines. I don't know. Maybe they will visit one of those new campsites that the government. . . . Apparently the government's entire strategy for economic recovery revolves around the construction of some campsites in the province. "Get the kids into the bush" -- that's the battle cry. It's a bush-league argument from a bush-league government.

I couldn't help but think, as the Finance minister stood in this chamber -- with a degree of pride, I might add -- and told British Columbians that her government's approach to the worst youth unemployment west of Quebec was relief camps. It would be humorous, if it weren't so sad, that this Finance minister would deliver a budget and a budget speech that evoked images of the 1930s, the Depression and relief camps. Yet that's what it comes down to. We have the worst youth unemployment west of Quebec, and this government's answer is to send the kids into the bush: "Get them out of the way, get them out of sight, give them enough weeks to get them on to employment insurance, and then we can forget about them." I find it sad. I find it more than just sad; I find it deplorable. But that's what this government's response was to youth unemployment, in sum total: relief camps, the backbone of their plan for economic recovery.

[4:15]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Though members opposite will be loath to grant me this, I think that most of the members who come to this chamber, on both sides of the House, do have a vision of improving their communities. I think that both this side and the government side bring a notion of how to improve their communities, improve the delivery of health care and ensure that there is a sound public education system. I think most people are drawn to this chamber on the understanding that they can make a contribution to improving those things that make their communities great.

The difference -- the thing that divides us -- is how we think we can make that happen, how we think we can give effect to those hopes and dreams of ourselves, our neighbours, our families. You can't escape drawing the conclusion that for this government and for these NDP members, the answer can

[ Page 6904 ]

I see the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I listened to his speech, and I stand to be corrected, but I distinctly remember him making the comment that in any given year it was a sign of successful government that the debt increased. Well, I disagree, because the problem with members of the New Democratic Party is that they want to borrow in the good times, they want to borrow in the bad times and they will continue borrowing all of the time. For them, there is never a day of reckoning; there is never a day when you've got to pay the piper. I think to myself that after six or seven years of NDP government and where the debt has been taken in that short period of time. . . . If we were to look ahead just a few short years, where will it end -- $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion? There is, for these members of the New Democratic Party and this government, no day of reckoning: borrow in good times; borrow in bad times; borrow all the time. That, sadly, is the legacy that they will leave not the grandchildren but the great-great-grandchildren, and I find it lamentable.

It's interesting that when this chamber reconvenes after a time away in excess of six months, we tend to forget -- I know my colleagues and I do -- some of the other highlights of the time away from this chamber, which this government has provided to British Columbia. I should probably more accurately refer to them as lowlights.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I meant that collectively, hon. Speaker, not in an individual sense.

I have listened to most of the government members deliver their defence of this budget, and in almost every single case -- and I think my colleagues will bear me out on this -- they have taken great pains to point to their commitment to health care and education. If I'm wrong, member for Vancouver-Burrard and member for Skeena, please stop me. Minister, stop me if I'm incorrect in suggesting that every single member of the government caucus stood up and proclaimed their ironclad, absolute commitment to health care and education.

But what I didn't hear them talk about. . . . The Attorney General is here, and he is very relevant to what I want to make reference to. I didn't hear them refer to the instructions this government gave to its lawyers when they went into court to defend its gaming policy. We've talked about the finding that the government was embarked on a policy that was in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. But what we haven't talked about -- and what we certainly haven't heard from any members of the government benches -- is the argument they took into that court to defend what they were doing in the charitable gaming realm. I'm going to read from the judgment. According to Justice Owen-Flood:

"It goes without saying that government responsibility for health care and education is not a matter of charity but rather one of duty. It is a novel proposition of the respondent that government funds directed to health care and education constitutes an act of charity. In any event, just as it would have ill-behooved Robin Hood to have robbed from charity to give to other charities, likewise, it ill serves government. . . ."

The member for Vancouver-Burrard seems to find great humour in this, and I think people should know this. He finds great humour in the fact that his government believes that education and health care are functions of charity. So I guess in the next budget we shouldn't be surprised to wake up and discover that the government's charitable intentions have turned elsewhere. And won't that speak well for the people in Prince George, in the north, who are on wait-lists, who can't get the services they require.

I don't know. . . . Maybe the member for Vancouver-Burrard can tell my colleague from Prince George-Omineca just what his constituents need to do to attract some of that government charity. What do they need to do? They'd like to have doctors. They'd like to have physicians available to treat their loved ones. What do they have to do? His government believes it's all a function of charity.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Burrard wants to talk about casinos. Well, let's talk about casinos. I think back a couple of years ago to what the government campaigned on. Remember their slogan, gentlemen? Remember their slogan, ladies?

Some Hon. Members: "We're on your side."

M. de Jong: "We're on your side." I didn't know what that meant. Quite clearly, most British Columbians didn't know what that meant. But now, with the benefit of two years of hindsight, we know what that meant. If you were a young person in British Columbia, this government said: "We're on your side." Well, we know that when the government says it's on your side, that's a catchphrase for: "We don't care if you've got the highest youth unemployment west of Quebec." That's what that means when this government says: "We're on your side."

If you're a charity in British Columbia and the government says, "We're on your side," you know that that is a cute way of the government saying: "We are going to manipulate the law in every conceivable way to get that money that is

[ Page 6905 ]

If you're an independent small business man in British Columbia, what did it mean in 1996 when the Premier said: "We're on your side"? Well, ask the people in Skeena. Ask those unsecured creditors who ended up in court, who had their rights run over by a government so hell-bent on doing what was politically expedient that it couldn't have cared less for the impact it was having on those small businesses, those families -- many of whom have now been put out of business. That's what it means when the NDP says: "We're on your side."

And you know what? British Columbians have awoken to the fact that the NDP isn't on their side. The NDP is in their face; it's on their back; it's in Ken Georgetti's pocket. And worst of all, the NDP government is in their wallet. British Columbians have had enough.

The British Columbians that we have talked to in our travels ask for a government that, above all else, plays by the same rules that British Columbians are asked to play by. A government that -- there's no magic to this -- obeys the law. Is that such a novel thing? It seems to have become a novel thing over the past number of years. It seems that nary a month goes by that I'm not reading a headline about this government being dragged into court and being told by some Supreme Court judge that they can't do what they're doing.

[4:30]

An Hon. Member: Like counting sheep.

M. de Jong: Maybe.

And yet the documentation proves otherwise. The documentation says that $1.3 billion in economic growth has disappeared from the landscape because this government and this Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks are incompetent.

We had an example today. The member for Okanagan-Boundary spoke to this yesterday and today, of an individual. . . . This bears repeating, because I began this address by saying that I sensed frustration on the part of government members. I don't think they get the fact that British Columbians just don't believe anything they say anymore. They just don't believe them.

An Hon. Member: For good reasons.

M. de Jong: And one of the reasons they don't believe them, hon. Speaker, is that when you get the kind of example we had today -- where a gentleman and his wife pool all of their life savings and spend a million bucks because they want to get something going on a piece of property that they've been farming for well in excess of a decade. . . . They sign an agreement with the Ministry of Lands, and they do everything that is required of them by the government. It is onerous in the extreme. They meet every single obligation, and when the time comes for the government to deliver, they don't. They renege. It's the people who are left holding the bag; it's the people who are left to make the interest payments. It's the people who are left asking themselves: "Are we going to be able to survive another month or another year, because we haven't been able to get our crop in the ground and because the government hasn't fulfilled its legal obligation to transfer title to the land?"

Hon. Speaker, if you could for a moment convince yourself that these are isolated examples, maybe you would have some hope. But as we are discovering -- as the member for Okanagan-Boundary is discovering, as the member from the North Shore is discovering -- there are countless examples of people who have been ground under the heel of a government that doesn't care. There are countless examples of people whose lives have been put on hold and who have been negatively impacted because this government can't get its act together in a very simple, straightforward area: the granting of leases, the processing of Crown land applications and, ultimately, the transfers in accordance with the terms of agreements for sale. We will continue to wait, and we will continue to press the Minister of Lands to provide us with the answer to a simple, straightforward question. I hope she consults with the Attorney General. Maybe he can provide an answer to her. Why doesn't this government fulfil its legal obligations? Why doesn't it do that?

I understand the frustration. I only wish members of the government would look at themselves in the mirror and look at what their government has done, instead of standing there, day in and day out, pretending it isn't so, pretending all is rosy, pretending all is well. Speak to the British Columbians who are suffering. Speak to the British Columbians who have no work, who are being forced to leave, who are seeing their children leave the province. At a time when Canada, our country, apparently stands on the verge of topping the G-7 in terms of economic performance, we languish here in British Columbia.

Maybe this will be the year that government understands that when this opposition talks about the need for balanced-budget legislation, it's not political rhetoric; it's because we need balanced-budget legislation. Maybe this will be the year that when the government hears this opposition talk about the need for truth-in-budgeting legislation, which will do nothing more than legislate the same guidelines that the auditor general has called for year in and year out. Maybe this is the year they will understand that that is not a political statement; it's just common sense. Maybe this is the year -- maybe -- that the Premier, members of this cabinet and members of this government back bench will understand that. As sure as God made little green apples, for this economy to get rolling again it won't depend on what happens in the Premier's Office or the cabinet office. It will depend upon allowing the private sector to get moving again.

I heard one of those members -- maybe it was even the member for Yale-Lillooet, the Minister for Transportation -- castigate me for suggesting that government doesn't create jobs. But that's the truth, and as we go through these budget deliberations, we on this side of the House will repeat that message time and time and time again. And maybe this is the year that they'll get it.

[ Page 6906 ]

I want to say to you that I take great delight in the fact that I've been able to serve the people of British Columbia for the last two and a half years as the Attorney General. I think that in those two and a half years we have travelled far. We have been on a journey of justice reform. We have been taking some tough measures. We have been trying to do some creative stuff with respect to young offenders and adult offenders, while being tough with the violent offenders. We have also attempted to deal with some aspects of the civil law, such as family matters, so that we can try and keep them out of the courts and deal with them in a way that doesn't lend itself to sometimes confrontational appearances in the courts. Court process is very adversarial and not always positive for people to go through, because it is a very combative process.

Hon. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to take you through some of the positive initiatives that we've taken over the last two and a half years. I will start with the issue of unsolved homicides.

As you know, over the last many years British Columbia has had proportionately speaking, more unsolved murders than any other province in the country. As a result of the concern expressed by the RCMP and other police forces, and by those whose loved ones were murdered and where no one was brought to justice, Premier Clark and I announced before the last election that we would establish an unsolved homicide squad. It was established, with additional police officers. We provided money to buy a gene-sequencer so that DNA tests could be done more quickly. We also provided funding to set up the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia -- the BOLD lab. As a result of that initiative, hon. Speaker, you might have noticed that in the last few days and weeks there have been many stories in the newspapers and on television about that unsolved homicide squad. We have now been able to lay 16 charges on unsolved homicides in the last several months, and over the last two and a half years. That, I believe, is a testament to the hard work that's being done by the police officers, by detectives, by others who are cooperating with them and by those who work in the labs, and it is important that we continue to support that.

There was another troubling matter when I became the Attorney General, and that had to do with the sexual exploitation of youth and children. Section 212(4) of the Criminal Code needed to be amended. We worked hard and long to have the federal government amend that section. They were not completely satisfactory, but the amendments came in November 1996, I believe.

We also established a provincial prostitution unit, which started around the same time. In the last 18 or so months we have laid 25 charges on the johns and pimps of children, whereas in the previous eight years, from 1988 to 1996, there were eight charges laid altogether in British Columbia. That is not a great beginning; it is a good beginning. I have been asking the federal government to change the law further -- to listen to British Columbia. We've made an appeal to the Minister of Justice to change that, so we can have the johns and pimps of children -- those who exploit youth -- more easily apprehended, arrested and successfully tried.

Over the last year and a half we have also added 120 police officers to the provincial police force.

The RCMP issued a press release on April 8, 1998, dealing with the auxiliary police. They were trying to reassure the public that services to the community will remain unaffected by the withdrawal of volunteer services by the RCMP auxiliary officers. In that press release the RCMP say: "Safe, effective and efficient service to the public by the RCMP is paramount, and to that end the provincial government has created and funded 120 more provincial policing positions for communities over the last year and a half." I want to make sure that everyone understands that the Premier of this province promised 100 additional police officers. We have in fact funded 120 additional police officers.

There has been a continuing problem of auto theft across this province, and it continues to wreak havoc in our communities. Although over the last year that has decreased somewhat, we want to make sure that we deal with it in a way that's effective. Therefore we created an auto theft task force, a joint forces task force, with additional funding, which would deal in a very rigorous and systematic fashion with the issue of auto theft to make sure that we catch and punish the offenders. That auto theft task force has been working, I believe, for some months. I announced it two or three months ago, if I remember correctly.

There has been another issue that's been troubling British Columbians, and that's the issue of violence against women. We remember too well the tragedy at Vernon. Before that we remember too well the Montreal tragedy. As you know, a former justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has been working on this issue and has submitted a report to the RCMP, which they're going to be presenting to me shortly.

[4:45]

Some days ago I announced further enhancements to that protection order registry. First, there will be a 24-hour toll-free line. If you are a victim, you will be able to access information with respect to a restraining order under which you are being protected, whether or not that particular order is in the registry. That information is now available 24 hours a day.

You will also be able to inform court services workers and victim services workers whether or not you would like to be notified when the offender in question from whom you are being protected is released. You can provide the appropriate information, and when and if the offender is released, you can be notified.

We have also negotiated with the federal government so that when they release an offender who is named in a protection order in British Columbia, they will notify us. We have a victim notification unit within the corrections branch. That particular unit has two full-time people working on an ongoing basis. They would be notifying the victim in that regard with respect to the release of a federal offender from a federal prison, where a particular victim is being protected under a protection order. As you know, that is a very, very serious issue, and we continue to work in this regard.

We had a very successful gun amnesty last year, where there were several thousand firearms and rounds of ammunition that were turned in. We have been considering the issue of having another gun amnesty, where people who have guns lying around and who don't need them or want them any-

[ Page 6907 ]

There has been another issue that's been troubling British Columbia, and that's the home invasion issue. Several years ago you would have people who would engage in a break and enter. They would stake out a particular property, and when the property was unoccupied, they would then break and enter and do the crime that they were going to do. Criminals have obviously become desensitized. They now, in a reckless fashion, attempt to break and enter without any thought for the safety of individuals who might be inside the homes. That's why we now have this new unfortunate term for the crime -- home invasion. Many elderly people in particular are targeted and victimized.

When this matter first arose, I approached the Vancouver city police chief of the day, and I asked him and others: "What is it that you would like the Attorney General to do to assist you?" They said to me: "All we want is for you to give us $150,000 so that we can spare a couple of people from the office and put them on the street with the home invasion team." I immediately provided the home invasion task force with an additional $150,000 because we want to make sure that we support the police in apprehending those criminals that target the vulnerable in home invasions.

We have recently also, as you know, appointed a new police complaints commissioner. That's been a long process where communities and groups have been involved. That complaints process, as you know, would open up the whole complaints issue. It would be transparent to the commissioner, and the commissioner would be able to have independent observers to observe the investigations and to have outside agencies investigate if he so chooses. I think that that strengthens the possibility of more confidence in policing in British Columbia on the part of the public. That also strengthens a process that can more fairly deal with police officers as well as the public. I think that when the act comes into force sometime in July, we can look forward to a very productive and fruitful relationship between the public and the police -- a better relationship than exists now, because the public and the police would have more confidence in the process because they have all been parties to the discussion out of which this new police complaints process arose.

I have been urging the federal government to make some changes on many other issues. I have asked my federal colleagues -- the federal minister, as well as all of the Attorneys General -- to turn their minds to the issue of drugs. As you know, Vancouver in particular has a very serious problem.

Vince Cain, our former chief coroner, did a report. He recommended three things. First, he said there should be tougher penalties for big drug smugglers and big drug traffickers. I agree, and I've urged the AGs and the federal minister to consider that. He also said that we should have more prevention and education for children and youth on these issues. I have urged my federal counterparts to consider that issue.

He also said that we need to look at the issue of addicts and perhaps do things differently -- perhaps look at a medicinal method of dealing with addicts so that we can try and stabilize them and eventually get them off these illegal substances. I support that, because at the end of the day, unless we have a comprehensive strategy to go in a very aggressive fashion against traffickers and smugglers, to provide education for youth and children and to deal in a very aggressive fashion with the addicts, we are not going to be able to deal with this problem. So I have called for a Canadawide drug strategy. This issue is on the national agenda at the next meeting of Attorneys General in September of this year.

I have also asked the federal government and my counterparts from across the country to establish a national registry of sexual and violent offenders -- a national registry of pedophiles. It's important that we provide this comfort to people who feel vulnerable, and the knowledge that those who are serious sexual and violent offenders would have their names and addresses entered into the national registry, so that people have access to that information and know the whereabouts of these individuals. There is some hesitation on the part of others because there are questions about civil liberties and rights and freedoms, but I say -- and I've said this to my counterparts -- that the safety of the public is paramount, the safety of children is paramount. There are no absolute freedoms in this country. The Charter allows us to place reasonable limits on those liberties, and we should use that provision.

I have also asked my counterparts across the country to raise the age of consent with respect to sexual relations so that we can more easily apprehend the johns and pimps who exploit children. I have asked that that age of consent be raised from 14 to 16 on a gender-neutral basis -- applying to both genders, not just one. It is important. I want to thank Diane Sowden -- one of the activists -- Chuck Cadman, Chris Simmonds from CAVEAT, and others. They actually brought this issue to my attention in a meeting I had with them several months ago. I was able to take this issue to the meeting of the Attorneys General in December and raise it nationally, and my counterparts agreed to consider that as well.

Referring back to the issue around violence against women, I have asked the federal government to raise the maximum penalty on stalking -- criminal harassment -- from five to ten years. It would do two things. First, it would say to the stalkers that the Parliament of Canada -- the parliamentarians of this country -- take this offence more seriously than before and that we have now become conscious that this is an offence that victimizes many, many people who don't even complain, because they don't know that stalking is an offence. Second, if we do raise the maximum to ten years, and if you have a serious offender and this is the only conviction to go on, we can use this conviction as the basis for seeking dangerous-offender status for that convict and have him put away indefinitely. I think it's important that that be done.

I have also asked the federal Minister of Justice and my counterparts to review the issue of conditional sentencing. Conditional sentencing, we believe, is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offences. We should not leave it to judges to decide these issues. If judges decide these issues and the public is then unhappy, the whole system of justice comes into disrepute. I want to make sure that the parliamentarians of this country take leadership on this issue and speak up for Canadians, who want to make sure that conditional sentencing is not available to serious sexual and violent offenders. That's the position of the Attorney General and the government of British Columbia. That, I believe, is the position of most Canadians, and I want to make sure that the federal government listens to us rather than simply monitoring this for any length of time -- simply, at this time, as they are sitting in the House, that they amend the Criminal Code and make sure that they live up to the wishes and aspirations of the people.

As you know, with respect to the Parole Board issue. . . . We have done many things for victims in this province. We in

[ Page 6908 ]

We made it mandatory for our Parole Board to allow victims to make oral submissions in determining whether or not an offender should be released, and I have urged the federal government to do the same with respect to the federal Parole Board. They in particular need to do this, because they deal with the more serious offenders. The federal government has agreed to consider this, and I am asking the federal Solicitor General -- I have asked him several times -- to simply do it, not consider it. It's about time we gave the victims the right to be heard before the National Parole Board without any strings attached.

Sometimes these institutions are so unresponsive. I want to say this in the House, and I've said it outside. In the case of Robert Noyes, the Attorney General of British Columbia wanted to make a personal appearance and make a submission to the federal Parole Board with respect to his release. The federal Parole Board turned the Attorney General of British Columbia down, and I could not make that submission. We had to send that submission in writing to the board.

I think it is appropriate that the federal Parole Board look at its practices, that the federal government look at it, and that Attorneys General from across the country, prosecutors and victims are able to make these presentations. We are more closely a part of the justice system on the ground, because we prosecute these offenders -- with the exception of drug offenders -- and therefore we can make a better contribution by allowing the Parole Board to determine whether or not somebody should be released, and on what conditions.

There are many more initiatives that I'm working on. Let me just say to you that these are some of the issues that I have raised, and there are many more. I will not talk about them; there might be some other opportunities. But I also want to say that we have in fact taken leadership at the other end of the spectrum in the justice system. I travelled to Britain and Australia earlier this year to look at the programs they offer with respect to young and adult offenders and community accountability programs, or diversion programs as they are called traditionally. We thought they were the leaders, because we read a lot about their programs and their people coming and making speeches in this part of the world. When we went there, they told us that we were the leaders. I came back with the knowledge that I had gained about their programs, and I assessed our programs. Without the expansion of the programs, we do about 23 or 24 programs in communities across this province. We've been doing them for many years, particularly where young offenders are diverted from the courts and into the communities. The communities actually punish them in a creative way, sit with them and try to discipline them to the extent possible.

[5:00]

Out of that, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that there wasn't one person at any of these meetings. . . . We had 350 people from across the lower mainland at a recent meeting in New Westminster on a rainy Saturday afternoon -- many mayors, some Members of Parliament, some police officers and some community members. The meetings were well-advertised, and I have spoken to hundreds of people across the province in many meetings. Not one person disagreed with the need to do more creative work, more imaginative work, with less serious and less violent young and adult offenders.

As a result, some weeks ago we announced the community accountability program, which we sometimes call diversion. We are going to expand that program. We have provided a toolkit for the communities. Communities will be able to craft the programs as they see fit, according to their needs. We're going to provide about $1 million in startup and core funding for the communities. But the communities -- and the programs at Maple Ridge and Sparwood, and in fact in Britain and Australia -- said that if we're going to do community accountability, family group conferencing, panels or other kinds of programs, don't ever begin to pay those volunteers who do this work. Yes, you have to have a coordinating function, maybe an office and some other funded part of the program. But people who discipline and hold the offenders accountable have to be volunteers. In Maple Ridge and in Sparwood the police officers and others told us that you would take away the essence of the community programs if you begin to pay them. You would simply be creating another layer of the justice system, which we are already trying to reform.

I agree, and I think it has to be done on a volunteer basis, with the exception of some core funding and startup funding. We're going to see if we can expand that. The communities are excited; we're receiving applications in our offices. I think that at the end of the day, when you do this expansion of community accountability programs and when people feel they can take hold of part of the justice system and begin to be part of the healing process -- the process of resolution of these problems, where offenders, victims, families and neighbours sit together and talk about these issues, where the offender has to look the victim in the eye and say: "Yes, I'm sorry; yes, I realize I've done damage to you; yes, I'm going to make sure that I compensate and make up in whatever way you, the community, feel is appropriate. . . ." It's swifter justice; it's in fact tougher justice. It's much more difficult for a young person or adult to face the real community; it's much easier to go to court and be given six months' probation or a $200 fine. It is much more difficult to really come to terms with the community that you're part of. For less serious and less violent offenders, we want to do that so that we can actually concentrate more rigorously and vigorously on prosecuting the violent and serious offenders, and courts and the prosecutors have more time to then deal with those issues. That's a general approach in criminal justice.

With respect to family justice, as you know, there is an area that's very troublesome for me as the Attorney General. I constantly hear from women particularly, because they are the ones who are generally the caregivers. They are the ones who generally have custody of young children. I constantly hear from them that they are not being provided the maintenance which has been ordered to be paid, that there are many defaulting parents who don't pay.

As you know, we have a family maintenance enforcement program; we collect about $80 million through that program on behalf of British Columbians every year. We have now actually given more tools to this program and to individual parties and plaintiffs in the cases so that they can collect this maintenance. First, if you default, you will now be paying

[ Page 6909 ]

As well, starting in November, if you don't pay pursuant to the orders of the court and you are defaulting on your payments, we will be able to withhold the issuance or renewal of your driver's licence. I think that's a tough thing to do; some people might even say that it's heartless. But I think it's important that those people know that making payments to support their children is of paramount importance. The government and the public are not going to tolerate you not paying, and we will do everything possible to make sure that we make you pay.

We have done some other enhancements in that area. We have many programs that deal with parenting-after-separation education in many communities across the province. Those are volunteer programs where, if you're separating, you can go to get access to information about custody and maintenance so that you can try and deal with those issues amicably. We have also piloted a mandatory parenting-after-separation education program. That program is piloted in New Westminster and in the Burnaby area, where it's mandatory for parents who are separating and making applications for maintenance, custody or access. There are some exemptions. If there's a history of abuse or threats, where there is some fear, those applicants don't have to go into that. But others have to. We're going to monitor these programs so that we can evaluate them.

We just recently did. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told to wrap up. Okay, I will wrap up. I won't talk anymore.

There are many, many other things I want to talk about, maybe in part of the estimates. But, hon. Speaker, let me just say this to you: the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada have less and less faith in the justice system. I know that; in fact, the judiciary knows that. Chief Justice Williams and Chief Judge Metzger have been trying to do outreach into the communities, through television, through clubs and through others, where they go and speak. I am trying to do the same. I think it's important that we do innovative and creative things so that we can have the public's confidence in the justice system restored.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, looking back over the six and a half years or so of this NDP administration, I am reminded of that great work of literature, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I think it would have been fascinating if Edward Gibbon had lived some 200 years later than he did. Perhaps he would have formed part of the esteemed press gallery in Victoria, and we would have had the opportunity of reading his commentary on this government. I wonder which senator Gibbon would have thought was similar to Brutus. If he had asked Premier Harcourt, I wonder if Premier Harcourt would have suggested his replacement.

It has clearly been a project of this government to follow in the footsteps of Caligula in making the appointments that they do to various boards and agencies around this province. This is a government which in opposition, you will remember, said no more friends and insiders. But they have consistently walked in the steps of Caligula from their first day in office.

Doesn't this Premier remind you of Nero, fiddling away with all these words and things while Rome burns? I know it would be unkind of me to suggest that the Minister of Finance is playing second fiddle, but there is no question that it's one conspiracy to try and move away from the true facts of the economic circumstances of this province by the various press releases, etc., that they put out.

When one thinks about fiddles, one thinks about musical works. Is not a budget a musical work? And is it in tune? Who are the critics? Well, the real critics of this particular tune, of this performance, are the bond-rating agencies. The bond-rating agencies can be described as anything from discriminating to picky-picky, but the truth of the matter is that the bond-rating agencies have spoken. The credit rating of this province has been downgraded on three occasions since this administration came into office.

What is it that bond-rating agencies and the people of British Columbia are looking for in a budget? I would suggest they are looking for credibility. They are looking for credibility in government. Is this government credible? Are its members competent? Is the budget that they present to the people as their economic plan something that is doable and in tune with the times?

If we look back over the history of budgets by this government, it is a litany of deception. It has been, from the beginning, an exercise whereby costs have been off-loaded from the consolidated revenue fund to the Transportation Financing Authority, to Forest Renewal B.C., to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It's been a history of occasions when this government has attempted, in their budgets, to bloat revenues. We look back and remember the issues surrounding the proposed sale of Columbia downstream benefits, the announcements that were made by the Premier -- who was Minister of Employment and Investment at that time, I think, or Minister of Finance -- about the deal that had been done. In truth, of course, the deal had not been done.

Even in 1997, when the budget for the year just ended was brought forward to try and make it look better, they put in $105 million of asset sales. When we got into the estimates process and tried to find out what it was they were talking about, we discovered that there was no definitive plan. There was no business plan that had been developed for the purpose of raising these funds. British Columbia Rail, when questioned -- not having read the budget, and they were included in a substantial way as part of this asset realization program -- knew not that of which the government spoke.

In 1995-96, when the budget was tabled just prior to the election. . . . We all know the stories of the inflated forestry revenues. The Minister of Forests had written a personal note to the Minister of Finance, telling her that forest revenues were way behind schedule and that there were problems. But the forest revenues were put into the budget in an amount that was necessary to produce a small surplus. They also, of course, included the moneys that had been withheld by the federal government for transfer payments because of the residency requirements for welfare recipients. They also included corporate income taxes that they thought would be coming back to the government through the settlement of the countervail softwood lumber arrangement with the United States, when there were no further funds coming.

[5:15]

[ Page 6910 ]

We continually talk about whether it's the consolidated revenue fund or the summary financial statements that we should be looking at. Then you discover that in the last two years there has been what we used to call a dividend-stripping operation going on, whereby the government has improved the results of the consolidated revenue fund by stripping dividends out of the Crown corporations and running them into the ground -- making them borrow money to pay these dividends. When you bring all the various bits and pieces together and look at them in the total package, the deficit for the year is substantially greater. As we know, for this year it is estimated to be $950 million.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This government tries to come forward with various proposals for debt management. They realize that the people of British Columbia are concerned about the growing level of debt, which is nothing more than deferred taxation -- taxes that our children and grandchildren will pay on services being delivered to us. They produce debt management plans that are so far out that after the first year, they have to change it from a debt management plan to a financial management plan. This year they've changed the rules again, and now we have a new and improved debt management plan. It's as though this government was selling soap powder, trying to wash away the truth and not allow it to be shown.

This government is a government of empty promises, such as the promises of the jobs and timber accord. They are now, as I understand it, some 40,000 jobs behind in those promises. They promised 21,000 jobs through the accord; they are now some 40,000 jobs behind.

So, Madam Speaker, when you think about the early promise. . . . This government went out and got KPMG to do a study and give them advice, and some of the advice was extremely good. They moved reasonably quickly into what I would suggest were some worthwhile initiatives, particularly improving accountability in the British Columbia public sector. There was an immediate acceptance by members of cabinet and members of the government caucus that this was a good project, that here were some new tools. We all recognize, I think, that the protection of health and education within this province isn't to do with spending dollars; it's to do with spending dollars in an effective and efficient manner. And we need some tools to measure that. We need to be able to find those programs that do not accomplish their goals, and stop doing them or start doing them differently. With this initiative, which is now three years old, this government had a real opportunity to move in the right direction.

Recently there has come out the latest progress report from the auditor general and the deputy ministers' council. What one discovers is that within the government -- within the ministries -- there has been a complete lack of following through on the commitments that this government gave to this initiative. Page after page. . . . A cross-government training strategy was not developed. A working group was convened in 1996 to develop guidelines for the preparation of ministry annual reports, but nothing has happened. This government has allowed a real opportunity to slip through their fingers. Why was that? I think that it's because of a lack of stability. They keep changing ministries, they change ministers, they change deputy ministers and they don't allow time for these programs to mature properly. They're not quick fixes and they don't happen fast. They require discipline and dedication, and those are two things that this government is short of.

When this government speaks about health care being so important and how they are protecting health care, and I look at what in fact happens. . . . What they don't seem to talk about, but you discover later, are issues like the Pharmacare deductible going up by $200. I couldn't find that in the minister's budget speech, but the truth of the matter, particularly for people with low incomes, is that that's a very substantial increase in the amount of money they contribute annually to government. It isn't a tax increase, but it has the same effect. Was it mentioned in all these calculations of tax savings that the minister came forward with? You have to have two children, both in university, and fit their pattern. They came up with all these fictitious reductions in taxes, but they didn't bother to mention Pharmacare.

Of course, when your constituency is in Delta, which has been on the leading edge of the issues surrounding both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families in contract restructuring, you realize that this government doesn't bring discipline to their practices. They make press releases, they make announcements, and they believe that it has happened. I wish to refer to concerns that organizations and citizens in Delta have with respect to what is called contract restructuring in both the Ministry of Health and, more importantly, in the Ministry for Children and Families. The initiative -- that's contract restructuring -- has as yet given no evidence of commitment to the first goal of the process, which was to redefine services from the clients' perspective and restructure services to meet that new definition.

There is a lack of provincial service guidelines and standards that has meant that both agency and ministry staff have no clear idea of the expectations to be met when submitting proposals. There's a lack of consistency between regions in terms of requirements and philosophy of approach. In a number of regions equality of access and Closer to Home has been translated into an ill-defined concept known as regional self-sufficiency. Agencies providing provincial services have found this to be exceptionally confusing and frustrating. There's a lack of a communications plan that incorporates meaningful consultation with stakeholders. This has been strongly felt by families and individuals most affected by these changes. There is a lack of preparation and training of ministry staff responsible for implementing the new contracts. There is a belief in a number of regions that individuals, regardless of their disability, can be effectively served with the same treatment. This has been compounded by the belief that any agency can simply hire expertise. While it may be superficially attractive, one agency cannot be all things to all people.

The impacts, Madam Speaker, have been huge. The ministry's credibility is at an all-time low, and, in fact, there is an atmosphere of fear. It is critically important that the Ministry for Children and Families re-evaluate, replan and replot the road that they're going down.

We look at the budget for the Ministry of Education. This government speaks all the time of an additional $105 million this year, but that's not what it seems. There's $50 million of that taken up just by the increase in enrolment. There's no settlement yet with the B.C. Teachers Federation. Anything above 1 percent will be paid out of that $105

[ Page 6911 ]

We look through the budget for other costs that we all know about. Where is there any provision in there for the cost of treaty settlements? One doesn't see it.

So the budget and the budget process and the history of budgets of years past give no confidence that they are real, give no confidence that they can be lived up to and give no confidence that it is an economic plan that will lead to good growth and jobs for our young people. The market has spoken. We actually don't need the credit-rating agencies to speak first; the market speaks first. There is no question, whatever the Minister of Finance says, that the 7 basis points more than other provincial governments that it now costs British Columbia's government to borrow will cost in excess of $4 million this year on the $5.4 billion total borrowing requirement. We've gone, while Rome has burned, from number one to number ten.

What was the Romans' hold on the people? Why did people -- such a large area of the civilized world -- live under Roman jurisdiction for some four centuries? Well, there were two things. The Romans gave the people free circuses. There were circuses all the time. This government has its free circuses. It's nothing but a government of photo opportunities, a government of press releases. It's a government that promises that committees will work; it's a government that doesn't answer the questions in question period. It turns this legislative chamber into a circus, just like the Roman senators did.

[5:30]

Have they done anything about jobs for youth? All they've done is make press releases. Last year it was called the Guarantee for Youth. That didn't work. So this year it's called Youth Options B.C. It is just one big press release after another. In the meantime Rome burns. It is my responsibility as a citizen of British Columbia to let this government know how I feel about this budget, that I will be voting against it -- and I believe that time has now come. Seeing the clock, Madam Speaker, I ask that the question be called.

The Speaker: Seeing no further members to participate in the debate, I will now put the question on the budget.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

NAYS -- 29
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Weisgerber
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Thorpe	Barisoff
Dalton	Masi	Krueger
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is with a great deal of sadness, hon. Speaker, that I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Before we do that, I want to wish two people in the House happy birthday: the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and the Law Clerk.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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